Which force is responsible for the heavenly movement?


In addition to determining the force of a moving body, the dynamic core problem of the scientific upheaval of the 17th century was the replacement of the ontological special position of the circular movements of the heavenly bodies. Newton's physics gained fundamental importance because he succeeded in classifying the celestial movements as an application of a general physical theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Westfall 1972, p. 187. Google Scholar
  2. See Koyré 1980. Google Scholar
  3. Quoted from Clagett 1959, p. 533. Further examples: a lance with a pointed end, a towed ship that is still moving, whereby a sailor only feels the air resistance but not the pushing of the air. Google Scholar
  4. Buridan 1340, p. 189Google Scholar
  5. Even with Philoponus there is the thought that the celestial spheres circle without resistance; See Crombie 1977, p. 287. Google Scholar
  6. Buridan 1340, pp. 180f; see Wolff 1978, p. 226f. It should be emphasized here that Buridan by no means ascribed an absolute truth to his theses, but instead advocated the principle of double truth; but he could also consider renouncing celestial souls, “quia nee habemus ex scriptum sacra quod debeant poni”. Google Scholar
  7. Blumenberg 1965, p. 32. Google Scholar
  8. Ibid., P. 34. Accordingly, “... the constant preference for mechanical rather than metaphysical explanations of the dynamic order of the universe”; Moody in Buridan 1340, p. XVIII.Google Scholar
  9. The discussion as to whether this claim restricts God's omnipotence is also a determining motive of the debate between Leibniz and Clarke in 1717.Google Scholar
  10. Müller points out that the clockwork metaphor in the late Middle Ages must generally be seen in the context of the radallegory; hence there is a complementary development to the wheel clock; Müller 1994, p. 20. Google Scholar
  11. Blumenberg 1965, p. 76. On the dating of the treatise between 1340 and 1377 see Grant, in Oresme 1340–77, p. 4f. Google Scholar
  12. The full paragraph: “But if an irrational ratio is inconsistent with and displeasing to our nature, how could we assume that the motor intelligences, who lead the very loftiest [kind of] live, move with such unpleasant and shameful irregularity and yet [also believe] that they are filled with the greatest delight in the excitement and applause of the orbs? For if someone should construct a material clock would he not make all the motions and wheels as nearly commensurable as possible? How much more [then] ought we to think [in this way] about that architect who, it is said, has made all things in number, weight, and measure? "Oresme 1340-77, p. 293ff.Google Scholar
  13. Oresme 1340-77, pp. 68ff; see also Clagett 1968, pp. 6ff. Google Scholar
  14. Oresme 1377, pp. 284ff.Google Scholar
  15. Oresme 1377, p. 289. Google Scholar
  16. Dux 1982, p. 128ff. Google Scholar
  17. This ability required astonishing interpretations well into the 18th century. “The strange mystery according to which a dead thing is able to awaken living forces is attributed to the ability of the impetus to be transferable to things as a vis impressa. The force accumulated in the flywheel as a result of the movements of a mover allows the saving of human and animal labor. "Wolff 1978, p. 273ff.Google Scholar
  18. On this "transcendent formism" see Pepper 1942, p. 151ff.Google Scholar
  19. Kues 1462-63, p. 25; see also Dijksterhuis p. 25 Iff or Wolff, p. 264. Google Scholar
  20. "In the circle, namely, where there is neither beginning nor end, because there is no point in it that is more beginning than end, I see the image of eternity." Kues 1462–63, p. 17. Google Scholar
  21. Copernicus 1543. In the first rather speculative chapter, Copernicus opposes a model of epicycles and eccentrics whose kinematics and dynamics could not be reconciled or whose kinematics led a causal life of its own on the basis of the circular shape, a concentric cosmos with uniform movements. In the following chapters, however, he introduces the various auxiliary constructions (except for the punctum aequans) for the precise determination of the movements. Google Scholar
  22. Copernicus 1543, p. 32f. "Post haec memorabimus coporum caelestium motum esse circu-larem. Mobilitas enim sphaerae, est in circulum volvi, ipso actu formam suam exprimentis, in simplicissimo corpore, ubi non est reperire principium, nee finem, nee unum ab altero secernere, dum per eadem in se ipsam movetur. "Google Scholar
  23. Koyré 1973, p. 58. Cardano differentiates between natural, mechanical and voluntary movements, the latter referring to the movements of the spheres. In this case, the body as a whole remains in its place. This thought may have had an influence on Galileo's concept of neutral movement on concentric bowls; see Drake / Drabkin p. 28 Google Scholar
  24. Fig. From Klemm 1983. Google Scholar
  25. "Yet it is extremely unlikely that the PM idea, whatever its immediate origin, was not related in some way to the celestial and meteorological perpetuities that have been natural to wonder if analogous perpetuities on a more human scale could be reproduced by human industry and ingenuity . "Gabbey 1985, p. 53. Google Scholar
  26. Klemm 1983, p. 16. Similar considerations can still be found in Galileo Discorsi: There Galileo uses the natural circular movements of magnets on earth as an argument to deny the division of heaven and earth by differentiating the respective natural form of movement. Galilei 1638, p. 39f. Google Scholar
  27. With the earth becoming a star, the earth's movements can also become heavenly; See Franklin 1976. Google Scholar
  28. Klemm 1983, p. 17. Google Scholar
  29. White 1968, p. 106; Google Scholar
  30. Fig. From Klemm 1983. Google Scholar
  31. Klemm 1983, p. 46. Images from Klemm, Perpetuum mobile with pieces of wood connected by joints (around 1200), p. 14; Christoph Scheiner: Gnomon in centro mundi (1616) p. 46; Jacobo de Strada: Wirbel- oder Schnecken-Kunst (1575/80), p. 93. Google Scholar
  32. Quoted from Klemm 1983, p. 45. Google Scholar
  33. "... motus perpetuus mechanicus nuspiam succedit, quod nulla machina ac proinde ne integer quidem mundus suam vim intender potest sine novo externo impulsu;" quoted from Gabbey 1993.Google Scholar
  34. Quoted from Klemm 1983, pp. 60ff. Google Scholar
  35. Gabbey 1993, pp. 143ff; Gabbey 1985, pp. 40ff. Google Scholar
  36. Gabbey 1993, p. 144. Google Scholar
  37. See Kepler 1596/1621, pp. 45ff. Even with the incorporation of observation data into his cosmographic system, which occupies him for the rest of his life, Kepler's world harmony leaves the creator no leeway: for example, when determining the ratios of the extreme speeds of the planets, it must be the "most beautiful" ones; See Field 1988, pp. 172ff. Google Scholar
  38. Mästlin to Kepler 9/21/1616; quoted in Koyré 1973, p. 462. Google Scholar
  39. Quoted from de Gandt 1995, p. 84. In a letter to Oldenburg, Newton himself describes nature as “a constantly circular working”; quoted in Whitrow 1991, p. 201. Google Scholar
  40. “To set Vis where there was first anima means to give up an animistic approach in favor of a mechanistic one.” Dijksterhuis 1956, p. 345. His reasons for rejecting the causal involvement of animales or intelligentia for the orbital movements are definitely worth mentioning: they prove to be true Phenomena such as volcanoes, the presence of an earth soul, but under the given conditions, such as the lack of organs of perception or a mediating authority for commands, it is not possible for spiritual beings to maintain an orbit. Therefore, following Copernicus and in accordance with his metaphysical worldview, Kepler relocates the cause (s) of movement to the sun. His arguments for this include the generally valid relationship between distance and period, the analogy to light and heat, and above all the rotation of the sun, which was confirmed by observing the sunspots with a telescope. Google Scholar
  41. Kepler 1596/1621, p. 129. Google Scholar
  42. Kepler 1609, p. 221. Google Scholar
  43. To Keplers Astronomia pars optica (1604) remarks Westfall: "The essence of Kepler’s reform in optics ... lay in breaking down the object of vision into an infinite number of points." And consequently in the reversal of the optical pyramid; Westfall 1977, p. 50f. Google Scholar
  44. Kepler 1609, p. 224Google Scholar
  45. Ibid., P. 327ff. Google Scholar
  46. Among other things because "the round body lacks limbs such as wings or feet" that could have rowed in the celestial ether; ibid. p. 221. Google Scholar
  47. "Kepler is consciously looking for new, non-Aristotelian dynamic explanations and bases them on a causal hypothesis, namely the definition of the concept of the mutual attraction of two bodies." Mittelstrass 1995, p. 23. Google Scholar
  48. Kepler 1609, p. 26. Kepler does not as yet assume any general gravitation, but rather special gravitations between materially related bodies.Google Scholar
  49. "Galileo, it is clear, was far more confident of the truth of the mechanical principle that bodies possess the property of inertial rotation in a perfect circle than of the accuracy of astronomical measurements." Hall 1983, p. 131. Google Scholar
  50. Galilei 1632, pp. 153ff. Google Scholar
  51. "The idea of ​​indifference was basic to Galileo's solution to the problem of motion in the Copernican universe. Because we are indifferent to motion, we can be moving with an immense velocity and not perceive it ... "Westfall 1977, p. 19. Google Scholar
  52. We saw above, however, that towards the end of his life he began to rethink this. Google Scholar
  53. Galilei 1632, p. 33f. Google Scholar
  54. See Dijksterhuis 1956, p. 388. Google Scholar
  55. See e.g. Dijksterhuis 1956, p. 389 and Hall 1983, p. 131ff compared to Drake 1990a, p. 162f. Google Scholar
  56. To the same indecision in the Discorsi see Dijksterhuis 1956, p. 391. Google Scholar
  57. Galilei 1632, p. 157. The indifference to movement now also allows the same body to participate in several movements at the same time.Google Scholar
  58. First Borelli, best known for his mechanistic view De motu animali-um, despite some cyclical, Keplerian darkening, resolved the planetary orbits into two straight forces (centrifugal force and gravitation). A central paradigm for him was the pendulum (not the throw), which in turn was of extraordinary importance in the Galilean school from which he came. In contrast to the throw, the pendulum offered itself here because of its potentially infinite movement. But the pendulum is also a prime example of the coordination of force and movement and a mathematization made possible by the geometric decomposition of the effects.Google Scholar
  59. Newton 1687, p. 372. Google Scholar
  60. To determine the absolute space, Newton comes back to circular motion. “The effects by which the absolute and relative movements differ from one another are the forces in moving away from the axis of a rotary movement; ... “Newton 1687, p. 30. A related relativization is then the endeavor of the general theory of relativity.Google Scholar
  61. Quoted from De Gandt 1995, p. 18. Hypothesis 2 shows Newton's starting point, which is still more like impetus theory: "Every body by its innate force alone proceeds uniformly to infinity in a straight line, unless it be impeded by something extrinsic." Ibid. Google Scholar
  62. Newton 1687, p. 34. Corollar II then establishes the parallelogram rule as a general analytical method.Google Scholar
  63. Ibid., P. 33. "The change in a movement [s size] (motus) is proportional to the impressed movement force (vi motrici impressae) and takes place along the straight line along which this force is impressed." (Insertions in BR) Google Scholar
  64. The law of gravity results in the onset of the earth's mass and the earth's radius ’of course the acceleration due to gravity, i.e. Galileo's laws of fall are thereby implied.Google Scholar
  65. The substantial moment has not completely disappeared with Newton either, because in view of the absolute space the following applies to Newton: “The causes by which the true and the relative movements differ from one another are the forces impressed on the body to generate the movement. A true movement can only be created or changed with the help of forces that have been impressed on the moving body itself; a relative movement, however, can be generated or changed without any forces being applied to this body. It is enough to simply impress them in the other bodies to which the body is related, so that when this [body] gives way, that relationship changes in which its relative rest or movement exists. ”Ibid., P. 30 .Google Scholar
  66. Newton therefore let God readjust the states of motion from time to time. The solar system is so incompatible with the machine paradigm and its unemployed God, because it has to be corrected from time to time. For the theologian Newton, this was not an unfavorable circumstance.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2003

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available