Reading Newton's Principia: A Modern English Translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter clinden
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A reader has completed a challenging English translation of Newton's Principia and is seeking a more accessible version that maintains the original sequence of propositions while simplifying the language. They found the archaic wording difficult, despite not struggling with the mathematics. A suggestion was made for a newer translation from 1999, which includes a comprehensive guide to the text. The reader expressed appreciation for the effort but noted their own difficulties with the original. Finding a modern translation that balances clarity and fidelity to the original remains a goal.
clinden
Messages
18
Reaction score
1
I have just completed reading an English translation (The Great Books version) of Newton's Principia and found it rough going. Does anyone know of a modern English translation that adheres to the proposition sequence but puts each idea and proof into an easy to understand form, e.g., such as a good undergraduate physics book would do? The math was not the problem, but rather, the somewhat archaic wording and phraseology.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Last edited by a moderator:
Congrats on getting through it though. I was not so successful. I hope you got something out of the experience!
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

Analytical formulation of Newton's Laws
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Sticky
How to use the "w" in www
Replies
0
Views
4K
Quantum Good German textbooks with English translation
Replies
2
Views
5K
Newton's Principia translated and Writings of Leibniz?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Intro Math Are the (translated) High School Japanese maths textbooks by Kodaira Good?
Replies
15
Views
4K
Ambitious, probably delusional guy wants to make a Kiselev manual
Replies
2
Views
771
Is this a good idea for studying mathematics?
Replies
3
Views
5K
Mathematica The Best Translation of Newton's "Principia" Series - 3 Vols
Replies
3
Views
5K
Studying Am I Reading Math Textbooks Efficiently?
Replies
6
Views
2K
A The abc conjecture and Virasoro algebra
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top