Abstract
Continuing our analysis of the Cartesian response to the De gravitatione argument, this chapter will investigate the possibility of avoiding the consequences of Newton’s allegations by undermining one of the key premises in its construction: that a matter-filled universe cannot allow unchanging spatial positions. In short, if some sort of fixed reference point can be located in the Cartesian plenum, then a method of tracking a moving body’s velocity over time can be established (thus dispelling Newton’s anti-relationalist worries). Unlike the procedure adopted in chapters 6 and 8, where we employed the dynamics-based “rest” force or Huygens’ notion of a center-of-mass frame to reconstruct a Cartesian dynamics founded upon the collision rules, that is, by using these methods to pick out the privileged frames needed to conserve quantity of motion, this chapter will not appeal to Descartes’ specific predictions on the outcomes of bodily collision in order to thwart Newton’s argument. Our exclusive concern will be to develop a theory of space and time that will allow a Cartesian to meaningfully conserve quantity of motion, and which does not attempt to utilize any of the collision rules as the basis of this reconstruction. Without the need to maintain the precise predictions of the collision rules (as Huygens’ had attempted), it will no longer be necessary to adopt methods that only temporarily preserve quantity of motion from the perspective of a local collision frame. On the formulation of Cartesian dynamics presented in this chapter, we will attempt to posit reference frames that conserve Descartes’ quantity of motion for extended regions of the plenum and for extended temporal periods.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Endnotes
See, e.g., Earman 1989, chapter 2; and, Friedman 1983.
Descartes develops his vortex theory in Pr II and, especially, Pr III of the Principles. For a survey of this theory, see E. J. Aiton, The Vortex Theory of Planetary Motions ( MacDonald: London, 1972 ).
The relationalist Cartesian spacetime which we will develop essentially forms a member of the broader class of Leibnizian spacetimes, as described in chapter 2.
Descartes clearly viewed space as three-dimensional (AT II 11), but it is unclear if he regarded space as Euclidean. Given the lack of any known alternatives at that time, it is almost certain that he did; yet, Francesco Patrizi and Newton seem to be the only natural philosophers of the period who explicitly described space as Euclidean. See, Grant 1981, 232–234.
The concept of an “enduring geometric feature” is somewhat of a misnomer in our Cartesian spacetime, of course, as will be argued at greater length in the remainder of this chapter. In fact, as mentione bove, there are many ways of mapping W. One could, for instance, select a particle located inside a gear (body) for the mapping and reference frame, although long-term plenum instability will eventually bring the particle to the gear contact surface. Or, a reference frame may be linked to a contact point on an initial time slice, but the frame can follow one of the points on the gears on each successive slice rather then remain with the contact point. See, Dyson 1969, 38–39.
Although only the non-vectorial quantity speed figures in the conservation law for the quantity of motion, Descartes’ natural laws stipulate directed uniform motions. Thus a modern Cartesian may attempt to develop a Cartesian concept of velocity, as long as only the scalar property speed figures in the conservation law.
In fact, Descartes’ early treatment of the principle of “virtual work” (although not fully equivalent to the modern concept) specifically calls for an infinitesimal measurement of “size (weight) x distance”. The virtual work principle is closely related to the quantity of motion, size x speed, and it could be argued that the former is a special instance of the latter—see chapter 5. See, AT II 233–234, and especially, AT II 352–355.
Furthermore, Descartes’ definition of “external place”, which he defines as the surface of the containing bodies, employs his “surface” concept, which he further reasons must be an abstract notion since “is not a part of one body more than of the other” (Pr II 15). Therefore, it is possible that the contact point between two vortices is an equally abstract concept (since it is the point, or surface, where two such bodies meet).
Presumably, the conserved quantity would be somewhat like our modern concept of angular speed. Also, we are ignoring the effects of friction and material wear, factors that would tend to dissipate the total energy of the system.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Slowik, E. (2002). Constructing a Cartesian Dynamics with “Fixed” Reference Frames: The “Kinematics of Mechanisms” Theory. In: Cartesian Spacetime. International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Idées, vol 181. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0975-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0975-0_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5931-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0975-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive