	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics: History Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

Older comments

Since this passage is so contentious, shouldn't the translation have a citation? It's not the original Motte translation, which I'm appending below (from antiquebooks.net and confirmed by Amazon.com full-text-search). I don't think it's the Cohen-Whitman translation either, which is the definitive contemporary English translation. It might be the Motte-Cajori translation from the earlier 20th century which is generally frowned on and now obsolete. If anyone can get the Cohen-Whitman translation for this passage, put it up, it's the definitive translation (I don't have a copy of it). And maybe the original latin passage should also be posted.

Motte's 1726 translation of the passage: But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from ph[ae]nomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the ph[ae]nomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the ph[ae]nomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.

I agree that there should be a citation. This page shows the relevant page of the translation, and this shows the Latin original (I've put the phrase in bold):

"Rationem verò harum gravitatis proprietatum ex phænomenis nondum potui deducere, et hypotheses non fingo. Quicquid enim ex phænomenis non deducitur, hypothesis vocanda est; et hypotheses seu metaphysicæ, seu physicæ, seu qualitatum occultarum, seu mechanicæ, in philosophiâ experimentali locum non habent. In hâc philosophiâ Propositiones deducuntur ex phænomenis, et redduntur generales per inductionem." Alec.brady (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Relativity

Einstein at least in the context of classical physics discovered what causes gravity. The curvature of space-time. --Hfarmer 06:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what causes the curvature of space-time?Alec.brady (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does this answer the question of why gravity exists, or merely how? Because, if I understand it correctly, Newton's observation is that asking "why" has no place in physics, only understanding how - which is exactly what Einstein did so successfully. Sir Tobek (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2nd or 3rd edition?

this article says it was quoted from the 3rd edition of Principia while the article Newton's law of universal gravitation says it was a quote from the 2nd edition. (24.242.221.231 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The phrase first occurs in the 2nd edition, Cambridge 1713; the actual quote is taken from the 3rd, presumably unchanged. The Latin original above is taken from Le Seur and Jacqier's Glasgow 1833 edition; Newton used capitals, & for 'et', and used no accents. Here it is without the minor changes, as in the 1713 edition, using 'f' for long s's:

Rationem vero harum Gravitatis proprietatum ex Phænomenis nondum potui deducere, & Hypothefes non fingo. Quicquid enim ex Phænomenis non deducitur, Hypothesis vocanda eft; & Hypothefes feu Metaphyficæ, feu Phyficæ, feu Qualitatum occultarum, feu Mechanicæ, in Philofophia Experimentali locum non habent. In hac Philosophia Propofitiones deducuntur ex Phænomenis, & redduntur generales per Inductionem.

This is taken from p.484 (the last text page), line 11, of the 1713 edition; the "Scholium Generale" being pp. 481-4.However, this leaf (Sig. Qqq2) is a cancel in most copies, including the one this was copied from, and just possibly differs from the cancelland or original state.Colcestrian (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass warps space-time???

Just deleted "It is still unknown why mass warps space-time." from the article since this is irrelevant to the concept and the whole sentence is just incorrect I believe. Mass doesn't just warp space-time. That's also not what action-at-distance is about. It is about forces acting either trough a medium or trough particle collisions.--131.174.17.91 (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I feign no hypotheses"

Benjamin Motte's English translation was printed in 1729, not 1726 as stated. This was the first to use "I do not frame hypotheses", a translation followed until objected to by Koyre in 1965, who pointed out that 'fingo' means 'feign', not 'frame'. As used by Newton in his 'Optiks' in query 28: "Whereas the main business of natural Philosophy is to argue from Phaenomena without feigning Hypotheses". In "The Newton Handbook", by Derek Gjertsen, a chapter discusses this phrase at length; pointing out that Newton did in fact sometimes frame hypotheses e.g. 'Hypothesis I: That the centre of the system of the world is immovable' [following Proposition X of Book III of the 'Principia']. Gjertsen also quotes French and German translations, and the wording of Newton's rejected drafts of the General 'Scholium'. Koyre's argument, that Newton meant he 'did not make use of fictions...[nor] use false propositions as premisses or explanations', and that 'frame' is an incorrect translation which should be corrected to 'feign', seems to be generally accepted.Colcestrian (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]