Force,deflection, and time: Proposition VI of Newton's Principia

In this extended study of Proposition VI, and its first corollary, in Book I of Newton's Principia, we clarify both the statements and the demonstrations of these fundamental results. We begin by tracing the evolution of this proposition and its corollary, to see how their texts may have changed from their initial versions. To prepare ourselves for some of the difficulties our study confronts, we then examine certain confusions which arise in two recent commentaries on Proposition VI. We go on to note other confusions, not in any particular commentary, but in Newton's demonstration and, especially, in his statement of the proposition. What, exactly, does Newton mean by a “body that] revolves … about an immobile center”? By a “just-nascent arc”? By the “sagitta of the arc”? By the “centripetal force”? By “will be as”? We search for the mathematical meanings that Newton has in mind for these fragments of the Proposition VI statement, a search that takes us to earlier sections of the Principia and to discussions of the “method of first and last ratios,” centripetal force, and the second law of motion. The intended meaning of Proposition VI then emerges from the combined meanings of these fragments. Next we turn to the demonstration of Proposition VI, noting first that Newton's own argument could be more persuasive, before we construct a modern, more rigorous proof. This proof, however, is not as simple as one might expect, and the blame for this lies with the “sagitta of the arc,” Newton's measure of deflection in Proposition VI. Replacing the sagitta with a more natural measure of deflection, we obtain what we call Platonic Proposition VI, whose demonstration has a Platonic simplicity. Before ending our study, we examine the fundamental first corollary of Proposition VI. In his statement of this Corollary 1, Newton replaces the sagitta of Proposition VI by a not quite equal deflection from the tangent and the area swept out (which represents the time by Proposition I) by a not quite equal area of a triangle. These two approximations create small errors, but are these errors small enough? Do the errors introduced by these approximations tend to zero fast enough to justify these replacements? Newton must believe so, but he leaves this question unasked and unanswered, as have subsequent commentators on this crucial corollary. We end our study by asking and answering this basic question, which then allows us to give Corollary 1 a convincing demonstration.