Making more plausible what is hard to believe: historical justifications and illustrations of Newton's third law

Science and Education

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 159-172

  Gauld, C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54749100852     PISSN: 09267220     EISSN: 15731901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1008666517736     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bechler, Z.: 1991, Newton's Physics and the Conceptual Structure of the Scientific Revolution, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
2. Brown, D.E.: 1989. 'Students' Concept of Force: The Importance of Understanding Newton's Third Law', Physics Education 24, 353-358.
3. Cohen, I.B. & Tilling, L. (eds) 1975, The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, Volume V (1709-1713), Cambridge University Press, London.
4. Densmore, D. 1992, The Cause of Gravity; Implications of Newton's Use of the Third Law of Motion in Book III of the Principia. Paper presented to the Meeting of the History of Science Society, Washington, DC, 29 December.
5. Gabbey, A. 1980, 'Force and Inertia in the Seventeenth Century: Descartes and Newton, in S. Gaukroger (ed.), Descartes'. Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics, Harvester, Brighton, 230-320.
6. Gauld, C.F. 1993, The Historical Context of Newton's Third Law and the Teaching of Mechanics, Research in Science Education 23, 95-103.
7. Gauld, C.F. 1994, Newton's Third Law after Newton. Research in Science Education 24, 93-101.
8. Gauld, C.F. 1995, 'The Newtonian Solution to the Problem of Impact in the 17th and 18th Centuries and Teaching Newton's Third Law Today', in F. Finley, D. Allchin, D. Rhees and S. Fifield (eds), Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 441-452.
9. Hall, A.R. 1966, 'Mechanics and the Royal Society, 1668-1670', The British Journal for the History of Science 3(9), 24-38.
10. Hankins, T. 1965, 'Eighteenth Century Attempts to Resolve the Vis Viva Controversy,' Isis 56, 281-297.
11. Herival, J. 1965, The Background to Newton's Principia; A Study of Newton's Dynamical Researches m the Years 1664-84, Oxford University Press. London.
12. Kant, I. 1786/1970, Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (translated by J. Ellington), Bobs-Merrill, Indianapolis.
13. Koyré, A. 1965, Newtonian Studies, Chapman & Hall, London.
14. Mach, E. 1893/1960, The Science of Mechanics (translated by T.J. McCormack), Open Court, LaSalle, Ill.
15. Maloney, D.P. 1984, 'Rule-governed Approaches to Physics - Newton's Third Law, Physics Education 19, 37-42.
16. McMullin, E. 1978, Newton on Matter and Activity, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.
17. Milner, I. 1778, 'Reflections on the Communication of Motion by Impact and Gravity', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 68, 344-379.
18. Montanero, M., Perez, A.L. & Sucro M.I. 1995, 'A Survey of Students' Understanding of Colliding Bodies, Physics Education 30, 277-283.
19. Newton, I. 1729/1960, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (trans A. Motte, 1729; revised F. Cajori, 1934), University of California Press, Berkeley.
20. Palter, R. 1972, 'Kant's Formulation of the Laws of Motion', Synthése 24, 96-116.
21. Papineau, D. 1977, The Vis Viva Controversy: Do Meanings Matter? Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science. 8, 111-142.
22. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P. & Gertzog, W. 1982, 'Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Towards a Theory of Conceptual Change', Science Education 66, 211-227.
23. Russell, J.L. 1976, 'Action and Reaction before Newton', British Journal for the History of Science 9, 25-38.
24. Steinberg, M.S., Brown, D.E. & Clement, J. 1990, 'Genius is not Immune to Persistent Misconceptions: Conceptual Difficulties Impeding Isaac Newton and Contemporary Physics Students, International Journal of Science Education 12, 265-273.
25. Westfall, R. 1971, Force in Newton's Physics, Macdonald/Elsevier, London/New York.