Testing Universal Gravitation in the Laboratory, or the Significance of Research on the mean Density of the Earth and Big G, 1798-1898: Changing Pursuits and long-term methodological-experimental Continuity [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This paper seeks to provide a historically well-informed analysis of an important post-Newtonian area of research in experimental physics between 1798 and 1898, namely the determination of the mean density of the earth and, by the end of the nineteenth century, the gravitational constant. Traditionally, research on these matters is seen as a case of ‘puzzle solving.’ In this paper, I show that such focus does not do justice to the evidential significance of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century experimental research on the mean density of the earth and the gravitational constant. As Newton’s theory of universal gravitation was mainly based on astronomical observation, it remained to be shown that Newton’s law of universal gravitation did not break down at terrestrial distances. In this context, Cavendish’ experiment and related nineteenth-century experiments played a decisive role, for they provided converging and increasingly stronger evidence for the universality of Newton’s theory of gravitation. More precisely, I shall argue that, as the accuracy and precision of the experimental apparatuses and the procedures to eliminate external disturbances involved increasingly improved, the empirical support for the universality of Newton’s theory of gravitation improved correspondingly.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Scott Tanona (2000). The Anticipation of Necessity: Kant on Kepler's Laws and Universal Gravitation. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):421-443.
Steffen Ducheyne (2009). Understanding (in) Newton's Argument for Universal Gravitation. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 40 (2):227 - 258.
Steffen Ducheyne (2006). The Argument(s) for Universal Gravitation. Foundations of Science 11 (4):419-447.
David Marshall Miller (2009). Qualities, Properties, and Laws in Newton's Induction. Philosophy of Science 76 (5):1052-1063.
Jon Pérez Laraudogoitia (2001). Indeterminism, Classical Gravitation and Non-Collision Singularities. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15 (3):269 – 274.
William Harper & Robert DiSalle (1996). Inferences From Phenomena in Gravitational Physics. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):54.
Carol E. Cleland (2002). Methodological and Epistemic Differences Between Historical Science and Experimental Science. Philosophy of Science 69 (3):447-451.
Dennis Dieks (1987). Gravitation as a Universal Force. Synthese 73 (2):381 - 397.
William Harper (1990). Newton's Classic Deductions From Phenomena. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:183 - 196.
Michael J. Hones (1990). Reproducibility as a Methodological Imperative in Experimental Research. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:585 - 599.
Kofi Maglo (2003). The Reception of Newton's Gravitational Theory by Huygens, Varignon, and Maupertuis: How Normal Science May Be Revolutionary. Perspectives on Science 11 (2):135-169.
James Marcum, Newton's Experimentum Crucis Vs. Goethe's Series of Experiments: Implications for the Underdetermination Thesis.
John D. Norton (2007). Einstein, Nordstrom, and the Early Demise of Scalar, Lorentz Covariant Theories of Gravitation. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 250 (3).
Howard Stein (1990). "From the Phenomena of Motions to the Forces of Nature": Hypothesis or Deduction? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:209 - 222.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads399 ( #3,286 of 1,792,217 )
Recent downloads (6 months)153 ( #1,588 of 1,792,217 )
How can I increase my downloads?