FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289  
290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   >>   >|  
ense of the word, in order to discover a law which is the very type of scientific knowledge as we understand it. What distinguishes modern science is not that it is experimental, but that it experiments and, more generally, works only with a view to measure. For that reason it is right, again, to say that ancient science applied to _concepts_, while modern science seeks _laws_--constant relations between variable magnitudes. The concept of circularity was sufficient to Aristotle to define the movement of the heavenly bodies. But, even with the more accurate concept of elliptical form, Kepler did not think he had accounted for the movement of planets. He had to get a law, that is to say, a constant relation between the quantitative variations of two or several elements of the planetary movement. Yet these are only consequences--differences that follow from the fundamental difference. It did happen to the ancients accidentally to experiment with a view to measuring, as also to discover a law expressing a constant relation between magnitudes. The principle of Archimedes is a true experimental law. It takes into account three variable magnitudes: the volume of a body, the density of the liquid in which the body is immersed, the vertical pressure that is being exerted. And it states indeed that one of these three terms is a function of the other two. The essential, original difference must therefore be sought elsewhere. It is the same that we noticed first. The science of the ancients is static. Either it considers in block the change that it studies, or, if it divides the change into periods, it makes of each of these periods a block in its turn: which amounts to saying that it takes no account of time. But modern science has been built up around the discoveries of Galileo and of Kepler, which immediately furnished it with a model. Now, what do the laws of Kepler say? They lay down a relation between the areas described by the heliocentric radius-vector of a planet and the _time_ employed in describing them, a relation between the longer axis of the orbit and the _time_ taken up by the course. And what was the principle discovered by Galileo? A law which connected the space traversed by a falling body with the _time_ occupied by the fall. Furthermore, in what did the first of the great transformations of geometry in modern times consist, if not in introducing--in a veiled form, it is true--time and movement even in the
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289  
290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
science
 

relation

 

modern

 

movement

 

constant

 

Kepler

 

magnitudes

 
ancients
 

periods

 
variable

concept

 

difference

 

Galileo

 

discover

 

account

 
experimental
 

change

 
principle
 

original

 

static


divides

 
considers
 

noticed

 

amounts

 

Either

 

studies

 

sought

 
connected
 

traversed

 

falling


discovered
 

occupied

 
consist
 

introducing

 

veiled

 

geometry

 

Furthermore

 

transformations

 

longer

 

discoveries


immediately

 

furnished

 

employed

 
describing
 
planet
 

vector

 
essential
 

heliocentric

 

radius

 

accidentally