Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-12T06:01:33.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Limited Conventionalist Critique of Newtonian Space-Time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

David Zaret
David Zaret*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I examine a number of alternative global structures for Newtonian space-time, and corresponding Newtonian theories of mechanics and gravitation. I argue that since these theories differ only with respect to questions concerning the relative distribution of inertial and gravitational forces, the choice between them is a matter of convention. Therefore, the global structure of Newtonian space-time is also a matter of convention. Since this result is based on a consideration of the nature of inertial and gravitational forces, rather than on general reductionist principles, it is a “limited conventionalist” result.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , September 1980 , pp. 474 - 494
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 by Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Earman, J. and Friedman, M. (1973), “The Meaning and Status of Newton's Law of Inertia,” Philosophy of Science 40: 329–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C. (1971), “Theoretical Realism and Theoretical Equivalence,” in Buck, R., (ed.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 8. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1975), “Relevant Evidence,” Journal of Philosophy, 72: 403–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C. (1977), “The Epistemology of Geometry,” Noûs, 11: 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havas, P. (1964), “Four-Dimensional Formulations of Newtonian Mechanics and Their Relation to the Special and the General Theory of Relativity,” Reviews of Modern Physics 36: 938–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misner, D. S., Thorne, K. S., and Wheeler, J. A. (1973), Gravitation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Sklar, L. (1976), “Inertia, Gravitation and Metaphysics,” Philosophy of Science 43: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, H. (1967), “Newtonian Space-Time,” Texas Quarterly 10: 174–199.Google Scholar
Trautman, A. (1965), “Foundations and Current Problems of General Relativity,” in Deser, S. and Ford, K. W., (eds.), Lectures on General Relativity. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Trautman, A. (1967), “Comparison of Newtonian and Relativistic Theories of Space-Time,” in B. Hoffman, (ed.), Perspectives in Geometry and Relativity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar