We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

Durham Research Online
You are in:

Was Newtonian cosmology really inconsistent?

Vickers, P. (2009) 'Was Newtonian cosmology really inconsistent?', Studies in history and philosophy of modern physics., 40 (3). pp. 197-208.


This paper follows up a debate as to the consistency of Newtonian cosmology. Whereas Malament [(1995). Is Newtonian cosmology really inconsistent? Philosophy of Science 62, 489–510] has shown that Newtonian cosmology is not inconsistent, to date there has been no analysis of Norton's claim [(1995). The force of Newtonian cosmology: Acceleration is relative. Philosophy of Science 62, 511–522.] that Newtonian cosmology was inconsistent prior to certain advances in the 1930s, and in particular prior to Seeliger's seminal paper of Seeliger [(1895). Über das Newton'sche Gravitationsgesetz. Astronomische Nachrichten 137 (3273), 129–136.] In this paper I agree that there are assumptions, Newtonian and cosmological in character, and relevant to the real history of science, which are inconsistent. But there are some important corrections to make to Norton's account. Here I display for the first time the inconsistencies—four in total—in all their detail. Although this extra detail shows there to be several different inconsistencies, it also goes some way towards explaining why they went unnoticed for 200 years.

Item Type:Article
Full text:(AM) Accepted Manuscript
Download PDF
Publisher Web site:
Publisher statement:NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Studies in history and philosophy of modern physics. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Studies in history and philosophy of modern physics, 40/3, 2009, 10.1016/j.shpsb.2009.05.001
Date accepted:No date available
Date deposited:12 February 2013
Date of first online publication:2009
Date first made open access:No date available

Save or Share this output

Look up in GoogleScholar