---->
-----
-----
-----
-----
![]()
English
---> Español --- Deutsch --- Français --- Italiano --- Português ... If translation leaves the
bottom of a page still English, copy and translate HERE.
The two available English translations of Gilbert's 'De
Magnete' are poor science translations of a somewhat poorly written work - but below are key extracts
from the Mottelay translation and more
here. Machine translations, such as offered
for convenience on this site, also give poor science translation.
You can read the full original Latin 1600 De Magnete in
Google De Magnete.
We hopefully await an English
translation by Dr Stephen Pumfrey and Dr Ian Stewart of Gilbert's
other posthumously published 1651 Latin work "De Mundo Nostro
Sublunari Philosophia Nova" (A New Sublunar World Philosophy, or
A New Theory of Everything Under the Moon, or A
New TOE) with Gilbert's apparently intended title "Physiologiae Nova Contra
Aristotelem" (A New Science Against Aristotle). To quote Steve Pumfrey,
Lancaster University science historian, "Gilbert's uniqueness in both
natural philosophy and cosmology stems from his conviction that he had
empirical proof of his theory of active matter." in 'Cambridge
Scientific Minds' CUP 2002. (their still awaited translation was planned for 2005)
From 'De Magnete' Book 1, Chapter III :
"But inasmuch as the spherical form, which, too, is the most
perfect, agrees best with the earth, which is a globe, and also is
the form best suited for experimental uses, therefore we purpose to
give our principal demonstrations with the aid of a globe-shaped
loadstone, as being the best and the most fitting. Take then
a strong loadstone, solid, of convenient size, uniform, hard,
without flaw; on a lathe, such as is used in turning crystals and
some precious stones, or on any like instrument (as the nature and
toughness of the stone may require, for often it is worked only
with difficulty), give the loadstone the form of a ball. The
stone thus prepared is a true homogenous off-spring of the earth
and is of the same shape, having got from art the orbicular form
that nature in the beginning gave to the earth, the common mother;
and it is a natural little body endowed with a multitude of
properties whereby many abstruse and unheeded truths of philosophy,
hid in deplorable darkness, may be more readily brought to the
knowledge of mankind. To this round stone we give the name
microge, or Terrella (earthkin, little earth)."
and,
"The terrella sends its force abroad in all directions, according
to its energy and its quality. But whenever iron or other
magnetic body of suitable size happens within its sphere of
influence it is attracted; yet the nearer it is to the loadstone
the greater the force with which it is borne toward it."
Of course Gilbert does discuss his theory ideas in various parts of
his works often using different terms capable of different
interpretation and translation - physics did not yet have an
accepted technical jargon then, so that eg Gilbert himself had to
invent some terms like 'electricity'. In another bit of latin
innovation, he coined a term for mutually-attracting bodies coming
together as 'coition' instead of 'attraction' - but, unlike his new 'electricity', that term did not
catch-on in physics.
The latin term 'effluvia', meaning approximately 'emissions', was
used by many before and after Gilbert but often in quite different
and in some cases unscientific theories. Hence atomists used
'effluvia' as proposed emissions of particles said to push bodies
about - including an early theory of magnetism in which magnetic
particle effluvia from magnets were supposed to push away the air
between a magnet and a piece of iron so that the resulting vacuum
sucked iron to magnets. Descartes' physics also involved particle
effluvia. Others have used 'effluvia' with a different sense, as
either emissions of energy or of 'soul' or 'spirit' that left one body and if
entering another body energised, enlivened or motivated it.
In all of these uses, proposed 'effluvia' directly caused actions
in bodies. Gilbert's theory was quite different in involving a
variety of effluvia some of which he reasoned were probably
particles and some not - and his effluvia signal emissions did not
directly cause any actions but acted as signals to bodies receiving
them and bodies themselves responded automatically as information
response robots. Gilbert maybe should have invented a new term for
his effluvia signals, but a term that covered a thing being both an
automatic emission and acting as a received automatic signal did
not exist in latin (and in English now might need something like
'emission signal quanta' ?) - making the understanding and
translating of Gilbert physics with its robot-matter difficult.
Uniquely his physics theory's ultimate particles are basically
nanorobots as the basis of all physics - including electricity,
magnetism and gravity.
NOTE. Gilbert's effluvia signal emission explains gravitational and
electric charge attraction decreasing as the square of the distance
from a body, as his effluvia signal emissions spread and dilute
evenly and the surface of spheres increases as the square of their
radius. Inverse square force necessarily follows from any theory
involving emissions of particles or of waves, excepting possibly
when travelling through a medium ( eg gas, liquid or solid ) when
losses might be expected to involve actual attenuation being
somewhat greater than the square of the distance. Hence such
forces, like light, following the inverse square law over
astronomical distances would seem to involve either 0% interaction,
100% propagation and/or no medium ? (magnetism is a somewhat more
complex effect that does not simply follow the inverse square rule
anyway).
Non-emission physics theories, like Maxwell's field theory and
Einstein's continuum theory, include inverse square action perhaps
non-necessarily and even arbitrarily ? Also in a Gilbert type
theory a constant signal-response time, a signal saturation level
and/or a maximum response level might replace Einstein's perhaps
anomalous constant velocity of light ?
Collision push-theories of forces like gravity are assumed to work
something like 'billiards averaged' - where the typical collision
is glancing-collision where a ball from one direction collides
causing another ball to move away at some angle, but the average
being exactly head-on causing the other ball to move away in the
same direction though happening much less often. However, signal
response systems may always respond precisely to the directionality
of incoming signals - as some plants and animals respond to a light
source, moving directly towards or directly away or eg spiralling
towards like moths. Of course individual 'force events' may perhaps
never be detectable, only average responses ?
When a beam of light hits a sheet of glass, a wave theory or a
particle theory may seem to require that the light be entirely
reflected or entirely refracted - but in fact at least normally
some of BOTH happens. While either light theory can be elaborated
to explain such double-happening, it seems maybe simpler to take it
as not being down to either form of mechanical contact but as down
to marginal attraction/repulsion responses Gilbert-Newton theory
fashion ? Of course Gilbert, Descartes, Newton and Einstein all
supported determinist theories where if you know the full details
then any event will involve single determinate outcomes though a
multi-event event might have multiple single determinate outcomes.
They all rejected probabilistic or indeterminate events in physics
as being 'uninformed' or 'inadequately experimented' events only.
Yet for some kinds of 'probabilistic' events mathematical laws have
been produced that some see as giving an alternative type of. or
elaboration of, physics theory.
'De Magnete' page 155 :-
- Click image to
enlarge, or to get click-enlarging image.
The 1900 S.P.Thompson english translation of De Magnete was a very impressive book,
a giant red hardback measuring about 18 inches by 12 inches and 6 inches thick and
a great weight. A very impressive science book to maybe match religions best holy books,
but regretably still a poor science translation.
Gilbert's 'De Mundo....'
Gilbert was rightly afraid to publish his ideas on astronomy and
gravity in his lifetime, and that aided by suppression by Sir Francis Bacon ensured that it was nearly 50 years after his death
before they were published in his De Mundo.
That work showed that Gilbert concluded that there must be some
force natural to planetary bodies, which was proportional to their
mass, mutually attractive and decreased with distance. An
attractive force that was emitted from the sun making planets orbit
it, that was emitted from the Earth making the moon orbit it, and
that was emitted from the moon making Earth tides. Basically just
what astronomy needed. He did not specifically link that either
with magnetism or with earths gravity, though saying that objects
weight consist only them responding to attractions from another
body like the earth.
Kepler did learn of these astronomy ideas of Gilbert, as least in
general, long before their posthumous publishing. He did
acknowledge Gilbert but developed an unworkable mechanical-field
vortex modification as his own theory (akin to the later Descartes
fluid-ether vortex theory) which he wrongly thought better than
Gilbert's theory. Newton later disproved Kepler's theory.
If you might want to buy Gilbert books, see our USA
Gilbert books or UK
Gilbert books sections.
You are welcome to link to any page on this site, eg http://www.new-science-theory.com/william-gilbert-de-magnete.php
If you have any view or suggestion on the content of
this site, please contact :- New Science
Theory
Vincent Wilmot 166 Freeman Street Grimsby Lincolnshire DN32
7AT.
© new-science-theory.com, 2013 - taking
care with your privacy, see New Science Theory HOME.