Contents

Talk:Feynman's Lost Lecture

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles Physics: Publications Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Publications Taskforce.

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about Kepler's first observation being logically implied by his other two is ambiguous. I cannot understand these three observations in any other way than the three laws on planetary motion, but the third law in the form as it is presented today already talks about major axes, i.e., ellipses. Perhaps in Kepler's original formulation this is different, but in any case this sentence should be formulated according to what Feynman actually shows, which I cannot access, however. Seattle Jörg (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 February 2023 and 12 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmorales169 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JasperMaju, Streeties.

— Assignment last updated by Lzepeda12 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As well as I remember the introduction of the book, and not explained here, is that showing elliptic orbits is a favorite calculus problem, and Newton would have done that. But at the time, calculus was new, and not known by many. Also at the time, conic sections were a popular study in math. And so Newton figured out how to show elliptical orbits using conic sections. Then Feynman rederived Newton's derivation for the lecture. And with only the (sparse) lecture notes, Goodstein rederived Feynman's rederivation. If someone has the book, maybe they can make that more obvious in the article. Gah4 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]