text:
Talk:Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

Location of Copies
I think I added most of the original information in this section, but I have come across a possible confusion concerning Newton's own copy of Principia.

Having added the photograph of the Principia on the Wren Library, Cambridge, I came across a news item saying that Newton's Principia was currently in a touring exhibition at the New York City Library between October 8, 2004 through February 5, 2005. Indeed, the good online version of the exhibition includes a photo of a better page with copious notes for the second edition (it looks like the page shown is on gravity and orbits).

Initially I worried about how the book could be in two places at once, but this can easily be satisfied since the book is actually three volumes. However, the book in NYC is identified as coming from the Portsmouth Collection in Cambridge University Library. And this reminded me that indeed most of Newton's best scientific papers were found in the Portsmouth library and are now securely kept at the University Library. The edges of the bindings of the books in the two photos look quite different and they both seem to have very different catalogue numbers, which would imply that the one in the Wren Library isn't on loan from the Portsmouth collection.

Does anyone know if there is more than one set of Newton's 'own' copy of Principia around? -- Solipsist 07:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When I was a student as the University of Sheffield, there was indeed a copy of the Principia in their rare books collection. Was this simply on some sort of tour/loan, or is this simply not listed in this article? 63.162.143.5Gadee —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a first edition copy of the book in the Crawford collection, housed at the Royal Observatory Edinburgh. Saw it today with my own eyes. Also in this collection is a third edition copy. Verification available at []. Will I add the entry, or does someone else want to? Marmite disaster 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On December 29, 2015 I saw Principia at the Huntington Library in San Marino, California. The nearby annotation said,

Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727) Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica  (Mathematical principles of natural philosophy)  London, 1687. Isaac Newton's and later, Edmond Haley's copy.

I saw it with my own eyes and have photographs. Furthermore the docent spoke proudly of it. Of course, if I edit this based on my own observation, I could be accused of original research. And certainly if the Huntington Library staff edited the Wikepedia article, it would be original research. What do the Wikipedia experts recommend here? DMJ001 (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Addendum to my comments above. I found a reference to the Huntington Library owning Newton's own copy of Principia at http://www.huntington.org/webassets/templates/general.aspx?id=16993. I'll go ahead a modify the article. DMJ001 (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Physics Today
"This is all mentioned to point out how difficult it is to deal with the motion of bodies in pure geometry. Modern day physicists have a much more powerful and elegant toolkit to deal with such problems."

Can someone please provide a link or explanation of how modern physics has circumvented the problems that pure geometry in proofs incurred? -- 212.159.91.204 5 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)
 * You can start with history of physics. See also history of mathematics and history of science. When Newton invented calculus, he was describing the mathematics of changes of the subject of study with time. In his time geometry was a time-static field of study. Now our concepts in geometry can handle changes in time as well, of course. Ancheta Wis 5 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)
 * These concepts (and the toolkit) were developed by Newton in Principia (although the modern notation is due to Leibnitz). While modern day physicists do have a much more powerful toolkit, where Newton's problems are concerned, the tools in the kit are exactly the same as Newton's. --Bambaiah 10:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Euclid, Descartes and Newton
Something decidedly wrong with this article. I'd expected a discussion of the contents of the book and the cirrcumstances surrounding its writing and publication. But this heart of the article is missing!

Also, it seems something of an overstatement to say (in the section called readabiility) that Euclid's geometry was a "hot topic" in the 17th century. It was certainly part of every educated person's background, just as classical (Newtonian) mechanics is part of every science student's background today. The "hot topic" was really analytical (Cartesian) geometry. Westfall's book, in fact, treats at length the question of why Newton used Euclidean geometry in his book, to the exclusion of the more obvious analytical methods (note that many independent sources, and Newton's notebooks, testify that Newton learnt Descartes before Euclid). It would also be appropriate in this section to reduce the unnecessary bits about Feynman and Principia and instead say something about Chandrasekhar's book on Newton's principia. Or better, delete this section altogether. Bambaiah 14:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Moved the link to the in-depth article to the top of the page. Hope this helps. It may be helpful to note that Newton found Euclid "obvious", on his first reading. I would support a link to the Feynman's lost lecture article, from which the readability section was copied. Feel feel to replace with a link to the lost lecture, if you have the time. For example, "Feynman spent a sabbatical studying the copy of Principia at the Huntington Library", if you like. (I believe that Caltech does not have an original copy of Principia.) Ancheta Wis 06:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Recent exhibit on Newton and Principa at the Huntington Library
 * If you have the time and inclination, how about replacing the "readability" section with a reference to Chandrasekhar's book under "See also"? Ancheta Wis 07:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi. I took the phrase "hot topic" from the introduction of the rewrite of the lost lecture.  I took it at face value from that book. JohnFlux 09:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Good to have the link to the longer article at the beginning, but a section like the one I'm putting in is more like what I had in mind. This is after all a book which founded modern physics: it needs a heart and a circulatory system.

On the other matter: There may even be a case for an article on "Chandra on Newton". Let me take a while to go through the book before deciding. Bambaiah 10:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Circumstances Surrounding Writing
Various Web sites claim that Cambridge was closed in 1665 consequent to a plague (eg. google "cambridge university 1665 plague"). Further that during that time Newton retired to the family home where he was exceptionally creative and productive. What substantiates the claims? Likely there are records about Cambridge being closed. Is there any tangible evidence that he spent the time at home? Does anyone else consider the topic worthy of mention? Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

More on Euclid, Descartes, and Newton
I'm confused about the following two sentences:

 * A second point that has been made is that Newton had to reject Descartes' views on inertia in order to understand and generalise Galileo's new ideas.

Who made the point? How is Galileo's ideas new to the 17thc, when Galileo was writing a generation or two before? What is it about Descartes' views on inertia that Newton had to reject?

 * He simultaneously rejected Descartes' new language of geometry: since he recognised that it was equivalent to Euclid's, and it lay within Newton's powers to recast the calculus in these terms.

"He" is now back to Newton. What evidence did he have to say it was "equivalent" to Euclid's? That's a bold statement I think. "Equivalent" isn't defined in this article. Equivalent how? In terms of its proof power?

Thanks! --M a s 20:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

 * THE NEWTONIAN CREED: We are all pretending that Newton used geometric proofs to show that an inverse-square force law must result in an elliptical orbit. Several books contain deep, sometimes long, explanations of this proof. However, no one can simply, briefly, and clearly give this proof. Most authors bypass it. Richard Feynman, John Locke, and Thomas Edison were baffled by it. It is one of mankind's hidden, sacrosact mysteries. Only the high priests, they say, really understand it, and we take them at their word. The mass of humans, including Robert Hooke, were not meant to know how that inverse-square force law necessarily results in an elliptical orbit. Humanity must believe it. We affirm our faith.Lestrade 23:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Thanks Lestrade. I think you are demanding that the simplicity of a theorem or law of nature imply the simplicity of a proof or derivation. I understand Fermat's Last Theorem as stated by Fermat, but I, along with a lot more people smarter than me, know nothing about Andrew Wiles' proof. Should I then say that Wiles' failed in his goal? Or should I accuse those who have taken the time to fully devour it as being but high priests? Thanks! --M a s 17:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

 * In Prop. 11, Prob. 6, Newton supposedly proved that elliptical orbits occur with inverse-square attractions. Read it yourself and see if it convinces you. In subsequent propositions, he then supposedly proved that circular, parabolic,and hyperbolic orbits also occur with inverse-square attractions. But, he never proved that inverse-square attractions necessarily result in elliptical orbits. So, he never really solved Halley's problem. Why can't minds like Feynman and Chandrasekhar show how Newton gave this assumed proof? I consider this to be an important question. The situation almost seems to resemble the famous "Emperor's New Clothes" fable in that it is generally agreed that Newton proved that an inverse-square force necessarily results in an elliptical orbit.Lestrade 15:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Thanks Lestrade. I'm sorry; the language of this article, (and I admit as well as the Principa itself,) is a little confusing for me to make sense of what you are asking. When you say, "But, he never proved that inverse-square attractions necessarily result in elliptical orbits," the statement that inverse-square attractions necessarily result in elliptical orbits is as you've already stated patently false- because inverse-square also leads to any conic (as long as there's only two bodies and one has negiligable mass relative to the other, etc...) So you fault the history for claiming that Newton had proof to something that he could not have really proven?

Or am I misunderstanding your "necessarily?" In which case maybe you meant "But, he never proved that inverse-square attractions are sufficient to result in elliptical orbits." Thanks! --M a s 01:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Halley asked Newton, "If there is an inverse-square attractive force, what shape is the orbit?" Newton replied, "An ellipse, and I have proved it." He looked for his proof but unfortunately couldn't find it. Instead of simply providing the proof of the solution to this problem, he wrote On the Motion of Bodies, in which he tried to show that elliptical orbits could be related to such a force. Then he wrote the Principia in which he included this demonstration and added many more topics. But, he never really provided the proof that he mentioned to Halley. Most people attribute the obscurity of Newton's so-called proof to the brilliance of his eccentric and peculiar mathematics, which are supposed to be beyond the comprehension of ordinary minds. Dana Densmore wrote a 525 page book in order to explain Newton's claim. It is titled Newton's Principia: The Central Argument, Green Lion Press, ISBN 1-888009-23-3. It took that many pages for a very intelligent author to try to clarify Proposition 11, Problem 6, in Newton's Principia. In spite of this, many books seem to consider it an easy, settled matter and quickly move on to other issues.Lestrade 12:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Fair enough Lestrade. So, you are taking the statement:

 * IF bodies obey an inverse square law of attraction (and also standard assumptions about one body of negligible mass to the other, etc.) THEN one body will move as an ellipse relative to the other,

and you are arguing that Newton provided a questionable proof of this, or in a sense failed to prove it succinctly. But it's not true- inverse square implies any conic. Perhaps Newton meant "a conic, and I have proved it."

Regardless, you then seem to imply Newton, for want of priority? or for other motives? fudged his answer and response to Halley... and because of this, Newton's current reputation should be tarnished? should be reduced? And I think I would argue that Newton was a nut-job egomaniac who had a strong sense of Schadenfreude, and in addition studying the historiography of Principia is an interesting exercise in 17thC British academic culture, but we can't take the leap from being a despicable man to being a despicable scientist. Thanks! --M a s 16:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of Lestrade's objection. According to OED, in Newton's time an orbit was "the way or course of the Sun, particularly called the Ecliptick, as also of any other Planet moving on according to the Circle of its Latitude." The word is Latin for "wheel-track", i.e., something round. While it is true that for the two-body system all possible trajectories are conic sections, actual orbits, as Newton and Hooke understood the term, are ellipses (and the circle is simply one type of ellipse, so Lestrade's objection there says more about him than Newton). Bodies in hyperbolic and parabolic motion do not orbit. They come in and go away again, never to return. I'm afraid Lestrade is trying to be pedantic and not succeeding.134.121.40.106 (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Additions and removal
I put in three new sections: one on the (physics and mathematics) context of the Principia, one a brief description of the book and a third on the "mathematical language". In this I tried to correct the errors in the section on "readability" that I'd mentioned above. I removved the section called "readability" and merged some of the information into the new sections. A para-by-para justification:
 * Para 1: the core information is merged into the section on "mathematical language". The material which was dropped was of two types —
 * information which was more about Feynman than about the Principia
 * some of the other material was in error (see my note dated July 11 above).
 * Para 2: all the points are included in the section on the book
 * Para 3: the difficulty with geometry is (for the problems that Newton tackled) a matter of training, as demonstrated by Chandra's book. Therefore this sentence was pov, and I decided to remove it.

--Bambaiah 10:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * BTW, the published version of Feyman's lost lecture is not even due to Feynman; it is a reconstruction of what Feynman may have said by someone who did not understand Feyman's way of redoing Newton! --Bambaiah 10:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

On "I feign no hypotheses"
The terse paraphrase, "I do not assert that any hypotheses are true", does not seem supported by the block quote following the statement. If I understand Newton's remark, it is not that he is offering hypotheses but refusing to defend them, as I think the paraphrase suggests, but that he does not pretend that what he exposits is a hypothesis, an explanation, for what he observes. To whatever exactly the quote refers is offered as description of phenomena. IHendry 19:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Feign" is a mistranslation of "fingo", which has the meaning 'devise', contrive' or 'fabricate'. 'Feign' means 'to pretend to be affected by (a feeling, state, or injury' [ ]   (It's OK to cite a copyright page in the discussion, isn't it?). Markcymru     19:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Newton was saying that he does not make hypotheses. He said as much in his words following "hypotheses non fingo", which were translated as: "...for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy." The translation of "hypotheses non fingo" that seems most consistent with Newton's intent was that made in the first English translation of Newton's work, published a few years after he died "I don't frame hypotheses." In modern English, one might simply translate the phrase as "I don't make hypotheses." If you follow the revisions of the Principia from the first Edition, before the philosophy section was in there, to the last, you see a reorganization of the material - in the first edition the term "hypothesis" is used quite frequently. And then in the revisions its culled out... so clearly he went through this transition, which is consistent with his explicit rejection of the terminology in his experimental philosophy writings in both the Optiks and in the Principia. Gacggt (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What is it
In excerpts from book, one paragraph begins with "hi, i am karthik". Replace it please
 * Just some vandalism introduced by User:203.174.79.131 an hour ago — now reverted. -- Solipsist 09:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

is this confusing, or should i read this book?

Absence of Proof
Newton showed how an elliptical (as well as a circular, hyperbolic, and parabolic) orbit can be associated with an inverse-square force. However, he never supplied Halley with the proof that he had promised. That is, Newton never proved that an inverse-square force necessarily results in an elliptical orbit. Speaking logically, x may possibly result in y is not the same as y necessarily results in x. Elliptical orbits may possibly have inverse-square forces. But, inverse-square forces do not necessarily result in elliptical orbits. This has been noted by such scholars as Johann Bernoulli, Ferdinand Rosenberger, Aurel Wintner, Johannes A. Lohne, François De Gandt, and Robert Weinstock.Lestrade 01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
 * References:

Lestrade 01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade Lestrade 12:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Johann Bernoulli's Letter in The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, edited by A. Rupert Hall and Laura Tilling, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1975, Volume V (1709-1713), pp. 5-6.
 * Rosenberger, Ferdinand, Isaac Newton und seine physikalischen Principien, Barth, Leipsig, 1895, pp. 183-184.
 * Wintner, Aurel, Analytical Foundations of Celestial Mechanics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1941, pp. 421-422.
 * Lohne, Johannes A., "Hooke versus Newton", Centaurus 7, pp. 6-52.
 * De Gandt, François, Force and Geometry in Newton's Principia, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1995.
 * Weinstock, Robert, "Dismantling a Centuries-Old Myth: Newton's Principia and Inverse-Square Orbits", American Journal of Physics 50, 1982, pp. 610-617.

In Book I, Propositions 11, 12, and 13, Newton shows that motion along the three conic sections (hyperbola, parabola, ellipse/circle) about a fixed force center requires an inverse square force. Lestrade is partly right and partly wrong. When he says Elliptical orbits may possibly have inverse-square forces he is wrong; elliptical orbits must be caused by an inverse square law force, according to Newton. Lestrade is right when he says the converse does not follow; inverse square laws might, from these propositions, take other types of paths, and conic sections would be one subset. However, in Proposition 17 Newton shows that given an initial position and velocity with respect to an inverse square force center, only one conic path is specified.

Restating the argument:

A conic section is one possible path for a body attracted by an inverse square law. (Proposition 17)

A body attracted by an inverse square law has only one possible path, given its position and velocity at one time. (Proposition 42)

In Corollary I to Proposition 13 he states the conclusion:

A body attracted by an inverse square law must move along a conic section, given its position and velocity at one time.

To sum up, Newton proved that if you find an object moving along a conic section, an inverse square force is the only force that can be responsible. He ALSO proved that if you have an inverse square force, ONLY paths along conic sections are possible. This answers one of Lestrade's objections. See "Kepler's Laws and universal gravitation in Newton's Principia, James T. Cushing, American Journal of Physics 50 617, (1982).

The other is answered by noting that an "orbit" has to be an ellipse, because hyperbolas and parabolas are not closed paths, and that a circle is also an ellipse.

Showing that Newton was wrong about something, or left something undone, is a bee in the bonnets of a certain class of people. But there have been 400 years of work on the mechanics that Newton founded. If Newton had said everything there was to say, physicists would be out of a job.Shrikeangel (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The problem is even stronger. The force on a body doesn't depend only on the geometrical shape of the path but also on the time schedule this path is absolved. Therefore the second law of Kepler is crucial to determine the forces. So take a look at my intervention concerning the second law of Kepler. It can't be proved with Newtons laws.

 * Another problem is the quantification of forces. How does Newton come to a quantification of forces? How does he know that forces are linear proportional to his geometric data and not logarithmic e.g.? The quantification of his centripetal forces is done by the quantification of corresponding centrifugal forces, well quantified by his predecessors (e.g. Huygens). The point is that the centrifugal forces are a condition for Newtons arguments.

ThvAq (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 * ... and to be pedantic: Lestrade is completely right when he says Elliptical orbits may possibly have inverse-square forces. Only if the attractor is in the focus of the ellipse the inverse square law applies. If elliptical orbits of planets would have the sun in the center, the law of force would be 1/r, following to Newton. There are even other places of the attractor thinkable.

ThvAq (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 * However, in Proposition 17 Newton shows that given an initial position and velocity with respect to an inverse square force center, only one conic path is specified.

That's exactly right. But the problem is that the inverse square law is not a law that's only founded on Newtons laws. Its main source is the centrifugal force F=m*v*v/r. So Newtons laws alone don't even discribe a conic path in this case. Only together with the law of the centrifugal force they can produce the inverse square law. And don't tell me the centrifugal force is a consequence of Newtons laws. It's the inverse. With the concrete experience of the realistic centrifugal force Newton found the concrete inverse square law from his abstract laws. The centrifugal law is a condition for the inverse square "law". ThvAq (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The Converse Theorem
Robert Hooke, Christopher Wren, Edmund Halley, and Christiaan Huygens believed that there was a relationship between the inverse-square force law and elliptical orbits. Newton told Halley that he had proved that the inverse-square force resulted in an elliptical orbit. In his subsequent publications, however, Newton tried to prove the converse. That is, Newton tried to prove that if an orbit is an ellipse (or any other conic section), then the force is inverse-square. I find that I can't fit this fact into the article as it now exists.Lestrade 02:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

There's no need, as Newton proved both the theorem and converse in Principia. There is no way to go back in time and find out what Newton proved and when exactly he proved it; i.e. if he told people he'd proved something and he hadn't, and rushed home to prove it that day and said he did it twenty years before, so I can't imagine this is a very important issue. I suspect that he had proved it using calculus to his satisfaction, and then when other people wanted to see his work, he had to figure out how to do it geometrically, because not everyone would have accepted a calculus-based proof. It doesn't matter. If he was lying about when he did it, no one now can prove it; but what he can prove is that he did prove both theorems in Principia, in Propositions 11,12,13,17 and 42.Shrikeangel (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Newton's Geometry
Newton did not use Euclidean geometry. He used his own geometry. This was a geometry that investigated triangles that have curved, instead of straight, sides.Lestrade 02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

On what do you base this statement? In Principia I see diagrams of triangles with straight lines. I also see arcs. Perhaps you are confused by Newton's lemmas about the small angle approximation? There he shows what looks like triangles with one curved side, but he is just showing that x, sin x, and tan x are approximately equal for small angles.Shrikeangel (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Very few diagrams in the Principia show rectilinear figures. Most figures are curvilinear and many show a triangle that has one side as a curve. This is because Newton was investigating curved orbits. In so doing, he was concerned with curved conics such as circles, ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas, and spirals. Euclid's rectilinear plane geometry was inadequate for this task. Newton tried to use traditional geometry, but had to invent his own version. Dana Densmore, in her Newton's Principia: The Central Argument (ISBN 1-888009-24-1) stated that "Newton chose to express his proofs in an idiosyncratic modification of the classic geometry of the ancient Greeks" (p. xlvi). In his study of orbits, Newton's own geometry was used to study triangles that had one side as a curve or arc. In order to accomplish this, he used his mysterious concept of "ultimate limits." At the ultimate limit, a curve starts to become a straight line and can be considered as such. The lines retain their curved existence but can be considered as straight lines for purposes of calculation. Lemma 3, Corollary 4 shows how "these ultimate figures … are not rectilinear, but curvilinear limits of rectilinear figures." By reducing curved orbital lines to very small straight lines, Newton tried to use a kind of Euclidean geometry to solve his problems. This procedure is very awkward and difficult. Many intelligent people confess to being unable to follow Newton's mathematical proofs and, instead, merely accept the results of his propositions on his authority. During his investigations, Newton stopped using his idiosyncratic version of geometry and invented calculus. With calculus, a curve can be calculated as though it is a sum of very small straight tangential lines. That is the very essence and purpose of differential calculus and is the main reason why Newton developed his fluxions or calculus. When he wrote the Principia, however, he did not express his proofs by using his new calculus, Instead, he used his idiosyncratic version of traditional geometry, with its curved triangles and its ultimate limits.Lestrade (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Newton is using rectilinear geometry to approximate curved paths in the limit of small displacements. This was ancient and respectable; one of the first to use this approach was Archimedes. There is no physicist or mathematician working today who would call what Newton did "his own geometry". They would call it "first-order approximation". Since Newton also worked on infinite series this wasn't strange to him, or anyone. As far as limits go, they've been mathematically respectable for for several centuries now and are not a "mysterious concept" to physicists or mathematicians.

Many intelligent people confess to being unable to follow Newton's mathematical proofs and, instead, merely accept the results of his propositions on his authority. But where did Newton's "authority" come from? It came from being right. Mathematicians of his day had no trouble following the proofs. Modern physicists find them unfamiliar, but they are not difficult to understand if one is willing to put in the effort.Shrikeangel (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Idiosyncratic" means "peculiar to one individual." As Dana Densmore asserted, this is true of Newton's geometry. Regarding ultimate limits, Berkeley described their mystery. They are fictions that Newton used as a device for his purpose. I am not convinced that mathematicians of his day or of our day can follow his proofs with "no trouble." Regarding physicists, two Nobelists, Feynman and Chandrasekhar, struggled with Newton's proofs. Feynman admitted that he could not follow them, and Chandrasekhar tried to convert them to calculus in order to explain them because he couldn't clearly render them lucid. Of course, the old defense can be used that Newton was just smarter, so if people cannot follow his proofs, it is because they are just not intelligent enough to understand. That ruse never fails, but it also never leads to clear explanations. Feynman and Chandrasekhar were intelligent men, but they were not able to follow the proofs. In the end, we just accept or reject everything and simply move on to other topics. The problem is resolved by its disappearance, but no clarity is ever attained.Lestrade (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Nonsense, Lestrade. Archimedes and other ancient mathematicians used the concepts of limits and straight lines to approximate curves as you can discover here(Method of Exhaustion), so they are not "peculiar to Newton". Berkeley's objections to the concept of limits are three hundred years out of date--I might as well cite Galen against germs being caused by disease.

I am not convinced that mathematicians of his day or of our day can follow his proofs with "no trouble. I'm sure you're not, but neither was the Tortoise convinced by Achilles.  All of your objections to, and misunderstandings of, Newton have been answered.  I'm sure you can cite 50 more people who say they don't understand Newton's proofs, but in the sixteenth century people understood them perfectly well, which is why Newton gained the renown he did.  Lots of people don't understand things like evolution, or relativity, or quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean they are not proven.Shrikeangel (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Being unable to understand this is no big thing. It requires a deeper understanding of geometry than I have. Also, not everyone's brains work in the same way. Inability to understand someone else's complex non-standard math and logic doesn't mean much. Noghiri (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Newton's Apple
"In the plague year of 1665, Newton had already experienced the famous revelation under an apple tree in Woolesthorpe, which led him to conclude that the strength of gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance..."

This seems to refer to the apocryphal story of the apple falling from a tree. Although Newton told this in his old age (and by that time he has undergone a transformation - moving to London, becoming the master of the mint, MP and president of the RS which was an extraordinary change considering his earlier life). He spent time lying in the apple orchard in Woolesthorpe but I sincerely doubt that there was any falling apple that created a revelation in his mind. I don't believe he ever wrote anything in his notes to this effect (and they are copious) although many minor details are in those notes. To my mind, to say that an apple falling from a tree created the revelation of gravitational attraction holding the moon in orbit would be as amusingly laughable as claiming that had Newton seen a banana he would have been prompted to use the calculus to prove planetery orbits were eliptical! I think that Newton probably told this story to help others to understand some of the basic concepts of his works - remember that very few scientists could understand the Principia at all and so some assistance from the mundane would have been useful. By trivialising the actual thought behind his work he could assist others in making the leave to understand that there was no physical mechanism to hold the planets in orbit.

I think that perhaps there should be a page devoted to the story in both fact and fiction as it is of considerable interest. In this text the reference to the apple tree revelation needs to be struck. I also think that revelation may also need to be removed. Any comments?

Candy 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Mathematical Language
I'm putting this is a seperate section becasue I am trying to draw attention to the language used in "The reason for Newton's use of Euclidean geometry as the mathematical language of choice in Principia is puzzling in two respects. The first is the trouble that today's physicists, trained in modern analytical methods, face in following the arguments."

Does that sound very odd to anyone else. The reason for Newton's use ..... is puzzling to me implies that we do not understand why Newton did what he did clearly. However, then to mention that the trouble is how modern physicists find it difficult to follow the arguments is non sequitur. If one said, "Two puzzles are created from Newton's use of Euclidean geometry as the mathematical langauge of choice in Principia. The first is that today's .... I would be happier .. or am I missing a point here?

If I can also be so bold as to suggest why Newton used Euclidean geometry I would suspect that it is because like many "new fangled" developments sometimes we all have the potential to be intellectual luddites (just look at the number of scholars using pre-Rechtschreibung reform German regardless of the new rules) but more importantly Newton's work with Alchemy involved his belief that the Greek myths held coded secrets of the fundamental truths behind the structure of matter. With this in mind I can see why he used Euclidean geometry as it was closer to the "truth".

Candy 03:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't that passage either. To me it feels derogatory, which is very presumptuous.

Clearly the author wishes to contrast Newton's geometric approach with more modern algebraic methods. This, I feel, is a valuable contribution. But the passage seems to suggest that algebra is in some way better than geometry and that Newton’s mathematics could do with some editing. Algebra is not superior to geometry. As Descartes’ demonstrates they are isomorphic. Further, Newton does use algebra in some parts of the principia. E.g. in book 2, prop 7, theorem 5, lemma 2.

Also, there is criticism of Newton’s using an approach similar to Euclid’s. But Euclid’s Elements is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. In the Element's Euclid uses as few and as simple definitions as possible to derive some magnificent theorems. e.g. Euclid 9.20 proves that there is no highest prime using only geometry (i.e. without using numbers).

Anyone familiar with The Elements reading the principia will recognise the same style used in the principia. Newton uses a few simple definitions and laws to derive such things as the forces with which the sun disturbs the motion of the moon (book 3 prop 25 problem 4)

Yes the principia is difficult to read. But its presentation is deliberate. Further, in my opinion Newton's proofs are as elegant as those of Archimedes. Newton was truly as great a mathematician as Mozart was a musician. To change the principia's geometric proofs to algebra would be like painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa.

Principia Discordia
Principia directs here? I was hoping for at least a disambiguation page, if it didn't go straight to the Principia Discordia. Mathiastck 13:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Could someone experienced make a disambiguation? Noghiri (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

General Scholium
This article indicates General Scholium was attached to the second edition of Principia. However, the article on Hypotheses non fingo, which is linked to from the section on Hypotheses non fingo in this article, indicates it was the third edition. I have no information as to which is correct, I only noticed the disagreement. Djkeng65 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * This page is right: second edition. But why does it say the General Scholium attacks the Trinity? It certainly does not do so explicitly. I'm not a theologian but I can't see that any of the comments there would count as such an attack. And I would have thought that even a fairly subtle attack would have been very risky for a public official like Newton (this was published when he was Master of the Mint.) PaddyLeahy 02:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I got this from here:. how about
 * Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God.

he is denying that the "substance of God" can be divided in "co-existent parts in space", which is tantamount to denying the possibility of God incarnate. dab (𒁳) 20:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The natural reading of this quote is that Newton is defending himself from those who would claim that Newton's very literal interpretation of omnipresence implicity allows God to be separated into physical parts. A great deal of the Scholium (also Cotes' preface to the 2nd edition) appears to be targeted at Leibniz, and this question of the presence of God at each point in space was certainly an issue in the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence. Of course you may be right that this is a very subtle dig at the Trinity as well (your blog reference doesn't explicitly highlight this passage). But I'm sure this was not perceived as an attack on the Trinity at the time, except possibly by Newton's very close friends. Newton had enough enemies on both sides of the channel to cause a huge fuss if they had even a suspicion of this. So I think including the comment on the article page without qualification is very misleading. PaddyLeahy 21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

1686 or 1687
On the first page of the book it says MDCLXXXVII (1687) but the article states the book is from 1686. Which on is it? Is the date in the book something else or is the article wrong? --131.174.17.112 (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I. Bernard Cohen wrote that Principia was first published in 1687, but he gave no month or day.Lestrade (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Lestrade (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade The image of the book in Wikipedia says both "MDCLXXXVII" (1687) in the bottom and "Julii 5, 1686" in "IMPRIMATUR". Does the "July 5" comes from there? If so, should it be 1686? 189.5.141.84 (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Jaglion (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC) from what I could understand 5 july 1686 was the date that he got imprimatur: here . and probably 5 july 1687 was the date it was published.

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.147.232 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Basis for the refimprove?
Wouldn't specific fact checks be more appropriate here? 74.78.162.229 (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Screwed up sentence
As of July 5 2008 there's an incomprehensible sentence in the section "Newton's Role"; looks like a cut-and-paste problem. Can't fix it, because I don't know what it's supposed to mean. Any ideas? The sentence is: "At this time, the central not the resulting theory of colours, to overwhelmingly favourable response, and a few inevitable scientific disputes with Robert Hooke and others, which forced him to sharpen his ideas to the point where he composed sections of his later book Opticks already by the 1670s." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.31.200 (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I cleaned it based on commonly known facts. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms" as part of Principia
This might (or might not) seem a bit odd, but according to some sources The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms was "... originally intended to be the last book of the Principia, The System of the World" according to these guys. Shouldn't this info be included somewhere in this article? The two works to me seem entirely disconnected, but perhaps not to Newton. --Trippz (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [From Terry0051]Forgive me (and this response looks pretty late, but better late than never), but if you look at the semicolons and commas in your cited source, I think you'll see that what it means is that the originally-intended last book of (what became) the 'Principia' is the next, not the last, item in their list, i.e. they mean the book eventually published as 'System of the World'. This is now dealt with in the main article here, under the subsection "A preliminary version". Terry0051 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, now makes more sense. I believe you are correct. Thanks for checking that out. --Trippz (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Intro/Volumes
There were 3 books, but the article's intro says there were 2 volumes. Were the three books published as 2 volumes, or is it wrong? Have all three books also been subsequently published in a single volume? Jackd88 (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [From Terry0051] There were lots of different editions in different numbers of 'n' physical volumes -- where 'n' ranges from 1 to 4, I think! (I've made an edit that looks to me consistent with the facts, E & OE.) Terry0051 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ellipse theorem

 * (The following discussion, copied here in relevant part, took place on Reference desk/Mathematics starting 29 Sept 2009. It's copied here (in part) because it may indicate the content of a suitable explanatory comment that may be used to improve the main article. Terry0051 (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

In Proposition XI, Problem VI of the Principia (the inverse square law for ellipse focus), Newton refers to the 'writers on Conics' for proof of this property of the ellipse : all 'tangentially circumscribing' parallelograms have the same area.

I've tried Appolonius and Archimedes for this theorem but cannot find it there. Geometric proof anyone?

Dunloskinbeg (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 * That doesn't sound right at all to me, are you sure you're quoting him right? A circle is an ellipse and you can get as large an area as you like with a rhombus round it. Dmcq (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [ Comment agreeing that it doesn't sound right ][ ... ] Think of a unit circle $$x^2 + y^2 = 1$$ and a rhombus with vertices $$(\pm 1/\sin\alpha, 0) $$ and $$(0,\pm 1/\cos\alpha)$$ for some small alpha. --CiaPan (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hah! The explanation is in De motu corporum in gyrum article, first section 'Contents of "De Motu"', part 2 Lemmas:
 * All parallelograms touching a given ellipse (to be understood: at the end-points of conjugate diameters) are equal in area.

Conjugate diameters do not have their own article on Wikipedia nor in http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ but they are two such chords of an ellipse that each of them halves all chords parallel to the other. --CiaPan (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now they have, thanks to Jim.belk — see conjugate diameters --CiaPan (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now the proof is quite simple: an ellipse is an image of a circle in some affine transformation; a pair of conjugate diams is an image of a pair of perpendicular diams of the circle, and the parallelogram is an image of a square tangent to the circle. All such squares have equal area, and area ratios are preserved by affine transformation (as long as it's not degenerate, i.e. detA≠0), so all parallelograms considered have equal areas, too. --CiaPan (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the phrase "Writers on X say..." or "Books on X say..." before, I think always in books written before 1900. Nowadays of course we use the much more self explanatory "It is well known that...".--RDBury (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [ End of copied discussion ]

Copies
You can find the Latin version here: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/28233  The English version is available via Bittorrent.--Noghiri (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Latin, right?
I assume the book was written in Latin. The article does not explicitly say this. BigJim707 (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference
Hoe about a reference to "On the Shoulders of Giants", Ed. Stephen Hawking, Running Press, ISBN 0-7624-1348-4 - Writings of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein. I've lost ready access myself, but it should be reasonably accessible and is in English. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Linking to WikiSource instead of Google Books?
I love that this article links to the specific propositions and sections while describing the layout of the book. WikiSource has an excellent 1846 translation of the Principia, including scans of the diagrams. I think it'd be a great idea to replace the links to Google Books with links to this editions: as internal links they'd look cleaner on the page, and would provide support to WikiSource as well! -- Gaurav (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody has moved on this reasonable suggestion, presumably considering it too much work or not having enough knowledge of WikiSource citation. Instead, I added a book citation of the Google book English translation version of 1729 using Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books. The many plain links to this Google book in the article could be converted to page range references using this citation, for the first volume and equivalent ones for the later volumes, to be consistent with Wikipedia style and avoid linkrot. I tried User:Dispenser/Reflinks and this got rid of the bare links but I was unable to change the plain links possibly due to my lack of knowledge of this tool. I only wanted the basic book citation for my editing elsewhere and don't know how to do the page range references, but others are welcome to jump in. Puzl bustr (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You manually edit the ‘page=X-Y’ field of the cite book citation to indicate page numbers. Or a shorter way is to just use to briefly indicate the page range referring to the main citation. Puzl bustr (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

External links banner
In July 2011 Yworo added the link warning banner external links with this edit summary: "There should not be text-linked external links in text, they should be moved to footnotes".

This might be persuasive if we were linking to external reference works, but here we are just trying to bring up the text section from Principia Mathematica that this article is commenting on at the time. If we require people to go through the reference section every time, then they need to make two clicks to bring up the text for review rather than one. In case a part of the objection is seeing the external link syntax scattered through the text, please see my proposed remedy in the section called Book 2. I edited that section to make the external links display differently. I used ... to make the external links display in the same style as internal ones.

I agree with User:Gaurav above that linking to WikiSource would be better, just because WikiSource provides the same translation with modern spelling, while keeping Newton's original diagrams. If anyone has another proposal for fixing the complaint about the external links, you can go ahead and revert my changes to the 'Book 2' section. Here is a link to WikiSource for Book 2 Section 1. Here is a link to the same section using Google Books. To appreciate the improved presentation in WikiSource, locate the sentence 'If a body is resisted in the ratio of its velocity..' in both editions.

If nobody disagrees with this, I'll eventually complete my change to the link syntax, switch to WikiSource, and then remove the external links banner. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

New photos on Commons from the Royal Society Library
As part of WikiProject Royal Society a special photo session in the Royal Society Library in London has resulted in Commons:Category:Royal Society Library, with over 50 photos of their treasures, mostly 17th century manuscripts, including several of one of the early minute books, Boyle's notebooks etc, the manuscript fair copy of Newton's Principia etc. Please add these as appropriate. Thanks! Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The proof of the second law of Kepler is wrong
I can't hide that a proof of the second law of Kepler is not possible from Newtons laws. Conservation of angular momentum is typical for a central force field. Newtons laws don't demand a central force field. They are only about linear momentum.

The beautiful animated "proof" you give is not from Newton. Only the ideas of this proof are found in its works.

The proof is false. The linear movement in the animation is not perpendicular to the attraction of the sun. An acceleration in direction of the sun will take place. The secant of the second segment will not have the same length as the first one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThvAq (talk • contribs) 08:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401071521/http://www.cap.ca/brms/Reviews/Reading-Steele.html to http://www.cap.ca/brms/Reviews/Reading-Steele.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608071737/http://isaac-newton.org/scholium.htm to http://isaac-newton.org/scholium.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Blunder?
Is this WP:original research (currently "citation" [81])

"Several commentators have followed Hooke in calling Newton's spiral path mistaken, or even a 'blunder', but there are also the following facts: (a) that Hooke left out of account Newton's specific statement that the motion resulted from dropping 'a heavy body suspended in the Air' (i.e. a resisting medium), see Newton to Hooke, 28 November 1679, document #236 at page 301, 'Correspondence', vol. 2 cited above, and compare Hooke's report to the Royal Society on 11 December 1679, where Hooke reported the matter 'supposing no resistance', see D Gjertsen, 'Newton Handbook' (1986), at page 259); and (b) that Hooke's reply of 9 December 1679 to Newton considered the cases of motion both with and without air resistance: The resistance-free path was what Hooke called an 'elliptueid'; but a line in Hooke's diagram showing the path for his case of air resistance was, though elongated, also another inward-spiralling path ending at the Earth's centre: Hooke wrote 'where the Medium ... has a power of impeding and destroying its motion the curve in wch it would move would be some what like the Line AIKLMNOP &c and ... would terminate in the center C'. Hooke's path including air resistance was therefore to this extent like Newton's (see 'Correspondence', vol. 2, cited above, at pages 304–306, document #237, with accompanying figure). The diagrams are also available online: see Curtis Wilson, chapter 13 in 'Planetary Astronomy from the Renaissance to the Rise of Astrophysics, Part A, Tycho Brahe to Newton', (Cambridge UP 1989), at page 241 showing Newton's 1679 diagram with spiral, and extract of his letter; also at page 242 showing Hooke's 1679 diagram including two paths, closed curve and spiral. Newton pointed out in his later correspondence over the priority claim that the descent in a spiral 'is true in a resisting medium such as our air is', see 'Correspondence', vol. 2 cited above, at page 433, document #286."

I can't find any commentators that use the term "blunder", let alone "several"? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


text:
National Assembly (Panama)

The National Assembly of Panama (Asamblea Nacional de Panamá), formerly the Legislative Assembly of Panama (Asamblea Legislativa de Panamá), is the legislative branch of the government of the Republic of Panama.

It is a unicameral legislature, currently made up of 71 members, who serve five-year terms. Legislators from outlying rural districts are chosen by a first past the post method, while districts located in more populous towns and cities elect multiple legislators by means of a proportion-based formula. Panama's legislative elections are held simultaneous with its presidential and local elections.

Panama also returns a delegation of 20 deputies to the supranational Central American Parliament.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: National Assembly (Panama)


text:
The Wolfe Tones

The Wolfe Tones are an Irish rebel music band that incorporate Irish traditional music in their songs. Formed in 1963, they take their name from Theobald Wolfe Tone, one of the leaders of the Irish Rebellion of 1798, with the double meaning of a wolf tone – a spurious sound that can affect instruments in the string family of the orchestra.

1963–1964: Formation
The origins of the group date back to August 1963, where three neighbouring children from the Dublin suburb of Inchicore, Brian Warfield, Noel Nagle, and Liam Courtney, had been musical friends from childhood. In August 1964, Brian's brother Derek Warfield joined the band, and in November 1964 Tommy Byrne replaced Courtney, creating the band's most recognizable line-up, which would last for nearly 37 years until January 2001.

1964–2001
In 1989, a contract was signed by Derek Warfield, signing rights to an American distributor, Shanachie Records. The contents of this contract were apparently misrepresented to the other members of the band, resulting in a clause that prevented them from recording any new material. Unable to reverse this agreement, they continued to tour, albeit without any new material.

In 1995, Derek Warfield released a solo studio album entitled Legacy as he was still eligible to record under his own name. With Derek on vocals and mandolin, the music on this album was performed by a new band, although he was still touring with the Wolfe Tones. Derek's solo releases continued annually until 2006.

In 2001, after a show played in Limerick, Derek Warfield departed the band to concentrate on his own career, setting up a band called Derek Warfield and The Young Wolfetones. Calling themselves "Brian Warfield, Tommy Byrne and Noel Nagle, formerly of the Wolfe Tones" the three would later go on to release "You'll Never Beat the Irish", "Child of Destiny" and new material to mark the 1916 commemoration with songs such as “light a penny candle” and “the road to the rising.”

2001–present
The Wolfe Tones continued to tour, but as a three-piece band comprising Brian Warfield, Noel Nagle and Tommy Byrne.

The Wolfe Tones celebrated their 45th anniversary with a special event at the Waterfront Hall, Belfast, on 26 October 2008, which was also filmed for a documentary. In 2014 they celebrated their 50th anniversary by performing at the Citywest Hotel and Conference Centre in a series of Easter weekend concerts.

In 2018, they headlined the Féile an Phobail in West Belfast to a sell-out audience of over 12,000 people and were inducted into the Barrowlands hall of fame for their contribution to music. At the end of each December, the Wolfe Tones perform three concerts at Dublin's Citywest Hotel.

In 2022–2023, the band played sell-out shows in the Olympia Theatre, Dublin, the INEC Ireland, Broadway (Manhattan) in New York,the Atheneum Chicago, and most notably Electric Picnic.

However, they announced their retirement in 2023, with a 60th-anniversary tour to conclude their career. As well as gigs in the US, there will be concerts at Galway Airport, Castlebar, Co. Mayo and in the 3Arena, with the band's final gig taking place in Belfast in October 2024.

Notable works
The song "Irish Eyes" was written by Brian Warfield as a paean for his mother Kathleen who died of cancer the year prior to its release. A song about emigration to London entitled "My Heart is in Ireland" became a number 2 hit for the band. The song Celtic Symphony was written by Warfield in 1987 for the centenary of Celtic Football Club. Other famous songs written by the group include "Joe McDonnell", a song about the life and death of the Provisional IRA member Joe McDonnell, who was the fifth person to die on the 1981 Hunger Strike; and "The Protestant Men", a song about notable Protestant Irish nationalists. The band also covered "The Streets of New York", written by Liam Reilly from Bagatelle who was inspired by stories of the Tones' friendship with the NYPD. Warfield also penned his rendition of "The Helicopter Song", which was written by Sean (Jobby) Mc Ginley. "The Helicopter Song" stands as the fastest-selling single of all time in Ireland, shooting straight to number one in 1974 as a result of the escape from Mountjoy Jail.

Footballer James McClean (of Sunderland at the time) attracted criticism when he tweeted that he listened to their rendition of "The Broad Black Brimmer" before a match, a song in which a son learns of how his father was killed in fighting for the IRA. He was told by club manager Martin O'Neill to refrain from using Twitter.

In 2002, after an allegedly orchestrated e-mail campaign by fans to "try and mess it up" their rendition of "A Nation Once Again" by Thomas Osborne Davis was voted the number one song of all time in a BBC World Service poll. The BBC hosts an artist's page for the band that includes excerpts of their songs.

The band's 1982 hit "Admiral William Brown" pays homage to the Irish-born Argentine naval hero William Brown.

In January 2020, the band's version of "Come Out Ye Black and Tans" reached No. 1 on the Ireland and UK iTunes charts, following criticism of the Irish government's planned commemoration of the RIC, as part of its 'Decade of Commemoration'. As a result of this, on 10 January, the song entered the Irish Singles Chart at No. 33 and also debuted at No. 1 in the Scottish Singles Chart.

Members

 * Current members
 * Noel Nagle – tin whistle, low whistle, uileann pipes, vocals (1963–present)
 * Brian Warfield – banjo, whistle, harp, piano, guitars, bodhran, vocals (1963–present)
 * Tommy Byrne – guitars, vocals (1964–present)

 * Former members
 * Liam Courtney – guitars, vocals (1963–1964)
 * Derek Warfield – mandolin, vocals (1964–2001)

Discography

 * Studio albums

 * The Foggy Dew (1965)
 * Up the Rebels (1966)
 * The Rights of Man (1968)
 * Rifles of the I.R.A. (1970)
 * Let the People Sing (1972)
 * 'Till Ireland a Nation (1974)
 * Irish to the Core (1976)
 * Across the Broad Atlantic (1976)
 * Belt of the Celts (1978)
 * Spirit of the Nation (1981)
 * As Gaeilge (1982)
 * A Sense of Freedom (1983)
 * Profile (1985)
 * Sing Out for Ireland (1987)
 * 25th Anniversary (1989)
 * You'll Never Beat the Irish (2001)
 * The Troubles (2004)
 * Child of Destiny (2011)
 * The Dublin Rebellion 1916 (2016)

title: The Wolfe Tones


text:
Altona, Victoria

Altona is a suburb in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 13 km south-west of Melbourne's Central Business District,  located within the City of Hobsons Bay local government area. Altona recorded a population of 11,490 at the.

Altona is a large suburb consisting of low density residential in the south-eastern half and mixed industry in the north-western half. A feature of the suburb is Altona Beach, which is one of only two swimming beaches in the western suburbs (the other being Williamstown Beach).

Altona takes its name from the then-independent German city of Altona which is today a borough of Hamburg.

History

Prior to arrival of Europeans, the Altona area was home to Kurung-Jang-Balluk Aboriginal people, of the Woiwurrung clan.

Altona was first permanently settled in 1842, with the construction of The Homestead by Alfred Langhorne. The name 'Altona' first appeared on maps in 1861. It was named by Frederick Taegtow, a German who hailed from Altona, then a town just outside of Hamburg. Taegtow believed that coal was to be found in the area, and in 1881 he formed the Williamstown (Taegtow) Prospecting Company. From 1886, housing in the Altona and Merton Street estates was sold, and by 1901 the Victorian Government owned an explosives reserve in the west of Altona.

On 20 February 1911, J. J. Hammond flew the first cross country flight between towns in Australia from Altona Bay to Geelong in Victoria, and on 23 February, also at Altona Bay, he undertook the first powered passenger flight in Australia.

Coal mining formed the basis of the local economy from 1908 to 1919. However, this was brought to an end in 1930 when open cut mining was developed in the Latrobe Valley.

By 1918 the population was sufficient to justify a Post Office which opened on 14 January 1918.

Following the Second World War Altona received a large influx of immigrants, primarily from the Mediterranean, Central Europe and a smaller number from the Middle East.

From 1862 Altona was a town in the Shire of Werribee, but in 1957, the Altona Riding of the Shire, which included Altona itself as well as Altona North and Altona Meadows, was severed, and became the City of Altona in 1968. This was merged into the City of Hobsons Bay in June 1994 under local government amalgamations undertaken by the Kennett government.

Politics

On 24 June 2010, Altona became home to Australia's first female prime minister, Julia Gillard, a then resident of Altona. Gillard was voted in by the governing Australian Labor Party to replace Kevin Rudd as its leader, making her Australia's 27th Prime Minister.

Population
According to the, there were 10,762 people in Altona, with 64.6% of Altona residents born in Australia. The next most common countries of birth were England 4.8%, New Zealand 2.3%, Malta 2.1%, India 1.7% and Italy 1.6%. 73.3% of residents only spoke English at home. Other languages spoken at home included Italian 2.3%, Maltese 2.2%, Mandarin 1.7%, Vietnamese 1.3% and Greek 1.3%. The most common responses for religion in were No Religion 33.2%, Catholic 30.5% and Anglican 8.9%.

Parks and gardens

Altona has many significant parks and gardens, including some important environmental conservation areas and wetlands along the shores of Port Phillip. These are also used by visitors and residents recreationally and include a long promenade along the bay. Notable areas include:
 * Kororoit Creek
 * Cherry Lake
 * Altona Coastal Park
 * Truganina Coastal Parklands

Education
Altona has four primary schools consisting of Altona Primary School, Seaholme Primary School, Altona College (a merger between the former Altona Secondary College and Altona West Primary School) and St. Mary's Catholic Primary School. The secondary schools include Mount St. Joseph Girls' College and Altona College (Altona Secondary College changed its name in 2007 to Altona P-9 College, then in 2019 included years 10-12).

Altona has a library branch, which contains the Environmental Resources Centre. This centre provides the community with access to media related to environmental initiatives in Hobsons Bay, including Industry Environment Improvement Plans from local industry.

Culture
The Altona Beach Festival is a free event held annually at the Logan Reserve precinct, (located on the Esplanade and includes the Logan Reserve parklands, part of Pier Street and the Esplanade), to promote and celebrate Hobsons Bay and the western suburbs. The festival includes a twilight street parade, beach market, double-decker bus tour, professional entertainers, RAAF fly-overs and fireworks off the Altona Pier.

The Altona Beach Festival was previously known as the Bayside Festival and also Operation Recreation, and some residents still refer to it by one of these names. The 30th anniversary of the festival was held in 2007. It enjoyed a brief period of heightened prominence in 2002 when it was featured on the Channel 9 travel program Postcards in a segment hosted by Geoff Cox. Scouts Australia is a major feature of the parade and the many community activities that take place close to the beach front.

The Altona City Theatre is a production company based in the Altona Civic Theatre, producing two major musicals and a smaller pantomime annually. The pantomime coincides with the Bayside Festival and was originally intended as an outlet for young directors.

Scouts Australia has two groups in Altona. The 1st Altona Scout Group runs from the Scout Hall. The 4th Altona Scout Group are located at the Pines, an old camp owned by the City of Hobsons Bay.

Sport

Altona is home to many sporting clubs including Australian rules football, soccer, hockey, basketball, cricket and lacrosse. Melbourne Ballpark is a baseball complex in the west of Altona.

Altona is represented by many sporting teams, including the Altona Magic soccer team which competes in the Victorian State League Division 1, the third tier in Australia behind the A-League and the Victorian Premier League. Altona City SC plays in Victorian State League Division 2 N/W.

Altona has an Australian Rules football team competing in the Western Region Football League.

The Altona Roosters complete in the Victorian Rugby League, and play home games at Loft Reserve, in neighbouring Newport.

Golfers play at the course of the Kooringal Golf Club on Wilga Avenue.

The area of Altona beach directly west of Altona Pier is one of Melbourne's most popular spots for kitesurfing.

Trains
Altona has two railway stations; Altona and Westona, both of which are on the Altona Loop. This is one of the two lines that runs between Newport and Laverton stations (the other being a Newport direct Express to Laverton track that operates along the former Geelong railway line, located along the northern boundary of Altona). Early morning and late night services to Werribee, as well as all weekend services, run via the Altona loop. At other times, the Altona loop is serviced by Laverton services.

Bus

 * Route 411: Laverton station to Footscray (via Altona Meadows and Altona)
 * Route 412: Laverton station to Footscray (via Altona Meadows and Altona)
 * Route 415: Laverton station to Williamstown (via Altona)
 * Route 903: Altona to Mordialloc (SMARTBUS Service)
 * Route 944: City to Point Cook (Night Bus Service)

Other
The Hobsons Bay Coastal Trail, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians, follows the coast through Altona. It links up with a path around Cherry Lake. Most major roads have on-road cycleways.

Industry

Local industry includes petrochemical storage, manufacturing and distribution. The Altona Petrochemical Complex was established in the early 1960s, utilising feedstocks from the nearby Altona Refinery, and later the Bass Strait gas fields, to produce a wide range of products for the chemical and plastics industry. The complex grew to become the largest petrochemical installation in the southern hemisphere and included major global chemical companies such as Dow Chemicals, Union Carbide, Hoechst, BF Goodrich and BASF. This was a major environmental concern to residents in the 1970s and 1980s. Strict environmental controls and local projects involving industry, government and environmental groups have reduced these concerns, cleaning up coastal areas that were once neglected.

The Toyota Australia Altona Plant is located in the neighbouring suburb of Altona North. The plant built Camrys and Aurions, 80% of which were for the world market. The plant was closed in 2017.

Notable residents

 * Julia Gillard – was an Altona resident while serving as Australia's 27th Prime Minister
 * Adrian Tantari - Queensland politician, born in Altona

title: Altona, Victoria


text:
Talk:W. D. Hamilton

Opening sentence
The opening sentence sounds like Richard Dawkins' opinion is important in assessing someone's contribution to evolutionary biology, but Hamilton's scientific achievements dwarf those of Dawkins (and I am no Dawkins basher). Rewrite? 129.215.91.27 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

An un-refed and not v g summary
I've deleted "Although the theory can be proven mathematically, to date no empirical studies have calculated values for R, B, and C to determine if Hamilton's rule is ever satisfied in nature. After more than 40 years, some scientists claim that the theory remains unconfirmed, although predictions based upon it are largely supported. Because B and C represent gains and losses, it is impossible to compare actual gains and losses with the possible ones that would result from an alternate history. Statisticians, however, argue that such comparisons can be made between similar families in which different versions of history play out." because it's un-refed and not a very good summary. "can be proven mathematically" is far too strong, indeed Nowak, Tarnita and Wilson basically dis-proved it mathematically. But it can certainly be shown to work mathematically under a range of suitable conditions. But then "no empirical studies have calculated values for R, B, and C to determine if Hamilton's rule is ever satisfied in nature" is also far too strong. There are some quite good papers that go a long way towards this, but at NTW notes its a very complex area and almost impossible to get good enough definitions of r B C to be sure. So best left out altogether for now I think. NBeale (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Need a separate section for Personal Life
This article could use a separate section for Hamilton's personal life. Currently, such information is scattered about in various places in the article. Memills (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on W. D. Hamilton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110111040829/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=CarGlas.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=CarGlas.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on W. D. Hamilton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=CarGlas.sgm&images=images%2Fmodeng&data=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Fmodeng%2Fparsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080318185801/http://www.unifr.ch/biol/ecology/hamilton/hamilton.html to http://www.unifr.ch/biol/ecology/hamilton/hamilton.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040404173032/http://www.mamiraua.org.br/4-2-1.html to http://www.mamiraua.org.br/4-2-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:W. D. Hamilton


text:
Cootie

Cootie may refer to:

People

 * Cootie Stark (1927–2005), American blues guitarist, singer, and songwriter
 * Cootie Williams (1911–1985), American jazz, jump blues, and rhythm and blues trumpeter

Slang

 * Cootie, a slang term for head lice infestation
 * Cootie, an alternate name for a sideswiper manual telegraph key
 * Cooter Brown, or Cootie Brown, a name used in metaphors and similes for drunkenness in the Southern United States

Other

 * The Game of Cootie

title: Cootie


text:
Brooklyn, Victoria

Brooklyn is a suburb in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 10 km west of Melbourne's Central Business District, located within the Cities of Brimbank and Hobsons Bay local government areas. Brooklyn recorded a population of 1,979 at the 2021 census.

Demographics
According to the the population of Brooklyn is 1,856, approximately 47.6% females and 52.4% males.

The median/average age of the people in Brooklyn is 33 years.

56.2% of people living in the suburb of Brooklyn were born in Australia. The other top responses for country of birth were 4.1% Vietnam, 3.3% Italy, 2.8% China, 3.6% New Zealand, 2.3% and 2.4% India.

55% of people living in Brooklyn speak English only. The other top languages spoken are 5.1% Vietnamese, 4.3% Italian, 3.6% Cantonese, 2.7% Mandarin and 2.4% Arabic.

Religious affiliations in Brooklyn are 30.9% no religion, 24.9% Catholic, 7.3% Islam, 4.6% Eastern Orthodox.

Transport

 * Route 232: Altona North – City (Queen Victoria Market)
 * Route 411: Laverton Station – Footscray (via Altona Meadows and Altona)
 * Route 412: Laverton Station – Footscray (via Altona Meadows and Altona)
 * Route 414: Laverton Station – Footscray
 * Route 903: Altona – Mordialloc (SMARTBUS service)

Industry
Brooklyn is largely an industrial suburb, with a small pocket of low-density residential in the south. The industrial area features a landfill and recycling centre, offices for numerous logistics organisations, including CEVA Logistics, and distribution centres for HAG Import Corporation and Novo Shoes, as well as car dealerships, wreckers and auction centres.

The former Huntsman (chemical plant) in Somerville Road is located in Brooklyn and is now heritage listed.

The Newport – Sunshine freight railway line also runs through the suburb.

The company featured in the mockumentary Kenny (2006), Splashdown, is located in Brooklyn.

Other features
The Federation Trail is a shared use path for cyclists and pedestrians, which starts in Brooklyn on Millers Road.

Other parks and reserves in the area include D.N. Duane Reserve, Rowan Avenue Reserve, Kororoit Creek Reserve and Brooklyn Reserve, the latter of which features a playground, dog park and barbecue area.

Other amenities in the residential part of Brooklyn include a Community Centre and Tennis Courts on Cypress Avenue, as well as small shopping strips on Geelong Road and Eames Avenue.

There are also multiple adult entertainment venues operating in Brooklyn, including Club 741 located on Geelong Road.

Environmental issues
Early 2021, a fire started in a recycling facility in Old Geelong Road. The site handles different types of waste including e-waste and green waste and serves as a transfer station. The fire was contained by Fire Rescue Victoria the same morning. Some localised smoke impacts were reported by EPA Victoria and as the wind blew the smoke towards Altona North and southern suburbs, local communities received an advice message.

title: Brooklyn, Victoria


text:
Laverton, Victoria

Laverton established in 1886, is a suburb of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 17 km south-west of Melbourne's Central Business District, located within the Cities of Hobsons Bay and Wyndham local government areas. Laverton recorded a population of 4,760 at the 2021 census.

It was home to the RAAF Base (RAAF Williams), and covers 148 ha in the suburb of Laverton. Laverton was originally established to support the greater rate of flying and maintenance activities after the formation of the RAAF in 1921. Many homes in the surrounding area were colloquially called the “cabbage patch”, in reference to the boom of young families after the return of soldiers from WWII. Fences in the area also used to be low (below 1m) to originally form a shared community with no fence at the front. This style has recently been changed particularly on the main arterials throughout Laverton with higher fences being built in line with local council building policies. The military airfield at RAAF Williams, Laverton was decommissioned and has now been developed into a new suburb – Williams Landing. The Laverton base and airfield was established by the Royal Australian Air Force on 01 March 1926, and is the third oldest RAAF base in Australia. Home to No 1 Aircraft Depot between 1926 and 1994, Laverton has also housed flying units, Support and Training Command Headquarters, No 6 RAAF Hospital and training and administrative functions. The airfield was officially closed in 1996 and subsequently sold for suburban housing development.

Laverton Swim and Fitness Centre (LSFC), originally called Laverton Memorial Swimming Pool, was proudly funded by the residents and Werribee Shire council (who owned the suburb of Laverton prior to 2014 handover to Hobsons Bay City Council). It opened in June 1976 and was dedicated to those who had served in various conflicts in which Australia had been involved. A WWII memorial plaque was installed, however removed or possibly stolen and is to be replaced with an identical plaque in 2022. A petition was launched by Laverton Residents in 2020, in support by Wetlands Ward Councillors as part of their campaign to be voted in, however a decision by the previous council in 2021 was made to close the pool, supported by the Wetlands Ward councillors in 2022, to instead build a new state-of-the-art pool in the neighbouring suburb of Altona Meadows for $60m as part of the Western Aquatic Strategy 2019-2030. The feasibility of this project to break ground at the new site of Bruce Comben Reserve, Altona Meadows - is to be reviewed by February 2023.

Other notable Laverton facilities are the Woods Street Art Space, The Hub community Centre and many up and coming new restaurants and cafes with upgrades planned to support the growth of the suburb (7,500 by 2031 up from approximately 4,700 as per 2021 census).

Laverton is home to the Melbourne Ballpark state baseball stadium, which hosts several national events each year, including home games of the Melbourne aces who compete in the Australian Baseball League. The facility resides on what is known as the Altona Meadows side of the M1 freeway.

Laverton is connected to the Werribee railway line at Laverton station and Aircraft station.

Laverton is serviced by a network of primary and secondary state arterial roads, including major arterials such as the Princes Freeway, where there is an entry ramp via Point Cook Road (Aviation Road), and 5 exits into and out of Laverton.

Replacement of the railway crossing with a bridge at Aircraft station was finished in 2019 and future potential works to reroute traffic from and to Point Cook Road, which is predominantly used by city bound Point Cook residents travelling by vehicle.

History

Laverton's history starts in 1886 when the sale of land in the suburb was promoted by Staples Wise and Company. The first station to be opened beyond Newport on the way to Geelong was Laverton station, in the same year. Laverton Post Office opened on 9 April 1888. Today Aircraft station is nearby, named from the Williams Laverton RAAF base, opened in 1921, seven years after a base was established at Point Cook.

In the 1950s, a second primary school was built in Laverton, having over 900 students in 1966. Two more primary schools and a high school were established around this time. There is a police station near Laverton railway station.

In 1959, the Victorian Housing Commission acquired large land to build for pilots working at the RAAF base, with this the population grew and more schools opened and constructed a shopping strip that’s near Laverton station

Demographics
In the 2011 census the population of Laverton was 4,065, approximately 47.4% female and 52.6% male. The median/average age of the people in Laverton is 31 years of age.

47.1% of people living in the suburb of Laverton were born in Australia. The other top responses for country of birth were 14.0% India, 4.7% Burma, 2.6% Philippines, 2.4% New Zealand, 2.4% England, 2.3% Thailand, 1.6% China, 1.5% Vietnam, 0.8% Scotland, 0.5% Nepal, 0.5% Cambodia, 0.5% Sudan, 0.5% Italy, 0.5% Ethiopia.

51.7% of people living in Laverton speak English only. The other top languages spoken are 12.7% Other, 7.9% Punjabi, 5.5% Language spoken at home not stated, 2.8% Hindi, 1.9% Arabic, 1.8% Other, 1.8% Vietnamese, 1.4% Mandarin, 1.3% Spanish.

The religious makeup of Laverton is 22.8% Catholic, 17.9% No religion, 8.5% Anglican, 8.3% Religious affiliation not stated, 7.7% Other Religious Groups, 7.6% Baptist, 6.8% Hinduism, 3.7% Islam, 3.2% Buddhism, 2.8% Eastern Orthodox.

Train
Laverton is home to two train stations; Aircraft Station and Laverton Station, both of which are serviced by trains on the Werribee railway line.

Bus

 * Route 400: Sunshine Station to Laverton Station
 * Route 411: Laverton Station to Footscray (via Altona Meadows and Altona)
 * Route 412: Laverton Station to Footscray (via Altona Meadows and Altona)
 * Route 414: Laverton Station to Footscray
 * Route 415: Laverton Station to Williamstown (via Altona)
 * Route 417: Laverton Station to Laverton Station (via Laverton North)
 * Route 496: Laverton Station to Sanctuary Lakes
 * Route 498: Laverton Station to Hoppers Crossing Station
 * Route 903: Altona to Mordialloc (SMARTBUS Service)

Royal Australian Air Force bases
Laverton was the home to RAAF Base Laverton. The base is no longer used for operational flying. In 2008 the base became part of the new suburb of Williams Landing. For administrative purposes, it is now merged with the former RAAF Base Point Cook as RAAF Base Williams. Point Cook is home to the RAAF Museum, where visitors can see many different types of historical RAAF aircraft. RAAF Williams is also home to the Laverton depot of the Australian Army Reserves 8/7 Battalion of the Royal Victorian Regiment.

Scouts
Laverton was home to the 1st Laverton Air Scout group which began in approximately 1952. In the past, it was an active 'Air Scout' Group given the local RAAF base. The group currently has Joey Scouts, Cub Scouts and Scouts. It met in a hall on railway land near the Laverton railway station. This hall was also used by local sports clubs and gets hired out for parties. 1st Laverton Scout Group has been dissolved and permanently closed.

Laverton was also home to 2nd Laverton Scout Group, which began in 1970. This group has a hall at Lawrie Emmins Reserve and since 2014, hasn't been 2nd Laverton, they became Williams. Williams is a smaller, lesser known group with a lot less members than other Scout Groups in Werribee Plains District.

Sport
The suburb has an Australian rules football team (Laverton Magpies) competing in the Western Region Football League.

The Laverton Cricket Club is also based at Laverton Park. It currently has five senior teams and a large number of junior sides.

Golfers play at the course of the RAAF Williams Golf Club.

A skate park, based at McCormick Park, caters to skaters and BMX riders.

title: Laverton, Victoria


text:
Newport, Victoria

Newport is a suburb in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 10 km south-west of Melbourne's Central Business District, located within the City of Hobsons Bay local government area. Newport recorded a population of 13,658 at the 2021 census.

Newport is approximately 10 minutes by car from Melbourne via the West Gate Freeway or a 20-minute train journey from Flinders Street.

History
The Yalukit-willam people of the Boon-wurrung Country are the traditional owners of land known as Newport, with a well researched connection to the area beyond 30,000 years. First contact came with European sealers (1803–1834) and followed a pattern of violence typical across Australia at the time. In 1835, the arrival of John Batman saw a treaty established and a period of relative peace. However, despite this the plight of the Australian Aborigines was dire, as they were increasingly denied ownership and access to their lands.

European settlement began in Newport at what was then called Williamstown Junction around 1862, with a Telegraph Office and Post Office by 1869. It was renamed Newport in 1881. The Newport Railway Workshops played a key role in the development of the suburb, formerly the main workshops of the Victorian Railways. The workshops are just south of the Newport railway station. The Newport Power Station is another feature of the suburb, the chimney of which remains one of the tallest towers in Melbourne at 183 metres. The original coal-fired generators were replaced in 1981 with a single 500MW gas-fired generator and operates during peak-load periods.

Today
Newport is home to people of a diverse mix of ethnic, social and economic backgrounds. It has a Mosque, a Baptist church, Catholic schools, tattoo parlours, Asian and Italian restaurants, sports clubs, boutique wine bars and an RSL. It has 12 playgrounds within just 5 km2. The Substation community arts centre provides a hub for local live music performances, art exhibitions, community events and the monthly artists market. The Newport Folk Festival is held each year in June. Major natural features of the suburb include the Newport Lakes, Greenwich Bay and the Sandy Point Conservation area. Fishing, bike riding, skateboarding, kayaking and boating are popular local activities.

Recreation
Newport Lakes Park is a bushland oasis created from a former bluestone quarry. The park is 33 hectares in size and has been extensively revegetated using native plants, with over 200 species of plants and 85 species of birds recorded here. The park has a picnic area, toilets, drinking taps and free electric barbecues. Dogs may be exercised in the Pavey's Park and Picnic Area, the north west area of the park and in the Arboretum.

Paisley Park is the major sporting park in Hobsons Bay and includes a gymnasium & swimming pool, golf course, premier league soccer facility, bowling club, badminton centre, miniature railway and lacrosse fields. It is located on the corner of Mason Street and Mills Street, Newport, and shares a boundary with Altona North.

Greenwich Reserve and The Strand are Newport's connection to the Bay. Mansions and modest apartments compete for uninterrupted views of the Melbourne CBD along The Strand, while Greenwich Reserve offers access to the Yarra River and Port Phillip Bay via The Warmies Boat Ramp and includes a large picnic area, playground, baseball field and the Sandy Point Conservation Area. A sealed cycle track runs along the river front, which is also a popular fishing spot.

Bryan Martyn Oval is home to the Newport Digman Cricket Club, Newport Power junior football and netball club and includes the recently completed Bryan Martyn Pavilion. A children's playground is provided. It is located on Derwent Street, Newport.

Newport Park includes an athletics facility featuring an eight lane 400m running track, the Graham Morrish Pavilion with toilets, canteen and first aid rooms and the Newport Skate Park, which is the largest in Hobsons Bay and hosts regular 'skate clinics'. A children's playground is provided. It is located on the corner of The Strand and Douglas Parade, Newport.

Loft Reserve has 2 full size ovals, practice nets and a playground. It is located on Grieves Street, Newport.

Newport Bowls Club, located in Market Street, hosts both serious competition and barefoot bowling, clubhouse and bar.

Digman Reserve is home to the Newport Digman Cricket Club and Gellibrand Cricket Club and is located on Hobson Street, Newport.

The Newport Rams Baseball Club is based at the KC White Reserve in North Williamstown.

Scouts Australia run the 2nd Newport Scout group from a historic wooden hall (1938) next door to the Newport RSL on Market Street, Newport.

Train
Newport is home to one train station, Newport station, which is serviced by trains on the Werribee and Williamstown railway lines.

Bus

 * Route 432: Newport to Yarraville (via Altona Gate Shopping Centre)
 * Route 471: Williamstown to Sunshine Station (via Newport and Altona Gate Shopping Centre)
 * Route 472: Williamstown to Moonee Ponds (via Footscray)
 * Route 947: Newport to Footscray via Altona North (Night Bus Service)

Other

 * The Bay Trail, a shared cycle track runs along the Yarra River from the West Gate Bridge through Newport to Williamstown, Altona Beach and on to Altona Meadows in the west.
 * The Punt, a foot ferry across the Yarra for pedestrians and bicycles, operates between Scienceworks and Port Melbourne, travelling under the West Gate Bridge.
 * Federation Trail, a 25 km dedicated cycle track, runs from Brooklyn to Werribee and is 5 km north of Newport connected by the Bay Trail and the partially complete extension from Brooklyn to Melbourne Rd.

Education
Hobsons Bay Council operates two kindergartens in Newport, Home Road Kindergarten and Newport Gardens Early Years Centre.

Schools include Newport Gardens Primary School (formerly Hobsons Bay), Newport Lakes Primary School], Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School and Bayside Secondary College.

Victoria University maintains a campus in Newport, which focuses on automotive, metal fabrication, building and electrical trades. The Newport campus hosts the Centre for Curriculum Innovation and Development.

The Newport Maternal and Child Health Centre is located within the Newport Early Years Centre.

Culture
The Substation

Formerly known as The Hobsons Bay Community Arts Centre, The Substation is a contemporary, community-based arts centre located in the historic Newport substation building, adjacent to the Newport Railway Station on Market Street. Originally constructed in 1915 to convert electricity for the Victorian Railways, this massive neo-classical brick building had fallen into disrepair by the 1960s. Local residents embarked on the enormous task of restoring the building and converting it into a community arts facility and after 12 years of work it officially opened its doors to the public in 2008.

Regular events include the annual Substation Contemporary Art Prize, the Carpark Fiesta, the monthly Artists' Market, the Koori Night Market, children's theatre, Westside Circus, dance classes, life-drawing, public forums, an art exhibition program across 5 gallery spaces and a diverse range of performance including cabaret, comedy, jazz and contemporary music.

Newport Folk Festival

The Newport Folk Festival is an annual music event held over 3 days in July organised by the Newport Fiddle and Folk Club.

Australian Islamic Centre

The Australian Islamic Centre is an initiative by the Newport Islamic Society and is located in Newport. It was designed by world-renowned architect Glenn Murcutt and opened in 2016.

Notable people

 * Bob Addison, Australian rules footballer
 * Andrew Barlow, cricket umpire
 * Dick Bliss, Australian rules footballer
 * Nicky Bomba, musician
 * Bill Brown, Australian rules footballer
 * Harry Dern, Australian rules footballer
 * George Fewster, politician
 * Mama Kin, musician
 * Luke Mathews, middle distance runner
 * Doug Menzies, Australian rules footballer
 * Harry Neill, Australian rules footballer
 * Kevin O'Brien, Australian rules footballer
 * Frank O'Connor, Australian rules footballer
 * Charlie Page, Australian rules footballer
 * Ray Scriven, Australian rules footballer
 * Reginald Sturgess, artist
 * Mark Tandy, Australian rules footballer
 * Stan Whight, Australian rules footballer

title: Newport, Victoria