mini|desno|300px|Kosi toranj u Pisi gdje je Galileo Galilei utvrdio da je ubrzanje bilo kojega padajućeg tijela na površini Zemlje konstantno i da je jednako za sva tijela.

mini|desno|300px|Galileo pred Rimskom inkvizicijom.

Galileo Galilei, punim imenom Galileo di Vincenzo Bonaiuti de' Galilei (Pisa, 15. veljače 1564. – Arcetri, 8. siječnja 1642.), bio je talijanski matematičar, fizičar, astronom i filozof. Nakon završenih medicinskih studija, posvetio se proučavanju geometrije i Arhimedovih djela, te postao jedan od najvećih fizičara i astronoma. Promatrajući njihanje svijećnjaka u pisanskoj katedrali, već kao student otkrio je izokroničnost njihala (izokronizam titranja je neovisnost periode titraja o amplitudi vlastitih titraja nekoga titrajnog sustava). Bio je profesor matematike u Pisi (od 1589. do 1592.), Padovi (od 1592. do 1610.), a od 1610. opet u Pisi. Za boravka u Padovi uglavnom se bavio problemima mehanike: proučavao je slobodni pad, gibanje niz kosinu, vodoravni hitac, istraživao izokronizam a zatim, proučavajući toplinsko rastezanje tekućina, konstruirao prvi termoskop. Samo na osnovu nepouzdanih opisa izuma nizozemskog optičara Hansa Lippersheya koji su do njega došli konstruirao je jedan od prvih teleskopa. Godine 1609. demonstrirao je rad svog teleskopa s vrha zvonika Svetoga Marka u Veneciji a ubrzo ga je, među prvima, uperio prema nebu.

Korištenjem teleskopa započelo je plodno razdoblje Galileijevih astronomskih istraživanja i došla jedno za drugim značajna otkrića: Mliječna staza pokazala se kao golem skup zvijezda slaba sjaja; Mjesečeva površina pokazala se izbrazdanom dolinama i brjegovima; oko Jupitera kruže četiri satelita (Galilejanski mjeseci); Venera pokazuje mijene kao i Mjesec (Venerine mijene); na Sunčevoj površini vide se pjege (Sunčeve pjege). Prva svoja astronomska otkrića objavio je 1610. u djelu Vjesnik zviježđa (lat. Siderius nuncius). Zalaganje za Kopernikov sustav, kao jedini točan i istinit, dovelo je Galileija u sukob s crkvenim naučavanjem, pa mu je odlukom Inkvizicije 1616. bilo zabranjeno naučavanje da se Zemlja giba oko Sunca i da je ono središte svijeta. Iako je obećao da će odustati od svojeg uvjerenja, nije mogao, potaknut otkrićima do kojih je došao, odustati od znanstvene istine, pa je u svojem djelu Dijalog o dvama glavnim svjetskim sustavima, ptolemejskom i kopernikanskom… (tal. Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo, tolemaico e copernicano…, Firenca, 1632.) izložio heliocentrični sustav. To je djelo Crkva odmah ocijenila kao heretičko. Dosljednost Galileijeva da iznosi i brani znanstvenu istinu izazvala je oštru reakciju. U Rimu, u prostorijama Inkvizicije, održan je proces protiv Galileija (1633.), koji je tada bio u sedamdesetoj godini života. U progonstvu, lišen slobode i odvojen od svijeta, pod stalnim nadzorom Inkvizicije, dovršio je svoje najveće djelo o mehanici započeto još u padovanskom razdoblju Razgovori i matematički prikazi dvaju novih znanja u mehanici (tal. Discorsi e dimonstrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze, Leiden, 1638.), kojim je udario temelje klasičnoj mehanici. U njem je izložio zakone slobodnoga pada, uveo pojam ubrzanja, obradio gibanje niz kosinu, vodoravni hitac i tako dalje. Tim djelom uveo je Galilei eksperimentalnu metodu istraživanja i matematičko formuliranje eksperimentom utvrđenih zakonitosti te time položio temelje modernoj fizici.

Nakon smrti crkvene vlasti nisu dopustile da mu se podigne nadgrobni spomenik. Tek 1737. položen je u zajednički grob sa svojim učenikom V. Vivianijem i tada mu je podignut nadgrobni spomenik, a 16. travnja 1757. skinuta je zabrana s Galileijevih djela, u kojima on zastupa načelo pomičnosti Zemlje, nasuprot geocentričkomu sustavu, koji je branila Crkva. Prvo kompletno izdanje Galileijevih djela izdano je u Firenci (od 1842. do 1856.) u 16 svezaka.Galilei, Galileo,  "Hrvatska enciklopedija", Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža, www.enciklopedija.hr, 2016.

U okviru znanstvene revolucije odigrao je značajnu ulogu u razvoju moderne znanosti. Unaprijedio je teleskopski instrumentarij i sustavno promatrao nebo, što je za posljedicu imalo otkriće i analizu Jupiterovih satelita, Sunčevih pjega, Mjesečevih kratera i Mliječne staze. Drugi veliki Galilejev doprinos je pozitivan nastavak istraživanja Kopernikovog heliocentričnog sustava, naročito otkrićem Venerinih mijena.Faktopedija, Borovac, I. (ur.), Mozaik knjiga, 2004., str. 32.; usporedi s http://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=24853 Istraživao je također zakonitosti gibanja tijela, zakon gravitacije i začeo ideju principa relativnosti. Zbog napretka u metodologiji znanstvenog eksperimenta i empirijski utemeljenog povezivanja astronomije i kozmologije, Galileja se dogovorno naziva ocem moderne astronomije, ocem moderne fizike,Weidhorn, M, The Person of the Millennium: The Unique Impact of Galileo on World History, iUniverse, 2005., str. 155. ocem znanosti i ocem moderne znanosti.Finocchiaro, Maurice A, "Book Review—The Person of the Millennium: The Unique Impact of Galileo on World History", The Historian 69 (3), 2007., str. 601.–602.

Iako rimokatolik i pionir Papinske akademije znanosti (Accademia dei Lincei),Vinković, K, "Nedemokratski obračun s papom. La Sapienza popustila manjini. Ukupan broj profesora i predavača na Sveučilištu La Sapienza je 4500, peticiju je potpisalo njih 68.", Hrvatsko slovo, 25. siječnja 2008., str. 29. a u mladosti sklon ideji zaređenja, Galileo je inzistiranjem na heliocentričnom sustavu kao ispravnoj astronomskoj teoriji ušao u polemične sukobe s Crkvom i drugim astronomima zbog njihove tadašnje sklonosti klasičnom geocentričnom sustavu, odnosno izostanku dokaza za paralaksu zvijezda, ali i Braheovom sustavu istraživača koji je vlastitim pronalascima konkurirao Galilejevim.Pantin, I, "New Philosophy and Old Prejudices: Aspects of the Reception of Copernicanism in a Divided Europe", Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 30, 2005., str. 237.–262. Pod sumnjom za herezu i optužbom za pokušaj potkopavanja aristotelijanske filozofije prirode i Biblije, Rimska inkvizicija je 1615. godine istražila Galilejev slučaj, potom po zaključku zabranila Galileju da promiče heliocentrični sustav, a njegova istraživanja uvrstila je u popis zabranjenih djela.Sharratt, M, Galileo: Decisive Innovator, Cambridge University Press, 1995., str. 127.-131., McMullin, E, "The Church's Ban on Copernicanism, 1616", u McMullin, E. (ur.), The Church and Galileo, Notre Dame, 2005., str. 150.-190. Nakon bestseller djela iz 1632.  godine Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo, u kojem u obliku dijaloga između učenika i učitelja uspoređuje ptolomejski i kopernikanski sustav i implicitno napada Papu Urbana VIII., protiv Galileja je pokrenut proces koji je doveo do kućnog pritvora,Finocchiaro, Maurice A, Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide, University of California Press, 1997., str. 47.; Hilliam, R, Galileo Galilei: Father of modern science, The Rosen Publishing Group, 2005, str. 96; gdje 1638. dovršava Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche, intorno à due nuove scienze, subverzivno djelo u romanističkom dijalogu, koje kasnije postaje temeljem kinematike.Plotnitsky, A; Reed, D, "Discourse, Mathematics, Demonstration, and Science in Galileo's Discourses Concerning Two New Sciences". Configurations 9 (1), 2001, str. 37.–64. Godine 1992. Papa Ivan Pavao II. službeno je ustanovio pogrešku Rimske inkvizicije, zatražio oprost i tom prilikom pozvao druge na dijalog znanosti i vjere po uzoru na Galilea.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1992/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19921031_accademia-scienze_it.html; usporedi s L'Osservatore Romano, N. 44 (1264), 4. studenog 1992.

 Životopis
 Obrazovanje (1564. – 1589.)

Galileo Galilei je rođen u gradu Pisi u Italiji kao prvo od šestero djece Vincenza Galileia, poznatog svirača lutnje i teoretičara glazbe, i dobrostojeće Giulie Ammannati. U dobi od osam godina obitelj se seli u Firencu i na dvije godine ostavlja Galileja kod Muzija Tebaldija, koji mu je omogućio školovanje u Pisi nakon neuspjele prijave za toskansku školu.Aliotta, A, Carbonara, C, Galilei, Fratelli Bocca Editori, 1949., str. 36. Dvije godine kasnije sastaje se s obitelji i nastavlja učenje najprije pod ocem Vincenzom i tutorom Jacopom Borghinijem, a potom izvan Firence u samostanu Santa Maria di Vallombrosa do četrnaeste godine.http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Galileo.html

Slijedeći oca, Galileo je za rane dobi poučen sviranju i glazbenoj teoriji, što je vjerojatno bio jedan od izvora matematičko-eksperimentalističkog pristupa istraživanjima i skepticizma.Gribbin, J, The Fellowship: Gilbert, Bacon, Harvey, Wren, Newton and the Story of the Scientific Revolution, The Overlook Press, 2008., str. 26. Učenje u samostanu navelo ga je na ozbiljno razmatranje svećenstva, ali je na nagovor oca 1580. otišao studirati medicinu na sveučilištu u Pisi. Motiv su bili čast i financijska sigurnost, ali se Galileo ponio za matematikom i tri je godine kasnije napustio medicinu, da bi 1585. došao i do svog prvog matematičkog otkrića: izokronizma njihala. Nakon studija medicine privatno poučava u Firenci i Sieni, potom od 1589. na sveučilištu u Pisi.

 Sveučilište u Pisi (1589. – 1592.)

Galilejev prijatelj i kolega Guidobaldo Del Monte, omogućio mu je napredak u karijeri preporukom kardinalu Francescu Mariji Del Monte, koji je potom preusmjerio preporuku toskanskom vojvodi Ferdinandu I de' Medici. Galileo je preuzeo katedru matematike u Pisi. Spis De motu antiquiora je rezultat Galilejevih istraživanja koja su postupno počela pobijati Aristotelovu prirodnu filozofiju. Galileo nije imao sasvim jasne dokaze, ali je sve više slutio neispravnost stare teorije.
U tom je razdoblju razvijao praktična rješenja za fizikalno-matematičke probleme poput instrumenta za precizno određivanje gravitacije hidrostatskih tijela.Clarelli, F, Relatività ristretta, Alpha Test, 2010. Općenito, Galileo je zarana morao sudjelovati u financiranju obitelji i mlađeg brata, a nakon smrti oca i udaje sestara, pao je u dugove, što ga je opterećivalo. Manjak novca je vjerojatno bio jedan od motiva za bavljenje izumima koji bi se mogli prodati. Galileo je time stekao vrijedno znanje i kasnije ga primijenio u razvoju svojih astronomijskih proučavanja.
Nakon isteka ugovora u Pisi, Guidobaldo Del Monte preporučio ga je sveučilištu u Padovi za preuzimanje prazne katedre matematike.Vidljivo iz pisma Guidobalda Del Montea, 21. veljače 1591.

 Sveučilište u Padovi (1592. – 1610.)

Padova, dio religijski tolerantnije Mletačke Republike, bilo je mjesto Galilejeva rasta zanimanja za fizikom i astronomijom, a s time i daljnjeg otklona od aristotelijanske filozofije. Galileo je proširio svoja predavanja na fiziku i astronomiju. Dva tadašnja člana mletačkog senata na kojem je sudjelovao, plemića Giovanfrancesca Sareda i teologa, matematičara i astronoma Paola Sarpija iskoristio je za dijaloške likove u Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo. Spis Trattato di meccaniche, izvorno objavljen 1634. u Parizu, potvrđuje njegov rad na mehanici, kinematici i primijenjenoj znanosti. S Marcantonijom Mazzolenijem održavao je praktičku radionicu gdje je razvijao i prodavao instrumentarije, ponajviše za vojsku.

Godine 1604. astronom Ilario Altobeli primijetio je supernovu, kasnije poznatu kao Keplerova supernova, o čemu je Galileo bio obaviješten. Kroz studije i predavanja, Galileo je otkriće supernove smatrao novim dokazom protiv Aristotelove teorije nepromjenjivog neba.Wilson, F, History of Science: Galileo and the Rise of Mechanism, 1996., dostupno na: https://web.archive.org/web/20070617145754/http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/galileo.html (pristupljeno 12. veljače 2014.) Pod pseudonimom Cecco Ronchetti objavio je Dialogo de Checo Ronchitti da Bruzene in Perpuosito de la stella Nuova kao način obrane od kriticizma koji je uslijedio.Biblioteka autorstva dostupna na http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n2010012987.html Nadalje, Galilei je pojavu fenomena supernove i pomutnju među pukom unovčio stvaranjem vlastite astrološke karte,Favaro, A, "Galileo astrologo secondo i documenti editi e inediti", u Mente a Cuore 4, 1881., str. 1.-10. što je između ostaloga rezultiralo i tužbom, potom ugušenom intervencijom Senata Mletačke republike, da ne dospije do Rimske inkvizicije.Poppi, Giuseppe A, La Repubblica, 25. lipanj 1992. Galileo, međutim, nije imao dovoljno čvrste dokaze za heliocentrizam, iako je bio siguran u njega, a kvalitetnije dokaze nije mogao steći bez unaprjeđenja instrumentarija, što je, uz suradnju drugih, potrajalo do 1609. Predstavio je novi teleskop Mletačkoj vlasti i dobio odobrenje za istraživanja. Između 1609. i 1610. postigao je važne rezultate po kojima je danas poznat: otkriće velikih Jupiterovih satelita, analiza Mjesečevih kratera i Mliječne staze.

 Firenca (1610. – 1614.)

Galileo je astronomska otkrića iz 1609. objavio u Firenci u spisu Sidereus Nuncius. S odobrenjem istraživanja nastali su i problemi. Antonio Magnini prvi je porekao Galilejeve pronalaske Jupiterovih satelita nakon korištenja Galilejeva teleskopa. Kasnije, međutim, kada mijenja mišljenje, utječe i na poznatog astronoma Christopha Claviusa. Skeptičan je bio i Johannes Kepler sve dok unaprjeđenjem teleskopa nije provjerio Galileveje tvrdnje, nakon čega 1611. izdaje spis u kojem potvrđuje Galilejev rad. Galileo je usporedno počeo objavljivati istraživanja o Sunčevim pjegama, suprotstavljajući se Christophu Schneineru koji je tvrdio da pjege nisu na Suncu, nego oko njega (1612. Scheiner je o svojim razmatranjima objavio spis). Galileo odlazi u Rim predstaviti svoje pronalaske pred Papu Pavla V., gdje je časno primljen. Međutim, Galileo nije bio svjestan da je, usporedno s njegovim djelovanjem, Crkva pokrenula istragu.Geymonat, L, Galileo Galilei, Torino Einaudi, 1983, str. 63. Iste godine, otkrivanjem mijena Venere i Merkura, Galileo je utvrdio nužnost heliocentričnog sustava.Iovine, F, Galilei e la Nuova Scienza, La Nuova Italia, 1987, str. 2. Između 1612. i 1615. Galileo je napisao četiri poznata Kopernikanska pisma u kojima širi i brani postulat heliocentričnog sustava, a koje je adresirao ocu Benedettu Castelliju, plemiću Pietru Diniju i Velikoj vojvotkinji Christini od Lorrainea. Krajem 1614., dominikanac Tommaso Caccini pred Papom izlaže kolektivnu optužbu protiv probranih matematičara, među njima i protiv Galilea, zbog poticanja kopernikanske ideje koja se suprotstavlja Bibliji. Tužbi za zanemarivanje geocentričnog sustava prilaže upitne navode o Galilejevom osporavanju supstancijalnosti Boga.Pagano, Sergio M, I documenti del processo di Galileo Galilei, Ex aedibus Academicis, 1984, str. 82. Time je započela nova era Galilejeva života.

 Sukob s Crkvom (1614. – 1632.)

Tijekom istrage, teolog Paolo Antonio Foscarini napisao je tekst o mogućnostima podudarnosti heliocentričnog sustava i Biblije kao podršku astronomskim istraživanjima.Foscarini, Paolo A, Lettera sopra l'opinione de' Pittagorici, e del Copernico, della mobilità della Terra e stabilità del Sole, e del nuovo Pittagorico sistema del mondo, Lazaro Scoriggio, 1615, str. 7. Međutim, kardinal Robert Bellarmino, inače član inkvizicije i tijekom suđenja Giordanu Bruni, reagirao je objavom da u slučaju sumnje treba podržavati Bibliju, što je bilo uobičajeno stajalište tadašnje rimokatoličke Europe. Jedna od posljedica bilo je privremeno zatvaranje Foscarinija i zabrana njegova pisma. U međuvremenu je Galileo došao u Rim braniti svoj stav. Godine 1616. na Papin zahtjev o očitovanju problema heliocentrizma, teolozi donose konsenzus o heliocentričnom sustavu kao apsurdnom i heretičnom. Potom, na zahtjev Pape po odluci konsenzusa, kardinal Bellarmino osobno Galileju predaje zahtjev o odricanju stava o heliocentrizmu i prekidu takvog istraživanja. Postoji mogućnost da su informacije u dokumentu koje su se koristile sve do 1933. krivotvorili dominikanci i teolozi na štetu Galileja.Piergiorgio, O, Hai vinto, Galileo, Mondadori, 2009. Galileo je uživao povlastice između krugova suđenja, što se nastavilo sve do kraja njegova života, zbog čega je porastao pritisak vanjskih teoloških krugova i time politički narušilo Galilejeve mogućnosti.

Godine 1618. tri su kometa prošla pored Zemlje. Orasio Grassi istražio je fenomen i donio zaključak o točnosti Tychova sustava, protiv heliocentrizma. Galilei je preko učenika Marija Guiduccija uzvratio u obranu heliocentrizma, na što je Grassi reagirao napadom na kopernikanizam. Galileo je potom nastavio istraživanje heliocentrizma i, ponovno u maskirnoj romanističkoj formi, objavio 1623. Il Saggiatore, na odobrenje Papinske akademije znanosti, u kojoj općenito poništava Grassijeva istraživanja, iako iz pogrešne hipoteze (da su kometi bili iluzija), ali utvrđuje potrebu nadogradnje instrumenata i razvitka eksperimentalne metode, uz ostale detalje mehanike i primijenjene znanosti.

 Sukob s Crkvom (1632. – 1634.)

Nedugo poslije, papinsku stolicu preuzima Pape Urbana VIII., inače sklon Galileju. Godine 1624. Galileo je u Rimu pred Papom pokušao skinuti zabranu istraživanja heliocentrizma, što mu nije pošlo za rukom. Stoga je započeo pisati djelo kojim će razmatrati odnos geocentričnih i heliocentričnih sustava bez unošenja vlastitih stajališta, a koje će biti objavljena 1632. kao Dialogo Sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo. Unatoč općem priznanju djela, proširila se vijest o zabrani knjige na zahtjev Pape, zapravo inkvizicije. Galileo se 1633. ponovo pojavio pred Papom. Ispostavilo se da su istragu ponovo pokrenuli dominikanci, koje je ovoga puta predstavljao Vincenzo Maculano, a koji je u rukama imao navodni spisak o Bellarminijevoj odluci o Galilejevoj zabrani i odricanju heliocentrizma. Postoji opravdana sumnja da je dokument bio krivotvoren. Bellarmini je Galileju dostavio jedan od dokumenata koji odbacuje heliocentrični sustav, ali ne i službenu zabranu govora i rada, sukladno prethodnom dogovoru kojeg su dominikanci ignorirali. Galileo je, zbog vlastitih izmjena kopernikanskog sustava, držao obranu pozivanjem na suprotstavljanje Koperniku,Favaro, A. (ur.), Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Edizione Nazionale, Barbera, XIX, str. 336-342. da bi u narednim suđenjima naglašenije osporavao heliocentrizamIbid. str. 342-343. i na konačnom suđenju, nakon inkvizitorove prijetnje kaznenim metodama u slučaju laži, zaključio da podržava ptolomejski sustav, kao što uvijek jest.Ibid. str. 361. Idući dan, 22. lipnja, kardinal i inkvizicija zabranili su Galilejevo djelo o dva sustava i osudili ga na kućni pritvor u Firenci uz obavezno recitiranje psalama. Zbog naklonosti mnogih ljudi unutar i izvan Crkve, Galileo nije doživio nikakav konkretan oblik mučenja ili poniženja ni tijekom suđenja, niti nakon njega.Ibid str. 402.

 Posljednje godine (1633. – 1642.)
mini|250px|Grobnica u bazilici Santa Croce
U kućnom pritvoru, kojeg je plaćala Crkva, bez zabrane posjećivanja obitelji i službenika ili pismene komunikacije, Galileo je neometano nastavio istraživanje i pisanje, što mu je omogućilo relativno normalan život.Ibid str. 393. Iz pisama je vidljivo da je prezirao situaciju u kojoj se nalazi, odnosno da se nikada nije doista odrekao svojih stajališta. Uzimajući rečeno u obzir, u rekonstrukciji sukoba Galilea i Crkve Giuseppe Baretti tvrdio je da je Galileo po presudi rekao "Eppur si muove!" ("Ipak se kreće!", op. a.). Poznata izjava prije je stvar legende, nego li istine, no svakako nedokaziva.

Godine 1638. u Nizozemskoj je objavio veliki traktat Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze attinenti la mecanica e i moti locali, opus magnum svojih matematičko-fizikalnih istraživanja posljednjih 30 godina, također u obliku razgovora tijekom četiri dana, koje redom razrađuju mehaniku materijala, kohezivnost, dinamiku (zakona kretanja) i balistiku. U razvoju metodologije poslužio se Aristotelovim, Arhimedovim i Platonovim rješenjima.Wallace, Willam A, "Galileo and Reasoning Ex Suppositione: The Methodology of the Two New Sciences", PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Springer, 1974, str. 90. Zbog dosega tog djela nazvan je ocem moderne znanosti.

Nakon 1630. Galilejev vid počeo je ubrzano slabiti, a pred smrt je oslijepio. Nije, međutim, bio usamljen, nego okružen vrlo bliskim osobama. Ferdinand II. de Medici namjeravao ga je pokopati u bazilici Santa Croce, pored grobnice oca i predaka, te mu u čast podići mramorni mauzolej.Shea, William R, Artigas, M, Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius, Oxford University Press, 2003., str. 199.; usporedi sa Sobel, D, Galileo's Daughter, Fourth Estate, str. 378. Crkva se međutim protivila, držeći da takvo što nije moguće jer je Galileo optužen za herezu.Shea, William R, Artigas, M, Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius, Oxford University Press, 2003., str. 199. i Sobel, D, Galileo's Daughter, Fourth Estate, str. 378.; usporedi s Favaro, A. (ur.), Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Edizione Nazionale, Barbera, XIX, str. 378.-380. i Sharratt, M, Galileo: Decisive Innovator, Cambridge University Press, 1994., str. 207. Konsenzus je postignut pokapanjem u maloj prostoriji pored unutarnje kapelice.Shea, William R, Artigas, M, Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius, Oxford University Press, 2003., str. 199.; usporedi sa Sobel, D, Galileo's Daughter, Fourth Estate, str. 380. Preseljen je na prvotno zamišljenu lokaciju 1737., nakon što mu je podignut spomenik.Ibid. str. 200. usporedi s ibid. str. 380.-384.

 Popis glavnih događaja

mini|250px|Kip postavljen u Firenci

 1543. – Nikola Kopernik objavljuje De revolutionibus orbium coelestium u kojem prikazuje ideju heliocentrizma.
 1564. – Galilejevo rođenje u Pisi, Italija.
 1573. – Tycho Brahe objavljuje De nova stella, djelo u kojem pobija aristotelijansku teoriju nepromjenjivog svemira (nebesa) iznad Mjeseca.
 1576. – Giuseppe Moletti, Galilejev prethodnik katedre matematike na sveučilištu u Padovi, izvještava o fenomenu gravitacije: neovisno o materijalu, tijela istog oblika padaju jednakom brzinom.
 1581. – Galileo započinje studij medicine u Pisi.
 1582. – Ostilio Ricci održava predavanja iz matematike koje Galileo posjećuje, a koja utječu na smjer njegova studija. Mijenja stajalište o studiju medicine i posvećuje se fizici, matematici i astronomiji.
 1585. – Galileo napušta Sveučilište u Pisi i počinje raditi kao privatni učitelj.
 1586. – Nadopunjujući Arhimedove zamisli svojima, Galileo osmišljava hidrostatsku ravnotežu.
 1588. – Tycho Brahe objavljuje rad o kometima koji utvrđuje Tychov sustav.
 1589. – Galileo se zapošljava na katedri matematike na Sveučilištu u Pisi.
 1590. – Galileo djelomično dovršava neobjavljen rad o gibanju De Motu.
 1592. – Galileo se zapošljava na katedri matematike na Sveučilištu u Padovi
 1593. – Galileo osmišljava termometar. Ovisi o tlaku i temperaturi.
 1595. – Galileo unaprjeđuje balističku geometriju i vojni kompas.
 1597. – Galileo piše pismo Kepleru u kojem podržava kopernikov sustav.
 1600. – Galileu se rađa prvo izvanbračno dijete, Virginia. Objavljuje Le Meccaniche. William Gilbert objavljuje On the Magnet and Magnetic Bodies, and on That Great Magnet the Earth. Dokazi i argumenti podupiru kopernikanski sustav.
 1600. – Rimska inkvizicija osuđuje Giordana Bruna za krivovjerje. Bruno je osporavao Sveto trojstvo i Pretvorbu, podržavao panteizam i pluralitet svjetova. Osuđen je na smrtnu kaznu spaljivanjem na lomači. Član suda bio je Robert Belarmino, kasnije član suda u slučaju Galileo.
 1601. – Galileu se rađa drugo izvanbračno dijete, Livia.
 1604. – Galileo računa položaj Keplerove supernove, podupire heliocentrični sustav.
 1606. – Galileu se rađa treće izvanbračno dijete, Vincenzo.
 1606. – Galileo objavljuje uputstava za upotrebu kompasa.
 1608. – Hans Lippershey osmišljava refraktorski teleskop.
 1609. – Na temelju opisa Lippersheyeva rada, Galileo osmišljava i nadograđuje vlastiti teleskop. Kepler objavljuje Astronomia nova u kojem se nalaze prva dva Keplerova zakona. Pokazuje da je kopernikanski model točniji od ptolomejskog. Thomas Harriot radi nacrt Mjesečeve površine četiri mjeseca prije Galilejeva mjerenja.
 1610. – Galileo objavljuje Sidereus Nuncius, bilježi Mjesečevu površinu i četiri velika Jupiterova satelita (mjeseca). Također prvi detaljnije proučava površinu Marsa. Martin Horky objavljuje Brevissima Peregrinatio Contra Nuncium Sidereum, traktat koji se protivi heliocentričnom sustavu. Johannes Kepler traži od Galileja primjerak teleskopa i leća, ali Galileo tvrdi da ima samo jedan i nema vremena napraviti novi.Ferris, T, Coming of Age in the Milky Way, William Morrow & Company, 1988., str. 95.
 1610. – Galileo stječe doživotno mjesto na katedri za matematiku na Sveučilištu u Padovi, odnosno kao matematičar i filozof za Cosmija II., velikog vojvode od Toskane.
 1611. – Galileo otkriva Venerine mijene. Susreće se s Papom. Postaje član Papinske akademije znanosti.
 1611. – David Fabricius objavljuje Narration on Spots Observed on the Sun and their Apparent Rotation with the Sun netom prije Christopha Scheinera i Galileja.
 1612. – Galileo predlaže upotrebu pozicija Jupiterovih mjeseca za pomorsko izračunavanje zemljopisne dužine. Iako je prijedlog nepraktičan, nagrađen je za njega.
 1612. ili 1613. – Francesco Sizzi otkriva godišnje promjene Sunčevih pjega. Galileo piše pismo o Sunčevim pjegama.
 1616. – Galileo prima službenu opomenu Crkve, da ne smije govoriti o heliocentričnom sustavu, niti ga istraživati. Crkva Kopernikovo djelo De revolutionibus orbium coelestium  stavlja na listu zabranjenih djela.
 1616. – Galileo piše Raspravu o valovima, diskurs između Galilea i Keplera.
 1617. – Galileo se seli u grad Bellosguardo, zapadno od Firence, gdje su zaređene njegove dvije kćeri. Proučava zvijezdu Mizar u zviježđu Velikog medvjeda.
 1619. – Kepler objavljuje Harmonices Mundi, u kojem opisuje treći Keplerov zakon.
 1619. – Gallieo objavljuje Discorso delle comete.
 1621. – Maffeo Barberini, Galilejev poklonik, postaje Papa Urban VIII.
 1623. – Galileo objavljuje Il Saggiatore.
 1624. – Galileo posjećuje Papu i izlaže svoje radove, gdje je rad prihvaćen i odobren, te unaprijeđuje mikroskop.
 1625.– Objavljuju se ilustracije kukaca promatranih Galilejevim mikroskopom.
 1630. – Galileo dovršava Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo, cenzura Crkve odobrava objavljivanje djela.
 1632. – Galileo objavljuje Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo, a dominikanci ponovno tuže Galilea. Rimska inkvizicija pokreće istragu.
 1633. – Galileo se odriče heliocentričnog sustava. Rimska inkvizicija osuđuje Galileja zbog hereze na kućni protiv s ograničenom društvenom komunikacijom. Crkva stavlja Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo na popis zabranjenih djela. Zabrana Galilejevih djela ukinuta je 1718.Heilbron, John L, "Censorship of Astronomy in Italy after Galileo", u McMullin, E. (ur.), The Church and Galileo, Notre Damme Press, 2005, str. 299.
 1638. – Galileo objavljuje Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematiche, intorno a due nuove scienze.
 1642. – Galileo umire u Arcetriju, Italija.

 Znanstveni rad
 Znanstvena metoda

Umjesto Aristotelove kvalitativne metode i filozofijskog opisivanja Svemira, Galileo se u unaprjeđivanju spoznaje služio matematičkim jezikom i provodio je eksperimente temeljene na prirodnim zakonima. Najbolji primjer razlike između rezultata dva principa vidljiv je u mišljenju o Mjesecu i zvijezdama. Aristotel i njegovi nasljednici smatrali su da su nebeska tijela savršeno sferična i glatka na površini, dok su Galileo i njegovi suvremenici ustanovili obratno isključivo eksperimentima i izračunima, odnosno otkrićima.Osim u službenim spisima razlika mišljenja i zaključaka je vidljiva, primjerice, iz Galilejevih pisama. Galileo je u svojim razmatranjima također postavio danas raširen zahtjev neprestanog traženja uzroka. Tako je konceptualna filozofijska analiza fenomena kroz jezik preseljena u materijalističku analizu fenomena kroz eksperimente. Projekt CERN suvremeni je primjer takvog zahtjeva.Primjeri vidljivi iz Galilejevih pisama Marku Welseru. Galileo je metodu eksperimenata naslijedio od oca glazbenog teoretičara, pionira matematičkog eksperimentiranja, nasljednika pitagorejskog poimanja.Cohen, H. F, Quantifying Music: The Science of Music, Springer, 1984., str. 78.–84. Općenito, Galileo pripada kartezijanskoj tradiciji shvaćanja Svemira kao geometrijski izračunljivog i matematičkim jezikom izrazivog u obliku prirodnih zakona (u Il Saggiatore piše o matematici kao jeziku na kojem je napisana knjiga prirode).Drake, S, Discoveries and Opinion of Galileo, Doubleday&Company, 1957., str. 237.-238. Galileo je, nadalje, mijenjao mišljenje ovisno o promjenama u rezultatima, te pogodovao odvajanju znanosti od filozofije i religije. Standardizirao je uvjete eksperimentiranja i služio se metodom nezavisnih istraživanja, što predstavlja induktivan pristup rješavanju problema. Apstraktna matematika ostvaruje se u prirodnim fenomenima, a prirodni fenomeni prestaju biti dogmatizirani: dva temeljna aspekta znanstvene metode čine osjetilno (empirijsko) iskustvo i eksperiment. Svezom osjetilnog iskustva i eksperimenta Galileo i suvremenici opovrgnuli su Aristotelovu metodu, odnosno aristotelijansku praksu prisutnu do tada. Dakako, povezivanje matematike i prirodne filozofije tada je značilo raspravu širokih razmjera, koja do danas nije sasvim razriješena.Brendel, E, "Intuition Pumps and the Proper Use of Thought Experiments", Dialectica, vol. 58, br. 1, 2004, str. 89.-108.Rodolfo Mondolfo, "Il pensiero di Galileo e i suoi rapporti con l’ antichità e con il Rinascimento", Figure e idee della filosofia del Rinascimento, La Nuova Italia, 1963.-1970., str. 118.Mach, E, On Thought Experiment, dostupno na: http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/On%20Thought%20Experiments.PDF Gower, Barry, Scientific method, str. 21-39, dostupno na: http://philo.abhinav.ac.in/Epistemology/Gower_ScientificMethod.pdf

 Instrumentarij
mini|lijevo|230px|Galilejev geometrijski kompas izvorno konstruiran za potrebe vojske.
mini|90px|Galilejev termometar.
mini|lijevo|230px|Replika najstarijeg poznatog Galilejeva teleskopa.

Galileo je bio izumitelj. Na osmišljavanje i nadogradnju alata i instrumenata poticala ga je potreba za točnijim mjerenjima i zaradom novca:

 Između 1595. i 1598. razvio je geometrijski vojni kompas temeljen na prethodnim izumima Niccole Tartaglije i Guidobaldoa Del Montea. Bio je pogodan za topnike i mjeritelje, te konstrukcije i mjerenja poligona.
 1593. razvija termometar ovisan o tlaku i temperaturi. Zrak se širio ili sužavao i time kuglicu na vodi pomicao gore ili dolje uz mjernu skalu.
 1609. Galilejev najznačajniji rad je nadogradnja teleskopa (mehanizma, leća, mikrometra), izvorno. Zahvaljujući tome omogućio je točnija promatranja i bolja mjerenja, te od sebe učinio pionira promatranja planeta, npr. Marsa. Godine 1610. poslužio se mikroskopom da bi analizirao kukce. Najkasnije do 1624. Galileo se služio mikroskopom. Ilustracije mikroskopskim pronalazaka objavljenje 1625. smatraju se prvim zabilježenim promatranjima pomoću mikroskopa.
 Galileo je izradio poseban astrolab za mjerenje kutova (giovilabio) i helioskop s projekcijom na papir da izbjegne oštećenje oka.
 Galileo je izradio njihalo za mjerenje intervala. U zadnjoj je godini života ponudio mehanizam za mjerenje vremena, ali je drugačiji oblik postao univerzalni dio mehanizma sata.
 1612. nakon opservacije Jupitera predložio je za kriterij univerzalnog sata orbitalna gibanja Jupiterovih satelita. Metodu je uspješno upotrijebio 1681. Giovanni Domenico Cassini i koristila se za promatranje zemljine površine.

 Padajuće tijelo
mini|250px|Dijagram gibanja.
Još u 6. stoljeću John Filipponio osporavao je Aristotelovu teoriju dvostrukog gibanja. S obzirom na supstancijalnost, Aristotel je utvrdio gibanje materije prema dolje, ako su im osnova voda i zemlja, odnosno prema gore, ako su im osnova vatra i zrak, kao i kozmičku podjelu na sublunarno i supralunarno područje, u kojem vladaju različiti zakoni. Tek je Galileo eksperimentalnim istraživanjima mogao dati pouzdan temelj drugoj teoriji, koju je u suštini zasnovao na Arhimedovim zakonima.<ref>Opširnije dostupno na: http://fromdeathtolife.org/cphil/mech1.html</ref (posljednji pristup 15. veljače 2014.)</ref> Da bi nadišao Aristotelovu tvrdnju, morao je osmisliti način mjerenja tijela u prostoru i vremenu. To je dovelo do uspostave klasičnog dijagrama ubrzanja, odnosno omjera brzine i vremena.Forinash, G, Rumsey, W, Lang, C, "Galileo's Mathematical Language of Nature", Science and Education 9, 2000., str. 449.-456. Uspoređujući mjerenja gibanja na Zemlji i na nebu, Galileo je shvatio da se radi o jedinstvenim prirodnim zakonima. Na temelju toga nastavio je pronalaziti mehaničke i kinematičke zakone.

Galileu se pripisuje eksperiment u kojem s vrha Sveučilišta u Pisi baca dva tijela različite težine i ustanovljuje istovjetnost brzine. Ako se eksperiment i jest dogodio, što je upitno, prethodno njemu (i njime utjecano) učinio je to Simon Stevin s Delft tornja 1586.Više na: http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/galileofallingbodies.html (posljednji pristup 15. veljače 2014.) Dokaz je pobio Aristotelovu tvrdnju o bržem padu težeg tijela.
Galileo je promatrajući eksperimente s kosinom ustanovio (naslutio) zakon inercije kojeg kasnije Newton ugrađuje u temeljni zakon gibanja. Time je osporio Aristotelovu tvrdnju o prirodno usporavajućem tijelu. Nadalje, mjereći pad tijela pod različitim kutom kosine ustanovio je brzinu gravitacije od 9,82 m/s2. Promatrajući usporedne padove, Galileo je ustanovio zakon očuvanja mehaničke energije, ali pojam energije tada još nije bio razvijen.

 Njihalo i hidrostatska ravnoteža

Godine 1583. Galileo je ustanovio izokronizam njihala niskih oscilacija. Ustanovio je da vrijeme oscilacije nepovezano s amplitudom, a da je ono ovisno o duljini niti na kojoj se njišući objekt nalazi: Dostupno na: http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/instruments/pendulum.html (posljednji pristup: 14. veljače 2014.)

Godine 1586. Galileo je dovršio formulu za hidrostatsku ravnotežu Arhimedova principa, a rad objavio pod naslovom La Bilancetta. Omogućuje određenje specifične težine s obzirom na vodu. U djelu se mogu pronaći tablične vrijednosti za 30 različitih materijala, a njihove vrijednosti usporedive su sa suvremenim rezultatima.Više dostupno na: http://www.fisicamente.net/FISICA_1/index-1835.htm (posljednji pristup: 15. veljače 2014.)

 Astronomija
mini|250px|Galilejeve bilješke o kretanjima Jupiterovih satelita.
Slijedeći opise Hansa Lippersheya, Galileo je konstruirao teleskop s povećanjem od tri puta, a do kraja svog života uspio je postići i povećanje od trideset puta. Godine 1609. venecijanskom duždu je prvi puta prikazao mogućnosti teleskopa. Nakon toga, počeo je na njima i zarađivati prodajom primjeraka. Svoja je prva istraživanja objavio u djelu Sidereus Nuncius.

Godine 1604. na temelju Keplerove supernove Galileo je promatranjem uočio nepostojanost diurnalne Paralakse, što ga je navelo zaključiti da se radi o dalekoj zvijezdi. Ako je Keplerova supernova daleka zvijezda, to potvrđuje da Aristotelova teorija nepromjenjivih nebesa ne stoji. Galileo je za to bio žestoko napadnut te ušao u nekoliko pismenih polemika. Godine 1610. Galileo je uočio Jupiterove satelite, koje je najprije držao nepomičnima, da bi daljnjim dnevnim promatranjem uočio promjenjivost položaja, odnosno kruženje oko Jupitera. Nazvao ih je Medicejskim zvijezdama.Schratt, 1994., str. 7. Kasnije su, u čast Galileu, preimenovane u Galilejevi sateliti. Galilejevo otkriće nebeskih tijela koja kruže oko Jupitera srušile su Aristotelovu tezu o Zemlji kao tijelu oko kojeg kruže sva nebeska tijela, što je izazvalo novi val osporavanja.Linton, Christopher M, From Eudoxus to Einstein—A History of Mathematical Astronomy, Cambridge University Press, 2004., str. 98., 205. i Drake, S, Galileo At Work, Chicago University Press, 1978., str. 157.-168. Nakon što je njegova promatranja potvrdio Christopher Clavius, Galileo je u Rimu 1611. dočekan sa svim počastima. Iste godine, promatrao je Mars, Saturn, Veneru i Neptun. Na temelju uočavanja mijena Venere potvrdio je heliocentrični sustav koji je predvidio Kopernik. Nakon objave Galilejevih istraživanja, mnogi astronomi onog vremena okrenuli su se helio-geocentričnim teorijama poput one Tycha Braha, a koje su nastojale potvrditi Galilejeva istraživanja s temeljnom premisom geocentričnosti.Thoren, Victor E, Tycho Brahe, Taton / Wilson, 1989., str. 8. i Hoskin, M. (ur.), The Cambridge Concise History of Astronomy, Cambridge University Press, 1999., str. 117. Galileo je prvi uočio Saturnove prstene, ali nije bio siguran što su i nije ih ustanovio kao prstene, već je mislio da se radi o tri tijela. Posebno se zakompliciralo promatranje u vrijeme prolaska Zemlje kroz ravninu prstenova, kada su oni prividno nestali (jer su vrlo tanki), što je zbunilo Galilea. Tek je 1659. godine danski astronom Christiaan Huygens u Saturnovom neobičnom obliku prepoznao prstenove. Huygens je objasnio da je njihovo nestajanje i mijenjanje uzrokovano promjenom nagiba orbite Zemlje prema Saturnu tijekom njihovih ophoda oko Sunca. Neptun nije imao prilike dugo promatrati. Pronašao je relativne udaljenosti, ali nije shvatio da se radi o planetu, nego je mislio da se radi o zvijezdi.Drake, S; Kowal, C. T. , "Galileo's Sighting of Neptune". Scientific American 243 (6): 1980., str. 74.–81.
 Istraživanjem Sunčevih pjega dodatno je otežalo održanje Aristotelove teorije nepromjenjivih nebesa. Galileo, Francesco Sizzi i drugi tijekom 1612. i 1613. ustanovili su promjenjivost pjega, što je tim više potvrdilo apsurdnost geocentričnog i geoheliocentričnog sustava.
 Manje poznata činjenica je da je Galileo je bio učen umjetnosti, a posebno je bio zainteresiran za tehniku chiaroscuro. Poznavanje efekta chiaroscura omogućila mu je da prilikom promatranja Mjeseca zaključi da sjenoviti prijelazi imaju topografska određenja, pa je započeo i izračune visina i dubina kratera. Bilo je to snažan argument protiv Aristotelove teorije savršeno oblikovanih nebeskih tijela glatke površine.
 Galileo je ustanovio da ono što se tada ljudima činilo kao skup oblaka, je zapravo bila Mliječna staza, zbir zvijezda toliko zgusnut da je nalikovao oblaku. Nakon studija o pjegama ustanovio je da su i zvijezde i planeti oblog oblika. Galileo je u izračunima veličina zvijezda pogriješio, ali su njegovi proračuni bili znatno manji i realniji od tuđih, a time je uklonio neke teorije o veličinama zvijezda, poput Brahove o apsurdnosti veličina zvijezda kojoj se ne bi uočavala godišnja paralaksa.Finocchiaro, Maurice A, The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, University of California Press, 1989., str. 167.–176., Galilei, G, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, University of California Press, 1953. (1632.), str. 359.-360. i Ondra, L, "A New View of Mizar", Sky & Telescope vol. 108 br. 4, 2004., str. 74.–75.

 Objavljena djela

 1644. La bilancetta
 1599. Le mecaniche
 1606. Le operazioni del compasso geometrico et militare
 1610. Sidereus Nuncius
 1612. Discorso intorno alle cose che stanno in su l'acqua
 1613. Istoria e dimostrazioni intorno alle macchie solari e loro accidenti
 1614. Lettera al Padre Benedetto Castelli
 1615. Lettera a Madama Cristina di Lorena
 1615. Discorso sopra il flusso e il reflusso del mare
 1619. Il Discorso delle Comete
 1623. Il Saggiatore
 1632. Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo
 1638. Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze attenenti alla meccanica e i movimenti locali
 1640. Lettera al principe Leopoldo di Toscana (sopra il candore lunare)
 1656. Trattato della sfera

 Izvori

 Vanjske poveznice

 Galilejeva djela
Prikaz Galilejevih bilješki o gibanju (MS. 72), pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Prijevod Galilejevog djela iz 1590.De Motu, pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Radovi Galilea Galileija, pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Galilei, Galileo. Le Operazioni del Compasso Geometrico et Militare djelo iz 1610. Rim, skenirano prvo izdanje. Pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Galilei, Galileo. Istoria e Dimostrazioni Intorno Alle Macchie Solar djelo iz 1613., Rim, skenirano prvo izdanje. Pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Knjižnica Linda Hall predstavlja kopiju prvog izdanja djela Sidereus Nuncius Magna  i piratsko izdanje iz iste godine , digitalizirano. Pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Sidereus Nuncius iz zbirke Kongresne knjižnice. Pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.

 O Galileju
Starry Messenger: Observing the Heavens in the Age of Galileo, izložba u Beineckeova knjižnica rijetkih knjiga i rukopisa na sveučilištu Yale. Pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Galilejev muzej, Firenca, italija. Pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Genealogija Galilejevih učenika, pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Porteti Galileija, pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Projekt Galileo na sveučilištu Rice. Pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Dokumentarni film PBS-a: 400 godina teleskopa. Pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Pero i čekić padaju na Mjesecu, pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
članak o Galileiju i New York Timesu 18. siječnja 2013).

 Životopis
PBS Nova Online: Galileo's Battle for the Heavens, biografija. . Pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Stanfordska enciklopedija filozofije o Galileju. Pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.

 Galileo i Crkva
Galileo Galilei, Scriptural Exegete, and the Church of Rome, Advocate of Science , (audio zapis), autora Dr. Christophera Decaena. Pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
"The End of the Myth of Galileo Galilei" autora Atile Sinkea Guimarãesa. Pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Galileo i Crkva, članak Johan Heilbrona. Pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.
Slučaj Galileo na catholic.net, pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.

Kategorija:Talijanski matematičari
Kategorija:Talijanski astronomi
Kategorija:Talijanski fizičari
Kategorija:Talijanska povijest 17. stoljeća

After his death, the church authorities did not allow the tomb to be lifted up.

Question: who was galileo galilei's disciple

After his death, the church authorities did not allow the tomb to be lifted up.

Question: when was galileo galilei removed from the church

when was galileo galilei removed from the church

Question: when was galileo galilei placed in a tomb

when was galileo galilei placed in a tomb

Question: galilei's theory of mounting the earth was contrary to which theory

galilei's theory of mounting the earth was contrary to which theory

Question: in which year did galileo galilei die

Question: what did the church ban in 1757

Question: galilei's theory of mounting the earth was contrary to what

galilei's theory of mounting the earth was contrary to what

Question: who removed galileo galilei's tomb after his death

who removed galileo galilei's tomb after his death

After his death , the church authorities did not allow the tomb to be lifted up .

Only in 1737 he was placed in a joint tomb with his disciple V. Viviani and then he was raised a tomb monument , and on 16 April 1757 the prohibition of Galileo 's works was removed , in which he represented the principle of mounting the Earth , contrary to the geocentric system , which defended the Church .

Nakon smrti crkvene vlasti nisu dopustile da mu se podigne nadgrobni spomenik.

After his death, the church authorities did not allow the tomb to be lifted up. Only in 1737 he was placed in a joint tomb with his disciple V. Viviani and then he was raised a tomb monument, and on 16 April 1757 the prohibition of Galileo's works was removed, in which he represented the principle of mounting the Earth, contrary to the geocentric system, which defended the Church.

After his death, the church authorities did not allow the tomb to be lifted up.

In the context of the scientific revolution, it played a significant role in the development of modern science.

HELIOCENTRIČNI SUSTAV, crtež N. Kopernika
heliocentrični sustav (helio- + centar), model Sunčeva sustava koji, nasuprot geocentričnoj kozmologiji, postavlja Sunce u središte svijeta. U antičko doba sustav je podržavao Aristarh sa Sama, u renesansi ga je obnovio i razradio N. Kopernik. Sunce je time postavljeno u središte, oko kojega obilaze planeti i ostala tijela, planetoidi, kometi i meteoroidi, dok su zvijezde toliko udaljene da se njihova gibanja ne zapažaju. Kopernik je utvrdio tri načina Zemljina gibanja: rotaciju (vrtnju), revoluciju (obilaženje oko Sunca) i precesiju (zakretanje osi vrtnje oko okomice na ravninu gibanja, u analogiji s gibanjem zvrka). Za opis gibanja planeta geocentrični sustav upotrebljavao je složeni sustav od osamdeset različitih kružnica, no ni s pomoću njih opažanja se nisu mogla točno reproducirati. Kopernik je preuzeo kružna gibanja, čime je nastavio platonističku tradiciju, no njegovi proračuni sa Suncem u središtu sustava točnije su prikazivali gibanja iako je broj kružnica reducirao na 34. U tome je bila prednost novoga sustava. Kako Kopernik nije vladao fizičkim dokazima, sustav nisu prihvatili ni teolozi ni znanstveni suvremenici. Nebeska tijela smatrala su se eteričnima, bez težine, dok su zemaljska tijela bila teška i kao takva padala prema središtu svemira, dakle prema središtu Zemlje; Aristotelova je fizika osim toga tumačila da je za pokretanje tijela potrebna stalna sila. Za prihvat heliocentričnoga sustava trebalo je najprije razviti znanstv. metodu, mehaniku i teoriju gravitacije, što su učinili Galilei i Newton. Sustav je bitno poboljšao Kepler uvodeći eliptične staze kojima se planeti gibaju nejednoliko, brže kod perihela, sporije kod afela. S vremenom je uzdrmano i povjerenje u nebo kao nepromjenljivu bitnost; viđene su nove zvijezde, a jedan je komet uočen dalje od Mjeseca. Razvijeni matematički postupci računanja gibanja i sve točnija mjerenja astronomskim instrumentima te na kraju fizički dokazi, kojih ne bi bilo u geocentričnom sustavu (godišnja zvjezdana aberacija, faze donjih planeta), potvrdili su valjanost heliocentričnoga sustava. Sustav potvrđuju astronomska motrenja i zakonitosti gravitacije. Najveći dio mase sustava (699/700) ima Sunce, dok planetima pripada najveći dio momenta (ili kutne) količine gibanja.
Citiranje:
heliocentrični sustav. Hrvatska enciklopedija, mrežno izdanje.
Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža, 2021. Pristupljeno 11. 10. 2022. <http://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=24853>.

Question: what revolution did galileo galilei lead

In the context of the scientific revolution, it played a significant role in the development of modern science.

what revolution did galileo galilei lead

Question: when was galileo galilei's telescope invented

when was galileo galilei's telescope invented

Question: what instrument did galileo galilei use to observe the sky

what instrument did galileo galilei use to observe the sky

Question: galileo galilei discovered what in the sky

galileo galilei discovered what in the sky

Question: galileo galilei discovered the satellites of which planet

galileo galilei discovered the satellites of which planet

Question: what did galileo galilei systematically observe

what did galileo galilei systematically observe

Question: galileo galilei played a significant role in what

galileo galilei played a significant role in what

Question: galileo galilei discovered which celestial body

galileo galilei discovered which celestial body

In the context of the scientific revolution , it played a significant role in the development of modern science .

He advanced the telescopic instrumentary and systematically observed the sky , resulting in the discovery and analysis of Jupiter ’s satellites , the Sun ’s Peaks , the Moon ’s Craters and the Milky Way .

U okviru znanstvene revolucije odigrao je značajnu ulogu u razvoju moderne znanosti.

In the context of the scientific revolution, it played a significant role in the development of modern science. He advanced the telescopic instrumentary and systematically observed the sky, resulting in the discovery and analysis of Jupiter’s satellites, the Sun’s Peaks, the Moon’s Craters and the Milky Way.

In the context of the scientific revolution, it played a significant role in the development of modern science.

The second great contribution of Galileo was a positive continuation of the research of the Copernicus heliocentry system, especially the discovery of the Venerine variants.Faktopedija, Borovac, I. (ur.), Mozaic book, 2004, p.

Question: what did galileo discover in the copernicus heliocentry system

what did galileo discover in the copernicus heliocentry system

Question: what was galileo's second great contribution

what was galileo's second great contribution

Question: when was galileo galilei's book published

when was galileo galilei's book published

Question: what was the second great contribution galileo made to the heliocentry system

what was the second great contribution galileo made to the heliocentry system

Question: which variants of galileo's heliocentric system were discovered in 2004

which variants of galileo's heliocentric system were discovered in 2004

Question: who discovered the venerine variants of the copernicus heliocentric system

who discovered the venerine variants of the copernicus heliocentric system

Question: who is the author of the mozaic book

The second great contribution of Galileo was a positive continuation of the research of the Copernicus heliocentry system , especially the discovery of the Venerine variants . Faktopedija , Borovac , I. ( ur . ) , Mozaic book , 2004 , p.

Drugi veliki Galilejev doprinos je pozitivan nastavak istraživanja Kopernikovog heliocentričnog sustava, naročito otkrićem Venerinih mijena.Faktopedija, Borovac, I. (ur.), Mozaik knjiga, 2004., str. 32.; usporedi s Istraživao je također zakonitosti gibanja tijela, zakon gravitacije i začeo ideju principa relativnosti.

A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Contents
RISE OF MENTAL COHERENCE The Foundations 600
|7|
THE GREAT ADVENTURE Unitary Systems of Thought
|32|
THE FAILURE OF INSPIRATION Science the Handmaid
|94|
29 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
action activity Ages ancient angles animals appeared applied Arabic Aristotle astronomical atoms became become biological body called centre century changes chemical Christian circle compared complete conception considered contains direction discussion distance doctrine early earth effect electric elements equal existence experience expressed fact fixed followed force Galileo give given Greek heat held human idea important influence interest Italy knowledge known later Latin learning less light lines living magnetic mathematical matter means measure mechanical medieval method Middle mind Moon motion move movement nature observations organisms origin passed period philosophical physical plants position present principle produced regarded relation remained result Roman scheme scientific sense showed species sphere stars structure substance suggested theory things thought tion translated universe weight whole writers

After the bestseller works from 1632.

Question: who is credited with the discovery of the heliocentric system

After the bestseller works from 1632.

who is credited with the discovery of the heliocentric system

Question: when did the roman inquisition ban galileo

After the bestseller works from 1632.

when did the roman inquisition ban galileo

Question: when did galileo first write about the solar system

After the bestseller works from 1632.

when did galileo first write about the solar system

Question: what was galileo accused of in 1615

After the bestseller works from 1632.

Question: who banned galileo from promoting the heliocentric system

After the bestseller works from 1632.

who banned galileo from promoting the heliocentric system

Question: what is the name of galileo's solar system

After the bestseller works from 1632.

what is the name of galileo's solar system

Question: what did the roman inquisition ban galileo from promoting

After the bestseller works from 1632.

what did the roman inquisition ban galileo from promoting

Question: what was the name of the church ban on galileo galilei

After the bestseller works from 1632.

what was the name of the church ban on galileo galilei

Under suspicion of heresy and accusation of attempt to undermine the Aristotle philosophy of nature and the Bible , the Roman Inquisition in 1615 investigated the case of Galileo , then by conclusion prohibited Galileo from promoting the heliocentric system , and his research included in the list of prohibited works . Sharratt , M , Galileo : Decisive Innovator , Cambridge University Press , 1995 , pp . 127.-131 . , McMullin , E , " The Church 's Ban on Copernicanism , 1616 " , in McMullin , E. ( ur . ) , The Church and Galileo , Notre Dame , 2005 , pp . 150 - 190 .

Under suspicion of heresy and accusation of attempt to undermine the Aristotle philosophy of nature and the Bible, the Roman Inquisition in 1615 investigated the case of Galileo, then by conclusion prohibited Galileo from promoting the heliocentric system, and his research included in the list of prohibited works.Sharratt, M, Galileo: Decisive Innovator, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 127.-131., McMullin, E, "The Church's Ban on Copernicanism, 1616", in McMullin, E. (ur.), The Church and Galileo, Notre Dame, 2005, pp. 150-190. After the bestseller works from 1632.

Although Roman Catholic and pioneer of the Pope's Academy of Sciences (Accademia dei Lincei),Vinković, K, "Nedemocratic accounting with the pope.

DISCORSO DI GIOVANNI PAOLO II
AI PARTECIPANTI ALLA SESSIONE PLENARIA
DELLA PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA DELLE SCIENZE
Sabato, 31 ottobre 1992
Signori Cardinali, Eccellenze,
Signore, Signori,
1. La conclusione della sessione plenaria della Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze mi offre la felice occasione di incontrare i suoi illustri membri, in presenza dei miei principali collaboratori e dei Capi delle Missioni diplomatiche accreditate presso la Santa Sede. A tutti rivolgo un caloroso saluto.
Il mio pensiero va in questo momento al professor Marini-Bettòlo, cui la malattia impedisce di trovarsi fra noi; formulo fervidi voti per la sua salute e gli assicuro la mia preghiera.
Desidero anche salutare le personalità che siedono per la prima volta nella vostra Accademia; rivolgo loro il mio grazie per aver accettato di apportare ai vostri lavori il contributo delle loro alte competenze.
Mi è inoltre gradito salutare il qui presente Professor Adi Shamir, professore al “Weizmann Institute of Science” di Rehovot (Israele), insignito della medaglia d’oro di Pio XI, conferita dall’Accademia, e porgergli le mie cordiali felicitazioni.
Due argomenti costituiscono oggi l’oggetto della nostra attenzione. Sono stati or ora presentati con competenza e vorrei esprimere la mia gratitudine al Signor Cardinale Paul Poupard e al Rev.do Padre George Coyne per le loro esposizioni.
2. In primo luogo, desidero complimentarvi con la Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze per aver scelto, per la sua sessione plenaria, di trattare un problema di grande importanza e di grande attualità: quello dell’emergere della complessità in matematica, in fisica, in chimica e in biologia.
L’emergere del tema della complessità segna probabilmente, nella storia delle scienze della natura, una tappa tanto importante quanto quella a cui è legato il nome di Galileo, quando sembrava doversi imporre un modello univoco dell’ordine. La complessità indica precisamente che, per render conto della ricchezza del reale, è necessario ricorrere a una pluralità di modelli.
Questa constatazione pone una domanda che interessa uomini di scienza, filosofi e teologi: come conciliare la spiegazione del mondo – e ciò a partire dal livello delle entità e dei fenomeni elementari – con il riconoscimento di questo dato che “il tutto è più che la somma delle parti”?
Nello sforzo di descrizione rigorosa e di formalizzazione dei dati dell’esperienza, l’uomo di scienza è condotto a ricorrere a dei concetti metascientifici il cui uso è come esigito dalla logica del suo procedimento. Conviene precisare con esattezza la natura di tali concetti, per evitare di procedere a delle estrapolazioni indebite che leghino le scoperte strettamente scientifiche a una visione del mondo o a delle affermazioni ideologiche o filosofiche che non ne sono affatto dei corollari. Si coglie qui l’importanza della filosofia che considera i fenomeni come anche la loro interpretazione.
3. Pensiamo, a titolo di esempio, all’elaborazione di nuove teorie a livello scientifico per spiegare l’emergere del vivente. A rigor di metodo, non si potrebbe interpretarle immediatamente e nel quadro omogeneo della scienza. In particolare, quando si tratta di quel vivente che è l’uomo e del suo cervello, non si può dire che tali teorie costituiscano per se stesse un’affermazione o una negazione dell’anima spirituale, o ancora che esse forniscano una prova della dottrina della creazione, o al contrario che esse la rendano inutile.
È necessario un lavoro di ulteriore interpretazione: è questo precisamente l’oggetto della filosofia, che è ricerca del senso globale dei dati dell’esperienza, e dunque ugualmente dei fenomeni raccolti e analizzati dalle scienze.
La cultura contemporanea esige uno sforzo costante di sintesi delle conoscenze e di integrazione dei saperi. Certo, è alla specializzazione delle ricerche che sono dovuti i successi che noi constatiamo. Ma se la specializzazione non è equilibrata da una riflessione attenta a notare l’articolazione dei saperi, è grande il rischio di giungere a una “cultura frantumata”, che sarebbe di fatto la negazione della vera cultura. Poiché quest’ultima non è concepibile senza umanesimo e sapienza.
4. Ero mosso da simili preoccupazioni, il 10 novembre 1979, in occasione della celebrazione del primo centenario della nascita di Albert Einstein, quando espressi davanti a questa medesima Accademia l’auspicio che “dei teologi, degli scienziati e degli storici, animati da spirito di sincera collaborazione, approfondissero l’esame del caso Galileo e, in un riconoscimento leale dei torti, da qualunque parte essi venissero, facessero scomparire la sfiducia che questo caso ancora oppone, in molti spiriti, a una fruttuosa concordia tra scienza e fede” (AAS 71 [1979] 1464-1465). Una commissione di studio è stata costituita a tal fine il 3 luglio 1981. Ed ora, nell’anno stesso in cui si celebra il 350° anniversario della morte di Galileo, la Commissione presenta, a conclusione dei suoi lavori, un complesso di pubblicazioni che apprezzo vivamente. Desidero esprimere la mia sincera riconoscenza al Cardinale Poupard, incaricato di coordinare le ricerche della Commissione nella fase conclusiva. A tutti gli esperti che hanno partecipato in qualche modo ai lavori dei quattro gruppi da cui è stato condotto questo studio pluridisciplinare, dico la mia profonda soddisfazione e la mia viva gratitudine. Il lavoro svolto per oltre dieci anni risponde a un orientamento suggerito dal Concilio Vaticano II e permette di porre meglio in luce vari punti importanti della questione. In avvenire, non si potrà non tener conto delle conclusioni della Commissione.
Ci si meraviglierà forse che al termine di una settimana di studi dell’Accademia sul tema dell’emergere della complessità nelle diverse scienze, io ritorni sul caso Galileo. Non è questo caso archiviato da tempo e gli errori commessi non sono stati riconosciuti?
Certo, questo è vero. Tuttavia, i problemi soggiacenti a quel caso toccano la natura della scienza come quella del messaggio della fede. Non è dunque da escludere che ci si trovi un giorno davanti a una situazione analoga, che richiederà agli uni e agli altri una coscienza consapevole del campo e dei limiti delle rispettive competenze. L’approccio al tema della complessità potrebbe fornirne una illustrazione.
5. Una doppia questione sta al cuore del dibattito di cui Galileo fu il centro.
La prima è di ordine epistemologico e concerne l’ermeneutica biblica. A tal proposito, sono da rilevare due punti. Anzitutto, come la maggior parte dei suoi avversari, Galileo non fa distinzione tra quello che è l’approccio scientifico ai fenomeni naturali e la riflessione sulla natura, di ordine filosofico, che esso generalmente richiama. È per questo che egli rifiutò il suggerimento che gli era stato dato di presentare come un’ipotesi il sistema di Copernico, fin tanto che esso non fosse confermato da prove irrefutabili. Era quella, peraltro, un’esigenza del metodo sperimentale di cui egli fu il geniale iniziatore.
Inoltre, la rappresentazione geocentrica del mondo era comunemente accettata nella cultura del tempo come pienamente concorde con l’insegnamento della Bibbia, nella quale alcune espressioni, prese alla lettera, sembravano costituire delle affermazioni di geocentrismo. Il problema che si posero dunque i teologi dell’epoca era quello della compatibilità dell’eliocentrismo e della Scrittura.
Così la scienza nuova, con i suoi metodi e la libertà di ricerca che essi suppongono, obbligava i teologi a interrogarsi sui loro criteri di interpretazione della Scrittura. La maggior parte non seppe farlo.
Paradossalmente, Galileo, sincero credente, si mostrò su questo punto più perspicace dei suoi avversari teologi. “Se bene la Scrittura non può errare, scrive a Benedetto Castelli, potrebbe nondimeno talvolta errare alcuno de’ suoi interpreti ed espositori, in vari modi” (Lettera del 21 dicembre 1613, in Edizione nazionale delle Opere di Galileo Galilei, dir. A. Favaro, riedizione del 1968, vol. V, p. 282). Si conosce anche la sua lettera a Cristina di Lorena (1615) che è come un piccolo trattato di ermeneutica biblica (Ivi, 307-348).
6. Possiamo già qui formulare una prima conclusione. L’irruzione di una nuova maniera di affrontare lo studio dei fenomeni naturali impone una chiarificazione dell’insieme delle discipline del sapere. Essa le obbliga a delimitare meglio il loro campo proprio, il loro angolo di approccio, i loro metodi, così come l’esatta portata delle loro conclusioni. In altri termini, questa novità obbliga ciascuna delle discipline a prendere una coscienza più rigorosa della propria natura.
Il capovolgimento provocato dal sistema di Copernico ha così richiesto uno sforzo di riflessione epistemologica sulle scienze bibliche, sforzo che doveva portare più tardi frutti abbondanti nei lavori esegetici moderni e che ha trovato nella Costituzione conciliare Dei Verbum una consacrazione e un nuovo impulso.
7. La crisi che ho appena evocato non è il solo fattore ad aver avuto delle ripercussioni sull’interpretazione della Bibbia. Noi tocchiamo qui il secondo aspetto del problema, l’aspetto pastorale.
In virtù della missione che le è propria, la Chiesa ha il dovere di essere attenta alle incidenze pastorali della sua parola. Sia chiaro, anzitutto, che questa parola deve corrispondere alla verità. Ma si tratta di sapere come prendere in considerazione un dato scientifico nuovo quando esso sembra contraddire delle verità di fede. Il giudizio pastorale che richiedeva la teoria copernicana era difficile da esprimere nella misura in cui il geocentrismo sembrava far parte dell’insegnamento stesso della Scrittura. Sarebbe stato necessario contemporaneamente vincere delle abitudini di pensiero e inventare una pedagogia capace di illuminare il popolo di Dio. Diciamo, in maniera generale, che il pastore deve mostrarsi pronto a un’autentica audacia, evitando il duplice scoglio dell’atteggiamento incerto e del giudizio affrettato, potendo l’uno e l’altro fare molto male.
8. Può essere qui evocata una crisi analoga a quella di cui parliamo. Nel secolo scorso e all’inizio del nostro, il progresso delle scienze storiche ha permesso di acquisire nuove conoscenze sulla Bibbia e sull’ambiente biblico. Il contesto razionalista nel quale, per lo più, le acquisizioni erano presentate, poté farle apparire rovinose per la fede cristiana. Certuni, preoccupati di difendere la fede, pensarono che si dovessero rigettare conclusioni storiche seriamente fondate. Fu quella una decisione affrettata e infelice. L’opera di un pioniere come il Padre Lagrange ha saputo operare i necessari discernimenti sulla base di criteri sicuri.
Bisogna ripetere qui ciò che ho detto sopra. È un dovere per i teologi tenersi regolarmente informati sulle acquisizioni scientifiche per esaminare, all’occorrenza, se è il caso o meno di tenerne conto nella loro riflessione o di operare delle revisioni nel loro insegnamento.
9. Se la cultura contemporanea è segnata da una tendenza allo scientismo, l’orizzonte culturale dell’epoca di Galileo era unitario e recava l’impronta di una formazione filosofica particolare. Questo carattere unitario della cultura, che è in sé positivo e auspicabile ancor oggi, fu una delle cause della condanna di Galileo. La maggioranza dei teologi non percepiva la distinzione formale tra la Sacra Scrittura e la sua interpretazione, il che li condusse a trasporre indebitamente nel campo della dottrina della fede una questione di fatto appartenente alla ricerca scientifica.
In realtà, come ha ricordato il Cardinal Poupard, Roberto Bellarmino, che aveva percepito la vera posta in gioco del dibattito, riteneva da parte sua che, davanti ad eventuali prove scientifiche dell’orbita della terra intorno al sole, si dovesse “andar con molta considerazione in esplicare le Scritture che paiono contrarie” alla mobilità della terra e “più tosto dire che non l’intendiamo, che dire che sia falso quello che si dimostra” (Lettera al Padre A. Foscarini, 12 aprile 1615, cf. op. cit., vol. XII, p. 172). Prima di lui, la stessa saggezza e lo stesso rispetto della Parola divina avevano già guidato sant’Agostino a scrivere: “Se a una ragione evidentissima e sicura si cercasse di contrapporre l’autorità delle Sacre Scritture, chi fa questo non comprende e oppone alla verità non il senso genuino delle Scritture, che non è riuscito a penetrare, ma il proprio pensiero, vale a dire non ciò che ha trovato nelle Scritture, ma ciò che ha trovato in se stesso, come se fosse in esse” (Epistula 143, n. 7; PL 33,588). Un secolo fa, il Papa Leone XIII faceva eco a questo pensiero nella sua enciclica Providentissimus Deus: “Poiché il vero non può in alcun modo contraddire il vero, si può esser certi che un errore si è insinuato o nell’interpretazione delle parole sacre, o in un altro luogo della discussione” (Leonis XIII Pont. Max. Acta, vol. XIII, 1894, p. 361).
Il Cardinal Poupard ci ha ugualmente ricordato come la sentenza del 1633 non fosse irreformabile e come il dibattito, che non aveva cessato di evolvere, sia stato chiuso nel 1820 con l’imprimatur concesso all’opera del canonico Settele (cf. Pontificia Accademia Scientiarum, Copernico, Galilei e la Chiesa. Fine della controversia (1820). Gli atti del Sant’Ufficio, a cura di W. Brandmüller e E. J. Greipl, Firenze, Olschki, 1992).
10. A partire dal secolo dei Lumi fino ai nostri giorni, il caso Galileo ha costituito una sorta di mito, nel quale l’immagine degli avvenimenti che ci si era costruita era abbastanza lontana dalla realtà. In tale prospettiva, il caso Galileo era il simbolo del preteso rifiuto, da parte della Chiesa, del progresso scientifico, oppure dell’oscurantismo “dommatico” opposto alla libera ricerca della verità. Questo mito ha giocato un ruolo culturale considerevole; esso ha contribuito ad ancorare parecchi uomini di scienza in buona fede all’idea che ci fosse incompatibilità tra lo spirito della scienza e la sua etica di ricerca, da un lato, e la fede cristiana, dall’altro. Una tragica reciproca incomprensione è stata interpretata come il riflesso di una opposizione costitutiva tra scienza e fede. Le chiarificazioni apportate dai recenti studi storici ci permettono di affermare che tale doloroso malinteso appartiene ormai al passato.
11. Dal caso Galileo si può trarre un insegnamento che resta d’attualità in rapporto ad analoghe situazioni che si presentano oggi e possono presentarsi in futuro.
Al tempo di Galileo, era inconcepibile rappresentarsi un mondo che fosse sprovvisto di un punto di riferimento fisico assoluto. E siccome il cosmo allora conosciuto era, per così dire, contenuto nel solo sistema solare, non si poteva situare questo punto di riferimento che sulla terra o sul sole. Oggi, dopo Einstein e nella prospettiva della cosmologia contemporanea, nessuno di questi due punti di riferimento riveste l’importanza che aveva allora. Questa osservazione, è ovvio, non concerne la validità della posizione di Galileo nel dibattito; intende piuttosto indicare che spesso, al di là di due visioni parziali e contrastanti, esiste una visione più larga che entrambe le include e le supera.
12. Un altro insegnamento che si trae è il fatto che le diverse discipline del sapere richiedono una diversità di metodi.
Galileo, che ha praticamente inventato il metodo sperimentale, aveva compreso, grazie alla sua intuizione di fisico geniale e appoggiandosi a diversi argomenti, perché mai soltanto il sole potesse avere funzione di centro del mondo, così come allora era conosciuto, cioè come sistema planetario.
L’errore dei teologi del tempo, nel sostenere la centralità della terra, fu quello di pensare che la nostra conoscenza della struttura del mondo fisico fosse, in certo qual modo, imposta dal senso letterale della S. Scrittura. Ma è doveroso ricordare la celebre sentenza attribuita a Baronio: “Spiritui Sancto mentem fuisse nos docere quomodo ad coelum eatur, non quomodo coelum gradiatur”. In realtà, la Scrittura non si occupa dei dettagli del mondo fisico, la cui conoscenza è affidata all’esperienza e ai ragionamenti umani. Esistono due campi del sapere, quello che ha la sua fonte nella Rivelazione e quello che la ragione può scoprire con le sole sue forze. A quest’ultimo appartengono le scienze sperimentali e la filosofia. La distinzione tra i due campi del sapere non deve essere intesa come una opposizione. I due settori non sono del tutto estranei l’uno all’altro, ma hanno punti di incontro. Le metodologie proprie di ciascuno permettono di mettere in evidenza aspetti diversi della realtà.
13. La vostra Accademia porta avanti i suoi lavori con tale atteggiamento di spirito. Il suo compito principale è quello di promuovere lo sviluppo delle conoscenze secondo la legittima autonomia della scienza (Concilio Vaticano II, Cost. past. Gaudium et spes, 36, 2), che la Sede apostolica riconosce espressamente negli Statuti della vostra istituzione.
Quel che importa, in una teoria scientifica o filosofica, è innanzitutto che essa sia vera o, almeno, seriamente e solidamente fondata. E il fine della vostra Accademia è precisamente quello di discernere e far conoscere, allo stato attuale della scienza e nel campo che le è proprio, ciò che può essere considerato come verità acquisita o almeno dotata di una tale probabilità che sarebbe imprudente e irragionevole respingerla. In questo modo potranno essere evitati inutili conflitti.
La serietà dell’informazione scientifica sarà così il miglior contributo che l’Accademia potrà apportare all’esatta formulazione e alla soluzione degli assillanti problemi ai quali la Chiesa, in virtù della sua specifica missione, ha il dovere di prestare attenzione: problemi che non concernono più soltanto l’astronomia, la fisica e la matematica, ma ugualmente discipline relativamente nuove come la biologia e la biogenetica. Molte scoperte scientifiche recenti e le loro possibili applicazioni hanno un’incidenza più che mai diretta sull’uomo stesso, sul suo pensiero e la sua azione, al punto da sembrar minacciare i fondamenti stessi dell’umano.
14. Esiste, per l’umanità, un duplice genere di sviluppo. Il primo comprende la cultura, la ricerca scientifica e tecnica, cioè tutto ciò che appartiene all’orizzontalità dell’uomo e della creazione, e che si accresce con un ritmo impressionante. Se questo sviluppo non vuol restare totalmente esterno all’uomo, è necessario un concomitante approfondimento della coscienza come anche della sua attuazione. Il secondo modo di sviluppo concerne quanto c’è di più profondo nell’essere umano allorché, trascendendo il mondo e se stesso, egli si volge verso Colui che è il Creatore di ogni cosa.
Solo questo itinerario verticale può, in definitiva, dare tutto il suo senso all’essere e all’agire dell’uomo, perché lo situa tra la sua origine e il suo fine. In questo duplice itinerario, orizzontale e verticale, l’uomo si realizza pienamente come essere spirituale e come homo sapiens. Ma si osserva che lo sviluppo non è uniforme e rettilineo, e che il progresso non è sempre armonioso. Ciò rende palese il disordine che segna la condizione umana. L’uomo di scienza, che prende coscienza di questo duplice sviluppo e ne tiene conto, contribuisce al ristabilimento dell’armonia.
Chi si impegna nella ricerca scientifica e tecnica ammette come presupposto del suo itinerario che il mondo non è un caos, ma un “cosmos”, ossia che c’è un ordine e delle leggi naturali, che si lasciano apprendere e pensare, e che hanno pertanto una certa affinità con lo spirito. Einstein amava dire: “Quello che c’è, nel mondo, di eternamente incomprensibile, è che esso sia comprensibile” (In “The journal of the Franklin Institute”, vol. 221, n. 3, marzo 1936). Questa intelligibilità, attestata dalle prodigiose scoperte delle scienze e delle tecniche, rinvia in definitiva al Pensiero trascendente e originario di cui ogni cosa porta l’impronta.
Signore, Signori, concludendo questo incontro, formulo i migliori auguri perché le vostre ricerche e le vostre riflessioni contribuiscano a offrire ai nostri contemporanei orientamenti utili per costruire una società armoniosa in un mondo più rispettoso dell’umano. Vi ringrazio per i servizi che rendete alla Santa Sede, e chiedo a Dio di colmarvi dei suoi doni.
© Copyright 1992 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
Copyright © Dicastero per la Comunicazione - Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Question: galileo galilei was the founder of which institute

Papinske akademije znanosti ( Accademia dei Lincei),Vinković , K , "" Nedemokratski obračun s papom

Although Roman Catholic and pioneer of the Pope's Academy of Sciences (Accademia dei Lincei),Vinković, K, "Nedemocratic accounting with the pope.

galileo galilei was the founder of which institute

Question: what religion was galileo galilei

Question: what is the scientific name for galileo galilei

what is the scientific name for galileo galilei

Question: what is the abbreviation for the pope's academy of sciences

Accademia dei Lincei),Vinković , K , "" Nedemokratski obračun s papom

what is the abbreviation for the pope's academy of sciences

Question: galileo galilei was a pioneer of what

Papinske akademije znanosti ( Accademia dei Lincei),Vinković , K , "" Nedemokratski obračun s papom

Question: what type of accounting did galileo galilei use

what type of accounting did galileo galilei use

Question: what does vinkovicć say about galileo galilei

what does vinkovicć say about galileo galilei

Question: who is the author of the book galileo galilei

who is the author of the book galileo galilei

Although Roman Catholic and pioneer of the Pope 's Academy of Sciences ( Accademia dei Lincei),Vinković , K , " Nedemocratic accounting with the pope .

Iako rimokatolik i pionir Papinske akademije znanosti (Accademia dei Lincei),Vinković, K, "Nedemokratski obračun s papom.

Iako rimokatolik i pionir Papinske akademije znanosti (Accademia dei Lincei),Vinković, K, "Nedemokratski obračun s papom.

Although Roman Catholic and pioneer of the Pope's Academy of Sciences (Accademia dei Lincei),Vinković, K, "Nedemocratic accounting with the pope.

Although Roman Catholic and pioneer of the Pope's Academy of Sciences (Accademia dei Lincei),Vinković, K, "Nedemocratic accounting with the pope.

Galileo Galilei
Quick Info
Pisa (now Italy)
Arcetri near Florence (now Italy)
BiographyGalileo Galilei's parents were Vincenzo Galilei and Guilia Ammannati. Vincenzo, who was born in Florence in 1520, was a teacher of music and a fine lute player. After studying music in Venice he carried out experiments on strings to support his musical theories. Guilia, who was born in Pescia, married Vincenzo in 1563 and they made their home in the countryside near Pisa. Galileo was their first child and spent his early years with his family in Pisa.
In 1572, when Galileo was eight years old, his family returned to Florence, his father's home town. However, Galileo remained in Pisa and lived for two years with Muzio Tedaldi who was related to Galileo's mother by marriage. When he reached the age of ten, Galileo left Pisa to join his family in Florence and there he was tutored by Jacopo Borghini. Once he was old enough to be educated in a monastery, his parents sent him to the Camaldolese Monastery at Vallombrosa which is situated on a magnificent forested hillside 33 km southeast of Florence. The Camaldolese Order was independent of the Benedictine Order, splitting from it in about 1012. The Order combined the solitary life of the hermit with the strict life of the monk and soon the young Galileo found this life an attractive one. He became a novice, intending to join the Order, but this did not please his father who had already decided that his eldest son should become a medical doctor.
Vincenzo had Galileo return from Vallombrosa to Florence and give up the idea of joining the Camaldolese order. He did continue his schooling in Florence, however, in a school run by the Camaldolese monks. In 1581 Vincenzo sent Galileo back to Pisa to live again with Muzio Tedaldi and now to enrol for a medical degree at the University of Pisa. Although the idea of a medical career never seems to have appealed to Galileo, his father's wish was a fairly natural one since there had been a distinguished physician in his family in the previous century. Galileo never seems to have taken medical studies seriously, attending courses on his real interests which were in mathematics and natural philosophy. His mathematics teacher at Pisa was Filippo Fantoni, who held the chair of mathematics. Galileo returned to Florence for the summer vacations and there continued to study mathematics.
In the year 1582-83 Ostilio Ricci, who was the mathematician of the Tuscan Court and a former pupil of Tartaglia, taught a course on Euclid's Elements at the University of Pisa which Galileo attended. During the summer of 1583 Galileo was back in Florence with his family and Vincenzo encouraged him to read Galen to further his medical studies. However Galileo, still reluctant to study medicine, invited Ricci (also in Florence where the Tuscan court spent the summer and autumn) to his home to meet his father. Ricci tried to persuade Vincenzo to allow his son to study mathematics since this was where his interests lay. Certainly Vincenzo did not like the idea and resisted strongly but eventually he gave way a little and Galileo was able to study the works of Euclid and Archimedes from the Italian translations which Tartaglia had made. Of course he was still officially enrolled as a medical student at Pisa but eventually, by 1585, he gave up this course and left without completing his degree.
Galileo began teaching mathematics, first privately in Florence and then during 1585-86 at Siena where he held a public appointment. During the summer of 1586 he taught at Vallombrosa, and in this year he wrote his first scientific book The little balance [La Balancitta] which described Archimedes' method of finding the specific gravities (that is the relative densities) of substances using a balance. In the following year he travelled to Rome to visit Clavius who was professor of mathematics at the Jesuit Collegio Romano there. A topic which was very popular with the Jesuit mathematicians at this time was centres of gravity and Galileo brought with him some results which he had discovered on this topic. Despite making a very favourable impression on Clavius, Galileo failed to gain an appointment to teach mathematics at the University of Bologna.
After leaving Rome Galileo remained in contact with Clavius by correspondence and Guidobaldo del Monte was also a regular correspondent. Certainly the theorems which Galileo had proved on the centres of gravity of solids, and left in Rome, were discussed in this correspondence. It is also likely that Galileo received lecture notes from courses which had been given at the Collegio Romano, for he made copies of such material which still survive today. The correspondence began around 1588 and continued for many years. Also in 1588 Galileo received a prestigious invitation to lecture on the dimensions and location of hell in Dante's Inferno at the Academy in Florence.
Fantoni left the chair of mathematics at the University of Pisa in 1589 and Galileo was appointed to fill the post (although this was only a nominal position to provide financial support for Galileo). Not only did he receive strong recommendations from Clavius, but he also had acquired an excellent reputation through his lectures at the Florence Academy in the previous year. The young mathematician had rapidly acquired the reputation that was necessary to gain such a position, but there were still higher positions at which he might aim. Galileo spent three years holding this post at the university of Pisa and during this time he wrote De Motu a series of essays on the theory of motion which he never published. It is likely that he never published this material because he was less than satisfied with it, and this is fair for despite containing some important steps forward, it also contained some incorrect ideas. Perhaps the most important new ideas which De Motu contains is that one can test theories by conducting experiments. In particular the work contains his important idea that one could test theories about falling bodies using an inclined plane to slow down the rate of descent.
In 1591 Vincenzo Galilei, Galileo's father, died and since Galileo was the eldest son he had to provide financial support for the rest of the family and in particular have the necessary financial means to provide dowries for his two younger sisters. Being professor of mathematics at Pisa was not well paid, so Galileo looked for a more lucrative post. With strong recommendations from Guidobaldo del Monte, Galileo was appointed professor of mathematics at the University of Padua (the university of the Republic of Venice) in 1592 at a salary of three times what he had received at Pisa. On 7 December 1592 he gave his inaugural lecture and began a period of eighteen years at the university, years which he later described as the happiest of his life. At Padua his duties were mainly to teach Euclid's geometry and standard (geocentric) astronomy to medical students, who would need to know some astronomy in order to make use of astrology in their medical practice. However, Galileo argued against Aristotle's view of astronomy and natural philosophy in three public lectures he gave in connection with the appearance of a New Star (now known as 'Kepler's supernova') in 1604. The belief at this time was that of Aristotle, namely that all changes in the heavens had to occur in the lunar region close to the Earth, the realm of the fixed stars being permanent. Galileo used parallax arguments to prove that the New Star could not be close to the Earth. In a personal letter written to Kepler in 1598, Galileo had stated that he was a Copernican (believer in the theories of Copernicus). However, no public sign of this belief was to appear until many years later.
At Padua, Galileo began a long term relationship with Maria Gamba, who was from Venice, but they did not marry perhaps because Galileo felt his financial situation was not good enough. In 1600 their first child Virginia was born, followed by a second daughter Livia in the following year. In 1606 their son Vincenzo was born.
We mentioned above an error in Galileo's theory of motion as he set it out in De Motu around 1590. He was quite mistaken in his belief that the force acting on a body was the relative difference between its specific gravity and that of the substance through which it moved. Galileo wrote to his friend Paolo Sarpi, a fine mathematician who was consultor to the Venetian government, in 1604 and it is clear from his letter that by this time he had realised his mistake. In fact he had returned to work on the theory of motion in 1602 and over the following two years, through his study of inclined planes and the pendulum, he had formulated the correct law of falling bodies and had worked out that a projectile follows a parabolic path. However, these famous results would not be published for another 35 years.
In May 1609, Galileo received a letter from Paolo Sarpi telling him about a spyglass that a Dutchman had shown in Venice. Galileo wrote in the Starry Messenger (Sidereus Nuncius) in April 1610:-
About ten months ago a report reached my ears that a certain Fleming had constructed a spyglass by means of which visible objects, though very distant from the eye of the observer, were distinctly seen as if nearby. Of this truly remarkable effect several experiences were related, to which some persons believed while other denied them. A few days later the report was confirmed by a letter I received from a Frenchman in Paris, Jacques Badovere, which caused me to apply myself wholeheartedly to investigate means by which I might arrive at the invention of a similar instrument. This I did soon afterwards, my basis being the doctrine of refraction.From these reports, and using his own technical skills as a mathematician and as a craftsman, Galileo began to make a series of telescopes whose optical performance was much better than that of the Dutch instrument. His first telescope was made from available lenses and gave a magnification of about four times. To improve on this Galileo learned how to grind and polish his own lenses and by August 1609 he had an instrument with a magnification of around eight or nine. Galileo immediately saw the commercial and military applications of his telescope (which he called a perspicillum) for ships at sea. He kept Sarpi informed of his progress and Sarpi arranged a demonstration for the Venetian Senate. They were very impressed and, in return for a large increase in his salary, Galileo gave the sole rights for the manufacture of telescopes to the Venetian Senate. It seems a particularly good move on his part since he must have known that such rights were meaningless, particularly since he always acknowledged that the telescope was not his invention!
By the end of 1609 Galileo had turned his telescope on the night sky and began to make remarkable discoveries. Swerdlow writes (see [16]):-
In about two months, December and January, he made more discoveries that changed the world than anyone has ever made before or since.The astronomical discoveries he made with his telescopes were described in a short book called the Starry Messenger published in Venice in May 1610. This work caused a sensation. Galileo claimed to have seen mountains on the Moon, to have proved the Milky Way was made up of tiny stars, and to have seen four small bodies orbiting Jupiter. These last, with an eye to getting a position in Florence, he quickly named 'the Medicean stars'. He had also sent Cosimo de Medici, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, an excellent telescope for himself.
The Venetian Senate, perhaps realising that the rights to manufacture telescopes that Galileo had given them were worthless, froze his salary. However he had succeeded in impressing Cosimo and, in June 1610, only a month after his famous little book was published, Galileo resigned his post at Padua and became Chief Mathematician at the University of Pisa (without any teaching duties) and 'Mathematician and Philosopher' to the Grand Duke of Tuscany. In 1611 he visited Rome where he was treated as a leading celebrity; the Collegio Romano put on a grand dinner with speeches to honour Galileo's remarkable discoveries. He was also made a member of the Accademia dei Lincei (in fact the sixth member) and this was an honour which was especially important to Galileo who signed himself 'Galileo Galilei Linceo' from this time on.
While in Rome, and after his return to Florence, Galileo continued to make observations with his telescope. Already in the Starry Messenger he had given rough periods of the four moons of Jupiter, but more precise calculations were certainly not easy since it was difficult to identify from an observation which moon was I, which was II, which III, and which IV. He made a long series of observations and was able to give accurate periods by 1612. At one stage in the calculations he became very puzzled since the data he had recorded seemed inconsistent, but he had forgotten to take into account the motion of the Earth round the sun.
Galileo first turned his telescope on Saturn on 25 July 1610 and it appeared as three bodies (his telescope was not good enough to show the rings but made them appear as lobes on either side of the planet). Continued observations were puzzling indeed to Galileo as the bodies on either side of Saturn vanished when the ring system was edge on. Also in 1610 he discovered that, when seen in the telescope, the planet Venus showed phases like those of the Moon, and therefore must orbit the Sun not the Earth. This did not enable one to decide between the Copernican system, in which everything goes round the Sun, and that proposed by Tycho Brahe in which everything but the Earth (and Moon) goes round the Sun which in turn goes round the Earth. Most astronomers of the time in fact favoured Brahe's system and indeed distinguishing between the two by experiment was beyond the instruments of the day. However, Galileo knew that all his discoveries were evidence for Copernicanism, although not a proof. In fact it was his theory of falling bodies which was the most significant in this respect, for opponents of a moving Earth argued that if the Earth rotated and a body was dropped from a tower it should fall behind the tower as the Earth rotated while it fell. Since this was not observed in practice this was taken as strong evidence that the Earth was stationary. However Galileo already knew that a body would fall in the observed manner on a rotating Earth.
Other observations made by Galileo included the observation of sunspots. He reported these in Discourse on floating bodies which he published in 1612 and more fully in Letters on the sunspots which appeared in 1613. In the following year his two daughters entered the Franciscan Convent of St Matthew outside Florence, Virginia taking the name Sister Maria Celeste and Livia the name Sister Arcangela. Since they had been born outside of marriage, Galileo believed that they themselves should never marry. Although Galileo put forward many revolutionary correct theories, he was not correct in all cases. In particular when three comets appeared in 1618 he became involved in a controversy regarding the nature of comets. He argued that they were close to the Earth and caused by optical refraction. A serious consequence of this unfortunate argument was that the Jesuits began to see Galileo as a dangerous opponent.
Despite his private support for Copernicanism, Galileo tried to avoid controversy by not making public statements on the issue. However he was drawn into the controversy through Castelli who had been appointed to the chair of mathematics in Pisa in 1613. Castelli had been a student of Galileo's and he was also a supporter of Copernicus. At a meeting in the Medici palace in Florence in December 1613 with the Grand Duke Cosimo II and his mother the Grand Duchess Christina of Lorraine, Castelli was asked to explain the apparent contradictions between the Copernican theory and Holy Scripture. Castelli defended the Copernican position vigorously and wrote to Galileo afterwards telling him how successful he had been in putting the arguments. Galileo, less convinced that Castelli had won the argument, wrote Letter to Castelli to him arguing that the Bible had to be interpreted in the light of what science had shown to be true. Galileo had several opponents in Florence and they made sure that a copy of the Letter to Castelli was sent to the Inquisition in Rome. However, after examining its contents they found little to which they could object.
The Catholic Church's most important figure at this time in dealing with interpretations of the Holy Scripture was Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. He seems at this time to have seen little reason for the Church to be concerned regarding the Copernican theory. The point at issue was whether Copernicus had simply put forward a mathematical theory which enabled the calculation of the positions of the heavenly bodies to be made more simply or whether he was proposing a physical reality. At this time Bellarmine viewed the theory as an elegant mathematical one which did not threaten the established Christian belief regarding the structure of the universe.
In 1616 Galileo wrote the Letter to the Grand Duchess which vigorously attacked the followers of Aristotle. In this work, which he addressed to the Grand Duchess Christina of Lorraine, he argued strongly for a non-literal interpretation of Holy Scripture when the literal interpretation would contradict facts about the physical world proved by mathematical science. In this Galileo stated quite clearly that for him the Copernican theory is not just a mathematical calculating tool, but is a physical reality:-
I hold that the Sun is located at the centre of the revolutions of the heavenly orbs and does not change place, and that the Earth rotates on itself and moves around it. Moreover ... I confirm this view not only by refuting Ptolemy's and Aristotle's arguments, but also by producing many for the other side, especially some pertaining to physical effects whose causes perhaps cannot be determined in any other way, and other astronomical discoveries; these discoveries clearly confute the Ptolemaic system, and they agree admirably with this other position and confirm it.Pope Paul V ordered Bellarmine to have the Sacred Congregation of the Index decide on the Copernican theory. The cardinals of the Inquisition met on 24 February 1616 and took evidence from theological experts. They condemned the teachings of Copernicus, and Bellarmine conveyed their decision to Galileo who had not been personally involved in the trial. Galileo was forbidden to hold Copernican views but later events made him less concerned about this decision of the Inquisition. Most importantly Maffeo Barberini, who was an admirer of Galileo, was elected as Pope Urban VIII. This happened just as Galileo's book Il saggiatore (The Assayer) was about to be published by the Accademia dei Lincei in 1623 and Galileo was quick to dedicate this work to the new Pope. The work described Galileo's new scientific method and contains a famous quote regarding mathematics:-
Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these one is wandering in a dark labyrinth.Pope Urban VIII invited Galileo to papal audiences on six occasions and led Galileo to believe that the Catholic Church would not make an issue of the Copernican theory. Galileo, therefore, decided to publish his views believing that he could do so without serious consequences from the Church. However by this stage in his life Galileo's health was poor with frequent bouts of severe illness and so even though he began to write his famous Dialogue in 1624 it took him six years to complete the work.
Galileo attempted to obtain permission from Rome to publish the Dialogue in 1630 but this did not prove easy. Eventually he received permission from Florence, and not Rome. In February 1632 Galileo published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican. It takes the form of a dialogue between Salviati, who argues for the Copernican system, and Simplicio who is an Aristotelian philosopher. The climax of the book is an argument by Salviati that the Earth moves which was based on Galileo's theory of the tides. Galileo's theory of the tides was entirely false despite being postulated after Kepler had already put forward the correct explanation. It was unfortunate, given the remarkable truths the Dialogue supported, that the argument which Galileo thought to give the strongest proof of Copernicus's theory should be incorrect.
Shortly after publication of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican the Inquisition banned its sale and ordered Galileo to appear in Rome before them. Illness prevented him from travelling to Rome until 1633. Galileo's accusation at the trial which followed was that he had breached the conditions laid down by the Inquisition in 1616. However a different version of this decision was produced at the trial rather than the one Galileo had been given at the time. The truth of the Copernican theory was not an issue therefore; it was taken as a fact at the trial that this theory was false. This was logical, of course, since the judgement of 1616 had declared it totally false.
Found guilty, Galileo was condemned to lifelong imprisonment, but the sentence was carried out somewhat sympathetically and it amounted to house arrest rather than a prison sentence. He was able to live first with the Archbishop of Siena, then later to return to his home in Arcetri, near Florence, but had to spend the rest of his life watched over by officers from the Inquisition. In 1634 he suffered a severe blow when his daughter Virginia, Sister Maria Celeste, died. She had been a great support to her father through his illnesses and Galileo was shattered and could not work for many months. When he did manage to restart work, he began to write Discourses and mathematical demonstrations concerning the two new sciences.
After Galileo had completed work on the Discourses it was smuggled out of Italy, and taken to Leyden in Holland where it was published. It was his most rigorous mathematical work which treated problems on impetus, moments, and centres of gravity. Much of this work went back to the unpublished ideas in De Motu from around 1590 and the improvements which he had worked out during 1602-1604. In the Discourses he developed his ideas of the inclined plane writing:-
I assume that the speed acquired by the same movable object over different inclinations of the plane are equal whenever the heights of those planes are equal.He then described an experiment using a pendulum to verify his property of inclined planes and used these ideas to give a theorem on acceleration of bodies in free fall:-
The time in which a certain distance is traversed by an object moving under uniform acceleration from rest is equal to the time in which the same distance would be traversed by the same movable object moving at a uniform speed of one half the maximum and final speed of the previous uniformly accelerated motion.After giving further results of this type he gives his famous result that the distance that a body moves from rest under uniform acceleration is proportional to the square of the time taken.
One would expect that Galileo's understanding of the pendulum, which he had since he was a young man, would have led him to design a pendulum clock. In fact he only seems to have thought of this possibility near the end of his life and around 1640 he did design the first pendulum clock. Galileo died in early 1642 but the significance of his clock design was certainly realised by his son Vincenzo who tried to make a clock to Galileo's plan, but failed.
It was a sad end for so great a man to die condemned of heresy. His will indicated that he wished to be buried beside his father in the family tomb in the Basilica of Santa Croce but his relatives feared, quite rightly, that this would provoke opposition from the Church. His body was concealed and only placed in a fine tomb in the church in 1737 by the civil authorities against the wishes of many in the Church. On 31 October 1992, 350 years after Galileo's death, Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun.
- S Drake, Biography in Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York 1970-1990).
See THIS LINK.
- S Drake, Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography (Chicago, Ill.-London, 1981).
- Biography in Encyclopaedia Britannica.
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Galileo-Galilei
- W Brandmüller and E J Greipl, Copernico, Galilei e la Chiesa : Fine della controversia (1820) : gli atti del Sant'Uffizio (Florence, 1992).
- M Bucciantini, Contro Galileo : Alle origini dell'affare (Florence, 1995).
- T Campanella, A defense of Galileo, the mathematician from Florence (Notre Dame, IN, 1994).
- S Drake, Galileo Studies: Personality, Tradition, and Revolution (1970).
- S Drake, Galileo (Oxford, 1980).
- S Drake, Galileo : pioneer scientist (Toronto, ON, 1990).
- S Drake, Galileo : Past Masters (New York, 1980).
- A Fantoli, Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church (Vatican, 1994).
- A Fantoli, Galileo : For Copernicanism and for the Church (Vatican City, 1994).
- M A Finocchiaro, Galileo and the art of reasoning : Rhetorical foundations of logic and scientific method (Dordrecht-Boston, Mass., 1980).
- L Geymonat, Galileo Galilei (New York, 1965).
- A Koyré, Galileo studies (Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1978).
- P Machamer (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Galileo (Cambridge, 1998).
- P Redondi, Galileo : heretic (Princeton, NJ, 1987).
- C A Ronan, Galileo (1974).
- E Schmutzer and W Schütz, Galileo Galilei (German) (Thun, 1989).
- M Sharratt, Galileo : Decisive Innovator (Cambridge, 1994).
- W R Shea, Galileo's intellectual revolution. Middle period, 1610-1632 (New York, 1977).
- R S Westfall, Essays on the trial of Galileo (Vatican, 1989).
- E Agazzi, Was Galileo a realist?, Physis Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. (N.S.) 31 (1) (1994), 273-296.
- A V Akhutin, Galileo's experiment, Scientia (Milano) 117 (5-8) (1982), 287-311.
- G Aquilecchia, Galileo's 'Chief systems' and Bruno's 'Supper' (toward a thematical-structural comparison) (Italian), Nuncius Ann. Storia Sci. 10 (2) (1995), 485-496.
- U Baldini, Additamenta Galilaeana. II, Galileo in letters of the Elector of Cologne and of Ricardo de Burgo to Christopher Grienberger (Italian), Nuncius Ann. Storia Sci. 2 (1) (1987), 3-36.
- U Barcaro, Galileo and the biological world (Italian), Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 24 (3) (1982), 357-379.
- U Barcaro, The properties of circular motion in Galileo's 'Discourses' (Italian), Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 24 (1) (1982), 5-16.
- U Barcaro, The concept of inertia in the 'Discourses' of Galileo (Italian), Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 22 (3-4) (1980), 325-342.
- F J Baumgartner, Galileo's French correspondents, Ann. of Sci. 45 (2) (1988), 169-182.
- D A Bayuk, The controversy between Vincenzo Galilei and Gioseffo Zarlino and its influence on the theoretical thought of Galileo Galilei (Russian), Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tekhn. (1) (1993), 46-56.
- M Biagioli, New documents on Galileo, Nuncius Ann. Storia Sci. 6 (2) (1991), 157-169.
- M Biagioli, Galileo the emblem maker, Isis 81 (307) (1990), 230-258.
- M Biagioli, Galileo's system of patronage, Hist. of Sci. 28 (79, 1) (1990), 1-62.
- T Bolelli, Lingua e stile di Galileo, Nuovo Cimento (10) 2 (1955), 1173-1192.
- P G Bordoni, Galileo instauratore della meccanica, Ricerca Sci. 26 (1956), 1378-1391.
- H I Brown, Galileo, the elements, and the tides, Studies in Hist. and Philos. Sci. 7 (4) (1976), 337-351.
- V Cappelletti, Galileo's trial (Italian), Arch. Internat. Hist. Sci. 33 (110) (1983), 30-35.
- M De Caro, Galileo's mathematical Platonism, in Philosophy of mathematics (Vienna, 1993), 13-22.
- E Carruccio, Galileo precursore della teoria degli insiemi (Italian), Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. (2) 4 (1942), 175-187.
- A Chalmers and R Nicholas, Galileo on the dissipative effect of a rotating earth, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 14 (4) (1983), 315-340.
- M Clavelin, Galilée et la mécanisation du système du monde, in Proceedings of the 1978 Pisa Conference on the History and Philosophy of Science I (Dordrecht- Boston, Mass., 1981), 229-251.
- J A Coffa, Galileo's concept of inertia, Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 10 (1968), 261-281.
- A Coppola and A Drago, Did Galileo invent the principle of inertia? Proposal for a new interpretation of his works (Italian), Rend. Accad. Naz. Sci. XL Mem. Sci. Fis. Natur. (5) 9 (1985), 319-327.
- P Costabel, L'atomisme, face cachée de la condamnation de Galilée?, C. R. Acad. Sci. Sér. Gén. Vie Sci. 4 (4) (1987), 349-365.
- A C Crombie, Philosophical presuppositions and shifting interpretations of Galileo, in Proceedings of the 1978 Pisa Conference on the History and Philosophy of Science I (Dordrecht- Boston, Mass., 1981), 271-286.
- R Devadason, The life history and contributions of a mathematician whom I admire : Galileo Galilei, Menemui Mat. 5 (1) (1983), 16-24.
- S Drake, Galileo's first telescopic observations, Journal for the history of astronomy 7 (1976), 153-168.
- S Drake, Galileo's gleanings VI : Galileo's first telescope at Padua and Venive, Isis 50 (1959), 245-254.
- S Drake, Galileo, Kepler, and the phases of Venus, Journal for the history of astronomy 15 (1984), 198-208.
- S Drake, Galileo and satellite prediction, Journal for the history of astronomy 10 (1979), 75-95.
- S Drake, Hipparchus- Geminus- Galileo, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 20 (1) (1989), 47-56.
- S Drake, Galileo's constant, Nuncius Ann. Storia Sci. 2 (2) (1987), 41-54.
- S Drake, Galileo and mathematical physics, in Science and philosophy (Milan, 1985), 627-642.
- S Drake, Galileo's steps to full Copernicanism, and back, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 18 (1) (1987), 93-105.
- S Drake, Galileo's pre-Paduan writings : years, sources, motivations, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 17 (4) (1986), 429-448.
- S Drake, Galileo's physical measurements, Amer. J. Phys. 54 (4) (1986), 302-306.
- S Drake, Galileo's 'Dialogue' : Al discreto lettore, Scientia (Milano) 117 (5-8) (1982), 247-274.
- S Drake, Alleged departures from Galileo's law of descent, Ann. of Sci. 38 (3) (1981), 339-342.
- S Drake, Ptolemy, Galileo, and scientific method, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 9 (2) (1978), 99-115.
- S Drake, Galileo's experimental confirmation of horizontal inertia : unpublished manuscripts, Isis 64 (223) (1973), 291-305.
- S Drake, The evolution of 'De motu', Isis 67 (237) (1976), 239-250.
- S Drake, Velocity and Eudoxian proportion theory, Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 15 (1973), 49-64.
- S Drake, The uniform motion equivalent to a uniformly accelerated motion from rest, Isis 63 (216) (1972), 28-38.
- S Drake, A further reappraisal of impetus theory : Buridan, Benedetti, and Galileo, Studies in Hist. and Philos. Sci. 7 (4) (1976), 319-336.
- S Drake, Galileo's work on free fall in 1604, Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 16 (4) (1974), 309-322.
- S Drake, Mathematics and discovery in Galileo's physics, Historia Math. 1 (1974), 129-150.
- S Drake, On the probable order of Galileo's notes on motion, Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 14 (1) (1972), 55-68.
- S Drake, Galileo's 'Platonic' cosmogony and Kepler's 'Prodromus', J. Hist. Astronom. 4 (3) (1973), 174-191.
- S Drake, The question of circular inertia, Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 10 (1968), 282-298.
- P Dupont, Continuità e velocità in Galileo (Italian), Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Rend. Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Natur. (8) 39 (1965), 255-262.
- H Erlichson, Galileo and high tower experiments, Centaurus 36 (1) (1993), 33-45.
- H Erlichson, Galileo's pendulums and planes, Ann. of Sci. 51 (3) (1994), 263-272.
- V A Fabrikant, How the concept of acceleration took shape in the mechanics of Galileo, Soviet Phys. Uspekhi 34 (2) (1991), 201.
- M Fehér, Galileo and the demonstrative ideal of science, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 13 (2) (1982), 87-110.
- E Festa, La notion d''agrégat d'indivisibles' dans la constitution de la cinématique galiléenne : Cavalieri, Galilée, Torricelli, Rev. Histoire Sci. 45 (2-3) (1992), 307-336.
- M A Finocchiaro, Methodological aspects of Galileo's thought, Theoria Hist. Sci. 2 (1992), 80-91.
- M A Finocchiaro, Galileo's philosophy of science. II, A case study of interdisciplinary synthesis. With an Italian translation, Scientia (Milano) 112 (1-4) (1977), 371-399.
- M A Finocchiaro, Galileo's philosophy of science. I, A case study of the role of judgment and of philosophizing in science, Scientia (Milano) 112 (1-4) (1977), 95-138.
- M A Finocchiaro, Galileo's space-proportionality argument : a role for logic in historiography, Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 15 (1973), 65-72.
- M A Finocchiaro, Vires acquirit eundo : the passage where Galileo renounces space-acceleration and causal investigation, Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 14 (2) (1972), 125-145.
- M A Finocchiaro, Galileo as a logician, Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia. Sci. 16 (2) (1974), 129-148.
- H R Frankel, The importance of Galileo's nontelescopic observations concerning the size of the fixed stars, Isis 69 (246) (1978), 77-82.
- R Fredette, Galileo's 'De Motu antiquiora', Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 14 (4) (1972), 321-348.
- M Galli, Sui contributi di Galileo alla fondazione della dinamica, Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. (3) 9 (1954), 289-300.
- M Galli, Le prove meccaniche della rotazione terrestre secondo Galileo, Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. (3) 8 (1953), 328-336.
- J Gapaillard, Galilée et le principe du chasseur, Rev. Histoire Sci. 45 (2-3) (1992), 281-306.
- J Gapaillard, Galilée et l'accélération de la pesanteur, Physis Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. (N.S.) 29 (2) (1992), 319-374.
- E Garcia de Zuniga, Galileo and pure mathematics (Spanish), Publ. Inst. Mat. Univ. Nac. Litoral 5 (1945), 171-174.
- E Garin, Galileo : the scandals of the new 'philosophy' (Italian), Nuncius Ann. Storia Sci. 8 (2) (1993), 417-430.
- O Gingerich, How Galileo changed the rules of science, Sky and Telescope 85 (1993), 32-36.
- E Giusti, The philosopher-geometer. Mathematics and natural philosophy in Galileo (Italian), Nuncius Ann. Storia Sci. 9 (2) (1994), 485-498.
- E Giusti, Galileo studies : the treatise 'De motu aequabili' as a model of the theory of proportions (Italian), Boll. Storia Sci. Mat. 6 (2) (1986), 89-108.
- W K Goosens, Galileo's response to the tower argument, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 11 (3) (1980), 215-227.
- M J Gorman, A matter of faith? Christoph Scheiner, Jesuit censorship, and the trial of Galileo, Perspect. Sci. 4 (3) (1996), 283-320.
- A T Grigorian, Measure, proportion and mathematical structure of Galileo's mechanics, in Nature mathematized I (Dordrecht-Boston, Mass., 1983), 61-65.
- A T Grigorian, Measure, proportion and mathematical structure of Galileo's mechanics, Organon 7 (1970), 285-289.
- E G Grishko, Galileo Galilei's 'Two books' (Russian), Istor.-Astronom. Issled. 21 (1989), 144-154.
- E Grosholz, Descartes and Galileo : the quantification of time and force, in Mathématiques et philosophie de l'antiquité à l'âge classique (Paris, 1991), 197-215.
- D Gruender, Galileo and the methods of science, in Proceedings of the 1978 Pisa Conference on the History and Philosophy of Science I (Dordrecht- Boston, Mass., 1981), 259-270.
- F Halbwachs and A Torunczyk, On Galileo's writings on mechanics : an attempt at a semantic analysis of Viviani's scholium, Synthese 62 (3) (1985), 459-484.
- A Hald, Galileo's statistical analysis of astronomical observations, Internat. Statist. Rev. 54 (2) (1986), 211-220.
- W Hartner, Galileo's contribution to astronomy, in Vistas in astronomy 11 (Oxford, 1969), 31-43.
- D K Hill, Pendulums and planes : what Galileo didn't publish, Nuncius Ann. Storia Sci. 9 (2) (1994), 499-515.
- D K Hill, Dissecting trajectories. Galileo's early experiments on projectile motion and the law of fall, Isis 79 (299) (1988), 646-668.
- D K Hill, Galileo's work on 116v : a new analysis, Isis 77 (287) (1986), 283-291.
- D K Hill, The projection argument in Galileo and Copernicus : rhetorical strategy in the defence of the new system, Ann. of Sci. 41 (2) (1984), 109-133.
- K Hutchison, Sunspots, Galileo, and the orbit of the Earth, Isis 81 (306) (1990), 68-74.
- M de Icaza Herrera, Galileo, Bernoulli, Leibniz and Newton around the brachistochrone problem, Rev. Mexicana Fis. 40 (3) (1994), 459-475.
- S Ito, On the origin of Galileo's 'nuove scienze', Ann. Japan Assoc. Philos. Sci. 2 (5) (1965), 243-252.
- J-L Gautero and P Souffrin, Note sur la démonstration 'mécanique' du théorème de l'isochronisme des cordes du cercle dans les 'Discorsi' de Galilée, Rev. Histoire Sci. 45 (2-3) (1992), 269-280.
- N Jardine, Galileo's road to truth and the demonstrative regress, Studies in Hist. and Philos. Sci. 7 (4) (1976), 277-318.
- R Lehti, The complete sphere and the complete grasshopper : gleams of Galileo Galilei's mathematical metaphysics and epistemology (Finnish), Arkhimedes 37 (2) (1985), 94-112.
- W L Maar, Galileo and dialectics : synthesis through the experiment and nature as the domain of objects (Portuguese), Cad. Hist. Filos. Cienc. (3) 3 (1-2) (1993), 11-65.
- C Maccagni, Galileo, Castelli, Torricelli and others - The Italian school of hydraulics in the 16th and 17th centuries, in G Garbrecht (ed.), Hydraulics and Hydraulic Research: A Historical Review (Rotterdam-Boston, 1987), 81-88.
- J MacLachlan, Galileo's experiments with pendulums : real and imaginary, Ann. of Sci. 33 (2) (1976), 173-185.
- Q Majorana, Obituary : Galileo Galilei, Rend. Sess. Accad. Sci. Ist. Bologna (N.S.) 46 (1942), 92-117.
- H Margolis, Tycho's system and Galileo's 'Dialogue', Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 22 (2) (1991), 259-275.
- S Mas Torres, Mathematics, engineering and instruments in the work of Galileo (Spanish), Teorema 13 (1-2) (1983), 93-107.
- D W Mertz, The concept of structure in Galileo : its role in the methods of proportionality and ex suppositione as applied to the tides, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 13 (2) (1982), 111-131.
- D W Mertz, On Galileo's method of causal proportionality, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 11 (3) (1980), 229-242.
- E Meyer, Galileo's cosmogonical calculations, Isis 80 (303) (1989), 456-468.
- P D Napolitani, The geometrization of physical reality : specific gravity in Ghetaldi and Galileo (Italian), Boll. Storia Sci. Mat. 8 (2) (1988), 139-237.
- A Nardi, The quadrature of velocity : Galileo, Mersenne, the tradition (Italian), Nuncius Ann. Storia Sci. 3 (2) (1988), 27-64.
- R H Naylor, Galileo's method of analysis and synthesis, Isis 81 (309) (1990), 695-707.
- R H Naylor, Galileo's theory of projectile motion, Isis 71 (259) (1980), 550-570.
- R H Naylor, The role of experiment in Galileo's early work on the law of fall, Ann. of Sci. 37 (4) (1980), 363-378.
- R Naylor, Galileo : real experiment and didactic demonstration, Isis 67 (238) (1976), 398-419.
- R H Naylor, Galileo's theory of motion : processes of conceptual change in the period 1604-1610, Ann. of Sci. 34 (4) (1977), 365-392.
- R H Naylor, Galileo and the problem of free fall, British J. Hist. Sci. 7 (1974), 105-134.
- R H Naylor, Galileo : the search for the parabolic trajectory, Ann. of Sci. 33 (2) (1976), 153-172.
- R Naylor, The evolution of an experiment : Guidobaldo del Monte and Galileo's 'Discorsi' demonstration of the parabolic trajectory, Physis - Riv. Internaz, Storia Sci. 16 (4) (1974), 323-346.
- R Naylor, Galileo's simple pendulum, Physis 16 (1974), 23-46.
- Y Ogawa, Galileo's work on free fall at Padua : Some remarks on Drake's interpretation, Historia Sci. 37 (1989), 31-49.
- M J Osler, Galileo, motion, and essences, Isis 64 (1973), 504-509.
- P-N Mayaud, Une 'nouvelle' affaire Galilée?, Rev. Histoire Sci. 45 (2-3) (1992), 161-230.
- O Pedersen, Galileo and the Council of Trent : the Galileo affair revisited, Journal for the history of astronomy 14 (4) (1983), 1-29.
- J Pitt, The heavens and earth : Bellarmine and Galileo, in Revolution and continuity (Washington, DC, 1991), 131-142.
- B Pizzorno, Investigation of Galileo's logical processes (Italian), Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 21 (1-4) (1979), 71-102.
- B Pizzorno, Some logical aspects of the drama of Galileo (Italian), Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 20 (1-4) (1978), 271-283.
- A Postl, Correspondence between Kepler and Galileo, Vistas Astronom. 21 (4) (1977), 325-330.
- G Prudovsky, The confirmation of the superposition principle : on the role of a constructive thought experiment in Galileo's 'Discorsi', Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 20 (4) (1989), 453-468.
- T Quagliariello, A clarification based on the correspondence of Galileo Galilei and Fulgenzio Micanzio (Italian), Rend. Accad. Sci. Fis. Mat. Napoli (4) 62 (1995), 63-72.
- T Quagliariello, A clarification based on the correspondence of Galileo Galilei and Fulgenzio Micanzio (Italian), Rend. Accad. Sci. Fis. Mat. Napoli (4) 62 (1995), 63-72.
- S Quan, Galileo and the theorem of Pythagoras, Ann. of Sci. 31 (1974), 227-261.
- S Quan, Galileo and the problem of concentric circles : A refutation, and the solution, Ann. of Sci. 24 (1968), 313-338.
- J Renn, Galileo's manuscripts on mechanics, Nuncius Ann. Storia Sci. 3 (1) (1988), 193-241.
- G Righini, Sulla costruzione del compasso geometrico e militare di Galileo (Italian), Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 16 (3) (1974), 201-222.
- M L Righini Bonelli, Galileo, l'orologio, il giovilabio, Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 13 (4) (1971), 412-420.
- J J Roche, Harriot, Galileo, and Jupiter's satellites, Arch. Internat. Hist. Sci. 32 (108) (1982), 9-51.
- A Romana, The astronomical work of Galileo Galilei (Spanish), Revista Mat. Hisp.-Amer. (4) 2 (1942), 125-178.
- C B Schmitt, The faculty of arts at Pisa at the time of Galileo, Physis - Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 14 (3) (1972), 243-272.
- M Segre, Galileo, Viviani and the tower of Pisa, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 20 (4) (1989), 435-451.
- M Segre, Viviani's life of Galileo, Isis 80 (302) (1989), 207-231.
- M Segre, Galileo as a politician, Sudhoffs Arch. 72 (1) (1988), 69-82.
- M Segre, The role of experiment in Galileo's physics, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 23 (3) (1980/81), 227-252.
- F Selleri, Galileo and the falsification of Ptolemaic cosmology (Italian), Rend. Accad. Naz. Sci. XL Mem. Sci. Fis. Natur. (5) 14 (2) (1990), 37-52.
- W R Shea, Galileo, Scheiner and the interpretation of sunspots, Isis 61 (1970), 498-519.
- W R Shea, Galileo and the justification of experiments, in Historical and philosophical dimensions of logic, methodology and philosophy of science IV (Dordrecht, 1977), 81-92.
- A M Smith, Galileo's proof for the Earth's motion from the movement of sunspots, Isis 76 (284) (1985), 543-551.
- C Solis Santos, Rhetoric and geometry : Galileo, the Jesuits, and comets (Spanish), Mathesis 9 (2) (1993), 179-207.
- K Takahashi, Galileo's labyrinth : his struggle for finding a way out of his erroneous law of natural fall. II, Historia Sci. (2) 3 (1) (1993), 1-34.
- K Takahashi, Galileo's labyrinth : his struggle for finding a way out of his erroneous law of natural fall. I, Historia Sci. (2) 2 (3) (1993), 169-202.
- J C R Vasconcelos, A theorem on inertia and the concept of speed in Galileo's 'Discourses' (Portuguese), Cad. Hist. Filos. Ciênc. (3) 3 (1-2) (1993), 67-83.
- C Vilain, La loi galiléenne et la dynamique de Huygens, Rev. Histoire Math. 2 (1) (1996), 95-117.
- O U Vonwiller, Galileo and Newton : their times and ours, J. Proc. Roy. Soc. New South Wales 76 (1943), 316-328.
- R S Westfall, The trial of Galileo : Bellarmino, Galileo, and the clash of two worlds, J. Hist. Astronom. 20 (1) (1989), 1-23.
- R S Westfall, Science and patronage : Galileo and the telescope, Isis 76 (281) (1985), 11-30.
- E A Whitaker, Galileo's lunar observations and the dating of the composition of 'Sidereus Nuncius', Journal for the history of astronomy 9 (1978), 155-169.
- M G Winkler, and A Van Helden, Representing the heavens : Galileo and visual astronomy, Isis 83 (2) (1992), 195-217.
- W L Wisan, Galileo and the emergence of a new scientific style, in Proceedings of the 1978 Pisa Conference on the History and Philosophy of Science I (Dordrecht- Boston, Mass., 1981), 311-339.
- W L Wisan, The new science of motion : a study of Galileo's 'De motu locali', Arch. History Exact Sci. 13 (1974), 103-306.
- W L Wisan, Galileo and God's creation, Isis 77 (288) (1986), 473-486.
- W L Wisan, Galileo and the process of scientific creation, Isis 75 (277) (1984), 269-286.
Other pages about Galileo Galilei:
- Preface to Letters from Galileo
- Galileo's Confession
- Galileo's Dialogue
- The title page from Discorsi (1638)
- ... and another page
- ... and yet another page
- Multiple entries in The Mathematical Gazetteer of the British Isles,
- Astronomy: The Dynamics of the Solar System
- Astronomy: The Structure of the Solar System
- Anstruther Solar System model
- Miller's postage stamps
- Heinz Klaus Strick biography
Other websites about Galileo Galilei:
- Dictionary of Scientific Biography
- Encyclopaedia Britannica
- Science Museum Florence
- The Galileo Project
- Michael Fowler (Dialogue concerning two new sciences)
- Erasmatazz
- The Catholic Encyclopedia
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Openculture (Galileo's so-called "moon drawings")
- MathSciNet Author profile
Honours awarded to Galileo Galilei
- History Topics: A brief history of cosmology
- History Topics: A history of time: Classical time
- History Topics: An overview of the history of mathematics
- History Topics: Christianity and the Mathematical Sciences - the Heliocentric Hypothesis
- History Topics: Galileo's Difesa
- History Topics: General relativity
- History Topics: Infinity
- History Topics: Kepler's Planetary Laws
- History Topics: Light through the ages: Ancient Greece to Maxwell
- History Topics: Longitude and the Académie Royale
- History Topics: Mathematical discovery of planets
- History Topics: Mathematics and the physical world
- History Topics: Science in the 17th century: From Europe to St Andrews
- History Topics: The Size of the Universe
- History Topics: The brachistochrone problem
- History Topics: The function concept
- History Topics: The mathematician and the forger
- History Topics: Theories of gravitation
- History Topics: Thomas Harriot's manuscripts
- History Topics: Weather forecasting
- Famous Curves: Catenary
- Famous Curves: Cycloid
- Famous Curves: Parabola
- Societies: Lincei Accademia
- Societies: Paris Academy of Sciences
- Other: 1908 ICM - Rome
- Other: 1924 ICM - Toronto
- Other: 1928 ICM - Bologna
- Other: 1950 ICM - Cambridge USA
- Other: 2009 Most popular biographies
- Other: 22nd June
- Other: 25th July
- Other: 31st October
- Other: 7th January
- Other: Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics (C)
- Other: Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics (Q)
- Other: Earliest Uses of Symbols for Fractions
- Other: Jeff Miller's Mathematicians on Postage Stamps
- Other: Most popular biographies
- Other: The Dynamics of the Solar System
- Other: The Structure of the Solar System
Written by J J O'Connor and E F Robertson
Last Update November 2002
Last Update November 2002

Question: how old was galileo when he moved to florence

how old was galileo when Galileo Galilei moved to florence

Question: where did galileo galilei go to school

Question: where did galileo go to school in pisa

Question: how old was galileo when he started to study

how old was galileo when Galileo Galilei started to study

Question: how old was galileo when he left school

osam godina obitelj se seli u Firencu i na dvije godine ostavlja Galileja kod Muzija Tebaldija , koji mu je omogućio školovanje u Pisi nakon neuspjele prijave za toskansku školu . Aliotta , A , Carbonara , C , Galilei , Fratelli Bocca Editori , 1949 . , str . 36 .

how old was galileo when Galileo Galilei left school

Question: who was the father of galileo galilei

Question: who was the first person to walk on water

who was the first person to walk on water

At the age of eight , the family moved to Florence and for two years leaves Galileo at the Tebaldi Museum , which allowed him to study in Pisa after failing to apply for the toscan school . Aliotta , A , Carbonara , C , Galilei , Fratelli Bocca Editori , 1949 , p.

Two years later he met with his family and continues his studies first under his father Vincence and tutor Jacop Borghini , and then outside Florence in the monastery of Santa Maria di Vallombrosa until the age of fourteen .

At the age of eight, the family moved to Florence and for two years leaves Galileo at the Tebaldi Museum, which allowed him to study in Pisa after failing to apply for the toscan school.Aliotta, A, Carbonara, C, Galilei, Fratelli Bocca Editori, 1949, p. Two years later he met with his family and continues his studies first under his father Vincence and tutor Jacop Borghini, and then outside Florence in the monastery of Santa Maria di Vallombrosa until the age of fourteen.

In 1604, astronomer Ilario Altobeli observed a supernova, later known as Kepler's supernova, about which Galileo was informed.

Rochester Institute of Technology
Upcoming Events
For a more complete list of RIT events, check out the events calendar.
- College & Careers (July 20 - 21)
- College & Careers (Aug 3 - 4)
Career Center
Find the college major that fits your interests. Learn how RIT connects students and employers in cooperative education, internships, and special projects.
Newsline
Advocates Ask Fashion Industry to Support Braille Clothing Tags, Talking Web Site
Imagine coordinating your wardrobe in the dark. It’s not something Armani, Prada or Fendi think about when designing clothes. For them,... [more]
Success Stories
As a student in the E. Philip Saunders College of Business, Christopher Adams has pursued his dreams and made an impact in many areas. [more]

Question: what is the name of the supernova discovered by galileo in 1604

In 1604, astronomer Ilario Altobeli observed a supernova, later known as Kepler's supernova, about which Galileo was informed.

what is the name of the supernova discovered by galileo in 1604

Question: when did galileo discover the supernova

Question: who discovered kepler's supernova in 1604

who discovered kepler's supernova in 1604

Question: who discovered the supernova that caused kepler to die

who discovered the supernova that caused kepler to die

Question: what was galileo galilei's profession

Question: what was discovered in 1604 by astronomer ilario altobeli

what was discovered in 1604 by astronomer ilario altobeli

Question: which astronomer discovered galileo galilei's supernova

which astronomer discovered galileo galilei's supernova

Question: who discovered kepler's supernova

In 1604 , astronomer Ilario Altobeli observed a supernova , later known as Kepler 's supernova , about which Galileo was informed .

Godine 1604. astronom Ilario Altobeli primijetio je supernovu, kasnije poznatu kao Keplerova supernova, o čemu je Galileo bio obaviješten.

Godine 1604. astronom Ilario Altobeli primijetio je supernovu, kasnije poznatu kao Keplerova supernova, o čemu je Galileo bio obaviješten.

In 1604, astronomer Ilario Altobeli observed a supernova, later known as Kepler's supernova, about which Galileo was informed.

In 1604, astronomer Ilario Altobeli observed a supernova, later known as Kepler's supernova, about which Galileo was informed.

He presented a new telescope to the Mletac Authority and received approval for research.

Galilei, Galileo, 1564-1642. Dialogo de Cecco di Ronchetti da Bruzene in perpuosito de la stella nuova
URI(s)
Instance Of
Components
- Galilei, Galileo, 1564-1642.
- Dialogo de Cecco di Ronchetti da Bruzene in perpuosito de la stella nuova
Scheme Membership(s)
Collection Membership(s)
Variants
- Dialogo de Cecco di Ronchetti da Bruzene in perpuosito de la stella nuova
- Dialogo de Cecco di Ronchitti da Bruzene in perpuosito de la stella nuova
Exact Matching Concepts from Other Schemes
Sources
- found: Bellone, Enrico. Galilei e l'abisso, c2009:t.p. (Dialogo de Cecco di Ronchetti da Bruzene in perpuosito de la stella nuova) (anonymous pamphlet published in 1605, attributed to Galileo Galilei)
- found: Favoro, Antonio. Galileo Galilei ed il "Dialogo de Cecco di Ronchitti da Bruzene in perpuosito de la stella nuova", 1881
Change Notes
- 2010-03-04: new
- 2010-11-05: revised
Alternate Formats

Question: when did galileo get rid of the telescope

He presented a new telescope to the Mletac Authority and received approval for research.

when did galileo get rid of the telescope

Question: what theory did galileo discover in 1609

what theory did galileo discover in 1609

Question: who discovered heliocentricity in 1609

Question: how did galileo discover heliocentricity

how did galileo discover heliocentricity

Question: who did galileo give his telescope to

Question: who gave galileo the telescope in 1609

Question: how long did galileo's telescope last

Galileo , however , did not have sufficiently solid evidence for heliocentrism , although he was confident in it , and better evidence could not be obtained without the upgrading of the instrumentaries , which , with the collaboration of others , lasted until 1609 .

He presented a new telescope to the Mletac Authority and received approval for research .

Predstavio je novi teleskop Mletačkoj vlasti i dobio odobrenje za istraživanja.

Galileo, however, did not have sufficiently solid evidence for heliocentrism, although he was confident in it, and better evidence could not be obtained without the upgrading of the instrumentaries, which, with the collaboration of others, lasted until 1609. He presented a new telescope to the Mletac Authority and received approval for research.

He presented a new telescope to the Mletac Authority and received approval for research.

Galileo is attributed to an experiment in which from the top of the University of Pisa hears two bodies of different weights and establishes the equality of speed.

|Home||Projects||Experiments||Warning!|
The Work of Galileo and Simon Stevin
Many think that this experiment was never performed by Galileo and it is only a legend, since there is no in existence an account by Galileo himself of such an experiment conducted by him, and it is accepted by many science historians that this experiment was at most a thought experiment which did not actually take place. To learn more about this dispute see the link section below.
In his Two New Sciences (1634) Galileo discusses the mathematics (first to apply mathematics for physics analysis) of a simple type of motion what we call today uniform acceleration or constant acceleration. Then he proposes that heavy bodies actually fall in just that way and that if it was possible to create a vacuum, any two falling bodies would travel the same distance in the same time. On the basis of this proposal, he predicts about balls rolling down an inclined plane, Finally, he describes some inclined plane experiments corroborating his theory.
Galileo used inclined planes for his experiment to slow the acceleration enough so that the elapsed time could be measured. The ball was allowed to roll a known distance down the ramp, and the time taken for the ball to move the known distance was measured. The time was measured using a water clock.
Galileo showed that the motion on an inclined plane had constant acceleration, dependent only on the angle of the plane and not the mass of the rolling body. Galileo then argued, but couldn’t prove, that free-fall motion behaved in an analogous fashion because it was possible to describe a free-fall motion as an inclined plane motion with an angle of 90°. Using Newton’s laws, we can prove Galileo’s theory by decomposing the gravitational force, acting on the rolling balls, into two vectors, one perpendicular to the inclined plane and one parallel to it. http://www.physics.smu.edu...
Following his experiments, Galileo formulated the equation for a falling body or an object moving in uniform acceleration: d=1/2gt2.
The distinguished French historian of science Alexandre Koyré states that the experiments reported in Two New Sciences, to determine the law of acceleration of falling bodies, required accurate measurements of time, which appeared to be impossible with the technology of 1600. According to Koyré, the law was arrived at deductively, and the experiments were merely illustrative thought experiments.
However, Galileo's prominence lay in this that his theoretical (or practical?) work mentioned above established mechanics as a science and paved the way for Newton later in the century especially his mechanics and his law of universal gravitation.
Now, back to our falling bodies experiment. Some evidence shows that such experiments were really performed by various scientists and experimenters preceding Galileo's theoretical work about falling bodies and by this disproving Aristotle's assertion that heavier bodies fall faster than light ones.
As early as 1544, the historian Benedetto Varchi referred to actual tests which refuted Aristotle's assertion.
In 1576, Giuseppe Moletti, Galileo's predecessor in the chair of mathematics at the university of Padua, reported that bodies of the same material but different weight, as well as bodies of the same volume but different material, dropped from a height arrived at the Earth at the same time.
In 1597 Jacopo Mazzoni, of the University of Pisa, reported that he had observed objects falling at the same speed regardless of weight and pieces of an object descending at the same rate as the whole.
The most notorious of those is Simon Stevin that in 1586 (3 years before Galileo) reported that different weights fell a given distance in the same time. His experiments, with the help of his friend Jan Cornetts de Groot, were conducted using two lead balls, one being ten times the weight of the other, which he dropped thirty feet from the church tower in Delft. from the sound of the impacts they concluded that the spheres fell with the same speed, not as stated by Aristotle. Stevin is regarded by many as the first one to perform falling bodies experiments.
Nevertheless, there is some evidence that Stivens preceded Galileo, he didn't perform his experiment scientifically - he did not measure time as Galileo did or proposed, he didn't use mathematics as a tool to establish his theory, and as such no wonder that Galileo's theories were those that paved the way for Newton.
To sum up the debate, we think that Galileo should be credited with the falling bodies and inclined plane experiments since his work led to further scientific development while the contributions of others, that shouldn't be ignored, were if not meaningless then at least aimless.
Demonstrate The Falling Bodies Experiment
Instead we suggest a few safe experiments to demonstrate the phenomenon.
1. Hold on the tip of the fingers of different hands a coin and a paper disc about one meter or more above the floor. Drop both of them simultaneously. The coin will reach the floor before the paper disc. From this experiment is possible to conclude mistakenly that heavier objects fall faster.
2. Mount the paper disc on the coin and drop them together. Both objects will reach the ground at the same time. The meaning of this experiment is that not the amount of mass causes falling bodies to fall faster or slower but the resistance/friction of air because air resistance is applied here only to the coin and not to the paper disc and by that we can infer that air resistance and not the amount of mass prevented the paper disc from falling faster - the same as the coin.
To exclude the possibility that the coin and the disc of paper attract each other you can show that they do not stick together in any position.
Experiments 1 and 2 are adopted from:
Weiss Moshe, Physics by Experimental Demonstrations, vol II, Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1968, pp. 208-209
3. Repeat experiments 1 and 2 with different combinations of materials, mass or shape in a vacuum chamber (if your school has one). All the dropped objects from the same height will fall at the same rate, whatever their mass because there is no air resistance.
4. Try some experiments with inclined planes and find out if the acceleration is constant? Does the acceleration depend on the mass and diameter of the rolling body, on the angle of inclination of the plane, on the distribution of mass of the body, whether the body is a sphere or a cylinder, solid or hollow? Try to evaluate the effect of friction on your results by using different surfaces for your experiments. http://collegeofsanmateo.edu...
5. The falling bodies experiment could be also experimentally demonstrated by the comparison of pendulum motions in air with bobs of lead and of cork which have different weight but which are otherwise similar - the period is independent of the bob weight.
Links
Apollo 15 astronaut on the Moon recreating Galileo's famous experiment.
Galileo's Acceleration Experiment - Michael Fowler, University of Virginia
Galileo's Law of Fall
What is Galileo's Explanation? - Carl Martikean
Measuring the Acceleration of Gravity - SMART
Aristotelian Physics - QuarkNet, FSU
Gravity - HyperPhysics
Galileo's Battle for the Heavens - PBS
Did Galileo perform the leaning tower of Pisa experiment?
Galileo's Battle for the Heavens - PBS
On Motion - The Galileo Project
Weights Make Haste: Lighter Linger - Science News
Simon Stevin Links
Simon Stevin (1548—1620), Dutch engineer and mathematician. His experiments in hydrostatics showed that the pressure exerted by a liquid is dependent only on its vertical height and not on the shape of the liquid's container, and demonstrated the principle of the hydraulic press. He probably anticipated Galileo's experiments with falling bodies. Stevin is also credited with the introduction of decimals into common usage.
Simon Stevin - The Galileo Project
Simon Stevin - The Catholic Encyclopedia
Simon Stevin's Introduction of decimals - Phill Schultz, University of Western Australia
Simon Stevin - Wikipedia
Simon Stevin Home Page
The Museum of Unworkable Devices - Donald Simanek's Pages
Simon Stevinus - Britannica 1911
Books
|Scientists & Inventors|
|
Ampère André-Marie
|
Archimedes
Baird John
Bell Alexander
Carver George
Cavendish Henry
Darwin Charles
DNA
Eastman George
Edison Thomas 1
Edison Thomas 2
Einstein Albert
Electric Motor
Eratosthenes
Faraday Michael
Fitzroy Robert
Foucault Léon
Franklin Benjamin
Fuel Cell
Galileo Galilei 1
Galileo Galilei 2
Gutenberg Johannes
Hertz Heinrich
Joule, James Prescott
Leonardo da Vinci
|
Leeuwenhoek Antonie
|
Marconi Guglielmo
Mendel Gregor
Michelson-Morley
Miller-Urey Experiment
Millikan Robert
Morse Samuel
Newton Isaac
Ohm Georg
Oxygen
Pavlov & Skinner
Photosynthesis
Pitch Drop Experiment
Radio Inventions
Spectrum of Light
Tesla Nikola
Torricelli Evangelista
Transistor
Tycho Brahe
Volta Alessandro
Whitney Eli
Wright Brothers
Young Thomas
Zuse Konrad
Ampère André-Marie
|Home||Fair Projects||Experiments|
|Scientists & Inventors||Science Jokes||Warning!|

Question: where did galileo hear two bodies of different weights

Galileo is attributed to an experiment in which from the top of the University of Pisa hears two bodies of different weights and establishes the equality of speed.

where did galileo hear two bodies of different weights

Question: who is credited with establishing the equality of speed

who is credited with establishing the equality of speed

Question: what does galileo's experiment establish

what does galileo's experiment establish

Question: galileo galilei was born on which european island

galileo galilei was born on which european island

Question: what is galileo's theory of speed attributed to

what is galileo's theory of speed attributed to

Question: galileo discovered the equality of what

Galileo is attributed to an experiment in which from the top of the University of Pisa hears two bodies of different weights and establishes the equality of speed .

Galileu se pripisuje eksperiment u kojem s vrha Sveučilišta u Pisi baca dva tijela različite težine i ustanovljuje istovjetnost brzine.

Galileu se pripisuje eksperiment u kojem s vrha Sveučilišta u Pisi baca dva tijela različite težine i ustanovljuje istovjetnost brzine.

Galileo is attributed to an experiment in which from the top of the University of Pisa hears two bodies of different weights and establishes the equality of speed.

Galileo is attributed to an experiment in which from the top of the University of Pisa hears two bodies of different weights and establishes the equality of speed.

Galileo established the isocronism of their low oscillations.

He established that the time of oscillation is unrelated to the amplitude, and that it depends on the length or on which the object is located:

Pendulum Clock
In Aristotelian physics, which was still the predominant way to explain the behavior of bodies near the Earth, a heavy body (that is, one in which the element earth predominated) sought its natural place, the center of the universe. The back and forth motion of a heavy body suspended from a rope was therefore not a phenomenon that could explain or illustrate much. It was outside the paradigm.
Galileo was taught Aristotelian physics at the university of Pisa. But he quickly began questioning this approach. Where Aristotle had taken a qualitative and verbal approach, Galileo developed a quantitative and mathematical approach. Where the Aristotelians argued that heavier bodies fell faster than lighter ones in the same medium, Galileo, early in his career, came to believe that the difference in speed depended on the densities of the bodies. Where Aristotelians maintained that in the absence of the resisting force of a medium a body would travel infinitely fast and that a vacuum was therefore impossible, Galileo eventually came to believe that in a vacuum all bodies would fall with the same speed, and that this speed was proportional to the time of fall.
Because of his mathematical approach to motion, Galileo was intrigued by the back and forth motion of a suspended weight. His earliest considerations of this phenomenon must be dated to his days before he accepted a teaching position at the university of Pisa. His first biographer, Vincenzo Viviani, states that he began his study of pendulums after he watched a suspended lamp swing back and forth in the cathedral of Pisa when he was still a student there. Galileo's first notes on the subject date from 1588, but he did not begin serious investigations until 1602.
Galileo's discovery was that the period of swing of a pendulum is independent of its amplitude--the arc of the swing--the isochronism of the pendulum.[1] Now this discovery had important implications for the measurement of time intervals. In 1602 he explained the isochronism of long pendulums in a letter to a friend, and a year later another friend, Santorio Santorio, a physician in Venice, began using a short pendulum, which he called "pulsilogium," to measure the pulse of his patients. The study of the pendulum, the first harmonic oscillator, date from this period.
The motion of the pendulum bob posed interesting problems. What was the fastest motion from a higher to a lower point, along a circular arc like a pendulum bob or along a straight line like on an inclined plane? Does the weight of the bob have an effect on the period? What is the relationship between the length and the period? Throughout his experimental work, the pendulum was never very far from Galileo's thought. But there was also the question of its practical use.
A pendulum could be used for timing pulses or acting as a metronome for students of music: its swings measured out equal time intervals. Could the device also be used to improve clocks? The mechanical clock, using a heavy weight to provide the motive power, began displacing the much older water clock in the High Middle Ages. By incremental improvement, the device had become smaller and more reliable. But the accuracy of the best clocks was still so low that they were, for instance, useless for astronomical purposes. Not only did they gain or lose time, but they did so in an irregular and unpredictable manner. Could a pendulum be hooked up to the escape mechanism of a clock so as to regulate it?
In 1641, at the age of 77, totally blind, Galileo turned his attention to this problem. Vincenzo Viviani describes the events as follows, as translated by Stillman Drake:
Viviani wrote this in 1659, seventeen years after Galileo's death and two years after the publication of Christiaan Huygens's Horologium , in which Huygens described his pendulum clock. It is from Huygens's construction that we date the practical development of the device.
Notes:
Sources: A useful recent treatment is Silvio A. Bedini, The Pulse of Time: Galileo Galilei, the Determination of Longitude, and the Pendulum Clock (Florence: Olschki, 1991). See also Bedini, Galileo and the Measure of Time (Florence: Olschki, 1967). For explanations of how the pendulum figured in Galileo's experiments, see Stillman Drake, Galileo at work: his scientific biography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), and Thomas B. Settle, Thomas B. Settle, "Experimental Research and Galilean Mechanics," in Galileo Scientist: His Years at Padua and Venice, ed. Milla Baldo Ceolin (Padua: Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti; Padua: Dipartimento di Fisica, 1992), pp. 39-57.
©1995 Al Van Helden
Last updated
Home | Galileo | Biography | Chronology | Family | Portraits |
Science | Christianity | Library | About | Site Map | Search
Please note: We will not answer copyright requests.

Question: what did galileo discover about the oscillations of the planets

Galileo established the isocronism of their low oscillations.

He established that the time of oscillation is unrelated to the amplitude, and that it depends on the length or on which the object is located:

what did galileo discover about the oscillations of the planets

Question: who discovered that the time of oscillation is unrelated to amplitude

who discovered that the time of oscillation is unrelated to amplitude

Question: what did galileo discover about the planets

what did galileo discover about the planets

Question: what did galileo discover about the time of oscillation

the length or on which the object is located

duljini niti na kojoj se njišući objekt nalazi

the length or on which the object is located

what did galileo discover about the time of oscillation

Question: galileo discovered that the time of oscillation is unrelated to what

galileo discovered that the time of oscillation is unrelated to what

Question: what did galileo say about the time of oscillation

what did galileo say about the time of oscillation

Question: what did galileo say the time of oscillation is unrelated to

what did galileo say the time of oscillation is unrelated to

Galileo established the isocronism of their low oscillations .

He established that the time of oscillation is unrelated to the amplitude , and that it depends on the length or on which the object is located :

Galileo je ustanovio izokronizam njihala niskih oscilacija. Ustanovio je da vrijeme oscilacije nepovezano s amplitudom, a da je ono ovisno o duljini niti na kojoj se njišući objekt nalazi:

Galileo je ustanovio izokronizam njihala niskih oscilacija.

Ustanovio je da vrijeme oscilacije nepovezano s amplitudom, a da je ono ovisno o duljini niti na kojoj se njišući objekt nalazi:

Galileo established the isocronism of their low oscillations. He established that the time of oscillation is unrelated to the amplitude, and that it depends on the length or on which the object is located:

Galileo established the isocronism of their low oscillations.

He established that the time of oscillation is unrelated to the amplitude, and that it depends on the length or on which the object is located:

The year 1586.

Galileo completed the formula for the hydrostatic balance of the Arhimed principles, and published the work under the title La Bilancetta.

梅毒は初期段階での発見と治療が大切
梅毒セルフチェック
更新日:2020/02/28
梅毒はキスやセックスをする事で感染する性感染症です。病原菌「トレポネーマ」に感染することによって引き起こされ、第1期→第2期・・・と、4つの段階を経て症状が進みます。
一旦症状が出ても放置しておけば症状が治まるため、治ったと勘違いする方も多いですが、薬で治療しない限り感染は継続しています。治療しないまま放置すると最後は死に至る事もあるので、感染が疑われる時は必ず検査する事をオススメします。
通販なら梅毒に感染しているかどうかセルフチェックを行う事のできるキットを購入する事ができます。病院で検査するよりも安く済むので忙しい方や他人に知られたくないという方にオススメです。
|病院での検査||2,000～8,000円(検査料のみ)|
|通販||2,850円(検査キット代のみ)|
もし自宅で検査キットを使って検査した結果、梅毒に感染している「陽性反応」が出てしまった場合はすぐに病院へ行って薬を出してもらうか、梅毒に効果のあるペニシリン系の「アモキシシリン」という抗生物質を通販で購入する事をオススメします。
・小さなしこり
・股の付け根の部分(鼠径部)のリンパ節の腫れ
アモキシリン 1日500㎎を3回、2～4週間
・バラ疹や梅毒性丘疹
・粘膜疹と呼ばれる湿疹の症状
アモキシリン 1日500㎎を3回、4～8週間
これらの症状は何もしなくてもしばらくしたら治ってしまいますが、梅毒には感染したまま感染の次の段階へ進んでしまうので、陽性反応が出た場合はかならず治療を行って下さい。
ここのページで知りたい事
梅毒の感染ルート
梅毒は「トレポネーマ」という細菌によって引き起こされ、粘膜や皮膚の接触によって感染します。
主な感染ルートは性行為によるもので、性器と性器が接触する通常のセックスの他にも、アナルセックスやオーラルセックスでも感染します。キスでも感染する事があるので注意が必要です。
また妊娠している女性が梅毒に感染すると、胎盤や産道を通して赤ちゃんに感染する事もあります。このようにして赤ちゃんに感染する梅毒は先天性梅毒と呼ばれており、非常に重い障害を赤ちゃんに残してしまいます。
梅毒はじわじわと増えている！
日本では2010年頃から梅毒の感染者数が増加傾向にあります。
2017年には44年ぶりに5,000人を超えたと報告されており、社会的な問題になりつつあります。
感染初期は症状が目立たない事も多いので、潜在的な感染者数はもっと多いのではないかと推測されています。
初期段階の症状が現れても、女性は約半数、男性は3人に1人は気がつかないと言われています。梅毒にかかっている人と性行為を1回行うと約3分の1という高確率で感染するので、本人も周りの人も知らない間に梅毒はどんどん感染を広げてしまいます。
梅毒の症状
梅毒の症状は4つの段階を経て進行します。第1期と第2期までなら適切な治療で完治する可能性が高いですが、第3期、第4期にまで症状が進むと重い後遺症が残ります。
第1期
感染から約3週間～3ヵ月が経過した時期の事を言います。感染した部分（口の中や唇、陰部）に痛みを伴わないしこりができます。脚の付け根のリンパ節が腫れる事もあります。
いずれの症状も自然になくなってしまいますが、病原菌は体の中に潜んでおり、他の人に感染する可能性があります。
第2期
感染から約3ヵ月～3年が経過した時期です。全身のリンパ節の腫れ、倦怠感、発熱、関節痛等の症状が出る事があります。
梅毒を代表する「バラ疹」と呼ばれる赤い発疹が手足の裏から全身、顔面へと広がります。
これらの症状も治療しなくても約1ヵ月ほどで消えますが、抗生物質による治療が行われない限り病原菌は体内に残ります。
アレルギーや風疹、はしかに間違われる事もあります。
第2期ではバラ疹も含めて、他に以下のような症状が現れます。
バラ発疹
痛みも痒みも伴いませんが、頭皮に発疹が生じると髪の毛が虫食い状態に抜け落ちる事があります。
扁平コンジローマ
脇の下、陰部、肛門等の柔らかくて湿った部分に平らで滑らかな腫れものができます。破れて体液が染み出る事があり、にじみ出た分泌物には多くの病原菌が含まれているので、皮膚の接触によって簡単に梅毒がまき散らされてしまいます。
肝炎
肝臓に梅毒が拡がって腹痛や黄疸（皮膚や白目が黄色になる）が起こり、尿が濃くなります。
その他
梅毒は血液を通して全身に広がるので、脳や目、耳に感染して頭痛や視力・聴力・平衡感覚の障害を引き起こす事もあります。
第2期の症状が消えると同時に長い潜伏期間に入り、この期間が始まってから2～3年の間は症状が再発する事もあります。
潜伏期間は数年～数十年に及ぶ場合もあり、やはり治療をしない限り病原体は残り続けます。
第3期
感染から約3～10年が経過した時期です。骨や筋肉、皮膚にゴムのような腫瘍（ゴム種）が発生し、外見上の後遺症を残します。
骨にできたゴム種は激痛を引き起こします。
第4期（末期）
感染から10年以上経過した時期です。多数の臓器、脳や神経が侵され、運動機能や知能に後遺症を残します。
排泄のコントロールすらできなくなる事があり、最悪の場合、死に至ります。
先天性梅毒
胎盤や産道を介して母親から赤ちゃんへ感染する先天性梅毒は、生後数年までに肺炎、肝臓や膵臓の増大、神経症状、発熱、発疹が現れます。
妊娠16週から20週以前に母体側の梅毒をきちんと治療すれば胎児への感染は予防できるとされています。治療がされない場合、赤ちゃんに重篤な後遺症を残します。
梅毒の検査方法
梅毒は血液検査によって診断されます。第一期の初期は感染していても検査で陽性反応が出ない場合があるので、感染から約3週間以上経過してからの検査が推奨されています。
男性の場合は泌尿器科や性病科、女性の場合は性病科や産婦人科で受診します。地域によっては保健所において匿名・無料で検査を受けられるところもあります。
検査のための時間が取れない、絶対に知人等に知られたくないという場合は後ほど詳しく説明しますが、自宅で検査を行える検査キットも販売されています。
梅毒の治療方法
一般的に梅毒は梅毒を殺すペニシリン系の抗生物質の服用によって治療します。薬は梅毒が体から確実にいなくなるまで服用する必要があります。
治療中は性行為等の感染につながる行為を避けましょう。性的な関係を持っているパートナーがいる場合は一緒に検査を受けてもらい、梅毒に感染しているようなら一緒に治療を受けるようにしましょう。
梅毒は何度でも感染してしまう性病なので、互いにきちんと治療しておかないと再感染を繰り返してしまいます。
梅毒検査と治療は自宅で可能！
「梅毒に感染したかどうか心配だけれど、病院へ行く時間が取れない」
「絶対に通院しているところを知っている人に見られたくない」
梅毒は検査と治療が必須だとわかっていても、上記のような理由で病院へなかなか足を運べない人が多いのではないでしょうか。
そんな人には自宅で簡単にできる検査キット「梅毒セルフテスト」がおすすめです。
約20分という早さで検査結果を得られるので、不安な気持ちで結果を待つ時間が短くて済みます。
梅毒セルフテストは個人輸入代行サイトの通販で購入できます。
梅毒セルフテストの使い方
梅毒セルフテストは以下の手順で使用します。
①付属のパットで指先や指回りを消毒する
②ランセット（使い捨ての針）を消毒した指の腹に当ててボタンを押す
③血が出るのでスポイトを使って採血
④テストカードの『S』の部分に血を垂らす
⑤さらに『S』の部分に検査液を垂らす
⑥約20分待つ
検査結果は2本の線が出たら陽性（梅毒確定）です。
梅毒は感染によって免疫がつく事はなく、何度でも感染する可能性があります。
通販ではまとめ買いで梅毒セルフテストがさらにお買い得になるので、今後の感染が心配な方は保険として複数購入してはいかがでしょうか。
1個・・・2,850円
2個・・・5,130円（1個あたり2,565円）
6個・・・13,680円（1個あたり2,280円）
|梅毒セルフテスト|
|検査サンプルを郵送する必要がなく、検査後すぐに結果がわかります。|
梅毒セルフテストと同じように梅毒治療薬『アモキシシリン』もまとめ買いがお得です。
下記に通販の価格表を載せたので、薬を注文する際に参考にしてください。
21錠・・・1,420円（1錠あたり67円）
63錠・・・3,830円（1錠あたり60円）
105錠・・・5,680円（1錠あたり54円）
21錠・・・1,900円（1錠あたり90円）
42錠・・・3,420円（1錠あたり81円）
63錠・・・4,560円（1錠あたり72円）
|アモキシシリン|
|梅毒の治療に有効なペニシリン系の抗生物質です。|
梅毒は完治するの？
梅毒は一度感染したら治らない、という事をよく聞きますが、実際のところどうなのでしょうか？
結論から言うと、梅毒は初期の頃に正しく治療すれば完治できます。
「え？でも梅毒の完治は不可能だってよく聞くけれど・・・」
確かにネット上では梅毒は完治不可能という情報をいたる所で見かけます。
しかし、これは『大半は』正しくない情報で、梅毒初期の頃に抗生物質を正しく服用すれば完治が可能なのです。
ここで『大半は』を強調した理由は、治療が遅れると完治しない事もあるからです。
梅毒は感染から時間が経てば経つほど、体からトレポネーマを完全に殺す事が難しくなります。
また、第三期や第四期の段階まで重症化すると治療しても後遺症が残ってしまいます。
放っておいて治ったように見えても、自然治癒する事はないので、手遅れになるまで何度でも症状が再発します。
一度感染して完治すると、もう梅毒にならないだろうと甘く見る人がいますが、梅毒は免疫がつかないので予防を怠っていると再度梅毒に感染してしまいます。
再感染する可能性がある、という事実が梅毒は完治しないという誤った認識を生み出している事も考えられます。
梅毒は早期に治療を開始して、完治したらもう二度と罹患しないためにもしっかりと予防しましょう。
治療薬はトレポネーマを完全に殺すために、病原菌がいなくなるまで飲み続ける必要があります。
梅毒予防のために必ずコンドームを着ける
梅毒は感染した部分と皮膚や粘膜が触れる事によって感染するので、予防にはコンドームの使用が有効です。
通常の性行為の他にも、オーラルセックスやアナルセックスのときにも使用する事をおすすめします。
しかしコンドームに覆われていない部分の皮膚や、キスでも感染の可能性があるので、コンドームによる100％の予防は残念ながら不可能です。
コンドームをあまり過信せずに、少しでも梅毒と思われる症状が見られたら、早めの検査治療を行ってください。
梅毒は早めの検査と治療が大切！
梅毒は恐ろしい病気ですが、感染初期の頃に適切な治療を受ければ完治可能です。
「梅毒が心配だけれど病院に行くのは気が引ける・・・」
そう自分に言い訳をして検査や治療を先延ばしにすると、待っているのは悲惨な結末です。
梅毒は自宅で検査も治療もできます。病院に行くのがためらわれるようなら通販で検査キットと治療薬を購入しましょう。
早期発見と早期治療があなたの未来を救います。

Question: what was the name of galileo galilei's formula for hydrostatic balance

The year 1586.

Galileo completed the formula for the hydrostatic balance of the Arhimed principles, and published the work under the title La Bilancetta.

what was the name of galileo galilei's formula for hydrostatic balance

Question: when was galileo galilei discovered

The year 1586.

Question: who discovered the hydrostatic balance of the arhimed principles

The year 1586.

who discovered the hydrostatic balance of the arhimed principles

Question: what did galileo discover in 1586

hydrostatic balance of the Arhimed principles

hidrostatsku ravnotežu Arhimedova principa , a rad objavio pod

The year 1586.

hydrostatic balance of the Arhimed principles

Question: what is the hydrostatic balance of galileo galilei

The year 1586.

what is the hydrostatic balance of galileo galilei

Galileo completed the formula for the hydrostatic balance of the Arhimed principles , and published the work under the title La Bilancetta .

Godine 1586. Galileo je dovršio formulu za hidrostatsku ravnotežu Arhimedova principa, a rad objavio pod naslovom La Bilancetta.

Galileo je dovršio formulu za hidrostatsku ravnotežu Arhimedova principa, a rad objavio pod naslovom La Bilancetta.

The year 1586. Galileo completed the formula for the hydrostatic balance of the Arhimed principles, and published the work under the title La Bilancetta.

Galileo completed the formula for the hydrostatic balance of the Arhimed principles, and published the work under the title La Bilancetta.

Galileo's works Show of Galileo's notes on the movement (MS.72), accessed on 16 February 2014.

Translation of the work of Galilee from 1590.De Motu, accessed on February 16, 2014.

The works of Galilea Galilei, accessed on February 16, 2014.

Galileo and Galileo.

Question: when was galileo galilei discovered and by whom

Galileo's works Show of Galileo's notes on the movement (MS.72), accessed on 16 February 2014.

Translation of the work of Galilee from 1590.De Motu, accessed on February 16, 2014.

The works of Galilea Galilei, accessed on February 16, 2014.

Galileo and Galileo.

when was galileo galilei discovered and by whom

Question: what is the name of galileo's notes on the movement

Galileo and Galileo.

what is the name of galileo's notes on the movement

Question: galileo galilei was discovered in which year

Galileo and Galileo.

galileo galilei was discovered in which year

Question: what is galileo's scientific name

Galileo and Galileo.

Question: who discovered galilea galilei in 1590

Galileo and Galileo.

Question: which two scientists discovered galilea in 1590

Galileo and Galileo.

which two scientists discovered galilea in 1590

Galileo 's works Show of Galileo 's notes on the movement ( MS.72 ) , accessed on 16 February 2014 .

Translation of the work of Galilee from 1590.De Motu , accessed on February 16 , 2014 .

The works of Galilea Galilei , accessed on February 16 , 2014 .

Galilejeva djela Prikaz Galilejevih bilješki o gibanju (MS. 72), pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.

Prijevod Galilejevog djela iz 1590.De Motu, pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.

Radovi Galilea Galileija, pristupljeno 16. veljače 2014.

Galileo's works Show of Galileo's notes on the movement (MS.72), accessed on 16 February 2014. Translation of the work of Galilee from 1590.De Motu, accessed on February 16, 2014. The works of Galilea Galilei, accessed on February 16, 2014. Galileo and Galileo.

Galileo's works Show of Galileo's notes on the movement (MS.72), accessed on 16 February 2014.

Translation of the work of Galilee from 1590.De Motu, accessed on February 16, 2014.

The works of Galilea Galilei, accessed on February 16, 2014.

Galileo and Galileo.

Le Operazioni del Compasso Geometrico et Militare, 1610.

Rome, scaned first edition.

Question: which two scientists discovered galilea in 1610

Galileo and Galileo.

Le Operazioni del Compasso Geometrico et Militare, 1610.

Rome, scaned first edition.

which two scientists discovered galilea in 1610

Question: when was galilea galileo discovered by de motu

Galileo and Galileo.

Rome, scaned first edition.

when was galilea galileo discovered by de motu

Question: what is the name of galileo's scientific institute

Le Operazioni del Compasso Geometrico et Militare

Operazioni del Compasso Geometrico et Militare

Galileo and Galileo.

Rome, scaned first edition.

Le Operazioni del Compasso Geometrico et Militare

what is the name of galileo's scientific institute

Question: where was galileo discovered in 1590

Galileo and Galileo.

Rome, scaned first edition.

Question: galileo galilei was born in which european city

Galileo and Galileo.

Rome, scaned first edition.

galileo galilei was born in which european city

Le Operazioni del Compasso Geometrico et Militare , 1610 .

Le Operazioni del Compasso Geometrico et Militare djelo iz 1610.

Translation of the work of Galilee from 1590.De Motu, accessed on February 16, 2014. The works of Galilea Galilei, accessed on February 16, 2014. Galileo and Galileo. Le Operazioni del Compasso Geometrico et Militare, 1610. Rome, scaned first edition.

Le Operazioni del Compasso Geometrico et Militare, 1610.

Galileo and the Church Galileo Galilei, Scriptural Exegete, and the Church of Rome, Advocate of Science, (audio record), author of Dr. Christophera Decaena.

Without a doubt, the so-called "Galileo Affair" is the most famous instance of the alleged opposition between faith and reason, and particularly between the Catholic Church and natural science. Galileo's corpse was barely cold when Enlightenment critics of the Church began exhuming Galileo, the martyr to science, as sufficient evidence for demonstrating Christianity's hostility to science. Nor have the critics been silent since; even now when Rome asserts that the faith implies limits to how we practice medicine, perform scientific research, or interpret certain scientific theories, the opposition is ready to identify each of these instances as yet another "Galileo affair."
Rome herself, in recent years, has been willing to admit a certain justice to this criticism, insofar as she has taken occasion to express regret about her role in what happened to Galileo. This was most manifest in Pope John Paul II's 1992 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which the media at the time dubbed the Catholic Church's "apology" for condemning Galileo. Unsurprisingly, however, John Paul's words were more nuanced than the journalists' reporting; on the one hand, he expressed hope that "theologians, scholars, and historians … will study the Galileo case more deeply and, in frank recognition of wrongs from whatever side they come, [will] dispel the mistrust that still opposes, in many minds, a fruitful concord between science and faith." On the other hand, he followed up these words by saying that "One might perhaps be surprised that … I am returning to the Galileo case. Has not this case long been shelved and have not the errors committed been recognized? That is certainly true." Nevertheless, the Pope went on to say that we must always remember the Galileo affair, lest history repeat itself: However, the underlying problems of this case concern both the nature of science and the message of faith. It is therefore not to be excluded that one day we shall find ourselves in a similar situation, one which will require both sides to have an informed awareness of the field and of the limits of their own competencies.
In short, the Pope agrees with the Church's critics who believe the principles underlying the Galileo affair are perennial, and that therefore the threat of another confrontation between faith and reason on this level is a real danger, for the Church and for the world.
In this talk I do not want to speculate about whether or how another "Galileo affair" could happen, nor about all the intricacies of what happened in the original Galileo affair - for it was indeed a many-faceted chain of events, involving not only science and theology but even perhaps a dose of personal vendetta, or at least what today we might call "personality conflicts." Further, a great deal of sensationalistic myth has crept into the popular account of what happened to Galileo, such as that he was tortured as a heretic, or left to rot in a Roman dungeon for the rest of his life, or burnt at the stake, all because the Pope couldn't stomach the idea that he was not at the center of the universe. All of these would make for good theatre, but none of them is true. My task this evening, however, is neither the debunking of myths nor (the more difficult task) the synthesizing of the complexities of the Galileo affair, although both are worthy tasks.
My aim, rather, is in a way simpler. I hope tonight to try, using the outlines of the Galileo affair as a background, to explain an often forgotten, but central, aspect of what led to Galileo's tragic clash with Rome, and to use this to consider the proper relationship between faith and reason, particularly as manifested in the relationship between Scriptural exegesis and the demonstrative power of natural science. To state my thesis explicitly (and to make the intentionally provocative title of my lecture more intelligible), I hope to show that the Galileo affair was largely a result of not only legitimate but fundamental insights on both sides: namely, on the one hand, the Catholic Church's desire to guard the dignity of the human intellect by insisting on keeping the bar high when deciding whether or not a scientific theory is certain, and, on the other hand, Galileo's caution about the nuance with which we should be read Holy Writ, holding fast to the principle that it asserts nothing false, while also recognizing that it's not always asserting what a superficial reading of it might suggest. In short, Rome was upholding the Aristotelian demand for logical rigor; while Galileo, the Augustinian openness about the literal meaning of Scripture. It was at the intersection of these two concerns that the conflict arose.
I
Any summary of the Galileo affair has to back up, briefly, to Copernicus. (Although nothing I have to say about Galileo bears immediately on what the juniors will be reading in the science tutorial this year, unfortunately in what follows I may spoil a few surprises for the sophomores in mathematics. I apologize to your tutors in advance. Perhaps I will be vague or superficial enough that I won't do too much damage.) When, in 1543, Nicholaus Copernicus published his revolutionary work of astronomy proposing that the sun, not the earth, is at the center of the universe, he dedicated it to Pope Paul III. It was almost 100 years before Galileo's trial in Rome, and the Church then did not react to the new hypothesis, much less did it react with hostility. Indeed, Copernicus had been encouraged by several members of the Roman curia to publish his ideas. Rather than endorse or condemn the novel idea of a sun-centered, or "heliocentric," cosmos, Rome appeared to have adopted a "wait and see" attitude.
Free to spread, then, the heliocentric approach slowly began to percolate through the scientific community for the next several decades, though the majority view of educated and uneducated alike remained that the earth is at the center of the cosmos. Although it is unclear exactly when Galileo himself became a "Copernican," certainly his experience, in the first decade of the 17th century, of turning his telescope on the sun, moon, and planets did much to solidify his opinion. For immediately thereafter he popularized heliocentrism by, in 1610, publishing two little books (The Starry Messenger and The Letters on Sun Spots), that included his drawings of his telescope-enhanced observations of: spots on the sun, mountains on the moon, moon-like phases for Venus, and moon-like satellites orbiting Jupiter. Galileo's basic argument for heliocentrism in these little books was straight forward: The earth cannot be the center of every motion in the sky, because Jupiter itself has moons, and the phases of Venus make it quite clear that Venus revolves around the Sun.
All of these observations, however, Galileo knew, could be quite well accommodated to a modified geocentric hypothesis, such as had already been proposed more than a decade earlier by the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe. (For you sophomores, I'll save the details for your math tutorial later this year.) Galileo's telescopic observations, then, in no way showed that Copernicus was right in putting the earth in motion rather than the sun. Rather, they more suggested that there was a serious mistake in the Aristotelian cosmology that divided the imperfect and corruptible matter here below from the perfect and incorruptible matter thought to compose the heavens, which cosmology was in fact tightly connected to the geocentric hypothesis. Neither a spotted sun nor a bumpy moon is perfect or incorruptible, and lunar mountains are probably susceptible to the same laws of erosion as the mountains around here. Still, this was a long way from proving that the earth revolved on its own axis or that it orbited the sun. Thus, while these discoveries made Galileo an instant celebrity throughout Europe, the majority of the academic establishment remained unconvinced by heliocentrism.
This was the situation, then, when Galileo, in 1615, left his home in Florence for an extended stay in Rome to encourage the Roman curia, and hopefully even the Pope himself, to endorse the Copernican hypothesis. For recall that the Protestant revolt had been in motion for almost exactly 100 years at this point, and Galileo's correspondent and advocate, Johannes Kepler, a Lutheran, had been recently censured and then finally excommunicated by the Lutheran clergy for his heliocentrism. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church had been silent about the new hypothesis for the better part of a century now, and Galileo was concerned that the Church not make the same mistake the Lutherans had by condemning the theory, and those associated with it (like himself). He did not meet with success. Ironically, in part as a result of the rumblings in the city caused by Galileo's recent evangelization for Copernicanism, Pope Paul V had asked the Congregation of the Holy Inquisition (or, more briefly, the Holy Office) to call together a committee of theologians to assess the orthodoxy of the heliocentric hypothesis; their conclusion was negative. In 1616 the Holy Office approved their conclusion, issuing a decree that in itself was one of the greatest scandals in Church history, namely, that heliocentrism is "foolish and absurd in philosophy" and "contrary to Holy Scripture." I will return shortly to this period to elaborate the reasons why Galileo failed to convince the Holy Office, but for now I will simply run through the basic historical facts as they unfolded here on.
At the end of Galileo's sojourn in Rome, two more disasters befell Galileo. First, Copernicus's work was put on the Index of Forbidden Books as being in need of "correction." The second fell when Galileo was summoned by (now saint) Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, Pope Paul V's chief theological advisor, whom the Pope had asked to convey privately to Galileo the decision of the Holy Office, and to order Galileo "to relinquish altogether the said opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and at rest and that the Earth moves; nor henceforth to hold, teach, or defend it in any way verbally or in writing." No doubt crushed, but apparently acquiescing in the order to remain silent, Galileo returned home to Florence.
Galileo did not, however, table his Copernican thoughts altogether. Over the next decade he continued in private to try to strengthen the argument for heliocentrism - and in no small part because he had received praise and encouragement from the newly elected Pope Urban VIII, an old friend with whom in years past he had discussed heliocentrism, and who therefore, Galileo seemed to hope, might be willing to reopen the question. In 1632 Galileo's work found its completion in the publication of a 500-page fictitious conversation between three friends, entitled A Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Apparently Galileo thought that in this book he was still fulfilling the letter of the injunction he had received from Cardinal Bellarmine about teaching heliocentrism as the truth. For, he probably thought, not only does the very vehicle of a dialogue ensure that the author never speaks in his own voice, but also the character in it named "Salviati" (obviously filling the role of teacher in the dialogue) several times protests that he is not trying to show that heliocentrism is true but only to give the strongest arguments on both sides of the question. But the man protests too much, as the most superficial reader can see that Salviati, the learned scientist defending heliocentrism with erudition and panache, is Galileo's mouthpiece, especially given that the second character, "Sagredo," is portrayed as open-minded and intelligent and he is quickly won over by Salviati's arguments in favor of heliocentrism, while the third, "Simplicio" (whose name in Italian as in English calls to mind "simpleton"), is painfully and even laughably stubborn in defending the geocentric view. So, in spite of the explicitly stated intent, the Dialogue is clearly an extended and systematic refutation of geocentrism and a defense of heliocentrism.
It should have been no surprise, then, when a year later, in 1633, Galileo found himself summoned to Rome to be tried by the Holy Office for having violated the terms of the 1616 injunction. After an initial resistance, by the end of the trial Galileo admitted that he was defending heliocentrism in the Dialogue, and then recanted his belief in heliocentrism. The Dialogue was then put on the Index of Forbidden Books, and, for penance, Pope Urban sentenced Galileo to house-arrest at his country home just outside Florence for what turned out to be the last nine years of his life.
During those nine years Galileo was not still inert. In 1638, he composed a second dialogue, with a title and structure that bore a resemblance to its predecessor: Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations on Two New Sciences - the work that the juniors have begun reading in the science tutorial. Though yet another conversation between Salviati, Sagredo, and Simplicio, this work no longer pursued the heliocentric hypothesis (except in perhaps the most subtle of ways, but that's another lecture). And that silence was a good thing, as the Two New Sciences was arguably his greatest work, the one with the most lasting scientific merit, pointing the natural philosophers of his day in a direction that Isaac Newton and others would follow out to a much deeper understanding of nature as a whole, including but not limited to the dispute about whether the earth or the sun is the center of the cosmos.
II
Let that suffice as an outline of the string of events I am calling the "Galileo affair." In order to see more clearly what I think were the principal matters under dispute that led to Galileo's being silenced and eventually to his trial and house arrest, I want to circle back to the 1616 condemnation of heliocentrism and a crucial part of what led up to it: namely, the matter of whether Scripture itself teaches that the earth is at rest, and whether this means that science and faith are in conflict. Or to put it another way, does science prove heliocentrism, and if so, does this mean Scripture is in error?
In 1615, a year before the prohibition of Copernicus's work that set all of this in motion, Galileo and Cardinal Bellarmine had an indirect exchange of letters pertaining to heliocentrism and Scripture. Galileo was responding to a series of doubts that some of his colleagues were expressing about heliocentrism, pointing to passages in Scripture that appear to conflict with it, the most celebrated of which being when Joshua commands the sun to stop moving so as to extend the daylight hours needed for conquering the Amorites. Galileo's first response to these concerns, in the form of a letter to a friend, which he then copied and sent on to Cardinal Bellarmine, outlined his views on the relationship between Church authority and natural science. About a month later Cardinal Bellarmine responded with a letter of his own that partially agreed with Galileo's views, though it expressed caution. After reading this response, Galileo began composing a point-by-point response to Bellarmine, although he then set this aside in favor of a lengthy essay that articulated and defended in far greater detail his view of the relation between Scripture and science, especially as regards heliocentrism. This essay he circulated in the form of an open letter to Lady Christina of Loraine the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, an old friend who had nevertheless recently publicly asserted that heliocentrism was heretical because of its conflict with Joshua, chapter 10. These letters, especially the last, make it clear what the sticking point was about heliocentrism.
They also make it clear that the dispute was not about who should submit to whom, the Church to science or science to the Church. For neither Bellarmine nor Galileo entertains the possibility that science could truly prove something that is in fact contrary to the Faith; Galileo was not a fideist any more than orthodox theologians were. In short, neither Galileo nor the Church in the 17th century saw faith and reason as at war, such that the one must prevail over the other. As Galileo puts it several times in the "Letter to the Grand Duchess," "two truths can never contradict each other." As a result, although he frequently notes that the aims of Scripture and of science are distinct, and so it would seem that they would rarely have things to say about the same subjects, Galileo rejects the idea that one should have to make a choice between them, or worse, that one should just learn to live with contradictory thoughts. Such a view would ignore the fact that God is the source of revelation and of nature, and He cannot oppose His very Self, a principle on which Galileo, following a long tradition of Fathers and Doctors of the Church, insists.
Indeed, Galileo's conviction that faith and science are essentially compatible is perhaps the central premise of his understanding of their relationship. For thereby he asserts that any conflict between them is only apparent, and that, therefore, certain principles must be followed in the discernment of wherein lies the illusion. The chief among these depends upon properly assessing the weight of the scientist's position. For, as Galileo insists repeatedly in the "Letter to the Grand Duchess," not all propositions the scientist adheres to are equally certain. Calling to mind the Aristotelian distinction commonplace among philosophers and theologians of his day between scientifically demonstrated knowledge and persuasive but undemonstrated opinions, Galileo says that the Catholic should react to any apparent conflict according to the quality of the scientist's argument. For he reiterates in the "Letter to the Grand Duchess" that
even in those [physical] propositions which are not matters of faith, this authority [i.e., that of Scripture] ought to be preferred over that of all human writings that are supported only by bare assertions or probable arguments, and not set forth in a demonstrative way. This I hold to be necessary and proper to the same extent that divine wisdom surpasses all human judgment and conjecture.
Galileo's principle here is fairly cut and dry: What natural science has proved in the strictest sense is simply true, and therefore every Scripture passages that appears to say otherwise, while not false, is being misunderstood, and the theologian's task then becomes a closer scrutiny of the passages in question in order to find the other possible meaning(s). Whatever natural science has not proved in the strict sense, however, even if persuasive arguments have been offered in its defense, if it nevertheless appears to oppose Scripture, should be set aside by the believer as not merely improbable but as false.
He states the distinction, and the two courses of action, again later in the "Letter," this time with examples:
[A]mong physical propositions there are some with regard to which all human science and reason cannot supply more than a plausible opinion and a probable conjecture in place of a sure and demonstrated knowledge - for example, whether the stars are ensouled. Then there are other propositions of which we have (or may confidently expect) positive assurances through experiments, long observation, and rigorous demonstration - for example, whether or not the earth and the heavens move, and whether or not the heavens are spherical. As to the first sort of propositions, I have no doubt that where human reasoning cannot reach-and where consequently we can have no science but only opinion and faith - it is necessary in piety to comply absolutely with the strict sense of Scripture. But as to the other kind, I should think, as said before, that first we are to make certain of the fact, which will reveal to us the true senses of the Bible, and these will most certainly be found to agree with the proved fact (even though at first the words sounded otherwise), for two truths can never contradict each other. I take this to be an orthodox and indisputable doctrine, and I find it specifically in St. Augustine… [I]f what they [i.e., astronomers] say is proved by unquestionable arguments, this holy Father does not say that the astronomers are to be ordered to dissolve their proofs and declare their own conclusions to be false. Rather, he says it must be demonstrated that what is meant in the Bible … is not contrary to their proofs.
Notice two things in this passage: first, his choice of illustrations of matters of conjecture vs. matters of demonstration, and second, his introduction of precedent for his view - St. Augustine.
As to the first, Galileo takes as an example of something that can be defended but not decisively proved by natural science the notion that the heavenly bodies are moved by immaterial beings that are actually souls for those bodies. Not to go into this view in detail, I'll just say that it is as old as Aristotle, although Aristotle himself was somewhat ambiguous about what it means to call such beings "souls." Especially in the Middle Ages, but even into Galileo's time, it remained an enduring matter of dispute among philosophers and theologians whether these beings (which were by then understood to be angels) were united to the stars merely as movers, agents pushing the stars through the heavens, or in fact as souls vivifying those stars. Galileo saw both possibilities, reasonably enough, as merely conjectures, and the arguments on neither side as being demonstrative.
His examples of scientific views that had truly and unambiguously been proven are equally telling. He gives two, but I'll mention the second one first because it is more straightforward. Astronomers had long before shown that the geometry of the motions of the heavenly bodies trace out points on a sphere with the North Star at the pole. Hence, here we have a clear example of something that has been shown with demonstrations based on careful observations.
Galileo's second example of something demonstrated by natural science is directly relevant to the dispute about heliocentrism: namely, whether the earth or the heavens move. (In point of fact, he says "earth and the heavens," but I take him to have misspoken, since no one - at that time, any way - held that both the earth moves around the sun and that the sun moves around the earth.) Galileo is asserting here that the dispute about heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is a matter of demonstration, something that either has already been settled by demonstrative argument and/or experiment, or we, as he puts it, "may confidently expect," will soon be settled this way. And in such a case, Galileo says, Scripture should be rethought wherever it might appear to contradict.
The second point to notice in that passage, again, is that Galileo claims his approach to Scripture is that of St. Augustine, whom he quotes more than a dozen times, frequently at great length, in the "Letter to the Grand Duchess." He also cites St. Thomas Aquinas in defense along the same lines. And although St. Augustine and St. Thomas never speak quite as explicitly as Galileo here, it seems to me that his interpretation of them is reasonable. For example, Galileo quotes the following passage from St. Augustine's Literal Commentary on Genesis, where he touches on the relation of science and Scriptural exegesis several times:
It is to be held as an unquestionable truth that whatever the sages of this world have demonstrated concerning physical matters is in no way contrary to our Bibles; hence whatever the sages teach in their books that is contrary to the holy Scriptures may be concluded without any hesitation to be quite false. And, according to our ability, let us make this evident, and let us keep the faith of our Lord, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom, so that we neither become seduced by the verbiage of false philosophy, nor frightened by the superstition of counterfeit religion.
Likewise, though Galileo does not quote it, St. Thomas approvingly summarizes these points from St. Augustine by saying:
As Augustine teaches, in questions of this sort two things must be observed: First, that the truth of Scripture be held firmly, and second, that because Divine Scripture can be expounded in many ways, no one may adhere so precisely to any exposition that, if this be established with certain reason to be false, he presume to assert it to be the sense of Scripture. Otherwise Scripture may be derided by the unfaithful due to this, and the path of belief might thereby be withheld from them.
Here we see St. Augustine and Galileo of one mind in distinguishing things science has legitimately proved from things about which science has only opinion, and that any apparent conflict in the former case should involve a more reflective reading of Scripture, but any conflict in the latter case should end in a rejection of the scientist's mere opinion.
Nor by citing St. Augustine and St. Thomas is Galileo proposing an unheard of view in his own day. Rather, it seems that Cardinal Bellarmine holds essentially the same view in the aforementioned letter passed on to Galileo shortly before Galileo wrote the "Letter to the Grand Duchess." Therein Cardinal Bellarmine says that
if there were a true demonstration that the Sun was in the center of the universe and the Earth the third sphere [i.e., the third planet from the center of the cosmos], and that the Sun did not go around the Earth but the Earth went around the Sun, then it would be necessary to use careful consideration in explaining the Scriptures that seemed contrary, and we should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say that something is false which had been proven.
Cardinal Bellarmine, however, ends this letter on a pessimistic note - perhaps even a gentle challenge to Galileo:
But I do not think that there is any such demonstration, since none has been shown to me. To demonstrate that the appearances are saved by assuming the Sun at the center and the Earth in the heavens is not the same thing as to demonstrate that in fact the Sun is in the center and the Earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration may exist, but I have very grave doubts about the second; and in the case of doubt one may not abandon the Holy Scriptures as expounded by the holy Fathers.
Galileo, St. Augustine, and Cardinal Bellarmine seem to agree, then, that there are only two possible scenarios: a demonstrated proposition that requires a reinterpretation of Scripture, or a merely probable proposition that should be rejected in favor of the ordinary understanding of Scripture.
For the remainder of this lecture, then, I want to discuss both the principles of, and Galileo's particular situation with respect to, these two options, for they pose at least two questions right away. First, granting that when a rigorously demonstrated physical view appears to conflict with Scripture we should reinterpret Scripture, does that not put the Church in a situation where the meaning of a passage, and even of articles of the Creed, is always tentative and even arbitrary? Second, was Galileo really in this situation of having a demonstration for heliocentrism? Could he go beyond probable arguments and strictly speaking prove heliocentrism?
III
Taking up the first, let us assume for now that Galileo, or any scientist, has a necessary demonstration for some physical proposition, and that it appears to conflict with Scripture. How, then, do we go about interpreting the problematic passages? Is there any principled approach to such exegesis based in Church Tradition? Galileo himself in this matter points us again to St. Augustine for guidance. For in his commentary on the literal meaning of Genesis, St. Augustine emphasizes that the literal, or intended, meaning of a passage is not always the surface reading of it. Whence he says, in a passage that Galileo quotes,
In points that are obscure, or far from clear, if we should read anything in the Bible that may allow of several constructions consistently with the faith to be taught, let us not commit ourselves to any one of these with such precipitous obstinacy that when, perhaps, the truth is more diligently searched into, this may fall to the ground, and we with it. Then we would indeed be seen to have contended not for the sense of divine Scripture, but for our own ideas . . .
Notice that St. Augustine is not speaking exclusively of passages that appear to conflict with established science; whenever the matter is obscure, we should not insist on our own interpretation if many are compatible with the faith.
Certainly the clearest cases of where Scripture takes up obscure matters are those concerning God Himself, and therefore here most obviously one should be cautious about insisting on a particular meaning, especially when one finds such apparently inappropriate language used to describe Him. For He is frequently said to have hands and feet, and even to get angry and to repent, none of which is consistent with sound philosophy or even with other passages in Scripture that assert that God is wholly immaterial and unchangeable. Likewise, St. Augustine points out, Scripture frequently employs metaphors, idioms, perhaps even irony, or figures of speech that are simply common ways of speaking and whose surface, or you might say "word for word," meaning is not the one intended by the Sacred authors. For example, the literal meaning of the frequent Scriptural metaphor that speaks of matters or men being "in the hand of the LORD," is not that God has a physical member with five digits, or even if He does, that these things are in fact in his hand; rather, the expression means that the LORD governs and has care over this matter. Nor is this figure of speech distinctive of our ways of describing immaterial beings, for we even now speak of matters as being "in the president's hands," and no one understands this to imply that he carries such things in his digits, or even to imply that he has physical hands, since the expression would be equally applicable if the president in fact had no hands. Rather, the sense is (still) simply that the office of the president gives him power of deciding this matter.
To take another example, Psalm 95 says, "The LORD is God, the mighty God, the great king over all the gods"; one could imagine someone reading this psalm as implicitly asserting polytheism, and some modern Scripture scholars do just that, saying Judaism hadn't evolved explicitly past its polytheistic roots at the time this psalm was composed. But one need not say that that is the literal meaning, the author's intended meaning, in this psalm. The Psalmist could be using the word "gods" loosely, as an accommodation to common ways of speaking so as to include lesser supernatural beings; or he could have been speaking ironically, as if to say "Yahweh is the king of all the other so-called 'gods' of the gentiles," a figure of speech that arguably turns up in some of the prophets. And so on. In short, the literal sense is not always straightforward, and therefore, as St. Augustine says, one must be extremely cautious in asserting he has definitively found that sense, even if no apparent conflict with natural science has arisen.
St. Thomas Aquinas develops St. Augustine's view, saying that Scripture often speaks according to the limited understanding of the listener, not that of the Sacred Author. Whence, following St. Augustine, St. Thomas several times explains that some of the details of the Genesis creation story are Moses' accommodations to the servile minds (and therefore speech) of the newly liberated Hebrew slaves. For example, in discussing the firmament's division of the waters on the Second Day of creation, he says:
I respond saying that, in superficially considering Genesis according to the letter, someone could conceive such an image [of the division of the waters] according to a position of certain ancient philosophers. [He may have Thales in mind, who said all things are water or come to be from water.] … But because such a position is discovered to be false through true arguments, it cannot be said that this is the understanding of the Scripture [passage]. Rather, it should be considered that Moses spoke to an uneducated [rudi] people, stooping to their ignorance [quorum condescendens imbecillitati], [and] proposed to them only those things that appear to the senses most manifestly. All men, moreover, be they ever so uneducated, apprehend by the senses that earth and water are bodies; air, however, is not perceived by all to be a body, insofar as some philosophers said air is nothing, naming what is full of air as a 'vacuum.' And therefore Moses makes express mention of water and earth, but he does not expressly name air lest he propound to uneducated men something unfamiliar to them.
So arguably the two chief doctors of the Church agree that it is reasonable to expect that in some places Scripture will speak loosely, according to the abilities, opinions, and disposition of the original audience. This does not mean Scripture sometimes says things that are false; it does mean, however, that the surface meaning sometimes does not capture the whole truth of the matter spoken about. Although the passages are always as precise as they need to be, given the circumstances and what the author intends to assert, they are not always as precise as is possible.
In the case of passages that appear to conflict with heliocentrism, moreover, it seems possible that the surface meaning may not be the intended meaning. Indeed, perhaps we can set aside apparently conflicting passages from the Psalms or the Wisdom literature since, because of their explicitly poetical nature, one expects to find metaphors and circumlocutions there. Historical narratives, however, pose a more serious challenge, and this is no doubt part of the reason why the Grand Duchess and others thought the book of Joshua was not as easy to explain away. Consider the words of Joshua, chapter 10:
Then spoke Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the Sun stood still, and the Moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The Sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD hearkened to the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel. (Joshua 10:12-14)
The surface meaning here certainly is more immediately congruous with a stationary earth and a moving sun. But this might be giving the text too rigid of a reading. Surely Moses' successor as leader of the Israelites could reasonably be expected to take a page out of the books of his master, who also wrote narratives and yet also wrote with great subtlety, accommodating his speech to his audience. Is there any compelling reason to assert that Joshua was trying to make any exact astronomical assertions, even implicitly, when he addressed the sun? Rather, what Joshua wants is for the day to stop progressing toward sunset. But since daytime is defined by the relative positions of the sun and the side of the earth facing it, only their relative motion must cease in order to lengthen the day. Whence, only that much need Joshua be, even implicitly, asserting, and that much would be compatible with heliocentrism. Now, of course I do not mean to say that Joshua was proposing heliocentrism itself, any more than he was proposing the theory of relativity. Rather, he was speaking in the common idiom of his day where the motion that causes the progression of the day is articulated in terms of the sun's apparent motion across the sky. It would seem that Joshua is repudiating heliocentrism no more than is the common man - even today - who speaks of the Sun "rising" in the east or "going down" in the west.
Regardless, then, whether Joshua himself knew the truth about whether the sun moves around the earth or vice-versa and note that St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and Galileo seem to agree that, because the Sacred Author is inspired, he always understands the whole truth of his words -nevertheless, context makes it possible, and even probable, that Joshua does not here intend to teach the Hebrews a particular point about astronomy. As St. Augustine puts it, in the Genesis commentary when he wonders about the true shape of the heavens,
It must be stated very briefly that our authors knew about the shape of the sky, whatever might be the truth of the matter. But the Spirit of God, who was speaking through them, did not wish to teach people about such things that would contribute nothing to their salvation.
Thus, astronomers should not find an insuperable obstacle when, for example, the Psalmist says that the LORD "stretched out the sky like a skin" (Ps 104:2), but Isaiah says the sky is a "suspended dome" (Is 40:22), and yet the astronomers themselves argue that it is a sphere. If it is likely, or at least possible, that the wisdom literature and the prophets, at least in these passages, are not intending to speak with scientific precision, then perhaps also neither is the historical narrative of the Book of Joshua. Likewise, then, Joshua himself probably should not be seen as here settling what will one day be a disputed question in astronomy when he is in fact merely commanding a miracle so that his army can conquer the Amorites at Gibeon.
To sum up, then: according to Galileo, to insist on this principle - that Scripture has many senses, and that even the literal sense is often difficult to determine with certainty because the Sacred Authors often proportion their words to their audience, and their principal goal is not to explain the natural but the supernatural - is both a sound principle of Scriptural exegesis, and one with a long pedigree, endorsed by the greatest doctors of the Church. Whence, universally only with fear and trembling should we hold that certain passages must be read so as to exclude all other interpretations; passages that appear to have physical implications that conflict with things known rigorously through natural reason only emphasize this need for caution.
IV
Granting, then, that Galileo's approach to deciding when and how to revisit the surface meaning of Scripture is both principled and orthodox, and that such an approach does not endanger the faith but supports it, still, are his views of what counts as a rigorous demonstration or proof equally principled and orthodox? Let us now express some doubts about our earlier assumption that Galileo is really in this situation of having a strict demonstration in hand, and therefore can insist that Scripture be reinterpreted to fit the heliocentric hypothesis. Galileo, as we saw earlier, knew full well that neither Copernicus's philosophical arguments for heliocentrism nor his own observations of spots on the sun and moons around Jupiter should have settled the matter. They were thought-provoking, powerful, and persuasive, but not demonstrative. Whence, in his draft response to Cardinal Bellarmine's aforementioned letter, Galileo had insisted that heliocentrism be held to the highest bar of demonstration:
Not to believe that a proof of the Earth's motion exists until one has been shown it is very prudent, nor do we demand that anyone believe such a thing without proof. Indeed, we seek, for the good of the holy Church, that everything the followers of this doctrine can set forth be examined with the greatest rigor, and that nothing be admitted unless it far outweighs the rival arguments. If these men [i.e., the defenders of heliocentrism] are only ninety percent right, then they are defeated…
Nor is Galileo merely being hopeful that someone someday will come up with just such a rigorous proof. Rather, in 1615 as he prepared to go to Rome, he thought he had one in hand. That proof was in the form of a today little-known and quite clever explanation he had been working out over the years of the hitherto mostly baffling phenomenon of the tides. In short, Galileo thought the only possible explanation of the tides was the Earth's motion; the tides were the "smoking gun" heliocentrism needed.
The theory is basically as follows. Galileo had observed that, when barges carrying fresh water from the mainland to Venice sped up, the water in the hold piled up at the stern (that's the back for you landlubbers), but when the barge slowed down, the water rose toward the bow (the front). He took this to mean that as a body containing water accelerates, this motion isn't immediately communicated to the water, so the water bunches up where it's forced to accumulate (because it is not moving fast enough), and the opposite happens when it decelerates.
Looking back to heliocentrism, then, Galileo inferred that if the earth orbits the sun while also rotating on its own axis, then the absolute motion of bodies on the earth would be accelerating during half the day and decelerating during the other half - accelerating when the direction of the rotational movement of one side of the earth is the same as that of the whole earth around the sun (since the two speeds would add to each other), and decelerating when the rotational motion is opposite that of the orbital motion around the sun (since the former would subtract from the latter). Rigid bodies, like land masses and barges, Galileo speculated, probably would not manifest effects of this acceleration and deceleration, but liquids would: The ocean should be acting like an accelerated liquid during roughly half the day (on arc CBL), and then like a decelerated liquid during the other half (LDC).
But, Eureka! This is exactly what we see in the tides: high tide, which is water "bunched up," and low tide, which is water troughing. Thus, Galileo thought, we have not only the explanation of the as-yet-never-explained tides and their cyclic nature, but also an effect-to-cause demonstration of heliocentrism. As he put it,
If the terrestrial globe were immovable, the ebb and flow of the oceans could not occur naturally; and … when we confer upon the globe the movements just assigned to it [by the heliocentric hypothesis], the seas are necessarily subjected to an ebb and flow agreeing in all respects with what is to be observed in them.
Without the earth both rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun, there would be no tides; therefore, on the geocentric hypothesis tides should never happen, but on the heliocentric hypothesis, they must. In early 1616, about nine months after Cardinal Bellarmine had insisted that a demonstration had to be forthcoming before Scriptural exegesis must accommodate heliocentrism, and six months after Galileo had eagerly agreed to this in the "Letter to the Grand Duchess, "Galileo began presenting this proof in Rome, both at public gatherings and in a booklet he had circulated. Cardinal Bellarmine was among one of the recipients of the written form, and he may have heard Galileo defend it orally. But less than two months later Galileo received the summons to see the Cardinal, and he was told that Copernicus's writings were being put on the Index, and that he himself should not teach heliocentrism. The proof, apparently, had been unconvincing. Indeed, when years later Galileo devoted the last part of his Dialogue on the Two Chief Worlds Systems to explaining and defending this argument from the tides, the publication of this work again did not persuade Rome that the case for heliocentrism rose to the level of a demonstration. Why not?
Several reasons could be proposed, each with their own validity, again connected to the complexity of the "Galileo affair." I want to stress the most crucial one, though. Namely, Galileo's proof from the tides was not accepted as demonstrative because it wasn't in fact demonstrative. Moreover, it was false. In spite of its ingenious unification of two apparently unrelated phenomena - the tides and the hypothesized motion of the Earth - the theory was mistaken. Now, I don't want to be guilty of transposing common-place knowledge (or opinion, at any rate) onto men of Galileo's day. For "we all know now" (supposedly) that the tides are due to universal gravitation and the attractive power of the moon's mass. Hindsight is 20/20, but I don't think one needs the benefit of hindsight to see that there were severe defects with Galileo's theory - certainly sufficient, and even compelling, grounds to say that it fell far short of a demonstration.
Later this year you freshman will have the opportunity to study in great detail the conditions required for a strict demonstration laid out in Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, and I have neither the time tonight nor, probably, the ability to present them to you in the manner the subject deserves. But one does not need a detailed grasp of strict demonstration to make my argument here. For at minimum any effect-to-cause demonstration must be based on an adequate grasp of the effect to be explained, and in this respect Galileo's tide argument is lacking.
For perhaps the most obvious sign that the theory was not correct, much less demonstrated, was that it predicts only one tide-cycle per day: one high and one low tide in 24 hours. Long before Galileo's day it was well known to mariners and to anyone who might take the time to notice that there are two tide cycles, although apparently Galileo did not know this when he first worked out the tide argument before 1615. When his fellow Italians pointed out the double cycle to him, Galileo was undeterred, insisting that this must be due to the shape and depth of the Mediterranean sea floor, and added that in other parts of the world, under less complex circumstances, we will find only one tide cycle per day. He then let the matter rest without further inquiry for over a decade.
However, when in 1629, while he was nearing completion of the Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, which culminated in a lengthy explanation of the tide argument, he received a letter from the Tuscan ambassador to Spain, whom he had contacted to inquire about the tides on the Atlantic coast and elsewhere. The ambassador, having consulted extensively with mariners in Spain, assured Galileo that everywhere the tides followed a 12-hour cycle, two a day. Galileo's confidence in his argument was apparently unshaken, however, and he again convinced himself that the second tide cycle each day must also be due to the peculiarities of the ocean floor in the Atlantic and Pacific.
Several other problems plague this tide theory in itself, but I'll mention only one other, one concerning the true cause of the tide cycle. For Galileo's theory requires that high tides and low tides should be locked into the time of day, such that high tide occurs only at night, peaking around midnight, and low tide only during the day, peaking around noon. But no such connection between the time of day and the tide cycle was evident. Rather, any experienced mariner or careful observer in Galileo's day knew that the tide cycles bear some connection to the lunar cycle. Indeed, more than a dozen years before Galileo published the Dialogue, Kepler published a basically accurate theory of the tides associating them exclusively with the position of the Moon, not the Earth's dual motion. In the Dialogue, however, Salviati (Galileo's alter ego) dismisses Kepler's lunar tide theory:
But among the great men who have philosophized about this remarkable effect [i.e., the tides], I am more astonished at Kepler than at any other. Despite his open and acute mind, and though he has at his fingertips the motions attributed to the earth, he has nevertheless lent his ear and his assent to the moon's dominion over the waters, to occult properties, and to such puerilities.
So Galileo not only was aware of what we now consider the true account, but rejects it offhand, apparently because of a philosophical objection to the obscurity of the sort of causality Kepler was allowing for.
Such a single-minded commitment to his own position is perhaps particularly surprising, given that Galileo begins his presentation of the tide argument as follows:
In questions of natural science like this one at hand, a knowledge of the effects is what leads to an investigation and discovery of the causes. Without this, ours would be a blind journey, or one even more uncertain than that… Hence before all else it is necessary to have a knowledge of the effects whose causes we are seeking. … And though in other seas remote from us events may take place that do not occur in our Mediterranean, nevertheless the reason and cause which I shall produce will still be true, provided that it is verified and fully satisfied by the events which do take place in our sea; for ultimately one single, true, and primary cause must hold good for effects which are similar in kind.
In spite of this admission that we must be subject to the observable phenomena in inferring their causes, Galileo is willing to set aside several large and readily observable phenomena that are serious obstacles to his alleged demonstration.
These passages are, of course, not flattering, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But my goal here is not to make Galileo look the fool for the harshness of his assessment of Kepler's tide theory, and I certainly do not want to undermine you juniors taking seriously the Two New Sciences this semester. Rather, I am trying to manifest how committed Galileo was to his intuition both that heliocentrism is true and that this proves it, to the point of being blinded to entertaining significant objections to his proof. Perhaps the sheer ingeniousness of the theory makes is seductive in a way.
Perhaps another reason was Galileo's conviction that scrutinizing his own proof was not his job. For he had said before, in the "Letter to the Grand Duchess," that if a scientist is convinced he has a demonstration in hand, then it is up to others to show him that he is mistaken.
Again, to command that the very professors of astronomy themselves see to the refutation of their own observations and proofs as mere fallacies and sophisms is to enjoin something that lies beyond any possibility of accomplishment. For this would amount to commanding that they must not see what they see and must not understand what they know. … Now if truly demonstrated physical conclusions need not be subordinated to biblical passages, but the latter must rather be shown not to interfere with the former, then before a physical proposition is condemned it must be shown to be not rigorously demonstrated - and this is to be done not by those who hold the proposition to be true, but by those who judge it to be false.
But surely it is strange to say that one is not obliged to be self-critical when one thinks he has proof; intellectual honesty and even the desire for certainty argue the other way. At any rate, Galileo's audience was apparently trying, in some measure, to give his argument the cross-examination on which he was insisting, at least insofar the tide argument amounted to a demonstration. For several skeptical friends and acquaintances challenged Galileo precisely as regards the tide argument's conflict with observations.
In particular, to review, Galileo had given, in 1616 before the edict, copies of his tide argument to both Pope Paul and Cardinal Bellarmine, and yet they had been unconvinced. Likewise, in 1629 Pope Urban himself, an old friend of Galileo who had been familiar with the tide argument for years, repeatedly tried to dissuade him from including, or at least focusing on, it in his forthcoming Dialogue; Galileo acquiesced only insofar as he didn't entitle the Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems as a Dialogue on the Tides, which had been his original plan. Although there is no surviving record of exactly what Pope Urban's reservations were - other than his repeated assertion that Galileo wasn't offering a demonstration (so heliocentrism should be considered only a hypothesis) - one wonders whether his objections had something to do with some of the more obvious problems I've mentioned. At least this much is clear: Neither Cardinal Bellarmine and Pope Paul in 1616, nor Pope Urban in 1633, thought the tide argument rose to the level of demonstration, while Galileo implied that it did. It seems that either Rome had a clearer understanding of what a scientific demonstration should look like than did Galileo, or that Galileo was too close to his tide-argument to see its weaknesses, or perhaps both.
Eventually, however, Galileo saw his mistake: When called to the 1633 trial, Galileo reread his Dialogue and finally admitted that he found the tide argument to be no proof at all, attributing his inability to see this before to the complacency and love one often has for one's own ideas. As he put it, "My error, I confess, has been one of vainglorious ambition, pure ignorance, and inadvertence." So eventually he could see that the skeptics, and Rome in particular, had a point; what he had thought was a scientific demonstration was no such thing, and was probably altogether false. And ironically, in spite of a disastrous judgment about heliocentrism's opposition to the faith, nevertheless, in this particular respect, the Roman Inquisition, not Galileo the scientist, had been on the side of science and the truth about nature.
In conclusion, then, we see that one of the chief elements of the conflict that led both to the 1616 silencing of Galileo and to his 1633 trial pertained to the relationship between how to read Scripture when science appeared to conflict with it. On the one hand, Galileo espoused sound, Augustinian, principles of Scriptural exegesis, especially when Scripture appears to conflict with a rigorously demonstrated physical theory. On the other hand, Rome defensibly insisted that Galileo had no such demonstration of heliocentrism, without which, both sides agreed, Scripture's superficial meaning should not be challenged. To both Galileo and the Holy Office in the 17th century (or at least to Cardinal Bellarmine), these seem to be the only two possible approaches: Demonstrate the theory and then be more careful and open minded in interpreting the relevant passage of Scripture, or stick with the surface sense of the passage.
But might there be a middle path? Let me end with that as a question: Might the evidence backing up a new scientific theory fall short of a demonstration, and appear to conflict with the common reading of certain passages of Scripture, and yet theologians and the Magisterium still be ready to entertain, albeit not insist upon, new interpretations of those same passages as to allow for the theory's being possibly true? My hunch is that, with the proper qualifications, the answer could be "yes." But perhaps we should try to work that out together in the question-and-answer period.
Home | About
| Curriculum |
Campus Life | Chapel
| News| Admission

Question: who is the author of galileo galilei and the church of rome

Galileo and the Church Galileo Galilei, Scriptural Exegete, and the Church of Rome, Advocate of Science, (audio record), author of Dr. Christophera Decaena.

who is the author of galileo galilei and the church of rome

Question: what is the name of galileo's scientific name

what is the name of galileo's scientific name

Question: what is the full name of galileo galilei

i Crkva Galileo Galilei , Scriptural Exegete , and the

what is the full name of galileo galilei

Question: what is galileo galilei's official title

what is galileo galilei's official title

Question: galileo galilei was a member of which church

galileo galilei was a member of which church

Question: galileo galilei is an advocate of what

Question: who is galileo galilei associated with

Crkva Galileo Galilei , Scriptural Exegete , and the

Question: what is the real name of galileo

Galileo and the Church Galileo Galilei , Scriptural Exegete , and the Church of Rome , Advocate of Science , ( audio record ) , author of Dr. Christophera Decaena .

Galileo i Crkva Galileo Galilei, Scriptural Exegete, and the Church of Rome, Advocate of Science , (audio zapis), autora Dr. Christophera Decaena.

Galileo i Crkva Galileo Galilei, Scriptural Exegete, and the Church of Rome, Advocate of Science , (audio zapis), autora Dr. Christophera Decaena.

Galileo and the Church Galileo Galilei, Scriptural Exegete, and the Church of Rome, Advocate of Science, (audio record), author of Dr. Christophera Decaena.

Galileo and the Church Galileo Galilei, Scriptural Exegete, and the Church of Rome, Advocate of Science, (audio record), author of Dr. Christophera Decaena.