Galileo Galilei

Nossa proposta é investigar como ocorrem as metamorfoses da noção de substância simples no sistema leibniziano, entre Discurso de metafísica, Sistema novo da natureza e a comunicação das substâncias e Monadologia. Trata-se da mesma substância ou são noções diferentes?
Partimos de aporias de sua época e a polêmica entre os métodos modernos e escolásticos. Apontamos as críticas de Leibniz a ambos, partindo das insuficiências modernas aos excessos escolásticos, passando, assim, do campo da física ao campo lógico, em vista das questões metafísicas. Apoiando-se na exposição lógica, acabamos tentando reconstruir, involuntariamente, todo o sistema a partir do princípio de identidade, para conseguir apontar com mais clareza as inovações de Leibniz que reconciliam os dois partidos em sua síntese original.
Ao final, fazemos breves apontamentos particulares sobre cada um dos três textos e tiramos nossas conclusões, se as diferentes expressões da substância simples, nossa questão motriz.

Abstract:
Against the background of the traditional scholarly portrayals of Aemilia Lanyer's Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum as the religious gesture of a woman writer in early seventeenth-century England, whether sincerely spiritual or socially motivated, this essay wishes to complicate the understanding of the poet's “range of intentions” and “stock of concepts” for the expression of her ideas. Lanyer’s conceptions of sympathetic sight and communion-based vision are thus presented here as a probable poetic interaction with contemporary male-centered discourses of objectivity. In the context of early 17th-century philosophical disputes over the nature of vision and optics — with the publication of Johannes Kepler’s Ad Vitellionem Paralipomena in 1604 and of Galileo Galilei’s Sidereus Nuncius in 1610 — Lanyer’s poetry presents sight in religious terms as the glorious means through which a woman could aspire to gain an essential understanding of things and acquire a clear perception of Christic truth. While Kepler and Galileo promoted a model of vision which separated the physical perception of things from their subjective understanding, making the act of seeing imprecise at best and deformed at worst, impersonal and absolutely unrelated to the observer’s consciousness, Lanyer’s religious poetry presents sight as the means for the reader to internalize the perceived and attain a state of Eucharistic communion with it. While vision was becoming the passive and impersonal reception of light rays, and the mind’s conceits of things were believed to be the result of a deception of the sense of vision, Lanyer wrote and published her poetry as a moment of Eucharistic perception: the perception of Christ’s “perfect picture,” hidden behind the aenigmata of her poetry, was attainable, for Lanyer, solely through the “eie of Faith.”

La introducción del método científico propuesto por Descartes fue, en gran medida, lo que hizo cambiar la forma de hacer ciencia, pues se establecieron mecánicamente los “pasos” o lineamientos a seguir para llegar a un resultado determinado.

Far from egalitarian, Galileo’s epistemology asserts an uncompromising hierarchy between science and scripture — an idea he suggests originates with early Christian author Tertullian of Carthage. For Galileo, when the scientific data causes us to disagree with the apparent meaning of scripture, it is not the data that we discard nor is it the scientist whose word is subject to doubt. Rather, whenever a disagreement arises, we always reinterpret the Bible and Holy Fathers such that we can make them agree with what the scientist observes. Galileo states, “[H]aving arrived at any certainties in physics, we ought to utilize these as the most appropriate aids in the true exposition of the Bible […], for these must be concordant with demonstrated truths” (183). In other words, we establish matters of fact first , and then decide what interpretations of scripture will maintain the truth of those facts, second. Given that Galileo’s method stands in radical opposition to the methods of the Church as carried out in the Inquisition following the Council of Trent (1563), it is not hard to understand why the Church felt threatened by him and thereby sought to repress his views.

This article describes an important manuscript discovered recently in the Royal Society archives, and presents evidence that it is the holograph of Galileo’s Letter to Benedetto Castelli of 21 December 1613. It was in this letter that Galileo first set out his ideas on the relation between science and religion, and defended Copernican astronomy from charges of being contrary to the Holy Scriptures. The text of the Letter has hitherto been known only through manuscript copies, namely the 12 used by Antonio Favaro in his critical edition of 1895. Despite his magisterial work, Favaro did not manage to locate Galileo’s autograph and was forced to rely exclusively on copies. The Letter to Castelli preserved at the Royal Society is of remarkable interest. By comparison with the other extant manuscript copies by different hands, its wording seems to be theologically more daring and compromising. The discovery of this autograph is therefore one of the most important in Galilean studies in recent decades, shedding new light on his intricate relations with the Roman Catholic Church in these years.

Il presente studio, sebbene sia circoscritto spazialmente al comprensorio della Val di Chiana, intende rappresentare un caso di studio nel complesso rapporto che intercorre tra uomo e natura, mettendo in luce alcune caratteristiche e ciò che significava, in età preindustriale, cercare di modificare un ambiente e un paesaggio per soddisfare le necessità della società. I due fattori, uomo e natura, si intrecciano nello spazio d’azione rappresentato dall’ambiente, base del processo storico qui studiato e se vogliamo quadro di riferimento in cui si svolgono le vicende umane nel corso della storia.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zygo.12149/full

Historians have long since rejected the dubious assertions of the conflict model, with its narratives of perennial religion versus science combat. Nonetheless, this theory persists in various academic disciplines, and it is still presented to university students as the authoritative historical account of religion–science interactions. Cases of this can be identified within modern anthropology textbooks and reference materials, which often recapitulate claims once made by John W. Draper and Andrew D. White. This article examines 21st-century introductory anthropology publications, demonstrating how such works perpetuate religion–science myths and the notion that history has been replete with inevitable religion versus science warfare. In particular, this study reveals how such introductory materials propagate discord narratives associated with the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. Affiliated with these anecdotes are oversimplified accounts of religious responses to heliocentrism and evolutionary theory , as well as claims that science has invariably led to the usurpation of religious belief and secularization from Galileo onwards. For scholars committed to examining the manifold interactions between science and religion, it has become somewhat banal to note that the conflict model is an outdated, academically rejected thesis. The acclaimed works of Brooke (1991) and Ferngren (2002), among others, have helped demonstrate to wide readerships how the historical associations between

While in modern times excellence in science is often acknowledged with a prize medal, this was not the case in the Renaissance. Despite the fact that the Italian Renais- sance saw a remarkable revival of medal casting, there were no medals to be won in the Renaissance for originality and scientific priority. Rather, professional success was determined by the ability to win public disputations and debate contested topics. This article illustrates how this mode of knowledge production, which reached its peak in the second half of the sixteenth century, was deeply rooted in the culture of verbal and physical duelling that developed in Italy around that time. Transforming the cul- ture of academic disputation into one of public spectacle, the sixteenth century saw scientific practitioners make careers out of controversy and polemical exchange. From the mid-seventeenth century onwards, this model of knowledge production was slowly superseded by more moderate exchanges and collaborations.

This short essay analyses the discussion over the topic to decide the nature of Mathematics as an art or a science. Unlike as it is perceived today as “Mother of Sciences”, Mathematics historically had not always been look upon as one. Eminent mathematicians like Bertrand Russel and Hagel contested the portrayal of Math as a pure science.

Traditionally, gravitas denotes the inner source of movement towards the centre of the universe. In the mediaeval Latin tradition, the chief problem was to fit this notion within a coherent Aristotelian framework. As philosophers in the Renaissance begin to breach the constraints of Aristotelian natural philosophy, we see diverse attempts to conceive gravitas as a force also responsible for natural phenomena such as tides and free fall acceleration. The coexistence in the Renaissance of different Aristotelian and non-Aristotelian concepts of gravitas makes the latter a polysemic scientific term, whose meaning can be determined only after careful examination of the context in which it was employed.

This article surveys Galileo’s contribution to the conceptualisation of the problem of isochronism, as his most important input in the study of the oscillation of heavy bodies. We will deal essentially with the mathematical aspects of his various attempts to discover mathematical proofs for his theorems of isochronism, in his early manuscripts (1600-1609), bound in Volume 72 of the Galilean Manuscripts, and in his later two major publications, the Dialogo and the Discorsi. The experimental procedures he implemented in his research will be dealt with as far as they shed light on different aspects of properly mathematical issues of the Galilean analysis of iscohronism. Alternating between the analysis of Galileo’s private manuscripts and the relevant passages in his mature works, we follow the emergence and evolution of Galileo’s theory of the pendulum within his physics of motion, and we witness how his investigation was faced with serious challenges, mathematical and experimental, t...

Nel 1610 Galileo Galilei pubblicava il Sidereus Nuncius per comunicare le scoperte astronomiche che aveva compiuto per mezzo del suo nuovo strumento, il perspicillum o occhiale: la configurazione orografica della Luna (che ne rivelava l'affinità con la Terra), la natura stellare delle nebulose e della Via Lattea, i primi quattro satelliti di Giove (che confermavano la teoria copernicana). La Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze possiede un esemplare della prima edizione dell'opera che contiene le postille di un anonimo aristotelico: le prime stizzite reazioni di esponente di un sistema minacciato, che opponeva una stantia erudizione libresca alle vittoriose conquiste della nuova scienza sperimentale. Si trascrive il testo (con le sue molte immagini) con le postille ai luoghi loro.

We are all haunted by histories. They shape our presuppositions and ballast our judgments. In terms of science and religion this means most of us walk about haunted by rumors of a long war. However, there is no such thing as the “history of the conflict of science and Christianity,” and this is a book about it. In the last half of the twentieth century a sea change in the history of science and religion occurred, revealing not only that the perception of protracted warfare between religion and science was a curious set of mythologies that had been combined together into a sort of supermyth in need of debunking. It was also seen that this collective mythology arose in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by historians involved in many sides of the debates over Darwin’s discoveries, and from there latched onto the public imagination at large. Flat Earths and Fake Footnotes takes the reader on a journey showing how these myths were constructed, collected together, and eventually debunked. Join us for a story of flat earths and fake footnotes, to uncover the strange tale of how the conflict of science and Christianity was written into history.

"Flat Earths and Fake Footnotes offers a comprehensive and compelling demolition of the tired myth of an enduring conflict between science and religion. Peterson not only exposes the historical bankruptcy of this familiar story, but also shows how it became a foundational narrative for Western modernity and why it persists. Beautifully written
and impeccably researched, this book deserves a wide readership."

-Peter Harrison, Former Andreas-Idreos Chair of Science and Religion, Oxford University, Current Australian Laureate Fellow and Author of The Territories of Science and Religion


"Peterson shows himself a gifted storyteller as well as scholar, combining true accounts of famous events (which prove no less interesting than the legends that have grown up around them and in some cases have replaced them) with the story of how those events were overlaid and refashioned into the myth so many treat as common
knowledge today: the untrue history of the war between religion and science. In an era full of so much untruth, Peterson's book is a breath of fresh air."

--James F. McGrath Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature, Butler University and Author of Science Fiction Theology.


"This work on the historiography of science and Christianity is
must-reading for high schoolers and college students, along with their parents and professors, and will, if heeded, change the way future generations will see the world. It

It is not easy to debunk a history that never happened, but Peterson has done precisely that, and achieved it admirably. The history of science is littered with stellar figures of immense importance, erudite thinking, and deeply Christian convictions. A new generation of Christians needs to be reacquainted with these scientific saints and Peterson's
work is a sure guide to this task."

--Myk Habets, Senior Lecturer in Theology, Laidlaw College, New Zealand. Author of Theology in Transposition: A Constructive Appraisal of T.F. Torrance


"Peterson is seeking to wake us from our dogmatic slumbers. Historians of
science, scholars of religion, and theologians often plough separate furrows, paying little attention to each other's work. But in Flat Earths and Fake Footnotes, Peterson has brought them all into conversation, condensing a truly vast amount of scholarship. He has shown, moreover, that scholars ignore each other at their own peril. Despite over
a hundred years of scholarship debunking the so-called 'conflict thesis,' the idea thatscience and religion are at war, perceptions of conflict persist. The only way forward from our scholarly impasse is to combine these fields of scholarship to paint a more comprehensive picture of what is going on. Impeccably researched and thoroughly readable, Peterson offers the reader a tour de force of the best research in the history
of science, religion, and theology."

--James C. Ungureanu, honorary research fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland and in the Department of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Author of Science, Religion, and the Protestant Tradition: Retracing the Origins of Conflict


"Those who set the historiographical terms of debate frame the narrative involving the alleged conflict of Christian faith and science. Derrick Peterson's learned interdisciplinary study tracing the formation and deconstruction of the erroneous though ever-popular warfare thesis carefully sets the stage for future constructive work recounting
the complex developments of scientific history involving Christianity. Flat
Earths and Fake Footnotes provides the kind of critical analysis and creative catalyst so greatly needed today if we are to build nuanced understanding and trust between the scientific and faith communities for the sake of human flourishing."

--Paul Louis Metzger, Multnomah University & Seminary, Author of The Word of Christ and the World of Culture: The Sacred
and the Secular Through the Theology of Karl Barth

"Why won't this stubborn pseudohistory die? To the rescue comes Peterson, a historian extraordinaire with many stories to tell. Exuding a palpable glee, he quests to debunk the grand pseudohistorical myths of conflict. His book about books leads the reader in an adventure across centuries. Hacking through the webs of false references and out-right fabrications, the payoff is a glimpse of what really happened.
The truth is far more hopeful than the fiction. Rather than inevitable conflict, the true arc of science and religion might be dialogue, maybe even friendship. May this book
get the wide readership it deserves."

--S. Joshua Swamidass, M.D., Ph.D., Author of The Genealogical Adam and Eve


"Peterson offers us more than simply another genealogy debunking the warfare thesis. Rather, Flat Earths and Fake Footnotes offers us a deeply learned and absorbing meta-genealogy: a story of why and how the historiography that manufactured the myth of faith/science
conflict came to be superseded by the alternative and debunking historiography that we find today. The result is among the clearest and most bracing articulations I've read on the complex historical interplay between religion and science. Peterson's narrative
corrects our retellings of that interplay in the past. But more than that, Flat Earths challenges us to make explicit our present interests in such retellings and encourages us to imagine what sort of future for science and religion we are projecting with our historiographies. A remarkable first book by a formidable young scholar."

--Sameer Yadav, Author of The Problem of Perception and the Experience of God: Toward a Theological Empiricism


"In this remarkable volume, Peterson collates and contributes to a quiet revolution in the world of scholarship that is just now being disseminated to the masses. In your hands lies not just a book but the intersection of more scholarly threads than I thought possible in a single volume. Like a relentless detective, Peterson removes the dramatic
curtain that has been put over our collective consciousness for so very long, and what remains is a tale of mere mortals, behaving very much as they do today. None will leave without enduring the slow dissipation of myths that we didn't know we believed.
The cosmos that remains is, of course, so much more interesting and grand. This should serve as the definitive nail in the coffin of the warfare thesis for a generation to come. Even more than that, and especially delightful, it is a model of intellectual curiosity--of what scholarship ought to be."

--Joseph Minich The Davenant Institute

"Peterson's detailed and well-researched description and argument ought to dispel any notion that the earliest 'scientists' were hindered by religion in their pursuit of understanding the natural world. A must read."

--Mike L. Gurney, Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics, Multnomah University


"Peterson's book is another nail in the coffin of the Warfare Thesis and takes a different tack and gives an interesting and illuminatingly different perspective than the standard fair. Highly recommended."

-Michael Roberts. Retired Anglican priest and Historian of geology and Genesis. Author of Evangelicals and Science


"As a *very* hopeful agnostic, I have a keen interest on the relationship between science and faith. This book is probably the most delightful exploration of this history that I have ever read. In an erudite yet entertaining manner, Peterson explores this history in a way that undoubtedly makes the case that the enmity between science and religion, although undoubtedly present, has been rather exaggerated. Peterson acts as an ideal ambassador between these two disciplines. ... Using the obligated--yet fully felt--remark, I must say: Highly recommended."

--Oné R. Pagán, PhD, Professor of Biology, West Chester University.
Author of 'The First Brain', 'Strange Survivors', and 'Drunk Flies and Stoned Dolphins'.

O Mensageiro das Estrelas reúne as primeiras observações realizadas por Galileu com o uso do telescópio.
Com essas observações, que incluem irregularidades na superfície da Lua -  para os aristotélicos, uniforme, como uma bola de bilhar - Galileu deduz que o satélite da Terra tem montanhas e calcula que elas são mais elevadas que as da Terra.
Ao apontar o telescópio para Júpiter, Galileu  também localiza o que chama de "estrelas móveis", em contraponto com as chamadas "estrelas fixas" da esfera celeste. Essas "estrelas móveis" agora são conhecidas como as Luas de Galileu, os quatro maiores satélites desse planeta gigante.
Galileu se dá conta, ainda, das manchas solares e de que a Via Láctea, a mancha leitosa que corta o céu, é formada por uma infinidade de estrelas que não podem ser observadas individualmente, devido à distância em que se encontram.
Esse conjunto de observações leva a um destronamento do homem, do centro do Universo, a uma modesta posição periférica, que hoje sabemos ser um dos braços da Galáxia.

This book is the Persian translation and critical edition of SIDEREUS NUNCIUS or THE SIDEREAL MESSENGER, which was written by Galileo Galilei in New Latin language in 1610 at Padua, Italy. This astronomical treatise is the first scientific work after human looking to the sky with the eye of the new spyglasses. The looking cause to metamorphose the human vision into a new horizon of the universe. And from this perspective, the book is one of the most important and influencing works in through of philosophy and history of science and even history of ideas. This book ignited multifarious heated debates in the area of methodology, epistemology, and sociology of science, and relationship between science and religion, for the first time.
In introduction, first I skimmed through the Ideas of great philosophers and historian of science regarding the rule of Galileo and his position and specially effect of this book in formation of modern science. Also I looked into the legitimacy of artificial instruments, like the telescope, in learning new truth about reality. I focus on this matter due to the fact that the instrument played a crucial role in Galileo argument in this work. And maybe this was the first moment in the history of science that an instrument and observation have such a determinant role in scientific progress. Second, I introduced the critical rationalism of Alan Musgrave, and then, from this perspective, try to evaluate Galileo’s reasons and arguments and his opponents, Aristotelians. Third, Introduce theory-ladensess of observation in historical studies of science and make a relationships between this matter and Galileo affairs.

Bilangan Prima adalah dasar dari matematika, termasuk salah satu misteri alam semesta. Tidak pernah terbayangkan oleh manusia sebelumnya, sampai ditemukan bahwa bilangan prima juga merupakan dasar dari kehidupan alam, yang dengan usaha keras ingin dijelasan oleh ilmu ini dalam sains.

This study analyses the profound influence that Galileo had on Hobbes’s philosophy, also through the mediation of Mersenne. The author highlights the many aspects of Hobbesian ‘Galileism’: not only methodological and epistemological ones, but also conceptual and lexical analogies in the field of physics, to arrive at a comparison between the two authors on the subject of the structure of matter, revealing a common mechanistic conception of the universe.

Lo storico interessato a individuare i percorsi lineari della scienza si chiede il motivo per cui Galileo merita di essere famoso e risponde con la scoperta della legge di caduta libera dei gravi. Lo storico interessato a collocare le teorie nel loro contesto storico si chiede perché Galileo meritava di essere famoso e risponde con l’utilizzo del telescopio nelle esplorazioni celesti. Lo storico attento alla figura di Galileo si chiede se egli voleva meritarsi la fama, e risponde un po’ imbarazzato che lo scienziato riteneva di aver trovato l’argomento definitivo per dimostrare il moto della Terra, ovvero l’argomento delle maree che è sbagliato. Fatto sta che Galileo è spesso più conosciuto come un “caso” per via della vicenda avuta con la Chiesa, mentre è meno conosciuto come lo scienziato al crocevia di un momento delicato e fondamentale della storia della scienza e della filosofia. Questo volume si propone di “osservare” la storia di Galileo sotto angolazioni che diano conto della complessità della vicenda, offrendo una via di accesso a questa complessità a quanti non frequentano abitualmente gli studi galileiani.

If we comb through the texts that Kepler produced in response to Galileo's discoveries we find an original perspective on the role of witnessing in astronomy -- one that is elaborated through references to procedures and standards of evidence of Roman canon and inquisitorial law

Is the relationship between science and religion characterized by conflict or harmony? There are innumerable models for this relationship, but they basically fall into two camps. They either assert that science and religion are in unavoidable conflict, or that science and religion— understood correctly—are distinct but complementary aspects of human culture. For those who assert that science and religion must conflict, the most frequently cited proof of such conflict is the Galileo affair. In the popular interpretation of that unfortunate event, the famous physicist, inventor, and astronomer Galileo Galilei was sentenced to lifelong house arrest by the Catholic Church for asserting that the earth orbited the sun. The ecclesiastical authorities also forced him to recant his heliocentric (sun-centered) theory and promise not to advance it any longer. For conflict theorists, those who believe that science and religion are incompatible, this event provides one powerful example of the darkness of religion relative to the brilliance of science. The only solution, they propose, is to reject all religious belief and usher in a new age of unshackled reason, scientific investigation, and technological advance. Alas, the truth is not so simple.

Thought experiments play an important epistemic, rhetorical and didactic function in Galileo’s dialogues. In some cases, Salviati, Sagredo and Simplicio agree about what would happen in an imaginary scenario and try to understand whether the predicted outcome is compatible with their respective theoretical assumptions. There are, however, also situations in which the predictions of the three interlocutors turn out to be theory-laden. Salviati, Sagredo and Simplicio not only disagree about what would happen, but they reject each other’s solutions as question-begging and sometimes even dismiss each other’s thought experiments as misleading or nonsensical.

La storia di otto capolavori della letteratura italiana raccontata a partire dai manoscritti autografi conservati in biblioteche o collezioni private. 

Giovanni Boccaccio, Decameron
Francesco Petrarca, Canzoniere
Leon Battista Alberti, Grammatica
Ludovico Ariosto, Orlando furioso
Galileo Galilei, Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo
Giacomo Leopardi, Operette morali
Eugenio Montale, Satura
Umberto Eco, Il nome della rosa

***

Quarta di copertina:

La forza narrativa del Decameron di Boccaccio. La potenza visionaria dell’Orlando furioso di Ariosto. La disarmante bellezza delle Operette morali di Leopardi. Siamo abituati a pensare ai capolavori della letteratura come a qualcosa di immobile e perfetto. Ma c’è stato un momento in cui anche le grandi opere hanno avuto una forma incerta, fragile, provvisoria. Partendo da otto manoscritti d’autore, Matteo Motolese guida il lettore in un viaggio appassionante attraverso biblioteche e collezioni private nel cuore della creazione letteraria. Dal codice su cui Boccaccio, ormai anziano, copia per un’ultima volta le sue novelle al taccuino da tasca su cui Montale scrive con una semplice biro una delle poesie d’amore più belle del Novecento. Dalle pergamene bianchissime su cui Petrarca dà la forma finale al Canzoniere fino al quaderno di una papéterie parigina su cui Eco costruisce la trama del Nome della rosa. Storia dopo storia, questo libro ci accompagna attraverso le trasformazioni della nostra lingua e ci permette di osservare da vicino l’attimo in cui il gesto quotidiano e comune della scrittura dà vita a quella cosa eterna ma profondamente umana che chiamiamo letteratura.

ll libro ripercorre la storia di Giovanni Virginio Schiaparelli, l'insigne astronomo italiano, indagando, attraverso i testi di più autori, le diverse fasi della sua attività umana ed esplorativa: dalla fanciullezza e gioventù saviglianese alla prolungata direzione dell'Osservatorio di Brera, attraverso le scoperte compiute durante le opposizioni di Marte ed i numerosi suoi lavori scientifici pubblicati in tutto ilo mondo (qui ordinati per la prima volta in modo sistematico)

S’il faut une preuve que ce ne sont pas les plus grands génies qui guident la vie du monde, nous pourrons également la trouver dans le fait que, lorsqu’Einstein voulut scruter le dense brouillard du futur social humain, il ne sut parvenir à aucune conclusion d’une véritable hauteur, et retomba dans ces peu géniales formules que lui avait transmises un passé usé, et il ne tenta même pas, lui le puissant iconoclaste de la pensée, de se dégager de ce misérable piège.

An exploration of Pythagorean-Platonic and Aristotelian-Thomistic Accounts of mathematics and science. This paper argues that mathematics is a specific form of abstraction. It concludes that science remains authentic when it maintains an awareness that it is necessarily abstract or reductionist.

Este es un trabajo escolar para la materia: Arte mexicano del S.XIX impartida en la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Se trata de la descripción e interpretación generada gracias a una corta investigación de la obra "Galileo en la Universidad de Padua demostrando las nuevas teorías astronómicas" de Félix Parra.

Understanding the concepts “Geometric” and “Heliocentric” views aids in the quest for responses to this week’s forum questions.  According to the online dictionary, in astronomy “Geocentric” is defined as: “having the earth at its centre: the Ptolemaic system postulated a geocentric universe. Or, measured from or relating to the centre of the earth.

Galilée aborde l’étude physique de l’acoustique dans un court passage des Discorsi, son dernier ouvrage. Pourtant son père Vincenzo, musicien et théoricien, avait écrit plusieurs textes sur le sujet. Galilée étudie la nature vibratoire des sons et affirme que leur hauteur est liée au nombre de vibrations. Dans l’incapacité de les compter, il n’utilise pas le terme « fréquence », mais une périphrase «  nombre de vibrations dans le même temps ». Et il imagine deux expériences pour illustrer sa théorie : l’une repose sur l’analogie entre les vibrations sonores et les ondes à la surface de l’eau, et l’autre sur l’observation des traces laissée sur une plaque de laiton par le frottement sonore d’un outil tranchant. Ces traces (« virgules ») sont espacées, et Galilée établit une corrélation entre les variations des espacements et la hauteur du son produit. Cette expérience doit lui permettre de démontrer la relation qu’il  propose. Cependant l’analyse qu’il en fait est partiellement erronée alors que sa théorie est juste. De nos jours, largement imprégnés du système technique du phonographe, nous pouvons, en reproduisant cette expérience,  comprendre les raisons qui sont à l’origine de ces erreurs. Il reste néanmoins que Galilée est le précurseur de la représentation graphique des vibrations qui sera à la fin du  XIXème siècle à l’origine des procédés d’enregistrement des sons.