Christopher Wursteisen was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 3 August 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 22, 2012, February 22, 2014, and February 22, 2016. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
"Some of this is to show what Galileo considered good science, such as the discussion of William Gilbert's work on magnetism." The point of the section on magnetism is to show that there are bodies in nature that have two natural motions -- in the case of the magnet, weight and magnetism. This is a refutation of the Aristotelian argument that bodies can only have one natural motion (such as downwards, or circular), which would disallow the double motion of the Earth (rotation and revolution). Thus, this section is by no means a digression from astronomy. (I think this was pointed out by Finocchiaro, but I don't have the reference handy.) 67.186.28.212 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not clear to me why the popularity of Tycho's system in the Church is especially relevant. The Church, after all, was not the only group with a vested interest in non-Copernican ideas.
It's fine for the fight not to be Martyr Galileo versus the Evil Church Empire; but if the idea is that Galileo was attacking the Church and being dishonest with the issues, I've already argued against that point. Those points. The concept that Galileo was not launching an assault on the Church deserves a better hearing than it has got from either "side" since White's time; the possibility that he meant what he said can explain a lot.
Dandrake 21:07 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Gack! Did I fail to sign my original posting? Mea culpa,
BTW I've heard many times the statement that the Church had moved from Ptolemy to Tycho by that time, but it seems always to have been people citing each other or giving no citation at all. I wouldn't mind seeing a development of this claim based on primary sources, or a citation of a good secondary source as distinct from all the tertiary and n-ary sources. And null-ary source, if I may say so.
In any case, I don't know of any strong Tychonic tendencies among the academic philosophers. Theories that Simplicio was a taunt at the Pope should not distract us from the fact that his role in the Dialogue is that of a conservative philosopher, follower of Simplicius, and not a churchman at all. Colombe and Cremonini, the real-life models for Simplicio, appear to have been much concerned with the Aristotelean perfection of the Heavens, which the Tychonian system tends to disrupt. In fact, Simplicio quotes many times, with approval, a philosopher who was no fan of Tycho: Scipio Chiaramonte, author of the Anti-Tycho.
Galileo's directing no arguments directly at Tycho's system can be thought a sort of intellectual dishonesty, a straw-man approach, if his purpose was to attack the Church. It's another matter if, as the text pretty clearly indicates, he was aiming at fuddy-duddy philosophers who insisted on the inerrancy of Aristotle. (And see the paragraph I'm about to add to the main entry.)
By the way, during the entire difficulty process of negotiating a license for publication of the book, did any Church authority whatever raise any problem about its supposedly treating the Church unfairly by omitting Tycho's system? I've never run into evidence of that, but I could be wrong.
If not, then the whole idea that G omitted T's system in order to make the Church look bad (I think that's the idea) looks like a red herring. It's not as if the problem, if it were one, could have been overlooked because nobody thought of Tycho; the "T" section of an index to the Dialogue will confirm this.
Dandrake 21:19 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Adding the pointer to on-line text was a well-intentioned idea, but that page appears to be a copyright violation; specifically, it's lifted from Dartmouth, which I think has a license to use the text privately, but not to post it or let it be posted publicly. Zapped it pending clarification.
Dandrake 22:45, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Does it state how long it took Galileo to write it? VLCMSTNHXXXC 10:26, Nov 26, 2006
Shouldn't there be a mention that the book was written in Italian, which the general population could read? Had it been written in Latin, the norm for scholarly work of the period, I believe , the general population would not have been able to read it. This was supposed to have been a particular irritation to the Church. Sagredo Discussione? 18:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The site given in Note 6 omits anything that puts Galileo or Einstein in a poor light. The original Preface should be consulted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 ( talk) 13:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I know Wikipedia is not a forum but still, where can I find the full text of the Dialogue? "Acceptable" languages for me would be German, English or Russian.-- 141.20.53.121 ( talk) 11:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit added text which maintained that Galileo's argument in favour of Copernicus's system from the apparent motion of sunspots "is wrong, as the relative motions of sunspots are the same whether in both the Ptolemaic and Copernican system". No source was provided for this assertion, and it is contradicted by numerous modern reliable sources. I have therefore provided three such sources and rewritten the relevant passage to conform to what is contained in those sources.
It does seem to me to be true—if I may be permitted to peddle a modest piece of
original reseach of my own—that the explanation of the apparent motion of sunspots in geostatic systems doesn't need to be quite as complicated as the cited sources appear to make out. It could be accounted for by having the Sun's axis of rotation precess uniformly about another axis, parallel to the Earth's, with a period of precisely one
sidereal day. However, this is still rather more implausible than the simple explanation available in Copernicus's system, and, in any case, I don't see how it can be included in the article until someone has found a reliable source which contains it.
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
18:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
If I remember it well, what was concerned was not the conclusions of Galileo himself (as at the time, and because nobody had thought about the yet to come Foucault pendulum experiment, both systems could be seen as functionally identical, one of them allowing just much easier computations as Copernic had signalled it), but the fact that he explained the reasons to consider geocentrism as superior were "irrelevant". They were, but that statement seemed at the time an insult towards Aristotes and the university teachers (as well as a blasphemy, for the Church). Galileo, overestimating the intelligence of his peers, has already irritated most university professors at the time by showing Aristote's affirmation that heaviest objects always fell faster was incorrect (by dropping weights from the tower of Pisa). 212.198.146.177 ( talk) 16:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The origin given in the article for the "Simplicio" character appears to be contrary to the one Galileo gave in the prologue of the Dialogue itself.
The Dialogue's prologue (I'm using the English translation by Stillman Drake, which can be found at various places on the Net) has this to say:
A little further on it adds (parenthetically):
In other words ALL THREE characters derive from real individuals, not just Sagredo & Salviati. In the case of "Simplicio", however, Galileo chose to conceal the name of the real individual behind a nom-de-guerre, doubtless for good reason!
So what does the article have to say? First of all it does not state that the origin of all of three names (let alone Simplicio's) is given by Galileo himself in the Dialogue.
Bearing that failure in mind, it makes the following claims:
That word "supposedly" conveys doubt as to the truth of the origin of that name. Had Galileo been cited as the origin of the name, that word would have conveyed doubt as to the truth of Galileo's account. However, since Galileo has not been mentioned in that context it instead carries the imputation that the Simplicius origin is a mere hypothesis by some OTHER individual trying to work out where Galileo got these names from--which in turn would make the double entendre alternative a competing hypothesis by yet another individual.
All of which is kind of weird given that the statement in the article which follows would appear to itself be an hypothesis despite being presented as undisputed fact:
So instead of Galileo's one anonymous individual masquerading as "Simplicio" we now have an amalgam of two!
So who do we believe? Galileo or the hypothesizers?
I have no idea and the article is itself short on details as to why Colombe and Cremonini are suspected to be Simplicio.
For my own part I can't argue one way or the other, nor do I want to. I merely point out that on such matters the article would seem to be deficient and misleading and needs to be modified. -- 114.73.70.230 ( talk) 11:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
About four passages have been omitted from Einstein's remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.205.224 ( talk) 15:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Prince Cesi's letter to Galileo was written in 1612. This mentioned Kepler's two laws of 1609 as common knowledge, at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.247.25.51 ( talk) 10:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I should point out that the "Ship" thought experiment for frame of reference did not originate with Galileo as the text suggests, it appears centuries earlier in Oresme's "Livre du ciel et du monde" and also in Cusa's "Learned Ignorance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.160.98.101 ( talk) 00:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
In 1953, in his Preface to Stillman Drake's translation of the "Dialogue", Einstein said, "To be sure, he wanted to avoid an open commitment in these controversial questions that would have delivered him to destruction by the Inquisition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.31.162 ( talk) 12:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Because it predicted a parallex, and none could be observed, even with Galeleo's telescope. Theories need to be tested against the data available at the time.
I think Ptolemy was aware of that and is why he rejected heliocentric. Anyway, a note along those lines by someone more knowledgeable would be interesting. Tuntable ( talk) 07:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)