![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Oklahoma/History of Science from Antiquity to Newton (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
What is this page for? What is the formula for Galileo's ramp?
( William M. Connolley 20:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)) That is a strange comment. Here is (I hope) a better one: the page says:
The quotes are accurate but I do not see anything to attribute Newtons or Einsteins statements back to Galileo.
( William M. Connolley 12:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)) OK, I've read OTSOG too. But saying that Newton got his absolute time, as known to everyone, from Galileo, is over-interpreting. Its also a bit odd to attribute exactly the opposite - Einsteins rejection of absolute time - to the same source.
To answer the original question on the talk page, Galileo was able to "slow down" the rate of acceleration by inclining his wooden molding by some angle θ. Horizontal would be θ = 0 degrees, and vertical would be θ = 90 degrees. By taking ratios of the elapsed times and angles, he was able to determine that the acceleration of gravity was constant. But by rolling the hard bronze ball down the ramp at angle θ he was able to "slow down" the acceleration by a factor of sin(θ)
Ancheta Wis 11:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that the initial contributor to this article, Wikipedian User:Dandrake is the son of this noted authority on Galileo. Note to Dan: WMC forced me to re-examine Newton's relationship to Galileo; hence the flow of time which I attribute to Galileo, and its provenance to Galileo is called into question. What I found from Westfall is that Galileo's Dialog was part of Newton's study (but no evidence of Discorso). Hence I was forced to find a new home for the flow of time text, which concept I still maintain originated from the Giant, Galileo. One uncomfortable note is that Stephen Hawking's reprint of the 5 Giants called it Dialog on Two New Sciences. Now I could have just used Hawking to parry the call, but it is probably just as well to have moved the Newton and Einstein reactions to the New Sciences to a new home. Ancheta Wis 16:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) I should probably start filling in the red link to Stillman Drake. Would that be alright with you?
Can some tell me if Galileo actually published his Galilean transformation in this book, or did he just explain the concept of relativity via the "cabin below decks in a sailing ship" example? What I am wondering is whether the Galilean transformations are a Newtonian interpretation of Galilean relativity, since I know Newton was big on absolute time. -- Michael C. Price talk 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The language in the infinite section looks anachronistic: It is therefore possible to have a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of a set N and the elements of a proper subset S of N. This cannot happen with finite sets. is sort-of attributed to Galileo. I bet he didn't say that William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
For example, we cannot speak of infinite quantities as being the one greater or less than or equal to another [1] William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this section needs to be improved. How can it possible be said that Galileo's resolution is LESS powerful than the modern resolution? The modern resolution, "Oh its possible to have a bijection in subset S of N" seems meaningless and misses the significance of the concept itself of infinity -- I think it is even wrong to say that it has been resolved in a more satisfactory way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.180.254 ( talk) 15:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
74.205.218.68 ( talk) 17:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC) The 1914 edition states: "Within twenty-five years after the death of Galileo, his Dialogues on Astronomy, and those on Two New Sciences, had been done into English by Thomas Salusbury and were worthily printed in two handsome quarto volumes. The Two New Sciences, which contains practically all that Galileo has to say on the subject of physics, issued from the English press in 1665. It is supposed that most of the copies were destroyed in the great London fire which occurred in the year following. We are not aware of any copy in America: even that belonging to the British Museum is an imperfect one.
Again in 1730 the Two New Sciences was done into English by Thomas Weston; but this book, now nearly two centuries old, is scarce and expensive. Moreover, the literalness with which this translation was made renders many passages either ambiguous or unintelligible to the modern reader. Other than these two, no English version has been made."
The last line of the second paragraph is therefore factually incorrect. It wasn't readily available in the USA until 1914, but there had been two English translations. [1]
References
This article is going to be the subject of a WikiBlitz on October 14, 2013. My Fall 2013 History of Science survey. will be editing the article from 4:30-5:45pm CST. Kirwanfan ( talk) 02:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Renyi falsifies Galileo's opinions. Galileo denied that phrases like "just as many" apply to infinite quantities. The editor who posted Renyi's claim, 74.83.182.22, seems to have a conflict of interest. So does Renyi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.173.97 ( talk) 12:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I’m not an editor, wanted to flag that something has gone wrong in the discussion of book four in the hope that it might get fixed. 142.167.175.72 ( talk) 01:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)