Talk:Galileo Galilei/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

US vs British spelling

The article's current spelling of words which have "-our" endings in British English and "-or" endings in US English is not consistent, as is required Manual of style. Until a recent edit changed one occurrence of the word "honour" to "honor", there were 7 occurrences of the British "-our" ending as against one of the US "-or" ending. The edit in question made it 6 of the former and 2 of the latter. Since the spelling currently used in the article seems to be predominantly British, the Manual of Style would appear to require that it continue to stick consistently to that variety. I have therefore changed the two occurrences of the US "-or" spelling to the British "-our".

Personally, I don't care all that much which variety of spelling is used, but it should be consistent.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jolly good show, sir ! Up the Poms ! --Logicus (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Galileo Myth

The other side, keeps referring to the Galileo Myth. That the event as known, was not all that there was to it. Can we have a mention of this so called Galileo Myth on this article? Faro0485 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Galileo Myth", as I understand it, refers to a "telling of the story" (of the real events that took place) which is not historically accurate. I'm not sure how/if that would be worked into the article. Radagast3 (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why/y was this article died?

Pls add that box that explains y/4 how long article is locked. I think this article has been locked since b4 it was featured by King Google. 70.108.47.112 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

the father of modern observational astronomy

The beginning of this article refers to galileo as the "father of modern observational astronomy,"[4]. This however ignores the fact that the first celestial telescopic observations were carried out by Thomas Harriot and not Galileo as commonly believed. Galileo was the more successful publicist and so his work was more widely known. Thomas harriot (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would get rid of the whole sentence. It is ridiculous. Among Galileo's contemporaries, Tycho has a much better claim to being the father of modern observational astronomy. Roger (talk)

Well, he was certainly a PIONEER of observational astronomy. And the article makes a correct statement: he HAS been called the "father of modern observational astronomy." Radagast3 (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm not a fan of "father of X" claims, I'd say Galileo has a better claim of being "father of modern observational astronomy" than either Harriot or Tycho. Tycho followed an ancient tradition, extending traditional quantitative positional observations to new levels of precision, but he didn't do something really new. Harriot, like Galileo, used a telescope to carry out a new kind of qualitative observation of the moon, of Jupiter's satellites, and of sunspots, but his work never had the impact on the scientific community that Galileo's did because Harriot did not interpret his ideas within a broader scientific context and did not publish his work. Parentage implies not only producing something new, but having an influence on one's offspring. Galileo did both, Tycho and Harriot did not. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I fond of "Father of . . ." claims, however consider that, as you say, Tycho brought the ancient tradition to "new levels of precision", and his precise "naked-eye" analysis "influenced" us all by influencing Kepler's milestone conclusions. I'd have to agree that, if Galileo is the "Father" then Tycho most assuredly is the "Grandfather" of modern astronomy.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

why has this page always featured on 12April?

Y has this page been featured so many times on 12 April? What is the significance of 12Apr? 12.39.210.68 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lock

WTH is up with the lock? --207.177.111.34 (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected indefinitely, due to massive vandalism. Radagast3 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Simplicio = "simpleton"?

A recent edit has readded the apparent claim that Simplicio's name means "simpleton". The claim had been previously removed after a citation request had been in place for more than two months without being met. The original citation request is discussed here. Although the claim originally had "stupid" in place of "simpleton", the citation request still remained in place for another month after it was changed to the latter. This is ample time for editors to supply an authoritative source. I have therefore again removed the claim. Please do not readd it without supplying such a source.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That claim worried me too, because it was an oversimplification. I have added a (referenced) explanation, rewording because it no longer works as a parenthetical comment. Radagast3 (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I still have my doubts, since Finocchiaro doesn't cite any references for the statement that the term "simplicio" is an Italian word, and it is not listed at all in the very comprehensive Italian dictionary (Zingarelli) I have consulted. Nevertheless, Finocchiaro is certainly an impeccable source by Wikipedia's standards, so your edit is certainly a good one.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I take your point. I'm assuming Finocchiaro knows his Italian, but the word may be obsolete, in which case I should have used the past tense. Radagast3 (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A quick search of the Italian web sees the relationship repeated [1], but no real citable sources. I'll keep looking for more references. Radagast3 (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Your edit is properly sourced, and as you say, the word may be obsolete (or possibly a regional variation). Although Zingarelli does contain a lot of obsolete and dialect words, it's still a modern dictionary, so I doubt if it's exhaustive for 17th century Tuscan dialect.

It's not clear that the Italian page you found is claiming that "simplico" itself is an Italian word, or mererly drawing attention to the possible cognate "sempliciotto". A reasonable translation of the parenthetical remark is:

"(commentator on Aristotle, spokesman for those who maintained the immobility of the Earth, but also ... "simple minded")".

I think one could also take "sempliciotto" here to be a noun ("simpleton", "fool"), rather than an adjective, but the latter reads more smoothly to my (admittedly non-native) ear for the finer nuances of the language.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my edits. I think the current wording is satisfactory -- the name "Simplicio" has the connotation "simpleton" (possibly via sempliciotto), and it doesn't really matter whether or not "simplicio" is a dictionary word. Radagast3 (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to add notable students

Wanted to add notable students but cannot edit reference http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=134975 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemeb1967 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A reference to be added?

I think this is a useful and interesting reference where it discusses his life and his publication of the moons of jupiter; the original letter.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/galilean-moons.html

But i'm not-wiki proficient enough to be able to add it.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.93.38 (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation format

Would anyone object to replacing this:

• Favaro, Antonio (1890–1909), ed.[2]. Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Edizione Nazionale (in Italian). (The Works of Galileo Galilei, National Edition, 20 vols.), Florence: Barbera, 1890–1909; reprinted 1929–1939 and 1964–1966. ISBN 88-09-20881-1. Searchable online copy from the Institute and Museum of the History of Science, Florence. Brief overview of Le Opere @ Finns Fine Books, [3] and here [4]

With this:

• Favaro, Antonio [5], ed. (1890–1909; reprinted 1929–1939 and 1964–1966). Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Edizione Nazionale (in Italian). Florence: Barbera. ISBN 88-09-20881-1. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |editor-first= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) Searchable online copy from the Institute and Museum of the History of Science, Florence. Brief overview of Le Opere @ Finns Fine Books, [6] and here [7]

I think the second one is easier to work with and more consistent with the rest of the article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that your suggested revision is preferable. I can suggest one further improvement though: replace the external link to the Italian Wikipedia's article on Favaro with a foreign wikilink specified by the editor-link parameter, thus:

• Favaro, Antonio, ed. (1890–1909; reprinted 1929–1939 and 1964–1966). Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Edizione Nazionale (in Italian). Florence: Barbera. ISBN 88-09-20881-1. {{cite book}}: Check |editor-link= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) Searchable online copy from the Institute and Museum of the History of Science, Florence. Brief overview of Le Opere @ Finns Fine Books, [8] and here [9]
  

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 22:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there seems to be some problem with the foreign wikilink which prevents the editor's name being displayed on the rendered page. I tried to make the change earlier and ran into the same problem. It's frustrating that the citation seems to be rendered perfectly well on this talk page but not on the article page. Until we can find out what the problem is, I think we will just have to stick with your original proposal (which is perfectly fine in any case).

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hawking?

Stephen Hawking's accomplishments aside, is his opinion on Galileo's significance first-paragraph material? I think this quote ought to be moved and perhaps further explored in the legacy section below. Just a gut reaction. Olives0857 (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Statue in the Vatican

I just wanted to mention that in the section about his conflict with the Church it mentions a statue that the Vatican agreed to construct in 2008. Those plans were scrapped earlier this year. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/253318,vatican-shelves-plans-for-galileo-statue.html Jonschmid (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Born, Lived and Died in Italy?

Galileo Galilei was about as special as anyone ever gets but he was born in early 1564 and Italy didn't exist until 1861. Even Wikipedia's page on Italy says so. In 1564 what is now Italy was a series of around 16 independent duchies, kingdoms and city states. I guess people have a problem relating to concepts that don't coincide with the here and now. Yugoslavia? Where was that? 76.106.170.45 (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User 76.106.170.45 wrote:

" ... Italy didn't exist until 1861."

Really? Someone should have told Galileo. In his preface "To the Discerning Reader" in the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems he wrote:

"Therefore I propose in the present work to show foreign nations that as much is understood of this matter in Italy [emphasis mine], and particularly in Rome, as transalpine diligence can ever have imagined ... ".

Someone should also disabuse the community of Galileo scholars (such as Maurice Finocchiaro, Peter Machamer and Mario Biagioli, for instance) of the errors they perpetrate in calling Galileo an "Italian", and referring to the peninsula on which he lived as "Italy". This terminology appears to be practically universal amongst mainstream Galileo scholars, so I'm afraid that until someone manages to convince them of the error of their ways this terminology will have to remain in the article (as required by Wikipedia policy).

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The peninsula was certainly known as Italia long before the time of Galileo. Petrarch (1304-1374) wrote a madrigal about what a wonderful place Italia was. Italy is the translation into English of Italia. - Gnomon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomon (talk • contribs) 09:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The peninsula has been known as Italia since at least the time of the Roman Republic. It's thus fair to say that Galileo was Italian, even if the modern state of Italy wasn't in existence before 1861.Catiline63 (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pendulum period nearly constant for small amplitudes

The article makes an incorrect assertion about Galileo's belief about the amplitude independence of the pendulum period,

"It is popularly believed that he came to this conclusion by watching the swings of the bronze chandelier in the cathedral of Pisa, using his pulse to time it. It appears however, that he conducted no experiments because the claim is true only of infinitesimally small swings as discovered by Christian Huygens."

The period of a pendulum is pretty close to the value for infinitesimal swings, even for fairly large swing angles. For example, the period is still within 4% of the ideal value when the pendulum is swinging out to 45% from the vertical, a full 90% arc. This is certainly within the precision one could measure using one's pulse, Galileo's assumption is true to a good approximation.

Whether Galileo actually performed this experiment in the cathedral, I don't know, I wasn't there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.220.216 (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the para and added a reference. There is a nice page on his experiments here by the way. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Misspelling

Offense, not offence.

see American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ce.2C_-se. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The article currently contains one occurrence each of the American spellings "defense" and "license." As I understand the Manual of Style on this point, these spellings should all be made consistent (i.e. either change "offence" to "offense" or "defense" and "license" to "defence" and "licence"). The choice might be complicated by the fact that the article currently uses the British "-our" word endings consistently where these differ from the American "-or" spelling (currently 8 occurrences). If the Manual of Style requires the spelling in the article to be all consistently British or all consistently American (it's not at all clear to me that it does) then the easiest way to achieve the required consistency would be to change "defense" and "license" to "defence" and "license". There is also one occurrence of the word "practice" used as a noun, but I believe this is an acceptable spelling for the noun in American English, so this could be left as it is, even if all the spellings were to be changed to American.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I had thought that this was a British-English article. However, experience suggests that such articles should be specially tagged, or well-meaning editors will inconsistently "correct" some of the words. Personally, I would have no objection to converting it to American English, if that was the easiest solution. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It was actually easier to make it uniformly British English, since this required only two changes, whereas making it uniformly American English would have required 9 changes. I have therefore now made the change.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that Galileo predates the Americans' spelling changes, so I would go with the British one. Unless he is so old that people would have used old-timey spelling back then, in which case I'd go with whichever country provided more of the references. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This British spelling is an offense. Yes, it is an offense, not an offence. And completely inappropriate here. When Galileo wrote his books, he wrote in the vernacular, not in Latin, and certainly not in British English. When the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index decided to correct De revolutionibus orbium coelestium by Copernicus, it had a choice of making 2 corrections to conform to Galileo, or 9 corrections to satisfy Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. It did not just take the easy way out and make the 2 corrections, as Wilson has done. It went with the whole 9 corrections. Next, we will probably have an edit war with claims that Galileo was British. This Galileo article used to be a featured article. Now the typical bloke probably thinks that it is a load of bollocks! Roger (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, lets be nice! There are two language groups working on the "en" Wikipedia -- "British" and "American." Most editors work within their own version of the language, so that articles mostly written by British-English users will be in British English, and articles mostly written by American-English users will be in American English. Wikipedia policy is to allow this, but for articles to be consistently one or the other, and for people to stick with the state of the article.

This article was (apparently) mostly written by British-English users, so it made sense for David to do the two changes making it 100% British, rather than the 9 changes making it 100% American.

If there's an overwhelming consensus in favour of changing that, I don't mind, but I don't think attacking British-English users is helpful here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Mired as I am in the deadly vice of Sloth, I had no desire whatever to expend the extra effort necessary to convert the article to God's Own Dialect. If others of a more saintly and industrious disposition wish to do so, my very slothfulness will prevent me from engaging in any disputes over the matter.

Roger wrote:

"When Galileo wrote his books, he wrote in the vernacular, not in Latin, ... "

Not entirely true. Sidereus Nuncius, the first of his major works, was written in Latin.

Radagast3 wrote:

"Hey, lets be nice! ... "

I don't believe Roger's comments were intended to be otherwise. I took them to be a mostly tongue-in-cheek expression of preference for American rather than British spelling. While it does annoy me when any single editor takes it upon himself or herself to change an article from one to the other without first obtaining consensus, the issue is sufficiently trivial that I rarely see much point kicking up a fuss about it.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Glad you appreciated it. I even learned something about Galileo writing in Latin. I do prefer the American spellings, but I am not seriously debating it here. Roger (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

galileo

where did galileo work and what did he discover or find —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.79.244 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul Feyerabend

Under Galileo Galilei#Scientific methods, third paragraph, there are three sentences devoted to Paul Feyerabend’s analysis of Galileo’s work. I think these sentences are excessive. There is a lengthy quotation from Feyerabend’s book Against Method. This quotation is guaranteed to cause confusion in the mind of the reader because its theme is contrary to the theme of the whole article. At the least, this quotation should be removed from the article. (I would have no objection to it being transferred to the article Paul Feyerabend.)

My view is that, of the three sentences devoted to Feyerabend, the second and third are excessive. The article would be improved if these two sentences were removed.

It is even reasonable to contemplate removing the first sentence devoted to Feyerabend. I suspect there are many scientists and authors who have identified aspects of Galileo’s work that by modern standards are considered to be flaws. It might be reasonable to concede that Galileo’s work was not perfect by modern standards, but I doubt it is reasonable to focus on any one of Galileo’s critics. I consider this article is diminished in quality by focussing on Feyerabend’s criticisms. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The space devoted to Feyerabend's views seems to me to be way out of proportion to their significance. He is not a specialist on Galileo, and very few of his idiosyncratic views on the matter seem to have been shared by genuine experts. I would be inclined to delete all three sentences—or at least replace them with the views of true experts on Galileo's works and philosopy (e.g. any of Drake, Wallace, Finocchiaro, Fantoli would be more suitable as sources, but there are also any number of others to choose from).

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why stop there? Much of the section is questionable. Ancient Pythagoreans and astronomers viewed the laws of nature as mathematical. Any claim that he changed his mind about something should have an example, or not be stated. Saying "most honest interpretation, led to a rejection of blind allegiance to authority" is just someone's opinion, and seems dubious to me. It should be sourced or omitted. Roger (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the three sentences devoted to Feyerabend. If people wish to challenge the removal of these three sentences, or discuss replacement with alternative information about other authors and critics, they are welcome to do so here. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph

I think the first paragraph gives the impression of peacock terms. The names are not the first things the reader needs to know and it sounds promotional.Qzex (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the article promoting? The man's been dead for almost 400 years. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph is fair enough. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

red link

In this article there is a red link to Letter to Castelli Keegantm (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Inventions

Galileo Galilei made the first thermometer, it consisted of water in a glass bulb. As the temperature rised the water rised, as the temperature decreases, the water goes to the bottom of the bulb. Basically, the thermometer is shaped like our modern ones, but istead of meurcury, there was water.

Article by: --Hikaru6656 (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Hikaru6656

Was Galileo ever married?

Was Galileo married or was he so focused on his work that he didn't ever worry about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.94.194 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your enquiry. Unfortunately, this page is not an appropriate place for asking questions about the subject of the article. Please direct questions you might have to the humanities reference desk. In the meantime, you can find a partial answer to your question by reading the article.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Musical accomplishments

I have removed the statement that Galileo was a flautist from the lead. According to Michael Sharratt's biography, Galileo was an "accomplished lutenist and a fine singer", but I have been unable to find any reference which describes him as a flautist. In any case, I don't believe Galileo's musical accomplishments—any more than his artistic ability—is sufficiently significant to be included in the lead, although they're probably worth mentioning somewhere later in the article.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest

He wasn't "imprisoned". Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reworded the relevent text so that (hopefully) it can no longer be misinterpreted as implying that he was ever held under lock and key.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Finocchiaro's timeline, he was imprisoned between his sentencing on 22 June 1633 and the commuting to house arrest on 24 June 1633. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

By adopting the terminology "after the end of his trial" I was trying to exclude the period of his detention in the offices of the Inquisition and thus avoid the problem of how the article should refer to that detention. While it might be reasonable to refer to it as an "imprisonment" (just as Finocchiaro and other reliable sources in fact do), such an unqualified description could easily be misinterpreted as implying that Galileo was locked in a prison cell. In fact, however, even when he was detained in the Inquisition's offices, he was never locked in a cell, but lodged instead in the chief prosecutor's own appartments with freedom to exercise in the courtyard and have a servant stay with him and run errands for him outside the precincts of the Inquisition's offices whenever he pleased. According to Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo this still remained the case even between his sentencing and subsequent release on house arrest two days later.

For what it's worth, according to Finocchiaro, the sentence was commuted on the 23rd of June, not the 24th, but Galileo was not actually transferred to the Villa Medici (where he spent the initial stage of his house arrest) until the following day. I have amended the account of the sentence and its commutation so that it is hopefully now accurate and no longer open to misinerpretation.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 10:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and admire you for getting the facts straight. So much disinformation circulates about Galileo! -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Discovery of Ganymede

JStone (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC) It is stated that Ganymede (as we now know it) was discovered on January 13. Can anyone please provide any supporting statements for this?

That's the date on the NASA site. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But that site doesn't identify Ganymede as the fourth satellite which Galileo first saw on January 13th—as he relates in Sidereus Nuncius. And in fact, Stillman Drake's account in Galileo at work seems to suggest rather strongly that the one he had failed to see earlier was not Ganymede but Callisto (the most distant from Jupiter). At any rate, unless someone can track down an identification of this satellite as Ganymede to a source written by a genuinely reputable historian of science, I think it should be removed from the article.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent source! I note that a different NASA page gives 7 January as the date of discovery. There must be some form of words that captures the complexity: that 7 January was the first time he saw the moons, and 13 January the first time he realised there were 4. Perhaps rewriting the last part of the paragraph as:

He had discovered three of Jupiter's four largest satellites (moons). He discovered the fourth on 13 January. These satellites are now called Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. Galileo named the group of four the Medicean stars, in honour of his future patron, Cosimo II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, and Cosimo's three brothers.* Later astronomers, however, renamed them Galilean satellites in honour of their discoverer. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Now that the article is unprotected, the usual flood of vandalism has appeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.34.206 (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) It has been protected since 8/9/2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.142.21 (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Youngson a Reliable Source?

A series of recent edits have been based on the book Scientific Blunders, by Robert M. Youngson. I was surprised to see such a generalist work being used to counter the views of specialist historians of Galileo's work like Stillman Drake and Jerome Langford. A quick check of the literature (J-Stor; ISI Citation Indexes) gave no sign that Youngson's work was reviewed in the scholarly literature. Falling back on Amazon.com, I found that a number of reviewers criticized the book for having significant factual errors. On this basis, I am boldly reverting these edits. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Youngson responded to my email by saying, quite to my surprise, that he was commissioned to right the book on the basis of the success of his prior book, Medical Blunders, which is closer to his field, and stated in summary that I should treat it as an entertaining read, and not rely on it as a source. Wish I had asked him before I spent those hours on those edits. (D'oh!). Thanks, Steve. Nightscream (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, Steve, did you not find any merit in my edits, purely apart from the material I added? In addition to adding the material based on Blunders, I also incorporated sections together into the "biography" section, creating a more comprehensive and chronological documenting of his life, which also had the effect of eliminating multiple passages that went over the same incidents his life more than once, like his trial, his writing of Dialogues, etc, and removing section headings/divisions that I thought were a bit redundant. If you look at those edits, and consider them, you can isolate them from the Blunders material by simply doing a search on the <ref name=Youngson> ref tags and removing all the material accompanied by them, since I made sure to add that cite to each instance in which material I added came from that source. What do you think? Nightscream (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking with Youngson; I'm surprised by his evaluation of his own work. As to your edits, you're quite right; I restored a few things that looked good (I may have missed a few others). SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Gilbert and magnetism

The text seems to belittle Gilbert's work on the magnet. Possibly, this is done to put Galileo in a good light. Oddly, no attempt is made to belittle earlier Chinese work on the magnet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.34.206 (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC) No attempt is made to belittle work on the magnet by Thales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.95.95 (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC) See Thales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.95.95 (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See the article on Electricity, which gives more on the work of Thales on magetism and electricity than the Thales article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.39.190 (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The allegedly extant distinction between "qualitative" and other methods is unreal, any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.39.190 (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Relativity

In the PHYSICS section Galileo's principle of relativity is stated as "the laws of physics are the same in any system that is moving at a constant speed in a straight line". That should be "circular motion". It is Newton who transformed it to linear motion.--Cem kamozut (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the section refers to movement of a trajected body in the gravitational system on Earth. Then it should be "straight line", not "circular movement", because the later refers to a heavenly body in the solar system. Newton was the first to generalize the physics so that the heavenly bodies and the earth trajected bodies were equated to be governed by the same one natural law. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Vehemently suspect for heresy?

For fun, what's

vehemently suspect of heresy

in Latin? I feel like that applies to me too, and would like it as a slogan. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

vehementer suspectus haeresim. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 23:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The original copy of the Inquisition's judgement against Galileo (presumably in Latin) is no longer extant. The earliest surviving copy is in Italian, which, as transcribed by Favaro has vehementemente sospetto d'heresia. One of the notices effecting the Inquisition's order to publish a notification of Galileo's condemnation in every Catholic diocese rendered it vehementer suspectum ... de haeresi in Latin. This is obviously in the accusative case. The nominative would have had suspectus in place of suspectum.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I googled and saw some diverse bad grammar cases, I think it should be either Inquisitio Galileum vehementer suspectum haeresim accusaverunt (predicative) or Galileus Galilei, vehementer haeresis suspectus, scientiae contribuit inaestimabile (embedded relative clause). Maybe. Just for fun. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Rursus, who seems to be a Swede, is, as he says, contributing for "fun".

He might try a more serious approach, referring to the theory of relativity, for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.224.59 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote above:

"The original copy of the Inquisition's judgement against Galileo (presumably in Latin) ... "

According to Maurice Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo (p.40) this presumption would appear to have been incorrect. Finocchiaro says that the Inquisition's practice was to issue the sentence and abjuration of a convicted person in his or her native language, which was Italian in Galileo's case. So presumably the earliest surviving Italian versions would have been pretty close to verbatim copies of the original.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Elitak, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}
Done (Sort of—see response below).

I found that most of these sentences could have been phrased better:

According to Galileo, stellar disk diameters typically measured a tenth the diameter of the disk of Jupiter (one five-hundredth the diameter of the sun), although some were somewhat larger and others substantially smaller. Galileo argued that stars were suns, and that they were not arranged in a spherical shell surrounding the solar system but rather were at varying distances from Earth. Brighter stars were closer suns, and fainter stars were more distant suns. Based on this idea and on the sizes he claimed for stellar disks, he calculated stars to lie at distances ranging from several hundred solar distances for bright stars to over two thousand solar distances for faint stars barely visible to the unaided eye, with stars visible only with the telescope being further still. These distances, although too small by modern standards, were far larger than planetary distances, and he used these calculations to counter anti-Copernican arguments that distant stars were an absurdity.[87]

The last part is the one with which I take most issue. It's essentially a double-negative because of the words:

• counter
• anti- / absurdity (used in parallel)

The simpler way of saying this is that his findings supported the Copernican model that stars were very far away.

Here's my proposed rewrite:

According to Galileo, stellar disk diameters typically measured ¹/₁₀ the diameter Jupiter, itself ¹/₅₀₀ the diameter of the Sun, with substantial variations. In contrast to the Copernican view that stars were differently-sized disks arranged in a spherical shell surrounding the solar system, Galileo thought they were distant suns whose brightness depended on their proximity to the Earth. Based on this idea and the stellar disk diameters he recorded, he calculated bright stars to lie at distances as close as several hundred solar radii; faint stars, up to over two thousand; and stars visible only with a telescope, yet farther. These distances, while still much shorter than modern estimates, were many times longer than planetary ones, as in the Copernican model. He used his calculations to support the popularly-contested notion of very distant stars. Galileo argued that if anything, the stellar distances he measured were not great enough, since when compared to the Sun, the stars had no discernible effect on the Earth's seasons.[87]

See reference #87.1 pages 172-174 for the added detail in the last sentence. Perhaps it should be omitted, since I didn't explain how Galileo believed that stars in closer proximity should affect the Earth. Also, I don't know myself whether Galileo incorrectly believed that the solar distance at the perihelion and aphelion played a greater role than the Earth's axial tilt; I left this unaddressed. Hopefully, someone with deep knowledge of the subject can proof this, because I really just wanted to make adjustments to the grammar, but got a bit carried away and changed some of the semantic content as well. In any case, I think the article could benefit from some more detail of Galileo's stellar theory, but I'm not prepared for such extensive amendments.

Elitak (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe there were (and still are) more problems with this passage than merely poor phrasing. While your rewrite has certainly alleviated some of these problems, I don't believe it has eliminated them entirely. Even as rewritten, the passage seems to me to suggest that Galileo thought he could fairly reliably estimate the relative distances to the stars (as multiples of the distance from the Earth to the Sun). I don't believe any of the cited references supports that suggestion, and I strongly doubt that he ever laboured under such a misapprehension. What he does do in the first two references—as well as in a manuscript discussed in the third—is simply deduce how far away stars of certain specified apparent sizes would have to be if they were assumed to be about the same actual size as the Sun. I can see no indication in any of the references that he would have regarded it as likely that the true sizes of these stars were close to that of the Sun's, or consequently that his calculated distances were therefore likely to be anywhere close to their true distances. It seems to me that about the most one can say is that he obviously considered it reasonable to suppose that their sizes might be similar to that of the Sun's.

In the first two references—which are primary sources—the purpose of the calculation was simply to rebut the argument of anti-Copernicans that the absence of any annual parallax or changes in the apparent sizes of the fixed stars implied that they would have to be inconceivably large (with a diameter larger than that of the Earth's orbit, according to Tycho Brahe) if Copernicus's theory were correct. Galileo's point was that even if a star of roughly average apparent size were no larger than the Sun it would still be too far away for its annual parallax and change in apparent size to be readily detectable.

The third reference (of which a version is available online here) discusses a manuscript in which Galileo records some observations, thought to have been made in 1617, of the Mizar-Alcor multiple star system. From his estimate of 3 arcseconds for the radius of the larger of what appeared to him to be two stars, he calculated that if the actual size of this star were the same as that of the Sun then it would be at a distance of about 300 astronomical units. If he thought that this might have been its true distance at that time, it seems unlikely that he would have still been of the same opinion by the time he wrote the second of the two references—his Letter to Ingoli—in 1624. A star only 300 astronomical units distant at Mizar's latitude (viz. 56°) would have had a parallax large enough to be easily detectable by Galileo and other astronomers amongst his supporters. Given that they were very keen to discover any such strong evidence in favour of the Copernican theory, it seems quite likely that by 1624 they would have established that Mizar's parallax was undetectable, and therefore that it must have been much further away than 300 astronomical units (if, as they believed, the theory were correct). I therefore don't believe this reference (or either of others for that matter) can be used as support for the claim that Galileo believed there were stars as close as a few hundred astronomical units distant from the Sun.

Over the next few days I'll try to put together a replacement which is a more accurate account of what is actually contained in the sources cited, but I would be delighted if someone else were to beat me to it

David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I'm totally ignorant on this subject and just wanted to reduce verbosity and increase clarity by a small measure. It didn't strike me as an easy matter to measure a stellar disk and approximate the distance of that star given the crude tools of those days; the use of annual parallaxes makes much more sense and is probably the better way with which to frame his understanding of the stars.

Elitak (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now amended the paragraph in question. I have omitted some material that wasn't particularly relevant to the amended exposition. If anyone believes this material should have been retained it could be reinserted as a subsequent paragraph.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

suggestion

it may be better if the word thermometer in section ( technology ) convert here Galileo thermometer as a complete for the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.221.234.11 (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please post new talk page messages at the bottom ans sign them with four tildes (~~~~)? Thanks.

Good catch!  Done. DVdm (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request under "Church reassessments of Galileo in later centuries" under Legacy

One of the last sentences of the section states: "In March 2008 the Vatican proposed to complete its rehabilitation of Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls."

Which is true, but I think it is important to indicate that these plans were shelved indefinitely the following year and that the statue has not been built. Here is a source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5612996.ece

LukeJensen (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Done

I have now added this information. Whether the Church's recent pronouncements on Galileo can be properly characterised as a "rehabilitation" of him is a matter of some scholarly controversy. I have therefore therefore eschewed that description as reflecting a non-neutral point of view.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The source quotes G. Ravasi as saying the erection of a statue had only been an idea, and the idea had been suspended with funds diverted to Nigeria and elswhere for educational purposes. David's edit used the word abandoned which has a slightly different meaning to suspended so I have tweaked the article to change abandoned to suspended. Dolphin (t) 04:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The article certainly gives me the impression that the likelihood that the statue will ever be built is rather less than what the simple word "suspended" would imply (it says, for instance, that the plans have been "shelved indefinitely"). Nevertheless, on thinking more about it, I agree that in the absence of any more detailed information "suspended" is probably preferable to "abandoned", in that it makes fewer assumptions about how accurate the reporter has been in interpreting what the Vatican's spokespeople have said.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If Ravasi has been reported accurately, and he did in fact use the word suspended, I suspect he chose this word because of its euphemistic qualities. (However, that may be my bias against the Vatican showing through.) Given the choice of a statue in Rome or education in Nigeria I would also advocate the latter, even though it looks likely to be education aimed at promoting religious values. Dolphin (t) 06:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a tough choice. But if the "education" includes the promulgation of such nonsense as condoms being an ineffective prophylaxis against AIDS, I think I'd plump for the statue .

David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Dolphin (t) 13:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sobel

Dava Sobel's remarks are very vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Dava Sobel says, "...influence...intrigue...problems...feelings...fear...low point...". I want proof, sources, citations and details for all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.66.158 (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the words you have quoted are not Sobel's own, but one Wikipedia editor's summary of the relevant passage from the cited source (which actually appears on pp.232–4 of the edition cited, rather than pp.223–5 as stated in the article). In my opinion, some aspects of the summary do leave something to be desired and could certainly be improved. Again, while Sobel—being an author of popular works on the history of science rather than a professional historian—is not an ideal source, nearly everything in the relevant passage is well-known to Galileo scholars, and should be easily verifiable by consulting any number of genuinely impeccable sources. Nevertheless, it's not clear to me that the inclusion of this material adds anything of much substance to the article, so I'm not sure whether to have a go at amending the text in question or simply to remove it.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Astrology attitude

I'm a bit concerned about this sentence: "His multiple interests included the study of astrology..." It gives a false impression that Galileo actually wasn't strongly critical about it. While there is really a lot of evidence from multiple sources for his negative attitude towards astrology.

This reference gives a review on that issue: [10] --Kanishev (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The reference you cite is a very nice find. Many thanks for posting the link to it. However, its conclusion seems to be based on the glaringly unwarranted assumption that Galileo's attitude towards astrology remained the same throughout his life. I'm aware that a similar opinion seems to be held by several other reputable Galileo scholars (Stillman Drake, Michael Sharratt and Maurice Finocchiaro, for instance) whose writings seem to indicate that they believe Galileo never gave much credence to astrology. However, there is certainly also a respectable group of scholars (including John Heilbron and William Shea) who do not share that opinion.

As it happens, I'm currently reading Heilbron's recent biography of Galileo, which has a much more extensive discussion of Galileo's astrology than is usual in similar such works. Given the evidence Heilbron provides, his conclusions seem to me to be eminently sensible:

"The degree of Galileo's commitment to astrology is as hard to divine as his politics. That he subscribed to it in the form in which he deployed it in his daughters' nativities seems likely" (p.94).

"The report of the archbishop [i.e. the letter of Ascanio Piccolomini's discussed in Bucciantini and Camerota's article that you have cited] probably accurately reproduced Galileo's final considered opinion about astrology. He had placed some credence in it when he cast birth charts for himself, his daughters, and his students, .... . But experience had exposed its shortcomings .... "(p.326, emphasis mine).

In other words, according to Heilbron, it's likely that Galileo initially accepted astrology—at least in the form in which he practised it when erecting and interpreting horoscopes of himself, his family and his friends—but eventually became so disillusioned with it that his attitude turned hostile.

You say "there is really a lot of evidence from multiple sources for [Galileo's] negative attitude towards astrology". It would be helpful if you could provide more details of these sources. The problem with the only such sources I'm aware of—such as Drake, Sharratt and Finocchiaro, mentioned above—is that they simply state an opinion without attempting in any way to explain how it can be reconciled with a large amount of primary source material—as presented in Heilbron's biography—that appears to contradict it. The very earliest indication I'm aware of from primary sources that Galilieo was ever critical of astrology is the well-known passage from the Dialogue, written between 1624 and 1632. In all of his earlier scattered correspondence on or references to astrology that I'm aware of he seemed to take it for granted that it was a perfectly legitimate activity.

I nevertheless agree that the sentence you object to is misleading. In context, it would seem to imply that astrology was something which Galileo made a special object of study in the same way that he did with the motion of falling bodies and the structure of the solar system. But, as far as I know, there's no evidence for that. The only reliable sources I have seen discuss the matter suggest that Galileo's study and practice of astrology was nothing more than what would be expected of any professional mathematician of the period.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Heresy

Why is there no section on his trial for heresy???? That's what he is most famous for among the general public! --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There is. Long section. See Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism. Roger (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the biblical references at the origin of the controversy, there's translation problems that lead to misinterpretation. It is required to have reliable Bibles, those before 1965, or at least the Bible of Jerusalem and the American Bible of the site of the Vatican, and compare both, in order to make disappear the apparent contradictions. Please refer to http://www.christianstrategies.eu/index.php/Bible-Galileo, to http://www.tldm.org/directives/d33.htm , to the Bible of Jerusalem online, http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=1 and to the Bible of the Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM, for further details. Paulo 15:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.108.209.191 (talk)

Edit request from , 23 October 2011

They both were very smart indeed. Thinnker (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done, no edit requested. Mikenorton (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Neptune

Referring to Neptune, the article now says "its motion". Actually, writing in Latin, Galileo said "sed videbat remotiores inter se". Thus, he treated Neptune's motion as a possibility, not a certainty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Astronomy

"On 25 August 1609, he demonstrated one of his early elescopes, with a magnification of about 8 or 9, to Venetian lawmakers."

Should be "telescopes" not "elescopes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkit (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thank you. Now fixed.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hawking's sentence

I feel this sentence should be removed/changed: According to Stephen Hawking, "Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science." I know Hawking's a popular scientist and science popularizer but since when is he an authority on history of science? Although the sentence is quite true I think it should be changed for something like "Most historians of science consider Galileo, more than any other single person, as responsible for the birth of modern science". I should be able to find a nice reference. (79.168.249.26 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC))

So you want to take a statement from a non-historian and attribute it to a historian? The statement was in the article twice, so . I really don't see how he was any more scientific than dozens of other famous scientists, but go ahead and find quotes if you can. Roger (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Galileo and astrology

I am a historian who has published both a peer reviewed article ( “Natural Philosophy or Science in Premodern Epistemic Regimes? The Case of the Astrology of Albert the Great and Galileo Galilei”)on Galileo as well as a book chapter in my volume "Rational Magic" dealing with Galileo. I would like to add a bit more about Galileo's astrology but I see this is a "semi-protected" page and though I am a registered user, I can't edit it. Suggestions? Scotthendrix1970 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Scott Hendrix

Either

1. Post you proposed addition here and ask for someone else to add it; or
2. Perform 10 minor edits and wait 4 days. You will then be "autoconfirmed" and be able to add it yourself.

There has been a recent discussion (here) of the article's coverage of Galileo's astrology, which it might be worth your while having a look at.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 10:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Resurrection of earlier discussion

I'm a bit concerned about this sentence: "His multiple interests included the study of astrology..." It gives a false impression that Galileo actually wasn't strongly critical about it. While there is really a lot of evidence from multiple sources for his negative attitude towards astrology.

This reference gives a review on that issue: [11] --Kanishev (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The reference you cite is a very nice find. Many thanks for posting the link to it. However, its conclusion seems to be based on the glaringly unwarranted assumption that Galileo's attitude towards astrology remained the same throughout his life. I'm aware that a similar opinion seems to be held by several other reputable Galileo scholars (Stillman Drake, Michael Sharratt and Maurice Finocchiaro, for instance) whose writings seem to indicate that they believe Galileo never gave much credence to astrology. However, there is certainly also a respectable group of scholars (including John Heilbron and William Shea) who do not share that opinion.

As it happens, I'm currently reading Heilbron's recent biography of Galileo, which has a much more extensive discussion of Galileo's astrology than is usual in similar such works. Given the evidence Heilbron provides, his conclusions seem to me to be eminently sensible:

"The degree of Galileo's commitment to astrology is as hard to divine as his politics. That he subscribed to it in the form in which he deployed it in his daughters' nativities seems likely" (p.94).

"The report of the archbishop [i.e. the letter of Ascanio Piccolomini's discussed in Bucciantini and Camerota's article that you have cited] probably accurately reproduced Galileo's final considered opinion about astrology. He had placed some credence in it when he cast birth charts for himself, his daughters, and his students, .... . But experience had exposed its shortcomings .... "(p.326, emphasis mine).

In other words, according to Heilbron, it's likely that Galileo initially accepted astrology—at least in the form in which he practised it when erecting and interpreting horoscopes of himself, his family and his friends—but eventually became so disillusioned with it that his attitude turned hostile.

You say "there is really a lot of evidence from multiple sources for [Galileo's] negative attitude towards astrology". It would be helpful if you could provide more details of these sources. The problem with the only such sources I'm aware of—such as Drake, Sharratt and Finocchiaro, mentioned above—is that they simply state an opinion without attempting in any way to explain how it can be reconciled with a large amount of primary source material—as presented in Heilbron's biography—that appears to contradict it. The very earliest indication I'm aware of from primary sources that Galilieo was ever critical of astrology is the well-known passage from the Dialogue, written between 1624 and 1632. In all of his earlier scattered correspondence on or references to astrology that I'm aware of he seemed to take it for granted that it was a perfectly legitimate activity.

I nevertheless agree that the sentence you object to is misleading. In context, it would seem to imply that astrology was something which Galileo made a special object of study in the same way that he did with the motion of falling bodies and the structure of the solar system. But, as far as I know, there's no evidence for that. The only reliable sources I have seen discuss the matter suggest that Galileo's study and practice of astrology was nothing more than what would be expected of any professional mathematician of the period.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have to go with Heilbron here. Galileo was a practicing astrologer, who carried out this trade for more reasons than simply a desire to make a bit of money or gain the patronage of the Medici family. 25 surviving genitures drawn in his own hand provide testimony to that fact, including those drawn up for close family members and friends. These genitures were always composed with the greatest of care, as can be seen by the corrections he made to the math throughout. Did Galileo still accept the validity of astrology as a predictive discipline late in life? Perhaps not. But he certainly did when he was younger, and these beliefs may have made positive contributions to the development of his mechanical philosophy. Some details can be found here: http://teorievedy.flu.cas.cz/index.php/tv/article/viewPDFInterstitial/72/99 For the PDF, click on the final link on the page, marked klikněte zde
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotthendrix1970 (talk • contribs) 12:27, February 2, 2012‎ (UTC)

Dates

In the article on Sarpi, the attempt on his life is dated to 1607. In the timeline, it is said to have been in 1606. It is not clear if the attempt was for scientific reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.124.253 (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed

Thank you for picking this up. According to John Heilbron, in his book Galileo (p.180), the (first) assassination attempt took place on October 5th, 1607. The motives for the attack were almost certainly political rather than anything to do with Sarpi's scientific work or opinions.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hijack

This article has been hijacked by perverts, Banaticus and Isaac Azimov. Banaticus spells Isaac's name wrongly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.15.94 (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Timeline mistake

The timeline states Galileo first studied at Padua, which is incorrect; it was Pisa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.98.19 (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The article on Ostilio Ricci says, "Galileo was enrolled at the University of Pisa...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.29.8 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed

Thanks for picking this up.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Inquisition

This article tends to have some faulty ideas about the ispuisition 1. It said that Galileo was called to the inquisition after the church found that it defended Capernicism. That is partially true with details left out. In reallity, there was an unsigned note from the inquisition of 1616, NOT Belermine's letter. It stated that Galileo was not even to teach Capernicism. The note probably came from the inquisition but not from any member of authority such as Cardinal Belarmine. Sixteen years later it was shown to the pope and he felt very betrayed that he was lied to.

2. The inquisition did not go after Galileo for the actual note to Castelli, but a slightly doctored one made up by his enemies. That one was certainly hereticle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.199.32 (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

An important omission from the 'In artistic and popular media' section.

This may be a minor point, but as a music critic and musician I believe it is an important one; in 2002 Phillip Glass premiered an opera about the man entitled 'Galileo Galilei.' There is a wikipedia page about the opera. I'm new to this and can make the edit myself once I figure out how to do it, but I thought I would just put it out there for now.Thlayli2 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Thlayli2

New Supernova Section

The new supernova section seems wrong for two reasons:

1. The description sounds like Tycho Brahe's observation of a supernova; Galileo wasn't known for precise quantitative measurements of the positions of celestial bodies.
2. The citation does not give exact pages and a search of the source in Google Books gave no results for either parallax, nova, or supernova.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A supernova did appear in 1604, when Tycho was already dead. Galileo was by no means the only person to have seen it, but he is generally regarded as the probable author of a pamphlet which discusses it: Dialogue on the new star, a crude parody written in Paduan dialect under the pseudonym Cecco di Ronchitti. Here's a review of the work of Stillman Drake's that contains a translation. The first edition of Ronchitti's pamphlet contains a favourable reference to heliocentrism which was changed to an unfavorable one in later editions. In his commentary, Drake speculated that Galileo had hoped that the annual parallax of the supernova would be detectable and was disappointed when it proved not to be. It's a long time since I read Drake's book, but as far as I can recall he made no suggestion that Galileo measured the parallax himself. This would seem to me to be extremely unlikely, since I don't think there's any evidence that Galileo performed any detailed astronomical observations before his discoveries with the telescope in 1609-10. It does seem reasonably likely to me that genuine astronomers would have tried to measure the supernova's parallax, but I don't recall whether Drake specifically mentioned any such attempts.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I had forgotten that this supernova was actually Kepler's Supernova.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S: On consulting my copy of Michael Sharratt's Galileo: Decisive Innovator I find that pages 79–82 discuss Galileo's writings on Kepler's supernova, including his hypothesized authorship or co-authorship of Ronchitti's Dialogue. I may well have confabulated some of what Sharratt says about this with what Drake said about it.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have checked a British edition of the cited reference, which says on p.273:

"He [Galileo] became a Copernican in 1597, but his fame as an astronomer—until then he was considered a great mathematician—dates from his observation of the nova of 1604 in the constellation of Ophiuchus. The absence of any observable parallax convinced Galileo that the nova was a distant star, and that Aristotle's belief in the immutability of the heavens was therefore false. When he expressed these views publicly—as he invariably did with all his findings—he aroused the life-long enmity of all the opponents of modern science."

There are several things in this passage which don't tally well with what I have read in other sources. I have rewritten the text in the article to clarify that "parallax" refers to diurnal parallax (which I should have realised earlier), and attributed what seem to me to be the more dubious of Walusinsky's assertions specifically to him. It seems to me that this episode is not significant enough to deserve its own heading, and if it's to remain in the article at all, it would be better placed at the top of the section on astronomy–immediately preceding the passage on Galileo's construction of and initial discoveries with the telescope.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting, but dissatisfy. Did Galileo say, in writing, that the new 1604 star disproved the Aristotelian belief in the immutability of the heavens? Was there opposition because people did not believe that it was a distant star, or some other reason? Can we get a quote of what Galileo said? Roger (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

he was a science and he loved to pinted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.62.222.217 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Microscope

In the Timeline, under 1624, Galileo is said to have "perfected the compound microscope". There were many improvements made after 1624, by Abbe and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.98.2 (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

1607

The line for 1607 should perhaps include the definite article and read "the attempted assassination of his friend Friar Paolo Sarpi", otherwise it reads as though Galileo attempted to assassinate his friend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.45.75 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

1616

In the Timeline, in the second line for 1616, the sentence is ungrammatical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.112.106 (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, I removed the redundant 'placed'. Mikenorton (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Dante

The quotation from Dante, in the paragraph entitled "Moon", is a waste of time. Dante's remarks are too vague to be worth attacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.0.33 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Galileo

Galileo played a big part to how we live today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.186.1 (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Remarks, such as those of 58.172.186.1, are best put on one's own web-site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.5.186 (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible new article

The Czech Martin Horky played a part in Galileo's work in 1610. There is an article on Martin Horky in the Italian wikipedia. A Google search should provide more information on Horky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.192.143 (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

See http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Horky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.197.65 (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Horky is also said at times to have been German. He might have spoken both in some degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.197.65 (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

See Brevissima Peregrinatio Contra Nuncium Sidereum, by Horky. Horky even suggested that Galileo was actuated by a love of money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.197.65 (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Horky's father is variously said to have been German and Bohemian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.192.143 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2012: "Jupiter" section: flow issues

The third-to-last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Jupiter" section should almost certainly be placed after the last sentence of that paragraph so that the paragraph may follow a more logical progression of ideas. I request an edit for this to be so.

 Done - agree the chronology wasn't right. Have edited the paragraph in question as suggested. Stalwart111 04:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 November 2012

The crayon portrait of Galileo is wrongly attributed to Leone Leoni . It should be correctly attributed to Ottavio Leoni.

96.54.176.113 (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - fixed. Mikenorton (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

HALEY WINSOR: THE LOVING SCIENCE TEACHER KNOWS COLD HARD FACTS ABOUT GALILEO GALILEI SHE IS TEACHER GOOD STUDENTS LIKE KEVIN PAYGAI, BRIAN MORETTI, JOE PAQUTTE AND DENNIS CHEERRY. WE ARE IN THE COMPUTER LAB AT THIS MOMENT AND I HOPE YOU GUYS TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS IF IT IS ON YOUR SCREEN. THIS ARTICLE ABOUT HALEY IS GOOD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.123.253.2 (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 December 2012

The article purports to cite "the Bible", but instead cites the King James translation of it. I propose amending the following text: "Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."

It should read as follow: "According to the King James translation, Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16...." or the like

213.151.59.59 (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I could see issues on whether or not the King James translation can be cited as a biblical reference and whether this is actually neccesary. Vacation^nine 05:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Inexplicable

Unimaginable666 is reverting his own edits, inexplicably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.4.216 (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. He added a category and then seems to have thought better of it, I think because it was redundant to some of the existing ones. Stalwart111 12:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

By Galileo

The Galilean Library is said to be by Galileo. This seems to be untrue. It is close to being a blog and should not be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.2.31 (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. I have now removed the link to that site. Thank you for drawing it to our attention.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely original?

The article currently reads "However, in neither case were these discoveries entirely original. The time-squared law for uniformly accelerated change was already known to Nicole Oresme in the 14th century". This is unwarranted. Firstly, in the Wiki article about Oresme I find no mention of any time-squared law, which makes me wonder if Oresme did actually know about such a law. Secondly, whereas mathematically it can be shown that uniformly accelerated motion leads to a time-squared law (especially if you know integral calculus which was developed hundreds of years after Oresme), that does not imply that we should actually observe it in nature. A mathematical proof does not imply uniform acceleration exists in nature, only that if there was indeed uniform acceleration we should also observe a time-squared law. Hence Galileo's experimental observation is entirely original. I suggest that we delete the entire text about the discoveries not being "entirely original" (which is weasel wording anyway).

JS (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading the Oresme article again, I withdraw my first objection. The article reads "He shows that his method of figuring the latitude of forms is applicable to the movement of a point, on condition that the time is taken as longitude and the speed as latitude; quantity is, then, the space covered in a given time." This is says that if you plot speed and time, then the distance traveled is the area under the graph, which is indeed integral calculus. Kudos to Oresme, he anticipated integral calculus. However I reiterate, the discovery of a mathematical relation is not what made Galileo great, it is that he set out to learn about how nature works by conducting experiments with numerical measurements. That makes his work "entirely original" and much more. JS (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "This is says ..." seems to be a mistake, possibly for "This says...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.2.139 (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I object to the removal of the note that Nicole Oresme had already derived the time-squared law for uniform acceleration in the 14th-century. Without that note, readers of the article are likely to end up with the erroneous but widely-held belief that Galileo was the first to discover this law. As far as I can see, all the objections raised in the above comments are fully met by the removal of the text characterising these discoveries on Galileo's part as "not entirely original". I have therefore restored a reworded version of the note about Oresme's prior discovery of the times-squared law.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

== Edit Request ==

I object to the summary that states how he was treated by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church did not treat him so bad. He was told to treat his work as theory; because teaching the way he was insinuated that the Catholic Church was teaching that. The Church did not want to be caught up in a science that was under much scrutiny. He was permitted to go home, but he continued to teach his views as fact. He was investigated and arrested, but because of his poor health he was allowed to stay at his home, under house arrest.

I feel that what is on this page currently is insulting and untrue; and further is misleading since the text shows the Catholic Church as unjust and unscientific.

-Ethan Rabideau 173.12.211.110 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Bruno

I've restored mention of Bruno in the text. There's a lot written about his relationship to Galileo, most of which doesn't need to be here; nevertheless more than we have presently would certainly improve this article and help give readers some context for Galileo's heliocentrism. -Darouet (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

More on Patronage

I think this article could explain more about the importance of patronage in Galileo's life. Mainly to help explain his falling out with the Catholic church after insulting and burning bridges with the new pope. Kevinolson1 (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Galileo galilei ( English do Galileo is the first scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.45.213 (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Kevinolson1 and 173.3.45.213 could speak more clearly and in greater detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

50 years earlier, Leonardo Da Vinci noticed...

Leonardo Da Vinci noticed that the mathematical proportions of faces can be three dimensionally mapped with graphic, pyramidal structures that always converged into a central point - the pupil of the observer's eye...[1]

This is how Leonardo Da Vinci was able to create perspective on complex biological structures (faces, for example).

This leads me to imagine that Galileo had spotted Leonardo's observation...

Ref:

[1] Inside The Mind of Leonardo (24 Mar 2013) - Sky Arts

The idea of the visual pyramid is not original with Leonardo, it can be seen as far back as Euclid's optical writings and was a commonplace in the Middle Ages, found in the writings of Alhacen, Roger Bacon, John Pecham, and Witelo. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Cool! That's very interesting and shall study how these men approached and perceived their experiences, too. I suspect that adopting many of the approaches these men took to analyzing their personal experiences will far more accurate information in y own life than I ever got from school (at least after I learned to read and write). Thank you Steve. You've given me something new to get my mind into.