Jump to content

Talk:Galileo Galilei/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Anonymous denunciation

In 1624 Galileo was denounced to the inquisition in an anonymous letter that was only discovered by Redondi in the 1980s. The tenor of the letter was similar to the accusations contained in Grassi's 1626 book (see some discussion at The Assayer). Redondi conjectured that Grassi was the author of the denunciation, but many 17th century scholars consider that this has not been proved, and an analysis of the handwriting apparently reveals that the writer of the denunciation was not Grassi. I wonder where in the article the information about the denunciation could be inserted. Tkuvho (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Redondi's conjecture was never very convincing, but in any case, not only has it not been proved, but within a year of the publication of the first (Italian) edition of his book it was decisively refuted, a fact that should have been, but was not, acknowledged in the English edition of 1987. When preparing the first edition of I documenti del processo di Galileo Galilei, Sergio Pagano had a handwriting expert, Fr. Edmondo Lamalle, compare the handrwiting of G3 with that of undoubtedly contemporary documents written by Grassi (see p.44). Lamalle's conclusion was that "for many reasons [some of which Pagano lists in a footnote] it is absolutely unsustainable that they are the same hand".
There remained the possibilty that G3 might have been an administrative copy made by one of the Inquisition's clerks. This was ruled out, however, by the watermark, which Pagano recognised as a coat of arms which had to be those of a high-ranking ecclesiastic (archbishop or cardinal). The ecclesiastic in question was identified in the late 1990s or early 2000s by Rafael Martinez as Tiberio Muti, archbishop of Viterbo from 1611 to 1636. Martinez published his findings in Il manoscritto ACDF, Index, Protocolli, Vol.EE, f.291r-v published in ACTA PHILOSOPHICA, Vol.10 (2001), fasc.2, pp.243–256. For various reasons, he thinks it unlikely that G3 was actually written by the archbishop himself, but it definitely had to have been written by someone who had had access at some time to his official stationery.
As Pagano points out, there is evidence in the document itself that, contrary to Redondi's conjecture, it was not written anonymously at all. At the end of the first paragraph the writer requests the person he is writing to to provide him with information, which would have been impossible if the latter did not know the identity of his correspondent. Pagano also pointedly notes that when Redondi speculates (on p.152 of the English edition) about what might have been on the missing folio 294—which immediately followed the folios 292 and 293 containing the manuscript of G3—he conspicuously fails to mention the most obvious and likely possibility that it contained the standard salutation, name and address of the addressee and the name and address of the sender which was the customary way for Italian letters of the period to be closed.
I would be inclined to be very cautious in citing any material from Redondi's book.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I would be inclined to be very cautious in citing any material from Redondi's book - I don't think T is being cautious; I think he's treating it as gospel William M. Connolley (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
David: Redondi's conjecture as to the real reasons for the 1633 trial has not been accepted as proven by Galileo scholars. However, they all speak respectfully about his research. For example, Festa in his detailed review mentions that Redondi was correct to point out the importance of the issue of atomism, and Festa further acknowledges that his issue has not been given sufficient attention by scholars. I don't think anybody doubts that the anonymous denunciation was made, as Redondi reports, in 1624, and that its content is similar to that of Grassi's 1626 book. What is challenged is Redondi's hypothesis that Grassi is the author of the anonymous denunciation. All scholars agree that Redondi discovered an extremely important document, though perhaps less important than the gospel. Tkuvho (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of most of that. I had no intention of commenting on Redondi's more general conjectures about the reasons for the trial, and Urban's supposed machinations to manipulate it. The only conjecture I was referring to in my previous comments was the specific one which you referred to in your opening comment with the words "Redondi conjectured that Grassi was the author of the denunciation, ... ." This conjecture has not merely been "challenged". There is now no shadow of doubt that Grassi was not the author of the document.
On the question of when the denunciation recorded in G3 was made, I doubt if any Galileo scholar, including Redondi himself, would regard it as definitely established as being 1624 (or early 1625). I think it is generally accepted as very plausible that—as Redondi suggested—it could be the same denunciation that Mario Guiducci referred to in a letter dated April 18, 1625, as having been made "a few months" earlier. But I doubt if anyone would regard this as definitely established, and Rafael Martinez for one, in the article I cited above, suggests that it might have been written a few years later than that.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I guess there was one other of Redondi's conjectures that I did comment on—namely that G3 was written anonymously. That conjecture certainly hasn't been disproved, merely shown to be less likely than not.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I think we are in agreement that Redondi's hypothesis regarding the authorship of G3 needs to be treated cautiously. I am surprised by your definitive claim that Grassi was definitely not the author of the denunciation. This apparently wasn't proved in the sources you cited. Sources I have seen (other than Redondi) note that Grassi may well have asked someone outside the office to write the denunciation. At any rate, my original question still remains: is the (anonymous or nonanonymous) denunciation significant enough to be mentioned in the atomism/eucharist section? It is certainly relevant, and given how much controversy it has stirred (viz. with regard to the question of authorship) it is certainly not obscure. Tkuvho (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant pieces of paper are almost certain to appear in a large file. User:C.jeynes started posting Redondi in the article on the Galileo affair on 5/11/2006 and 11/6/2008. C.jeynes says that the Pope was frightened of being killed by the Protestant Swede Adolphus and that the Spaniards were planning to kill the Pope. C.jeynes says that the Pope was frightened of a "capital" charge against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.239.8 (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The Roman Inquisition were free to prosecute Galileo for Lutheranism or anything else for years and refused to do so. The Roman Inquisition had from about 1595 to 1642 to prosecute Galileo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.27.22 (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Epicycles

The fifth sentence in the section "Controversy over heliocentrism" -- "Since Copernicus' system didn't require the extensive use of epicycles that other theories did, it was simpler." -- is false. The Copernican system required as many epicycles and was no simpler than the Ptolemaic system. For example, the Earth didn't orbit the Sun: it orbited a point going around an epicycle going around a deferent with the Sun at the centre. Also, every planet required an epicycle to make it oscillate around the ecliptic, since Copernicus didn't just put each planet on an inclined orbital plane (which really would have been simpler -- but this was only discovered later, by Kepler). Copernicus' main issues with Ptolemaic astronomy were the equant, since Copernicus believed in the Aristotelian principle of uniform circular motion, and the fact that a single physical model of the world could not be constructed from Ptolemaic astronomy. In many ways, Copernicus was as much an Aristotelian as Ptolemy was. Most importantly for this article and the sentence I've quoted, Copernicus' model was every bit as convolved as Ptolemy's.

The sentence should simply be removed, because an accurate account of all the reasons that Copernicus had for proposing his model over Ptolemy's is really beside the point. The article would read just as well without the incorrect sentence I've quoted. 2620:ae:0:a14d:f8cb:933f:f499:9006 (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; done William M. Connolley (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Daryl Janzen (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

New editor

A new editor, Cavarrone, has appeared in the Galileo article. He is a friend of 115ash. If Cavarrone thinks Hans Lippershey did not introduce the telescope, he should says so in his own web-site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.245.235.63 (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A new editor?? Who are you, sir? I have over 56,000 edits and over 3,300 new articles created under my belt, ironically this is your first edit. Who is the new editor? And I NEVER SAID Galileo introduced the telescope, nor I ever commented on Lippershey, anyway. Cavarrone 13:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
See Thermometer#Development. This shows that Galileo never pioneered or introduced the thermometer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.252.128.66 (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Pioneering ≠ introducing. However I am fine with rewording the sentence with a verb such as "developed", or as you prefer. My only point is that his work on thermometer should stay in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Cavarrone 13:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-scientific edits and non-scientific articles have no significance in the history of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.252.128.66 (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
??? Irrelevant. Cavarrone 13:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Can we live without the GG fanboi stuff? Please see Thermometer#Development which you've already been pointed at William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Connolley, first you egregiously ignored my response above, i.e. My only point is that his work on thermometer should stay in the lead, per WP:LEAD, whatever the more appropriate wording is. Second, dismissing mine or anyone's edits as "fanboi stuff" is insulting, disrespectful and close to a personal attack, let alone an obvious assumption of bad faith, so stop it. Third, for the record your bold reversion also removed that, which appears just indisputable. Bye and next time try to be more civil, Cavarrone 00:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The Ip is a sockpuppet who started to disturb me since May.--115ash→(☏) 09:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
There are several reliable source which consider Galilei as the inventor of both telescope and thermometer. Nonetheless, I just wrote that he "pioneered" them by removing "he made improvements". --115ash→(☏) 09:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Who is the IP a sock of? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure who is the master, but User:Blue6767unicorn, User:WhiteHyrax and many others belong to him.--115ash→(☏) 12:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to tag them, and take them to SPI. Until then, don't expect anyone else to treat them as confirmed William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The only solution would be an ip range block. --115ash→(☏) 15:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the article, what's wrong with the adding of that phrase? See my previous comments.--115ash→(☏) 15:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
This same user has created literally dozens of sock-puppets, with the sole purpose of edit-warring on this particular page. There's little doubt about who we're dealing with here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
If you believe that, take it to WP:SPI William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Still, sockpuppets are editing the article. A CU should block them.--115ash→(☏) 13:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. But, and also in view of this, why don't you take it to WP:SPI then? What is keeping you? - DVdm (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
What's the point? Even if these will be blocked, they will not stop no create articles.--115ash→(☏) 14:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I have restored this part: [1]. - DVdm (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Controversy over atomism and indivisibles

I've never liked this section William M. Connolley (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia article entitled Infinitesimal, it says "In mathematics, infinitesimals are things so small that there is no way to measure them." With a definition like that, they might well be non-existant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.178.104 (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a lot more wrong with the material than your not liking it. The second paragraph of the section contains at least two outright falsehoods, it erroneously implies that Grassi's tract, Ratio ponderum librae et simbellae, was largely devoted to showing that Galileo's atomism was inconsistent with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, and its sourcing seems to have followed the worst traditions of the Jagged 85 school.
The source cited is p.179 of an article titled Descartes and the Jesuits: Doubt, Novelty,and the Eucharist by Roger Ariew, appearing in the scholarly anthology, Jesuit Science and the Republic of Letters. I have no doubt that Ariew's article is of excellent quality, but nowhere (let alone on p.179) does it provide any support whatever for the assertions made in the paragraph under discussion. Neither Grassi, nor his crticisms of Galileo, are mentioned anywhere in Ariew's article, and the sole mention of Galileo is in a parenthetical note that his discovery of the moons of Jupiter had been mentioned in Pierre Bourdin's Cours de Mathématique.
The two outright falsehoods appearing in the paragraph are:
  • " ... with Grassi claiming that Galileo's atomism is heretical ..."; and
  • " ... in that it contradicts the real presence of the body and blood of the nazarean in ... the Eucharist."
The target of Grassi's criticism was not Galileo's atomism as such—on which opinion Grassi explicitly says he will make no statement ("nihil ideo de hac sententia statuo")—but his theory of primary and secondary qualities. Admittedly, this theory does rest on the assumptions of atomism, but nowhere in Ratio ponderum does Grassi claim that either atomism in general, or Galileo's theory of primary and secondary qualities in particular, is heretical. Moreover, Grassi's argument was not that the latter theory contradicted the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, but that it contradicted the miraculous preservation of the species of the bread and wine.
On the issue of the main subject of Grassi's tract, anyone who has read a decent biography of Galileo will know that it was Grassi's reply to Galileo's Il Saggiatore and that the excursion into Eucharistic theology occupies only a very small portion of the work. In fact, it occupies less than two of the original Paris edition's 201 pages.
There are also POV problems with the first paragraph of the section, in that it is sourced solely to Redondi's book. But Redondi's theory that the Jesuits, as a group, engaged in an organised campaign against Galileo is one that has been rejected by many, if not most, modern Galileo scholars. Michael Sharratt, John Heilbron and William Wallace are three I can name off the top of my head who have explicitly rejected it. I don't know of any besides Redondi himself who subscribe to it.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; I've removed it. This isn't Jagged, of course, its Tvukkho (sp?), who was obsessed with indivisiblesWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
In view of David J. Wilson's ad rem analysis, fine with me. - DVdm (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I had no intention of suggesting that the perpetrator of the poor sourcing might have been Jagged 85. I was simply flabbergasted that the cited source had practically nothing whatever to do with the claims for which it was cited. Although I was aware that the claims weren't accurate before I consulted the source, all I expected to find was that it had simply been misread. Also, after posting my comments above, I realised I might have been a little hasty in my characterisation of the sourcing, since the page given might just have been a typo. However, I have now checked every occurrence of the words "Grassi" and "Eucharist" in the entire book, not just in Ariew's article, and I can confirm that none of them has anything to do with Grassi's argument about the supposed conflict of Galileo's theory with the doctrine of the Eucharist. I'm therefore still prepared to stand by my characterisation.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Nationality

Perhaps this has been covered in higher level discussions, but Italy did not exist in Galileo's time. Galileo was Tuscan. I noticed that Socrates's nationality is listed as Greek, not Athenian. Roger Williams has no nationality, but I would propose Rhode Islander. My suggestion e.g. Nationality: Tuscan (Italian) This is an encyclopedia, details are important. Bookscrounger (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The legal status of various parts of Italy has been well known to everyone for centuries. Galileo's nationality has been discussed endlessly. Only make remarks here if they are new and of some substance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.100.104 (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

and introduce the idea of frictional force, the key breakthrough in validating the concept

Does G indeed do this? I can't see any evidence he does William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Where does this come from? I can't find anything like it in the article. I'm certainly sceptical that Galileo could reasonably be described as having introduced "the idea of a frictional force", regardless of what the concept of which it is supposed to be the "breakthrough in validating".
David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, its not there any more; I should have said I took it out [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Galileo Galilei. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Belated note. Have added working links added at article to non-working links somehow placed here. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Newton In the Timeline

At the end of the timeline , it refers to Isaac Newton as 'Newton' , mentioning his full name after. It isn't technically 'incorrect' , but it would be more sensible to have it say 'Isaac Newton' before it abbreviates . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToxicReap (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable; done. I'm not entirely sure N fits on G's timeline, though it isn't unreasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Protestantism and heliocentrism

Recent edits modified the section describing the heliocentrism controversy, making it appear as though the Catholic world had generally adopted heliocentrism, whereas the Protestants stubbornly opposed it.

While the edits are correct that Protestant leaders would vociferously oppose heliocentrism, they were unsourced. Furthermore they created the very false impression that, because the Gregorian calendar was modified using Copernicus' calculations, the Catholic world and leadership had embraced heliocentrism. No source was provided to support this assertion and I have never seen it printed anywhere before it was written here. While Copernicus' calculations were indeed useful, when Catholic authorities finally considered the matter in detail, they unequivocally condemned heliocentrism as heretical and banned heliocentric works.

I am not opposed to a description of Protestant opposition if sources are cited. Obviously this is somewhat less relevant to Galileo, given his Tuscan residence, but some mention is appropriate in this article. -Darouet (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Heliocentrism "formally heretical"

Amazingly, the lead's description of the Galileo affair until now stated that, "The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism could be supported only as a hypothesis, not as established fact." This is a deeply disingenuous description of the Inquisition's judgment that Heliocentrism is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." There is no relationship between the former summary and the actual text it was meant to summarize. I've inserted the brief quote directly, since it is readily comprehensible and uses colorful language that readers will undoubtedly appreciate.

Here is how J.L. Heilbron describes the finding:

The eleven theologians empanelled by the Holy Office to evaluate Copernican theory returned their unanimous verdict on 24 February 1616 after five days of deliberation. They judged the assertion that "the sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion" to be "formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology." The proposition of the earth's motion qualified for the lesser censure of "at least erroneous in faith." Moreover, the propositions failed, this time equally, to conform to the world system to which the theologians had yoked their doctrine. "[They are] false and absurd in philosophy." There was no room in this formidable interdiscipline for a salutary opposition between science and religion. The consultors had no reason to ponder the accommodationist argument: in their view, the findings of philosophy concurred perfectly with the results of traditional exegesis. The cardinals of the Holy Office accepted the advice of their consultors. The pope thereupon ordered Bellarmine to warn Galileo to abandon his opinions; if he should not accede to this friendly warning, Bellarmine was to issue a formal "precept" or injunction again him "to abstain completely from teaching or defending his doctrine and opinion or from discussing it." If he did not acquiesce to the injunction, he would go to jail. The following day, 26 February 1616, Galileo appeared before Bellarmine and Seghizzi. To the confusion of subsequent history, the unsigned minute descibing the interview does not agree with the papal order. Bellarmine duly warned Galileo that the "abovementioned opinion" conflicted with scripture and advised him to abandon it. Then, before Galileo could express his voluntary acquiescence, Seghizzi proceeded, succesive et incontinenti, to the second step and, before Bellarmine and other witnesses, "ordered and enjoined the said Galileo... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing." Galileo accepted the injunction and agreed to obey it.

Galileo, by JL Heilbron, Oxford U. Press, 2012, pp.217-8

I cited Finocchiaro in the lead, but historians all describe this same sequence of events. Some basic respect for neutrality and original research policies of WP:POV and WP:OR, and for the complexity of historical events, requires that we honestly present what occurred. -Darouet (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced paragraph?

The second paragraph in the Sunspots section (under Astronomy) feels misplaced. Is that the case, or does it just need some grammatical reworking? Alex33212 (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Plant diseases

9 Plant diseases Galileo suggests in his 12th Problema a new approach to explain the damages caused to plants exposed to weather. He applied the guidelines he had defined to the study of local motion change: namely, the establishment of a geometrical model representing the facts observed. Since Antiquity, the damage observed on vegetation had been essentially understood in terms of Theophrastus’ explanation of erusibe, and, but to a lesser extent, of Pliny the Elder’s rubigo, both according to the theory of decomposition from Aristotle. Galileo opts for the burning sphere model studied throughout the history of optics. Galileo’s text written about 1638, but only published in 1718, is the first of a series of texts, all through the 18 th century, approaching the explanation of diseases inspired from optics; texts which are inspired by Galileo’s 12th Problem or which suggest another similar one, such as Stephen Hales’ and Pierre-Daniel Huet’s works, or which oppose it but with optic arguments, such as Michel Adanson’s or Felice Fontana’s works. When Galileo conceives his models, his natural philosophy has come to maturity and the Aristotelian approach is strongly challenged in relation to the study of local motion. But the other changes, in particular those concerning living things, remain broadly studied according to Aristotelian principles. When Galileo 12th Problema is posthumously published, aristotelianism is declining both for chemistry and the study of living things. This is after the emergence of Cartesian mechanism and the use of chemistry is developing for studying living things. The optics approach for the plant disease model ends by being marginalized, being too simple to explain the complex relationships between plants and climatic circumstances. Gilles Denis, The optical Galilean interpretation of the antique Theophrastian model for plant diseases, Galilaeana, 2011, Journal of Gagliean Studies, VIII, pp.159-182.http://bibdig.museogalileo.it/Teca/Viewer;jsessionid=32EC32A39A937963E1C802E19DF2C5C9?an=917416_8 Gilles DENIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilles DENIS (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This seems to me to give an exaggerated impression of the scope of Galileo's solution to the indicated problem, which was limited to explaining the damage apparently sometimes caused to plant leaves when the Sun comes out after a fog. I have given a translation below of the statement and solution of the problem as it appears on pp.606–7 of volume 8 of the National Edition of Galileo's collected works.
It's also not clear to me why this has been posted here. Is it being suggested that something about this should be included in the article? If so, then my immediate reaction is that it's not sufficiently significant to warrant a mention.
Twelfth Problem

How it happens that sometimes when the Sun appears after a fog, the leaves of vines and other plants become dry and wilt.

The cause of this effect is the following. On the leaves of vines (as long as the fog persists) a very large quantity of the aforementioned1 droplets, which are round in shape, and most perfectly spherical, come to rest; then the fog disperses and the Sun appears, the rays of which, passing through these very small spherules, are refracted and fall on the leaf which lies under those spherules: so that, in the way that these same rays, on passing through a ball of crystal, or a globe full of water, and striking some kindling, or linen, or something similar, heats and ignites them, so also by passing through those little globules, they will come to heat the leaf so much, that they will burn it and dry it out. But it must be noted that this doesn't always occur: because if the fog persists for a long time, so many of these minute drops would come to be collected on the leaves that they would pile up on each other, get all blended together, and finally, on losing absolutely their spherical shape, they would become flattened out, as a result of which nothing but a thin film of water would appear on the leaf; and in this case the Sun won't produce the effect that it does whenever those drops remain there whole and intact.

1 That is, aforementioned in the resolution of the immediately preceding eleventh problem.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The comment might have no purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ggg0 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Galileo's remarks about plants do not have any appearance of favouring atheism or the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ggg0 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sunspots

This section is confusing. First, sunspots can occasionally be seen by naked eye, so primacy for their discovery is confusing. I am not familiar, however, with what Galileo and others might have claimed for their own observations. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Also, note that primary motions of sunspots are not "annual", but rather emergence and dissipation (over the weeks), solar rotation (about a month), and differential rotation (depends on latitude); not to mention 11-year waxing and waning in number. I'm not convinced that the early astronomers, like Galileo, directly perceived any (faint) annual variational effect, at least not since they claim to have just discovered sunspots. Certainly the other effects would have been more obvious and, therefore, worthy of mentioning in this article before "annual variation". I'm happy to be corrected on this, but that is my understanding of the matter. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The apparent annual variation in the trajectories of sunspots is well-explained in the some of the references cited (Linton's, From Eudoxus to Einstein, p.211–212, for instance). Quite often a sunspot will last long enough for its trajectory across the whole of the Sun's disc to be observed. Around early December this trajectory is approximately a straight line sloping upwards from east to west at an angle of about 7.5° to the plane of the ecliptic, as depicted in the first diagram at the top of p.211 in Linton's book. Three months later, around the beginning of March, the trajectory is an upwardly bending arc, with its highest point near the middle of the Sun's disc and the line joining its end points approximately parallel to the plane of the ecliptic, as in Linton's second diagram. Three months later again, around the beginning of June, the trajectory is again an approximately straight line, now sloping downwards from east to west at an angle of about 7.5°, as in Linton's third diagram. Finally, at around the beginning of September, the trajectory is a downwardly bending arc with its lowest point near the middle of the Sun's disc, and the line joining its end points again approximately parallel to the plane of the ecliptic, as in Linton's fourth diagram.
Galileo's explanation of this was that if the axis of the Sun's approximately monthly rotation—which he had already known about long before he had heard of this annual variation—was inclined to the ecliptic, and the Earth revolved around the Sun, as proposed by Copernicus, then the trajectories of the sunspots would display exactly the apparent annual variation that had been observed. In the original hard-cover edition of Stillman Drake's translation of Galileo's Dialogue the explanation occupies pp.346–55. In Favaro's monumental National Edition of Galilei's works it's on pages 374–382 of volume 7. All of this is well-known to Galileo scholars, and some account of it will be found in any decent biography of him.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, David, this is very helpful and informative (to me). I will fix the article in a bit, mostly reverting some changes I made. Again, thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see you already fixed it. I remain a bit unhappy with notions that any of these astronomers "discovered" sunspots, however. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Name

The Name section does not offer any discussion or explanation of why the subject is universally known by his given name rather than his surname. For all the type spilled over his scientific work, great, but bets are that a enormous number of users come to the page with that question, specifically. Venqax (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Galileo Galilei. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Links work. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Galileo Galilei. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galileo Galilei. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

More WP:RS

These might be useful in adding to the article, especially regarding Gassendi's response and Le Cazre's Physica Demonstratio[3]:

  • "The Reception of the Galilean Science of Motion in Seventeenth-Century Europe", edited by Carla Rita Palmerino, J.M.M.H. Thijssen"[4]
  • Le Cazre's attack on Galileo's laws is found in this scholarly work which says:
In 1645, the French priest Pierre Le Cazre (1589–1664) , who was at that time rector of the Jesuit college in Dijon, took up the accusation of "pseudo". In his polemical work Physica demonstratio, which was 44 pages in length and included drawings, he depicted Galileo's laws of gravitation as pseudoscience. Le Cazre was prompted to publish this work, which carried the accusation of "pseudo-scientia" in its title, by the publication of the treatise De Motu Impresso by the mathematician, physicist and priest Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655)....

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled that Frietsch speaks of "Galileo's laws of gravitation." Galileo did use the concept of uniform acceleration to mathematically describe of the fall of heavy bodies, but he was largely agnostic about the causes of their fall. It may be that Frietsch, who was concentrating on the emergence of the concept of pseudo-science, slipped up on this historical detail, or perhaps it's a poor translation of Frietsch's article which originally appeared in German, but in any event I would treat Frietsch's article with caution as a source on Galileo.
The volume edited by Palmerino and Thijssen seems more promising. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem is in the translation, not Frietsche's attention to historical detail. The German word being mistranslated as "laws of gravitation" is "Fallgesetz". Although I don't understand German, it didn't take me much poking around on the web to learn that "Fallgesetz" means "law of fall", as discovered by Galileo (see this site, for instance). It might be true that "Fallgesetz" can also mean "law of gravity", but regardless of that, Frietsch is obviously using it to mean "law of fall". Even so, I still agree with you that it would be best to avoid using his article as a source.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it was a bad translation. See [5] and [6] (Langenscheidt's dictionary is what we used in my classes, so it is definitive). I did take 3-4 years of German in high school and a term in college. I have not seen the word, but the translation makes it very clear that as applied to Galileo it means "law of falling bodies" and for Newton it means "law of gravitation". Understandable error, if the translator doesn't know much physics. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Already noted

See https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bGKrPVoQY8QC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=Galileo+fatigue+eyes+telescope&source=bl&ots=FVIVkyx1fz&sig=bbZDlVe7EAh1TrJGoBtffum38lo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjni-vW0_vcAhXJLsAKHfIuClYQ6AEwEnoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=Galileo%20fatigue%20eyes%20telescope&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 731Abstraction731 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

See https://nikhilpawar.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/the-cause-of-galileos-blindness/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 731Abstraction731 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Nikhil Pawar's claims that Galileo had priority on many points are not true. The rest of his article is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 731Abstraction731 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
See https://aty.sdsu.edu/vision/Galileo.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 731Abstraction731 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the references. Some of them aren't "reliable" according to Wikipedia's critera (Nikhil Parwar's piece, for instance, appears to be nothing more than a blog post). However, the authorities cited by Andrew Young would appear to have impeccable credentials.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, this[1] is probably a reliable source of the contrary. - DVdm (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Plait, Philip C. (2002). Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing "Hoax". John Wiley & Sons. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-471-42207-5. Extract of page 123

Science improved, also history

I have improved the science and history of this article. More could be done in the same way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1KKMTT531 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

New version

A new version of a letter of Galileo has been mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.56.158.252 (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

This seems to refer to a letter written to Castelli in 1613. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.56.158.252 (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I presume you're referring to this. Many thanks for bringing to to our attention. Eventually, of course, the article will need to be updated in the light of this new discovery.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Mccapra has written a new article on the letter of 1613. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FC81:5A01:ACA0:F5EA:153B:7E87 (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
See Letter to Benedetto Castelli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FC81:5A01:ACA0:F5EA:153B:7E87 (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Galileo was a scientist, not a polymath

Galileo was not a polymath in the strict sense of being an author who writes about other natural sciences like biology, or social topics like political theory, psychology and arts/literature. Galileo wrote nothing about biology, political philosophy/political theory, ethics, literature or psychology. Compare that with a real polymath like Aristotle, who wrote about many subjects – including physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theatre, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, economics, politics and government. The problem I see is that Galileo mainly wrote about physics and astronomy. Just two subjects are not enough to be considered a "polimath", specially when he wrote nothing about other natural sciences like biology or social topics like political theory, ethics or psychology. Just because some books call him "polymath" does not mean he was one. I think he should just be described as an "astronomer, engineer, mathematician and physicist (described in his own day as a "natural philosopher")". The Newton's wikipedia page also describes Newton as a "physicist (described in his own day as a "natural philosopher")". James343e (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

According to this source, Galileo was a polymath. There's more scholars who agree. - DVdm (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I still see it a little problematic, since he did not write about other natural sciences like biology, or social topics like politial theory/philosophy, ethics or psychology. I prefer to put "often described", since it indicates what others think of him, not necessarily an undisputable fact. I am thinking that this lead sentence could be fine:
Galileo was an Italian astronomer, physicist, engineer and mathematician, often described as a polymath.[4]
Would you have any problem with that lead sentence?James343e (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
That ref appears to describe G as a P, at age 17, because he could paint and lute and was intelligent. That seems thin; especially as our article doesn't even bother mentioning his painting. often described as a polymath is weaselly, so I'd prefer to avoid such language. This [7] also calls him a P, but for different reasons: The Italian polymath – philosopher, astronomer, mathematician, physicist, engineer and talented author. Yet his calims to philosophy (as distinct from natural philosophy) seem thin; and as for maths, our article says "While Galileo's application of mathematics to experimental physics was innovative, his mathematical methods were the standard ones of the day". So I'd prefer the sentence to read Galileo was an Italian astronomer, physicist and engineer. Arguably, since he made things, you could add "craftsman" to the list William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
No problem with James343e's version. - DVdm (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Connolley, "Galileo was an Italian astronomer, physicist and engineer would be ideal. Galileo was not a strict polymath, in the sense of having publications outside physics/astronomy. DVdm was absolutely right that some cite Galileo as a polymath, but some cite astrology as a science as well:
https://books.google.es/books?id=Z05l2sFZ0HYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=astrology+is+a+science&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPtobUnqXeAhUCKVAKHaPhCXsQ6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=astrology%20is%20a%20science&f=false
And I don't see Wikipedia putting astrology is a science just because some authors say it. Analogously, the fact that a few cite Galileo as a polymath does not mean he was a polymath, since he has no publications outside physics/astronomy. James343e (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
When I check some dictionaries, I only see variations of "a person of great and varied learning", "someone who knows a lot about many different things", "someone who knows a lot about many different things". I don't see why having publications outside physics/astronomy is a requirement to be called a polymath. I really think that your suggestion ("often described as a polymath.[4]") is entirely appropriate and wp:DUE. - DVdm (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Ddvm I put "sometimes described as a polymath", since I feel this would be the closest thing to an agreement between the three. I am not sure if he is cited as a polymath usually enough to be "often" rather than "sometimes". I only found two or three scholar sources calling him polymath. If you feel "often" is absoutely necessary, then I do not know, maybe we should consider to put "often". But I am not sure whether most scholars would claissify him as a polymath. James343e (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Myths of Galileo

There's an enormous amount of popular myths about the life of Galileo. In fact, these are probably the most well known and discussed things about Galileo by far. The ideas go like this. Galileo was executed for heliocentrism. Galileo was put in a "Catholic dungeon" for his heliocentrism (Carl Sagan right there). Both known fictions among historians. The idea that the Galileo trial was about science -- well, it wasn't, it was about politics. The article never mentions the fact that not only did Galileo provide no evidence for heliocentrism, but the fact that until the discovery of stellar aberration and Newto's discovery of gravity, the scientific evidence against Galileo's theories were enormous (see Christopher Graney's recent work Setting Aside all Authority, University of Notre Dame Press, 2015, where he tracks the evidence against Galileo's theories throughout the centuries). This is all quite notable and deserving of a section of its own, as well as a sentence or two somewhere in the lead.64.229.115.87 (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"Galileo was executed for heliocentrism"
Executed? If this is an urban legend, I have never heard of it. Sources please. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Scratch that out. Just tortured or thrown into a dungeon or prison is the correct urban myth here. Your thoughts on having a section on this information? Certainly what happened at the Galileo trial is what constitutes the crowning myths of the conflict thesis. 64.229.115.87 (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galileo_affair/Archive_1#Oliver_Lodge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.133.162 (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
This mentions the claim that Galileo was tortured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.133.162 (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The monograph Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Harvard 2009) quotes three such influential texts/people that espouse the myth. I've previously noted Carl Sagan does so.

[T]he great Galileo, at the age of fourscore, groaned away

his days in the dungeons of the Inquisition, because he had demonstrated by irrefragable proofs the motion of the earth. —Voltaire, “Descartes and Newton” (1728)


[T]he celebrated Galileo . . . was put in the inquisition for six years, and put to the torture, for saying, that the earth moved. —Giuseppe Baretti, The Italian Library (1757)


[T]o say that Galileo was tortured is not a reckless claim, but it is simply to repeat what the sentence says. To specify that he was tortured about his intention is not a risky deduction, but it is, again, to report what that text says. These are observationreports, not magical intuitions; proved facts, not cabalistic introspections.

—Italo Mereu, History of Intolerance in Europe (1979)

64.229.115.87 (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Observations made by Marius

Marius was observing the four brightest moons of Jupiter at about the same time as Galileo. See http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016DPS....4831206P See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons .

Galileo's first observations were made on 7/1/1610, by the Gregorian calendar.
Marius made his first notes on 8/1/1610, by the Gregorian calendar.
Not a sufficiently wp:reliable source. Please get a wp:secondary source. - DVdm (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Possibly this might be viewed as reliable https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0021828615585493 .

"Legacy" mention of German band Haggard

Under section 6, Legacy, subsection 'In Artistic and Popular Media' I think it's interesting to mention that the German band [[Haggard (band)|}} has an entire album inspired by the legacy of Galileo Galilei, promptly named Per Aspera Ad Astra. --Eduardo Wojcikiewicz 09:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The album is Eppur Si Muove, all of which seems inspired by Galileo, on which there is a song called "Per Aspera Ad Astra". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning Galileo's rehabilitation in 1992?

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves Vatican admits Galileo was right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.191.87 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A Conflict of Interest or two are going on here. Editor 67.87.191.87 is interested in Hedy Lamarr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.243.231.44 (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Conflict thesis

I've added in a section on the well-known Conflict thesis and how it misrepresents the Galileo affair.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The remarks made by Wallingfordtoday overlook the theory of relativity. Newton and Bradley apparently confirmed heliocentrism. Heliocentrism and heliostaticism are meaningless, according to that theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.29.203.192 (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Heliocentrism and heliostaticism still very much have meaning in a theory that has Galilean relativity (or indeed Lorentz invariance). The Sun in much closer to an inertial frame than the Earth. If you choose to study the dynamics of the Solar System, but you make the Earth your frame of reference, you have to invent fictitious forces in order to explain the motions of the planets and Sun. It's also worth noting that the Ptolemaic model wasn't even a coordinate transformation of a heliocentric theory. The Ptolemaic model has no means of fixing relative distances to objects in the Solar System. By contrast, heliocentric systems have only one free scale - the overall size of the astronomical unit - and all the relative distances are fixed by observation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I have concerns about the recently added section on the conflict thesis. It presents the argument that Galileo's belief in heliocentrism had no empirical foundation, and seems to imply that the opposition within the Church to heliocentrism was primarily a question of the theory lacking evidence. Both ideas are incorrect. As is detailed throughout this article, the Inquisition's condemnation of heliocentrism was based on scripture, rather than any supposed lack of evidence for the theory. It is also untrue that the theory lacked evidence. It is true that it was still possible to cobble together an inelegant theory - Tycho's model - that also explained many of Galileo's observations, but that does not mean that Galileo's observations were not evidence for heliocentrism. I find the following sentence particularly troubling:

Galileo ignored contemporary objections to heliocentrism he could not answer and his only argument for the movement of the Earth around the sun, i.e. the movement of the tides must be a product of the annual and diurnal motion of the Earth, was refuted by his contemporaries.

Beyond the grammatical problems with the sentence, it also incorrect that "he could not answer" the "contemporary objections to heliocentrism." He provided many observations that strongly favored heliocentrism over geocentrism (e.g., the phases of Venus, and the existence of moons orbiting Jupiter). His explanation of the tides was wrong, but that hardly means that "he could not answer" objections to heliocentrism in general. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

See Inertial frame of reference. This article says "This phenomenon of geodesic deviation means that inertial frames of reference do not exist globally...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.164.32.207 (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
See Heliocentrism. This says "inertial reference frames do not exist at all...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.164.32.207 (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
This is getting a bit off topic, but obviously inertial frames of reference exist, and are a useful concept. If you're studying the Solar System, you can either treat the Sun as inertial (technically, the Barycenter), or you can use the Earth's frame of reference. If you use the Sun as your frame, then you only have to worry about gravity. If you take the Earth as your frame of reference, then you have to include fictitious forces. Of course, none of this has to do with the Inquisition's opposition to heliocentrism, which was based on scripture. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thucydides, you're completely wrong and I suggest you review the references I added for that section of the article. Galileo had no empirical foundations for heliocentrism and none of his observations, including the phases of Venus and moons of Jupiter, contradicted geocentrism. They contradicted Ptolemaic geocentrism, which suggested that all the planets and sun revolve around the Earth. The phases of Venus, however, demonstrated Venus's orbit was around the sun, not Earth. This refutes Ptolemy's theory. Tycho's model, however, has no issue with this, since Tycho proposed that all planets revolved around the sun, whereas the sun revolved around the Earth. Nothing Galileo observed contradicted this.
Furthermore, there were contemporary objections to heliocentrism that Galileo ignored because he couldn't address them. Again, check the references I provided. For example, as Graney's Setting Aside All Authority (Notre Dame 2015) outlines in pp. 49-50, Galileo was unable to address Tycho's star size objection to heliocentrism. On pg. 114, Graney writes "The decisive arguments, those that caused the frontispiece scales to tip, were the ones that could not be answered. There were only a handful of these. All of them were antiCopernican. All were rooted in the ideas of Tycho Brahe." I think that settles that.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This section that User:Wallingfordtoday recently added fairly represents recent historical research on contemporary understanding of the evidence for the Copernican world picture. As Christopher Graney has demonstrated, the evidence available at Galileo's time for the Copernican model was not that convincing and there was strong counter-evidence. Furthermore, as has been recognized for a long time, the principle alternative to the Copernican theory in the seventeenth century was not the Ptolemaic system, but the Tychonic system. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The section that Wallingfordtoday added does not represent the contemporary understanding on Galileo's conflict with the Church. It presents the view that the conflict centered around Galileo's supposed inability to answer scientific objections. However, the Inquisition's problem with heliocentrism was not primarily scientific. It was theological, as the Inquisition made very clear: heliocentrism was "formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."
It is a bit of a non-sequitur to claim, from a modern perspective, that Galileo had not proven heliocentrism. The objections to the Copernican model (which were not nearly as serious as is being claimed here) were not the reason for the Inquisition's opposition to it. The reason was that the Church was in the midst of the Counter-Reformation, and was highly sensitive to possible challenges to its authority. It had ruled that heliocentrism was heretical, and was prepared to defend that decision.
Finally, even though the evidence is not the main point here (as the Inquisition was motivated by theological and political concerns), it is not true that the evidence known at the time favored Tycho's model, on balance. With all due respect to Christopher Graney (who runs a blog called "The Catholic Astronomer"), from the time of the publication of The Starry Messenger, the evidence fell heavily on the side of heliocentrism. The phases of Venus ruled out Ptolemy's model, and indeed any purely geocentric model. Tycho's model, which was a hybrid of the geocentric and heliocentric models, was an ungainly construction that required several extra assumptions to explain the basics of apparent planetary motions. For example, heliocentric models generically predict that the outer planets will undergo retrograde motion, and they even predict when that retrograde motion will occur. Geocentric models require one to put in retrograde motion by hand, and to fix it just so, so that it will occur at the correct time. From a theoretical perspective, heliocentric models explain the basic features of apparent planetary motion much more elegantly than geocentric models. Galileo's observations of Jupiter's moons demonstrated that there is a separate Copernican system within our own Solar system, with the small bodies orbiting the larger body, and with the more distant moons orbiting more slowly. This suggested a pattern, with the small Moon orbiting the larger Earth, the small moons of Jupiter orbiting that planet, and everything orbiting the largest body in the Solar system - the Sun, with the orbital periods increasing with distance.
It was technically still possible to accept Tycho's model, even though it was inelegant, but that doesn't mean that Galileo's position was not strong. It also does not mean that that's the reason the Inquisition went after Galileo. It did so because it viewed his beliefs as heretical, just as it stated in its judgment of him, that he was "vehemently suspect of heresy." -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The work of Graney's cited in support of the passage you have removed was Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo. It's quite true that Galileo was incapable of answering most of the objections discussed in that work for the simple reason that he had already been dead for 9 years when they were published (in 1651). But while the specific passages cited from that work (i.e. pp.49-50 and 112-14) do critically analyse some of Galileo's attempts to provide support for heliocentrism, neither of them, in my opinion, supports the claims made in the text you have now removed from the article.

  • The first passage (pp.49-50) argues that if Galileo's ideas about the distance, size, and nature of stars were correct, then his observations of double stars should have been able to detect a differential parallax, but didn't. However this was not an objection raised by any of Galileo's contemporaries, and Graney doesn't claim that it was. Also, the answer to Graney's argument seems to me to be sufficently obvious that Galileo himself would have easily been capable of rebutting it, so any speculation that he could not have done so is entirely unwarranted.
  • The second passage (pp.112-14) is mostly devoted to the objections raised against Galileo's theory of the tides, mainly by Riccioli, but also by the papal commission tasked with examining Galileo's Dialogue in 1632. Nowhere in this passage does Graney claim that Galileo's argument from the tides was his "only argument for the movement of the Earth around the sun" (which is just as well, since that claim is demonstrably false), or that the argument "was refuted by his contemporaries". In fact, Graney himself offers no opinion on the cogency of the objections. He contents himself with simply describing them and allowing them to speak for themselves. Tellingly, on p.114, he cites Riccioli's admission that none of the arguments could be considered decisive. An argument that is not decisive cannot constitute a refutation.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 22:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The objections being brought here are reliably silent on citing their own scholarly sources for their claims. Thucydides, you misunderstand my edit, the facts regarding the time period, and Wikipedia's policies, as, with due respect, you appear oblivious of WP:OR. The Inquisition's motive was theology -- but this theology was informed by the understood science of the day. Galileo's Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger) offered no evidence for heliocentrism. Your own response reveals that the entire basis for heliocentrism in Galileo's day is based not on any evidence but on fancy references to their wonderful "elegance" -- a type of argument that can only be justified in the absence of actual evidence one way or another, and in Galileo's day, there was no absence of scientific evidence against heliocentrism. Appropriately, the vast majority of scientists of Galileo's day were convinced by the science and rejected a wee bit of elegance here and there (while at the same time requiring absurd explanations for other problems contemporaries noted in heliocentric theory). It appears to me as though you're simply promoting the outdated Conflict thesis. If you think you've made a strong point by citing that Graney is a Catholic and so biased and can't be used, you need to take a quick look at WP:BIASED.
David, you've simply misread Graney if you suggest that the star size or parallax objection wasn't raised by Galileo's contemporaries (a claim that requires a vast lack of understanding of the history). In fact, Graney notes that this objection originated with Tycho himself (pg. 45) and Galileo even tried to address parallax (pg. 49) -- but because Galileo's understanding of the distance of the stars was so off, Galileo's method didn't work (pg. 49). In fact, Graney explains on pg. 49 that Galileo, once he realized his method for detecting differential parallax failed, he simply didn't publish it. Galileo was a great scientist in many respects, but a dishonest one in others as revealed in another discovery in 2018. However, you are right that Graney does not say this was Galileo's only arguments, so I have removed that from the page. But you also misread Graney claiming that Graney says nothing about the cogency of Galileo's argument from the tides. In fact, Graney writes "the papal commission charged with reporting on the Dialogue in 1632 particularly pointed out the inability of Galileo’s theory to account for the observed twice-daily high and low tides, when the varying speed of Earth’s surface would suggest a once-daily high and low tide" (pg. 112). That it "seems to you" Galileo could have addressed it is WP:OR not to mention based on a misunderstanding of the data available in the time. In fact, Galileo was so unable to address the objections of his critics on the absurdity of his claims that he had to resort to religious arguments ("God just did it that way!") to escape them. You also completely misrepresent Graney on the issue of "decsisive" arguments -- Graney explains that Riccioli found the majority of his arguments could be answered, but that some in fact were decisive. "The decisive arguments, those that caused the frontispiece scales to tip, were the ones that could not be answered. There were only a handful of these. All of them were antiCopernican. All were rooted in the ideas of Tycho Brahe" (pg. 114). I suggest you take seriously the opinion of User:SteveMcCluskey who has commented here and appears to be a scholar on the issue.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
[Update: Two more references have been added to the article. The first a paper by Graney in the Journal for the History of Astronomy explaining how the advocates of the Copernican theory relied on religious arguments to counter contemporary objections when they could not scientifically address it, and a second in a monograph further validating the fact that the scientific aspect of the Copernican theory was only validated with the advent of the work of Newton and Bradley, not Galileo.]Wallingfordtoday (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Fundamentally, the "Conflict thesis" section that you've added gives an incredibly warped view of the Galileo affair. This quote illustrates the central problem with what you've written:
"The Inquisition's motive was theology -- but this theology was informed by the understood science of the day."
You can go look at Wikipedia's fairly well written article on the Galileo affair, and take a look at the well sourced section on the Church's Biblical objections to heliocentrism, relying particularly on Joshua 10, in which the Sun stands still (implying that it normally moves). In 1616, the Inquisition specifically declared that heliocentrism was "formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture," and in 1633, Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy."
You make a number of claims about Galileo not having evidence for heliocentrism, and not being able to respond to his detractors. For example, you claim that
"Galileo's Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger) offered no evidence for heliocentrism"
Galileo's observations of the phases of Venus, published a few years after The Starry Messenger, were very strong evidence for heliocentrism. They decisively ruled out a purely geocentric model, though they did not strictly rule out a hybrid model like Tycho's.
"the entire basis for heliocentrism in Galileo's day is based not on any evidence but on fancy references to their wonderful 'elegance' -- a type of argument that can only be justified in the absence of actual evidence one way or another"
Elegance is a very important factor in scientific explanations. It is possible to explain literally anything if you're willing to make up arbitrarily complicated theories. There was a lot of evidence for heliocentrism in Galileo's day, but there wasn't a proof that decisively ruled out a hybrid system. The phases of Venus ruled out any purely geocentric model, and the heliocentric models explained retrograde motion with fewer assumptions than did the Tychonic model, and Jupiter showed the existence of another Copernican system. From a scientific perspective, that's a very powerful set of arguments in favor of heliocentrism.
There is a whole number of blatantly false statements in the article right now:
"Evidence and confirmation of heliocentric theory would only emerge later with the development of Newtonian physics which could not be explained under Tycho Brahe's geoecentric model and James Bradley's observation of stellar aberration." - This ignores the phases of Venus, retrograde motion and the Jovian system.
"Galileo was unable to answer contemporary objections to heliocentrism" - Galileo wrote several works doing precisely that!
"the lack of observation of parallax" - Galileo discusses stellar parallax extensively in the Dialogue. The obvious answer to the parallax objection, which many Copernicans voiced, was that the stars were very distant. See, for example, Siebert (2005).
"Galileo put the arguments for geocentrism into the mouth of a certain 'Simplicio' (who, in Galileo's work, represented the Pope[190])" - This is disputed, and probably not true.
David_J_Wilson makes good points above about the ways in which you're stretching Graney's work. We also should not lean so heavily on a relatively unknown writer, who - yes - does also write from a clearly biased position, in order to make such strong claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I've already addressed almost all of this and so addressing it again is simply unnecessary. "Arguments from elegance" are not scientific -- they're philosophical, and Galileo had to insert more absurdities to explain away problems than any heliocentrist. As I've tried explaining to you, the consensus of historians of science, parallax was a fat problem in Galileo's work. That's why Galileo had to insert incredibly distance, and therefore massive stars to explain it away (something we know to be wrong now), which was subject to Tycho's scathing star-size objection. Tycho, to the satisfaction of almost every scientist in the time period, had dealt with the heliocentric attempt to escape parallax. In fact, it was such a bad problem that Galileo had to appeal to God's omnipotence to explain away the star-size objection. Let's also not forget that, as I've shown earlier (pg. 49 of Graney's book), Galileo came up with a way to detect parallax -- and then it failed and he didn't publish it. Your claim that Graney is a "relatively unknown writer" just shows how ill-informed you are on an someone who is actually the most prolific scholar on the very subject we're discussng. If you want to continue appealling to Graney's bias, I suggest you choose to contribute to a platform besides Wikipedia since Wiki has policies, WP:BIASED being one of them. Also see a new ref I've added to the page -- Finochiarro's Defending Copernicus and Galileo, pp. 27-28 who comments that he's not surprised the embarrassing position of Galileo in his time wasn't accepted by his contemporaries. To put it simply, these claims are not "strong" to anyone familiar with the data, and no one is "heavily" relying on Graney as his opinion is just those found in all the other recent literature on the subject. I'm also strongly wondering whether or not your objection to Simplicio being the Pope is based on actual scholarly opinion or outright denial, as you give no reason to believe you understand that topic either. Please check the reference provided. Wallingfordtoday (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no point in re-litigating Galileo's case 400 years later, since he was right then, and is still right now. -Darouet (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Correct, Darouet. There's no point wasting time putting Galileo on trial again. The reliable sources cited all agree on the points already present in the section on the conflict thesis, though Thucydides, for some personal reason, may keep pushing to argue against it. I did make a little change to clarify that the lack of observation of parallax, combined with Tycho's star-size objection was Galileo's undoing, and I also just read the "Controversy over heliocentrism" section on this page Thucydides cited against me -- in fact, it appears to reflect the exact points I've been making.It looks like this all boils down to the fact that Thucydides is genuinely astonished that historians agree the Inquisition had science on its side, not Galileo. Wallingfordtoday (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Tycho's star-size argument was incorrect (the apparent size of stars is due to diffraction and seeing, not their physical size). Galileo's answer to it was partially correct (the stars are indeed far away, as Galileo believed), partially incorrect (main-sequence stars are not as large as Galileo's response suggested). In other words, Galileo had a partially incorrect answer to Tycho's incorrect argument against heliocentrism. You gather from this that the science of the time was against Galileo - I don't see how you can get to that conclusion.
About parallax, Galileo, like many Copernicans, did not believe that not measuring parallax was a problem for heliocentrism, because the stars could be far away (again, see Siebert (2005), which discusses this at length). Galileo and the other Copernicans were indeed correct on this point, and Tycho was wrong.
No, historians do not agree with the ridiculous assertion that "the Inquisition had science on its side, not Galileo." You've repeatedly cited one guy who writes from a biased perspective, and you're stretching his argument farther than he actually goes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Simplicio

According to Stillman Drake, Simplicio was modeled after Cesare Cremonini and Ludovico delle Colombe. (Stillman Drake: Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography, Courier Dover Publications, 2003, ISBN 0-486-49542-6, page 355 : Cremonini and delle Colombe) In contrast, the text added by Wallingfordtoday says, "(who, in Galileo's work, represented the Pope)." -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Tycho

The text currently says that "Galileo's heliocentric work [...] ignored consideration of Tycho's model.". This is not entirely true: Galileo certainly considered Tycho's model, and argued against it in at least one private letter, as explained by Drake (1986). Galileo's argument against the Tychonic system is actually quite strikingly modern. In the Copernican system, the Earth's orbital speed is approximately the geometric mean of Venus' and Mars' orbital speeds, yet in Tycho's system, there is no such relation. In other words, Galileo already noticed the relationship between orbital radius from the Sun and orbital speed, and noticed that it was broken in Tycho's system.

Stillman Drake also makes this blunt remark:

"the Tychonic system was not viable at all, as history shows, and as both Kepler and Galileo perceived at their Time. (Drake 1986)

Drake also writes that support for Tycho's system at the time was generally motivated "not from astronomical, but from scriptural and physical evidences, the latter being Aristotelian, or metaphysical evidence." He goes on to say,

"Kepler was a good enough astronomer, and Galileo a good enough physicist, to waste no time on the Tychonic system. That many others did is a tribute to their religiosity and Aristotelianism rather than to their astronomical abilities."

This undermines the claim that modern historians supposedly agree that the science of the time favored Tycho's model. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Desperately googling for scholars to back you up I see. Won't work. The response you reference Galileo made, which I've already tried explaining to you, was a response to parallax, not the star-size objection. Galileo's response to parallax required massive stars, and this is what spurred Tycho's star-size objection -- one Galileo never addressed in any of his writings. As Graney writes regarding this objection, "Galileo did not address this" (see this paper). Which means Galileo's escape hatchet out of parallax failed. Finnochario, after discussing the parallax problems, writes "One may then begin to sympathize with Copernicus’s contemporaries, who found his idea very hard to accept" (Defending Copernicus and Galileo, pg. 28). In other words, the scholarly consensus is that the Inquisition had science on its side, and Drake Stillman is a scholar from a bygone generation and it's precisely Stillman's views that were refuted by Graney. Fascinating how Stillman thinks Galileo simply "couldn't waste his time" on Tycho's arguments, and yet did just that by producing a massive response to the criticisms of him by Ingoli, whose arguments were straight up borrowed from Tycho. Of course, Galileo, when responding to Ingoli, neatly left the problem of star-size unanswered. The fact that more recent scholars -- Finocharrio and Graney -- say the opposite of what Drake says is enough to settle an issue on a WP:FRINGE opinion. Another testimony to the fact that Stillman's opinion is outdated is that while Stillman (ludicrously) interprets Galileo's as ignoring Tycho's work as a waste of time, James Hannam in 2009 interprets it as Galileo's telling silence on the most powerful alternatives to his views; Hannam writes "The two world systems of the title exclude Tycho Brahe’s and so, to some extent, Galileo was not putting up the strongest competitor to Copernicus" (pg. 329). In other words, the current scholarly opinion is that Galileo was playing it safe. Just bend to my will and accept you're wrong.
As for Simplicio, you once again hit and miss for the nature of the debate. Whether Simplicio was patterned off of Cremonini or not doesn't dispute that Galileo put the words of the Pope into Simplicio's mouth (which not even Drake ever disputes). for example, "To Illustrate the debate between the systems of Ptolemy and Copernicus, he invented a character, Simplicio, to defend Ptolemy, somtimes foolishly. Then Galileo went too far by putting the words of the current pope into the mouth of silly Simplicio" (Lives of the Scientists, pg. 20). Also see "Urban felt betrayed on several counts ... one of his own arguments celebrating the omnipotence of God had been placed in the mouth of Simplicio, that character in the dialogue who, as the spokesman for naive common sense, had been the subject of ridicule" (John Brooke, Science and religion: new historical perspectives, pg. 141). I will admit, though, that I need to re-word the section a bit to account for the fact that the historical reality is not that Simplicio represented the Pope, but that the Pope's words were put into Simplicio's mouth.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Fat update on Stillman. I was curious as to whether or not you had misrepresented your citation to Stillman's claim on Tycho's model being non-viable since you didn't refer to the actual page number where Stillman said this, so I checked it out myself. While Stillman's words, which appear on pg. 104 appear to be accurately represented, your citation is essentially your own undoing. Stillman admits, one page later on pg. 105, that "My knowledge of the so-called Tychonic system is slight, and derived from secondary sources".Wallingfordtoday (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I had a go

I didn't like the section as I found it, so had a go at rewriting it. For example, I don't think Galileo's heliocentric work tended to be unstructured, rhetorical and aimed at non-experts makes much sense - why would this be one of the Church's problems? And the Evidence and confirmation of heliocentric theory would only emerge later... is irrelevant to the conflict theory.

Galileo's belief in heliocentrism had no empirical foundation - I think this is quasi-true. G had no valid reason to prefer heliocentrism to Tycho's system. His only "killer" argument - his theory of the tides - was wrong (and contradicted contemporary obs, too; the existing section "Galileo, Kepler and theories of tides" says its wrong, so hopefully that isn't in doubt. It also points out its importance to G). The moons of Jupiter, for example, aren't direct evidence for heliocentrism, only analogistic. The size-of-stars and lack of parallax were valid objections, for the time.

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

William, I really like your edit and only changed a bit of it. I think clarifying when heliocentrism really was confirmed (Newton and Bradley) is important background to the topic and it's certainly and it's only one sentence long. I think if Graney found it relevant to keep, we should keep it to. I made sure to restore that the words of the Pope were put into Simplicio's mouth -- this was crucial in the Galileo's loss of favor with the Pope and goes to show in direct relevance to the conflict thesis, that his trial was more politics, less religion.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Galileo_Galilei/Archive_13&oldid=1079563213"