Talk:Galileo Galilei/Archive 6

Galileo was Italian

As you can read from Wikipedia Italy was established after the World War II, 500 years after Galileo was dead, and for this reason Galileo Galilei couldn't be Italian. Furthermore, as you can see the controversy concerning Science and Religion, Galileo was persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church, and still today the Italian State doesn't allow Patents for Public Interest Products and technologies, continuing the ban of scientists and intellectual thought considered hostile to the Catholic Church. The documentation concerning the Italian Patent form is available from any UPICA Office of any Chamber of commerce, or any Italian Consulate.

PLEASE SEE THE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/modernitaly Wikipedia Complaint Regards Benattiluca 14:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your knowledges about Italy might take advantage of a better studying of history. The assertion that Italy was estabilished after the World War II in particular is very funny. Plus, Italian doesn't necessarily mean related to Italian State, Italy is a far older entity, and needless to say that the Italian State has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church. --89.97.35.70 12:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Yes and the Italians were existing before Italy was established... You funny. Benattiluca 14:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course yes. Italians were existing before Italy was established, since that Italy was not an extemporary invention. Do you know that Dante and Petrarch both wrote poems dedicated to Italy? I'm afraid you don't. --Fertuno 22:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the talk page at Megas Alexandros for the same situation, someone claims that Alexander was Macedonian in the sense that he is from the republic of macedonia. They don't make difference between these entities, I mean there were even Italians before the Romans put Italy truly on the map. Samnites, Etruscans, Celts and more. Mallerd 17:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal from "Heretics" category?

Didn't Pope John Paul II absolve Galileo of the charge of "heresy" citing the mishandling of the case, and apologize on behalf of his condemnation by the Roman Catholic Church?

And shouldn't this be reason enough to remove him from the category of "Heretic" on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.228.228 (talk • contribs)

It's probably better to rename the category. It doesn't conform to NPOV policy. Wikipedia doesn't label individuals as heretics. As for the RC church, they aren't the sole judge, and their opinion seems to change over time. "Individuals who have been accused of heresy" would be a better (if more long-winded) title. Jakew 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think that the RC church ever declared that Galileo was a heretic. It merely said that some of his writings may be heretical and against church teaching. Roger 21:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are correct, Roger. Jakew 14:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur as well, but if the section is merely renamed, keep it short, such as "Galileo, a heretic?"

Or: "Proclaimed heretics"? Mallerd 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring the controversy

Long ago there was a discussion, with a consensus among the few participants, of refactoring the Church Controversy and moving it into a separate article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galileo_Galilei#The_Trial._Again.3F The arguments are no less right than they were then; and now the whole thing has been challenged on its quality (and it's about time).

I have started a Procrustean, not to say Draconian, approach. The long and disorganized section has been replaced with a short summary of events, together with a pointer to a new Main Article, Trial of Galileo. That article has been intialized, first with the full old text (to get it into the History) and then with a copy of the summary from this article. It's now fair game for the effort to create a proper, coherent page, based on primary sources where possible. (But all the old text is there to crib from.)

Let us try to keep the section in this article to a minimal length, treating, so far as possible, only of essential factual matters that are generally agreed on. (That'll keep it short!) --Dandrake 01:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Just remember that facts and details are often lost through time, so some disputable facts may be true24.172.95.66 13:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in the case of Galileo we have abundant documentation, a good selection of it recently translated into English in Maurice Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair. In addition, there is a veritable "Galileo industry" of historians who have studied the evidence for the controversy from different points of view. They pretty well define the range of acceptable historical interpretations. There's no need for further speculative interpretation. SteveMcCluskey 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Gailileo was not convicted of heresy that is a historical myth. He was tried but copped a plea to disregarding a direct order. It is important to note that the primary complaints against him were not that he published or supported scientific theories contrary to Catholic doctrine but rather that he did so in an insulting and degrading manner and ignored proper protocol for challenging doctrine (which was an accepted practice at the time).

Character sets

I just had to do a nasty little edit to reverse a change made by an editor's browser (mine, Firefox on a Macintosh) which took all the dash characters and automatically replaced them with some ugly gibberish. If the dashes had been represented by ampersand-n-d-a-s-h-semicolon, giving rise to "–", this wouldn't have happened.

I don't know whether people are trying to "simplify" the text by replacing those ugly html strings – character provided by their browser's particular character set; or some damn officious browser is going that for them; but it stinks. You CANNOT assume things about how other people's browsers will handle character sets, but you can and must assume they'll handle plain html.

Oh well, even if such things are done right, that wouldn't solve the problem with the multilingual stuff at the bottom of the article.Dandrake 23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No one questions it- must be true.

My question is in response to the following:

"However, Galileo did perform experiments involving rolling balls down inclined planes, which proved the same thing: falling or rolling objects (rolling is a slower version of falling, as long as the distribution of mass in the objects is the same) are accelerated independently of their mass."

Galileo "proved" that falling objects accelerate at the same rate independent of their masses. However, the above should not be confused with the concept that objects will hit the ground at the same time. When Galileo mythically or not dropped objects from the tower of Piza the Earth actually moved on a micro scale a sliver of an atom towards the object.

I suppose that just because we can't measure this movement doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Please comment.

Michael McNett 03:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the connection between the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the third paragraph there. I mean, if you drop two objects together, and they accelerate in exactly the same way, then they'll hit the ground together whether or not the Earth moves up a little to meet them, no?

Anyway, it's true that the Earth does move toward the falling object; Newton's law of gravity implies that, and Relativity doesn't change the conclusion. In fact, Newton's laws of motion, even without his specific formulation of gravity, require that dropping the ball won't cause the center of mass of the Earth-ball system to move; hence, if the ball falls, the Earth must rise by an amount given by the ratio of the masses. Naturally, Galileo didn't apply this reasoning; it's amusing to speculate what he'd have said if asked whether the Earth moved in that experiment.

Hmm, maybe I now see what you're saying: If you drop 2 objects of different masses from different points at the same time -- or drop them at different times and time the fall of each very carefully -- then the heavy one will hit the ground faster, because both accelerate at the same rate, but the heavy one lifts up the Earth a trace faster. This is true in principle. Like the parabolic trajectory, the equal time of fall makes some assumptions that are true to a really really good aprroximation. The trajectory assumes a uniform gravitational attraction, while in fact the acceleration is slower at higher altitude, making the trajectory really the tip of an extremely elongated ellipse; the equal time of fall assumes an effectively infinite mass for the Earth. Each of these approximations is a whole lot closer to the truth than the explicit assumption of no air resistance, though. Dandrake 02:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if you drop two objects at the same time I predict that the earth would tilt (albeit an infintismal measurement) toward the object with greater mass. Therefore the "heavier" object would hit the ground before the "lighter" one.

Picture a pure vacuumed universe. We have nothing but object A (The earth) and B (A bowling ball). If we place them in this universe and instruct no movement upon them they will accelerate toward one another. Object B accelerating much faster (unless your reference point is from object B). The acceleration should be 9.8 m/s2.

Picture another pure vacuumed universe. We intruduce object B (The bowling ball) and object C (The moon). We do the same experiment as before and find that the the objects move together with an acceleration of 1.62 m/s2.

If we do this experiment at the same time with a frame of reference in both universes at B we would find that A and C have different accelerations.

This would appear to contradict Galileo.

True the use of a gravitational constant is useful in advancing our sciences. However, I expect that the theory that objects fall at the same rate onto a heavenly body is flawed in that our experiments are dealing with objects with similar mass and therefore giving an as of yet unmeasurable difference in acceleration.

If we stand on the sun and drop a golf ball and the very heavy planet Jupiter. Jupiter would win Michael McNett 12:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

But this discussion is largely irrelevent for the Galileo article, since universal gravitation wasn't yet an issue. If the passage can be changed to indicate something less strong than "proved", that's always a good thing in any history of science article. But we shouldn't try to introduce anachronistic concepts.--ragesoss 18:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Epicycles?

"Furthermore, he never accepted Kepler's elliptical orbits for the planets, holding to the circular orbits of Copernicus, which still employed epicycles to account for irregularities in planetary motions."

I strongly believe the epicycles were employed to account for retrograde motion, which was evidence that the planets revolved around the sun (as opposed to the Earth) and not evidence that planets moves in ellipses instead of perfect circles. I could be wrong, however, so I'm reluctant to actually change it. Also, does anyone know of a MATHEMATICAL formula that accounts for the position of an object that is a satellite to a satellite? (eg: the position of the moon around the sun?) User:Tarayani 2:23, 09 Jan 2006 (EST)

Galileo basically never took the time to learn Kepler's system. Epicycles were used in Ptolemy's system to both explain retrograde motion and irregularity (i.e., the fact that the orbits are actually elliptical). Copernicus still used epicycles and deferents, because even though heliocentrism explained retrograde motion in a natural way, it still didn't account for the irregularities of motion. Copernicus rejected Ptolemy's equant, replacing it with the Tusi-couple. Galileo didn't modify Copernicus. As it stands, the sentence is pretty much correct, although it could use more detail.--ragesoss 18:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

His Son

On other sites, it lists the birth of Galileo's son as in 1525. Being as how Galileo was born in 1564, it seems quite impossible that his son was born in 1525. When was his son REALLY born (as in, what year)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.124.63.215 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-22 15:50:45 (UTC) he was born in 1606

A very valid point and i am curious as well, controversy/hypocrisy bothers meRateswiped 13:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some confusion comes from the fact that Galileo's father and son had the same name? Also, there exists no Wikipedia article about Galileo's son.130.108.196.88 14:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Middle finger

What article about Galileo is complete without mention of his middle finger. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article

Galileo Galilei was an Italian astronomer, physicist, and mathematician, who was born in Pisa, Italy on the 15th of Febuary, 1564. Although most mathematicians become famous after their death, Galileo was famous through his entire life as a mathematician and astronomer ending on the 8th of January, 1642. His father, Vincenzo Galilei, was a well known flute player, composer, theorist, singer, and teacher coming from a string of doctors so encouraged and forced his first son of seven, Galileo, into the University of Pisa as a medical student. Galileo had no interest in his medical studies so took mathematics and natural philosophy on the side beginning his mathematics career. After much persuasion Vincenzo agreed to allow him to take classes in Euclid and Archimedes. The young mathematician began a career in teaching at the university and writing his first book, The Little Balance which described the Archimedes’ method about finding specific gravities using a balance. Galileo came to Florence in 1583 to study at the University of Florence under the court mathematician Ostilio Ricci. During this time he wrote De Motu describing how to find the rate of descent of falling bodies using an inclined plane. On his recent trips to Florence, Galileo meets a young woman by the name of Marina di Andrea Gamba with whom he never married but had two girls and one boy after his father’s death in 1591.

As of now, I am unsure if this is vandalism. However, it certainly was added in in appropriate areas, with repeated lead content and was added twice by 24.8.226.51. I'm not sure if this information is accurate and verifiable, but I'll put it here for the convenience of other editors. AndyZ _t 23:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The bottom of the church controversy section

"In modern terms, we consider Galileo's views on heliocentricity to be no fundamental advance. The Sun is no more the center of the universe than the Earth is (indeed, the question has no meaning, as apparently all locations can be equally regarded as the "center" of the universe). The Catholic Church held to the prevailing scientific opinion of the day, which was that the Earth was the center of the universe. Thus, for moderns, the key issue of this controversy was not the objective correctness of the theories being debated, but rather the morality of institutions (or persons) using physical force to shape acceptance of scientific beliefs."

This paragraph should be removed. I consider heliocentrism to be a more accurate theory than geocentrism, simply because having the sun as the 'center' of 'our little place' is more accurate than having us at the center. While this is a well articulated arguement i think it should, in no way, be considered canon for the article as it offers one persons' opinion or view on the matter and forms no basis for encyclopedia material.

What's more "accurate" about having the Sun at the center of "your little place" than the Earth? You live on the Sun, maybe? The rest of us are editing from someplace else. Geocentricity is a POV, but so is heliocentricity. Unless you're a plasma being who's gained access to Wiki, I happen to think geocentricity is more natural for both of us. However, the modern view of physics is that the universe doesn't have a center. Unless it's your navel.Sbharris 05:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

True, the universe doesn't have a center, but that doesn't mean that any POV is as good as any other. For any regular periodic motion there is a preferred frame of reference where all fictitious forces disappear. In modern physics this is called the center-of-momentum frame. When this frame is used for the motions of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets, all the planets will have elliptical orbits with focal points inside the Sun (or very close to the Sun in Jupiter's case). The Sun is almost motionless in this frame, so "heliocentric" is a perfectly valid label for the most accurate description of the solar system. --Shastra 09:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So you say that the heliocentric model is more accurate because it more closely approximates the center of momentum frame. How does that relate? Momentum had not even been discovered yet, and Galileo contemporaries would have measured accuracy in terms of how well the models explained the observed planetary motions as seen on Earth against the backdrop of stars. Yes, there are sometimes reasons to prefer the heliocentric but there are also reasons to prefer the geocentric in some situations. Roger 09:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Galileo knew about momentum, but that's not my point. Of course there are reasons where accelerated frames are appropriate. When I pour wine into a glass while traveling on an airplane, a frame that is co-moving with that airplane is the most appropriate for coordinating my movements. But when looking at the motion of the planets, a heliocentric or center-of-momentum frame is the most appropriate. It doesn't matter if you know about galactic motion or not, or if you realize that a co-moving frame works better for local experiments. Galileo understood this principle of switching between viewpoints (he did invent the fundamentals of the Galilean transformation after all), but the Catholic Church authorities had no clue at all. --Shastra 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes the heliocentric frame is more appropriate. And sometimes the geocentered or Milky-Way-centered frames are more appropriate. Modern physics allows you to choose a convenient frame. Roger 19:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This topic may be dead, however the more correct centricity seems to me to be a less relevant issue than that Galileo did much to demonstrate a centricity, any centricity other than a geocentric one. That was a major achivement and break from accepted scientific dogma. 132.79.8.15 18:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed this:

The Catholic Church held to the prevailing theological opinion of the day, which was that the Earth was the center of the universe.

It would be more accurate to say that the Church held to what had been the prevailing scientific opinion for 100s of years. But the article is about Galileo, and the sentence doesn't really fit anyway. Roger 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I see now that User:JoshuaZ has put the sentence back in, without any explanation here on the discussion page. I still say that the statement is confusing and misleading. It is tacked onto a paragraph, without much relation to the paragraph. It refers to "the day", even tho the paragraph discusses events over a period of 100s of years, and it is not clear when "the day" is supposed to be. It is not clear why the geocentric opinion is said to be "theological". Is it trying to imply that the Church used scientific arguments to reach a theological conclusion, or theological arguments to reach a scientific conclusion, or what? Answering this gets off-topic too much. I suggest removing the sentence. Roger 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sr. F Bacon

I removed the last point in the comparison GG-Bacon (which I tend to think is unnecessary as a whole): it stated that the Baconian method is 'too complicated to be useful for modern scientists', which is untrue. Similar approaches are used especially in 'modern' branches of biological sciences- see molecular biology (knock-in/out, partial gene transfer, RNA interference etc), pharmacology (esp. pre-clinical testing), and (before the shiny magic boxes of mol.bio came around) psychological assessment in broad screening studies. The point naming GG as the father of modern science was valid so I just placed it below the whole thing. Duagloth 09:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the chart comparing Galileo and Bacon, as I don't think is it appropriate to the article. A more subtle and informative comparison should be possible merely by reading the entries for both Bacon and Galileo, and there isn't enough space in the article for such checklist comparisons between Galileo and other scientists or philosophers. If there is an intellectually significant controversy about the relative achievement of these two it should be described, without a chart, in more detail (citing arguments appropriately) or given an article of its own. ThaddeusFrye 19:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Having done this I do feel a little bad, since some information was lost by this deletion, and someone did work on that chart. I hope someone will add a section on Galileo's "Scientific Method," which might include a paragraph in which G.'s ideas (after being described in their own right) are comparted to those of Bacon or others. Did Galileo describe or employ a "method" as such? It's an interesting question. ThaddeusFrye 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad, you had a valid reasoning and I would have done the same; I will attempt to answer your question after i do some researchRateswiped 13:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cracow

As far as i know Galileo studied in Cracow. There is no reference to this part of his life in article.

And the Greatest was?

Galileo? Einstein? Newton? Archimedes? Gauss? Someone else? The intros of the articles on Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein quote praise by famous scientists. Of course one can always find a famous guy saying something positive about another famous guy. For symmetry reasons, similar praise could be added to the Galileo intro. For example, in his book A brief history of time, Stephen Hawking writes that Galileo has probably contributed more to the creation of the modern natural sciences than anybody else. Physicists 20:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no single greatest scientist/physicist, but Galileo significantly contributed to the promotion of experimentation, therefore i advocate his position as one of the fathers of physics Rateswiped 13:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Einstein and Hawking quotations

A sentence in the article had been tagged for '[citation needed]':
  'Albert Einstein, in appreciation, called Galileo the "father of modern science". According to Stephen Hawking, Galileo probably contributed more to the creation of the modern natural sciences than anybody else.'
As the attribution to Einstein in the article is correct but not quite literal, I removed the doublequotes. I also removed the tag and created a footnote reference to an on the web verifiable source that attributes both quotes without mentioning their original published source: 'History Of Science Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)', by Mahanti, Subodh, published in Dream 2047, July 2000 Issue, available on the Vigyan Prasar Science Portal as retrieved 2007-08-26. I found the more complete data also elsewhere, these are the proper quotations:

• "Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. Because Galileo saw this and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics — indeed, of modern science altogether." (Albert Einstein)
• "Galileo perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science. His renowned conflict with the Catholic Church was central to his philosophy, for Galileo was one of the first to argue that man could hope to understand how the world works, and, moreover, that we could do this by observing the real world." (Stephen Hawking, from A brief History of Time).

E.g. the original publication in A brief History of Time is mentioned in Lessl, Thomas. "The Galileo Legend". Catholic Educator's Resource Center. Retrieved 2007-08-26.
As I could not as yet actually verify the original publication, I did not put it in the article; but that should be done properly (publisher, publication date, page, etc) after verification. David Wilson, a contributor who has been working on a consistent style of referencing for the Galilei article, has been invited on his talk page to incorporate my indexed reference more properly.
— SomeHuman 26 Aug2007 13:26 (UTC)

Nice detective work tracking down these quotations. The Einstein quotation is from Sonja Bargmann's translation of a 1933 lecture of Einstein's, which appears in the collection Ideas and Opinions. However, there is a sentence missing from between the two quoted by Subodh Mahanti. The missing sentence appears in the accurate quotation I have added in a footnote to the article. I have checked the Hawking quotation against my copy of A Brief History of Time. It's accurate.

David Wilson 17:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Great job. "Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo realised this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics—indeed, of modern science altogether." appears more like having been rephrased or elaboratingly added to, rather than something to have been left out; but we should present the proper quote in the reference, of course. — SomeHuman 28 Aug2007 00:42 (UTC)

"Church controversy"?!

Could someone explain to me why is this section named "Church controversy", as if there's something controversial here. If it is, I'd like to know what exactly is the controversy. More fitting name would be "Persecution by the Church", and the only reason why I'm not changing it on the spot is that this is a featured article. GregorB 13:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there's controversy. Isn't that why you want to change it? Calling it "persecution" would suggest that Galileo was being unfairly singled out, and it give an anti-Church point of view. Roger 16:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So when Nikolai Bukharin goes to FA status, we'll have a "Show trials controversy" section, because calling it "persecution" would suggest he was unfairly singled out, and we would not want an anti-Stalin POV, wouldn't we? GregorB 17:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article on Nikolai Bukharin does not call his trial "persecution". We try to just give facts, not opinion.

The section doesn't refer to his trial being controversial, it refers to the fact that the dispute between Galileo and the Church was, by defintion, a controversy: there were two positions, with arguments for each side. The resulting persecution is not the main subject of the section, the dispute is. That there is or has been controversy over the interpration of Galileo Affair is not what the section title refers to.--ragesoss 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So, when Galileo was threatened with torture, that was really just a particularly clever argument by the Church? What about the fact that one side - and one side only - risked imprisonment or death for expressing dissent? The Bukharin parallel may appear extreme, but what's the difference? Submit - or else! (True, in Bukharin's case the "or else" part was missing.)

According to Wikipedia, persecution is "persistent mistreatment of an individual or group by another group". To say that Galileo and others like him weren't persecuted is to say that they were treated fairly. GregorB 12:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you might want to write an article on the history of free speech, or something like that. I suspect that you'll find lots of people who were subject to some treatment that you consider unfair. It is better for an encyclopedia article on Galileo to just stick to the facts. Roger 17:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting, and I quote: "that you consider unfair". Forgive my sarcasm, but I'd thought that putting people on trial for their beliefs is by and large considered unfair - but it seems it's just me. When you say "stick to the facts", I hear whitewash. I'm not interested in writing an article on the history of free speech; I think I've made my point, and the rest is up to Wikipedians. GregorB 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Roger, is this your blog? For a moment I thought that whitewash bit was perhaps a little too harsh, but now it appears to me that I got it right. GregorB 21:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess -- you don't like kigs, popes, fuedalism, etc. I happen to think that it is unfair for someone to be tried without rights to a jury trial and not to testify against himself. What do you want to do -- go thru all the historical WP entries and declare what you think was or was not unfair? Roger 21:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no torture and very little threat of it. Yes he was persecuted by the Church yet other scholars of the time with far more controversial views were not. Why would this be? Probably because they did not personally insult every other scientific expert at the time who were often more accurate in their views than Galileo. Nor did they personally attack the Pope and his family in any published works. Should he be put on trial for those reasons? Of course not. But it was his personality and his calling the Pope a simpleton (look at the correct translation of Simplicius into the Venetian he published in) that landed him in house arrest (not prison) and a heresy trial, not his scientific views. During the questioning while under arrest he at no time stood by his scientific view but rather argued that he was trying to support church doctrine and was misunderstood. Galileo was not a martyr of science.

Cultural depictions of Galileo Galilei

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

where did he go to school?

i need it for my science report. HELP! =]

Where was he Burried ?

Its says "Galileo was reburied on sacred ground at Santa Croce " presumably he was buried on non-sacred ground before that but that whole piece seems to be missing. I checked the "affair" page as well but not netioned there either

Father of Science?

He is great and all, but would he really be considered as the "Father of Science"??? Considering that there were way more scientists before him, NPOV, right?

I agree. He was a great scientist, but there is no consensus that he is the "father of science". Roger 18:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

He was the first to use the scientific method, namely, he did experiments to verify phenomena, which is the way science works today. This is why he is considered the "father" of science. Icemuon 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Galileo was not the first to do experiments to verify phenomena. People have been doing experiments for 1000s of years. Do you think that the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids without ever doing any experiments? Roger 22:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to elaborate, he was the first scientist in thousands of years to question Aristotle's teachings, many of which were not very scientific. Yes, there were others that performed experiments in the meantime but it never caught on until Galileo pretty much made it a standard method of science. This is highly significant. Icemuon 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not correct. Some of Aristotle's teachings were scientific, and some not. The same can be said of Galileo. Many people questioned Aristotle before Galileo. Roger 00:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For 2000 years European scientists adhered to the philosophy of Aristotle. Aristotle argued that, since our senses can be fooled, the only way to "know" the truth about nature was to deduce it by reason. Thus the planets "obviously" move in circular orbits. The essential thing here is that there is a vast body of literature from those times (250 B.C. to 1675 A.D.) containing discussions in terms of Aristotle, many citing him as the absolute certain truth, which conclusively prove that Europeans were using his methods.

Starting as early as 1250, and with increasing frequency there were those in Europe who questioned Aristotle. Galileo grew up within a climate where a significant minority of trained "scientists" were questioning Aristotle. These people together worked out a different method for finding the truth. This method differed from Aristotle’s method in having the scientist control all but one variable and then observe nature.

Galileo was the first to publish definitive results from this method, which completely upset Aristotelian dogma. He showed conclusively that Venus circled the Sun, and that there were moons circling Jupiter. Both completely violated received knowledge, and opened the floodgates to using this new method.

It is incorrect to say, "there is no consensus that he is the 'father of science'." Google delivers over 1550 pages with one of the phrases "Galileo father of science" or "Galileo father of modern science". This is a pretty good concensus. In the Wikipedia article the Two New Sciences there is a reference to a book which quotes Albert Einstein thus, "Galileo ... is the father of modern physics -- indeed of modern science".

It is clear that something changed dramatically in the early 1600s in Europe, since it is utterly inescapable that the sophistication and utility of our knowledge of the world has increased enormously (and continues to) since then. During the preceding 800 centuries technical knowledge increased at a snails pace. In 1600 there were no machines except those powered by wind and falling water. In a mere 4 centuries we have built the modern machine dominated world.

What I and Icemuon are stating is that all of this advancement comes from using something called the Scientific Method which Galileo clearly and distinctly articulated in two books, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems and Two New Sciences. From then on science as we know it was performed by Europeans and the method spread to the entire world. It is currently the only method used to learn more about the world around us. Obviously using this method works.

Finally, let me be clear. I know that others, in other cultures and in Europe, worked on developing (or in fact used) what would now be called "the scientific method" but that is not the point. The point is that there is a clear, and unassailable, written record, which demonstrates that the modern scientific enterprise, and the technological society that derives from it, is entirely based on the methods articulated by Galileo in those two books. I mean that I can show an unbroken chain of references from every scientific (or technical) article printed today back to those books.

Nwbeeson 21:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is just not true that Galileo's discovery of the moons of Jupiter was the result of questioning Aristotle or of applying a previously-unknown scientific method. He discovered the moons by looking a Jupiter in a telescope, and telescopes had not be previously available.

Galileo wrote some good books, but you greatly exaggerate his influence. He did not affect the progress of science that much. Roger 22:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to be careful to read what is written, not what you expect to see. I am being cheritable here. For it really seems to me that you are purposely distorting my clear explicit words to create a false image of my argument, which you can then refute.

I did not say "that Galileo's discovery of the moons of Jupiter was the result of questioning Aristotle". I said that this discovery "completely upset Aristotelian dogma" which is a different concept. There was a body of accepted knowledge, directly based on Aristotelian methods, among which was that every thing circles the Earth. Showing that (1) Venus has phases and thus must circle the Sun, and (2) bodies circle Jupiter, presented two examples that contradicted conclusions arrived at by using the Aristotelian method. Galileo then wrote a book discussing how he arrived at a result at odds with the Aristotelian result.

I also did not say "a previously-unknown scientific method". I quote myself, "let me be clear. I know that others, in other cultures and in Europe, worked on developing (or in fact used) what would now be called 'the scientific method'". I said the scientific method Galileo explicates in his books was under discussion from "1250" and was widely discussed as he was growing up.

----------<>----------

What Galileo did was (1) use these new methods; (2) achieve results that contradicted the central result achieved using the Aristotelian method; (3) publish these results with a clear explanation of the "scientific method" and of the Aristotelian method, and (4) clearly discussing why the new method succeeded and the old method failed. NOTE: Heliocentrism was widely circulated and accepted before Galileo. I am saying Galileo provided the first scientific proof that it is correct.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

Wikipedia has three core content policies. They are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research (NOR). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another.

The essence of NPOV is that material be published by a reliable source. The original motivation for the NOR policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas.

Thus your original question which started this section gets the definitive answer: Yes, Galileo is “the Father of Science” and that is a NPOV. I can trivially find 1550 references, as well as hundreds of books to support it. Your counter-claim that I “greatly exaggerate his influence. He did not affect the progress of science that much”, needs to be supported by reliable sources and not by your opinion alone. Thus this discussion is the correct place to bring up your doubts.

I should point out that you are ignoring my finding of 1550 web pages which state that Galileo is the “Father of Science”. If you disagree, as obviously you do, you are bucking a vast body of literature. This point has a long history, with argument and counter-argument, the result of which is a consensus that Galileo is indeed the “Father of Science”.

The ball is in your court. Can you give me the titles of books or of reliable sources which advocate your view? If not then I recommend that you read the books and examine the original literature, and if, after that, you still believe that “he did not affect the progress of science that much” write your own book.

Nwbeeson 20:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am all in favor of NPOV, but you make statements that are not supported by the facts. You say that "Venus has phases and thus must circle the Sun". Yes, Galileo saw phases of Venus but that only shows that the Sun-Venus-Earth angle changes over time. Venus would also have phases under the Ptolomaic model.

It is also not true that, "Galileo provided the first scientific proof that [Heliocentrism] is correct." Galileo gave some very good arguments, as well as some bad arguments. He gave no scientific proof, and there is no consensus among physicists that he did.

It is easy to find web sites that idolize Galileo, just as it is easy to find sites that idolize Newton, Aristotle, Einstein, and many others. It means very little. Roger 22:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Galileo was well known for being arrogant, condescending and of course wrong quite often in his scholarly papers. He challenged Keppler and his far more accurate assesment of tidal creation (despite scientific evidence and observation contrary. He also supported the incorrect Copernican view of the Solar System and rejected the outdated Ptolemic and the far more accurate Keppler view. In addition he believed Comets to be visual illusions of the atmosphere despite strong evidence to the contrary. He believed what he wanted to believe and only followed scientific method as long as it supported his beliefs and ignored it otherwise. He has been romanticized due to the heresy trial but other than the telescope his achievements scientifically were of minimal impact and far more often than not...wrong.

Vandal

Under "See also", there is some vandalism not in the basic text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.113.156 (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Vandal(2)

I seem to have eliminated the vandalism from the main text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.113.156 (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

"Although a devout Roman Catholic, Galileo fathered three children out of wedlock with Marina Gamba."

I challenge the unsupported statement that Galileo was a "devout" RC. It ought be removed; if the topic of G's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, is to be treated, it must be done more carefully. That phrase is unfootnoted and, I submit, wrong. I suggest that the mere fact that he had three children out of wedlock ought indicate that he was not "devout" in the sense of adhering, especially voluntarily, to RC-imposed prohibitions on action or belief. More broadly, even basic research into G's life will show that primarily he wanted to be free of religious imposition on his life. Freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion was his primary reason for his relocation from Pisa to Padua (Venice), where he stayed for 18 years. It was a good choice because the Doge of Venice in 1606 protected G and others from being summoned to Rome by the new Pope, Paul V, to be persecuted and/or murdered. In retaliation, the Pope excommunicated the Doge and all officials of Venice; in response, Venice exiled all the Jesuits from Venice. Kepler, a contemporary of G, WAS a practicing Lutheran and often moved to avoid govermental requirements that he become RC. For a readable overview of the impact of churches on various Western scientists, see, e.g., The Scientists by John and Mary Gribbon, Random House 2002.

I don't understand why the church was so upset because Galileo believed in the Copernican theory. Otherwise, thanks, this page has been a great help to me. Please email me why at kool_kitty1995@hotmail.com. --Jazzy 00:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

requesting a fact or a ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  about the secret ban

Article says:

• His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial and not enforced, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

1. What is the source (book and page), please? Isn't this a confusion with the 1616 prohibition of any book, past or future, about Copernic and heliocentrism? Besides Galileo published another book after his arrest, and it wasn't forbidden in Italy. Note: this unsourced fact is mentionned on at least 3 pages: Galileo_Galilei and Galileo_affair and Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems
2. Until then, can an editor please append ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  to this line? Thanks

62.147.38.11 07:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Pages missing in references

I'm a bit surprised that this Featured Article does not cite specific pages in its references. The Harvard referencing style for citing books and articles calls for page numbers in almost all cases. The format is (Author Date:Pages), for example (Drake 1953:12-15); please note lack of comma and spacing.

Perhaps we can add pages as we edit and a really ambitious/heroic/masochistic person with a good library might specify pages for existing references. --SteveMcCluskey 14:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed Material

I have removed the following material from the article: "In the 20th century some authorities, in particular the distinguished French historian of science Alexandre Koyré, challenged the validity of Galileo's experiments. The experiments reported in Two New Sciences to determine the law of acceleration of falling bodies, for instance, required accurate measurements of time, which appeared to be impossible with the technology of the 1600s. According to Koyré, the law was arrived at deductively, and the experiments were merely illustrative thought experiments. Later research, however, has validated the experiments. The experiments on falling bodies (actually balls rolling down an inclined plane) were replicated using the methods described by Galileo (Settle, 1961), and the precision of the results were consistent with Galileo's report. Later research into Galileo's unpublished working papers from as early as 1604 clearly showed that he had performed earlier experiments demonstrating the time-squared law (Drake, 1973; Wisan, 1984). These early results, however, disagreed with Galileo's theoretical expectations and he never published them (Naylor, 1990). His later published account describes a different form of the inclined plane experiment.The noted author Arthur Koestler, in his book 'The Sleepwalkers', argued that Galileo was grossly unscientific and dishonest in his methods, and rarely gave credit where due. Others argue that it is unfair to hold him to modern "scientific standards" (mathematical theory supported by evidential trial) with which he himself was only beginning to experiment." Koyre's criticism of Galileo has been discredited by later research, so it is just clutter to include it here. As for Koestler, he is no specialist on Galileo, and like thousands of others has a particular opinion. I see no reason why his opinion should be included unless it brings out some new fact. NN 20:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bruno

Someone keeps inserting "who had already executed Giordano Bruno by burning at the stake for defending a sun-centered world model and other heresies" or something similar. This is misleading. If you follow the link to Giordano Bruno, you'll find that Bruno was executed for other reasons. Please remove this phrase. Roger 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The precise nature of the indictment is admittedly slightly obscure: we do know that Bellarmine drew up a list of eight objectionable propositions, but what we do not have is a completely authoritative record of precisely what these might have been. J. Lewis MacIntyre has suggested that they bore on "(1) the distinction of persons in God; (2) the Incarnation of the Word; (3) the nature of the Holy Spirit; (4) the Divinity of Christ; (5, 6, 7) the necessity, eternity, and infinity of Nature; (8) the Transmigration of Souls." (Giordano Bruno: Mystic Martyr, 90). Frances Yates (a more up to date and more authoritative source) suggests that they touched "on God's infinity implying an infinite universe, on the mode of creation of the human soul, on the motion of the earth, on the stars being angels, on the earth as animated by a sensitive and rational soul, on there being many worlds", but she continues to argue "the legend that Bruno was prosecuted as a philosophical thinker, was burned for his daring views on innumerable worlds or on the movement of the earth, can no longer stand". (Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, 354–55). These are just a couple of books I happen to have readily to hand -- numerous others will say similar things. If Bruno's heliocentrism played any role at all in his condemnation, it was only a very minor role. In addition, although Bellarmine had been involved in Bruno's prosecution, it's also a gross misrepresentation to say that he "had already executed" Bruno, as though he'd been solely responsible for it. Hce1132 23:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation; I didn't have time to run down my copy of Yates. I've removed the passage about Bruno. SteveMcCluskey 00:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone is me. But I don't keep inserting it; the first time it only had "for defending a sun-centered world model", and the second time I thought it would be more acceptable with "and other heresies". If we can't specifically show that the sun-centered world view was part of the heresy that he was burned for, it is still worthwhile mentioning that this Bellarmine guy was the same who had, not long before, burned at the stake a heretic who was known for espousing heliocentrism, since Galileo was well aware of that history. It clarifies who we are dealing with. So, I'll try again, not asserting the contested point. Dicklyon 04:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your new version says, "Cardinal Bellarmine (who had recently had Giordano Bruno, another recent proponent of a sun-centered world view, burned at the stake for heresy[4]),". It is still misleading. It suggests Bruno was sole responsible for burning Bruno, that a sun-centered world view was already found to be a heresy, and that the sun-centered world view had something to do with Bruno's punishment. Maybe you could just say "who also presided over the trial of Giordano Bruno", and let the reader look that up if he wishes. It is a very minor point. Roger 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you think it is misleading. Did you read the reference? All of what you inferred there is pretty strongly supported by the historical record. The only thing uncertain is whether holding to heliocentrism was included in the specific heresy charges of which he was convicted. Dicklyon 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

galileo galilei

did galileo galilei get married or have any kids —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.146.238.162 (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

galileo galilei

Did Galileo Galilei ever get married and have any kids? Was dat da only thing he was famous for is what was said did he ever do anythjing else with his life besides sience math and physics?Is there any thing that may not have been discovered or may not have been heared of yet maybe he had something put up or hid away that noone else new of is that maybe possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.146.238.162 (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Galileo in popular culture

A possible addition to the section on Galileo in popular culture: the song Galileo Galilei by the band Artichoke (which was played at the grand reopening of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles). Velvet Moth 07:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It could become a humongous list if every single reference to Galileo in popular culture were added. It is preferable to keep only very well-known references. Icemuon 09:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing Books

At least one of Galileo's writings seems to be missing. He wrote Bodies That Stay Atop Water or Move Within I. It was published in Florence in 1612. This information comes from Dava Sobel's Galileo's Daughter.

From the same source, I gather that he wrote a speech called Discourse on the Comets that was delivered by Mario Guiducci in 1619. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FlanaganT (talk • contribs) 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

There is a complete English translation, Discourse on Bodies in Water, University of Illinois Press, 1960. Copies can be found on www.abebooks.com, in all probability.

Also, The Controversy on the Comets of 1618 (Galileo Galilei, Horatio Grassi, Mario Guiducci, Johann Kepler (translated by Stillman Drake & C D O'Malley ), University of Pennsylvania Press, 1960; this has the whole series of books, including The Assayer. Dandrake 17:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Formal rehabilitation" date

The article currently states:

He was formally rehabilitated in 1741, when Pope Benedict XIV authorized the publication of Galileo's complete scientific works (a censored edition had been published in 1718), and in 1758 the general prohibition against heliocentrism was removed from the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

However, the source referenced implies that he wasn't recommended for formal rehabilitation until 1979 and it wasn't actually done until 1992: [1].

So, is a correction in order ? StuRat 21:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Seven Children?

Some people believe that Galileo was the first of not six, but seven children. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.147.17.33 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Galileo isn't a heratic

Galelio is now not ofishulee a hearatick, JP III igzoniradid him. --Alex331 00:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

PROBLEMS CONCERNING ITALIAN CULTURE

Definitively there are problems concerning Galileo as well. First was not Italian, because Italy did not exist, and then more problems concerning Italian Culture on Wikipedia

PLEASE SEE THE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/modernitaly Wikipedia Complaint

Regards Luca Benattiluca 13:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why point people to youtube? As for "Italy did not exist", the republic of italy did not, but the term "Italy" has been around since ancient times. Consider for example Livy's standard phrase "Dum haec in Italia geruntur..." Paul Koning 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lattis book on Clavius and Galileo

James M. Lattis has written an excellent book on Galileo and the controversy with Clavius, entitled "Between Copernicus and Galileo: Christopher Clavius and the collapse of ptolemaic cosmology".

I would like to add a reference to this and to consider putting in some material relating to Clavius who was Galileo's chief interlocutor and the standard source for astronomy before Galileo's time - how do other editors feel about this?

Alan XAX Freeman 23:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Such seeming contradictions" ..... ?

As a mathematician, I wonder what is meant by "Such seeming contradictions".

maybe just 'seeming' needs to be removed...

I'm not familiar with Galileo, so I'll leave it to someone else to consider that which is written.

Vandalism

Removed " i eat ur babies." from end of first paragraph in "Scientific Methods"

Youtube link to copyrighted material

Should there be external links to Youtube clips of what appears to be copyrighted material? It doesn't seem be appropriate given that Wikipedia tries to be very careful about honoring copyright. Paul Koning 15:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

New Picture

hi! i think this picture http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagem:Galileos_tomb.jpg is a better choiche for Galileo's tomb. if you wish take it. regards.Tetraktys-English 02:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain the logic of Category:Italian Roman Catholic

I brought up the same question when Bernini and Michaelangelo were assigned to this category.CARAVAGGISTI 23:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)