[Reading] ➬ Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo ➳ Galileo Galilei – Anguillais.us

Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondoGalileo S Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems, Published In Florence In , Was The Most Proximate Cause Of His Being Brought To Trial Before The Inquisition Using The Dialogue Form, A Genre Common In Classical Philosophical Works, Galileo Masterfully Demonstrates The Truth Of The Copernican System Over The Ptolemaic One, Proving, For The First Time, That The Earth Revolves Around The Sun Its Influence Is Incalculable The Dialogue Is Not Only One Of The Most Important Scientific Treatises Ever Written, But A Work Of Supreme Clarity And Accessibility, Remaining As Readable Now As When It Was First Published This Edition Uses The Definitive Text Established By The University Of California Press, In Stillman Drake S Translation, And Includes A Foreword By Albert Einstein And A New Introduction By J L Heilbron

[Reading] ➬ Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo ➳ Galileo Galilei – Anguillais.us
  • Paperback
  • 640 pages
  • Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo
  • Galileo Galilei
  • English
  • 09 November 2019
  • 9780375757662

    10 thoughts on “[Reading] ➬ Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo ➳ Galileo Galilei – Anguillais.us

  1. says:

    I should think that anyone who considered it reasonable for the whole universe to move in order to let the earth remain fixed would be irrational than one who should climb to the top of your cupola just to get a view of the city and its environs, and then demand that the whole countryside should revolve around him so that he would not have to take the trouble to turn his head. It often seems hard to justify reading old works of science After all, science continually advances pioneering works today will be obsolete tomorrow As a friend of mine said when he saw me reading this, That shit s outdated And it s true this shit is outdated Well, for one thing, understanding the history of the development of a theory often aids in the understanding of the theory Look at any given technical discipline today, and it s overwhelming you are presented with such an imposing edifice of knowledge that it seems impossible Yet even the largest oak was once an acorn, and even the most frightening equation was once an idle speculation Case in point Achieving a modern understanding of planetary orbits would require mastery of Einstein s theories no mean feat Flip back the pages in history, however, and you will end up here, at this delightful dialogue by a nettlesome Italian scientist, as accessible a book as ever you could hope for This book is rich and rewarding, but for some unexpected reasons What will strike most moderns readers, I suspect, is how plausible the Ptolemaic worldview appears in this dialogue To us alive today, who have seen the earth in photographs, the notion that the earth is the center of the universe seems absurd But back then, it was plain common sense, and for good reason Galileo s fictional Aristotelian philosopher, Simplicio, puts forward many arguments for the immobility of the earth, some merely silly, but many very sensible and convincing Indeed, I often felt like I had to take Simplicio s side, as Galileo subjects the good Ptolemaic philosopher to much abuse I d like to think that I would have sensed the force of the Copernican system if I were alive back then But really, I doubt it If the earth were moving, why wouldn t things you throw into the air land to the west of you Wouldn t we feel ourselves in motion Wouldn t canon balls travel much further one way than another Wouldn t we be thrown off into space Galileo s answer to all of these questions is the principal of inertia all inertial non accelerating frames of reference are equivalent That is, an experiment will look the same whether it s performed on a ship at constant velocity or on dry land In reality, the surface of the earth is non inertial, since it is undergoing acceleration due to its constant spinning motion Indeed the only reason we don t fly off is because of gravity, not because of inertia as Galileo argues But for practical purposes the earth s surface can be treated as an inertial reference frame Because this simple principle is the key to so many of Galileo s arguments, the final section of this book is trebly strange In the last few pages of this dialogue, Galileo triumphantly puts forward his erroneous theory of the tides as if it were the final nail in Ptolemy s coffin Galileo s theory was that the tides were caused by the movement of the earth, like water sloshing around a bowl on a spinning Lazy Susan But if this was what really caused the tides, then Galileo s principle of inertia would fall apart since if the earth s movements could move the oceans, couldn t it also push us humans around It s amazing that Galileo didn t mind this inconsistency It s as if Darwin ended On the Origin of Species with an argument that ducks were the direct descendants of daffodils Yet for all the many quirks and flaws in this work, for all the many digressions and there are quite a few it still shines Galileo is a strong writer and a superlative thinker following along the train of his thoughts is an adventure in itself But of course this work, like all works of science, is not ultimately about the mind of one man it is about the natural world And if you are like me, this book will make you think of the sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars in the sky will remind you that your world is spinning like a top, and that the very ground we stand on is flying through the dark of space, shielded by a wisp of clouds and that the firmament up above, something we often forget, is a window into the cosmos itself you will think about all this, and decide that maybe this shit isn t so outdated after all.

  2. says:

    A pleasant Venetian villa through the open window, we see tourists photographing each other with their iPads while gondolas traverse a canal in the background SALVIATI effusively greets his guests, SAGREDO and SIMPLICIO SALVIATI Welcome, dear friends, and many thanks for answering my urgent convocation It is my earnest wish that we now devote some hours to mutual discussion, as we have so often done before, but this time on a different topic to wit, that book written by Galileo in 1629, which has excited so much controversy in the nearly four centuries since it first appeared to an astonished world.SAGREDO Indeed, there is nothing that could afford me pleasure, for I know that no man has greater power than you, Salviati, to penetrate to the heart of things and make the difficult appear simple I am yours to command, and what little wit I have is entirely at your disposal.SALVIATI If my discourse has merit, it is as much due to the keen testing it has received at your hands as to any small ability I may myself possess And naturally I must also thank Simplicio, who will in his usual way propound the contrary hypotheses, and take it in good part that he is continually refuted and humiliated at our hands I hope he will understand that it is not done in any spirit of malice, but merely that the truth may be the plainly seen.SIMPLICIO To be honest, I do not know what you are talking about I feel that, on the whole, I have acquitted myself well in our verbal jousts But I wonder if we may not proceed to the matters on which we intended to converse for we have now spent many minutes on these polite exchanges, pleasant as they may be, and I cannot but help that I fear we may be in danger of losing our audience Indeed, if there were one criticism I feel tempted to level against our Linceian friend s book, it is that it is overlong, and contains too much that is at best of marginal relevance to the subjects it purportedly seeks to treat, and rather tends to divagate into side channels which with time have lost their urgency and interest.SALVIATI You are mistaken, Simplicio, and I will lead you to deduce that from facts that you already know full well Now tell me, is it not true that a book in many respects is like to a house SIMPLICIO I fail to grasp your meaning The one is made of words, and the other of bricks and mortar how could these be the same SALVIATI You are correct, my dear Simplicio, but you do not go far enough in your reasoning A heap of bricks is no house, just as a list of words is no book To build a house, you must skillfully arrange the bricks, to form the foundation, then the first storey, then the second, and so on and similarly, to make a book, the words must be arranged to create the introduction, then the first chapter, then the second, until one reaches the end SIMPLICIO This I grant you.SALVIATI Now one may look at a house, and feel that it is overlarge but if one should remove some of the bricks from a lower storey, what will happen SIMPLICIO It will collapse, of course.SALVIATI Exactly so And in the same way, were we to remove some of the words from this book, the argument would fall of its own accord for just as the higher bricks in a house are balanced on the lower, so the later words of a book rest on the earlier Now do you see SIMPLICIO But SAGREDO I, for my part, am quite overcome by the elegance of Salviati s reasoning truly, if this be the only thing I learn today, I shall count myself well rewarded already And now I think we must heed Simplicio s warning, and move on to weightier matters, namely the content of the book and the question of how well it has withstood the test of the years.SALVIATI An excellent plan Simplicio, lest you again tax us with losing time in overlong and prolix explanations, I beg you to do us the honour of guiding our conversation in an appropriate direction What is your opinion here SIMPLICIO Well, surely all the world is now in agreement on this point Galileo, the revered author of this book, is universally acknowledged as a martyr, maybe even the foremost martyr, of science in its age old war with religion time has given him right on each and every point he brought up, and has long covered his ecclesiastical opponents in shame and ignominy Indeed, his words, Eppur si muove, have become a veritable rallying cry for scientists in their fight against base religious superstition.SALVIATI Though this phrase does not in fact appear anywhere in the book, and there is some doubt as to whether Galileo ever said it.SIMPLICIO This is of little matter The important thing is Galileo s scientific arguments, which eloquently speak for themselves.SALVIATI By his scientific arguments, you mean his proofs that the Earth rotates on its axis and circles the sun, rather than standing still in the center of the universe, as argued by Aristotle and the Peripatetic school SIMPLICIO Quite so, that is exactly what I refer to.SALVIATI Now tell me, which of Galileo s several arguments did he consider weightiest and of most significance SIMPLICIO It is some time since I read the Dialogue I fear I do not recall it in sufficient detail to be able to answer.SALVIATI Then I shall ask you quickly to read the final chapter, so that you can remind yourself of its content Here, I have brought a copy with me Well SIMPLICIO It is true, he does consider his argument from the nature of the tides to be the most convincing and with the advance of scientific knowledge, it would appear that it is not correct in every detail.SAGREDO My dear Simplicio, you are too kind to your revered author To say that it is not correct in every detail is the grossest of understatements say rather, that it is utterly fallacious from start to finish, and can be readily refuted by arguments which Galileo himself adduces in earlier parts of the book That he should obstinately have clung to it over the course of two decades and regarded it as the crowning jewel in his life s work is one of the great mysteries of science SALVIATI To make a bad matter worse, Galileo even goes so far as to pour scorn on what later turned out to be the correct hypothesis, namely that tides are caused by the gravitational influence of the moon and sun, as argued by the Catholic priest Marcantonio de Dominis in his 1624 pamphlet Euripus sive sententio de fluxu et refluxu maris, and he over castigates the author as dealing in occult speculations.SIMPLICIO I do not know what to say I find it hard to believe that the great Galileo could have mistaken himself to this extent, and I am sure that a closer reading of the passage will reveal much in his favour But even if your accusations have substance, which I do not concede, a single slip is hardly of great consequence The rest of the book is still sound Otherwise, I doubt that so many great scientists would speak as warmly as they do in Galileo s favour For example, Bertrand Russell in Science and Religion refers to him as the greatest man of his age , while A.D White in A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom says SALVIATI Let us for the moment leave to one side the opinions of these learned men, and continue with those of Galileo For example, please tell me a little about his observations on the paradox of the rotating Earth SIMPLICIO With pleasure Galileo confronted arguments that the Earth could not rotate, and utterly refuted them He showed that all motion was relative, in contradiction to the then established principles of Aristotle and with his celebrated experiment of dropping an object from the mast of a moving boat SALVIATI Was this experiment ever performed SIMPLICIO I am not sure But the result is so obvious that this is hardly necessary A moment s reflection suffices to show that SALVIATI Surely this is not a trivial matter Galileo repeatedly argues that all points of disagreement must be resolved by experiment yet, on a point crucial to his theory, he either did not perform the experiment, or gives no details of what was done.SIMPLICIO In that case, I am convinced that Galileo did perform the experiment And since the rest of the argument is clearly sound, this small point of doubt is no than an academic quibble.SAGREDO Steady on, Simplicio You are sure that the argument is sound SIMPLICIO Quite sure Though, as I said, I have not read the book recently.SALVIATI I think our friend touches here on the question of whether a rotating Earth would throw off all loose objects due to the action of a centrifugal force Can you tell us how Galileo answered this objection You may wish to read this passage first.SIMPLICIO I am somewhat confused It appears, on a superficial reading, that Galileo believes himself to have proved that no rotating planet, no matter how quickly it turns, can ever throw off an object into space But surely it is impossible that Galileo could have meant this I fear the translator has somehow garbled his words, or given them an unintended meaning.SALVIATI And why do you suspect that the translation is at fault SIMPLICIO It is surely obvious All the world knows that, when Galileo was confronted by the Inquisition, he was utterly in the right, and the the Inquisition in the wrong why, I have recently read as much in books by Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, peace be upon his memory Were there such gaps and lacunae in Galileo s reasoning as you suggest, once could well believe that matters were quite unclear, and that the Inquisition were not entirely unreasonable in their methods of proceeding.SALVIATI What I am asking is the following does a close study of the text lead you to this conclusion SIMPLICIO It is hardly important I am sure that these great thinkers could not be mistaken on such an important matter.SALVIATI But my dear Simplicio, Galileo would not wish you to quote authorities in his defence the entire burden of his argumentation is that one should examine the facts for oneself and ignore the opinions of authorities, be they ever so weighty I fear it was exactly this obstinacy, which falls dangerously close to the opinions of Luther and Calvin, which prompted the ire of the Holy See, in the person of Pope Urban VIII SAGREDO I am once again struck by the extraordinary insight which Salviati brings to bear on all matters we are truly fortunate to be in the presence of a man who can render the most difficult matters simple I feel that I have been stumbling about in the dark all through this discussion, and only now am able to see things in the clear light of day I will make haste to reread Galileo s book, paying the closest attention to all the matters of which Salviati speaks, so that I can form my own opinion of them And now, I fear that we have been overtaxing our aimiable friend s hospitality, and we are all wearied by our discussion so I move that we adjourn the day s proceedings, and continue again tomorrow when our spirits have been refreshed.

  3. says:

    The end of Scholasticism starts with this book The Aristotelian thought or as the book usually calls them The Peripatetics and its appeal to authority and the appearance of the phenomena as truth are overturned Sometimes what we see such as the sun rising in the east is not what is I loved the way Galileo uses the Aristotelian logic to poke holes in the Ptolemaic science particularly, using proof by contradiction Often in the other books I ve read they ll make a statement such that Galileo purposely kept his argument to the Ptolemaic versus the Copernican system and ignored the Tycho system because he couldn t refute that as easily After having read this book, I don t see that at all The argument on the movement of the sunspots moving across the sun are best explained by a moving earth or otherwise would lead to bizarre motions of the sun and would work against the Tycho system as well Except for the bible, I don t think any single book from all the books I ve read over the last five years has been mentioned or quoted frequently then this book has There are multiple reasons to really enjoy this book It s a great peek into the mindset of the very beginnings of modernity countermanding the pernicious influence of religious thought by permeating reason and rational thought Proof by authority is never sufficient The narrative we use to explain the world is as important as the phenomena Relativity is cool Even a brilliant person gets things wrong such as Galileo does with his tide hypothesis now I finally understand what that was Often the book would read exactly like the morons who today argue against Climate Change Particularly, the section were Galileo was trying to show the super nova of 1574 was in the firmament and not below the moon The argumentation that they were using sounded just like what the morons who say that the weather stations on earth or the satellites aren t recording accurately because of blah, blah, blah Science has multiple values and none of them are absolute One of it s values is how the story your telling fits into the current web of knowledge that s available The moving earth around the sun upsets everything that was thought to be known as true in 1610 Europe and shakes it to its core, but, in the end, good argumentation with the proper narrative will end out Fortunately, simplicity, accuracy, explanation, and prediction are some of the other values of science Relative thought is hard to grasp and Galileo makes it easy I would spend multiple days on two or three pages trying to digest what was being said It s always good to learn how other people think before gravity was a force and calculus wasn t yet discovered This version of the book I thought was very good It had necessary footnotes I didn t know Etiopico was Ethiopia and often referred to all of Africa below Egypt, e.g The least self aware statement I ve seen is in the forward by Albert Einstein which he wrote in June 1952 while criticizing Galileo for ignoring Keplers elliptical orbits a grotesque illustration of the fact that creative individuals are often not receptive Gee, Einstein maybe should have been receptive to quantum theory, don t you think

  4. says:

    Why hadn t I read this book before Not just one of the greatest texts in the history of science but fabulously written and entertaining as a dialogue We hear about Galileo in high school, but that isn t like getting it right from the source.

  5. says:

    I read parts of this book in 2016, when I was self studying physics I used a textbook that often referred to the main historical works of figures like Copernicus, Kepler and Galilei, and I thought it interesting to read parts of these references as well.I found Galilei s books surprisingly accessible and fun to read Works of Copernicus and Kepler are hard to read for modern day readers due to the heavy use of outdated and complex mathematics Galileo uses the form of a dialogue to bring his point across a world of difference In his first Dialogue, on the two main world systems Ptolemaic and Copernican, or geocentric and heliocentric respectively , Galileo uses three characters to explain the two different systems Salviati is the modern by Galilei s standards view of Copernicus, which set the Sun at the centre of the cosmos and the Earth and the five planets in circular motions around the Sun Simplicio represents the old system, based on the astronomical model of Ptolemy and the philosophy of Aristotle this is the system that was guiding in Christian theology at the time due to Thomas Aquinas who combined the philosophy of Aristotle with the Christian doctrines Salviati starts to explain the practical consequences of the Copernican view, while Simplicio keeps using Aristotelean objections to his views Sagredo, the third character, is a neutral listener and is persuaded, during the conversation, to adopt and of the new Copernican world system and drop and of the Christian Aristotelean world system This takes place during a fictional four days, in which different topics are discusses between the three characters.From what I remember, Salviati uses the Aristotelean style of arguing, leading to the defeat time and time again of Simplicio In other words, Salviati adopts Simplicio s way of arguing and hence defeats Simplicio with his own rules It is easy to see which character represents Galileo Salviati and it is not strange that this book led Galilei to be arrested by the Inquisition Galilei had written Siderius Nuncius some years before, in which he explained his discoveries with the telescope This was ground breaking science at the time, especially the discovery of the phases of Venus, which was the decisive observation that vindicated the Copernican world system The phases are the product of the motion of the Earth around the Sun and the orbit of Venus around the Sun The position of Venus relative to the Earth changes, hence the different sizes and shapes of Venus This led Galilei to conclude that the retrograde motion in the old system of Ptolemy was falsified, hence the Ptolemaic system should be dropped in the trash can and the Copernican system should be adopted In a time the Counter Reformation when the Catholic Church felt the need to regain and strengthen its orthodoxy, it s not strange that Galilei was warned not to publish anything any on the topic of Copernican astronomy.His first Dialogue was Galilei s refusal to accept this restriction Instead of explaining on the basis of observational evidence as in Siderius Nuncius the falsehood of the Ptolemaic world system, he now went head on and destroyed the whole Aristotelean Christian worldview philosophically In other words, he denied the Church warning not to publish and hence was arrested, tried and convicted to lifelong house arrest Galilei was old enough at the time of his trial, so lifelong house arrest wasn t that bad The worst thing for him was that he was not allowed to publish any Still, he managed to write a second dialogue in his dying days and sneak it out of his house to let it be published in Leyden The whole context of the Dialogue on the Two Chief World System makes this a remarkable book It is important as a historical document, culturally as well as scientifically As a bonus, it s written very well I can definitely recommend reading this book I, for one, plan to read this book again in the future as a whole instead of loose parts.

  6. says:

    Two New Sciences is definitely a unique physical treatise in that it is written as a Platonic style dialogue As the title suggests, the dialogue serves to highlight a shift in thought and the format does prove suitable to allow ideas and opinions to clash freely Simplicio is the clear cut Aristotelian of the group Sagredo and Salviati seem like mouthpieces for conflicting ideas with which Galileo himself had to reckon to arrive at his conclusions which are given in the text written by the Academician Another good thing about the dialogue style is that the reader can elect to follow closely or to remain a little aloof and just listen in I chose the latter for the majority part and this reading experience reminded me of my high school and college years where I mostly found myself merely present at conversations without being really involved in them pause brief but painful flashbacks which abruptly dissipate Whoa, sorryanyways While this fate isn t exactly enviable in real life social settings, the approach works well for this book Those who do choose to follow along, I admire you The Euclidean style of working with ratios and line segments rather than quantifying values with numbers dominates the many proofs Again, I think it s helpful as a work which displays the history of ideas at play and in transition Time honored opinions are bolstered or dismantled by experimental reasoning While it may be thought a criticism to be labeled an intermediate work for the science of Newton, there is truly no shame in that at all One can t have ends without process.

  7. says:

    This is still a fascinating read over 400 years later They don t write them like this any the classic dialogue format that one finds in classic writings such as those by Plato was not in general use However, given the clash between the two dominant models of the order of the universe at the time, it was a perfect choice, and well argued on each side Of course, the Copernican system was proved out, but the process by which it was done is an excellent example of the use of logic, and the demonstration of facts, observation and data as the trump cards over the thought experiment mindset behind the Ptolemaic system In that respect, the Dialogue is an important forerunner of the modern scientific paper it s written in such a way that it not only proves itself right, but explains how the data was gathered and analyzed, and invites others to duplicate the experiments that led to the proof This was what gave it such lasting power, despite the Catholic Church s attempts to suppress it Fortunately, Galileo had many powerful friends in Europe who made sure that it continued to circulate Amusingly, well over 400 years later, the best that the Church can come up with is that they may have been a little hasty when it came to Galileo they have yet to come out and say that they were wrong I recommend this book to anyone interested in astronomy, logic, mathematics or scientific inquiry The quality of the translation is impressive as well.

  8. says:

    This is a great book to start with for those interested in the scientific classics Written as a dialogue and in the vernacular rather than Latin, Dialogues is a much accessible read than the Copernicus text I started with There is still a bit of geometry that may be off putting to some readers, but even those without a science background should be able to follow the discussion if they have an interest.

  9. says:

    According to Socrates Everybody can grasp philosophical truths if they just use their innate reason , and that is what Galileo tried to do with Simplicio , he Galileo worked exactly like Socrates and his mother before him as a midwife , and tried to give birth to Simplicio s reason in time which scriptures was sacred and reason was forbidden.

  10. says:

    I believe in a new kind of science, every time an old religionhas been overcome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *