Talk:Galileo Galilei

Template:WP1.0

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)

Galileo received a warning?

The current article mentions, at two places, that Galileo was "warned by Cardinal Bellarmine to abandon his support for heliocentrism—which he promised to do.". This "fact" needs needs a serious citation. This looks like a small detail - who cares if Galileo was warned? after all, he obviously know he was going against the religious doctrine of the time? But in fact, it is not a small detail, for two reasons. First, for Galileo to have "promised to abandon his support for heliocentrism" would have been completely out of character for him (this is where he differed from Copernicus, who had the same theory before Galileo, but kept quiet about it). Second, the "fact" that Galileo promised to the cardinal to keep silent about heliocentrism, but didn't - basically disobeying a direct order from the cardinal - was the main offence he was trialed for. So there is a question whether this is actually a fact. I heard a lecture by a renowned historian about Galileo, and he claims that knowledge today is that the warning - and the replied "promise" from Galileo - were both forged. At the trial, Galileo was not shown these documents, and had no way to prove they were forged, but a much later commission from the Vatican proved they were. I have no idea whether this is actually true (as I said, I heard this at a lecture), but at least the statement that Galileo received a warning should be qualified by a citation. 212.143.139.214 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you try to look up some sources for this? At the 1633 trial Galileo presented a document signed by Bellarmino that informed Galileo (way back in 1616) that Copernicanism had been condemned. That particular document indeed contains no evidence that Galileo was warned, etc. Tkuvho (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This topic is described in some detail in "Galileo" by S Drake, Oxford UP 1980 p.66 et seq. There it is said that Galileo was forbidden to hold or defend these views although he was free to describe them. It seems to me that the reason for this warning might have been that Galilio had been in contact with Kepler in Protestant Prague.JFB80 (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Kepler was a Protestant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.72.41 (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of name

I was curious to know the meaning of the name Galileo Galilei. It's very peculiar to have two names that sound so much the same. Also they are reminiscent of the biblican Galilee. But I couldn't find any information by searching on the web. Is there a region in Italy from which the name is derived? Is the matter a mystery? If it is, we could update the article to say so, because I imagine that others are curious as well. 162.233.200.11 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that you will have to do the linguistic work yourself. The family was originally named Bonaiuti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.12.119 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The question is a good one but it is possible the Users watching this Talk page won't know the answer. In that case, I recommend you ask the question again at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Dolphin (t)

The answer is right in the article, in the section "Early life". Paul Koning (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

What Aristotle said on motion

The article says in the section on falling bodies that Galileo was "refuting the generally accepted Aristotelian hypothesis that objects naturally slow down and stop unless a force acts upon them." This is generally accepted but is it true? In his 'Physics' Aristotle said that unless opposed, a body set in motion would continue in that motion because there is no reason why it should stop. That is the law of inertia stated long before Newton. But he did not elaborate on the nature of the force stopping the motion.JFB80 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC) The reference is Aristotle: Physica, book 4, section 8 on motions in a void. http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/physics/book4.html JFB80 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted father of indivisibles

@HelgeLund793: re "Reverted to last stable version of years" and "Deleted father of indivisibles from blocked editor": please explain (1) which years, (2) which editor, and (3) what is wrong with the properly sourced content, regardless the years or the editor. - DVdm (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The years are from 30/10/2001 to 18/5/2015. The article managed without indivisibles for those years. The blocked editor is Tkuvho. He has fallen silent, for some reason. The alleged sources are Amir Alexander and Tiziana Bascelli. Amir Alexander says that the Jesuits are opposed to democracy and your cell phone. As indivisibles are non-existent, they can not be sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelgeLund793 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

That's not sufficient as a explanation. I don't see what is wrong with the sources. Sources don't have to demonstrate the existence of indivisibles. They have to back the fact that Galileo was experimenting with them in formulating his law of falling bodies. Apparently he was. The content survived here for a sufficiently long time, so I will restore it per wp:NOCONSENSUS, "retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit"). Comments from other contributors are of course welcome. - DVdm (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor Tkuvho is not blocked. He was blocked for 24 hours on June 25th, for edit warring on The Assayer article, but that block has long since expired. Even if it hadn't, I don't see what relevance it would have to the acceptability of the disputed content. I do have my own doubts about the appropriateness of this content, though. Although both cited sources are undoubtedly reliable, the disputed passage seems to have been cobbled together by synthesizing bits and pieces from both.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Calculus was being introduced in 1850 B.C. This is before Galileo's time. Phrases like "fiercely opposed by the Jesuits" appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.128.31 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Galileo is said to be the "father" of "the method of indivisibles", itself said to be the "forerunner" of calculus. As calculus was being introduced in 1850 B.C., the sources, Amir and Bascelli, are wildly anachronistic. So is anyone posting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.128.31 (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

T and I were blocked edit while warring, which we both regret, so let's move on. I dislike the indivisibles stuff; I think T is pushing fringe stuff with that. Also, our current page about method of indivisibles is actually a redirect to Cavalieri's principle so I've reworked the text around there. Although I've just had fun reading about Fubini's theorem in Lesbesgue integration, I'm quite shaky on this stuff let alone the history, so do please correct me William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Galileo's discussion of falling bodies, to which Amir refers, is often held to be related to (dependent on?) the medieval discussions of the latitude of forms, especially those of Nicole Oresme, which provide similar analyses of uniformly accelerated motion (although not in the special case of falling bodies. Marshal Clagett (Nicole Oresme and the Medieval Geometry of Qualiteis and Motions, pp. 105-106) cites a number of printed books that were potentially available to Galileo (some of which he had cited in his earlier works) which contained these analyses of uniform acceleration.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading a little further into Amir's work, he appears to be stretching by trying to relate Galileo's work on falling bodies to the mathematical concept of infinitesimals. The study of falling bodies is more closely tied to medieval antecedents than it is to later developments of calculus and infinitesimals -- to say nothing of Galileo's own work on physical infinitesimals. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Clagett translates and discusses the medieval sources for the study of uniform acceleration extensively in his The Science of Mechanics in the Middle Ages, pp. 331-418. He addresses their influences on Galileo at p. 346:

"Galileo was in all probability not acquainted with Oreme's De configurationibus, but he could have easily read the published accounts of the mean speed theorem with geometric proof found in the treatises of Casali and Blasius of Parma. For the sake of comparison I have given in Document 6.5 Galileo's geometric proof of the mean speed theorem. I think it can hardly be doubted that Galileo obtained both the theorem and the essentials of its proof from the medieval Oxford-Paris tradition, although the exact sources he used are not known. I have also given the geometric proof Of Isaac Beekman in Document 6.6. It can be remarked that Beekman's proof contains the first real improvement over Oresme's treatment, since his treatment of infinitesimals is more explicit."

Clagett's comment on Beekman (which I've boldfaced) limits the significance of Galileo's use of mathematical infinitesimals.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:29, 2 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)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azul411 --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 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)

Tag team

The tag team are still at work on these two articles.