Talk:Galileo Galilei

Latest comment: 8 months ago by The Cosmic Ocean in topic Scientific contributions intro blockquote
Former featured articleGalileo Galilei is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 24, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 4, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
September 12, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
February 28, 2008Good article nomineeListed
December 3, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 12, 2004, April 12, 2005, April 12, 2006, August 25, 2007, August 25, 2008, August 25, 2009, August 25, 2010, August 25, 2011, August 25, 2013, August 25, 2015, August 25, 2020, and August 25, 2021.
Current status: Former featured article

Aristotle and falling bodies edit

The article contains an incorrect claim "This was contrary to what Aristotle had taught: that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, in direct proportion to weight" which is not anywhere in Aristotle and comes from a misreading by Philoponus.

Aristotle's words on the subject concern objects falling through a medium which is resisting the moment and the words are

"But since there are two factors, the force responsible for the downward motion of the heavy body and the disruption-resisting force of the continuous surface, there must be some ratio between the two. For in proportion as the force applied by the heavy thing towards disruption and division exceeds that which resides in the continuum, the quicker will it force its way down; only if the force of the heavy thing is the weaker, will it ride upon the surface. "

(On the Heavens, Book IV part 8)

This certainly does not say or imply that they fall faster in direct proportion to their weight, that is just a careless reading of the text by Philoponus who simply ignores the "two factors". It is certainly true that the speed of an object falling through a medium is proportional to the amount the downward force exceeds the resistance of the medium it is falling or sinking through.

See also "Aristotle's Physics: A Physicists Look" where he makes the same point about this and says "I show that Aristotelian physics is a correct and nonintuitive approximation of Newtonian physics in the suitable domain (motion in fluids) in the same technical sense in which Newton's theory is an approximation of Einstein's theory." Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , Spring 2015 , pp. 23 - 40

I think this line should be amended to: "This was contrary to what Aristotle was incorrectly believed to have taught: that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, in direct proportion to weight." and the primary source of Aristotle's own work given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.71.26 (talkcontribs) 03:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

GAR reassessment edit

Galileo Galilei edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. 20 citation needed tags and no one has stepped up to work on the considerable issues identified. (t · c) buidhe 08:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

As was noted this summer, this article has a fair amount of citation needed tags, unsourced paragraphs, and broken citations. I am also concerned about the writing quality given all the short stubby paragraphs in certain sections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Was Galileo allowed to publish after his trial? edit

The section on Galileo's Personal Library says "Under the restrictions of house arrest, he was forbidden to write or publish his ideas". But he did with his 1638 book Dialogues on the Two New Sciences which was available even in Italy. JFB80 (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

See Two New Sciences. This answers you, in some degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.119.235 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

On Galileo’s intentions regarding Simplicio edit

It is stated in the article (under ”Controversy over heliocentrism”) that: ”Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.” The reference provided for this statement in no way shows that ”most” historians think this way: it only includes the opinions of one historian (Stillman Drake) and one author-journalist (Arthur Koestler) on the matter of whether Simplicio represented Pope Urbanus VIII or not – which is not even directly related to the statement in question (i.e., whether or not Galileo made Simplicio a foolish Aristotelian out of malice towards the pope or not).

In fact, Simplicio says in the Dialogue that he has received his (Aristotelian) views from a ”high and learned person in front of whom one must keep silence”, which could be a reference to the pope even though Simplicio himself does not represent the pope.

Therefore, I propose removing or amending this statement unless concrete evidence of the views of ”most historians” can be shown. 88.115.56.38 (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Jupiter's moons - referenced manuscript is probably a forgery edit

The section on Jupiter's moons references a draft letter allegedly written by Galileo Galilei and currently held in the University of Michigan Harlan Hatcher Graduate Library.

This draft letter has been recently identified as a probably forgery, as discussed in the following Ars Technica article: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/librarys-prized-galileo-manuscript-turns-out-to-be-a-clever-forgery/ 195.59.198.57 (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Unity of measure edit

I read in the page distances only in miles, I suggest to indicate them also in kilometres 151.43.204.178 (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The word "mile", taken from the sources cited, is a translation of the Italian word "miglio" that occurs in the primary sources. The length of this unit varied from place to place in Italy, and even from time to time in any given place. Presumably, the "mile" which the Accademia del Cimento used would have been the Florentine mile of the 1660s, when the experiment described in the primary source was performed.
Galileo's description of his experiment was written at Arcetri, just outside Florence, in the 1630s, but no-one, as far as I know, has any idea where or when (or even if) the experiment he described actually took place. It could well have been performed before 1610 when he was living in Padua, so we can't be sure whether the "mile" he was referring to was a Venetian mile of that period, or a Florentine mile of the later period when he was writing.
I do believe it would be worth adding a footnote giving a brief explanation of the ambiguity in the meaning of the word "mile", and a range of its possible values in kilometres. Judging from the article Italian units of measurement, a range of 1.6 to 1.8km would be about right.
Freda Nurk (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Galileo Galilei edit

Galileo di Vincenzo Bonaiuti de' Galilei (15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642) was an Italian astronomer, physicist and engineer, sometimes described as a polymath. Commonly referred to as Galileo, his name was pronounced /ˌɡælɪˈleɪ.oʊ ˌɡælɪˈleɪ.iˌ/ (GAL-ih-LAY-oh GAL-ih-LAY-ee, Italian: [ɡaliˈlɛːo ɡaliˈlɛi]). He was born in the city of Pisa, then part of the Duchy of Florence.[4] Galileo has been called the "father" of observational astronomy,[5] modern-era classical physics,[6] the scientific method,[7] and modern science.[8]

Galileo Galilei Darshan Tarsariya (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Middle Finger" on Display edit

Is there anything deliberately symbolic about the fact that his middle finger from his right hand is on display. I know what it means today. Did it mean the same thing several centuries ago? Did they take the middle finger for this reason? Is Galileo "giving the finger" to the world, for all eternity? If so, I think the Article should mention it. Darshan Tarsariya (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copied content to "The Assayer". edit

Copied "Controversy over comets and The Assayer" to the article "The Assayer". The Cosmic Ocean (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Scientific contributions intro blockquote edit

Says Wikipedia:Quotations essay:

Quotations should generally be worked into the article text to avoid interrupting the flow. Quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing. Long quotations crowd the article and distract attention from other information.

However, I think this quote is unusually relevant at this place, and well in line with content of the article in general. But maybe it would be better with some text to introduce or comment on the quote. The Cosmic Ocean (Please feel free to modify or undo any of my edits as deemed appropriate.) (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply