Year and place of first publication: 1632, Italy
Literary form: scientific monograph
The work of the great Italian astronomer, mathematician and physicist Galileo Galilei had a profound impact on the development of science and philosophy, laying the foundations of modern experimental science and deepening man's understanding of nature and the universe. Although the Polish astronomer Copernicus argued in On the Rotation of the Celestial Spheres, published in 1543, that the Sun was the center of the universe and the Earth a planet that rotated, belief in the Ptolemaic geocentric system (named after the 2nd century astronomer Ptolemy) prevailed. the beginning of the 17th century. Ptolemy's theory placed the stationary Earth at the center of the universe, and the Sun, Moon and five planets revolved around it, fitting into complex system circular movements.
When Galileo, a professor of mathematics at the University of Pisa, first looked at the sky through a refractive telescope that he had constructed himself, half a century had passed since Copernicus came up with his theory of a heliocentric universe. However, for the first time, experimental observation of the heavens through a telescope confirmed the Copernican hypothesis. In 1610, Galileo published The Starry Messenger, a twenty-four-page pamphlet documenting his astronomical observations of the moon and planets. Galileo described there four previously unknown objects he discovered. celestial bodies a, moving around the planet Jupiter and proved that Copernicus' theory was correct. He also noted that the Moon is not a body emitting its own light, but it is illuminated by the light of the Sun.
The Senate of Venice awarded Galileo a salary for his discoveries, and he became mathematician to the Duke of Tuscany. In 1613, he published Letters Concerning Sunspots, in which he made public his belief in Copernicus' theory. Galileo was accused of saying that "the book of Nature is written in mathematical symbols" and that in observation and measurement lies the science of the future. In 1632, Galileo published a work that was destined to become a turning point in the history of science - “Dialogue on the two main world systems - Ptolemaic and Copernican.”
In his dialogue with the Platonic tradition, Galileo allowed the arguments for and against the Copernican system to be presented to his three friends: a Florentine who believed in the Copernican system, an Aristotelian who supported the geocentric theory, and a Venetian aristocrat, for whose benefit they pursued the debate. Galileo wrote the text on Italian for non-specialists, instead of writing in Latin - the language of scientists and intellectuals.
In structuring the Dialogue, Galileo conformed to church instructions that the heliocentric theory could be discussed as a useful mathematical hypothesis, but not as a manifestation of physical reality. However, the views he expressed in the Dialogue clearly supported the Copernican system. Galileo discovered that the Earth, like other planets, rotated on its axis, and the planets revolved around the Sun in elliptical orbits determined by the force of gravity. The idea of a finite universe contained in some external sphere of unchanging perfection was rejected. By proving that the Earth was not the center of creation, but rather an insignificant part of it, Galileo overturned the medieval system of cosmology based on Aristotle's theories about the motion of bodies.
In the Dialogue, Galileo expressed two principles that became the guiding principles modern science. First, statements and hypotheses concerning nature must always be based on observation and not on authority; and secondly, natural processes can best be understood if they are represented in the language of mathematics.
CENSORSHIP HISTORY
In 1616, the Copernican system was declared dangerous to the faith, and Galileo, summoned to Rome, was warned by Pope Paul V not to "hold, teach, or defend" Copernican theories. Galileo promised to obey the pope's instructions and returned to Florence. Similar theories, published by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler in the New Astronomy, were banned by the pope in 1619. According to the papal bull that accompanied this ban, the study and even reading of the books of Copernicus and Kepler was prohibited.
In 1624, Galileo traveled to Rome again to pay his respects to the newly appointed Pope Urban VIII.
Despite the 1616 ban, he asked the pope for permission to publish a book comparing the doctrines of Ptolemy and Copernicus. The Pope refused his request.
Despite warnings from the Vatican, which listed numerous corrections that would need to be made to the book before any of Copernicus' theories could be published, Galileo published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World in 1632. He tried to satisfy the authorities by including a foreword by a leading Vatican theologian describing Copernicus' theory as merely an interesting intellectual exercise. But dad was not convinced. The book attracted the attention of all Europe. The growing threat of Protestantism provoked the pope to an aggressive reaction - for the sake of preserving the unity of church dogma.
Galileo's enemies in the Vatican then suggested that by publishing the book under a colophon (the publisher's emblem) of three fishes - a common imprint of Landini's Florentine printing house - Galileo had made a slanderous reference to the three illiterate nephews of Pope Urban VIII, whom he had promoted in the church hierarchy. They further suggested that under one of the participants in the dialogue, Simplicio, a conservative defender of geocentric views of the universe, a caricature of the pope himself was drawn.
In February 1633, Galileo was called to Rome. Although he became seriously ill in Florence, and doctors warned him that he should not undertake such a journey in the middle of winter, as it might prove fatal, the pope threatened to forcibly bring him back in chains if he did not show up himself. The Grand Duke of Florence provided a stretcher in which Galileo was to be carried to Rome, where he was imprisoned. In June he stood trial on charges of heresy.
The trial focused on technicalities concerning what church leaders had told him during his visit to Rome in 1616 and how clearly he understood the pope's disapproval of Copernican theories. The verdict of the Inquisition stated that Galileo was “suspected of heresy, namely, that he believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures, according to which the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from East to West, and that the earth moves and is not the center of the world, that this opinion can be accepted and defended as possible - after it has been declared and determined that it is contrary to the Holy Scriptures ... "
Galileo was sentenced to indefinite imprisonment and was required to make a public and formal recantation. On the morning of June 22, 1633, at the age of 70, Galileo knelt before the court and declared: “With a pure heart and unfeigned faith, I renounce, curse and repudiate the previously expressed errors and heresies and also any and every sect and error that would enter in conflict with the Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never say or admit, verbally or in writing, anything that could bring such suspicions upon me...” “And yet it [the Earth] turns,” - According to legend, he muttered after his abdication.
In 1634, the Dialogue was formally condemned and banned along with all of Galileo's works. Galileo was imprisoned in a secluded house in Arcetri, on the outskirts of Florence, where he was allowed to receive visitors only with the permission of the pope's representative. During his imprisonment, Galileo managed to complete new job A Dialogue Concerning the Two New Sciences, which was smuggled out of Italy and published by Protestants in Leiden in 1638, four years before his death. For the last four years of his life, Galileo was blind. IN Eventually, the pope allowed the young scientist Vicenzo Viviani to help him. Galileo died in seclusion on January 8, 1642, a month later he would turn 78 years old.
The 1664 Index of Prohibited Books confirmed the ban on the works of Copernicus and Galileo and all other works confirming the movement of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun. In 1753, the Index Benedict XIV issued a general ban on books that teach the heliocentric theory.
It was only in 1824, when Canon Settel, a professor of astronomy from Rome, published a work on modern scientific theories, the church finally announced the acceptance of "the general opinion of modern astronomers." In the next papal Index of 1835, the names of Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler were excluded. On October 31, 1992, Pope John Paul II formally exonerated Galileo - 359 years, four months and nine days after Galileo was forced to recant his heresy that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Galileo Galileo(15641642), Italian scientist, one of the founders of exact natural science. Son of V. Galilee. He fought against scholasticism and considered experience to be the basis of knowledge. He laid the foundations of modern mechanics: he put forward the idea of the relativity of motion, established the laws of inertia, free fall and movement of bodies on an inclined plane, addition of movements; discovered the isochronism of pendulum oscillations; was the first to study the strength of beams. His work on studying the nature of light, color, experiments to determine the speed of light, and the creation of optical instruments stimulated the development of optics. He built a telescope with 32-fold magnification, discovered mountains on the Moon, 4 satellites of Jupiter, phases of Venus, spots on the Sun, etc. He actively defended the heliocentric system of the world, for which he was subjected to trial by the Inquisition (1633), which forced him to renounce the teachings of N. Copernicus. Until the end of his life, Galileo was considered a “prisoner of the Inquisition” and was forced to live in his villa Arcetri near Florence. In 1992, Pope John Paul II declared the decision of the Inquisition court erroneous and rehabilitated Galileo.
Other books on similar topics:
| Author | Book | Description | Year | Price | Book type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Galileo Galileo | No matter how great the contribution to the creation of classical science by such giants as N. Copernicus, J. Kepler, Tycho Brahe and others, it is Galileo who is considered to be its main founder and hero. Of course... - @Ripol Classic, @ @Philo-sophia @ @ | 2018 | 848 | paper book | |
| Galileo Galileo | Dialogue about the two most important systems of the world | No matter how great the contribution to the creation of classical science by such giants as N. Copernicus, J. Kepler, Tycho Brahe and others, it is Galileo who is considered to be its main founder and hero. Of course... - @Ripol-Classic, @ @PHILO-SOPHIA @ @ | 2018 | 1207 | paper book |
| Galileo Galileo | Dialogue about the two most important systems of the world | No matter how great the contribution to the creation of classical science by such giants as N. Copernicus, J. Kepler, Tycho Brahe and others, it is Galileo who is considered to be its main founder and hero. Of course... - @RIPOL CLASSIC, @(format: 84x108/32, 918 pages) @Philo-sophia @ @ | 2018 | 504 | paper book |
| Galileo Galilei | Dialogue about the two most important systems of the world | No matter how great the contribution to the creation of classical science by such giants as N. Copernicus, J. Kepler, Tycho Brahe and others, it is Galileo who is considered to be its main founder and hero. Of course... - @Ripol Classic, @(format: 84x108/32, 918 pages) @- @ @ | 2018 | 1024 | paper book |
| Galileo Galilei | Reproduced in the original author's spelling of the 1948 edition (GITTL publishing house) - @ЁЁ Media, @ @- @ @ | 1948 | 2068 | paper book | |
| Galileo Galilei | Dialogue about the two most important systems of the world - Ptolemaic and Copernican | Reproduced in the original author's spelling of the 1948 edition (GITTL publishing house). В - @ЁЁ Media, @ @ @ @ | 1948 | 2326 | paper book |
See also in other dictionaries:
Two opposing doctrines of structure solar system and the movement of her bodies. According to heliocentric system of the world (from the Greek ἥλιος Sun), the Earth revolving around its own. axis, is one of the planets and revolves around the Sun together with them. IN… … Philosophical Encyclopedia
About the structure of the world under the supervision of the Inquisition: what Galileo was tried for- Today, January 17, Pope Benedict XVI was supposed to visit the capital’s Italian university La Sapienza at the invitation of the university’s leadership. However, the Vatican canceled the pontiff's visit. Almost 70 teachers, as well as university students... ... Encyclopedia of Newsmakers
Galileo Galileo- Galileo Galilei: life and work Galileo Galilei was born in Pisa on February 15, 1564. His parents were Vincenzo, a musician and businessman, and Giulia Ammannati. By 1581 belong written information about Galileo, a student of the Pisa school. He must… … Western philosophy from its origins to the present day
Galileo Galilei Galileo Galilei Portrait of Galileo Galilei (1635) by ... Wikipedia
- (Galilei) Galileo (15.2.1564, Pisa, 8.1.1642, Arcetri, near Florence), Italian physicist, mechanic and astronomer, one of the founders of natural science, poet, philologist and critic. G. belonged to the noble, but impoverished Florentine... ...
- (Galilei) Galileo (1564 1642) it. physicist, astronomer, mathematician. He paid significant attention to the general problems of the emerging scientific method, as well as to the delimitation of science from all kinds of pseudo-scientific and pseudoscientific theories. Made important... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
Galilei (Galilei) Galileo (15.2.1564, Pisa, 8.1.1642, Arcetri, near Florence), Italian physicist, mechanic and astronomer, one of the founders of natural science, poet, philologist and critic. G. belonged to a noble but impoverished Florentine family. Father… … Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Galileo before the Inquisition (painting by Cristiano Banti, 1857) The Galileo Trial is the inquisitorial trial of the 70-year-old physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei, which took place in 1632 in Rome. Galileo was accused of publicly supporting prohibited... ... Wikipedia
Galileo before the Inquisition (painting by Cristiano Banti, 1857) The Galileo trial is the inquisitorial trial of a 70-year-old physicist and astronomer ... Wikipedia
A prerequisite for the creation of the theory of relativity was the development of electrodynamics in the 19th century. The result of the generalization and theoretical understanding of experimental facts and patterns in the fields of electricity and magnetism were the equations... ... Wikipedia
History of Technology By Period and Region: Neolithic Revolution Ancient Egyptian Technologies Science and Technology ancient india Science and technology of ancient China Technologies of Ancient Greece Technologies of Ancient Rome Technologies of the Islamic world... ... Wikipedia
another; but despite all this, its darkness does not become any lighter for me. Now see if the same thing can happen for you?
Sagredo. I have seen; and although I lower my eye, I do not notice that this surface is any more illuminated or brightened; on the contrary, it seems to me rather that it is becoming darker.
Salviati. This means that for now we have verified that the objection is untenable. As to the explanation, I think this: since the surface of this paper is not perfectly level, only a very few rays are reflected in the direction of the incident rays, compared with the many that are reflected in opposite directions, and of these few, the more are always lost the more the visual rays approach these luminous reflected rays; and since it is not the falling rays, but those reflected in the eye that make an object appear illuminated, then when the eye is lowered, more is lost than gained, as it seemed to you yourself when you saw a leaf darker.
Sagredo. I am satisfied with the experience and explanation. Now it remains for Signor Simplicio to answer my second question, explaining what exactly motivates the Peripatetics to crave such precise sphericity in the celestial bodies.
Simplicio. Since celestial bodies are not born, they are indestructible
Why peripate-WE, NBIZMENYABMY, NvPRONITSAVM, BBSSSMVRTNY, ETC., THEN THEY SHOULD
tics admits- v/- f
Xia perfect With fe- We must be absolutely perfect; and from the fact that they are absolutely
pu"mocmb heavenly perfect, it follows that the perfection of every
kind; therefore, their form must also be perfect, i.e.
spherical, and spherical absolutely and perfectly, and not rough
and wrong.
Salviati.Where do you get this indestructibility?
Simplicio. Directly - from the absence of the opposite, and indirectly - from simple circular motion.
Salviati. Thus, as far as I conclude from your reasoning, in establishing the essence of the celestial bodies, such as indecipherability, immutability, etc., you do not introduce the spherical form as a cause or necessary requisite; after all, if it were the cause of the indestructible, then we could make wax, wood and other elementary matter indestructible at our discretion, giving them a spherical shape.
Simplicio. And is it not obvious that a wooden ball is better and longer preserved than a pyramid or other figure with angles, made of the same amount of the same wood?
THE FIRST DAY
Salviati.
This is absolutely correct, but this will not make it indestructible from being destroyed; on the contrary, it will continue to be destroyed, but will only be more durable. Therefore it should be noted that indestructibility can be greater or lesser, so that we can say: “This is less destructible than that,” as for example, jasper is less destructible than gray sandstone, but indestructibility cannot be greater or lesser, so it cannot be say: “One is more indestructible than the other,” if both are indestructible and eternal. This means that the difference in form can have an effect only in relation to those matters that are capable of existing more or less for a long time; but in eternal matters, which can only be equally eternal, the influence of form ceases. And therefore, since celestial matter is indestructible not due to form, but due to something else, then there is no need to worry so much about perfect sphericity, since if matter is indestructible, then no matter what form it has, it will always remain indestructible.
Salviati.
The train of thought is wonderful; Thus, if, for example, spherical crystal should be indestructible, i.e., have the ability to withstand all internal and external changes due to its shape, then it is not clear why by adding another crystal to it and bringing it, for example, to the shape of a cube, it must change inside, and not justThe form is notcause of non-destruction pity, but only greatercontinueessence
vovaniya.Destructibilitycould be biggerand smaller, but not
indestructible spine.Fore perfectionwe have an impacttion in destructiblebodies, but not forever
nykh.If it were more sphericalChinese form togetherla eternity, then that's itthe bodies would be forever
nym.
184 DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
outside, and must become less stable in relation to a new environment consisting of the same matter than to the old one of different matter, especially if destruction is really formed by opposites, as Aristotle says; and what else could be less opposite than the crystal itself to surround this crystal ball? But we don't notice how the hours pass; We will come to the end of our reasoning late if we have such long conversations about each particular thing. Moreover, my memory is so confused in so many questions that I can hardly remember the positions that Signor Simplicio proposed for consideration in order.
Simplicio. I remember them very well; in particular, on the issue of the mountainousness of the Moon, my explanation still remains in full force; it can be perfectly saved by saying that this is an illusion resulting from the fact that the parts of the Moon are unequally transparent. S a g p e d o. A little earlier, when Signor Simplicio attributed the apparent dissimilarity of the Moon, in accordance with the opinion of his friend, the famous peripatetic, to the different transparent and opaque parts of this Moon, just as the same illusions are observed in crystal and precious stones of many varieties, 38 I remembered one matter much more convenient for illustrating such phenomena, about such matter for which, as I am sure, this philosopher would pay any price: this is mother-of-pearl; when processed, it is given different shapes, but Mother of pearl can-
even when it is reduced to exceptional smoothness, still for ben imitate her-
g> smoke unequally
eyes he seems so variously concave and convex style surfaces
Salviati. Truly a wonderful thought; and what has not been done hitherto must be done another time; and if others were given as examples gems and crystal, which have nothing in common with the illusions of mother-of-pearl, then it would be good to bring him too. However, not wanting to deprive anyone of the opportunity to find a suitable answer, I will keep silent about it for now and will only try to eliminate now the objections raised by Signor Simplicio. I say that your explanation is too general, and since you do not apply it consistently to all the phenomena observed on the Moon and which lead me and others to consider it mountainous, I do not think that you can find many people who are ready to be satisfied with this teaching; I also think that neither you nor the author himself will find more peace of mind in him
DAY ONE 185
than in any other, far from your opinion. Of many unevenly visible
1C.!“, h gchg-1/ „ ^ You can't go to the moon
and many different phenomena that are observed every evening imitate when
DURING THE PASSAGE OF THE MOON, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REPRODUCE ANYTHING not ^prTeUachn^i LEAD BY MAKING AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION A BALL WITH A SMOOTH SURFACE opaque mat-
from more or less transparent and opaque parts, while, conversely, from any durable and opaque matter n^d^cmynnlfnod^a- it is possible to make such balls that, with just their sublime- ^"g^Hwou^iome" and depressions, under different lighting conditions, will represent exactly rshi. These are the very same types and changes that are observed hourly on the Moon. On them you will see very bright slopes of hills facing the light of the Sun, and behind them - discarded perfect Various phenomena pgenno dark shadows; you will see them larger or smaller JSS^^puSSfb depending on how these hills turn out to be Moons. remote from the boundary separating the illuminated part of the Moon from the shadowed one; you will see this very edge and the border stretching unevenly, as it should have been if the ball were smooth, but tortuous and jagged; you will see on the other side of this border, in the shaded part, many illuminated hills, standing apart from the rest of the already illuminated space; you will see that, depending on how the illumination increases, the said shadows decrease all the time until they disappear completely, so that not one of them is visible when the entire hemisphere is illuminated; and conversely, when the light passes to the other side of the lunar hemisphere, you recognize the same hills that you observed before, and you see that the projections of their shadows become opposite and grow; None of this, I repeat to you again, you can present to me with your transparency and opacity.
S a g p e d o. With the exception of one thing, which can still be imitated, the full moon, since then everything is illuminated and neither shadows nor other changes occurring from hills and depressions are visible. But please, Signor Salviati, do not waste any more time on this particular, since anyone who has had the patience to make observations for one or two lunar months and has not been convinced of this most obvious truth must be considered completely devoid of reason; Why waste time and words with such people?
Simplicio. Indeed, I did not make these observations, since I had neither curiosity nor the instrument with which to make them, but in the future I want to do them; for now we can leave this question unresolved and move on to the next point,
186 DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
having taken up the arguments by which you believe that the Earth can reflect the light of the Sun no less strongly than the Moon, while to me the Earth seems so dark and opaque that such a phenomenon seems completely impossible.
Salviati. The reason why you consider the Earth incapable of illumination is completely wrong, Signor Simplicio. But will it be good if I penetrate into the essence of your reasoning better than you yourself?
Simplicio. Whether I’m arguing whether it’s good or bad, perhaps you know better than me; but whether I reason well or not, I will never believe that you can penetrate better than me into the essence of my reasoning.
Salviati. And yet I will make you believe it. Tell me: if the Moon is almost full, so that it can be seen both during the day and in the middle of the night, then when does it seem brighter to you - during the day or at night?
Simplicio. At night, without any doubt; and I ka-
y° H god U ™yay T ~ getting married?
that the Moon imitates that pillar of clouds and fire which what m " during the day.
who accompanied the children of Israel: under the Sun he looked like
clouds, but at night it glowed brightly. So I sometimes watched the moon Moon visible during the day
during the day among the clouds, and she was as whitish as they were;
like a cloud.
at night it shone very brightly.
Salviati. So, if you never happened to see the Moon except during the day, would you consider it no brighter than that cloud?
Simplicio. Of this I am absolutely sure.
Salviati. Tell me now: do you think that the Moon is really more brilliant at night than during the day, or that it appears more brilliant due to some circumstance?
Simplicio. I think that in reality the Moon itself shines as much during the day as it does at night; but at night its light seems greater, since then we see it against a dark background of the sky; and during the day, when everything around is very light, it is only slightly superior to the background in light and appears to us less brilliant.
Salviati. Now tell me: have you ever seen the globe illuminated by the Sun in the middle of the night?
Simplicio. It seems to me that such a question can only be asked as a joke or to someone who is taken for a complete fool.
Salviati. Not at all, I consider you a very reasonable person and I ask the question seriously; Therefore, answer, and if later it seems to you that what I am saying is irrelevant, then
DAY ONE lg?
I will be ready to call myself a fool; After all, the one who asks stupidly is much more stupid than the one who is asked.
Salviati. This means that you have never seen the Earth illuminated except during the day, and you see the Moon shining in the sky even in the deepest night; this, Signor Simplicio, is the reason that makes you think that the Earth does not shine like the Moon; after all, if you could see the Earth illuminated, being at that time in a dark place, like ours at night, then you would see it shining more than the Moon. So, if you want the comparison to proceed correctly, then you need to draw a parallel between the light of the Earth and the light of the Moon, visible during the day and not at night, since we do not have to see the Earth illuminated except during the day. Is not it?
Simplicio. Of course it is.
Salviati. And since you yourself have already admitted that you saw the Moon during the day among whitish clouds and extremely similar in appearance to one of them, then you will first of all have to clouds are capable to realize that these clouds - and their matter is, of course, elemental - are capable of perceiving the same illumination as the Moon, and even more; you just have to resurrect in your imagination the huge clouds you sometimes saw, completely white as snow; there is no doubt that if one of these clouds could remain as luminous in the middle of the night, it would illuminate the surrounding areas for more than a hundred moons. This means that if we were sure that the Earth is illuminated by the Sun on a par with these clouds, then there would be no doubt that it shines no less than the Moon. But all doubt ceases once we see how the same clouds, in the absence of the Sun, remain at night as dark as the Earth; and even more than that, there is not one of us who has not seen low and distant clouds many times and doubted whether they were clouds or mountains: an obvious sign that the mountains are no less luminous than these clouds.
S a g p e d o. But why any other reasoning? There is the Moon up there, and here is a high wall illuminated by the Sun;
STAND BACK HERE SO THAT THE MOON IS VISIBLE NEAR THE WALL. Illuminated by the Sun
See now, what seems lighter to you? Can't you see TlupoTbTestirke what if there is an advantage anywhere, is it at the wall? The sun hits less her.
188 DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
in ET At the walls U5 from here it is reflected on the walls of the hall, from them it
sunlight from WILL BE REFLECTED INTO THIS ROOM, SO THAT IN H66 IT COMES THICK
walls than petzeoe /-
frommoon. reflection; anyway, I'm sure there's more in the room
light than if the moon's light reached directly there.
Simplicio. Oh, I don’t think so, since the light of the Moon, especially when it is full, illuminates very strongly.
S a g p e d o. It seems strong due to the darkness of the surrounding dark places, but it is absolutely small and less than the light of twilight. The moon's light is weaker half an hour after sunset; this is clear, because only then twilight light. you begin to discern shadows of bodies illuminated by the Moon on Earth. And whether this third reflection in this room illuminates more strongly than the first reflection from the Moon, you can find out if you go there to read a book and then try to do the same this evening by the light of the Moon, to see whether it is then just as easy to read or more difficult; I think, in any case, that it will not be so easy to read, Salviati. Now, Signor Simplicio, you can understand (if only you are satisfied) that you yourself really already knew that the Earth shines no less than the Moon; just a reminder of some things already known to you, and not taught by me, convinced you of this; After all, it was not I who taught you that the moon seems more brilliant at night than during the day - you knew that yourself; you also knew that the cloud seemed as bright as the Moon; you also knew that the illumination of the Earth is not visible at night, in a word, you knew everything without realizing that you knew it. Hence, rationally speaking, you should not find it difficult to admit that the reflection of the Earth can illuminate the dark part of the Moon with no less light than the one with which the Moon illuminates the darkness of the night, but on the contrary, much more, since the Earth is forty times larger than the Moon.
Simplicio. Indeed, I thought that the secondary light was the Moon's own light.
Salviati. Also, you know this yourself, but you don’t notice that you know. Tell me: didn’t you yourself know that the Moon seems...
Illuminated bodies THE NIGHT IS MUCH MORE LIGHTBY, H6M DN6M, BECAUSE OF THE DARKNESS
surrounding background? And don’t you know in general that every luminous body appears brighter the darker its surroundings?
Simplicio. I know this very well.
Salviati. When the Moon has the shape of a crescent and this secondary light seems very bright to you, is it not always close to the Sun at this time and, therefore, visible during twilight?
DAY ONE 189
S i m p l i h i o. Exactly, and many times I longed for it to become darker, so that I could see this light more brightly, but the Moon set before the dark night came.
Salviati. So you know very well that in the dead of night this light would appear much stronger?
Sim.plichi o. Yes, sir, and even stronger if it were possible to remove the great light of the horns touched by the Sun: their presence greatly darkens the other, smaller light.
Salviati. Doesn’t it sometimes happen that in the middle of the darkest night you can see the entire disk of the Moon, completely not illuminated by the Sun?
Simplicio. I don't know if this ever happens, except during a total eclipse of the moon.
Salviati. Then, it means, this light of hers should seem especially alive, since then it appears against a completely dark background and is not overshadowed by the brightness of the luminiferous horns; but how brilliant did you see her in this position?
Simplicio. I sometimes saw it copper-colored and slightly whitish, and sometimes it became so dark that I completely lost sight of it 39 .
Salviati. So how can it be her own light that you see so bright in the whiteness of twilight, despite the large and adjacent shine of the horns, and which then, on the darkest night, when all other light is absent, does not appear at all?
Simplicio. I have heard the opinion that the Moon borrows this light from other stars, in particular from Venus, its neighbor.
Salviati. And this is equally absurd, since during his total eclipse she should still appear more brilliant than ever; after all, it cannot be argued that the shadow of the Earth obscures Venus or other stars from it, and at this time it is deprived of light because night reigns on the earth’s hemisphere facing the Moon at that time, that is, the complete absence of light from the Sun. With careful observations, you will clearly see that the Moon, when it has the shape of a thin sickle, illuminates the Earth very little, and that as the part illuminated by the Sun grows on it, the brilliance that reaches us reflected from it grows for us; in the same way, the Moon appears to us to be very bright when it has the shape of a thin sickle and, due to its position between the Sun and the Earth, sees a very significant part of the earth’s hemisphere illuminated; As we move away from the Sun and approach the quadrature, this light decreases
190 DIALOGUE ABOUT TWO THE MOST IMPORTANT SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
and behind the square it is visible very faintly, since then the luminiferous part of the Earth is increasingly lost from sight; the opposite would have to happen if this light were her own or if it were communicated to her by the stars, since then we could see it in the dead of night and in very dark surroundings.
Simplicio. Please stop, because I just remembered how I read in a modern book with different
According to someoneCONCLUSIONS 40 , FULL OF MANY NEWS, “WHAT IS THIS SECONDARY SV6TLt. iCh empty Not CREATED BY THE STARS, H6 IS THE MOON’S OWN LIGHT AND
The sun. least of all communicated to her by the Earth, but that it comes from that
the same illumination by the Sun; since the substance of the lunar sphere is to some extent transparent, this illumination penetrates the entire body of the Moon, but especially vividly illuminates the surface of the hemisphere facing the rays of the Sun, and the depth, absorbing and, so to speak, saturated with this light like a cloud or crystal, transmits it and becomes noticeably lighter. And this (if I remember correctly) the author proves with authority, experience and arguments with references to Cleomedes, Vitellius, Macrobius and some other modern author. It is known from experience, he adds, that the light appears especially bright on days close to conjunction, that is, when the Moon is crescent-shaped, and is especially strong at the edges of the Moon. In addition, this author writes that during solar eclipses, when the Moon is in front of the disk of the Sun, one can see how it shines through, especially near the outer circle. In part of the conclusions, it seems to me that he says that since this cannot come either from the Earth, or from the stars, or from the Moon itself, then it must inevitably come from the Sun; Moreover, under this premise, all individual details are perfectly explained. Thus, the reason why this secondary light appears especially vibrant near the outer edge is the small amount of space that must be penetrated by the rays of the Sun, since the largest of the lines intersecting the circle passes through the center, and of the rest those most distant from the center are always fewer are closer to him. The fact that such light decreases little depends on the same reason, he says. And finally, in this way we find the reason why a lighter circle near the outer edge of the Moon is visible during solar eclipses in that part that is in front of the disk of the Sun, but not in that that is outside the disk; This happens because the rays of the Sun pass in a straight line to our eye through the opposite parts of the Moon, but passing through parts outside the disk - “Do not fall into
THE FIRST DAY191
Salviati. If this philosopher were the original author of this opinion, then I would not be surprised that he fell in love with his own opinion, forcing him to consider it true. But since he received this opinion from others, I cannot find sufficient grounds for his excuse, for he did not understand the fallacy of this explanation even after he had heard about the true cause of such a phenomenon and could be convinced by a thousand experiments and obvious coincidences that secondary light comes from the reflection of the Earth and nothing else. The knowledge of all this makes great demands on the insight of our author and all others who do not openly admit such an explanation, while the absence of such knowledge is in my eyes a sufficient excuse for older authors; I am quite sure that, having become acquainted with our explanation, they would have accepted it without any hesitation. If I may be allowed to speak quite frankly, I cannot believe that our modern author did not believe this explanation; I suspect that, not being able to take credit for his discoveries, he is trying to humiliate or disgrace him, at least in the eyes of the simpletons, whose number, as we know, is enormous; very many people are much more pleased with the approval of the crowd than with the recognition of a few outstanding people.
S a g p e d o. Wait a little, Signor Salviati; in my opinion, your speech does not directly hit the target: after all, the one who spreads nets to catch the majority will also be able to pass himself off as the author of other people’s discoveries, unless these discoveries are so old and so publicized from pulpits and squares, which is more than good everyone knows.
Salviati. Oh, I have an even worse opinion than you. What are you saying about what is disclosed and generally known? Isn't it the same thing - whether opinions and inventions are new to people or people ^° ^™°new M For
NEW TO THEM? IF YOU ARE READY TO BE SATISFIED WITH YOUR ASSESSMENTpeople or people but-
you are for the thoughts.
who are new to science from time to time, then you can even pretend to be the inventor of the alphabet and thereby arouse their veneration; and if later, over time, your cunning is revealed, then this will do little harm to your goal, since others will replace one, adding to the number of adherents. But let's start again
TO PROVE TO SIGNOR SIMPLICIO THE FAILURE OF REASONINGSecondary light Lu-„„_. _, r ./ we manifest ourselves in
new and incredible. It is wrong, firstly, that secondary light 0 ^Scml, K S a He°no
The moon is brighter near the outer edge than in the middle parts, and it seems mid-, reason
forms something like a ring or circle, more brilliant than 9th "
192 DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
the rest of the background. Indeed, if you look at the Moon at dusk, then at first glance you seem to notice such a circle; but this is only an optical illusion that comes from the difference in the boundaries with which the lunar disk, illuminated by this secondary light, comes into contact; after all, on the side of the Sun it borders on the very bright horns of the Moon, and on the other hand, its border area is the dark background of twilight; comparison with it makes the whiteness of the lunar disk seem brighter to us, while on the opposite side the latter is darkened by the even greater radiance of the horns. If our modern author tried to make an experiment by shielding his eyes from the primary SnStwHoe^Semo 4 "brilliance with an obstacle like the roof of some house or other moon. in such a way that only the area of the Moon remains visible
outside the horns, then he would see all of her equally luminous. Simplicio. However, I remember that he wrote that he used a similar trick to hide the shining sickle from himself.
S a l v i a t i. Oh, if this is so, then what I considered inattention on his part becomes a lie, bordering even on impudence, since everyone can repeat this experience as often as the sun shines. And that during an eclipse of the Sun, the disk of the Moon is visible differently, you can only see than in the absence of light, I very much doubt this, especially
to the same as when -. .,
we're covering it up effiency if the eclipse is incomplete, as is necessary and should have been the case during the author’s observations; but even if the Moon was seen as if shining, this does not contradict, but on the contrary, favors our opinion, since then the Moon is opposed by the entire earth’s hemisphere illuminated by the Sun, for the shadow of the Moon darkens only a very small part of it compared to the one that remains illuminated. The author adds that in this case that part of the edge that is in front of the Sun seems very light, but the part remaining outside it is not at all so, and that this happens because the sun's rays go to the eye in a straight line through the first part , but not through the second, this is one of the fables that adorn the storyteller's fictions; After all, if in order to make the secondary light of the lunar disk visible to us, the sun's rays must go directly to our eye, then how does the poor fellow not notice that we would see this secondary light only during eclipses of the Sun? And if only part of the Moon, at a distance from the solar disk of much less than half a degree, can deflect the rays of the Sun so that they do not reach our eye, then what happens when it is at a distance of twenty and thirty degrees, in what position
does she find herself on a new moon? And how will the rays of the Sun go, which must pass through the body of the Moon in order to reach our eye? This person portrays things step by step as they would have to be in order to confirm his propositions, and does not adapt his propositions step by step to things as they really are. Thus, in order that the radiance of the Sun may penetrate the substance of the Moon, he makes the latter to some extent translucent, similar in transparency to a cloud or crystal; but I don’t know how he will judge such transparency, if we imagine that the sun’s rays must penetrate the thickness of the cloud more than two thousand miles 42.
But let us suppose that he bravely answers: “This, they say, may well be the case with celestial bodies, which are structured differently than our elementary, impure and muddy bodies,” and let us force him to admit his mistake by means that do not allow an answer, or, better yet, to say, subterfuge. If you want to continue to assert that the substance of the Moon is transparent, then you will have to say: this transparency is of such a kind that in the case where the sun's rays should penetrate the entire thickness of the Moon, they are able to travel a space of more than two thousand miles, in the same case, when they have only a mile or less to travel, they penetrate no more into the matter of the Moon than into our mountains.
Salviati.
It is the mountains located on the Moon that testify to this, for, illuminated on one side by the Sun, theyA joke playedwith a person, wantingwe want to sell the secret of how you cantalk to someonesomewhere at a distance
nii thousand miles.
194 DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD Thick shadows are cast in the opposite direction, more defined and sharp than our shadows. If they were transparent, then we could not notice any irregularities on the surface of the Moon and could not see the illuminated peaks separated from the edge that separates the illuminated parts from the unilluminated; Likewise, we would not see this edge so clearly if the sun’s rays actually penetrated into the depths of the Moon. In view of what the author has said, the transition and boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated parts should also be seen as indefinite and consisting of a mixture of light and darkness, for it must be recognized that such a substance, which transmits the sun's rays to a depth of two thousand miles, destroys all difference arising from the difference one hundredth or even less of such depth; and yet the boundary separating the illuminated and unlit parts is clear and as sharp as the difference between white and black, especially where this boundary passes through that part of the Moon that is by nature brighter and more uneven; Where there are long-known spots, which are plains that run with a spherical slope and thus receive the sun's rays more indirectly, the boundary loses its sharpness due to weaker illumination. Finally, the fact that the secondary light of the Moon, according to you, does not decrease or weaken as the Moon grows, but constantly retains the same strength, is false; the light is little noticeable in quadratures, when, on the contrary, it should appear brighter, for then we could see it not only at dusk, but also in the middle of the dark night. So we can come to the conclusion that the reflection of the Earth is extremely significant on the Moon; What especially deserves your attention is that from here you can glean another most beautiful coincidence, namely: if it is true that the planets influence the Earth with their motion and light, then the Earth, back, able to influence them with the same light, and also, perhaps, with movement; but even if it does not move, then such an effect can still persist, for, as we have seen, the effect of light must be the same, since light is a reflection of the sun's rays, and as for movement, it produces nothing except changes in appearance , occur in exactly the same way, whether we make the Earth move while leaving the Sun motionless, or vice versa.
Simplicio. You will not find a single philosopher who would say that lower bodies act on celestial bodies. Aristotle claims exactly the opposite.
DAY ONE 195
Salviati. Aristotle and others who did not know that the Earth and the Moon mutually illuminate each other are worthy of apology, but those who demand that we recognize and believe them that the Moon acts on the Earth with its light, and admit with us, deserve blame. that the Earth illuminates the Moon, they deny the possibility of the Earth influencing the Moon.
Simplicio. As a result, I am still extremely unwilling to recognize the possibility of those relationships between the Moon and the Earth, the existence of which you want to convince me, putting the latter, so to speak, on the same level as the stars. Be that as it may, the isolation and the great distance separating it from the celestial bodies, it seems to me, should lead to a huge difference between them.
Salviati. You see, Signor Simplicio, this is an old attachment to established opinion; it is so firmly rooted that the facts that you bring against yourself seem to confirm it. If isolation and distance are factors sufficient to produce great differences in nature, then, on the contrary, contiguity and proximity must produce similarity; But isn't the Moon closer to the Earth than any of the other celestial bodies? Admit, then, by your own assumption (shared with you and many other philosophers), that between the Earth and the Moon there is Affinity between great intimacy. But let's go further; tell me what else remains ^responsibility N°с "their consider some of the objections you raise against closeness.
Simplicio. There is hardly anything left on the question of the hardness of the Moon, about which I argued that it is smooth and polished, and you, that it is mountainous. Another difficulty that arose for me stemmed from the conviction that the reflection of the sea, due to its smooth surface, should be lighter than the reflection from the earth, the surface of which is uneven and opaque.
Salviati. Regarding the first doubt, I will say that of the particles of the Earth, which, due to their gravity, all tend to approach as close as possible to the center, some still remain more distant from it than others; for example, mountains are more distant than plains, which comes from their strength and hardness (for if they consisted of liquid matter, they would be level); in the same way that some parts of the Moon remain elevated above the spherical surface of the parts ^l^SaatSmSi
more LOWER, SPEAKS ABOUT THEIR HARDNESS, WHY CAN IT BE ALLOWED,because it burns
that the matter of the Moon also forms a sphere due to the universal tendency one hundred "
196 DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
its parts to the center. Regarding the second doubt, I note that after the experiment that we made with mirrors, we seem to be able to understand perfectly well that the reflection coming from the sea will be much weaker than that coming from the earth, implying a comprehensive reflection, for, as regards the particular case reflection from a calm water surface to a certain place, then I have no doubt that the one who will be in such a place will
Reflection of light WILL SEE A STRONG REFLECTION FROM THE WATER, BUT FROM ALL OTHER POINTS
far from the sea - ^
faster than from the ground. THE WATER CONTENT APPEARS ABOUT T6MNOI, CH6M SURFACE 36ML.
And to see this in practice, let’s go into the hall and pour some water on this stone floor; tell me if you don't think Experience, I show- Are these wet slabs darker than other dry slabs? Of course, I!" H men™ R( %£tlo, seem; and this is how they will appear from any place, beyond than the reflection of the earth
Simplicio. From here I see the wet part as lighter than the rest of the floor, and I also see that this is because the light coming from the window is reflected towards me. S a l v i a t i. The poured water does nothing more than fill the minute depressions that are present in the slabs, and transform their surface into a perfect plane, from which the reflected rays go together to the same place; the rest of the floor, remaining dry, retains its unevenness, that is, the infinite variety of inclinations of the smallest particles, from where the reflected light rays go in different directions weaker than if they went together, and therefore it changes little or not at all in appearance when observation from different points; from all places it seems the same and, moreover, less bright than the direct reflection from the wet place. From this we conclude that the surface of the sea, visible from the Moon, seemed, with the exception of islands and rocks, completely flat and at the same time less light than the surface of the mountainous and uneven Earth. If I were not afraid of seeming to want too much, I would tell you that, according to my observations of the Moon Secondary light secondary light, which I consider to be the reflection of the globe, l^after"e much brighter two or three days before the conjunction than later, and brighter when we see the Moon rising in the east than in the evening, after the passage of the Sun, in the west; the reason for such changes is that the earth's hemisphere opposite the Moon, in the east, has little sea and much land, containing Asia, while, being in the west,
THE FIRST DAY
it has vast seas in front of it - the entire Atlantic Ocean all the way to America; A plausible enough argument to prove that the reflection from water is less than the reflection from land.
Simplicio 43. “So, in your opinion, the Earth should appear the same in appearance as both main parts of the surface that we distinguish on the Moon.” But do you believe that those large spots that are noticeable on the lunar face are really seas, and the rest of the lighter part is land or its likeness?
Salviati. What you ask is the main difference that I find between the Moon and the Earth, to which it is time for us to descend, for perhaps we have remained on the Moon too long. So, I say that if there were no other reasons in nature why two surfaces illuminated by the Sun would appear one brighter than the other, except for the fact that one is the surface of the Earth, the other is the surface of water, then it would be necessary to admit that the surface of the Moon consists partly of earth, partly of water, but since we know many causes that can produce the same effects, and probably even more of them remain unknown to us, I will not take the liberty of asserting that both must exist on the moon. We have seen before how a plate of bleached silver, after polishing and grinding, turns from light to dark, the wet part of the earth appearing darker than the dry part; the mountains in the part covered with forests appear darker than bare and barren; the latter comes from the fact that many shadows fall on the wooded slopes, while the bare places are flooded with the Sun; this admixture of shadow acts in the same way as you may see on patterned velvet: cut silk appears much darker than uncut silk, owing to the shadows scattered between the individual fibers; in the same way, simple velvet is much darker than ermisin, woven from the same silk, so that if there were something like huge forests on the Moon, then in appearance they could appear to us as the spots that we observe; the same difference would exist if they were seas; and finally, it is possible that these spots are actually darker in color than the rest, just as snow makes mountains lighter. In any case, it is clearly visible that the darker parts of the Moon are moon"~ 1 ™mnsh™ these are plains with few, but still found on them lighter -"state walls and dams; the rest, the brighter space, is all rye - filled with rocks, mountains, dams, round and other
cet > mountains
The position of the sun
necessary for
quiet births, not»mowing on una.
Natural day
lasts on the moonone month.
on the Moon the Sun is
decreases and increaseshides with a differenceat 10spadiicoe,and on
Earth - in-ngra- & at owls -
outlines, and mainly around the spots stretch gran-
D ious GORNYb CSPI. THAT THESE STAINS ARE A SURFACE
The border separating the illuminated part from the dark one convinces us that this is flat: when the spots intersect, it forms a smooth line, but in the light parts it appears very winding and jagged. But I do not know whether this evenness of the surface in itself can be considered sufficient for it to appear dark, and I think that it is most likely not. Regardless of all this, I consider ^U N U extremely different from the Earth, since even if I imagine that these are not empty and not dead countries, I still do not assert on this basis that movements and life exist there > and it is less that plants, animals and other things similar to ours are born there; and if all this is even there, then it is completely different from ours and far exceeds any of our imagination. What prompts me to think so, first of all, is that I consider the matter of the lunar body not to consist of earth and water, and this alone is enough to exclude births and changes similar to ours; but even if we assume that there is land and water there, then under no circumstances would plants and animals be born there, and this is for two main reasons. Firstly, the changing positions of the Sun are so necessary for our births that without them there is nothing like it.
J^ GG G-"
there wouldn't be. But the behavior of the Sun in relation to the earth is very different from its behavior in relation to the Moon. As for daily illumination, on most of the Earth, every twenty-four hours there is part day and part night; on the Moon this phenomenon takes place in one month, as for the annual decrease and increase, as a result of which the Sun brings us different seasons and inequality of days and nights, then on
-yy G*
Duna they also end in one month;
^ ^^ and if our Sun rises and falls so that from maximum to minimum height it passes through a difference of approximately forty-seven degrees, i.e., as much as the distance from one tropic to another, then on the Moon this difference is only de- » and if our Sun rises and falls so that from maximum to minimum height it passes through a difference of approximately forty-seven degrees, i.e., as much as the distance from one tropic to another, then on the Moon this difference is only de-ji^
-v
They indicate the maximum latitudes of Draco on both sides of the ecliptic.
Consider now what the effect of the Sun would be within the hot zone if it continuously struck it with its rays for fifteen days; it is not difficult for you to understand that all the trees, grass and animals would perish; and if births do occur on the Moon, then the grasses, trees and animals must be completely different from those existing among us.
DAY ONE 199 Not Secondly, I consider it firmly established that there would be no
It happens
It’s raining, because if there were gatherings in some part
clouds, like around the Earth, then they should obscure
anything we can see through a telescope on the Moon;
in a word, some particle would change in appearance; such
I never noticed the phenomenon, despite long and diligent
observations; on the contrary, I have always seen the most monotonous, clean
S a g p e d o. To this one could object that either there is severe dew there, or that it rains there during the nights, that is, when the Sun does not illuminate the Moon.
Salviati. If, by virtue of other coincidences, we had indications that births similar to ours were taking place on the Moon, and only the assistance of the rains was missing, then we could find one or another means to replace them, as happens in Egypt with the floods of the Nile. But since out of the many conditions necessary for the production of such phenomena, we do not encounter a single one that would coincide with ours, then we do not have to try to introduce the only one that can be admitted, and then not due to reliable observation, but simply due to the absence objections. Moreover, if I were asked what exactly the first impression and pure natural reasoning dictate to me about the things that arise there, whether they are similar to ours or different from them, then I will always answer that they are completely different and completely unimaginable to us, and this, it seems to me, corresponds to the wealth of nature and the omnipotence of the creator and ruler.
S a g p e d o. It has always seemed to me extremely daring to try to make the human ability of understanding the measure of what nature can and knows how to create, whereas, on the contrary, there is not a single phenomenon in nature, no matter how small it may be, to complete WHICH THE MOST DEEP-THOUGHT COULD COME TO KNOW
Never anything G\
understanding perfectly~ MINDS.
dTa SUCH A BAD CLAIM TO CATCH EVERYTHING CAN HAVE her, some think - the only reason is that nothing has ever been understood; ™™" after all, if someone tried to understand one thing perfectly one time and really knew what complete knowledge is, then he would learn that in countless other conclusions he understands nothing 44 .
Salviati. Your reasoning is extremely convincing; in confirmation of this we have the experience of those who understand or did not understand something: the more wise they are, the sooner they realize and the more sincerely admit that they know little; and the most
the wise man of Greece, recognized by the oracles, openly said that he knew only that he knew nothing.
G and MP personally. We have to say, then, that either the oracle or Socrates himself was a liar, since the first one considers itthe wisest themselves, and the second says that he admits his complete ignorance.
Salviati. Neither one nor the other follows from this, since Oracle broadcast o g a sayings can be true. The Oracle recognizes Socrates
right when he " A * r J L L
acknowledges SocratesWISE COMPARED WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHOSE WISDOM
the wisest. limited; Socrates admits that he knows nothing about
to absolute wisdom, which is infinite, and since in infinity the same part is made up of “many”, as “little” and as “nothing” (to arrive, for example, at an infinite number, it makes no difference whether we add thousands, or tens, or zeros ), then Socrates knew perfectly well that his limited wisdom was nothing compared to the infinite wisdom, which he did not have. But since some knowledge is still found among people and it is not evenly distributed among everyone, Socrates could have possessed more of it than others, and thus the oracle’s saying is justified.
S a g p e d o. I think I understand this situation perfectly. Men, Signor Simplicio, have the power to act, but it does not belong to everyone in the same degree; and, undoubtedly, the power of the emperor is much greater than the power of a private individual; but both are nothing compared to the omnipotence of God. Among men, some understand agriculture better than many others; But what does the ability to plant a grape cutting in a hole have in common with the ability to force it to take root, to extract nutrition, to isolate parts from the latter - one suitable for the formation of leaves, another for the formation of shoots, a third for clusters and still others for juice or skin? - that is, with everything that the wisest nature creates? A this is just one example of the endless number of creations that nature produces. Infinite wisdom is already learned from him alone,
Divine sign and we can conclude 4 that divine knowledge is infinite in number
infinite number " ""
lo times infinitely.countless times.
Salviati. A here is another example. Are we not saying that the ability to discover the most beautiful statue in a piece of marble genius Does Buonarotti's genius compare with the mediocre abilities of other people? A this creation is but an imitation of one posture and arrangement of the external and superficial parts of the body of a motionless man; can this be compared to a person,
DAY ONE 201
created by nature, composed of so many external and internal parts, from so many muscles, tendons, veins, bones, serving for many different movements? And what do we say about feelings, about the abilities of the soul and, finally, about understanding? Can we not justifiably say that the sculpture of a statue is infinitely inferior to the education of a living person and even to the education of the most miserable worm?
Sagredo. And how do you think the Archita pigeon differs from a natural pigeon? 45
Simplicio. Either I am not one of the people who understand, or there is an obvious contradiction in this reasoning of yours. Of all the abilities attributed to man, created by nature, you place above all his inherent gift of knowledge, and a little earlier you said with Socrates that his knowledge was insignificant; therefore, it must be said that even nature has not understood the way to create a mind capable of knowledge.
Salviati. You object very wittily; to answer your remark we have to resort to philosophical distinction and say that the question of knowledge can be posed in two ways - A person knows a lot
, „ has intense
CO: ON THE INTENSIVE AND EXTENSIVE SIDE; EXTEN- understands little
sively, i.e. in relation to the set of cognizable objects, anstensivio - and this multitude is infinite, the knowledge of man is like nothing, although he knows thousands of truths, since a thousand compared to infinity is like zero; but if we take knowledge intensively, then since the term "intensive" means the perfect knowledge of any truth, then I maintain that the human mind knows some truths as perfectly and with such absolute certainty as nature itself has; such are the pure mathematical sciences, geometry and arithmetic; although the divine mind knows in them infinitely more truths, for it embraces them all, but in those few that the human mind has comprehended, I think its knowledge is equal in objective certainty to the divine, for it comes to understand their necessity, and highest degree there is no certainty. Simplicio. In my opinion, this was said very decisively and boldly.
Salviati. These are general provisions, far from any shadow of insolence or courage; they do no harm to the greatness of divine wisdom, just as the assertion that God cannot make created things uncreated does not at all detract from his omnipotence. But I suspect, Signor Simplicio, that you are afraid of my words because you did not understand them quite correctly.
The way of knowingga is different from spothe knowledge of people.
A man goes toknowledge by racejudgments.
Definitions of coverageare potentiallyall properties are definedthings to be left.
Infinite numberproperties, maybebe, amounts toone and onlyproperty
Transitions thathuman reasoningaction takes place in time, morefeminine mindcarries out instantlyreally.
jpf other squares built on the sides, not that “Se -e&my, that the equality of parallelograms on a common basis between two parallel ones? And isn’t it, after all, the same thing as the equality of those two surfaces which, when combined, do not protrude, but are contained within the same boundary? So, those transitions that our mind makes in time and, moving step by step, the divine mind runs through, like light, in an instant; and this is the same
What can I say: all these transitions are always available to him. Therefore, I conclude: our knowledge, both in the method and in the number of things we know, is infinitely surpassed by divine knowledge; but on this basis I do not degrade human reason so much as to consider it an absolute zero;
on the contrary, when I take into account how many and what amazing things have been known, explored and created by people, I quite clearly recognize and understand that the human mind is a creation of God and, moreover, one of the most excellent 47 .
DAY ONE 203
Sagredo. Many times I have thought alone with myself about what you just said, namely, about how great the acuity of human genius must be. When I run through the numerous and most amazing inventions and discoveries made by people both in the arts and in literature, and then think about my own abilities, which are insufficient not only to discover anything new here, but even to assimilate already found, then I am lost in admiration and give in to despair, considering myself almost unhappy. Looking at some most excellent statue, I say to myself: “When will you learn to unveil a piece of marble and reveal a beautiful, perfect figure in it? When will you learn to mix and distribute various colors on a canvas or on a wall and depict all visible objects, like Michelangelo, like Raphael, like Titian? If I see that people have found the distribution of musical intervals, that they have established rules and instructions for using them for the wonderful pleasure of the ear, then how can I stop admiring? What can I say about so many different instruments? What surprise fills the reading of the most excellent poets, if you carefully look at the images they found and their interpretation? What can we say about architecture? About nautical art? But is not the sublimity of the mind of the one who found it above all amazing inventions? A WAY TO COMMUNICATE YOUR INCREASED THOUGHTS TO ANYONE OTHER d RU zih
a person, even very far from us in place and time, to speak with those who are in India, to speak with those who have not yet been born and will be born only in a thousand and ten thousand years? And with such ease, through various combinations of just twenty icons on paper! Let this be the crown of all marvelous human inventions and the conclusion of our discussions to-day. The hottest hours have already passed, and Signor Salviati, I think, will be pleased to enjoy the coolness of our places in the boat; and tomorrow I will be here waiting for both of you to continue the conversation we started.
End of the first month
Salviati.
During yesterday's conversation we had so many different deviations from the straight path of our main reasonings that without your help I probably would not be able to retrace their steps in order to go further.
Sagredo. I am not surprised that you, trying to remember and retain in your head both everything that has already been said and what remains to be said, are now in difficulty. But I, being a simple listener, retained in my memory only what I heard and therefore, probably, I will be able, having recalled all this in the most general form, to restore the main thread of the argument.
So, if my memory serves me correctly, the main topic of yesterday's discussions was the study of two opinions and which of them is more probable and justified: whether it considers the substance of the celestial bodies to be non-creating, indestructible, unchangeable, imperishable, in a word, free from all change , with the exception of a change of place, and therefore recognizes the existence of a fifth essence, very different from our elements that form earthly bodies, arising, destroyed, changeable, etc., or another, which denies such a difference in the parts of the universe and believes that the Earth is endowed with the same perfection as other bodies that make up the universe, that is, it is a moving and wandering ball, like the Moon, Jupiter, Venus and
other planets. Finally, many particular parallels were cited between the Earth and the Moon, namely the Moon, and not another planet, perhaps because, due to its smaller distance, we have more information about it, gleaned from sensory experience. Since we have finally come to the conclusion that this second opinion is more probable than the first, it seems to me that our further path should be to investigate whether the Earth should be considered motionless, as the majority still thinks, or mobile, as it was thought some ancient philosophers and as some modern philosophers believe; and if the Earth is mobile, then what can its motion be?
Salviati. Now I understand and recognize the direction of our path. But before going any further, I must notice something to you about your last words, as if we had come to the conclusion that the opinion that considers the earth endowed with the same properties as the celestial bodies is more probable than the opposite. I did not draw such a conclusion, nor did I intend to support either of these opposing opinions; my intention was to present those arguments and objections, proofs and refutations, which have hitherto been put forward by others on both sides, as well as other considerations that, after long reflection on this topic, came to my mind; I leave the decision to others.
S a g p e d o. I was carried away by my own feeling. Thinking that the same thing should happen to others as to me, I did general conclusion, whereas private should have done. Indeed, I made a mistake, especially since I do not know the views of Signor Simplacio, who is present here.
Simplicio. I confess to you that all this night I was thinking about yesterday’s reasoning and, indeed, I find a lot of beautiful, new and bold things in them. For all that, I feel much more bound by the authority of many great writers, in particular... You shake your head, Signor Sagredo, and smile, as if I had said something terrible.
Sagredo. I just smile, but believe me, I almost burst, trying to keep from laughing, because you made me remember one wonderful incident that happened to me several years ago. There were also some of my noble friends whom I could even name to you.
Salviati. It would be good to tell you this incident, otherwise Signor Simplicio may not stop thinking that you are laughing at him.
206 DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
S a g p e d o. So be it. Once I was in the house of a very respected doctor in Venice, where people sometimes gathered - some to study, and others out of curiosity - to look at the dissection of a corpse performed by the hand of this not only scientist, but a skillful and experienced anatomist. Just that day he ol vet happened to start researching the origin and origin connection with research nerves, on which issue there is a certain disagreement at the beginning nerves. between Galenist doctors and Peripatetic doctors 2. The anatomist showed how nerves leave the brain, pass in the form of a powerful trunk through the back of the head, then stretch along the spine, branch throughout the body and reach the heart in the form of only one thin thread. Then he turned to a certain nobleman, whom he knew as a Peripatetic philosopher and in whose presence he revealed and showed all this with exceptional care, and asked him if he was now satisfied and convinced, the beginning of the nerves
that nerves come from the brain, not from the heart. And this philosopher, having conceived- Aristotle and v nj
"^?, J doctors' opinion.
After sitting for a while, he answered: “If only they had shown me all this so clearly and tangibly that if Aristotle’s text had not said the opposite - and it directly says that nerves originate in the heart - then it would be necessary to recognize this as the truth.” "
G i m p l i h i o. Please note, gentlemen, that the debate about the origin of nerves is far from over and resolved, as perhaps some people imagine.
S a g p e d o. It will never come to an end, since opponents of this kind will exist; but what you say does not in the least diminish the extraordinary nature of the Peripatetic’s answer: against such a convincing sensory experience, he does not bring up other experiments or Aristotle’s considerations, but only authority and pure Ipse dixit. Simplicio. Aristotle acquired such enormous authority only due to the strength of his evidence and the depth of his reasoning; however, it is necessary to understand it, and not only understand it, what is required for
but also to have such a great knowledge of his books, ^ ^ ^ ^ "
of being good philosopher to get the most complete picture of them so that Upelya.° bee ~ always remember everything that was said to them. After all, Aristotle did not write for the crowd and did not consider himself obliged to string together his syllogisms using the usual harmonious method; Thus, without strictly observing the order, he sometimes places the proof of a position in texts that seem to speak of something else. That is why it is necessary to have an idea of everything as a whole and to be able to compare a given place with another, extremely distant one; and, undoubtedly, having such practice
SECOND DAY
will be able to draw from his books the foundations for all knowledge, since they contain everything.
S a g p e d o. However, dear Signor Simplicio, if the passages scattered here and there do not bore you, and if you are thinking of squeezing out the juice by connecting and juxtaposing different particles, then I assure you that the same thing is what you and other brave philosophers do with texts Aristotle, I will do with the verses of Virgil and Ovid and, composing centons from them, I will explain with them all the actions of people and the secrets of nature. But why should I talk about Virgil or Ovid? I have a book, much more Sophia from any book shorter than the books of Aristotle and Ovid; it contains all the sciences, and after a very short study one can get the most perfect idea about it: it is an alphabet; and, undoubtedly, anyone who knows how to arrange and connect one or another vowel with one or another consonant will draw from it the truest answers to all doubts and will extract from it the knowledge of all sciences and all arts. This is exactly what a painter does; With various simple paints, separately available on the palette, by applying a little of this, a little of the other, a little of the third paint, he depicts people, trees, buildings, birds, fish, in a word, depicts all visible objects, although there are no eyes, feathers or scales on the palette , no leaves, no stones. On the contrary, in the colors themselves, with which all things could be represented, in reality there should not be any of the things to be depicted and not a single part of them; if the paints contained, for example, feathers, they could only serve to depict birds or plumes on hats.
Salviati. Some nobles are still alive and well, who were present when one doctor, a lecturer at a famous educational institution, said, after listening to a description of a telescope he had not yet seen, that this invention was borrowed The invention is subject to
1t And "wha™™ vigilant borrow pipes
in Aristotle; the doctor ordered to bring the text, found a certain established by a place where reasons are given why from the bottom of a very deep teln - well, you can see stars in the sky during the day, and said to those around: “Here is a well, which means a pipe, here is thick vapor, from where the invention of glasses was borrowed, and here is, finally, increased vision when rays pass through a transparent, denser and darker medium.” "
S a g p e d o. This proposition about the embrace of all knowledge is very similar to another, according to which a block of marble contains within itself the most beautiful statue, and even thousands of the most beautiful statues; the task is only to be able to do it
discover. However, this is similar to the prophecies of Joachim or the answers of pagan oracles, which become clear only after what was predicted happens.
Salviati. Why don’t you mention the predictions of astrologers, who are so good at reading from the horoscope and even from the location of the heavenly bodies what has already happened?
S a g p e d o. In this way, alchemists, under the influence of melancholic juices, find that all the most sublime minds wrote Alchemists see in only about how to make gold, but not to reveal this too much
fictions of poets „ G
instructions for secretYves, THEY WERE INVENTING ONE - ONE, OTHERS - Another trick and
make gold. thus obscured the true meaning of what was written. It is very amusing to listen to their comments on the ancient poets, in whom they discover the most important secrets hidden under the guise of myth; they find them in stories about the love affairs of the Moon - her descent to Earth because of Endymion, her anger at Actaeon, or in stories about how Jupiter turns into golden shower or blazing fire, about the great secrets of the arts hidden in Mercury, about the abductions of Pluto , about golden branches.
Simplicio. I think and partly know that there is no shortage of very bizarre minds in the world; however, their nonsense should not be to the detriment of Aristotle, about whom, it seems to me, you sometimes do not speak with enough respect. It would seem that his antiquity alone and the authority that Aristotle acquired in the eyes of many outstanding people should be sufficient to make him worthy of the respect of all scientists. Salviati. This is not the case, Signor Simplicio; it is only some of his cowardly followers who give
much committed waters or, better said, could give reason to honor Ari less
Aristotle's uni- J -
they call him worthy stotel, if we agreed to welcome their frivolity, swarming" rSwSJUSb Tell me, please, are you really so simple and incapable of its meaning. are able to understand that if Aristotle had been present and heard
doctor who wanted to make him the inventor of the telescope, would he have been much more angry with the doctor than with those who laughed at the doctor and his interpretations? Do you doubt that if Aristotle could see all the news revealed in heaven, he would not think of changing his opinion, correcting his books and approaching the teaching that is most consistent with the feeling, driving away from himself those poor in understanding who cowardly try support his every word with all their might, not realizing that if Aristotle were what they imagine him to be, he would be a thick-headed stubborn man with a barbaric soul, with the will of a tyrant, who considers all others stupid
day two 209
brutes who want to place their dictates above the senses, above experience, above nature itself? It was Aristotle's followers who ascribed authority to him, and not he himself who seized or usurped it; and since it is much easier to hide behind someone else’s shield than to fight with an open visor, they are afraid, do not dare move a step away from it, and would rather blatantly deny what is visible in the real sky than allow the slightest change in Aristotle’s sky.
S a g p e d o. Such people remind me of that sculptor who gave a large block of marble an image, I don’t remember - either Hercules, or the Thunderer Jupiter, and with amazing skill conveyed to him such liveliness and ferocity that everyone who looked at him was seized with horror, and even the sculptor himself began to experience fear, although all the movement and expression of the figure were the work of his hands. His fear was so great that he no longer comic history
I DARED TO APPROACH THE STATUE WITH A CHIZER AND A HAMMER.ria of one sculptor.
Salviati. I have often wondered how it could be that these people, who strive to support literally every word of Aristotle, do not notice the damage they are doing to Aristotle's reputation, and how, instead of increasing his authority, they undermine his credibility. For when I see how persistently they try to support those positions, the falsity of which, in my opinion, is completely obvious, how they strive to convince me that this is exactly what a true philosopher should do and that this is exactly what Aristotle himself would have done, then my confidence that he reasoned correctly in other areas, more distant to me, greatly diminishes. At the same time, if I saw that they were ready to give in and change their minds in the face of obvious truth, I might think that in those cases where they stand their ground, other, more solid evidence could be presented to me unclear or unknown.
Sagredo. Or maybe, feeling that you are risking the reputation of both yourself and Aristotle, if you admit ignorance of this or that conclusion found by others, you can still start looking for one in his works by connecting individual passages according to the method taught by Signor Simplicio? After all, since Aristotle’s works contain all kinds of knowledge, it means that it can be found there.
Salviati. Signor Sagredo, do not take such precautions lightly; for it seems to me that you proclaimed this thesis jokingly. After all, not so long ago, one philosopher with great
* Gaiavleo Galilei,h. I
210 DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
Convenient solution In his name he wrote the book “On the Soul”, where, expounding the opinion of Aristotle
one philosopher -. J J r
ripatetics. ON THE QUESTION ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE SOUL, THERE ARE MANY T6KSTS, BUT N6 FROM
texts of Alexander, since the latter said that Aristotle did not touch upon this topic at all and did not assert anything related to this subject, but from others, which he himself found in other secret places, which gave the work a dangerous meaning. When it was pointed out to him that difficulties would arise with censorship, he wrote to a friend that he would get permission, since if no other obstacles were encountered, then it would not be difficult for him to change the teachings of Aristotle and with other interpretations, with the help of other texts to support the opposite opinion, as more consistent with the spirit Aristotle.
Sagredo. Oh, this doctor! It’s worth learning from him: he doesn’t want Aristotle to let him down, he himself is going to trick him by the nose and force him to speak in his own way! You see how important it is to be able to choose the right time. You should deal with Hercules not when he is raging, overwhelmed by anger, but when he is chatting with the Maeonian maidens. Oh, the unheard of baseness of servile minds! To voluntarily become a slave, to consider The narrowness of many inviolable regulations, undertake to call themselves escaped lristo- given and convinced by arguments so effective and clearly demonstrative that there is no way to decide whether they are contained in a given position and whether they can be used to prove one or another conclusion! But we have to consider it the greatest stupidity that among them there are still doubts whether the author himself supported the side affirming or denying this position. Doesn't this mean making yourself an oracle from a wooden statue, expecting divinations from it, trembling before it, honoring it, praying to it? Simplicio. But if we leave Aristotle, then who will serve as our guide in philosophy? Name some author.
Salviati. A guide is needed in unknown and wild countries, but in an open and smooth place only a blind person needs a guide. And the blind man will do well if he stays at home. He who has eyes in his forehead and intelligence must use them as guides. However, I do not say that one should not listen to Aristotle; on the contrary, I praise those who peer into him and study him diligently. I condemn only the tendency to surrender so much to the power of Aristotle as to blindly subscribe to his every word and, without hoping to find other grounds, consider his words to be an inviolable law. This is abuse
SECOND DAY
and it entails a great evil, namely that ^n^X"*
OTHERS ARE ALREADY MORE AND DO NOT TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE POWER OF EVIDENCEworthy of a hundred
Aristotle. And what could be more shameful than listening to Pog)izations - in public debates, when it comes to conclusions that are subject to proof, an unrelated speech, with a quotation, often written for a completely different reason and given solely with the aim of silencing the opponent? And, if you still want to continue studying in this way, then give up the title of philosopher and call yourself better historians or doctors of rote learning: after all, it is not good if someone who never philosophizes assigns the honorary title of philosopher. However, it's time for us to get ready, Who to the shore, so as not to swim away into the boundless sea, from where we cannot JJJ /older° get out for the whole day today. Therefore, Signor Simplicio, V f™ oso With ( ^ e provide your or Aristotle’s considerations and evidence, but not texts or references to naked authority, since our reasoning should be aimed at the real world, and not at the paper one. And once in yesterday's discussion the Earth was taken by us from the darkness and placed in the clear sky, and it was shown that our desire to place it among the celestial bodies, as we call them, is not a position so refutable and weak that no vitality remains in it. forces - we now need to investigate how plausible it is to consider the Earth (we mean the globe as a whole) completely motionless, or whether it is more likely that the Earth moves by some kind of motion - and then, what exactly. Since I am undecided on this point, and Signor Simplicio, together with Aristotle, is resolutely on the side of the immobility of the Earth, let him give reasons in favor of his opinion step by step, I will present the answers and arguments of the other side, and Signor Sagredo will express his own considerations and will indicate which way he feels inclined.
Sagredo. With great pleasure, however, on condition that I retain the right to sometimes cite what simple common sense dictates.
Salviati. This is exactly what I am especially asking you about. Indeed, of the easier and, so to speak, material evidence, only very few, I think, are not taken into account by the writers; Therefore, it is advisable to put forward some more subtle and hidden ones; they are precisely what is missing. But for their understanding and comprehension, which requires refinement of thought, whose mind could be more suitable than that of Signor Sagredo, so sharp and insightful? f
DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
The Earth's movements are notnoticeable to her obitateley.
The earth can only belongsuch movements, towhich seem to usinherent in allthe universe inin general, except for the Earth.
daily movement,apparently there ismovement, general everythingto the world, for the sake ofrespect for the Earth.
Aristotle and PtoLemei dispute what is attributed to Zemle daily movementtion.
Sagredo.
In short, the entire universe, with the exception of the Earth alone, seems to move all together from east to west in a period of twenty-four hours. This movement, at least at first glance, can be attributed to the Earth alone, just as it can be attributed to the rest of the world, with the exception of the Earth, for the same phenomena would be observed in both the first case and the second. .
That is precisely why Aristotle and Ptolemy, who analyzed this consideration and sought to prove the immobility of the Earth, do not give arguments against any movement other than daily movement. Aristotle touches only once on an objection to another kind of motion attributed to the Earth by an ancient author, but we will talk about it in its own place.
conclude either that he was clearly mistaken in attributing to the Earth such a movement that does not have a common visible correspondence in the sky, or, if there is such a correspondence, then Ptolemy can be accused of oversight, since he did not analyze this movement in the same way as he analyzed the first 3.
Salviati. Your doubts are quite reasonable, and when we come to the analysis of the second movement, you will see how much Copernicus surpassed Ptolemy in insight and insight, for he saw what Ptolemy did not see - the amazing correspondence with which such a movement is reflected on all other celestial bodies. But let’s put this topic aside for now and return to the original discussion. Starting with more general questions, I will present those arguments that, in my opinion, favor the mobility of the Earth, in order to then listen to the objections of Signor Simschio. Firstly, if we take into account the enormous volume of the stellar sphere compared with the insignificance of the globe, which is contained in it many, many millions of times, and then think about the speed of movement, which in a day and night must complete a complete revolution, then I cannot convince yourself that there may be someone who thinks it is more correct and probable what it is appeal why daily movement
y " life quicker should
is done by the stellar sphere, while the globe remains impenetrable But belong
LVIZHNY 4 one. Earth than
rt * - everything else
WITH< а г p e д о. Если решительно все явления природы, могущие to the world. to depend on such movements give rise to the same consequences both in water and in another case without any difference, then I would immediately recognize the one who considers it more correct to make the entire universe move, just to keep the Earth motionless, even more unreasonable than the man who, climbing to the top of the dome of your villa to look over the city and its environs, would demand that the whole terrain revolve around him and not have to bother turning his head. The advantages of the first system over the other must be numerous and great in order to force me, despite this absurdity, to recognize the first theory as more probable than the second. But perhaps Aristotle, Ptolemy and Signor Simplicio will be able to find such advantages, and it would be good to bring them to us now, if they exist, or to directly state that they do not and cannot exist.
Salviati. No matter how much I thought about it, I could not find any difference, and therefore it seems to me that there cannot be any difference. Therefore, I believe that looking for it further
214 DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
she - fruitless. Therefore, note the following. Movement is movement and affects as such insofar as it relates to things that are deprived of it, but on things that equally participate in this movement it does not act at all as if it were not there. Thus, goods loaded onto a ship move insofar as they, having sailed from Venice, pass through Corfu, Candia, Cyprus and arrive at Aleppo; Venice, Corfu, for subjects, teaching Candia, etc. remain and do not move with the ship. But 25v^Govshket «^Gn2- Movement from Venice to Syria seems to be absent for bales, no matter how hard it is boxes and other cargo placed on the ship, if we consider
exists. and about- ^ 1 * g^ j. ~\ G ^ G G
reveals its deistPUT THEM IN RELATION TO THE SHIP ITSELF, AND ABSOLUTELY N6 M6NYA6T
V pe^P^imayug^TvTHEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH EACH OTHER AND THIS IS BECAUSE THEM ARE IN COMMON
no participation. everyone and they all participate in it equally. If one bale of co-
of a servile load moved only an inch away from any box, then this would be a greater movement for him in relation to the box than a journey of two thousand miles made together with him in an unchanged position.
S i m i l i h i o. Such a teaching is correct, thorough, and is precisely the teaching of the Peripatetics.
Salviati. In my opinion, it is much older, and I assume that Aristotle, having borrowed it from some good school, did not fully penetrate it and therefore, having written it down in a change, Aristo's position foam form, has proven to be a cause of confusion among those who are keen ™edsex%ynikov T strives to support every word he says. When he wrote that
But changed. everything that moves MOVES ON SOMETHING NvMOVIZhNOY, THEN MOVES,
as I suspect, an error occurred, and he probably wanted to say: everything moving moves relative to something motionless - such a situation is not associated with any difficulties, whereas the first one has a lot of them.
S a g p e d o. Please, let's not lose the thread, continue the discussion you started.
Salviati. So, since it is obvious that motion, common to many moving bodies, does not seem to exist if we are talking about the relationship of moving bodies to each other (once among
The first proof is NOTHING H6 APPEARS), AND APPEARS ONLY IN CHANGES IN RELATIONSHIP
the fact that the/ -
precise movement SHIPPING OF THESE MOVING T6L TO OTHERS, N6, HAVING SUCH MOVEMENT
belongs to the Earth we do not (for here their mutual arrangement changes), and since we have divided the universe into two parts, one of which necessarily moves, and the other is motionless, to the extent that for everything that can depend on such movement, it makes no difference whether the whole Earth is made to move or the rest of the world: after all, the impact of such a movement will manifest itself only in relations between
between the celestial bodies and the Earth, and only these relationships change. But if for the generation of absolutely identical phenomena it is indifferent whether the Earth alone moves and the rest of the world remains motionless, or the Earth stands motionless and the rest of the world moves with the same movement, then who will believe that nature (after all, according to common sense, it does not use many things to achieve what can be done by a few) chose to move a huge number of enormous bodies and their immeasurable speed for the same result that could be achieved by the moderate movement of a single body around its own center?
Simplicio. I do not quite understand how this colossal movement appears to be non-existent for the Sun, the Moon, other planets and for the countless crowd of fixed stars. Would you say that the Sun does not pass from one meridian to another, does not rise above this horizon and then set, causing first day and then night? That the same changes are not made by the Moon, other planets and even the fixed stars?
Salviati. All the changes you listed exist only in relation to the Earth. To be convinced of the validity of this, imagine that the Earth no longer exists in the world, that there is no longer any rising or setting of the Sun or Moon, there are no horizons, no meridians, no days, no nights; in a word, as a result of such motion, no change ever occurs between the Moon and the Sun, or any other stars, whether fixed or wandering. All such changes are related to the Earth and all of them together mean nothing more than the fact that the Sun appears first in China, then in Persia, then in Egypt, in Greece, in France, in Spain, in Amsric, etc. The Moon and all other celestial bodies do the same. Everything will happen exactly the same way if, without involving such a huge part of the universe in this matter, you force only the globe to revolve around itself. The situation is further complicated by another enormous difficulty, which is this: if we attribute such a large movement to the sky, then it is necessary to make it the opposite of the particular movements of all the planets, which all, undeniably, have their own movement from west to east, very remarkable and moderate. In addition, we have to assume that they are being pulled back, that is, from east to west, this is an incredibly fast diurnal movement. If the Earth moves around itself, then the opposition of movements disappears and the simple
Nature is not consumedfucks many environmentsstv where she ismay not doby many.
From the daily allowancemarriage does not ariseno changesnot in positionrelate demonic bodiesexactly each other;all changes are relevantonly to Earth.
Second proofamount of daily traffic"zheniya Earth.
216 DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
the movement (of the Earth's surface) from west to east is consistent with all visible phenomena and completely satisfies them all.
S i m p l i h i o. As for the opposition of movements, this is nonsense, since Aristotle proves that circular movements are not opposite to each other and that the apparent opposite
According to Aristotle, no THEIR OPPOSITE CAN BE CALLED THE TRUE OPPOSITE
there is a counter-in NEWS.
circular movements. Salviati. Does Aristotle prove this or only assert it because it completes his definite plan? If, as he himself asserts, those motions which cancel each other out are opposite, then I do not see why two moving bodies meeting on a circular line should suffer less than when meeting on a straight line?
S a g p e d o. Please wait a moment. Tell me, Signor Simplicio, when two horsemen meet, fighting in an open field, or when at sea they collide, crush each other and sink two detachments or two naval squadrons, would you call such meetings mutually opposite?
Simplicio. We call them opposites.
S a g p e d o. So how come there are no opposites in circular movements? After all, all these movements occur on the surface of the earth or water, which, as you know, have a spherical shape, and therefore must be circular. Do you know, Signor Simplicio, what are those circular movements that are not opposite to each other? These are the movements of two circles touching from the outside, so that the rotation of one naturally causes the other to rotate in the other direction. But if one circle is inside another, then it is impossible that their movements occurring in different sides, were not opposite to each other.
Salviati. Opposite or not opposite is a debate about words, and I know that in reality it is much simpler and more natural to explain everything in one single movement than to introduce two movements. If you don't want to call them opposites, then call them inverses. I do not consider it impossible to introduce them and do not pretend to derive from this a proof of the necessity of the rotation of the Earth; I am only pointing out its high probability.
The implausibility is tripled by the complete violation of that
order, which, as we see, exists among the celestial bodies,
Thirdly the circulation of which is not doubtful, but quite certain.
giving the same to me - tt /* f
nia . The order is that the larger the given orbit, the
SECOND DAY217
In a longer period of time, circulation on it ends, and the smaller it is, the shorter the period required. Thus, Saturn, describing a circle larger than that of all the planets, completes it in three the larger the orbit, twenty years old; Jupiter, in its smaller circle, turns in twelve years; Mars - in two years; the Moon completes its smallest circle in only one month; we see no less clearly that of the Medicean stars, the one closest to Jupiter completes its
., Application deadlines
conversion in a very short time, approximately forty-two hours; the next one at three and a half days; the third - in seven days; the farthest is at sixteen.
This complete consistency does not change in the least if we attribute the twenty-four-hour movement to the globe itself. If we wish to keep the Earth motionless, then we will have to move from the shortest period of the Moon to others, successively longer, up to the two-year period of Mars, from it to the even longer twelve-year sphere of Jupiter, and from it to the even larger sphere of Saturn, the period of which is thirty years, and it is necessary, I say, to move from ONE Sphere TO ANOTHER, immediately larger, making 24 hour traffic
^ higher sphere of
laying and her to complete the full circulation in twenty-four hours. Shae t order of spheres And this is the least of the disturbances that can arise. After all lower - if we move from the sphere of Saturn to a stellar sphere, so superior to the sphere of Saturn, as required by the ratio of its movement, extremely slow and lasting many thousands of years, then we will have to move with an even more incommensurable leap from one sphere to another, much larger, forcing it too contact us within twenty-four hours. But as soon as we give motion to the Earth, immediately the order of the periods begins to be perfectly observed, from the very slow sphere of Saturn we pass to the completely motionless stars and we avoid the fourth difficulty, which we will inevitably have to deal with as soon as the stellar sphere turns out to be mobile: the difficulty lies in the enormous inequality in the motion of stars; some of them move extremely quickly in huge circles, others move very slowly in
VERY SMALL CIRCLES DEPENDING ON THEIR BIGGER OR SMALLERFourth confirmation6LICKING TO THE POLE. THIS IS EXACTLY THE INCONVENIENCE, SO™our™dimension I move-
how, on the one hand, we see that all those zezds, the movement of which ^o^ Jann ^ affairs 3 b V ^
ROYH IS NOT SUBJECT TO DOUBT, THEY MOVE IN THE BIGGEST CIRCLES,if their spheres move
on the other hand, we are forced to place not entirely successfully chewing - bodies that are supposed to rotate in circles, at a huge distance from the center and make them move in small circles. Moreover, not only the sizes of the circles, and therefore the speeds
DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
Movement is constantnew stars becomeXia in different time sometimes faster, sometimes slower, if it moves -Xia star sphere.
Sixth confirmationdenition.
Seventh confirmationdenition.
Free-swimmingweighed inliquid sphere of the Earth
the movements of some stars will be very different from the circles and movements of other stars, but the same stars will change their circles and speeds (this is the fifth inconvenience): after all, those of them that two thousand years ago were on the equator and, consequently, they described the largest circles in their movement, but in our time they find themselves many degrees distant from the equator; therefore, their movement must necessarily be recognized as slower and occurring in smaller circles; and from here it is not far to the point that a time may come when one of the stars, until then constantly moving, will reach the pole and stop, and then, perhaps, after resting for some time, will begin to move again, while other stars, undoubtedly moving, describe, as has already been said, their orbits in the largest circles and invariably adhere to them. The improbability increases (let this be the sixth inconvenience) for those who wish to reason more thoroughly: the strength of that vast sphere in the depths of which the stars are strengthened so reliably that, being unable to change their, they are carried in a circle in a coordinated manner, despite the huge inequality of movements. If the sky is liquid, as can be thought with much greater reason, and each star wanders on its own, then what law governs their movements? And for what purpose?
SECOND DAY
Only so that when observed from the Earth they seem to be embedded in a single sphere 5 .
To accomplish this, it seems to me much easier and more convenient to make the celestial sphere not wandering, but motionless, just as it is much easier to consider the stones of the pavement in a square to not change places than a crowd of children running around it. And finally, the seventh consideration. If we attribute the daily circulation to the highest sky, then we will have to give it such strength and power that it can carry with it countless numbers of fixed stars - huge bodies, significantly larger than the Earth, and in addition, all the spheres of the planets, although the stars and planets are they move opposite to their very nature; in addition, we will have to admit that even the element of fire and a significant part of the air are equally carried away by this movement and that only a small ball of the Earth is capable of withstanding such power;
Simplicio.
One simple moving body can have only one movement, inherent in it by natural order, and all other movements are performed by chance or through participation. Thus, for a person walking on a ship, his own movement will be a walk, and the movement through participation will be the movement that takes him to the port, where he would never have gotten as a result of his walk if the ship had not taken him there with its movement.
Sagredo.
Secondly, tell me: does that motion which through participation is communicated to some moving body, when the body itself is moved by another motion different from the first, necessarily resides in some object or can it exist in nature by itself? , without a carrier? Simplicio. Aristotle gives you the answers to all these questions.
He says: just as with one moving body there is one movement, so with one movement there is one moving body;
therefore, without involvement in one’s object there cannot be, and even cannot be imagined, any movement. Sagredo.I would like to hear from you, thirdly, whether, in your opinion, the Moon and other planets and celestial bodies have their ownwith your own movementsand which ones exactly?
Simplicio.Possess. And precisely according to which they pass through the Zodiac: the Moon in a month, the Sun in a year, Mars in two years, the stellar sphere in so many thousand years. And such movements are their own and natural.la,apparentlyincapable of resistanceresistance to the power of suprecise movement.
One simple underthe visible body hasonly one thing is natural
military movement", all
the rest are moving
information was communicated to him
from outside.
S i m p l i h i o. It is for this reason that astronomers and philosophers have found another highest sphere without stars, which naturally have a daily circulation. They called it "the first mover." She carries with her all the lower spheres, imparting to them her movement and forcing them to participate in it.
S a g p e d o. But if it is possible to dispense with the introduction of new unknown and vast spheres and without participation in other movements, leave each sphere only its own and simple movement, without confusing it with opposite movements, and achieve all this with just one rotation (as is necessary if everything depends on one single principle) and if at the same time everything corresponds to the most perfect harmony, then why reject such an assumption and approve such strange and artificial assumptions? 7
S i. m p l i h i o. The difficulty is to find such a way, so simple and final.
S a g p e d o. It seems to me that the method has been found quite well. Let the Earth be the "prime mover," that is, make it revolve around itself in twenty-four hours and in the same direction as all other spheres; then all the planets and stars, without participating in such movement, will take their places, will rise and, in a word, show their usual appearance.
S i m p l i h i o. It is important to make it rotate without a thousand inconsistencies.
S a l v i a t i. All inconsistencies will be eliminated as you bring them up. What has been said so far are only the first and most general considerations, and in accordance with them it seems to us not entirely incredible that the daily circulation belongs rather to the Earth than to the rest of the universe; I offer them to you not as immutable laws, but as considerations that have apparent validity. II since I understand perfectly well that one single experience or construction
SECOND DAY
that evidence in favor of the opposite view would be sufficient
tgshto TO CRUSH THESE AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER PROBABLES1UMX1", r
arguments, I think we shouldn’t stop there,
plicio and what greater probability or stronger arguments he will give in favor of the opposite view.
Simplicio.
First I will say something in general about all these arguments, and then I will move on to some particulars. You, it seems to me, rely chiefly on the greater simplicity and ease of causing the same phenomena, when you consider that, so far as the cause of these phenomena is concerned, it makes no difference whether the Earth alone moves or the rest of the world, with the exception of the Earth, but in terms of impact, the former is much more easily achievable than the latter. To this I will answer you that it seems the same to me when I think about my strength, not only finite, but even very insignificant;but for powerMOVER, - and She is infinite, - IT IS EQUALLY EASY TO MOVE EVERYTHING - f
ri
t/y
flax, or soil, or straw. And if such power is eternal, why not manifest itself in a large rather than in a small part?
That is why it seems to me that such a general argument is not convincing enough.
Salviati.If I had ever said that the universe is motionless due to the lack of power of the Mover, then I would be mistaken, and your correction would be appropriate. I admit with you that for infinite power it is as easy to move a hundred thousand as to move one. But what I said does not apply to the Mover, but only to moving bodies, and in them not only to resistance, which, undoubtedly, in the case of the Earth is less than in the universe, but also to many other particulars just discussed.
To your other remark that infinite power is more likely to manifest itself on a large part than on a small one, I will answer you that in infinity one part is not greater than the other, IF both THEY ARE FINITE. YOU CANNOT SAY WHAT IS IN AN INFINITE NUMBER
one hundred thousand is a larger part than two, although, of course, one hundred thousand is fifty thousand times greater than two. If, however, the movement of the universe requires a finite power, although very large in comparison with that which is sufficient to set the Earth alone in motion, then this will not require the greater part of the infinite and the part remaining unused will not become smaller. Thus, it makes no difference whether a little more or a little less power is applied to a partial effect. Moreover, the impact of such power
proof ofplow into nothing
considerations basic« bathrooms are probably Infinite power
the situation is probably will reveal
yourself rather m>
than
does not have only daily movement as its boundary and goal; there are many other movements in the world that we know about, and many others that may be unknown to us. So, if we take into account moving bodies, and if we have no doubt that it is much simpler and shorter to assume the movement of the Earth, and not the universe, and if, in addition, we take into account many other simplifications and conveniences resulting from this one assumption, then Aristotle's absolutely true axiom "frustra fit per plura quod polest fieri per pauciora" will make us consider it much more probable that the diurnal movement belongs to the Earth than to a universe without the Earth.
Simplicio. By citing the axiom, you have left out the part of it that is most important, especially in this case; the missing part reads: aeque bene*. This means that we need to investigate whether both the first and second assumptions can satisfy everything equally well.
G a l v i a t i. Whether both assumptions satisfy equally well can be decided after considering the individual phenomena that are to be explained. For so far we have reasoned and will continue to reason ex hypothesi**, assuming that both movements are equally suitable for a satisfactory explanation of phenomena. As for the part that, according to you, was released by me, I am inclined to think With the axiomFrusi- mother, that you added it unnecessarily: after all, to say “equally
ra fit per plura etc.- -
increaseaequeЪпв good” means to establish an attitude, it is necessary to disseminate unnecessary. covering at least two items, since one item is not
may have a relationship with itself; one cannot, for example, say that peace is as good as peace. Therefore, when they say “it is in vain to do with the help of many means what can be done with fewer means,” they mean that the same thing must be done, and not two different things. And since it cannot be said that one and the same thing is as well made as itself, then, therefore, adding the particle “equally good” is unnecessary in relation to only one object.
S a g p e d o. If we don’t want the same thing to happen to us as yesterday, then please return to the topic, and let Signor Simplicio begin to cite those facts that seem to him to be contrary to the new world order.
* Equally good. **Hypothetically.
DAY TWO 223
Simplicio. This world order is not new at all; on the contrary, it is very ancient. You can verify the validity of this from the fact that Aristotle refutes it. Refutations Considerations his are as follows: “Firstly, if the Earth moved either along SSS^Kocm itself, being in the center, or in a circle, being outside the center, then whether - she would have to move with such a movement forcibly, because for her such a movement is not natural; if it were her own, then every part of her would have it; but every particle of the earth moves in a straight line towards the center. So, since such a movement is violent and unnatural, it cannot be eternal; but the order of the world is eternal, therefore, etc. Secondly, all other bodies moving in a circular motion apparently lag behind and move in more than one motion, with the exception, however, of the “prime mover” 8, therefore the Earth also would necessarily have to move in two movements; and if this were so, then changes would inevitably occur in the fixed stars, but this is not observed; On the contrary, each of the stars always and without any changes rises in the same places and sets in the same places. Thirdly, the motion of the parts is the same as that of the whole, and is naturally directed towards the center of the universe; this also proves that the Earth must be in it. Next, Aristotle examines the question of whether parts move naturally towards the center of the universe or towards the center of the Earth, and comes to the conclusion that they tend to tend towards the center of the universe and only accidentally towards the center of the Earth, which we discussed in detail yesterday. Finally, he confirms the same thing with a fourth argument, borrowed from experiments with heavy bodies. Falling from top to bottom, they go perpendicular to the surface of the Earth, and in exactly the same way bodies thrown perpendicularly upward return down along the same lines, even if they were thrown to a great height. These arguments necessarily prove that the movement of bodies is directed towards the center of the Earth and that it, without moving at all, waits for them and receives them. Finally, he points out that astronomers have given other arguments to support the same conclusions, i.e., that the Earth is at the center of the universe and motionless. He cites only one of them: all the phenomena observed in relation to the movement of the fixed stars correspond to the location of the Earth in the center, and such a correspondence would not exist if the Earth were not there. I can present the other arguments advanced by Ptolemy and other astronomers now, if you please,
or after you express your attitude to Aristotle's arguments.
Salviati. The arguments that are given on this issue are of two kinds: some are based on what is happening on Earth, without any relation to the stars, others are drawn from phenomena and observations of celestial objects. Arguments Arguments of twofold
Aristotle are drawn mostly from the area around yes on the issue of
" -gt does the earth move us things, he leaves others to astronomers. So it's good or not.
it would be, if you agree, to analyze those arguments that are borrowed Ptolemy's arguments derived from earthly experiences; then we can move on to another IS And l£istot™e-
R odudovodov. And since Ptolemy, Tycho and other astronomers. "and philosophers gave, in addition to arguments borrowed
Aristotle and those confirmed and supported by them also have other considerations, then they can be combined all together so that in the future there is no need to repeat the same or similar answers twice 9 . Therefore, Signor Simplicio, as you wish: whether you bring them yourself or whether I take on this work, I am at your disposal.
Simplicio. It is better if you bring them, since you have dealt with this issue more, and you always have them at the ready and, moreover, in larger numbers. Salviati. As the strongest argument, all The first argument
conduct an experiment with heavy bodies: falling from top to bottom, the bodies go along drawn from the movement
~"r> solid temperature
STRAIGHT LINES, BRIENDICULAR TO THE SURFACE OF THE OBLIGATION; THIS IS COUNT 1 xy" down ° ° ayushcheg ~ ver
conceals an irrefutable argument in favor of the immobility of the Earth. After all, if it had a daily rotation, then the tower, from the top of which a stone was allowed to fall, would be transported by the rotation of the Earth, while the stone falls, many hundreds of cubits to the east, and at such a distance from the foot of the tower the stone would have to hit the Earth. This same phenomenon is confirmed by another experiment: by making a lead ball fall from the height of the mast of a ship, Confirming it STANDING STILL, THEY ARE MARKED WITH THE SIGN OF THAT M6STO WHERE HE FELL, -example of a body, pa giving from the top
it is near the bottom of the mast; if from the same place ship mast,
drop the same ball when the ship is moving, then the place where the ball falls will have to be at such a distance from the first one that the ship moved forward during the fall of the lead, and precisely because the natural movement of the ball remaining Second argument
at large, is carried out in a straight line towards the center tapped out of the movement r\
m body movements, tossing
high up. THROWN OVER ENORMOUS DISTANCES. LET IT BE
a cannonball fired from an artillery piece perpendicular to the horizon; It takes time for the core to rise and return.
SECOND DAY
for which the weapon and we ourselves will find ourselves displaced by the Earth along our parallel many miles to the east; thus, the cannonball, when falling, will not be able to return exactly to the cannon and will have to fall at the same distance to the west of it as the Earth has moved forward. To this is added a third very convincing experiment, namely: if you fire a cannonball to the east from a cannon, and then fire another shot with a cannonball of the same weight and at the same angle to the horizon to the west, then the cannonball directed to the west would fly much further than the one directed to the east, for while the cannonball flies to the west, the weapon, carried away by the Earth, moves to the east and the cannonball will have to fall on the Earth at a distance equal to the sum of two paths - one made by itself to the west, and the other made a cannon carried by the Earth to the east; conversely, from the path taken by the cannonball when fired to the east, it would be necessary to subtract the path that the gun would have made when following it. If, for example, we assume that the path of the cannonball itself is five miles and that the Earth on this parallel moves three miles during the flight of the cannonball, then when fired to the west the cannonball would have to fall on the Earth at a distance of eight miles from the gun due to its moving west five miles and moving the gun east three miles; if fired to the east, the cannonball would reach only two miles, because such is the difference between its flight range and the movement of the cannon in the same direction. However, experience shows that the range of shots is the same, which means that the gun stands motionless and, therefore, the Earth is motionless.
1 5 Galileo Galilei, vol. I
Third argumentdrawn fromfiring a cannon To east and To to the west.
Confirmation ar"Gumenta practiceshots, aimedto the south and tonorth.
Confirming the samecomes from practice shots to the eastand to the west.
226 DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
low. Thus, it would be impossible to shoot in any direction without missing; and since experience contradicts this, it must be said that the Earth is motionless.
Simplicio. Oh, these are indeed grounds against which it is impossible to imagine any worthwhile objections.
Salviati. Are they new to you?
Simplicio. Exactly. And now I see with what wonderful experiences nature generously wished to come to our aid in knowing the truth. How beautifully one truth agrees with another, and how they all unite to become irrefutable!
S a g p e d o. What a pity that in Aristotle’s time artillery did not yet exist; with its help he would defeat ignorance and speak about world phenomena without hesitation.
Salviati. I am very pleased that these considerations seem new to you and that you, therefore, will not remain with the opinion of the majority of Peripatetics that if someone deviates from the teachings of Aristotle, this is only because he did not understand and was not properly imbued with his proofs . You will probably hear other new things and hear them from the followers of the new system, who argue against themselves, at- observations, experiments and reasoning of much greater force, some of which were given by Aristotle, Ptolemy and other opponents. knowledge of the arguments
us their conclusions; this way you can make sure that you don't r " J ^ "
opposite hundred
rocky. out of ignorance and not out of inexperience, they decided to follow this S a g r e d o. On this occasion I would like to tell you some incidents that happened to me shortly after I first heard talk about this teaching. When I was still very young and had just completed a course in philosophy, which ChristianWurstey- then left for other activities, it happened that a certain northern P- nin from Rostock (I think his name was Christian Wursteisen), e- after the scientist of Copernicus, came to our region and read in one & Academy two or three lectures on this topic with a large crowd of listeners, caused, I think, more by the novelty of the subject than by anything else. I did not go there in the firm conviction that such views can only be sheer stupidity. When I then questioned some of those present at the lecture, I heard only continuous mockery, and only one person said that there was nothing funny about the subject. Since I considered him to be an intelligent and very
DAY TWO 227
judgmental, then I felt very sorry that I did not go to the lecture, and from that time on, every time I met a supporter of the opinions of Copernicus, I asked him whether he had always held such a view, and no matter how many times I asked this question, I did not find any one who would not tell me that for a long time he held the opposite opinion and moved to the present one under the influence of the force of the arguments that convinced him. Having then tested them one by one to see how well they were acquainted with the arguments of the other side, I became convinced that they mastered them perfectly, so that truly I could not say that they adhered to this opinion out of ignorance, frivolity, or so on. say, being smart. On the contrary, no matter how many Peripatetics and supporters of Ptolemy I asked whether they had studied the book of Copernicus (and out of curiosity I asked many about this), I found only very few who were superficially familiar with it, and, I think, not one who understood it as follows. And I also tried to find out from the followers of the Peripatetic doctrine whether any of them had ever held a different opinion, and, likewise, I did not find a single one. That is why, considering that among the adherents of the opinion of Copernicus there is no one who did not previously hold the opposite opinion and who would not be well aware of the arguments of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and that, on the contrary, among the followers of Ptolemy and Aristotle there is no one who held would have previously had the opinion of Copernicus and left him to go over to the side of Aristotle, accepting, opposite I say, this is taken into account, I began to think that the one who leaves an opinion absorbed with mother’s milk and shared by many people in order to move on to another, rejected by all contrary schools and shared by very few and seeming truly the greatest paradox, he must be encouraged and even forced to do so by sufficiently strong arguments. Therefore, it seems to me that it is interesting, as they say, to exhaust this matter to the bottom, and I consider it a great success for me to meet both of you, since from you I can easily find out everything that was said, and, perhaps, even everything, what can be said on this subject, and I am confident that the force of your reasoning will resolve my doubts and give me confidence.
Simplicio. Unless your expectations and hopes fail you and you end up even more confused than before.
Sagredo. I am sure there is no way this can happen.
Simplicio. Why not? I myself am a good confirmation of this: the more we move, the more confused I become.
S a g p e d o. This is a sign that those arguments that until now seemed convincing to you and supported your confidence in the truth of your opinion are beginning to change their appearance in your mind, gradually prompting you, if not to switch, then at least to incline to the opposite. But I, who remained indifferent on this issue, very much hope that I will find confidence and peace; and you yourself will not deny this if you want to listen to what gives me such hope.
Simplicio. I will listen willingly, and I would no less desire it to have the same effect on me.
G a g p e d o. Please answer my questions. First of all, tell me, Signor Simplicio, whether the question whose solution we are seeking is whether we, with Aristotle and Ptolemy, should consider that the Earth alone remains at the center of the universe, and all the celestial bodies move, or motionless stellar sphere with the Sun in the center, the Earth is located outside this center, and to it belongs the movement that seems to us the movement of the Sun and the fixed stars?
Simplicio. There is a debate on this issue.
S a g p e d o. Are not these two decisions such that of necessity one of them must be true and the other false?
Simplicio. Yes, they are; We are dealing with a dilemma, one part of which must necessarily be true and the other false, for between motion and rest, which are opposites, there can be nothing third, so it is impossible to say: “The earth does not move and does not stand motionless; The sun and stars do not move and do not stand still.”
S a g p e d o. What kind of things are in nature - the Earth. Sun and stars? Insignificant or, on the contrary, significant?
Simplicio. These are the most essential, noblest bodies, separate parts of the universe, the most extensive, the most significant.
movement and rest Sagredo. What about rest and movement, what are the properties of nature? . property ~ Simplicio.
So great and essential that nature itself receives its definition through them.
Sagredo. Thus, eternal motion and complete immobility are two very significant states in nature, which are signs of the greatest difference, especially when they are attributed to the most essential bodies of the universe and from them only completely different phenomena can arise?
day two 229
Simplicio. This is undoubtedly true.
S a g p e d o. Now answer another question. Do you believe that in dialectics, rhetoric, physics, metaphysics, in a word, in all branches of knowledge, there are methods of reasoning that can prove false conclusions no less convincingly than true ones? Simplicio. No, sir, on the contrary, I consider it indisputable and am completely convinced that in order to prove a true and necessary CONCLUSION IN NATURE THERE IS NOT ONLY ONE, BUT MANY MAY-
The false cannot A WAY TO COMMUNICATE YOUR INCREASED THOUGHTS TO ANYONE OTHER the strongest evidence and that one can reason about it, making thousands of comparisons and never falling into inconsistency, and that the more any sophist wants to obscure it, the clearer its reliability will become ; and on- la correct no-turn, in order to make a false position appear I hate it a lot Not true and to convince IN THIS, YOU CANNOT BRING ANYTHING ELSE EXCEPT
compelling argumentsy -J
you" but not soFALSE ARGUMENTS, SOPHISMS, PARALOGISMS, ambiguity
relation to the documentary ^^ and empty reasoning, untenable and replete with inconsistencies eL 1 ° false ~ bed
S a g p e d o. So, if eternal motion and eternal rest are properties so important and so different in nature that they can only be the cause of completely different consequences, especially in relation to the Sun and Earth - these so vast and wonderful bodies of the universe, and if, in addition, , it is impossible that of two contradictory propositions one should not be true and the other false, and if nothing but false arguments can be given to prove a false proposition, while the true one can be verified by arguments and evidence of various kinds, then how do you want that Of you, who will defend the true position, could not convince me? I must be weak in mind, unsteady in judgment, dull in understanding, blind in reasoning, so as not to distinguish light from darkness, diamond from coal, truth from falsehood.
Simplicio. I tell you, and have already said on other occasions, that the greatest master who taught us to recognize sophisms, paralogisms and other false arguments was Aristotle, who in this regard cannot be mistaken.
S a g p e d o. However, you are mistaken along with Aristotle,
WHO CANNOT SPEAK; and I assure you that BE ARISTOTLEAristotle
here, he would have been convinced by us or, having defeated our arguments with better ones, he would have convinced us. But what? Hearing the story Nile would m™ opinion. about experiments with artillery guns, didn’t you admire them and consider them more convincing than Aristotle’s experiments? At the same time, I do not see that Signor Salviati, who
230 DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
produced, reliably examined and most accurately, weighed, admitted himself convinced by them, as well as by others, even more convincing, which, according to him, he could bring to us. I don’t know on what basis you are going to blame nature for the fact that, having fallen into childhood due to longevity, it has forgotten how to produce independently thinking minds and is incapable of producing others except those who, becoming slaves of Aristotle, can think only with his mind and feel with his feelings . But let us listen to other arguments favorable to his opinion, so that we can then move on to testing, testing and weighing them on the assayer’s scales.
S a l v i a t i. Before< ; идти дальше, я должен сказать синьору Сагредо, что в lthm наших беседах я выступаю как ко-перниканец и разыгрываю его роль как актер, но не хочу, чтобы вы судили по моим речам о том, какое внутреннее действие произвели па меня те доводы, которые я как будто привожу в его пользу, пока мы находимся в разгаре представления пьесы; сделайте это потом, после того как я сниму свой наряд и вы найдете меня, быть может, отличным от того, каким видите меня на сцене. Но двинемся дальше. Птолемей и его последователи приводят другой Argument taken an experience similar to the experience with ruffled bodies; they point to
from movement of the area ,- - G-, "
cows and birds. such objects that, being disconnected from the “earth”, hold
high in the air, such as clouds and flying birds; and since they cannot be said to be carried along by the Earth, since they are not in contact with it, it seems impossible that they could maintain its speed, and it would seem to us that they are all moving very quickly towards the west; if we, carried by the Earth, passed our parallel in twenty-four hours - and this is at least sixteen thousand miles - how could birds keep up with this kind of movement? Meanwhile, in fact, we see that they fly in any direction without the slightest perceptible difference, as
Argument taken to the east and to the west. Moreover, if, while riding a horse, we reach
"z airborne experiencehom who ka- we feel the blows of the wind in our faces very vividly, then what a wind
^^^» and ^? p ^ esoe Should we feel from the east, since we are rushing
OyYushch, 1lM rtGtJVtritt"** " */
meeting. moving so quickly towards the air? And yet, no
no such effect is felt. Here's another one, much more
Argument drawn from an ingenious argument drawn from one experience, namely:
pulled out of force from- ^
throwing and Ross-circular motion has the ability to tear off, scatter and - PUSH parts of a moving body away from its center, if the movement is not too slow or these parts are not too firmly connected to each other; so, if we forced it very quickly
DAY TWO 231
If one of those large wheels were spinning, moving inside of which one or two people move large weights, such as a mass of large stones for a ballista or a barge dragged along the ground from one river to another, then parts of this quickly dangerous wheel would fly apart if they would not be firmly connected, and stones or other heavy things must be very firmly attached to the outer surface of the wheel, so that they can resist the impulse which would otherwise throw them in different directions away from the wheel, i.e. in its direction from the center. If the Earth rotated at a similar and even much greater speed, then what weight, what strength of lime or solder would keep rocks, buildings and entire cities from being thrown towards the sky by such a rapid movement? And people and animals who are not tied to the Earth in any way, how could they resist such a great impulse? Meanwhile, we see that they, as well as much smaller objects - pebbles, sand, leaves - lie on the Earth in complete peace and, when falling on it, return to it, albeit with a very slow movement. These, Signor Simplicio, are the most powerful arguments, drawn, so to speak, from earthly phenomena; there remain arguments of a different kind, that is, those that relate to celestial phenomena, arguments aimed, in essence, more at proving the location of the Earth at the center of the universe and, therefore, depriving it of that annual movement around it, which is attributed to to her Copernicus; since these arguments are of a completely different nature, they can be presented after we have experienced the strength of those arguments that have been given so far 10.
G a g p e d o. What do you say, Signor Simplicio? Don't you think that Signor Salviati can and does know how to explain the arguments of Ptolemy and Aristotle? Do you think that any of the Peripatetics are equally in possession of the proofs of Copernicus? Simplicio. If, on the basis of the conversations we have had so far, I had not formed such a high opinion of the solidity of Signor Salviati's education and the sharpness of the mind of Signor Sagredo, I would prefer, with their favorable consent, to leave without hearing anything further, since it seems to me impossible to resist such tactile experiences; I would like, without listening to anything else, to remain with my previous opinion, since, in my opinion, even if it were false, it seems excusable and to adhere to it, since it is based on such plausible grounds; if even the latter are erroneous, then what true proofs have ever been so beautiful?
232 DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
S a g p e d o. However, let us listen to the answers of Signor Salviati; if they correspond to the truth, then they must be even more beautiful and even infinitely more beautiful, and the previous ones must truth and beauty turn out to be ugly and even ugliest, if possible
identical, same y.
like lies and disgrace the position of metaphysics that the true and the beautiful are one and the same aie " the same, as well as the same false and ugly.
That's why,
Signor Salviati, let's not waste any more time. Salviati. If my memory serves me correctly, the first argument given by Signor Simplicio is this. The earth cannot move in a circle, since such a movement would be violent for it, and therefore could not continue forever, * further, the explanation why it would be violent was that, if it were natural, parts of the earth would also naturally rotate would be, which is impossible, since these parts are Objection to the inherent in nature straight motion
down. I will answer this ^ Aristo's argument
*> ^ a body
claiming that parts of the Earth would also move in a circular manner; after all, this circular motion can be understood in two ways: firstly, in such a way that every particle, separated from its whole, would move in a circle around its own center, describing its own small circles; secondly, so that when the whole ball rotates around its center in twenty-four hours, the parts would also rotate around the same center in twenty-four hours. The first would be an inconsistency no less than if someone said that every part of the circumference of a circle must be a circle, or that, since the Earth is spherical, every part of the Earth must be a ball, for this is required by the axiom eadem est ratio totius ex partium. But if it is understood in the second sense, that is, that the parts, imitating the whole, naturally move around the center of the whole globe in twenty-four hours, then I assert that they do this, and it is up to you, instead of Aristotle, to prove that this is not the case.
Simplicio. This is proven by Aristotle in the same place where he says that it is natural for parts to move directly towards the center of the universe, which is why circular motion by nature can no longer be inherent in them.
Salviati. But don’t you see that these same words also contain a refutation of such a statement?
Simplicio. How and where?
Salviati. Doesn't he say that circular motion would be violent for the Earth and therefore non-eternal? And that this would be absurd, since the world order is eternal?
day two 233
Simplicio. Speaks.
SALVIATI.But IF THAT WHAT IS VIOLENT CANNOT
^ " _, ^ " Violent is not
maybe foreverTO BE ETERNAL, THEN CONversely, WHAT CANNOT BE ETERNAL, CANNOT BE
what is not possible
natural; The downward movement of the Earth cannot in any way be eternal, and therefore, it is not and cannot be natural, like any movement that is not eternal. But if we attribute circular motion to the Earth, then it can be eternal both in relation to the Earth itself and its parts, and therefore natural.
Simplicio. Rectilinear motion for parts of the Earth is most natural, it is eternal, and it will never happen that they do not move in a rectilinear motion, assuming, of course, that obstacles to this are invariably removed.
S a l v i a t i. You are playing with words, Signor Simplicio, but I will try to save you from ambiguity. Therefore, tell me, do you believe that a ship sailing from the Strait of Gibraltar to the shores of Palestine can sail forever towards this shore, moving constantly evenly?
Salviati. And why?
Simplicio. Because this voyage is closed and limited by the Pillars of Hercules and the coast of Palestine, and since the distance is limited, it is covered in a finite time, unless, returning back in the opposite direction, they want to repeat the same path; but this would be an interrupted movement, not a continuous one.
Salviati. The answer is absolutely correct. But a voyage from the Strait of Magellan across the Pacific Ocean through the Moluccas, the Cape of Good Hope, and from there through the same Strait again along the same route, etc. could last forever? What do you think?
Simplicio. It could, since it, being a cycle returning to itself, by repeating an infinite number of times, could continue constantly, without any interruption.
Salviati. So, a ship on this route could sail forever?
Simplicio. It could if the ship were eternal; if destroyed, the ship would necessarily end its voyage.
Salviati. And in the Mediterranean, even if the ship were eternal, it could not move towards Palestine endlessly, since
Galileo’s “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World” attracts researchers with the variety of argumentation strategies presented in it and the flexible combination of different positions and methods (empiricism and rationalism, optimism regarding human cognitive abilities and skepticism, reasoning based on qualitative characteristics, and the use of geometric models, etc.). d.) Indeed, what is most striking in the Dialogue is Galileo’s inventiveness in constructing arguments and examples and the impossibility of reducing the polemical strategies he used to any one general formula.
This feature of the “Dialogue” is inextricably linked with its main content. After all, it is devoted to purely scientific issues, but its addressee is not a specific scientific community. The fact is that such a community has not yet formed, and the question of the structure of the Universe aroused burning interest and was discussed by the educated public, including distinguished persons. Galileo works in a situation where there are still no clearly defined methods of justification acceptable in the discussion of a scientific question. Galileo, in fact, largely has to create them, because the existing standards of argumentation (reliance on authorities, for example) do not suit him.
However, there is another important circumstance related to the main content of the Dialogue, which forces Galileo to use a variety of and very sophisticated polemical techniques. The particular difficulty of the question of whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth arises from the fact that it cannot be solved by pointing to facts. As Galileo himself explains in the Dialogue, no matter how things are, be the Earth motionless and the heavens rotating, or be the Earth rotating and celestial sphere motionless - we, who are on Earth, will observe the same thing.
A significant part of the scientific theses defended by Galileo concern phenomena that cannot be observed directly, be it the real movement of the Earth or the movement of a body in the absence of environmental resistance. Galileo's task is to bring the theory he defends out of the state of “empirical weightlessness.” To do this, he must prepare his readers so that they can see in what is observable and what is sometimes quite familiar to them, what is not accessible to direct observation. We need to change the “way of seeing”. The methods of argumentation Galileo invented were aimed at this.
However, the peculiarity of the situation in which he finds himself is that it is not only the cosmological or astronomical theory that is in question. To refute the geocentric picture of the world, Galileo must convince his readers of what destroyed the very foundations of Aristotelian and medieval science: that the senses given by God are neither the only nor the best instruments of perception, that the observed movements are not true movements, that the Universe is vast and vast. etc. That is, Galileo changes the very idea of what argumentation can be based on in matters of physical and cosmology, what can generally be considered as observation, what human reasoning can - or cannot - rely on. It is clear that in such a situation, constructing an argument requires special ingenuity. For the task of Galileo's Dialogue is to develop an audience that can accept his arguments.
Let us begin our study by examining the form and structure of the Dialogue. Here it should be said that the form of dialogue was generally characteristic of the culture of the Renaissance. As noted by L.M. Batkin, “dialogue was not just one of the literary genres of the Italian Renaissance. ...The composition of the dialogue corresponded to the Renaissance ability to take completely different spiritual positions as mutually and equally necessary, to coordinate them to approach the inexhaustible and unique Truth, to use them as adjacent and, therefore, inconclusive. The dialogical presentation corresponded well to what I would call the dialogical nature of humanistic thinking...” We cited this quote in order to emphasize: these characteristics do not apply to Galileo’s “Dialogue”. In it, despite the inevitable reservations and rather careless attempts to deceive the censor, one correct, from the author’s point of view, position is clearly defined, and every effort is made to finally refute opponents.
In this case, one could assume that the form of dialogue is external for Galileo’s “Dialogue”, imposed by circumstances and serving only to avert the eyes of censorship. This, however, is not the case. Galileo uses this genre very productively, building on its basis some special polemical strategies.
Let's look first at the characters in "Dialogue". They are three Venetian patricians - Salviati, Sagredo and Simplicio. The first two characters are named after Galileo's deceased friends, while the third is the name of the "speaker". On the one hand, it is an Italianized version of the name of the famous commentator of Aristotle - Simplicius - and is quite appropriate for a character who throughout the dialogue invariably defends the Aristotelian position. On the other hand, the word "simplicio" in Italian means "simpleton". Thus, this name is part of the means by which Galileo draws the image of this character and expresses his attitude towards him, and through him - towards the adherents of geocentrism.
At the level of the most superficial consideration, it looks like the “Dialogue” presents a symmetrical structure of the distribution of beliefs. Salviati consistently defends Copernicanism and criticizes Aristotelian physics and cosmology. Simplicio also invariably and consistently defends Aristotelianism. Sagredo acts as an unbiased and unbiased judge of their dispute.
And since at the end of the “Dialogue” all three characters unanimously emphasize that the teaching of Copernicus is nothing more than a hypothesis and fantasy, and that the human mind is unable to penetrate the abyss of divine wisdom, then, indeed, one would think that the form of dialogue serves exclusively for averting the eyes of censorship.
However, let’s take a closer look at the characters in “Dialogue” and their roles. First of all, we note that on the pages of the “Dialogue” there also appears a certain Academician, whose name is mentioned with great respect. Salviati refers to the results of his research. The named character supports Salviati’s position with his authority. As for Sagredo, he is presented as an unbiased and at the same time very inquisitive and sensible person. However, in fact he plays on Salviati's side. Either he highly appreciates Salviati’s argumentation, then he recalls an example that is very suitable for Salviati’s reasoning, then he encourages him to consider the proof in more detail, which gives Salviati a reason to develop his thoughts and add arguments. Galileo puts his most caustic remarks against the Aristotelians in the mouth of Sagredo. Here you can see a subtle psychological device, because the remark is all the more effective, the more unbiased the person expressing it is presented. Thus, thanks to the form of dialogue, the position of the co-
the Pernicans and the opponents of Aristotle appear to be supported by many voices and in agreement with normal common sense.
As for Simplicio, throughout the entire “Dialogue” he is invariably distinguished by a certain stupidity and ignorance of issues exact sciences, dogmatic narrow-mindedness and panic fear to lose support in the form of recognized authority, which can be followed thoughtlessly. The clear opposite of him is the inquisitive,
open, witty, grasping “on the fly” the complex scientific argumentation of Sagredo.
The characters in “Dialogue” have distinct individual characteristics, which also contribute to the polemical strategies of the named text, since they correlate with one of the important value oppositions of the Renaissance culture. In Sagredo one can see the embodiment of the Renaissance ideal of a free, independently thinking, independent individual. Again, Galileo puts into his mouth a damning description of the way of thinking that Simplicio represents: “slaves of Aristotle (who) can only think with his mind and feel with his feelings” (p. 230).
Elsewhere Sagredo puts it this way:
I sympathize greatly with Signor Simplicio... I think I hear him say: “Who will we turn to to resolve our disputes if the throne of Aristotle is overthrown? What other authority will we follow in schools, in academies, in teaching?.. .So, it is necessary... to destroy that refuge, that Prytaneum, where so many thirsty for knowledge hid so comfortably, where, not subject to changes in the weather and only turning over a few leaves paper, they acquired all the knowledge of nature?<...>"(P. 154).
guided solely by the arguments of reason, all the time he continued to assert what was apparently contradicted by sensory experiences, and I cannot be sufficiently amazed at how he all the time continued to insist that Venus revolves around the Sun and that it is 7 times further away from us in in one case than in another, despite the fact that it always seems to us the same, whereas it should seem 40 times greater (P. 434).
Elsewhere, speaking of new data obtained through telescopic observations, Salviati again says:
Here we need to once again loudly express our surprise at Copernicus’s foresight and at the same time regret that he does not live in our time, when, in refutation of the seeming absurdity of the joint movement of the Earth and the Moon, we observe that Jupiter, as if a second Earth, is in the company of more than one Moon , and, accompanied by four moons, makes its way around the Sun at the age of 12, along with everything that can be contained within the orbits of the four Medicean stars (P. 435).
In this assessment of Copernicus one can clearly hear the Platonic assessment of reason as the only source of true knowledge, in contrast to the senses. But not only. No less clear here is the high appreciation of free, independent human individuality.
It should be noted here that a characteristic feature of Galileo’s text is the intense presence on its pages of arguments appealing to values and assessments. At one time, A. Koyre, describing the essence of the scientific revolution of the 17th century, singled out such a feature as “the exclusion from scientific use of all judgments based on qualitative assessments, concepts of perfection, harmony, imagery and intentions.” Result The scientific revolution was just that. However during scientific revolution, arguments of this kind were necessary, firstly, because they were often used by Aristotle, and secondly, because Galileo, as already said, does not appeal to a specific professional community, but to a wide circle of the educated public, among whom the question of the true structure of the universe, which directly affected ideological issues, aroused burning interest. Therefore, an appeal to values was inevitable. One feels, however, that for Galileo it was quite organic.
The ideological significance of the Copernican teaching was due to the fact that it undermined the opposition of the earthly and the heavenly, i.e. lower, imperfect, transitory and higher, perfect, unchangeable. This opposition is the supporting structure of Aristotelian cosmology. And at the same time, it has a pronounced value character. Therefore, Galileo, like Aristotle and his followers, appeals to values. Only these are different values.
Sagredo. I cannot, without great surprise and even great resistance of the mind, listen to how, as attributes of special nobility and perfection, equanimity, immutability, indestructibility, etc. are attributed to the natural and integral bodies of the universe, and, on the contrary, they consider emergence, destructibility, variability to be a great imperfection etc., I myself consider the Earth especially noble and worthy of wonder for the many and very different changes, transformations, emergence, etc. that continuously occur on it; if it had not undergone any changes, if all of it had been a huge sandy desert or a mass of jasper, or if during the flood the waters that covered it had frozen, and it had become a huge ball of ice, where nothing is ever born, changes or transforms, then I would call it a body, useless for the world and, to put it briefly, superfluous and as if not existing in nature; I would draw here the same distinction that exists between a living and a dead animal; I will say the same about the Moon, Jupiter and other world bodies. The more I delve into the vanity of popular opinions, the more I find them frivolous and absurd. ...Those who extol indestructibility, immutability, etc., are moved to say such things, I believe, only by the great desire to live longer and the fear of death; they do not think that if people were immortal, then they would not be worth being born at all. They deserve to meet the head of Medusa, which would turn them into a statue of diamond or jasper, so that they become more perfect than they are now. Salviati. Perhaps such a metamorphosis will benefit them, since, in my opinion, it is better not to reason at all than to reason incorrectly (p. 366).
Here we see that Galileo (through the mouth of Salviati), like Aristotle, uses arguments from values and perfection in his argumentation, but his values are opposite to those on which Aristotelian physics and cosmology were based. Galileo appeals to the values of Renaissance culture, such as novelty and creativity, to make the Aristotelian arguments unconvincing.
And even when Galileo apparently appeals to the same values as his opponents, he gives them a completely different meaning. Thus, he agrees with Aristotle that the Universe is perfect. But if for Aristotle this meant a harmonious and stable hierarchy of higher and lower, then for Galileo the postulate of the perfection of the Universe becomes a weapon against the Aristotelian hierarchy of the sublunar and supralunar worlds. Galileo says that in the Universe, all parts of which are in perfect order, rectilinear motion cannot be natural for any body. If there is natural movement, then it could only be
circular for any bodies, says Galileo. This statement undermines the main Aristotelian opposition between the supralunar and sublunar spheres: according to Aristotle, circular motion is natural for the bodies of the supralunar world, and rectilinear for the bodies of the sublunar world. Galileo justifies his statement by the fact that in a perfect, ordered Universe, all parts are in their places, therefore, they must move in such a way that everything remains in their places, and this is only possible with circular motion.
What is interesting here is Galileo’s statement that rectilinear motion is by its nature infinite, for a straight line is infinite. Arguing in this way, Galileo clearly ignores the words of Aristotle himself. Aristotle explicitly rejects the possibility of an infinite line - after all, he considers the Universe to be finite. Galileo's attitude to infinity is fundamentally different from Aristotle's and brings to mind Nicholas of Cusa.
Let us see, further, how the “Dialogue” discusses the question of why the endless outer space and celestial bodies. This question arises in connection with Galileo's explanations of why astronomers do not observe any consequences of the annual motion of the Earth. This is explained by the fact that the distance to the stellar sphere is much greater than previously thought. This assumption gives rise to the following remark from Simplicio
Simplicio. These reasonings are absolutely correct, and no one denies that the size of the sky can exceed our imagination, and also that God could create it a thousand times larger, but we do not dare allow anything to be created in vain and exist in the universe in vain . And since we see this beautiful order of planets located around the Earth at proportional distances in order to influence it for our good, then why else place between the upper orbit of Saturn and the stellar sphere some vast space, without a single star, unnecessary and vain ? For what? For whose joy and benefit? (p. 461).
Discussions about the purposefulness of everything created and that the rotations of the heavens serve to pour beneficial influences into the sublunary world are characteristic of medieval physics. Galileo's argumentation strategy in this case is to point out that we know nothing definitely about the nature of these influences and how they relate to distances. But the main argument is the following: reasoning about the purpose for which the celestial bodies were created exceeds the capabilities of the human mind. The opinion that everything was created for the sake of the Earth and its inhabitants seems to Galileo too naive, on the one hand, and daring, on the other. We have no right to consider ourselves capable of judging why God created many celestial bodies, or making a judgment about which sizes are suitable for the Universe and which are “too huge.” These arguments of Galileo seem interesting to us because behind the external form of humility there is hidden something exactly the opposite: confidence in the possibility of human reason take account that natural limitation that forced man to consider himself the center of the world and the focus of all the concerns and thoughts of God and, thereby, his overcome, having taken a certain universal point of view, which reveals to the mind what really is.
Thus, we see that Galileo's use of argumentation based on goals and values does not serve to establish a connection between the recognized and new pictures of the world, and not (as Feyerabend argued) to mask the depth of the gap between the new scientific thinking and tradition , but in order to show the discrepancy between Aristotelian cosmology and new values and ideas about the Universe born during the Renaissance.
In view of the deep gap not only with cosmology and physics inherited from Aristotle, but also with the standards of science and traditional ideas about human knowledge, the baggage of provisions jointly shared by Galileo and his opponents, on which Galileo could rely when building his argument, turns out to be clearly insufficient. In a situation like this great importance acquires internal criticism of Aristotelian physics and cosmology. She is constantly present on the pages of Dialogue. Galileo points out the paralogisms or lack of clarity of the fundamental concepts of Aristotelian physics.
For example, Aristotle identified three types of movements: from the center, to the center and around the center. Galileo puts the remark into Sagredo’s mouth that Aristotle thereby already proceeds from the fact that in the world there is only one circular motion and, therefore, only one center, to which the rectilinear movements up and down alone relate; ...if I say that there can be thousands of circular movements in the universe and, therefore, thousands of centers, then we will get thousands more movements up and down (P. 112).
This division of types of movement, notes Sagredo, into movement around the center and movement up and down, “presumes the world not only to be complete, but even inhabited by us” (Ibid.).
Thus, Galileo wants to present the position about the center of the world, with which the center of the Earth coincides, as an arbitrary and purely subjective idea, due to the fact that a person cannot help but consider the place where he himself is to be the center. For Aristotle, of course, this position seemed to be confirmed by all observations of celestial and terrestrial movements, and also consistent with common sense and the harmonious and purposeful structure of the Cosmos. If we remain within the Aristotelian system, then there is no paralogism here. Therefore, Galileo's criticism is, in essence, not internal. He turns to contemporary readers and invites them to take a more universal point of view than Aristotle’s, free from the limitations of human ideas.
Here is another example of how Galileo seeks to expose the logical inconsistency in Aristotle's reasoning. Aristotle argues that for the earth, understood as one of the four elements, rectilinear movement towards the center of the world is natural. Due to this movement, the center of the Earth coincides with the center of the world. In Salviati, Aristotle's reasoning is reversed and leads to the opposite conclusion:
Salviati. Doesn't he (i.e. Aristotle) say? 3. S.), that circular motion would be violent for the Earth and therefore non-eternal? And that this would be absurd, since the world order is eternal? Simplicio. Speaks.
Salviati. But if that which is violent cannot be eternal, then conversely, that which cannot be eternal cannot be natural; The downward movement of the Earth cannot in any way be eternal, and therefore, it is not and cannot be natural, like any movement that is not eternal. But if we attribute circular motion to the Earth, then it can be eternal both in relation to the Earth itself and its parts, and therefore natural (P. 233).
And in this reasoning we see a complete change in the Aristotelian position and its replacement by another. For Aristotle, motion is the transition of a thing from one state to another. When a steady state is reached, the thing is at rest. What is natural is precisely the movement that brings a thing to its natural place, in which it, of course, rests. As for the invariably rotating celestial bodies, their movement maintains their stay in their natural place. But that is why their rotation is the unity of movement and rest, and because of this - a more perfect type of movement than rectilinear movement. For Aristotle, peace has ontological primacy. Whereas in Galileo the emphasis is placed precisely on constant, unchanging movement, in which even those bodies that seem motionless to us are involved.
Or let's look at how Galileo criticizes Aristotle's assertion about the immutability of celestial bodies. We have already become familiar with how Galileo changes the value opposition of the changeable and the unchangeable. Let us now turn to purely conceptual criticism. Aristotle justifies the absence of changes in the supralunar sphere by the absence of opposites. To this Galileo objects that immutability has its opposite - variability.
It may seem that Galileo discovered a logical inconsistency in Aristotle. But for Aristotle himself there was no inconsistency here. The variability of the sublunar world was, of course, the opposite of the immutability of the supralunar world.
Simplicio. This can only be sophistry...
Sagredo. Listen to the argument, then name it and untangle it. Celestial bodies, since they do not arise and are indestructible, have opposites in nature, i.e. bodies arising and being destroyed; but where there is opposition, there is generation and destruction; This means that celestial bodies arise and are destroyed.
Simplicio. Didn't I tell you that this can only be sophistry? This is one of the peculiar reasonings called sorites; This is, for example, the reasoning about the Cretan who said that all Cretans are liars; ...You can spin around in this kind of sophism for an eternity without coming to any conclusion.
Sagredo. Until now you have only named it, now all you have to do is unravel it by showing the error.
Simplicio. As for his solution and the explanation of his error, don’t you see, first of all, the obvious contradiction: celestial bodies do not arise and are indestructible, which means that celestial bodies are created and destroyed? Moreover, opposites do not exist among the celestial bodies, they exist only among the elements that have the opposites of movements vishit e1 beokit, and the opposites of lightness and heaviness; but in the heavens, where the movement occurs in a circle - and no other movement is opposite to this movement - there are no opposites, and therefore the heavens are indestructible, etc.
Sagredo. Excuse me, Signor Simplicio. Does the opposite, by virtue of which, in your opinion, some simple bodies are destroyed, reside in such a body itself, or is it connected with another body? For example, I ask, does the humidity, by virtue of which some part of the Earth is destroyed, reside in the Earth itself, or in another body, such as air or water? You will say, I think that both the movement up and down, and heaviness and lightness, which you consider to be the main opposites, cannot be in the same object, and this cannot be the same with wetness and dryness, with heat and cold. ; Therefore, I have to tell you that when a body is destroyed, the destruction occurs due to the property that is in another body and is opposite to its own. Therefore, in order to make a celestial body annihilable, it is enough to discover in nature a body that has the opposite of the celestial body; and these are the elements, if indeed destructibility is the opposite of indestructibility.
Simplicio. No, that's not enough, dear sir. The elements change and disintegrate because they touch and mix with each other and are thus able to influence each other by their opposites; but the heavenly bodies are separated from the elements; the elements do not affect them, although the celestial bodies do affect the elements. If you want to prove the origin and destruction of celestial bodies, then you need to show that there are opposites among them.
Sagredo. Then I will find them for you among the celestial bodies. ...the opposites are density and rarity, so widespread in the celestial bodies that you consider the stars to be nothing more than the denser parts of the heavens...” (pp. 138-141).
But Aristotle did not have this kind of opposites in mind when he spoke of opposites as a condition of change. In case of change, the substrate passes from one state to another, opposite one. When Aristotle speaks of opposites, he constantly implies the opposites that one substrate can assume. And the properties of the sublunar and supralunar worlds are divided into different ontological levels, and there can be no talk of a transition of the substrate from one of these properties to another. After all, the substrate of celestial bodies is ether - “another, separate body, which has a more valuable nature, the further it is from this world.” One could say that Aristotle's proof of the immutability of the supralunar world already presupposes an ontological difference between the supralunar and sublunar worlds, and only provides a further explication of this difference. However, this in itself is not a logical error.
Galileo changes the meaning of Aristotle's words, putting the opposite qualities of the changeable and the unchangeable on the same line. He simply does not want to start from the premise that was self-evident for Aristotle. For him, as for Nicholas of Cusa, N. Copernicus, and G. Bruno, it lost its obviousness.
Thus, Galileo's criticism of Aristotle is not internal. Each time we face different basic assumptions on which different conceptual systems grow. But are any assumptions equivalent? Can't they be verified by experience? Of course, both the followers of Aristotle and Galileo agree with the need for experimental verification and confirmation. The problem, however, is that Galileo makes statements about processes and phenomena that cannot be observed directly. In fact, Galileo talks about the movement of the Earth and at the same time explains that it cannot be noticeable. He discusses movement without environmental resistance, which is not only unobservable, but at the same time impossible. He talks about how light reflected from the Earth would be perceived from the Moon, about the structure of the surface of the Moon and similar things that were certainly not given to his contemporaries in experience.
It is not for nothing that Galileo speaks of what would be observed “if not with the eyes in the forehead, then with the eyes of the mind” (p. 242), and in these words it is right to see an allusion to the words of Plato, who said, explaining his understanding of astronomy, that one must contemplate celestial phenomena with the help of thinking, and not with the eyes.
The most important part of Galileo's argument and his polemical strategies is the inventive construction of ways of treating observations and experiments that make the unobservable observable. It is here, first of all, that we see the significance of Galileo as the founder of a new science.
Galileo's strategies for dealing with experimental data have been the subject of much research.
The problem, as already stated, is that the phenomena Galileo talks about are not directly observable; and what is directly observed requires critical interpretation as to what exactly is being observed. Appearance differs from reality, and sometimes in fundamental ways. In the constant emphasis on this one can see a sign of Galileo’s belonging to the Platonist tradition. But the peculiarity of Galileo’s position is that, for him, the “gap” between appearance and reality, due to the position of the observer on the moving Earth, the structure and capabilities of the human eye, the distance to the observed object, etc., can be rationally determined and taken into account .
For example, at the beginning of Day One, Galileo, through the mouth of Salviati, puts forward the statement that a falling body, leaving a state of rest and continuously accelerating, goes through all degrees of slowness. So in the first moments of the fall, the heavy cast-iron core has such a speed that, if not for further acceleration, it would not have traveled its path at this speed in a hundred, or even a hundred thousand years. This statement is blatantly at odds with experience showing how quickly a falling cannonball travels. Infinite degrees of slowness, of course, cannot be observed. This is a purely speculative construction, an application to the case of the fall of certain ideas about the structure of the continuum. However, Galileo finds a way to make it visible and even confirmed by experience. Under his pen, what was originally an unobservable theoretical construct is replaced by a mental series experimental situations. Galileo replaces falling in a straight line with rolling down an inclined plane. Such a replacement is justified by the fact that the speeds of falling and sliding are in a certain proportional relationship to each other. After this, we only need to imagine an unlimited series of increasingly shallow inclined planes in order to realize that rolling down them begins with very small degrees of speed. This is quite imaginable and also feasible in practice. As a result, such an imaginary, but practically possible, series of rolls acts as a real, material embodiment of such an abstract concept as “an arbitrarily small degree of speed.” In this case, of course, we still will not be able to observe “all degrees of slowness.” Then what role does the proposed experiment play? Is it mental or real? It turns out that one cannot be separated from the other, since a real experiment serves to encourage us to see a vertical fall in a slide down an inclined plane, and an arbitrarily low speed in a series of decreasing speeds. That is, the mental representation of a series of increasingly shallow inclined planes encourages readers to make the ultimate transition and supplement the observable with what is no longer observable. It is important that the observable and the unobservable turned out to be connected in one series of continuous transitions.
Let's pay attention to character traits Galilean method: a speculative construction is matched with a model that is as material as it is speculative. Strange as this last phrase may sound, we insist on it: the model is both material and speculative. Moreover: it is the creation of models of this kind that constitutes distinctive feature experimental method developed by Galileo. Let us also pay attention to the following extremely important point (which in in this example, perhaps not yet so obvious): the interweaving of a speculative construction and an empirical model, the ability to substitute one in place of the other, are based on real objective manipulation, for the opportunity create arbitrarily smooth and gently sloping inclined planes. The transition of the speculative into the material and experimental is possible thanks to a kind of technical activities.
Here is the following illustration of how Galileo justifies his assertion by taking one phenomenon as a model for another. This is one of the arguments justifying the unevenness of the lunar surface. This question is important for refuting the idea of the “lunar edge”, i.e. qualitative opposition between the supralunar and sublunar worlds. Galileo seeks to prove similarity between the Earth and the Moon where Aristotelian cosmology sees a fundamental difference. The Moon, Galileo declares, referring to the fact of solar and lunar eclipses, shines with reflected light. But then, the Earth also shines with the reflected light of the Sun. She, like the Moon, is capable of reflecting the light of the Sun and even illuminating the Moon. From the Moon, the Earth would appear to glow, just as we see the Moon. The fact that we see the Earth not luminous, like the Moon, but dark, is determined by our observation conditions - the fact that we are not on the Moon, but on the Earth (P. 161).
All these statements of Galileo run up against the provisions of Aristotelian cosmology, according to which the Moon is a transparent and absolutely smooth ethereal body. Therefore, Galileo begins to prove that only a body with an uneven surface can reflect light in the way that the Moon does. The surface of the Moon is not accessible to direct observation. (Here it must be emphasized that the famous Galilean telescopic observations, and among them the observations of mountains and depressions on the Moon, are also not direct. Mountains and depressions are the result of an interpretation of changes in the visible appearance of the Moon throughout the night.) However, Salviati offers an observation, in during which this surface is replaced by others. Instead of an unattainable object, we are offered its model.
Salviati. Be so kind as to take this mirror hanging here on the wall, and let's go out into the yard... Hang the mirror here, on this wall, where the Sun falls; Let's move away from here and hide in the shadows. There are two surfaces on which the Sun falls, i.e. wall and mirror. Tell me now, which seems lighter to you - the surface of the wall or the surface of the mirror? You do not answer?
Sagredo. I leave it to Signor Simplicio to answer, because he had difficulties; I myself was convinced from the very beginning of the experiment that the surface of the Moon must inevitably be extremely poorly leveled.
Salviati. Tell me, Signor Simplicio, if you had to paint this wall with this mirror hanging on it, where would you use darker colors - when painting the wall or when painting the mirror?
Simplicio. Much darker, depicting a mirror.
Salviati. This means that if a stronger reflection of light comes from the surface that appears lighter, then the wall will reflect the rays of the Sun to us more vividly than a mirror (pp. 169-170).
True, Simplicio objects that there is a place from which the surface of the mirror seems not just bright, but as blinding as the Sun itself, whose rays it reflects. However, Salviati immediately explains that this circumstance only strengthens his statement:
Salviati. You, with your usual insight, warned me, since I needed this same observation to clarify what remained. So you see the difference between the two reflections caused by two surfaces - the surface of the wall and the surface of the mirror; the sun's rays fall on them in exactly the same way, and you see how the reflection from the wall spreads in all directions opposite to it, and the reflection of the mirror goes only in one direction, and it is no larger than the mirror itself; you see in the same way how the surface of the wall, no matter where you look at it, always seems uniform in brightness and in general much brighter than the surface of the mirror, with the exception of only that small place where the reflection of the mirror falls, so that from there it appears much brighter than the wall. From these very tangible and visual experiences, it seems to me that one can very easily come to know whether the reflection that comes to us from the Moon comes as from a mirror or as from a wall, i.e. from a smooth surface or from a rough one (P. 170-171).
After which Sagredo states:
Sagredo. If I were on the Moon itself, I think I could not be more clearly convinced of the unevenness of its surface than now, observing it from the angle of our conversation (Ibid.).
Thus, the reader is again led to the idea that direct observation can be dispensed with if one looks at things not with the eyes in the forehead, but with the eyes of the mind, i.e. correctly interpret what is observable. Then one can achieve evidence more certain than that evidenced by the senses. Please note that this is only possible from a certain angle, i.e. only in a certain theoretical context, when observed objects play the role of models for observing something else.
But on what basis are they assigned such a role? After all, Salviati himself immediately notices that a serious objection can be raised against his proposed observations: after all, the wall and the mirror are flat, and the Moon is a sphere. After this, a spherical mirror is brought. Now it will play the role of a model object, since it is very similar to the modeled object. A new observation is being carried out, which should show that a spherical mirror does not reflect light evenly in all directions. The observation is preceded by Salviati's reasoning, explaining that a spherical mirror scatters light rays so that only a small part of them enters the eye. Therefore, the reflection from a spherical mirror cannot look like the reflection of light from the Moon. This is confirmed by observation.
So in this case, we see a sequence of model objects, in this case there are two of them. Galileo does not claim that they - or the last of them - are sufficiently similar to the Moon. Yes, this is not required for his argument. After all, they act as empirical models of the process of reflection of light rays, because this is precisely the process we are talking about. So, ultimately, both the first model and the second are special cases of the general theoretical model of the reflection of light and its perception by our organs of vision. And without a theoretical model, we would not be able to understand the significance of these observations.
And finally, the third example that we would like to consider is the experience of a stone falling from the top of the mast of a moving ship. What is noteworthy here is the complex structure of argumentation into which this experiment is woven. It is intended to serve as a refutation of a refutation: namely, a refutation of the Copernican statement about the rotation of the earth by reference to the directly observable fact that a stone falling from the top of a tower falls along a plumb line at its base.
This observation was presented as a refutation of Copernicanism, because it was implied that if the Earth rotated, the stone would not fall at the base of the tower, since during the fall of the stone the tower would move to the east. And this, further, was illustrated by the statement of the following observation: if the ship is stationary, then the stone falls from the top of the mast exactly at its base, and when the ship moves, it falls closer to the stern.
It is curious that in the “Dialogue” it is Salviati who gives a whole series of observations and experiments that testify against the statement about the rotation of the Earth: this is the mentioned falling of a stone, and shots from a cannon vertically upward or in all directions of the world (the cannonball flies the same distance in all directions), and the movement of clouds and birds that keep up with the Earth, and much more. As a result, Simplicio perks up and gains confidence. For the reader, an intrigue arises here: what will happen next, how will Salviati be able to respond to so much evidence refuting him?
And Galileo, through this technique, once again makes it clear that supporters of Copernicus hear the arguments of the other side and think through them, which cannot be said about supporters of traditional ideas. Here we are once again convinced of how skillfully Galileo uses psychological techniques controversy. But at the same time, his arguments are by no means reduced to techniques of this kind.
In response to the above experiments and observations, Galileo must prove that both a stone falling vertically from the top of a tower and a cannonball fired upward, either to the east or to the west, participate in the movement of the Earth, therefore, from their observed movement it is impossible to conclude whether the Earth is moving or not. However, the idea of the “participation” of one body in the movement of another without their direct contact is unacceptable to the Aristotelian.
Galileo was faced with a difficult task: somehow making observable what was in principle impossible to observe. In the course of a long and whimsically developing discussion, a mention appears of observations of a stone falling from the mast of a moving ship.
At the same time, Salviati warns Simplicio that the case with the ship is too different from the case with the Earth, for if the Earth rotates, then this movement is natural for it, whereas the movement of the ship is not natural. However, having pointed out this difference, Salviati is content with Simplicio's acceptance of the following premise: “the phenomena on Earth must correspond to the phenomena on the ship” (p. 242). So, the model object is chosen, in this case by agreement with the opponent. Following this, Salviati states that no one has actually conducted such an experiment on a moving ship. Simplicio is indignant:
Salviati. ...Have you ever carried out an experiment on a ship? Simplicio. I did not produce it, but I am quite sure that those authors who produced it carefully considered it...
Salviati. It is possible that these authors referred to experience without producing it; you yourself are that good example when, without performing an experiment, you declare it reliable and invite us to take their word for it; It is also not only possible, but also reliable, that the authors acted in the same way, referring to their predecessors and never reaching the one who performed this experiment himself, for anyone who does it will find that experience shows exactly the opposite of what is written , namely, that a stone will always fall in the same place on a ship, whether it is stationary or moving at any speed. From here, since the conditions of the Earth and the ship are the same, it follows that from the fact that the stone always falls vertically to the foot of the tower, no conclusion can be drawn about the movement or rest of the Earth.
Simplicio. How is it that, without having completed a hundred tests, or even one, you act in such a decisive manner? I return to my disbelief and to the belief that the experiment was produced by the original authors who refer to it, and that it shows what they claim.
Salviati. Even without experience, I am sure that the result will be the same as I tell you, since it is necessary for it to follow; Moreover, I will say that you yourself also know that it cannot be otherwise, although you pretend or pretend that you do not know this. But I am a good enough mind catcher and I will force a confession from you (Ibid.
Elsewhere Galileo gives an interesting interpretation of this Platonistic recollection. There the question of the trajectory of a body released from a sling is discussed, and at one point Simplicio exclaims:
Simplicio: Let me think a little, since I have never thought about this.
Salviati: Between us, Signor Sagredo, this quoddam reminisce, correctly understood, is evident (p. 292).
Hence, recollection called the work of thinking, freeing itself from the pressure of authorities, dogmas and from blind trust in the evidence of feelings and relying only on its own, i.e. logical reasons.
Regarding the question of a stone falling from the top of the mast of a moving ship, Salviati directs the process of remembering as follows. He suggests imagining a perfectly smooth and hard inclined surface and a perfectly hard and round ball. A ball placed on a plane would, as Simplicio guesses, roll down the slope with acceleration for as long as the given plane continues. If you put a ball and give it momentum by pushing it up on such a plane, it will move slower and eventually stop. After this, Salviati poses the question of what will happen to the ball if the plane has neither ascent nor descent, but is located parallel to the horizon, if the ball is given momentum and all obstacles to movement are removed.
Simplicio. I cannot discover here the reasons for acceleration or deceleration, since there is neither inclination nor elevation. Salviati. Yes, but if there is no reason for slowing down, then even less can there be a reason for rest here. Therefore, how long do you think the movement of this body would continue? Simplicio. As long as the length of such a surface without descent or ascent is large.
Salviati. Consequently, if such space were infinite, movement through it would equally have no limit, i.e. would it be permanent?
Simplicio. It seems to me that this would be true if the body were made of durable material.
Salviati. This is already assumed, since it was said that all incoming and external obstacles are eliminated, and the destructibility of a moving body is one of the incoming obstacles. Tell me, what exactly do you think is the reason that this ball moves on an inclined plane on its own, and on a rising plane only by force?
Simplicio. The fact that heavy bodies tend to naturally move towards the center of the Earth and only forcibly upward towards the periphery, while the inclined surface is such that it brings it closer to the center, and the rising one moves away.
Salviatp. Consequently, a surface that would have neither inclination nor elevation would have to be equally distant from the center in all its parts. But are there any such planes anywhere in the world?
Simplicio. There are such things - at least the surface of our globe, if only it were completely smooth, and not what it really is, i.e. uneven and mountainous; This is, for example, the surface of the water when it is quiet and calm.
Salviatp. Consequently, a ship moving on the surface of the sea is one of those moving bodies that slide along one of such surfaces without tilting or lifting and which therefore have a tendency, if all random and external obstacles are removed, to move with the impulse once received constantly and uniformly?
Simplicio. It seems that it should be so.
Salviatp. And that stone that is at the top of the mast, does not it move, carried by the ship along the circumference of the circle, around the center, therefore, by a movement that is not destroyed in it in the absence of external obstacles? And isn’t this movement as fast as the movement of a ship?
Simplicio. So far everything is going well. But what next?
Salviati. Will you not finally draw the final conclusion yourself, if you yourself know all the premises in advance? (pp. 247-248).
The conclusion to which Galileo leads Simplicio, and with him the reader, is that, since the equivalence of the situations with a moving ship and with a rotating Earth is recognized, then from all the listed observed facts - a vertical fall of a stone from the top of a tower, the same distance , which a cannonball fired from a cannon flies east and west, etc. - no conclusion can be made about the movement or rest of the Earth.
In this argumentation, complex in structure, we see that the question of the movement of the Earth is first replaced by one model - a ship, and this model is then, in turn, replaced by another - an ideally smooth plane and the movement of an ideally round and rigid body along it. If the first model can be considered empirical, then the second is obviously ideal and speculative. However, one acts as a model for considering the processes taking place in the other. Here we see once again that to Galileo the gap between the ideal and the material seems surmountable. Reasoning based on this principle in the text of the Dialogue is not uncommon. For example, later in the text the question arises as to whether there can be a completely spherical material body, and Salviati answers:
Of all the shapes that can be given to a solid body, the spherical is the easiest, since it is the simplest... And the formation of a sphere is so easy that if a round hole is made in a flat plate of solid metal, in which some solid will rotate a body that is very roughly rounded, then it will naturally, without other tricks, take on a spherical shape, no matter how perfect, as long as such a solid body is no smaller than the sphere passing through this circle... (P. 308-309)
So, in matter it is possible to embody arbitrarily perfect smoothness, straightness, and sphericity with the help of fairly simple technical techniques.
In the reasoning we are discussing about the conservation of impulse to movement, a stronger assumption is made about the elimination any resistance to movement. Obviously, this experiment is a thought experiment. But it gives the key to understanding what can be observed in the next, more empirical model - a ship smoothly gliding along the surface of the sea. However, the latter model is a combination of the empirical and the speculative. You can think about how feasible it is, i.e. Is it possible to observe absolutely smooth movement of a ship, neglecting water resistance, pitching, etc. However, the first, purely speculative experiment sets a way of seeing the movements associated with the second model, and through it leads to the idea of relativity of any movements observed on Earth. Now falling objects, clouds, birds soaring in the air, etc. become embodiments of a ball moving endlessly along a plane parallel to the horizon, from Galileo's thought experiment.
Thus, Galileo's argument is built on gradual transitions from the speculative to the real. But, let us emphasize once again, such a complex argumentation strategy is due to the nature of the subject he is studying.
Name:
Galileo Galilei
Publisher: State Publishing House of Technical and Theoretical Literature
The year of publishing: 1948
Pages: 378
Format: DJVU+OCR
Size: 12.3 MB
Quality: Excellent, 600dpi, text layer.
Translation and foreword by A.I. Dolgov. In 1632, the most famous work Galileo, which served as the reason for the trial of the scientist. The first complete Russian translation of this work. Gift edition in super and printed box. Printed in Dresden from matrices of 1 exemplary printing house. Antique book.
FROM THE PREFACE
Almost four hundred years ago, on March 24, 1543, lying on his deathbed, the hitherto little-known canon Nicolaus Copernicus of Thorn touched with his hand a freshly printed copy of his brilliant work in six books De Revolutionibus Orbiumo celestium (i.e. “On Conversion”) celestial worlds"), summing up his observations and reflections on this issue for more than thirty years and containing the foundations of the heliocentric system of the world.
The ideas of Copernicus, presented by him in a strictly mathematical form and developed on the basis of a wealth of factual material, only slowly and gradually began to spread among scientists in various countries, meeting with different assessments on their part. Thus, the most famous astronomer-observer of the era in question, Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), did not recognize the Copernican system and, in contrast to it, put forward his own in 1588, according to which all the planets revolved around the Sun, with the exception of the Earth; the latter remained motionless and the Sun with the planets and the Moon revolved around it. This was some step forward compared to the Ptolemaic system, but a decisive step back compared to the Copernican system (De Mundi Aetherei recentiori-bus phenomenis liber secundus, 1602). At the same time, Kepler (1571-1630) was not only a convinced supporter of the heliocentric system, but also a brilliant scientist who managed to develop the teachings of Copernicus, establishing three laws of planetary motions that bear his name (the first two were published by him in Astronomia nova, 1609; the third was installed by him in May 1618). The opinion of other, less prominent scientists from Central European countries is not of significant interest to us; one can only state that the teachings of Copernicus, albeit with a delay of 50-60 years, became familiar to them and were interpreted by them as a serious scientific theory.
How the teachings of Copernicus were initially received in Italy, Galileo narrates very colorfully at the beginning of the second day of the Dialogue, putting into the mouth of Sagredo a description of his conversation with visitors to the lectures of Christian Wursteisen (1544-1588), in which the latter promoted this teaching. However, in this country there were, although small in number, adherents of the “Pythagorean” teaching. Among them, the deep thinker Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), who was burned at the stake in Rome by the verdict of the Inquisition, deserves special attention. The same views were held by Jacobo Mazzoni, Galileo's teacher, the only professor at the University of Padua who did not belong to the Peripatetic camp. It is also interesting that under the influence of new facts and evidence, that is, much later, such an honored scientist as Clavius (1537-1612), the author of many times reprinted commentaries on the “Sphere” of Sacrobosco, who during throughout his long life he was engaged in expounding and defending it...
