After his rebuff in Rome, Galileo returned to Florence, where he settled in the wellappointed villa of Bellosguardo, on a hill west

of the city. His choice of residence was

based, in part, on its proximity to a Franciscan convent, where two of his daughters
had recently entered as nuns. (Their illegitimate birth deprived them of favorable
marriage prospects, and so their acceptance by the convent provided a security
they could not otherwise have hoped for.) Galileo was very close to his two
daughters, particularly the eldest, Virginia, now known as Sister Mary Celeste, who
would become a great support to him in his old age. Meanwhile, the Church's
prohibitions had not diminished his intellectual fire, although for a time he
channeled it into more minor pursuits, focusing on safer topics like magnets and
motion, the construction of a microscope, and even plans for flood control in
northern Italy. But his inability to explore his true interests wore on him, and for a
time Galileo seems to have sunk into a deep depression, worsened by bouts of
illness and hypochondria. Moreover, from 1617 to 1619, a series of terrible winters
ruined the economy of Florence, making his gloomy predicament all the worse.
Eventually, however, his spirits revived; Galileo was soon fired up again in astronomical debate, as
the August 1618 appearance of a magnificent comet sparked disagreement between his disciples
and the Jesuit astronomers. While the Church scientists maintained that comets originated beyond
the moon, Galileo's theory held (mistakenly) that they emanated from the earth's atmosphere. Now
jumping personally into the fray, Galileo assisted one of his followers, Mario Guiducci, in writing a
pamphlet objecting to the Jesuit view. The pamphlet employed such harsh languagereferring to
"absurdities" and "monstrosities" of their theorythat the Jesuits recoiled in bitter enmity. They
responded to the Guiducci-Galileo treatise in harsh and cutting terms, thus inviting a counter-thrust
from the proud Galileo. However, he waited two years before delivering it, composing in the
meantime the 1622 treatise "The Assayer," which issued a rallying cry for what he believed to be the
true path of scientific thought: "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, which stands
continually open to our gaze," he wrote. "But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns
to comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is composed," he went on: "It is written
in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric
figures... Without these, one wanders about in a dark and obscure labyrinth." In his heart, he was still
the eager student at the University of Pisa, entranced by the glorious vistas of mathematics.
Meanwhile, political developments gave Galileo reason for a new optimism. September 1621 saw
the death of Galileo's old nemesis, Cardinal Bellarmine. In January of that year, Pope Paul V had
died as well, being replaced by the elderly Gregory XV, who passed away in turn in June of 1623.
His successor was Urban VIII, a liberal churchman with a bent for science and a special fondness for
Galileo.

At home in Bellosguardo, Galileo rejoiced at the election, and quickly dedicated "The Assayer" to the
new Pope, who allowed it to be published and reportedly roared with laughter at Galileo's verbal
tweaking of the Jesuits. Heartened, Galileo journeyed to Rome in April of 1624, and received warm
welcome from Urban, who loaded him with gifts and praisebut refused to lift the Inquisition's ban on
the Copernican theory. He and Galileo sparred over the issue, and his arguments seem to have
stuck in Galileo's head, for he would put them in the mouth of a foolish character in his forthcoming
work, the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. This would be a colossal blunder. For
now though, Urban seemed to point the way to reconciliation when he declared that the Church had
never "condemned nor ever would condemn the doctrine [of heliocentricity] as heretical, but only as
rash." Galileo returned home in June, and, encouraged by the new leniency of Rome's position, set
to work on what would become his masterpiece.
Galileo worked on the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systemsintermittently over a period
of five years, from 1624 to 1629. His labor encountered frequent interruptions, first in the form of
persistent ill health and then by his temporary appointment to the ruling council of Tuscany under
Cosimo II's son Ferdinand, but he persevered, and completed his labors. As its title suggests, the
work took the form of a dialogue between three speakers: Salviati, a Copernican who speaks for
Galileo himself; Sagredo, an open-minded gentleman who gradually comes to accept Salviati's
arguments; and Simplicio, a defender of the Ptolemaic world-view, whose simplistic dogmatism falls
to Salviati's keen insights. The dialogue form allowed him to claim impartiality he was "equally"
presenting both viewsalthough in fact, of course, he clearly weighted the dialogue toward the
Copernican point of view. Nevertheless, it seemed that the text would pass muster with the Catholic
authorities: Galileo visited Rome in the spring of 1630, and obtained tentative permission for the
publication of theDialogue, on condition that certain changes be made, and that rigorous care be
taken that the heliocentric theory be treated explicitly as a hypothesis. But now a plague swept
Florence, and Galileo was called home; as disease descended upon northern Italy and
communications broke down, Church authorities agreed that Galileo need not come to Rome for
more revisions: the work could be published, as long as Galileo included an orthodox preface and
conclusion, penned by the censors in Rome. The Dialogue was published according to orders in
Florence in February 1632. It marked a great triumph for Galileo: his arguments for Copernicus's
system stood in print at last, and with the blessing of the Church. But this triumph would be shortlived.

http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0072482621/student_view0/astronomy_timel
ine.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_astronomy

Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World

Systems
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Frontispiece and title page of the Dialogue, 1632
The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi
del mondo) was a 1632 Italian-language book by Galileo Galilei comparing the Copernican
system with the traditional Ptolemaic system. It was translated into Latin as Systema cosmicum[1]
(English: Cosmic System) in 1635 by Matthias Bernegger.[2] The book, which was dedicated to
Galileo's patron, Ferdinando II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, and delivered to him on
February 22, 1632.[3]
In the Copernican system the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun, while in the Ptolemaic
system everything in the Universe circles around the Earth. The Dialogue was published in
Florence under a formal license from the Inquisition. In 1633, Galileo was found to be
"vehemently suspect of heresy" based on the book, which was then placed on the Index of
Forbidden Books, from which it was not removed until 1835 (after the theories it discussed had
been permitted in print in 1822).[4] In an action that was not announced at the time, the
publication of anything else he had written or ever might write was also banned.[5]

Contents

1 Overview
o 1.1 Structure
o 1.2 Content
o 1.3 Omissions

2 Summary
o 2.1 Day one
o 2.2 Day two
o 2.3 Day three
o 2.4 Day four

3 Editions in print

4 Notes

5 Bibliography

6 External links

Overview
While writing the book, Galileo referred to it as his Dialogue on the Tides, and when the
manuscript went to the Inquisition for approval the title was Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of
the Sea. He was ordered to remove all mention of tides from the title and to change the preface,
because granting approval to such a title would look like approval of his theory of the tides,
which used the motion of the Earth in its proof. As a result, the formal title on the title page is
Dialogue, which is followed by Galileo's name and academic posts, followed by a long subtitle.
The name by which the work is now known was extracted by the printer from the description on
the title page when permission was given to reprint it with an approved preface by a Catholic
theologian in 1744.[6] This must be kept in mind when discussing Galileo's motives for writing
the book. Although the book is presented formally as a consideration of both systems (as it
needed to be in order to be published at all), there is no question that the Copernican side gets the
better of the argument.[7]

Structure
The book is presented as a series of discussions, over a span of four days, among two
philosophers and a layman:

Salviati argues for the Copernican position and presents some of Galileo's views directly,
calling him the "Academician" in honor of Galileo's membership in the Accademia dei
Lincei. He is named after Galileo's friend Filippo Salviati (15821614).

Sagredo is an intelligent layman who is initially neutral. He is named after Galileo's

friend Giovanni Francesco Sagredo (15711620).

Simplicio, a dedicated follower of Ptolemy and Aristotle, presents the traditional views
and the arguments against the Copernican position. He is supposedly named after
Simplicius of Cilicia, a sixth-century commentator on Aristotle, but it was suspected the
name was a double entendre, as the Italian for "simple" (as in "simple minded") is
"semplice".[8] Simplicio is modeled on two contemporary conservative philosophers,
Lodovico delle Colombe (Italian) (15651616?), Galileo's fiercest detractor, and Cesare
Cremonini (15501631), a Paduan colleague who had refused to look through the
telescope.[9] Colombe was the leader of a group of Florentine opponents of Galileo's,
which some of the latter's friends referred to as "the pigeon league".[10]

Content
The discussion is not narrowly limited to astronomical topics, but ranges over much of
contemporary science. Some of this is to show what Galileo considered good science, such as the
discussion of William Gilbert's work on magnetism. Other parts are important to the debate,
answering erroneous arguments against the Earth's motion.
A classic argument against earth motion is the lack of speed sensations of the earth surface,
though it moves, by the earth's rotation, at about 1700 km/h at the equator. In this category there
is a thought experiment in which a man is below decks on a ship and cannot tell whether the ship
is docked or is moving smoothly through the water: he observes water dripping from a bottle,
fish swimming in a tank, butterflies flying, and so on; and their behavior is just the same whether
the ship is moving or not. This is a classic exposition of the Inertial frame of reference and
refutes the objection that if we were moving hundreds of kilometres an hour as the Earth rotated,
anything that one dropped would rapidly fall behind and drift to the west.
The bulk of Galileo's arguments may be divided into three classes:

Rebuttals to the objections raised by traditional philosophers; for example, the thought
experiment on the ship.

Observations that are incompatible with the Ptolemaic model: the phases of Venus, for
instance, which simply couldn't happen, or the apparent motions of sunspots, which could
only be explained in the Ptolemaic or Tychonic systems as resulting from an implausibly
complicated precession of the Sun's axis of rotation.[11]

Arguments showing that the elegant unified theory of the Heavens that the philosophers
held, which was believed to prove that the Earth was stationary, was incorrect; for
instance, the mountains of the Moon, the moons of Jupiter, and the very existence of
sunspots, none of which was part of the old astronomy.

Generally, these arguments have held up well in terms of the knowledge of the next four
centuries. Just how convincing they ought to have been to an impartial reader in 1632 remains a
contentious issue.
Galileo attempted a fourth class of argument:

Direct physical argument for the Earth's motion, by means of an explanation of tides.

As an account of the causation of tides or a proof of the Earth's motion, it is a failure. The
fundamental argument is internally inconsistent and actually leads to the conclusion that tides do
not exist. But, Galileo was fond of the argument and devoted the "Fourth Day" of the discussion
to it.
The degree of its failure islike nearly anything having to do with Galileoa matter of
controversy. On the one hand, the whole thing has recently been described in print as
"cockamamie."[12] On the other hand, Einstein used a rather different description:
It was Galileo's longing for a mechanical proof of the motion of the earth which misled him into
formulating a wrong theory of the tides. The fascinating arguments in the last conversation
would hardly have been accepted as proof by Galileo, had his temperament not got the better of
him. [Emphasis added][13][14]

Omissions
A copy of The Dialogo, Florence edition, located at the Tom Slick rare book collection at
Southwest Research Institute, in Texas.
The dialogue does not treat the Tychonic system which was becoming the preferred system of
many astronomers at the time of publication, but ultimately was proven incorrect. The Tychonic
system is a motionless Earth system but not a Ptolemaic system; it is a hybrid system of the
Copernican and Ptolemaic models. Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun (as in the Copernican
system) in small circles, while the sun in turn orbits a stationary Earth; Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn
orbit the Sun in much larger circles, which means they also orbit the earth. The Tychonian
system is mathematically equivalent to the Copernican system, except that the Copernican
system predicts a stellar parallax, while the Tychonian system predicts no stellar parallax. Stellar
parallax was not measurable until the 19th Century, and therefore there was at the time no valid
disproof of the Tychonic system on empirical grounds, nor any decisive observational evidence
for the Copernican system.
Galileo never took Tycho's system seriously, as can be seen in his correspondence, regarding it as
an inadequate and physically unsatisfactory compromise. A reason for the absence of Tycho's
system (in spite of many references to Tycho and his work in the book) may be sought in
Galileo's theory of the tides, which provided the original title and organizing principle of the
Dialogue. For, while the Copernican and Tychonic systems are equivalent geometrically, they are
quite different dynamically. Galileo's tidal theory entailed the actual, physical movement of the
Earth; that is, if true, it would have provided the kind of proof that Foucault's pendulum
apparently provided two centuries later. With reference to Galileo's tidal theory, there would be
no difference between the Ptolemaic and Tychonic systems.
Galileo also fails to discuss the possibility of non-circular orbits, although Kepler's proposal of
an elliptical orbit for Mars had been published in 1609. Prince Cesi's letter to Galileo of 1612

treated the two laws of 1609 as common knowledge. Kepler's third law was published in 1619. A
heliocentric system with planets in elliptical orbits is deducible from Newton's laws of motion
and gravity, but these were not published until 1687.

Summary
Preface: To the Discerning Reader' refers to the ban on the 'Pythagorean opinion that the earth
moves' and claims that the author 'takes the Copernican side with a pure mathematical
hypothesis'. He introduces the friends Sagredo and Salviati who he had had discussions with as
well as the peripatetic philosopher Simplicio.

Day one
He starts with Aristotle's proof of the completeness and perfection of the world (i.e. the universe)
because of its three dimensions. Simplicio points out that three was favoured by the
Pythagoreans whereas Salviati can't understand why three legs are better than two or four. He
suggests that the numbers were 'trifles which later spread among the vulgar' and that their
definitions, such as those of straight lines and right angles, were more useful in establishing the
dimensions. Simplicio's response was that Aristotle thought that in physical matters
mathematical demonstration wasn't always needed.
Salviati attacks Aristotle's definition of the heavens as incorruptible and unchanging whilst only
the lunar-bound zone shows change. He points to the changes seen in the skies: the new stars of
1572 and 1604 and sunspots, seen through the new telescope. There is a discussion about
Aristotle's use of a priori arguments. Salviati suggests that he uses his experience to choose an
appropriate argument to prove just as others do and that he would change his mind in the present
circumstances.
Simplicio argues that sunspots could simply be small opaque objects passing in front of the sun,
but Salviati points out that some appear or disappear randomly and those at the edge are
flattened, unlike separate bodies. Therefore "it is better Aristotelian philosophy to say 'Heaven is
alterable because my senses tell me' than 'Heaven is unalterable because Aristotle was so
persuaded by reasoning'".
Experiments with a mirror are used to show that the moon's surface must be opaque and not a
perfect crystal sphere as Simplicio believes. He refuses to accept that mountains on the moon
cause shadows, or that reflected light from the earth is responsible for the faint outline in a
crescent moon.
Sagredo holds that he considers the earth noble because of the changes in it whereas Simplicio
says that change in the moon or stars would be useless because they do not benefit man. Salviati
points out that days on the moon are a month long and despite the varied terrain that the
telescope has disclosed, it wouldn't sustain life. Humans acquire mathematical truths slowly and
hesitantly, whereas God knows the full infinity of them intuitively. And when one looks into the
marvellous things men have understood and contrived, then clearly the human mind is one of the
most excellent of God's works.

Day two
Salviati starts by repeating that Aristotle would be changing his opinions if he saw what they
were seeing. "It is the followers of Aristotle who have crowned him with authority, not he who
has usurped or appropriated it to himself."
There is one supreme motionthat by which the sun, moon, planets and fixed stars appear to be
moved from east to west in the space of 24 hours. This may as logically belong to the earth alone
as to the rest of the universe. Aristotle and Ptolemy, who understood this, do not argue against
any other motion than this diurnal one.
Motion is relative: the position of the sacks of grain on a ship can be identical at the end of the
voyage despite the movement of the ship. Why should we believe that nature moves all these
extremely large bodies with inconceivable velocities rather than simply moving the moderately
sized earth? If the earth is removed from the picture, what happens to all the movement?
The movement of the skies from east to west is the opposite of all the other motions of the
heavenly bodies which are from west to east; making the earth rotate brings it into line with all
the others. Although Aristotle argues that circular motions are not contraries, they could still lead
to collisions.
The great orbits of the planets take longer than the shorter: Saturn and Jupiter take many years,
Mars two, whereas the moon takes only a month. Jupiter's moons take even less. This is not
changed if the earth rotates every day, but if the earth is stationary then we suddenly find that the
sphere of the fixed stars rotates in 24 hours. Given the distances, that would more reasonably be
thousands of years.
In addition some of these stars have to travel faster than others: if the Pole Star was precisely at
the axis, then it would be entirely stationary whereas those of the equator have unimaginable
speed. The solidity of this supposed sphere is incomprehensible. Make the earth the primum
mobile and the need for this extra sphere disappears.
Actual path of cannonball B is from C to D
They consider three main objections to the motion of the earth: that a falling body would be left
behind by the earth and thus fall far to the west of its point of release; that a cannonball fired to
the west would similarly fly much further than one fired to the east; and that a cannonball fired
vertically would also land far to the west. Salviati shows that these do not take account of the
impetus of the cannon.
He also points out that attempting to prove that the earth doesn't move by using vertical fall
commits the logical fault of paralogism (assuming what is to be proved), because if the earth is
moving then it is only in appearance that it is falling vertically; in fact it is falling at a slant, as
happens with a cannonball rising through the cannon (illustrated).

In rebutting a work which claims that a ball falling from the moon would take six days to arrive,
the odd-number rule is introduced: a body falling 1 unit in an interval would fall 3 units in the
next interval, 5 units in the subsequent one, etc. This gives rise to the rule by which the distance
fallen is according to the square of the time. Using this he calculates the time is really little more
than 3 hours. He also points out that density of the material doesn't make much difference: a lead
ball might only accelerate twice as fast as one of cork.
In fact, a ball falling from such a height wouldn't fall behind but ahead of the vertical because the
rotational motion would be in ever-decreasing circles. What makes the earth move is similar to
whatever moves Mars or Jupiter and is the same as that which pulls the stone to earth. Calling it
gravity doesn't explain what it is.

Day three
Salviati starts by dismissing the arguments of a book against the novas he has been reading
overnight.[15] Unlike comets, these were stationary and their lack of parallax easily checked and
thus could not have been in the sublunary sphere.
Simplicio now gives the greatest argument against the annual motion of the earth that if it moves
then it can no longer be the center of the zodiac, the world. Aristotle gives proofs that the
universe is finite bounded and spherical. Salvatius points out that these disappear if he denies
him the assumption that it is movable, but allows the assumption initially in order not to multiply
disputes.
The solar system
He points out that if anything is the centre, it must be the sun not the earth, because all the
planets are closer or further away from the earth at different times, Venus and Mars up to eight
times. He encourages Simplicio to make a plan of the planets, starting with Venus and Mercury
which are easily seen to rotate about the sun. Mars must also go about the sun (as well as the
earth) since it is never seen horned, unlike Venus now seen through the telescope; similarly with
Jupiter and Saturn. Earth, which is between Mars with a period of two years and Venus with nine
months, has a period of a year which may more elegantly be attributed to motion than a state of
rest.
Sagredo brings up two other common objections. If the earth rotated, the mountains would soon
be in a position that one would have to descend them rather than ascend. Secondly, the motion
would be so rapid that someone at the bottom of a well would have only a brief instance to
glimpse a star as it traversed. Simplicio can see that the first is no different from travelling over
the globe, as any who have circumnavigated but though he realises the second is the same as if
the heavens were rotating, he still doesn't understand it. Salviati says the first is no different from
those who deny the antipodes. For the second, he encourages Simplicio to decide what fraction
of the sky can be seen from down the well.

Salviati brings up another problem, which is that Mars and Venus are not as variable as the
theory would suggest. He explains that the size of a star to the human eye is affected by the
brightness and the sizes are not real. This is resolved by use of the telescope which also shows
the crescent shape of Venus. A further objection to the movement of the earth, the unique
existence of the moon, has been resolved by the discovery of the moons of Jupiter, which would
appear like our moon to any Jovian.
How retrogression is explained by Copernicus
Copernicus has succeeded in reducing some of the uneven motions of Ptolemy who had to deal
with motions that sometimes go fast, sometimes slow, and sometimes backwards, by means of
vast epicycles. Mars, above the sun's sphere, often falls far below it, then soars above it. These
anomalies are cured by the annual movement of the earth. This is explained by a diagram in
which the varying motion of Jupiter is shown using the earth's orbit.
Simplicio produces another booklet in which theological arguments are mixed with astronomic,
but Salviati refuses to address the issues from Scripture. So he produces the argument that the
fixed stars must be at an inconceivable distance with the smallest larger than the whole orbit of
the earth. Salviati explains that this all comes from a misrepresentation of what Copernicus said,
resulting in a huge over-calculation of the size of a sixth magnitude star. But many other famous
astronomers over-estimated the size of stars by ignoring the brightness factor. Not even Tycho,
with his accurate instruments, set himself to measure the size of any star except the sun and
moon. But Salviati (Galileo) was able to make a reasonable estimate simply by hanging a cord to
obscure the star and measuring the distance from eye to cord.
But still many cannot believe that the fixed stars can individually be as big or bigger than the
sun. To what end are these? Salviati maintains that "it is brash for our feebleness to attempt to
judge the reasons for God's actions, and to call everything in the universe vain and superfluous
which does not serve us".
Has Tycho or any of his disciples tried to investigate in any way phenomena that might affirm or
deny the movement of the earth? Do any of them know how much variation is needed in the
fixed stars? Simplicio objects to conceding that the distance of the fixed stars is too great for it to
be detectable. Salviati points out how difficult it is even to detect the varying distances of Saturn.
Many of the positions of the fixed stars are not known accurately and far better instruments than
Tycho's are needed: say using a sight with a fixed position 60 miles away.
Sagredo then asks Salviati to explain how the Copernican system explains the seasons and
inequalities of night and day. This he does with the aid of a diagram showing the position of the
earth in the four seasons. He points out how much simpler it is than the Ptolemaic system. But
Simplicio thinks Aristotle was wise to avoid too much geometry. He prefers Aristotle's axiom to
avoid more than one simple motion at a time.

Day four

They are in Sagredo's house in Venice, where tides are an important issue, and Salviati wants to
show the effect of the earth's movement on the tides. He first points out the three periods of the
tides: daily, generally with intervals of 6 hours of rising and six more of falling; monthly,
seemingly from the moon, which increases or decreases these tides; and annual, leading to
different sizes at the equinoxes.
He considers first the daily motion. Three varieties are observed: in some places the waters rise
and fall without any forward motion; in others they move towards the east and back to the west
without rising or falling; in still others there is a combination of boththis happens in Venice
where the waters rise on entering and fall on leaving. In the Straits of Messina there are very
swift currents between Scylla and Charybdis. In the open Mediterranean the alteration of height
is small but the currents are noticeable.
Simplicio counters with the peripatetic explanations, which are based on the depths of the sea,
and the dominion of the moon over the water, though this doesn't explain the risings when the
moon is below the horizon. But he admits it could be a miracle.
When the water in Venice rises, where does it come from? There is little rise in Corfu or
Dubrovnik. From the ocean through the Straits of Gibraltar? It's much too far away and the
currents are too slow.
So could the movement of the container cause the disturbance? Consider the barges that bring
water into Venice. When they hit an obstacle, the water rushes forward; when they speed up it
will go to the back. For all this disturbance there is no need for new water and the level in the
middle stays largely constant though the water there rushes backwards and forwards.
Consider a point on the earth under the joint action of the annual and diurnal movements. At one
time these are added together and 12 hours later they act against each other, so there is an
alternate speeding up and slowing down. So the ocean basins are affected in the same way as the
barge particularly in an east-west direction. Note also that the length of the barge makes a
difference to the speed of oscillations, just as the length of a plumb bob changes its speed. The
depth of water also makes a difference to the size of vibrations.
The primary effect only explains tides once a day; one must look elsewhere for the six hour
change, to the oscillation periods of the water. In some places, such as the Hellespont and the
Aegean the periods are briefer and variable. But a north-south sea like the Red Sea has very little
tide whereas the Messina Strait carries the pent up effect of two basins.
Simplicio objects that if this accounts for the water, should it not even more be seen in the
winds? Salviati suggests that the containing basins are not so effective and the air does not
sustain its motion. Nevertheless these forces are seen by the steady winds from east to west in the
oceans in the torrid zone.
It seems that the moon also is taking part in the production of the daily effects, but that is
repugnant to his mind. The motions of the moon have caused great difficulty to astronomers. It's
impossible to make a full account of these things given the irregular nature of the sea basins.