Dialogue about the two main systems of the world Ptolemy and Copernicus. Polemical strategies in the "dialogue about the two main systems of the world" by Galileo Galilei

GALILEO GALILEI

DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD PTOLOMEAN AND COPERNIC

TRANSLATION A.I.DOLGOVA OGIZ - USSR STATE PUBLISHING HOUSE OF TECHNICAL AND THEORETICAL LITERATURE MOSCOW * 1048 * LENINGRAD

FOREWORD

Almost four hundred years ago, on March 24, 1543, lying on his deathbed, little known until then, Canon Nicholas 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 the conversion celestial worlds”), which summed up his observations and reflections on this issue for more than thirty years and contained 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 the richest factual material, only slowly and gradually began to spread among scientists. various countries meeting different assessments on their part. Thus, the most famous astronomer-observer of the era under consideration, 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 a step forward in comparison with the Ptoleomean system, but a decisive step backward in comparison with the Copernican system (De Mundi Aetherei recentioribus phenomenis liber secundus, 1602). At the same time, Kepler (1571-1630) was not only a staunch 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 sweat, 1609; the third was installed by him in May 1618). The opinion of other, less prominent scientists of the Central European countries is of no significant interest to us; one can only state that the teachings of Copernicus, however, with a delay of 50-60 years, became familiar to them and were interpreted by them as a serious * scientific theory. As the teaching of Copernicus was initially perceived in Italy, Galileo narrates very colorfully at the beginning of the second day of the "Dialogue", putting into the mouth of the Sagredo a description of his conversation with visitors to the lectures of Christian Wursteisen (1544-1588), in which the latter propagated this teaching. However, even in this country there were, although few in number, adherents of the "Pythagorean" doctrine. Among them, the deep thinker Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), who was burned at the stake in Rome by the Inquisition, deserves special attention. The same views were held by Giaccobo Mazzoni, teacher of Galileo, the only one of the professors 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, i.e., much later, even such an honored scientist as Clavius (1537-1612), the author of many reprinted comments on Sacrobosco's "Sphere", who throughout his long life he was engaged in presenting and defending it. 1* 4 PREFACE As for Galileo, he apparently inclined very early towards the ideas of Copernicus. This is evidenced by his letters to Mazzoni and Kepler, and in a letter to the latter (dated August 4, 1597) Galileo indicates that he continues to work on the teachings of Copernicus, which he adheres to "for many years." The fact that, since 1592, a professor of mathematics at the University of Padua and, as a result, a lecturer in spherical astronomy and the theory of the planets, Galileo in the initial period, at least, expounded these subjects in an established form (as evidenced by partially published after his death Lecture Trattato delta Sfera on Cosmografia, 1656) should not be taken as a fact in conflict with Galileo's own statement. Hardly any other presentation was at that time possible within the walls of the university; besides, Galileo did not yet possess any fully developed mechanical views (see, for example, his even earlier work Sermones de motu gravium, published only in 1854 and relating to the Pisan period of his activity, i.e. 1589-1592 .), nor such clear arguments against the Copernican system as the presence of the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, sunspots, etc. Thus, slowly and gradually, the ideas of Copernicus found acceptance by a few large and independent scientists. The church treated them differently. One of the first to be frightened by the really deep "revolutionary" books of Copernicus, which shook the foundations of the geocentric system of the world, and at the same time not only narrowly astronomical, but also going much further general provisions philosophy of Aristotle, turned out to be well-known figures of the Reformation: Luther (1483-1546) and Melanchthon (1497-1560). The first called Copernicus a fool who intends to turn the whole universe upside down, and the second, who was a scientific ideologue of the Reformation, considered it necessary that the civil authorities tame the astronomer who made the Earth move and the Sun stand still. There is no essential difference between these judgments and the later acts of the Catholic Church. The latter turned out to be only more consistent in its conclusions, as is clear from the “decree of the holy congregation” of March 5, 1616, and the sentence announced to Galileo on June 22, 1633. But this had its own, special, reasons. The nature of official science at the end of the XVI and early XVII centuries, cultivated in universities, in particular Italian ones, is quite well known. The authority of Aristotle was still very high; the study of the actual phenomena of nature has long since receded into the background and has been replaced by a comparison of the opinions expressed about them by Aristotle or other authorities from among his commentators and followers; scientific works were therefore only in the nature of scholastic philological exercises; new discoveries and scientific data, which could not be ignored, were explained by summing them up under ready-made formulas, borrowed from the same rich book arsenal without new experimental verification. To this it must be added that the philosophy of Aristotle and his followers was officially shared by the Catholic Church, and a very influential Jesuit order, founded in 1534, paid great attention to ensuring that all new scientific data did not stand in apparent contradiction with the teachings of the peripatetics and in order to to ensure the unity of the direction of thought, they did not allow any of the members of the order to publish their works without the sanction of its highest spiritual administration. Thus, criticism of the philosophy of Aristotle bordered on speaking out against church canons, and the controversy with individual Jesuit priests affected the interests and dignity of this order as a whole. Hence it is clear how difficult and dangerous was the scientific activity of those innovators who, under the influence of profound shifts in the entire structure of their contemporary economic relations and the development of technology, were inevitably involved in conflict with scholastic doctrines. Getting to know life and scientific activity Galileo, we clearly see how his initial struggle against individual delusions of Aristotle, concerning the laws of falling bodies, their swimming, etc., flared up more and more fiercely and captured all larger areas of knowledge, until it resulted in a clash of two worldviews. Ultimately, Galileo was tried and condemned for propagating the teachings of Copernicus, not by the ten monks who were appointed for this, and not by the seven who signed the verdict, but by the Catholic Church, as such, which saw in the Dialogue an extremely dangerous essay that severely undermines its authority. . She was not mistaken in this: despite the reservations made by Galileo (which we will discuss a little later), the Dialogue is an exceptionally striking document directed against those provisions with which the Catholic Church has come in solidarity. Indeed, the latter took the geocentric system of Aristotle-Ptolemy under its protection, declaring that the recognition of the Sun as the fixed center of the world is stupid and absurd from the point of view of philosophy and heretical in essence, as clearly contradicting many texts of scripture; giving the Earth a daily motion is at least a delusion in matters of faith. Meanwhile, the entire main text of the Dialogue testifies that Galileo considered the heliocentric system of Copernicus to be the only real system of the world, in defense of which he collected a large number of various convincing arguments. This is the strength of the Dialogue as a work that has an objectively anti-religious character, which it has not lost to this day. The full title of the work of Galileo under consideration, placed on the title page, may mislead an insufficiently prepared reader. It is possible that he will regard it as a large mathematical work sustained in the classical style and will look for in it a detailed exposition of the teachings of Ptolemy and Copernicus, an explanation of the advantages that the latter gives in comparison with the theory of epicycles, an indication of weak spots this teaching, perhaps a partial improvement of it, an interpretation of Kepler's laws, etc. But almost nothing of this is contained in the Dialogue. Galileo, in his presentation, simplifies the Copernican system to the extreme, considering the motion of the planets as taking place exactly in concentric circles, and only in one case does he slip the expression - the average distance from the Earth to the Sun; he mentions Kepler only in passing and not at all in connection with his laws; leaves the theory of epicycles almost untouched. Instead, he sums up all the data at his disposal from the field of mechanics, physics and astronomy to prove, as an indisputable child, that the Earth has a daily and annual motion, and the Sun is stationary, skillfully breaking down opposing arguments and consciously allowing for reasoning that may at first glance seem to be deviations from the main train of thought, but which are actually subordinate to one holistic idea. True, both in the address to the reader, and in the final part of the fourth day of the Dialogue, and in many places in the text, Galileo speaks of the Copernican system only as a hypothesis; however, these formal and forced explanations in no way shake the most convincing arguments in favor of its reality and do not allow the reader to doubt for a minute the true intentions of the creator of the Dialogue. Galileo divides the content of his work into four days. The first is given to them to criticize the teachings of the Peripatetics about the completely different nature celestial bodies and Earth and evidence of their great similarity; the second day is devoted to proving the compatibility of the movements of bodies on the Earth with the daily rotation of the latter around its axis; during the third day, the issue of the revolution of the Earth around the Sun is mainly dealt with, and the evidence of a large distance from the Earth of a new star that appeared in 1572 in the constellation Cassiopeia is attributed to the same day, although this issue, as affecting the variability of the sky, is more likely to be related to the topic of the first day; finally, the fourth day is devoted to a consideration of how the phenomena of tides are easily explained by the presence of a diurnal rotation in the first place ...

Name:
Galileo Galilei
Publisher: State Publishing House of Technical and Theoretical Literature
The year of publishing: 1948
Pages: 378
Format: DJVU+OCR
The size: 12.3 MB
Quality: Excellent, 600dpi, text layer.

Translation and preface by A.I. Dolgov. In 1632, the most notable 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, little known until then, Canon Nicholas 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 the conversion celestial worlds”), which summed up his observations and reflections on this issue for more than thirty years and contained the foundations of the heliocentric system of the world.
The ideas of Copernicus, presented by him in a strictly mathematical form and worked out on the basis of the richest factual material, only slowly and gradually began to spread among scientists from different countries, meeting different assessments from them. Thus, the most famous astronomer-observer of the era under consideration, 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 a certain step forward compared to the Ptolemaic system, but a decisive step backward 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 staunch 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 of the Central European countries is of no significant interest to us; one can only state that the teachings of Copernicus, however, with a delay of 50-60 years, became familiar to them and were interpreted by them as a serious * scientific theory.
As the teaching of Copernicus was initially perceived in Italy, Galileo narrates very colorfully at the beginning of the second day of the "Dialogue", putting into the mouth of the Sagredo a description of his conversation with visitors to the lectures of Christian Wursteisen (1544-1588), in which the latter propagated this teaching. However, even in this country there were, although few in number, adherents of the "Pythagorean" doctrine. Among them, the deep thinker Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), who was burned at the stake in Rome by the Inquisition, deserves special attention. The same views were held by Giaccobo Mazzoni, teacher of Galileo, the only one of the professors 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, i.e., much later, such an honored scientist as Clavius (1537-1612), the author of repeatedly reprinted comments on Sacrobosco's "Sphere", who during throughout his long life he has been expounding and defending it...

Chapter XI. Dialogue about two major systems world: Ptolemaic and Copernican

Of the natural things worthy of study, in my opinion, the study of the structure of the Universe should be put in the first place. Since the Universe contains everything and surpasses everything in size, it determines and directs everything else and dominates everything. If any of the people managed to rise mentally above the general level of humanity, then it was, of course, Ptolemy and Copernicus, who were able to read, see and explain so much that is high in the structure of the Universe.

Galileo Galilei. "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World", 1632

In 1597, in a Latin correspondence between Galileo and Kepler prompted by the publication of Kepler's Cosmographic Mystery, an Italian Catholic professor admitted that he had long been a "secret Copernican", but could not openly support his belief in a moving Earth for fear of being ridiculed by his colleagues. In his response, the German Lutheran urged him to join the pro-Copernican movement: "Isn't it better to pull the wagon to the destination together, by joining forces?"

Galileo answered Copernicus with silence. Only in 1610, after improving the optical instrument, which he called the telescope, and discovering through its lenses such celestial wonders as the satellites of Jupiter, Galileo publicly announced his support for the concept of Copernicus.

Galileo's telescope discovery of Jupiter's four largest moons in January 1610, described and schematically illustrated here by his own hand, was further proof that the Earth is not the only center of motion in the universe.

Before Galileo's innovations made it possible to improve the primitive spyglass, instruments only helped astronomers determine the position of celestial bodies. Galileo's telescopes allowed observers to learn something about their composition. For example, the lunar landscape rose up in rocky mountains and fell into deep gorges, much like the surface of the Earth. The sun gave off dark spots that gathered and slid across its surface like clouds driven by the wind. The telescope further disturbed the calm of the heavens by showing unknown bodies - not "new" formations, such as Tycho's supernova in 1572 (or Kepler's in 1604), suddenly becoming visible to the naked eye, but objects never before observed beyond the limits of human capabilities. vision, including the ear-like protruding sides of Saturn and the hundreds of faint stars that filled the borders of the constellations. In addition, the planet Venus showed a phase change (from a crescent to a full disk), which, without any doubt, testified to its rotation around the Sun. The phases of Venus fit equally well into the systems of Tycho Brahe and Copernicus, but the Ptolemaic Universe could not explain such a phenomenon. Galileo published his findings. The thin Starry Herald, which explained the "message of the stars," sold out within a week of being printed at Padua in March 1610. After that, Galileo did not have time to build telescopes to meet the demand.

Information about new discoveries spread quickly and to loud cheers, but Galileo also became a lightning rod for all the criticism, ridicule and rage that Copernicus feared. Partly because of Galileo's lavish praise, On Rotations came under the suspicion of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, the Church's 16th-century watchdog for banning books that it believed threatened faith or morality.

Copernicus foresaw trouble from "talkers who consider themselves experts in astronomy, but are completely ignorant of this subject" who will distort the meaning of Holy Scripture in order to condemn it. Rheticus also expected a flood of slander and tried to contain it by supplementing the provisions of the Copernican system with chapters and verses of the Bible with the sincere approval of the Bishop of Giza. Even Osiander, whose anonymous Address to the Reader so offended Giese and Kepler, probably only wanted to defend the book by writing off Copernicus's bold assertions as clever computational tricks. And indeed, as expected, "On Rotations" almost immediately provoked the wrath of the religious authorities.

Pope Paul III, to whom the book is dedicated, established the Holy Roman and Ecumenical Inquisition in 1542, a year before the publication of the book, as part of a campaign against Lutheran heresy. Through the efforts of Retik or Giza, His Holiness received a copy of On Rotations. He handed it over to his personal theologian Bartolomeo Spina from Pisa, prefect of the Sacred and Apostolic Palace. However, Spina fell ill and died before he could review the book, and the task was given to his friend and Dominican brother Giovanni Mario Tolosani. In an appendix to the treatise On the Truth of the Holy Scriptures, published in 1544, Tolosani called the late Copernicus a braggart and a fool who risked deviating from the faith.

“Get together people who are versed in all sciences and let them read the first book of Copernicus about a moving Earth and a fixed starry sky,” Tolosani challenged. “No doubt they will find that his arguments lack strength and can be easily refuted. For it is foolish to contradict a belief accepted by everyone for very good reasons a long time ago, unless the skeptic uses more serious and undeniable evidence, completely refuting the contrary arguments. You can't say the same about Copernicus."

Criticized in this way, the book "On Rotations" for a time escaped official condemnation. However, all the works of Rhetic, along with the works of Martin Luther, Johann Schöner and many other Protestant authors, were included in the Roman Index of Forbidden Books in 1559. Petraeus's name was included in the accompanying list of banned printers that same year, prompting a number of Catholic fanatics to destroy their copies of On Rotations because of their association with the disgraced publisher. Fortunately, in 1564 his name disappeared from the Index. Two years later, when his relative Petri brought out his Basel edition, several Catholic readers obediently cut out the text of the First Narrative that was included in it with scissors and knives. Some have also removed Retik's name from the title page by crossing it out or pasting it over with a piece of paper.

In Protestant lands, where the Index had no weight, On Rotations was still attacked on religious grounds. Therefore, Kepler defended the idea of Copernicus in the introduction to his New Astronomy of 1609. He argued that the Holy Scriptures, in both colloquial and poetic language, spoke of ordinary things, such as the apparent movement of the sun in the sky, "about which it has no purpose to teach mankind." Given the Bible's emphasis on salvation, Kepler advised readers to "consider the Holy Spirit as a divine messenger and refrain from dragging it into the realm of the physical without any reason."

Galileo supported Kepler in the matter of interpreting the Bible. “I believe that the purpose of Holy Scripture was to convince people of the truths necessary for salvation,” he explained his position in 1613, “which neither science nor any other means could make convincing, but only the voice of the Holy Spirit. But I do not consider it necessary to believe that God, who endowed us with feelings, speech and reason, would teach us such things instead of us ourselves, with their help, knowing the structure of nature. This applies especially to the sciences, about which there are only a few words in Scripture, and especially to astronomy, which is not given attention at all, because even the names of the planets are not mentioned in it. It is obvious that if the sacred texts were to teach people astronomy, they would not bypass this subject.”

Galileo greatly expanded his comments two years later, in 1615, in response to rumors that the Inquisition was planning to add "On Rotations" to the Index. Addressing the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, Christina of Lorraine, he pointed out the shortsightedness of such an action:

“Forbid Copernicus now, when his doctrine is reinforced daily by many new observations and scientists reading his book; after this opinion has been tolerated and endured for many years without being much popular or confirmed, it would, in my opinion, be a contradiction to the truth and an attempt to hide and suppress it, which revealed itself so clearly and undoubtedly. If not to destroy and ban his entire book, but only to condemn it as false individual parts, then this would (if I am not mistaken) still more damage to the minds of people, since it would allow them to see a proven statement, which is considered heresy to believe. And to ban all science is almost the same as to censor hundreds of passages of Holy Scripture that teach us that the glory and majesty of Almighty God are miraculously discernible in all His creations and read in the open book of Heaven.

Galileo Galilei, philosopher and mathematician at the court of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Painting by Ottavio Leoni

Galileo also spoke decisively about Joshua. He considered this miracle first from a Ptolemaic (geocentric and geostatic) point of view, and then stated that the Copernican universe was much more capable of answering the prayers of Jesus.

“Now let us consider to what extent it is true that the famous passage from the Book of Joshua can be taken literally, and under what conditions the day could be greatly lengthened as a result of the Sun's execution of the order given to it by Jesus to stop.

In the Ptolemaic system, this is not possible at all. The fact is that in it the movement of the Sun along the ecliptic occurs from west to east, which means that it is opposite to the direction of movement prime mobile(the celestial sphere farthest from the Earth, which was considered the cause of the movement of the entire system of heavens), which in this system causes the change of day and night. Thus, it is obvious that if the Sun stopped its own movement, then the day would become shorter, not longer. It would be possible to prolong the day by accelerating the own motion of the Sun; and in order for the Sun to remain above the horizon for some time in one place, without declining to the west, it would be necessary to accelerate this movement until it would be equal in speed to prime mobile. To do this, the generally accepted speed of the Sun would have to be increased by about 360 times. Therefore, if Joshua wanted his words to be taken literally in their true and exact sense, he would have ordered the Sun to speed up its movement so that the driving force prime mobile did not take him to the west. But since his words were intended for people who probably did not know anything about the movements of the heavenly bodies, except for the movement of the Sun from east to west, he condescended to their abilities and spoke according to their understanding, since he did not intend to explain to them the location of the spheres, but only show them the greatness of your miracle."

Following this, Galileo considered the possibility that Joshua meant stopping prime mobile, and with it all celestial motions. “Indeed, Jesus meant that the entire system of the heavenly spheres would come to a halt. This is clear from his simultaneous order to the Moon, which has nothing to do with the lengthening of the day. And the order to the Moon applies to other planets, although they are not mentioned in any way here, nor anywhere else in the Bible, which was not written to teach us astronomy.

Returning to the theory of Copernicus, Galileo reminded the Grand Duchess Christina of his own discovery that the Sun rotates on its axis with a period of about a month, which he described in his Letters on Sunspots.

“If we take into account the greatness of the Sun and the fact that it is a pool of light (which I am going to convincingly prove), which illuminates not only the Moon and the Earth, but also other planets, dark in themselves, then, I believe, it will be from a philosophical point of view view, it is permissible to say that the Sun - as the supreme ruler of Nature and in a certain sense the heart and soul of the Universe - by its rotation transmits to other bodies surrounding it, not only light, but also movement. And just as if the heart of an animal stopped beating, it would paralyze all its other members, so the cessation of the movement of the Sun would cause the stop of all the planets.

So stopping the Sun was enough to immobilize "the whole system of the world." As a result of it, all rotations of celestial bodies stopped and "the day miraculously lengthened." For greater persuasiveness, Galileo noted how "gracefully" his script corresponded to "the literal meaning of the sacred text."

Vivaciously continuing, Galileo moved on to the question of the Sun standing still "in the midst of the sky" as written in chapter 10, verse 13 of the Book of Joshua, and carefully dismantled "Authoritative theologians raise the issue of this passage, for it seems very probable that, when Jesus wanted to lengthen the day, the sun was setting, but not at its zenith... After all, if it had been at its zenith, then either a miracle would not have been needed, or it would have been enough to pray for some delay.” This conundrum caused several biblical scholars, whom Galileo named by name, to shy away from interpreting the phrase "in the midst of heaven." But all contradictions were removed, “if, in accordance with the Copernican system, we place the Sun “in the middle”, that is, in the center of the celestial orbits and circular motions of the planets, as it should be done. Then at any hour, even at noon, even in the evening, the day would lengthen and all celestial rotations would stop as a result of the Sun stopping in the middle of the sky, that is, in the center where it is located.

Fascinated by the Copernican system, Galileo apparently forgot that Catholic law forbade the laity from interpreting religious texts. Only the holy fathers were allowed to explore the depths of biblical meanings. The Protestant Kepler in his own country could follow Luther's footsteps to a personal understanding of the Scriptures with impunity. However, Galileo, in accordance with the decrees of the Council of Trent issued in 1564, did not dare to interpret Scripture "other than in accordance with the unanimous agreement of the Fathers."

The “fathers” included not only ancient saints and martyrs, but also cardinal inquisitors of the time of Galileo, among whom was the theological adviser to the pope, the Jesuit Roberto Bellarmino, who hit Galileo’s arguments with his authoritative statement:

“The words “the sun rises and the sun sets. Rising, it hurries to its place where it rises, etc. belong to Solomon, who not only spoke with divine inspiration, but was also wiser than other people, versed in human sciences and knew about all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Therefore, he would hardly have asserted anything contrary to proven truth. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only about the visible side of phenomena and that it only seems to us that the Sun revolves around the Earth, while the Earth actually moves, as if standing on the deck of a ship it seems that the shore is moving away from the ship, I will answer, that although the traveler may have this impression, he still knows that it is an illusion, and is able to correct it, because he clearly understands that it is the ship that is moving, and not the coast. But as regards the Sun and the Earth, there is no need for an intelligent person to correct his opinion, because his experience leaves no doubt that the Earth is at rest, and his eyes do not deceive him when they say that the Sun, Moon and stars are in motion.

On February 23, 1616, a commission of eleven theologians put the idea of Copernicus to a vote. They concluded that "the idea that the Sun is fixed at the center of the world" is "formally heretical" because it is contrary to Scripture. In addition, they decided that the concept of a heliocentric universe was philosophically "stupid and absurd". Although the movement of the earth seemed to them no less ridiculous idea, they simply called it "erroneous belief" because it did not explicitly deny the truths of the Holy Scriptures. These judgments formed the basis of the edict adopted on March 5, in which the teachings of Copernicus were called "false and contrary to Holy Scripture." "On Rotations" will later be mentioned in an edict related to the Index of Forbidden Books. But instead of being destroyed (the fate of other banned books), further distribution of the book "On Rotations" was suspended until corrections were made. In the decades since its publication, this book has become so useful that the Church could not openly condemn it. Indeed, the much-needed calendar reform that Copernicus was engaged in has since been carried out with the help of this text. "On Rotations" and "Prussian Tables" provided data on the average length of the tropical year and synodic month, which enabled the Jesuit Father Christopher Clavius of the Roman College of the Jesuits to create the so-called Gregorian calendar, which replaced the Julian in 1582, during the reign of Pope Gregory XIII .

In 1619, another decree related to the Index was passed, banning Kepler's Epitome of Copernican Astronomy and "all other works of this author." The following year, another decree listed ten corrections to be made to "On Rotations". These few changes (only ten points on more than four hundred pages) harmonized Copernicus's text with Osiander's address. They rephrased every piece of evidence for the Earth's motion to sound like it was purely hypothetical. The censors removed the part of the preface that stated that "astronomy is written for astronomers" because they appropriated this science to themselves. A line appeared in the paragraph that embodied Copernicus's fears about "talkers who consider themselves experts in astronomy, but are completely ignorant of this subject" who can distort "some passage of Scripture for their own benefit" and hit the author with it.

In his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World, Galileo described a four-day conversation between three intellectuals. On the frontispiece of the first edition, these men appear as Aristotle, Ptolemy and Copernicus (on the right, with the symbol of the heliocentric cosmos in hand)

Each owner of "On Rotations" had to independently make the indicated changes in his copy of the book. Galileo obediently submitted them all, perhaps fearing scrutiny by church authorities. He himself, being in Rome in 1616, was instructed by Cardinal Bellarmino to stop teaching and writing about Copernicus and obeyed him. However, a few years later, in 1624, the new Pope Urban VIII, a seemingly open-minded man, encouraged Galileo to write a detailed comparison of the systems of Ptolemy and Copernicus. Galileo's book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World, Ptolemaic and Copernican, published in Florence in 1632, soon attracted accusations of heresy. The formal trial of the Inquisition over Galileo took place the following year and ended with his abdication. Then "Dialogue" took its place next to "On Rotations" in the Index of Banned Books. Both works, which caused continuous discussions and comments, remained in it for two centuries.

This text is an introductory piece. From the book The Beginning of Horde Russia. After Christ. The Trojan War. Foundation of Rome. author

2.17. The dispute between two wives - Brynhild and Kriemhild - is a dispute between two "ancient" goddesses - Athena and Aphrodite. The dispute between two women leads to the Trojan War of the XIII century 2.17.1. Summary dispute between Brynhild and Kriemhild As we have already said, the struggle between Gunther-Hector and

From the book The Foundation of Rome. Beginning of Horde Russia. After Christ. Trojan War author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

2.17. The dispute between two wives - Brynhild and Kriemhild - is a dispute between two "ancient" goddesses - Athena and Aphrodite

From the book Reconstruction true history author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

Samson is an allegorical description of the Zemshchina in the person of its two main leaders and two other well-known characters of the 16th century. The head of the Zemstvo opposition to Ivan IV and the oprichnina is the groom Ivan Petrovich Chelyadnin-Fedorov, who enjoyed great influence and respect, p. 118.

From the book Ukraine 2046 author Lukshits Yuri Mikhailovich

Chapter Four Dialogue May 18, 2046 Miami, USA, Good morning radio and television center 07.30 local time Formerly the only superpower of the United States, sixty years after the collapse Soviet Union managed, to the surprise of many, to survive, although it has undergone significant

From book Short story Jews author Dubnov Semyon Markovich

Chapter 11 Overview of the Major Events of the 19th Century 61. The French Revolution late XVIII century, a revolution took place that changed political system life of some European peoples. The French Revolution of 1789 heralded the beginning of "equality, fraternity and freedom" of people

From the book Tehran 1943 author

Dialogue between two leaders At the conversation in question, except for Stalin, Roosevelt and me, the translator, no one else was present. Roosevelt warned that he would be alone, without Charles Bohlen, who usually acted as an interpreter for the American delegation. Looks like Roosevelt

From the book Blessing for Genocide. The myth of the worldwide conspiracy of the Jews and the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" author Con Norman

Chapter I The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and The Dialogue in Hell 1 The people who spread the myth of the worldwide Jewish conspiracy in the 19th century make up a rather motley society. These are Barrel and the "Letter of Simonini" at the beginning of the century; much later, in the last third of the century, - Gedshe

From the book Book 1. Western myth ["Ancient" Rome and "German" Habsburgs are reflections of the Russian-Horde history of the XIV-XVII centuries. Heritage Great Empire into a cult author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

1. Biblical Samson is a slightly allegorical description of the Zemshchina in the person of its two main leaders and two other famous characters of this era 1.1. Konyushy Ivan Petrovich Chelyadnin-Fedorov. Brief biography In 1565, Ivan the Terrible established the oprichnina. Karamzin writes: "This

From the book We are Aryans. Origins of Russia (collection) author Abrashkin Anatoly Alexandrovich

Chapter 14. Scythian-Aryan Dialogue We are those who were whispered in the old days, Hellenic myths with involuntary trembling: A people who loved violence and war, The sons of Hercules and Echidna are the Scythians. Around the Black Sea, in the empty steppes, Like demons, we flew around quickly, Appearing suddenly to sow fear everywhere:

From the book Tehran 1943. At the conference of the Big Three and on the sidelines author Berezhkov Valentin Mikhailovich

DIALOGUE OF TWO LEADERS At the conversation in question, except for Stalin, Roosevelt and me, the translator, no one else was present. Roosevelt warned that he would be alone, without Charles Bohlen, who usually acted as an interpreter for the American delegation. Looks like Roosevelt

From the book Armed Forces of Austria-Hungary author General Staff Main Directorate

Chapter II Analysis of the main charters All charters, instructions, regulations and instructions, etc., existing in the Austro-Hungarian army, are placed in a special "List of charters", in which they are divided into various categories. The last list of the 1912 edition. Each

From the Vatican book [Zodiac of Astronomy. Istanbul and the Vatican. Chinese horoscopes] author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

Chapter 1 Zodiac of Astronomy in the Vatican, dedicated to the creation of the Ptolemaic world system under King Ptolemy, he is Emperor Antoninus Pius, he is also the Jewish King Hezekiah (zodiac BG) 1.1. Zodiac of Astronomy in the chambers of Pope Alexander Borgia (1492–1503) in the Vatican In the Vatican Palace

From the book of Cornelius Tacitus. (Time. Life. Books) author Knabe Georgy Stepanovich

Chapter nine. dialectics of history. "Dialogue about speakers" If the "Biography of Agricola" naturally arose at a certain stage in the development of Roman biography, and "Germania" continued the tradition of writings that compared the Romans with other peoples, then the last of the small

From the book Joan of Arc, Samson and Russian History author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

1. Biblical Samson is a slightly allegorical description of the zemstvo in the person of its two main leaders and two other famous characters of this era 1.1. Konyushy Ivan Petrovich Chelyadnin-Fedorov Brief biography In 1565 Ivan the Terrible established the oprichnina. Karamzin writes: “This part

From the book Medieval Europe. East and West author Team of authors

Consistency in observance of the ban on the marriage of two brothers to two sisters It should be noted that in Russia the restrictions regarding marriages between close relatives were quite consistently observed. Of course, as in any dynastic

From the book of 100 forbidden books: censored history of world literature. Book 1 the author Sowa Don B

DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD - PTOLEMAI AND COPERNIC *

Second day

<...>Salviati. I also want you to continue to hold firmly that the phenomena on Earth should correspond to the phenomena on the ship; for if it were not to your purpose, you would not be sorry to change your mind. You say: since when the ship is stationary, the stone falls to the foot of the mast, and when it moves, it falls far from the foot, then, therefore, and vice versa, from the fall of the stone to the foot it follows that the ship is motionless, and the fall of the stone at some distance proves that the ship is in motion; and since what happens on the ship also happens on Earth, then from the fall of a stone to the foot of the tower follows with the necessity of immobility the globe. Isn't that your reasoning?

Simplicio. Quite right, this is it, stated in a simple form that makes it the highest degree convenient to digest.

Salviati. Tell me, then, if a stone, thrown from the top of the mast of a ship moving at high speed, fell exactly in the same place where it falls when the ship is stationary, what service would this experience with the fall serve you in deciding the question, Is the ship stationary or is it floating?

Simplicio. Decidedly none; in the same way, for example, by the beating of the pulse it is impossible to know whether someone is sleeping or awake, since the pulse beats the same in both sleeping and waking people.

Salviati. Excellent. Have you ever experimented on a ship?

Simplicio. I did not produce it, but I am quite sure that those authors who produced it carefully considered it; moreover, the reasons for the difference are so clear that they leave no room for doubt.

Salviati. It is possible that these authors referred to experience without producing it; you yourself are a good example of this when, without making an experiment, you declare it reliable and invite us to believe them on the word; in exactly the same way, it is not only possible, but also certain that the authors acted in the same way, referring to their predecessors and never reaching the one who did this experiment himself, for anyone who does it will find that experience shows exactly the opposite of what was written , namely, that the stone will always fall in the same place on the 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 motion or rest of the Earth 1 .

A stone falling from a ship's mast always hits the same place, whether the ship is moving or standing still.

Simplicio. If you would refer me to other arguments, and not to experience, then our disputes, I think, would not end so soon, because this subject seems to me so inaccessible to the human mind that the possibility of asserting or assuming anything is excluded.

Salviati. And yet, I believe it is possible to do so.

Simplicio. How is it that, having not gone through a hundred tests, not even one, you act in such a decisive manner? I return to my disbelief and belief that the experience was produced by the original authors who refer to it, and that it shows what they claim.

Salviati. I am sure even without experience that the result will be as I tell you, since it is necessary that it should 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'm a good enough mind-catcher, and I'll forcefully wrest a confession from you. However, Signor Sagredo was completely silent, although I think I noticed some movement, as if he wanted to say something.

Sagredo. I really wanted to say something, but the curiosity aroused by your statement that you would force Signor Simplicio to reveal the knowledge deliberately hidden from us made me put aside all other care; I ask you to fulfill the promise.

Salviati. So long as Signor Simplicio deigns to answer my questions, it will not be up to me.

Simplicio. I will answer what I know, and I am sure that I will have few difficulties, since, I think, nothing can be known about things that I consider false, since science is the science of the true, and not of the false.

Salviati. I want nothing more than that you say or answer only what you yourself know enough. So tell me if you have flat surface, completely smooth, like a mirror, but of a hard substance, like steel, not parallel to the horizon, but somewhat inclined, and if you put a perfectly round ball on it of a heavy and very hard substance, for example, bronze, then what do you think it will will do, being left to himself? Don't you think (as I do) that it will be immobile? 2

Simplicio. If this surface is inclined?

Salviati. Yes, as we assumed.

Simplicio. In no way do I think that he would remain motionless; on the contrary, I am sure that it would move along the slope by itself.

Salviati. Consider carefully what you say, signor Simplicio, for I am sure that he will remain motionless wherever you place him.

Simplicio. If you, Signor Salviati, begin to use such assumptions, I will cease to be surprised that you will draw completely false conclusions.

Salviati. So you consider it absolutely certain that the ball will move along the slope by itself?

Simplicio. Is it possible to doubt this?

Salviati. And you consider it indisputable, not because I suggested it to you (after all, I tried to convince you otherwise), but on the basis of your own judgment?

Simplicio. Now I understand your trick; did you speak in such a way as to test me or to trick me, as they say in common parlance, and not at all because you really thought so?

Salviati. Exactly. And how long would the ball continue to move and at what speed? Note that I have spoken of the ball being perfectly round and the plane being perfectly smooth, in order to eliminate all external and accidental obstructions. I also want you to take your mind off the resistance of the air to its separation and all the random interferences that may be encountered.

Simplicio. I understood everything perfectly and I will answer your question as follows: the ball would continue to move indefinitely, if only such a plane continued, and, moreover, with a movement continuously accelerating, for such is the nature of heavy moving bodies, which vires acquirant eundo 3 ; and the greater the slope, the greater will be the speed.

Salviati. But if someone wanted the same ball to move upwards along the same plane, do you think that he would go in this way?

Simplicio. Not on your own, but you can drag it in or throw it up with force.

Salviati. And if it were set into such a motion by an impulse forcibly transferred to it, what and how long would its motion be?

Simplicio. The movement would go on, gradually weakening and slowing down, because it is unnatural, and would be longer or shorter, depending on the greater or lesser steepness of the ascent.

Salviati. It is as if you have just explained to me cases of motion along two different kinds of planes: on an inclined plane, a moving body spontaneously descends, moving with continuous acceleration, so that force is required to keep it at rest; on a plane rising upward, a force is required to move the body upward, and even to keep it at rest, and the movement imparted to the body is continuously decreasing, so that in the end it is completely destroyed. Let us add that, in addition, in both cases a difference arises depending on whether the slope or rise of the plane is greater or less, and with a greater slope there is a greater speed, and vice versa, with a rising plane, the same body, driven by the same by the force itself, it advances the greater the distance, the lower the height of the lift. Now tell me, what would happen to the same moving body on a surface that does not rise or fall?

Simplicio. Here I need to think a little about the answer. Since there is no inclination there, there can be no natural inclination to move, and since there is no rise, there can be no opposition to movement, so that the body would be indifferent to both inclination to movement and opposition to it; It seems to me, therefore, that it must naturally remain motionless. However, I completely forgot that Signor Sagredo only recently explained to me that this is how it should be.

Salviati. So, I think, it would be if the ball were put motionless; but if you give it an impulse to move in some direction, what would follow?

Simplicio. His movement in this direction would follow.

Salviati. But what kind of motion would this be: continuously accelerating, as on an inclined plane, or gradually slowing down, as on an ascending plane?

Simplicio. I cannot discover here the reasons for accelerating or for slowing down, since there is no slope or rise.

Salviati. So, but if there is no reason for slowing down, then there can be a reason for resting here all the less. So how long do you think this body would continue to move?

Simplicio. As long as the length of such a surface without descent and ascent is great.

Salviati. Therefore, if such a space were infinite, would the movement along it likewise have no limit, i.e., would it be constant?

Simplicio. It seems to me that it would be so 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 why this ball moves on an inclined plane on its own, and on a plane that rises only by force?

Simplicio. The fact that heavy bodies tend to naturally move towards the center of the Earth and only forcefully upward towards the periphery, while the inclined surface is such that it brings it closer to the center, and the rising one removes it.

Salviati. Therefore, a surface that had neither inclination nor rise would have to be equally spaced from the center in all its parts. But are there such planes anywhere in the world?

Simplicio. There are such - at least the surface of our globe, if only it is completely smooth, and not as it really is, that is, uneven and mountainous; such, for example, is the surface of water when it is still and calm.

Salviati. Therefore, a ship moving on the surface of the sea is one of those moving bodies that slide on one of these surfaces without inclination and rise, and which therefore have a tendency, if all random and external obstacles are removed, to move constantly and evenly with the momentum received?

Simplicio. Seems like it should be.

Salviati. And that stone, which 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 cannot be destroyed in it in the absence of external obstacles? And isn't this movement as fast as the movement of a ship?<...>

* In the book: G. Galileo. Selected works in two volumes, vol. 1. M., 1964, p. 242-247.
1 Here and below, Galileo uses the fact of relative rest and uniform motion to prove the possibility of the annual movement of the Earth.
2 Galileo proceeds to present the principle of inertia.
3 Gain strength on the way (lat.).

Galileo Galileo(1564-1642), Italian scientist, one of the founders of exact natural science. Son of V. Galilee. He fought against scholasticism, considered experience to be the basis of knowledge. He laid the foundations of modern mechanics: put forward the idea of the relativity of motion, established the laws of inertia, free fall and the motion of bodies on an inclined plane, the addition of motions; discovered the isochronism of pendulum oscillations; was the first to investigate the strength of beams. His work on the study of the nature of light, color, experiments to determine the speed of light, the creation of optical instruments stimulated the development of optics. He built a telescope with a 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 the court of 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.

Author	Book	Description	Year	Price	book type
Galileo Galileo		No matter how great the contribution to the creation of classical science of such giants as N. Copernicus, I. Kepler, Tycho Brahe and others, it is Galileo that is considered to be its main founder and hero. Of course… - @Ripol Classic, @ @Philo-sophia @ @	2018	848	paper book
Galileo Galileo	Dialogue on the two main systems of the world	No matter how great the contribution to the creation of classical science of such giants as N. Copernicus, I. Kepler, Tycho Brahe and others, it is Galileo that is considered to be its main founder and hero. Of course… - @Ripol-Classic, @ @PHILO-SOPHIA @ @	2018	1207	paper book
Galileo Galileo	Dialogue on the two main systems of the world	No matter how great the contribution to the creation of classical science of such giants as N. Copernicus, I. Kepler, Tycho Brahe and others, it is Galileo that 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 on the two main systems of the world	No matter how great the contribution to the creation of classical science of such giants as N. Copernicus, I. Kepler, Tycho Brahe and others, it is Galileo that 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 on the two main systems of the world - Ptolemaic and Copernican	Reproduced in the original author's spelling of the 1948 edition (publishing house `GITTL`). B - @YOYO Media, @ @ @ @	1948	2326	paper book

Dialogue about the two main systems of the world Ptolemy and Copernicus. Polemical strategies in the "dialogue about the two main systems of the world" by Galileo Galilei

Other books on similar topics:

See also other dictionaries:

Other books on similar topics:

See also other dictionaries:

Read also