Ebook Dialogues Concerning two new Sciences Galileo Galilei Henry Crew Alfonso de Salvio 9781340205232 Books
Ebook Dialogues Concerning two new Sciences Galileo Galilei Henry Crew Alfonso de Salvio 9781340205232 Books
Download As PDF : Dialogues Concerning two new Sciences Galileo Galilei Henry Crew Alfonso de Salvio 9781340205232 Books
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
Ebook Dialogues Concerning two new Sciences Galileo Galilei Henry Crew Alfonso de Salvio 9781340205232 Books
"There actually is confusion over this title. For one, this is not the work where Galileo (1564-1642) defends Copernicus (Heliocentrism) where the sun is the center of the universe or the solar system. That work is called "Dialogues Concerning Two Chief World Systems" (1632).
This work, "Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences" (1638), is about Galileo's experiments in bodies and motion.
The publisher is not wrong at all in calling this work the given title of "..Two New Sciences". If anything it is Galileo's and his original Publisher's fault for naming both works in such a similar fashion: "Dialogues Concerning Two....." The biggest difference is in the last words of the title.
For those concerned with Copernican/Aristarchus of Samos vs Aristotle/Ptolemaic debates (sun vs earth as the center of the universe/solar system) for which Galileo is known for please read Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (Modern Library Science). Its a good work, though Galileo did mock the Aristotle/Ptolemaic model by using a simpleton named "Simplicio" who was mathematically ignorant to represent Ptolemy's intensive and rigorous mathematical geocentric model. Of course there was no decisive evidence for heliocentrism in the time of Galileo so he should have been more careful. This also is what caused tensions between him and his supporter, Pope Urban VIII who had felt ridiculed because Galileo had put the Pope's views in the mouth of Simplicio. For the details on the Galileo affair, one can see When Science and Christianity Meet which shows the consensus view among historians of science on this.
For those interested in Galileo's physics of bodies and motion and the book which he said, "contain results which I consider the most important of all my studies" then "Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences" is the correct one.
For a general sample of many of Galileo's works and related documents from his "controversy" from those who did the trial on Galileo, please read: The Trial of Galileo: Essential Documents (Hackett Classics). Look also at Galileo's Sidereus Nuncius, or The Sidereal Messenger for his observation on the surface of the moon from his telescope.
A few similarities between both books by Galileo with similar titles have laid confusion to some of these reviewers:
1. as was mentioned, both begin with similar titles: "Dialogues Concerning Two....."
2. Both have the same picture of 3 men speaking
3. There are 4 days of dialogues in both books
4. The same three characters are found in both books: Salviati, Sagredo, Simplicio
These similarities between both books are what makes them so hard to distinguish for anyone who has not read either one of these works. So confusion and disappointment are expected. I too got confused until I got copies of both assuming they were both the same. I wanted a better copy of "Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences" and bought "Dialogues Concerning Two Chief World Systems" since it was cheaper (by very little). I read the Copernican heliocentric arguments that are only found in "Dialogues Concerning Two Chief World Systems" and noticed that "Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences" was different and did not focus Copernicus at all, but instead focused on motions and bodies.
Hopefully this post clarifies and saves people from buying the wrong book. In any case, I say get both books since "Dialogues Concerning Two Chief World Systems" IS notable and important (but not revolutionary since defending Copernicus was not done in an empirical fashion and the astronomical data matched better with the Ptolemy's Geocentric model at that time). "Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences" gives insight to the mind and experiments of Galileo along with his debates on the nature of bodies and varieties of motion.
For those interested in some the works Galileo discusses in "Dialogues Concerning Two Chief World Systems" please look at Ptolemy's Ptolemy's Almagest, Copernicus' On the Revolutions: Nicholas Copernicus Complete Works (Foundations of Natural History), and Aristarchus of Samos' Aristarchus of Samos: The Ancient Copernicus (Dover Books on Astronomy) (he is called an ancient Copernicus by some).
In terms of "On the Revolutions", Copernicus himself dedicated the work to the Pope in the Preface. In this work, he models two different ideas: 1) the sun, not the earth, is at the center of the universe and 2) the earth rotates on its axis. Furthermore, Copernicus' ideas were not novel since he was aware of Aristarchus of Samos' heliocentric model and also other heliocentrists and earth axial rotationists like the Pythagoreans Herakleides and Ekphantus, and also Hicetas the Syracusean. He mentions them in the text. Numerous arguments had been laid out for doubting that the earth rotates in previous centuries, mainly empirical arguments.
A good review of the geocentric-heliocentirc debates is Theories of the World from Antiquity to the Copernican Revolution: Second Revised Edition. The situation was not obvious and both models had their merits and problems. Of course the Ptolemaic and Copernican models weren't the only contest either. Tycho Brahe, a contemporary, had made a "geo-heliocentric" model from his observations which spliced both Ptolemy and Copernicus in an interesting way (both the earth and sun were essentially at the center of the universe). At the time there was no conclusive evidence to decide for or against any of the 3 models. The direct evidences that supported heliocenrtrism came about century or more after Galileo had lived (1564-1642): James Bradley (1725-1729) - stellar aberration of light (implied that the earth rotated on its axis as it orbited around the sun) and Friedrich Bessel (1838) - stellar parallax (the apparent shift of position of any nearby star against the background of distant stars)."
Product details
|
Tags : Buy Dialogues Concerning two new Sciences on ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders,Galileo Galilei, Henry Crew, Alfonso de Salvio,Dialogues Concerning two new Sciences,Sagwan Press,1340205238,History General,History/General,SCIENCE / History,Science Physics - General,Science/Physics - General
Dialogues Concerning two new Sciences Galileo Galilei Henry Crew Alfonso de Salvio 9781340205232 Books Reviews :
Dialogues Concerning two new Sciences Galileo Galilei Henry Crew Alfonso de Salvio 9781340205232 Books Reviews
- There actually is confusion over this title. For one, this is not the work where Galileo (1564-1642) defends Copernicus (Heliocentrism) where the sun is the center of the universe or the solar system. That work is called "Dialogues Concerning Two Chief World Systems" (1632).
This work, "Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences" (1638), is about Galileo's experiments in bodies and motion.
The publisher is not wrong at all in calling this work the given title of "..Two New Sciences". If anything it is Galileo's and his original Publisher's fault for naming both works in such a similar fashion "Dialogues Concerning Two....." The biggest difference is in the last words of the title.
For those concerned with Copernican/Aristarchus of Samos vs Aristotle/Ptolemaic debates (sun vs earth as the center of the universe/solar system) for which Galileo is known for please read Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (Modern Library Science). Its a good work, though Galileo did mock the Aristotle/Ptolemaic model by using a simpleton named "Simplicio" who was mathematically ignorant to represent Ptolemy's intensive and rigorous mathematical geocentric model. Of course there was no decisive evidence for heliocentrism in the time of Galileo so he should have been more careful. This also is what caused tensions between him and his supporter, Pope Urban VIII who had felt ridiculed because Galileo had put the Pope's views in the mouth of Simplicio. For the details on the Galileo affair, one can see When Science and Christianity Meet which shows the consensus view among historians of science on this.
For those interested in Galileo's physics of bodies and motion and the book which he said, "contain results which I consider the most important of all my studies" then "Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences" is the correct one.
For a general sample of many of Galileo's works and related documents from his "controversy" from those who did the trial on Galileo, please read The Trial of Galileo Essential Documents (Hackett Classics). Look also at Galileo's Sidereus Nuncius, or The Sidereal Messenger for his observation on the surface of the moon from his telescope.
A few similarities between both books by Galileo with similar titles have laid confusion to some of these reviewers
1. as was mentioned, both begin with similar titles "Dialogues Concerning Two....."
2. Both have the same picture of 3 men speaking
3. There are 4 days of dialogues in both books
4. The same three characters are found in both books Salviati, Sagredo, Simplicio
These similarities between both books are what makes them so hard to distinguish for anyone who has not read either one of these works. So confusion and disappointment are expected. I too got confused until I got copies of both assuming they were both the same. I wanted a better copy of "Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences" and bought "Dialogues Concerning Two Chief World Systems" since it was cheaper (by very little). I read the Copernican heliocentric arguments that are only found in "Dialogues Concerning Two Chief World Systems" and noticed that "Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences" was different and did not focus Copernicus at all, but instead focused on motions and bodies.
Hopefully this post clarifies and saves people from buying the wrong book. In any case, I say get both books since "Dialogues Concerning Two Chief World Systems" IS notable and important (but not revolutionary since defending Copernicus was not done in an empirical fashion and the astronomical data matched better with the Ptolemy's Geocentric model at that time). "Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences" gives insight to the mind and experiments of Galileo along with his debates on the nature of bodies and varieties of motion.
For those interested in some the works Galileo discusses in "Dialogues Concerning Two Chief World Systems" please look at Ptolemy's Ptolemy's Almagest, Copernicus' On the Revolutions Nicholas Copernicus Complete Works (Foundations of Natural History), and Aristarchus of Samos' Aristarchus of Samos The Ancient Copernicus (Dover Books on Astronomy) (he is called an ancient Copernicus by some).
In terms of "On the Revolutions", Copernicus himself dedicated the work to the Pope in the Preface. In this work, he models two different ideas 1) the sun, not the earth, is at the center of the universe and 2) the earth rotates on its axis. Furthermore, Copernicus' ideas were not novel since he was aware of Aristarchus of Samos' heliocentric model and also other heliocentrists and earth axial rotationists like the Pythagoreans Herakleides and Ekphantus, and also Hicetas the Syracusean. He mentions them in the text. Numerous arguments had been laid out for doubting that the earth rotates in previous centuries, mainly empirical arguments.
A good review of the geocentric-heliocentirc debates is Theories of the World from Antiquity to the Copernican Revolution Second Revised Edition. The situation was not obvious and both models had their merits and problems. Of course the Ptolemaic and Copernican models weren't the only contest either. Tycho Brahe, a contemporary, had made a "geo-heliocentric" model from his observations which spliced both Ptolemy and Copernicus in an interesting way (both the earth and sun were essentially at the center of the universe). At the time there was no conclusive evidence to decide for or against any of the 3 models. The direct evidences that supported heliocenrtrism came about century or more after Galileo had lived (1564-1642) James Bradley (1725-1729) - stellar aberration of light (implied that the earth rotated on its axis as it orbited around the sun) and Friedrich Bessel (1838) - stellar parallax (the apparent shift of position of any nearby star against the background of distant stars). - Galileo's "Dialogue Concerning Two New Sciences" covers the basics of what is today called classical mechanics. His main topics are the cohesion and strength of materials, uniform and uniformly accelerated motion, and projectile motion. But I also appreciate Galileo's tangents his thoughts about infinity, the speed of light, vibrations, music, and his bouncing up against the concepts of Calculus and what would be known as Newton's Laws of Motion. The "dialogue" style works well at first, but as the book progresses he nearly abandons this as apparently unworkable, and just gives proof after proof, many of which are awkward and difficult to follow (though part of my pleasure in reading it is solving those proofs that Galileo leaves out). Galileo is clearly a genius -- he doesn't get everything right, but given what he had to go on it is amazing what he was able to figure out.
This book should be read by every serious student and teacher of Physics and Engineering. - Absolutely incredible work by one of the greatest geniuses!
- This is an excellent book, but I don't think it's quite what the publisher thought it was. The previous reviewer is right in saying that this book does not support Copernicus' heliocentricism in any way. It is a discussion of motion, not astronomy. I would agree with the previous review in saying that the publishers probably meant to publish Dialogues Concerning Two Chief World Systems, which does in fact discuss heliocentricism and support Copernicus. How one manages to publish the wrong book I have no idea. Did no one read this before they published it? And how on earth did Stephen Hawking not notice either and write about the wrong book?
Well, it's a good book anyway, just not what they say it is. I recommend reading it if you want to understand the developments of science (esp. motion and mechanics), but if you want to learn about the Copernican Revolution and Galileo's conflict with the church, then the book you are looking for is Dialogues Concerning Two Chief World Systems. I would also recomment Galileo's Daughter as an amazing biography of Galileo based around a correspondence between him and his daughter.
Overall grade A for the book, F for the publisher's description.
Comments
Post a Comment