Centaurus 54 (2):148-164 (2012)
|Abstract||Galileo's refutation of the speed-distance law of fall in his Two New Sciences is routinely dismissed as a moment of confused argumentation. We urge that Galileo's argument correctly identified why the speed-distance law is untenable, failing only in its very last step. Using an ingenious combination of scaling and self-similarity arguments, Galileo found correctly that bodies, falling from rest according to this law, fall all distances in equal times. What he failed to recognize in the last step is that this time is infinite, the result of an exponential dependence of distance on time. Instead, Galileo conflated it with the other motion that satisfies this ‘equal time’ property, instantaneous motion.|
|Keywords||philosophy of physics history of physics Galileo|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Markus Schrenk (2004). Galileo Vs Aristotle on Free Falling Bodies. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 7 (1):1-11.
David Atkinson (2004). Galileo and Prior Philosophy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 35 (1):115-136.
J. Groot (2000). Aspects of Aristotelian Statics in Galileo's Dynamics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 31 (4):645-664.
Marta Fehér (1998). Patterns of Argumentation in Galileo'sDiscorsi. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):17-24.
Marta Feh (1998). Patterns of Argumentation in Galileo's Discorsi. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):17 – 24.
Maarten Van Dyck (2005). The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):864-875.
Maarten Dycvank (2005). The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):864-875.
Dušan I. Bjelic (1996). Lebenswelt Structures of Galilean Physics: The Case of Galileo's Pendulum. Human Studies 19 (4):409 - 432.
Steffen Ducheyne (2006). Galileo's Interventionist Notion of "Cause&Quot. Journal of the History of Ideas 67 (3):443-464.
Joseph C. Pitt (1988). Galileo, Rationality and Explanation. Philosophy of Science 55 (1):87-103.
Douglas Michael Jesseph (2004). Galileo, Hobbes, and the Book of Nature. Perspectives on Science 12 (2):191-211.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (1976). Galileo and the Philosophy of Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1976:130 - 139.
Steven John Livesey (1984). Prelude to Galileo: Essays on Medieval and Sixteenth-Century Sources of Galileo's Thought. Journal of the History of Philosophy 22 (4):474-476.
Michael Sharratt (1990). Galileo Heretic (Galileo Eretico). Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 21 (4):685-.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-10-12
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?