Talk:Galileo Galilei

Template:WP1.0

Timeline mistake

The timeline states Galileo first studied at Padua, which is incorrect; it was Pisa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.98.19 (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The article on Ostilio Ricci says, "Galileo was enrolled at the University of Pisa...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.29.8 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed

Thanks for picking this up.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Inquisition

This article tends to have some faulty ideas about the ispuisition 1. It said that Galileo was called to the inquisition after the church found that it defended Capernicism. That is partially true with details left out. In reallity, there was an unsigned note from the inquisition of 1616, NOT Belermine's letter. It stated that Galileo was not even to teach Capernicism. The note probably came from the inquisition but not from any member of authority such as Cardinal Belarmine. Sixteen years later it was shown to the pope and he felt very betrayed that he was lied to.

2. The inquisition did not go after Galileo for the actual note to Castelli, but a slightly doctored one made up by his enemies. That one was certainly hereticle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.199.32 (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

An important omission from the 'In artistic and popular media' section.

This may be a minor point, but as a music critic and musician I believe it is an important one; in 2002 Phillip Glass premiered an opera about the man entitled 'Galileo Galilei.' There is a wikipedia page about the opera. I'm new to this and can make the edit myself once I figure out how to do it, but I thought I would just put it out there for now.Thlayli2 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Thlayli2

New Supernova Section

The new supernova section seems wrong for two reasons:

1. The description sounds like Tycho Brahe's observation of a supernova; Galileo wasn't known for precise quantitative measurements of the positions of celestial bodies.
2. The citation does not give exact pages and a search of the source in Google Books gave no results for either parallax, nova, or supernova.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A supernova did appear in 1604, when Tycho was already dead. Galileo was by no means the only person to have seen it, but he is generally regarded as the probable author of a pamphlet which discusses it: Dialogue on the new star, a crude parody written in Paduan dialect under the pseudonym Cecco di Ronchitti. Here's a review of the work of Stillman Drake's that contains a translation. The first edition of Ronchitti's pamphlet contains a favourable reference to heliocentrism which was changed to an unfavorable one in later editions. In his commentary, Drake speculated that Galileo had hoped that the annual parallax of the supernova would be detectable and was disappointed when it proved not to be. It's a long time since I read Drake's book, but as far as I can recall he made no suggestion that Galileo measured the parallax himself. This would seem to me to be extremely unlikely, since I don't think there's any evidence that Galileo performed any detailed astronomical observations before his discoveries with the telescope in 1609-10. It does seem reasonably likely to me that genuine astronomers would have tried to measure the supernova's parallax, but I don't recall whether Drake specifically mentioned any such attempts.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I had forgotten that this supernova was actually Kepler's Supernova.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S: On consulting my copy of Michael Sharratt's Galileo: Decisive Innovator I find that pages 79–82 discuss Galileo's writings on Kepler's supernova, including his hypothesized authorship or co-authorship of Ronchitti's Dialogue. I may well have confabulated some of what Sharratt says about this with what Drake said about it.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have checked a British edition of the cited reference, which says on p.273:

"He [Galileo] became a Copernican in 1597, but his fame as an astronomer—until then he was considered a great mathematician—dates from his observation of the nova of 1604 in the constellation of Ophiuchus. The absence of any observable parallax convinced Galileo that the nova was a distant star, and that Aristotle's belief in the immutability of the heavens was therefore false. When he expressed these views publicly—as he invariably did with all his findings—he aroused the life-long enmity of all the opponents of modern science."

There are several things in this passage which don't tally well with what I have read in other sources. I have rewritten the text in the article to clarify that "parallax" refers to diurnal parallax (which I should have realised earlier), and attributed what seem to me to be the more dubious of Walusinsky's assertions specifically to him. It seems to me that this episode is not significant enough to deserve its own heading, and if it's to remain in the article at all, it would be better placed at the top of the section on astronomy–immediately preceding the passage on Galileo's construction of and initial discoveries with the telescope.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting, but dissatisfy. Did Galileo say, in writing, that the new 1604 star disproved the Aristotelian belief in the immutability of the heavens? Was there opposition because people did not believe that it was a distant star, or some other reason? Can we get a quote of what Galileo said? Roger (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

he was a science and he loved to pinted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.62.222.217 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Microscope

In the Timeline, under 1624, Galileo is said to have "perfected the compound microscope". There were many improvements made after 1624, by Abbe and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.98.2 (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

1616

In the Timeline, in the second line for 1616, the sentence is ungrammatical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.112.106 (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, I removed the redundant 'placed'. Mikenorton (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Dante

The quotation from Dante, in the paragraph entitled "Moon", is a waste of time. Dante's remarks are too vague to be worth attacking.