{"title":"[伽利略和离心力]。","authors":"Christiane Vilain","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This work intends to focus on Galileo's study of what is now called \"centrifugal force,\" within the framework of the Second Day of his Dialogo written in 1632, rather than on the previously published commentaries on the topic. Galileo proposes three geometrical demonstrations in order to prove that gravity will always overcome centrifugalforce, and that the potential rotation of the Earth, whatever its speed, cannot in any case project objects beyond it. Each of these demonstrations must consequently contain an error and it has seemed to us that the first one had not been understood up until now. Our analysis offers an opportunity to return to Galileo's geometrical representation of dynamical questions; actually, we get an insight into the sophistication of Galileo's practices more than into his mistakes. Our second point, concerning the historiography of the problem, shows an evolution from anachronic critics to more contextual considerations, in the course of the second half of the twentieth century.</p>","PeriodicalId":82321,"journal":{"name":"Physis; rivista internazionale di storia della scienza","volume":"48 1-2","pages":"31-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Galileo and centrifugal force].\",\"authors\":\"Christiane Vilain\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This work intends to focus on Galileo's study of what is now called \\\"centrifugal force,\\\" within the framework of the Second Day of his Dialogo written in 1632, rather than on the previously published commentaries on the topic. Galileo proposes three geometrical demonstrations in order to prove that gravity will always overcome centrifugalforce, and that the potential rotation of the Earth, whatever its speed, cannot in any case project objects beyond it. Each of these demonstrations must consequently contain an error and it has seemed to us that the first one had not been understood up until now. Our analysis offers an opportunity to return to Galileo's geometrical representation of dynamical questions; actually, we get an insight into the sophistication of Galileo's practices more than into his mistakes. Our second point, concerning the historiography of the problem, shows an evolution from anachronic critics to more contextual considerations, in the course of the second half of the twentieth century.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":82321,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physis; rivista internazionale di storia della scienza\",\"volume\":\"48 1-2\",\"pages\":\"31-51\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physis; rivista internazionale di storia della scienza\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physis; rivista internazionale di storia della scienza","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This work intends to focus on Galileo's study of what is now called "centrifugal force," within the framework of the Second Day of his Dialogo written in 1632, rather than on the previously published commentaries on the topic. Galileo proposes three geometrical demonstrations in order to prove that gravity will always overcome centrifugalforce, and that the potential rotation of the Earth, whatever its speed, cannot in any case project objects beyond it. Each of these demonstrations must consequently contain an error and it has seemed to us that the first one had not been understood up until now. Our analysis offers an opportunity to return to Galileo's geometrical representation of dynamical questions; actually, we get an insight into the sophistication of Galileo's practices more than into his mistakes. Our second point, concerning the historiography of the problem, shows an evolution from anachronic critics to more contextual considerations, in the course of the second half of the twentieth century.