Talk:Two New Sciences

message: To answer the original question on the talk page, Galileo was able to "slow down" the rate of acceleration by inclining his wooden molding by some angle θ. Horizontal would be θ = 0 degrees, and vertical would be θ = 90 degrees. By taking ratios of the elapsed times and angles, he was able to determine that the acceleration of gravity was constant. But by rolling the hard bronze ball down the ramp at angle θ he was able to "slow down" the acceleration by a factor of sin(θ) 
:I see that the sine article uses radians;  90 degrees = π/2 radians. 
Ancheta Wis 11:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What is this page for? What is the formula for Galileo's ramp?" 

message: It should be noted that the initial contributor to this article, Wikipedian User:Dandrake is the son of this noted authority on Galileo. Note to Dan: WMC forced me to re-examine Newton's relationship to Galileo; hence the flow of time which I attribute to Galileo, and its provenance to Galileo is called into question. What I found from Westfall is that Galileo's Dialog was part of Newton's study (but no evidence of Discorso). Hence I was forced to find a new home for the flow of time text, which concept I still maintain originated from the Giant, Galileo. One uncomfortable note is that Stephen Hawking's reprint of the 5 Giants called it Dialog on Two New Sciences. Now I could have just used Hawking to parry the call, but it is probably just as well to have moved the Newton and Einstein reactions to the New Sciences to a new home. Ancheta Wis 16:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stillman Drake

message: Can some tell me if Galileo actually published his Galilean transformation in this book, or did he just explain the concept of relativity via the "cabin below decks in a sailing ship" example?  What I am wondering is whether the Galilean transformations are a Newtonian interpretation of Galilean relativity, since I know Newton was big on absolute time.  --Michael C. Price talk 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the sailing ship example comes from Galileo's 1632 Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.  It looks compatible with specicial relativity.  Haven't tracked down the first appearance of the Galilean transformation yet. --Michael C. Price talk 06:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Galilean Transformation]]s

message: The language in the infinite section looks anachronistic: It is therefore possible to have a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of a set N and the elements of a proper subset S of N. This cannot happen with finite sets. is sort-of attributed to Galileo. I bet he didn't say that William M. Connolley (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the first part. The second needs attention too William M. Connolley (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The modern resolution is more powerful because it allows you to compare finite and infinite numbers; Galileo's does not. It is hard to argue that infinite numbers are not "bigger" than finite ones; that Galileo doesn't even encompass this is a weakness. The modern resolution also allows you to compare different infinite numbers in a consistent way. Galileo cannot do this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infinite 

message: 74.205.218.68 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1914 edition states... 

message: This article is going to be the subject of a WikiBlitz on October 14, 2013.  My Fall 2013 History of Science survey. will be editing the article from 4:30-5:45pm CST. Kirwanfan (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiBlitz Oct 14, 2013 

message: Renyi falsifies Galileo's opinions. Galileo denied that phrases like "just as many" apply to infinite quantities. The editor who posted Renyi's claim, 74.83.182.22, seems to have a conflict of interest. So does Renyi.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.173.97 (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renyi 

message: I’m not an editor, wanted to flag that something has gone wrong in the discussion of book four in the hope that it might get fixed. 142.167.175.72 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random edits to book four