FOOTNOTES:

Thennz:n6 ::db:dkandmh:mx::da:db

Thennz:n6 ::db:dk

andmh:mx::da:db

thereforenz:mx::da:dk::h:6,and therefore since er is not able to raise6to n, neither will it be able to raise h to m; therefore they will remain as they are."[139]The passage in Italics tacitly assumes the principle in question. Tartalea, who edited Jordanus's book in 1565, has copied this theoremverbatiminto one of his own treatises, and from that time it appears to have attracted no further attention. The rest of the book is of an inferior description. We find Aristotle's doctrine repeated, that the velocity of a falling body is proportional to its weight; that the weight of a heavy body changes with its form; and other similar opinions. The manner in which falling bodies are accelerated by the air is given in detail. "By its first motion the heavy body will drag after it what is behind, and move what is just below it; and these when put in motion move what is next to them, so that by being set in motion they less impede the falling body. In this manner it has the effect of being heavier, and impels still more those which give way before it, until at last they are no longer impelled, but begin to drag. And thus it happens that its gravity is increased by their attraction, and their motion by its gravity, whence we see that its velocity is continually multiplied."

In this short review of the state of mechanical science before Galileo, the name of Guido Ubaldi ought not to be omitted, although his works contain little or nothing original. We have already mentioned Benedetti as having successfully attacked some of Aristotle's statical doctrines, but it is to be noticed that the laws of motion were little if at all examined by any of these writers. There are a few theorems connected with this latter subject in Cardan's extraordinary book "On Proportions," but for the most part false and contradictory. In the seventy-first proposition of his fifth book, he examines the force of the screw in supporting a given weight, and determines it accurately on the principle of virtual velocities; namely, that the power applied at the end of the horizontal lever must make a complete circuit at that distance from the centre, whilst the weight rises through the perpendicular height of the thread. The very next proposition in the same page is to find the same relation between the power and weight on an inclined plane; and although the identity of principle in these two mechanical aids was well known, yet Cardan declares the necessary sustaining force to vary as the angle of inclination of the plane, for no better reason than that such an expression will properly represent it at the two limiting angles of inclination, since the force is nothing when the plane is horizontal, and equal to the weight when perpendicular. This again shows how cautious we should be in attributing the full knowledge of general principles to these early writers, on account of occasional indications of their having employed them.

FOOTNOTES:[115]Histoire des Mathématiques, vol. i. p. 97.[116]De vi Percussionis, Bononiæ, 1667.[117]Mec. Analyt.[118]Mechanica.[119]Diog. Laert. In vit. Archyt.[120]De Cœlo, lib. i. c. 1.[121]Phys. lib. i. c. 3.[122]Lib. iii. c. 2. The Aristotelians distinguished between things as existing in act or energy (ενεργεια) and things in capacity or power (δυναμις). For the advantage of those who may think the distinction worth attending to, we give an illustration of Aristotle's meaning, from a very acute and learned commentator:—"It (motion) is something more than dead capacity; something less than perfect actuality; capacity roused, and striving to quit its latent character; not the capable brass, nor yet the actual statue, but the capacity in energy; that is to say, the brass in fusion while it is becoming the statue and is not yet become."—"The bow moves not because it may be bent, nor because it is bent; but the motion lies between; lies in an imperfect and obscure union of the two together; is the actuality (if I may so say) even of capacity itself: imperfect and obscure, because such is capacity to which it belongs."—Harris, Philosophical Arrangements.[123]Lib. iv. c. 1.[124]Lib. iv. c. 11.[125]De Cœlo, lib. i. c. 2.[126]Phys. lib. vii. c. 8.[127]De Cœlo, lib. i. c. 6.[128]Phys. lib. vii. c. 2.[129]Mechanica.[130]Εαν δε εν μηδενι λογῳ φερηται δυο φορας κατα μηδενα χρονον, αδυνατον ευθειαν ειναι την φοραν. Εαν γαρ τινα λογον ενεχθῃ εν χρονῳ τινι τουτον αναγκη τον χρονον ευθειαν ειναι φοραν δια τα προειρημενα, ὡστε περιφερες γινεται δυο φερομενον φορας εν μηδενι λογῳ μηδενα χρονον.—i.e.v =ds/dt[131]De Cœlo, lib. i. c. 3.[132]Lib. iv. c. 2.[133]Phys., lib. iv. c. 8.[134]De Proport. Basileæ, 1570.[135]"Nunc locus est, ut opinor, in his illud quoque rebusConfirmare tibi, nullam rem posse suâ viCorpoream sursum ferri, sursumque meare.—Nec quom subsiliunt ignes ad tecta domorum,Et celeri flammâ degustant tigna trabeisqueSponte suâ facere id sine vi subicente putandum est.—Nonne vides etiam quantâ vi tigna trabeisqueRespuat humor aquæ? Nam quod magi' mersimus altumDirectâ et magnâ vi multi pressimus ægre:—Tam cupide sursum revomit magis atque remittitPlus ut parte foras emergant, exsiliantque:—Nec tamen hæc, quantu'st in sedubitamus, opinor,Quinvacuum per inane deorsum cuncta ferantur,Sic igitur debent flammæ quoque posse per aurasAeris expressæ sursum subsidere, quamquamPondera quantum in se est deorsum deducere pugnent.—Quod si forte aliquis credit Graviora potesseCorpora, quo citius rectum per Inane feruntur,—Avius a verâ longe ratione recedit.Nam per Aquas quæcunque cadunt atque Aera deorsumHæc pro ponderibus casus celerare necesse 'stPropterea quia corpus Aquæ, naturaque tenuisAeris haud possunt æque rem quamque morari:Sed citius cedunt Gravioribus exsuperata.At contra nulli de nullâ parte, neque ulloTempore Inane potest Vacuum subsistere reiiQuin, sua quod natura petit, considere pergat:Omnia quâ propter debent per Inane quietumÆque ponderibus non æquis concita ferri."De Rerum Natura, lib. ii, v. 184-239.[136]Math. Coll. Pisani, 1662.[137]Œuvres Mathématiques. Leyde, 1634.[138]This is not a literal translation, but by what follows, is evidently the Author's meaning. His words are, "Proportionem igitur declinationum dico non angulorum, sed linearum usque ad æquidistantem resecationem in quâ æqualiter sumunt de directo."[139]Opusculum De Ponderositate. Venetiis, 1565.

[115]Histoire des Mathématiques, vol. i. p. 97.

[116]De vi Percussionis, Bononiæ, 1667.

[117]Mec. Analyt.

[118]Mechanica.

[119]Diog. Laert. In vit. Archyt.

[120]De Cœlo, lib. i. c. 1.

[121]Phys. lib. i. c. 3.

[122]Lib. iii. c. 2. The Aristotelians distinguished between things as existing in act or energy (ενεργεια) and things in capacity or power (δυναμις). For the advantage of those who may think the distinction worth attending to, we give an illustration of Aristotle's meaning, from a very acute and learned commentator:—"It (motion) is something more than dead capacity; something less than perfect actuality; capacity roused, and striving to quit its latent character; not the capable brass, nor yet the actual statue, but the capacity in energy; that is to say, the brass in fusion while it is becoming the statue and is not yet become."—"The bow moves not because it may be bent, nor because it is bent; but the motion lies between; lies in an imperfect and obscure union of the two together; is the actuality (if I may so say) even of capacity itself: imperfect and obscure, because such is capacity to which it belongs."—Harris, Philosophical Arrangements.

[123]Lib. iv. c. 1.

[124]Lib. iv. c. 11.

[125]De Cœlo, lib. i. c. 2.

[126]Phys. lib. vii. c. 8.

[127]De Cœlo, lib. i. c. 6.

[128]Phys. lib. vii. c. 2.

[129]Mechanica.

[130]Εαν δε εν μηδενι λογῳ φερηται δυο φορας κατα μηδενα χρονον, αδυνατον ευθειαν ειναι την φοραν. Εαν γαρ τινα λογον ενεχθῃ εν χρονῳ τινι τουτον αναγκη τον χρονον ευθειαν ειναι φοραν δια τα προειρημενα, ὡστε περιφερες γινεται δυο φερομενον φορας εν μηδενι λογῳ μηδενα χρονον.—i.e.v =ds/dt

[131]De Cœlo, lib. i. c. 3.

[132]Lib. iv. c. 2.

[133]Phys., lib. iv. c. 8.

[134]De Proport. Basileæ, 1570.

[135]"Nunc locus est, ut opinor, in his illud quoque rebusConfirmare tibi, nullam rem posse suâ viCorpoream sursum ferri, sursumque meare.—Nec quom subsiliunt ignes ad tecta domorum,Et celeri flammâ degustant tigna trabeisqueSponte suâ facere id sine vi subicente putandum est.—Nonne vides etiam quantâ vi tigna trabeisqueRespuat humor aquæ? Nam quod magi' mersimus altumDirectâ et magnâ vi multi pressimus ægre:—Tam cupide sursum revomit magis atque remittitPlus ut parte foras emergant, exsiliantque:—Nec tamen hæc, quantu'st in sedubitamus, opinor,Quinvacuum per inane deorsum cuncta ferantur,Sic igitur debent flammæ quoque posse per aurasAeris expressæ sursum subsidere, quamquamPondera quantum in se est deorsum deducere pugnent.—Quod si forte aliquis credit Graviora potesseCorpora, quo citius rectum per Inane feruntur,—Avius a verâ longe ratione recedit.Nam per Aquas quæcunque cadunt atque Aera deorsumHæc pro ponderibus casus celerare necesse 'stPropterea quia corpus Aquæ, naturaque tenuisAeris haud possunt æque rem quamque morari:Sed citius cedunt Gravioribus exsuperata.At contra nulli de nullâ parte, neque ulloTempore Inane potest Vacuum subsistere reiiQuin, sua quod natura petit, considere pergat:Omnia quâ propter debent per Inane quietumÆque ponderibus non æquis concita ferri."De Rerum Natura, lib. ii, v. 184-239.

"Nunc locus est, ut opinor, in his illud quoque rebusConfirmare tibi, nullam rem posse suâ viCorpoream sursum ferri, sursumque meare.—Nec quom subsiliunt ignes ad tecta domorum,Et celeri flammâ degustant tigna trabeisqueSponte suâ facere id sine vi subicente putandum est.—Nonne vides etiam quantâ vi tigna trabeisqueRespuat humor aquæ? Nam quod magi' mersimus altumDirectâ et magnâ vi multi pressimus ægre:—Tam cupide sursum revomit magis atque remittitPlus ut parte foras emergant, exsiliantque:—Nec tamen hæc, quantu'st in sedubitamus, opinor,Quinvacuum per inane deorsum cuncta ferantur,Sic igitur debent flammæ quoque posse per aurasAeris expressæ sursum subsidere, quamquamPondera quantum in se est deorsum deducere pugnent.—Quod si forte aliquis credit Graviora potesseCorpora, quo citius rectum per Inane feruntur,—Avius a verâ longe ratione recedit.Nam per Aquas quæcunque cadunt atque Aera deorsumHæc pro ponderibus casus celerare necesse 'stPropterea quia corpus Aquæ, naturaque tenuisAeris haud possunt æque rem quamque morari:Sed citius cedunt Gravioribus exsuperata.At contra nulli de nullâ parte, neque ulloTempore Inane potest Vacuum subsistere reiiQuin, sua quod natura petit, considere pergat:Omnia quâ propter debent per Inane quietumÆque ponderibus non æquis concita ferri."

"Nunc locus est, ut opinor, in his illud quoque rebus

Confirmare tibi, nullam rem posse suâ vi

Corpoream sursum ferri, sursumque meare.—

Nec quom subsiliunt ignes ad tecta domorum,

Et celeri flammâ degustant tigna trabeisque

Sponte suâ facere id sine vi subicente putandum est.

—Nonne vides etiam quantâ vi tigna trabeisque

Respuat humor aquæ? Nam quod magi' mersimus altum

Directâ et magnâ vi multi pressimus ægre:—

Tam cupide sursum revomit magis atque remittit

Plus ut parte foras emergant, exsiliantque:

—Nec tamen hæc, quantu'st in sedubitamus, opinor,

Quinvacuum per inane deorsum cuncta ferantur,

Sic igitur debent flammæ quoque posse per auras

Aeris expressæ sursum subsidere, quamquam

Pondera quantum in se est deorsum deducere pugnent.

—Quod si forte aliquis credit Graviora potesse

Corpora, quo citius rectum per Inane feruntur,

—Avius a verâ longe ratione recedit.

Nam per Aquas quæcunque cadunt atque Aera deorsum

Hæc pro ponderibus casus celerare necesse 'st

Propterea quia corpus Aquæ, naturaque tenuis

Aeris haud possunt æque rem quamque morari:

Sed citius cedunt Gravioribus exsuperata.

At contra nulli de nullâ parte, neque ullo

Tempore Inane potest Vacuum subsistere reii

Quin, sua quod natura petit, considere pergat:

Omnia quâ propter debent per Inane quietum

Æque ponderibus non æquis concita ferri."

De Rerum Natura, lib. ii, v. 184-239.

[136]Math. Coll. Pisani, 1662.

[137]Œuvres Mathématiques. Leyde, 1634.

[138]This is not a literal translation, but by what follows, is evidently the Author's meaning. His words are, "Proportionem igitur declinationum dico non angulorum, sed linearum usque ad æquidistantem resecationem in quâ æqualiter sumunt de directo."

[139]Opusculum De Ponderositate. Venetiis, 1565.

Galileo's theory of Motion—Extracts from the Dialogues.

DuringGalileo's residence at Sienna, when his recent persecution had rendered astronomy an ungrateful, and indeed an unsafe occupation for his ever active mind, he returned with increased pleasure to the favourite employment ofhis earlier years, an inquiry into the laws and phenomena of motion. His manuscript treatises on motion, written about 1590, which are mentioned by Venturi to be in the Ducal library at Florence, seem, from the published titles of the chapters, to consist principally of objections to the theory of Aristotle; a few only appear to enter on a new field of speculation. The 11th, 13th, and 17th chapters relate to the motion of bodies on variously inclined planes, and of projectiles. The title of the 14th implies a new theory of accelerated motion, and the assertion in that of the 16th, that a body falling naturally for however great a time would never acquire more than an assignable degree of velocity, shows that at this early period Galileo had formed just and accurate notions of the action of a resisting medium. It is hazardous to conjecture how much he might have then acquired of what we should now call more elementary knowledge; a safer course will be to trace his progress through existing documents in their chronological order. In 1602 we find Galileo apologizing in a letter addressed to his early patron the Marchese Guido Ubaldi, for pressing again upon his attention the isochronism of the pendulum, which Ubaldi had rejected as false and impossible. It may not be superfluous to observe that Galileo's results are not quite accurate, for there is a perceptible increase in the time occupied by the oscillations in larger arcs; it is therefore probable that he was induced to speak so confidently of their perfect equality, from attributing the increase of time which he could not avoid remarking to the increased resistance of the air during the larger vibrations. The analytical methods then known would not permit him to discover the curious fact, that the time of a total vibration is not sensibly altered by this cause, except so far as it diminishes the extent of the swing, and thus in fact, (paradoxical as it may sound) renders each oscillation successively more rapid, though in a very small degree. He does indeed make the same remark, that the resistance of the air will not affect the time of the oscillation, but that assertion was a consequence of his erroneous belief that the time of vibration in all arcs is the same. Had he been aware of the variation, there is no reason to think that he could have perceived that this result is not affected by it. In this letter is the first mention of the theorem, that the times of fall down all the chords drawn from the lowest point of a circle are equal; and another, from which Galileo afterwards deduced the curious result, that it takes less time to fall down the curve than down the chord, notwithstanding the latter is the direct and shortest course. In conclusion he says, "Up to this point I can go without exceeding the limits of mechanics, but I have not yet been able to demonstrate that all arcs are passed in the same time, which is what I am seeking." In 1604 he addressed the following letter to Sarpi, suggesting the false theory sometimes called Baliani's, who took it from Galileo.

"Returning to the subject of motion, in which I was entirely without a fixed principle, from which to deduce the phenomena I have observed, I have hit upon a proposition, which seems natural and likely enough; and if I take it for granted, I can show that the spaces passed in natural motion are in the double proportion of the times, and consequently that the spaces passed in equal times are as the odd numbers beginning from unity, and the rest. The principle is this, that the swiftness of the moveable increases in the proportion of its distance from the point whence it began to move;as for instance,—if a heavy body drop from A towards D, by the line ABCD, I suppose the degree of velocity which it has at B to bear to the velocity at C the ratio of AB to AC. I shall be very glad if your Reverence will consider this, and tell me your opinion of it. If we admit this principle, not only, as I have said, shall we demonstrate the other conclusions, but we have it in our power to show that a body falling naturally, and another projected upwards, pass through the same degrees of velocity. For if the projectile be cast up from D to A, it is clear that at D it has force enough to reach A, and no farther; and when it has reached C and B, it is equally clear that it is still joined to a degree of force capable of carrying it to A: thus it is manifest that the forces at D, C and B decrease in the proportion of AB, AC, and AD; so that if, in falling, the degrees of velocity observe the same proportion, that is true which I have hitherto maintained and believed."

We have no means of knowing how early Galileo discovered the fallacy of this reasoning. In his Dialogues on Motion, which contain the correct theory, he has put this erroneous supposition in the mouth of Sagredo, on which Salviati remarks, "Your discourse has so much likelihood in it, that our author himself did not deny to me when I proposed it to him, that he also had been for some time in the same mistake. But that which I afterwards extremely wondered at, was to see discovered in four plain words, not only the falsity, but the impossibility of a supposition carrying with it so much of seeming truth, that although I proposed it to many, I never met with any one but did freely admit it to be so; and yet it is as false and impossible as that motion is made in an instant: for if the velocities are as the spaces passed, those spaces will be passed in equal times, and consequently all motion must be instantaneous." The following manner of putting this reasoning will perhaps make the conclusion clearer. The velocity at any point is the space that would be passed in the next moment of time, if the motion be supposed to continue the same as at that point. At the beginning of the time, when the body is at rest, the motion is none; and therefore, on this theory, the space passed in the next moment is none, and thus it will be seen that the body cannot begin to move according to the supposed law.

A curious fact, noticed by Guido Grandi in his commentary on Galileo's Dialogues on Motion, is that this false law of acceleration is precisely that which would make a circular arc the shortest line of descent between two given points; and although in general Galileo only declared that the fall down the arc is made in less time than down the chord (in which he is quite correct), yet in some places he seems to assert that the circular arc is absolutely the shortest line of descent, which is not true. It has been thought possible that the law, which on reflection he perceived to be impossible, might have originally recommended itself to him from his perception that it satisfied his prejudice in this respect.

John Bernouilli, one of the first mathematicians in Europe at the beginning of the last century, has given us a proof that such a reason might impose even on a strong understanding, in the following argument urged by him in favour of Galileo's second and correct theory, that the spaces vary as the squares of the times. He had been investigating the curve of swiftest descent, and found it to be a cycloid, the same curve in which Huyghens had already proved that all oscillations are made in accurately equal times. "I think it," says he, "worthy of remark that this identity only occurs on Galileo's supposition, so that this alone might lead us to presume it to be the real law of nature. For nature, which always does everything in the very simplest manner, thus makes one line do double work, whereas on any other supposition, we must have had two lines, one for equal oscillations, the other for the shortest descent."[140]

Venturi mentions a letter addressed to Galileo in May 1609 by Luca Valerio, thanking him for his experiments on the descent of bodies on inclined planes. His method of making these experiments is detailed in the Dialogues on Motion:—"In a rule, or rather plank of wood, about twelve yards long, half a yard broad one way, and three inches the other, we made upon the narrow side or edge a groove of little more than an inch wide: we cut it very straight, and, to make it very smooth and sleek, we glued upon it a piece of vellum, polished and smoothed as exactly as possible, and in that we let fall a very hard, round, and smooth brass ball, raising one of the ends of the plank a yard or two at pleasure above the horizontal plane. We observed, in the manner that I shall tell you presently, the time which it spent in running down, and repeated the same observation again and again to assure ourselves of the time, in which we never found any difference, no, not so much as the tenth part of one beat of the pulse. Having made and settled this experiment, we let the same ball descend through a fourth part only of the length of the groove, and found the measured time to be exactly half the former. Continuing our experiments with other portions of the length, comparing the fall through the whole with the fall through half, two-thirds, three-fourths, in short, with the fall through any part, we found by many hundred experiments that the spaces passed over were as the squares of the times, and that this was the case in all inclinations of the plank; during which, we also remarkedthat the times of descent, on different inclinations, observe accurately the proportion assigned to them farther on, and demonstrated by our author. As to the estimation of the time, we hung up a great bucket full of water, which by a very small hole pierced in the bottom squirted out a fine thread of water, which we caught in a small glass during the whole time of the different descents: then weighing from time to time, in an exact pair of scales, the quantity of water caught in this way, the differences and proportions of their weights gave the differences and proportions of the times; and this with such exactness that, as I said before, although the experiments were repeated again and again, they never differed in any degree worth noticing." In order to get rid of the friction, Galileo afterwards substituted experiments with the pendulum; but with all his care he erred very widely in his determination of the space through which a body would fall in 1´´, if the resistance of the air and all other impediments were removed. He fixed it at 4braccia: Mersenne has engraved the length of the 'braccia' used by Galileo, in his "Harmonie Universelle," from which it appears to be about 23½ English inches, so that Galileo's result is rather less than eight feet. Mersenne's own result from direct observation was thirteen feet: he also made experiments in St. Peter's at Rome, with a pendulum 325 feet long, the vibrations of which were made in 10´´; from this the fall in 1´´ might have been deduced rather more than sixteen feet, which is very close to the truth.

From another letter also written in the early part of 1609, we learn that Galileo was then busied with examining the strength and resistance "of beams of different sizes and forms, and how much weaker they are in the middle than at the ends, and how much greater weight they can support laid along their whole length, than if sustained on a single point, and of what form they should be so as to be equally strong throughout." He was also speculating on the motion of projectiles, and had satisfied himself that their motion in a vertical direction is unaffected by their horizontal velocity; a conclusion which, combined with his other experiments, led him afterwards to determine the path of a projectile in a non-resisting medium to be parabolical.

Tartalea is supposed to have been the first to remark that no bullet moves in a horizontal line; but his theory beyond this point was very erroneous, for he supposed the bullet's path through the air to be made up of an ascending and descending straight line, connected in the middle by a circular arc.

Thomas Digges, in his treatise on the Newe Science of Great Artillerie, came much nearer the truth; for he remarked,[141]that "The bullet violentlye throwne out of the peece by the furie of the poulder hath two motions: the one violent, which endeuoreth to carry the bullet right out in his line diagonall, according to the direction of the peece's axis, from whence the violent motion proceedeth; the other naturall in the bullet itselfe, which endeuoreth still to carrye the same directlye downeward by a right line perpendiculare to the horizon, and which dooth though insensiblye euen from the beginning by little and little drawe it from that direct and diagonall course." And a little farther he observes that "These middle curve arkes of the bullet's circuite, compounded of the violent and naturall motions of the bullet, albeit they be indeed mere helicall, yet have they a very great resemblance of the Arkes Conical. And in randons above 45° they doe much resemble the Hyperbole, and in all vnder the Ellepsis. But exactlye they neuer accorde, being indeed Spirall mixte and Helicall."

Perhaps Digges deserves no greater credit from this latter passage than the praise of a sharp and accurate eye, for he does not appear to have founded this determination of the form of the curve on any theory of the direct fall of bodies; but Galileo's arrival at the same result was preceded, as we have seen, by a careful examination of the simplest phenomena into which this compound motion may be resolved. But it is time to proceed to the analysis of his "Dialogues on Motion," these preliminary remarks on their subject matter having been merely intended to show how long before their publication Galileo was in possession of the principal theories contained in them.

Descartes, in one of his letters to Mersenne, insinuates that Galileo had taken many things in these Dialogues from him: the two which he especially instances are the isochronism of the pendulum, and the law of the spaces varyingas the squares of the times.[142]Descartes was born in 1596: we have shown that Galileo observed the isochronism of the pendulum in 1583, and knew the law of the spaces in 1604, although he was then attempting to deduce it from an erroneous principle. As Descartes on more than one occasion has been made to usurp the credit due to Galileo, (in no instance more glaringly so than when he has been absurdly styled the forerunner of Newton,) it will not be misplaced to mention a few of his opinions on these subjects, recorded in his letters to Mersenne in the collection of his letters just cited:—"I am astonished at what you tell me of having found by experiment that bodies thrown up in the air take neither more nor less time to rise than to fall again; and you will excuse me if I say that I look upon the experiment as a very difficult one to make accurately. This proportion of increase according to the odd numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, &c., which is in Galileo, and which I think I wrote to you some time back, cannot be true, as I believe I intimated at the same time, unless we make two or three suppositions which are entirely false. One is Galileo's opinion, that motion increases gradually from the slowest degree; and the other is, that the air makes no resistance." In a later letter to the same person he says, apparently with some uneasiness, "I have been revising my notes on Galileo, in which I have not said expressly, that falling bodies do not pass through every degree of slowness, but I said that this cannot be determined without knowing what weight is;which comes to the same thing. As to your example, I grant that it proves that every degree of velocity is infinitely divisible, but not that a falling body actually passes through all these divisions.—It is certain that a stone is not equally disposed to receive a new motion or increase of velocity, when it is already moving very quickly, and when it is moving slowly. But I believe that I am now able to determine in what proportion the velocity of a stone increases, not when falling in a vacuum, but in this substantial atmosphere.—However I have now got my mind full of other things, and I cannot amuse myself with hunting this out,nor is it a matter of much utility." He afterwards returns once more to the same subject:—"As to what Galileo says, that falling bodies pass through every degree of velocity, I do not believe that it generally happens, but I allow it is not impossible that it may happen occasionally." After this the reader will know what value to attach to the following assertion by the same Descartes:—"I see nothing in Galileo's books to envy him, and hardly any thing which I would own as mine;" and then may judge how far Salusbury's blunt declaration is borne out, "Where or when did any one appear that durst enter the lists with our Galileus? save only one bold and unfortunate Frenchman, who yet no sooner came within the ring but he was hissed out again."[143]

The principal merit of Descartes must undoubtedly be derived from the great advances he made in what are generally termed Abstract or Pure Mathematics; nor was he slow to point out to Mersenne and his other friends the acknowledged inferiority of Galileo to himself in this respect. We have not sufficient proof that this difference would have existed if Galileo's attention had been equally directed to that object; the singular elegance of some of his geometrical constructions indicates great talent for this as well as for his own more favourite speculations. But he was far more profitably employed: geometry and pure mathematics already far outstripped any useful application of their results to physical science, and it was the business of Galileo's life to bring up the latter to the same level. He found abstract theorems already demonstrated in sufficient number for his purpose, nor was there occasion to task his genius in search of new methods of inquiry, till all was exhausted which could be learned from those already in use. The result of his labours was that in the age immediately succeeding Galileo, the study of nature was no longer in arrear of the abstract theories of number and measure; and when the genius of Newton pressed it forward to a still higher degree of perfection, it became necessary to discover at the same time more powerful instruments of investigation. This alternating process has been successfully continued to the present time; the analyst acts as the pioneer of the naturalist, so that the abstract researches, which at first have no value but in the eyes of those to whom an elegant formula, in its own beauty, is a source of pleasure as real and as refined as a painting or a statue, are often found to furnish theonly means for penetrating into the most intricate and concealed phenomena of natural philosophy.

Descartes and Delambre agree in suspecting that Galileo preferred the dialogistic form for his treatises, because it afforded a ready opportunity for him to praise his own inventions: the reason which he himself gave is, the greater facility for introducing new matter and collateral inquiries, such as he seldom failed to add each time that he reperused his work. We shall select in the first place enough to show the extent of his knowledge on the principal subject, motion, and shall then allude as well as our limits will allow to the various other points incidentally brought forward.

The dialogues are between the same speakers as in the "System of the World;" and in the first Simplicio gives Aristotle's proof,[144]that motion in a vacuum is impossible, because according to him bodies move with velocities in the compound proportion of their weights and the rarities of the mediums through which they move. And since the density of a vacuum bears no assignable ratio to that of any medium in which motion has been observed, any body which should employ time in moving through the latter, would pass through the same distance in a vacuum instantaneously, which is impossible. Salviati replies by denying the axioms, and asserts that if a cannon ball weighing 200 lbs., and a musket ball weighing half a pound, be dropped together from a tower 200 yards high, the former will not anticipate the latter by so much as a foot; "and I would not have you do as some are wont, who fasten upon some saying of mine that may want a hair's breadth of the truth, and under this hair they seek to hide another man's blunder as big as a cable. Aristotle says that an iron ball weighing 100 lbs. will fall from the height of 100 yards while a weight of one pound falls but one yard: I say they will reach the ground together. They find the bigger to anticipate the less by two inches, and under these two inches they seek to hide Aristotle's 99 yards." In the course of his reply to this argument Salviati formally announces the principle which is the foundation of the whole of Galileo's theory of motion, and which must therefore be quoted in his own words:—"A heavy body has by nature an intrinsic principle of moving towards the common centre of heavy things; that is to say, to the centre of our terrestrial globe, with a motion continually accelerated in such manner that in equal times there are always equal additions of velocity. This is to be understood as holding true only when all accidental and external impediments are removed, amongst which is one that we cannot obviate, namely, the resistance of the medium. This opposes itself, less or more, accordingly as it is to open more slowly or hastily to make way for the moveable, which being by its own nature, as I have said, continually accelerated, consequently encounters a continually increasing resistance in the medium, until at last the velocity reaches that degree, and the resistance that power, that they balance each other; all further acceleration is prevented, and the moveable continues ever after with an uniform and equable motion." That such a limiting velocity is not greater than some which may be exhibited may be proved as Galileo suggested by firing a bullet upwards, which will in its descent strike the ground with less force than it would have done if immediately from the mouth of the gun; for he argued that the degree of velocity which the air's resistance is capable of diminishing must be greater than that which could ever be reached by a body falling naturally from rest. "I do not think the present occasion a fit one for examining the cause of this acceleration of natural motion, on which the opinions of philosophers are much divided; some referring it to the approach towards the centre, some to the continual diminution of that part of the medium remaining to be divided, some to a certain extrusion of the ambient medium, which uniting again behind the moveable presses and hurries it forwards. All these fancies, with others of the like sort, we might spend our time in examining, and with little to gain by resolving them. It is enough for our author at present that we understand his object to be the investigation and examination of some phenomena of a motion so accelerated, (no matter what may be the cause,) that the momenta of velocity, from the beginning to move from rest, increase in the simple proportion in which the time increases, which is as much as to say, that in equal times are equal additions of velocity. And if it shall turn out that the phenomena demonstratedon this supposition are verified in the motion of falling and naturally accelerated weights, we may thence conclude that the assumed definition does describe the motion of heavy bodies, and that it is true that their acceleration varies in the ratio of the time of motion."

When Galileo first published these Dialogues on Motion, he was obliged to rest his demonstrations upon another principle besides, namely, that the velocity acquired in falling down all inclined planes of the same perpendicular height is the same. As this result was derived directly from experiment, and from that only, his theory was so far imperfect till he could show its consistency with the above supposed law of acceleration. When Viviani was studying with Galileo, he expressed his dissatisfaction at this chasm in the reasoning; the consequence of which was, that Galileo, as he lay the same night, sleepless through indisposition, discovered the proof which he had long sought in vain, and introduced it into the subsequent editions. The third dialogue is principally taken up with theorems on the direct fall of bodies, their times of descent down differently inclined planes, which in planes of the same height he determined to be as the lengths, and with other inquiries connected with the same subject, such as the straight lines of shortest descent under different data, &c.

The fourth dialogue is appropriated to projectile motion, determined upon the principle that the horizontal motion will continue the same as if there were no vertical motion, and the vertical motion as if there were no horizontal motion. "Let AB represent a horizontal line or plane placed on high, on which let a body be carried with an equable motion from A towards B, and the support of the plane being taken away at B, let the natural motion downwards due to the body's weight come upon it in the direction of the perpendicular BN. Moreover let the straight line BE drawn in the direction AB be taken to represent the flow, or measure, of the time, on which let any number of equal parts BC, CD, DE, &c. be marked at pleasure, and from the points C, D, E, let lines be drawn parallel to BN; in the first of these let any part CI be taken, and let DF be taken four times as great as CI, EH nine times as great, and so on, proportionally to the squares of the lines BC, BD, BE, &c., or, as we say, in the double proportion of these lines. Now if we suppose that whilst by its equable horizontal motion the body moves from B to C, it also descends by its weight through CI, at the end of the time denoted by BC it will be at I. Moreover in the time BD, double of BC, it will have fallen four times as far, for in the first part of the Treatise it has been shewn that the spaces fallen through by a heavy body vary as the squares of the times. Similarly at the end of the time BE, or three times BC, it will have fallen through EH, and will be at H. And it is plain that the points I, F, H, are in the same parabolical line BIFH. The same demonstration will apply if we take any number of equal particles of time of whatever duration."

The curve called here a Parabola by Galileo, is one of those which results from cutting straight through a Cone, and therefore is called also one of the Conic Sections, the curious properties of which curves had drawn the attention of geometricians long before Galileo thus began to point out their intimate connexion with the phenomena of motion. After the proposition we have just extracted, he proceeds to anticipate some objections to the theory, and explains that the course of a projectile will not be accurately a parabola for two reasons; partly on account of the resistance of the air, and partly because a horizontal line, or one equidistant from the earth's centre, is not straight, but circular. The latter cause of difference will, however, as he says, be insensible in all such experiments as we are able to make. The rest of the Dialogue is taken up with different constructions for determining the circumstances of the motion of projectiles, as their range, greatest height, &c.; and it is proved that, with a given force of projection, the range will be greatest when a ball is projected at an elevationof 45°, ranges of all angles equally inclined above and below 45° corresponding exactly to each other.

One of the most interesting subjects discussed in these dialogues is the famous notion of Nature's horror of a vacuum or empty space, which the old school of philosophy considered as impossible to be obtained. Galileo's notions of it were very different; for although he still unadvisedly adhered to the old phrase to denote the resistance experienced in endeavouring to separate two smooth surfaces, he was so far from looking upon a vacuum as an impossibility, that he has described an apparatus by which he endeavoured to measure the force necessary to produce one.This consisted of a cylinder, into which is tightly fitted a piston; through the centre of the piston passes a rod with a conical valve, which, when drawn down, shuts the aperture closely, supporting a basket. The space between the piston and cylinder being filled full of water poured in through the aperture, the valve is closed, the vessel reversed, and weights are added till the piston is drawn forcibly downwards. Galileo concluded that the weight of the piston, rod, and added weights, would be the measure of the force of resistance to the vacuum which he supposed would take place between the piston and lower surface of the water. The defects in this apparatus for the purpose intended are of no consequence, so far as regards the present argument, and it is perhaps needless to observe that he was mistaken in supposing the water would not descend with the piston. This experiment occasions a remark from Sagredo, that he had observed that a lifting-pump would not work when the water in the cistern had sunk to the depth of thirty-five feet below the valve; that he thought the pump was injured, and sent for the maker of it, who assured him that no pump upon that construction would lift water from so great a depth. This story is sometimes told of Galileo, as if he had said sneeringly on this occasion that Nature's horror of a vacuum does not extend beyond thirty-five feet; but it is very plain that if he had made such an observation, it would have been seriously; and in fact by such a limitation he deprived the notion of the principal part of its absurdity. He evidently had adopted the common notion of suction, for he compares the column of water to a rod of metal suspended from its upper end, which may be lengthened till it breaks with its own weight. It is certainly very extraordinary that he failed to observe how simply these phenomena may be explained by a reference to the weight of the elastic atmosphere, which he was perfectly well acquainted with, and endeavoured by the following ingenious experiment to determine:—"Take a large glass flask with a bent neck, and round its mouth tie a leathern pipe with a valve in it, through which water may be forced into the flask with a syringe without suffering any air to escape, so that it will be compressed within the bottle. It will be found difficult to force in more than about three-fourths of what the flask will hold, which must be carefully weighed. The valve must then be opened, and just so much air will rush out as would in its natural density occupy the space now filled by the water. Weigh the vessel again; the difference will show the weight of that quantity of air."[145]By these means, which the modern experimentalist will see were scarcely capable of much accuracy, Galileo found that air was four hundred times lighter than water, instead of ten times, which was the proportion fixed on by Aristotle. The real proportion is about 830 times.

The true theory of the rise of water in a lifting-pump is commonly dated from Torricelli's famous experiment with a column of mercury, in 1644, when he found that the greatest height at which it would stand is fourteen times less than the height at which water will stand, which is exactly the proportion of weight between water and mercury. The following curious letter from Baliani, in 1630, shows that the original merit of suggesting the real cause belongs to him, and renders it still more unaccountable that Galileo, to whom it was addressed, should not at once have adopted the same view of the subject:—"I have believed that a vacuum may exist naturally ever since I knew that the air has sensible weight, and that you taught me in one of your letters how to find its weight exactly, though I have not yet succeeded with that experiment. From that moment I took up the notionthat it is not repugnant to the nature of things that there should be a vacuum, but merely that it is difficult to produce. To explain myself more clearly: if we allow that the air has weight, there is no difference between air and water except in degree. At the bottom of the sea the weight of the water above me compresses everything round my body, and it strikes me that the same thing must happen in the air, we being placed at the bottom of its immensity; we do not feel its weight, nor the compression round us, because our bodies are made capable of supporting it. But if we were in a vacuum, then the weight of the air above our heads would be felt. It would be felt very great, but not infinite, and therefore determinable, and it might be overcome by a force proportioned to it. In fact I estimate it to be such that, to make a vacuum, I believe we require a force greater than that of a column of water thirty feet high."[146]

This subject is introduced by some observations on the force of cohesion, Galileo seeming to be of opinion that, although it cannot be adequately accounted for by "the great and principal resistance to a vacuum, yet that perhaps a sufficient cause may be found by considering every body as composed of very minute particles, between every two of which is exerted a similar resistance." This remark serves to lead to a discussion on indivisibles and infinite quantities, of which we shall merely extract what Galileo gives as a curious paradox suggested in the course of it. He supposes a basin to be formed by scooping a hemisphere out of a cylinder, and a cone to be taken of the same depth and base as the hemisphere. It is easy to show, if the cone and scooped cylinder be both supposed to be cut by the same plane, parallel to the one on which both stand, that the area of the ring CDEF thus discovered in the cylinder is equal to the area of the corresponding circular section AB of the cone, wherever the cutting plane is supposed to be.[147]He then proceeds with these remarkable words:—"If we raise the plane higher and higher, one of these areas terminates in the circumference of a circle, and the other in a point, for such are the upper rim of the basin and the top of the cone. Now since in the diminution of the two areas they to the very last maintain their equality to one another, it is in my thoughts proper to say that the highest and ultimate terms[148]of such diminutions are equal, and not one infinitely bigger than the other. It seems therefore that the circumference of a large circle may be said to be equal to one single point. And why may not these be called equal if they be the last remainders and vestiges left by equal magnitudes?"[149]

Back to Index Next