Advertisement

Physics in Perspective

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 387–400 | Cite as

Contra Galileo: Riccioli’s “Coriolis-Force” Argument on the Earth’s Diurnal Rotation

  • Christopher M. Graney
Article

Abstract

In 1651 the Italian astronomer and physicist Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598–1671) published his encyclopedic book, Almagestum novum, in which he presented seventy-seven arguments against the Copernican theory of the movement of the Earth, one of which foresaw an effect that physicists today attribute to the Coriolis force. Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), Isaac Newton (1642–1727), and Robert Hooke (1635–1703) investigated this argument, which raises significant questions about the nature of the opposition to the Copernican theory in the seventeenth century.

Keywords

Galileo Galilei Giovanni Battista Riccioli Isaac Newton Robert Hooke Johann F. Benzenberg Giovanni Battista Guglielmini Edwin H. Hall Philips Lansbergen Simon Marius Ferdinand Reich Copernican theory Tychonic theory diurnal rotation of the earth Coriolis force history of astronomy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Roger H. Stuewer for his helpful and thoughtful editorial work on my paper, and Christina Graney for her vital assistance in translating Riccioli’s work from Latin.

References

  1. 1.
    Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World SystemsPtolemaic & Copernican [1632], translated by Stillman Drake, foreword by Albert Einstein (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, Second Edition 1967), pp. 186-187; idem, Introduction by J.L. Heilbron (New York: The Modern Library, 2001), pp. 216-218.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ibid., p. 188; 218.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ibid., pp. 178-183; 206-212.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibid., p. 182; 211.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ioanne Baptista Ricciolo [Giovanni Battista Riccioli], Almagestum novum astronomiam veterem novamque complectens observationibus aliorum, et propriis Nouisque Theorematibus, Problematibus, ac Tabulis promotam, in tres tomos distributam quorum argumentum Sequens pagina explicabit (Bononiæ: Ex Typographia Hæredis Victorij Benatij, 1651), title page, [drop-down menu] Pars posterior tomi primi at website <http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/140190>.
  6. 6.
    Edward Grant, Planets, Stars, and Orbs: The Medieval Cosmos, 1200-1687 (Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 652.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Albert Van Helden, “Galileo, telescopic astronomy, and the Copernican system,” in Rene Taton and Curtis Wilson, ed., Planetary astronomy from the Renaissqance to the rise of astrophysics. Part A. Tycho Brahe to Newton [The General History of Astronomy, Vol. 2] (Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 81-118, on p. 103.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibid., p. 474, par. XVIII, website <…/141537>.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibid., p. 425, col. 2, sec. VI, par. VIII, website <…/141485>.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibid., pp. 426-427, sec. VIII, websites <…/141486> and <…/141487>. For a more detailed summary (but not a complete translation), see Edward Grant, “In Defense of the Earth’s Centrality and Immobility: Scholastic Reaction to Copernicanism in the Seventeenth Century,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 74, Part 4 (1984), 1-69, on 48-51.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ricciolo [Riccioli], Almagestum novum (ref. 5), p. 474, pars. XVII, XIX, website <…/141537>.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jerry B. Marion, Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems (New York and London: Academic Press, Second Edition 1970), pp. 343-356.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ricciolo [Riccioli], Almagestum novum (ref. 5), p. 474. par. XVII, website <…/141537>.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ibid., p. 473, par. X, website <…/141536>.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    For an example of such a calculation that Giovanni Alfonso Borelli (1608-1679) published in 1667, see Alexandre Koyré, “A Documentary History of the Problem of Fall from Kepler to Newton: De Motu Gravium Naturaliter Cadentium in Hypothesi Terrae Motae,” Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. 45 (1955), 329-395, on 374.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marion, Classical Dynamics (ref. 12), p. 350.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robert Hooke, An Attempt To prove the Motion of the Earth by Observations (London: Printed by T.R. for John Martyn Printer to the Royal Society at the Bell in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1674); reprinted in Robert T. Gunther, Early Science in Oxford. Vol. VIII. The Cutler Lectures of Robert Hooke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930); reprinted (London: Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1968), pp. 1-28, on pp. 5-6; see also website <http://www.roberthooke.com>.
  18. 18.
    Newton to Hooke, November 28, 1679, in H.W. Turnbull, F.R.S., ed., The Correspondence of Isaac Newton. Vol. II. 1676-1687 (Cambridge: Published for The Royal Society at the University Press, 1960), pp. 300-303, on pp. 301-302; also somewhat inaccurately in W.W. Rouse Ball, An Essay on Newton’s ‘Principia’ (London and New York: MacMillan and Co., 1893), pp. 141-144, on pp. 142-143.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rouse Ball, Essay (ref. 18), pp. 145-150.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. L. Heilbron, The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 180.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quoted in Rouse Ball, Essay (ref. 18), p. 150.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Edwin H. Hall, “Do Falling Bodies Move South?” The Physical Review 17 (1903), 179-190, on 182.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ibid., p. 189.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Domenico Bertoloni Meli, “St Peter and the rotation of the earth: the problem of fall around 1800,” in P. M. Harman and Alan E. Shapiro, ed., The investigation of difficult things: Essays on Newton and the history of the exact sciences in honour of D.T. Whiteside (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 421-447, on p. 430.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hall, “Falling Bodies” (ref. 22), pp. 183, 189.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    William F. Rigge, “Experimental Proofs of the Earth’s Rotation,” Popular Astronomy 21 (1913), 208-216, on 209-210.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hall, “Falling Bodies” (ref. 22), p. 189.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rigge, “Experimental Proofs” (ref. 26), pp. 209-210.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibid., p. 210; Marion, Classical Dynamics (ref. 12), p. 350, footnote.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hall, “Falling Bodies” (ref. 22), p. 186.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ibid., pp. 186-188.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ibid., pp. 189-190.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Florian Cajori, “The Unexplained Southerly Deviation of Falling Bodies,” Science 14 (November 29, 1901), 853-855.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hall, “Falling Bodies” (ref. 22), pp. 188-189.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cajori, “Unexplained Southerly Deviation” (ref. 33), p. 854.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hall, “Falling Bodies” (ref. 22), pp. 188-189.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ricciolo [Riccioli], Almagestum novum (ref. 5), p. 477, pars. LXIV-LXX, website <…/141540>.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Christopher M. Graney, “But Still, It Moves: Tides, Stellar Parallax, and Galileo’s Commitment to the Copernican Theory,” Physics in Perspective 10 (2008), 258-268; idem, “Seeds of a Tychonic Revolution: Telescopic Observations of the Stars by Galileo Galilei and Simon Marius,” ibid. 12 (2010), 4-24.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Christopher M. Graney, “The Telescope Against Copernicus: Star Observations by Riccioli Supporting a Geocentric Universe,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 41 (2010), 453-467.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sir John F.W. Herschel, “[Treatise on] Light,” in The Encyclopedia of Mechanical Philosophy: Forming a Portion of the Encyclopedia Metropolitana (London: John Joseph Griffin and Company and Glasgow: Richard Griffin and Company, 1848), pp. 341-586 + Plates 1-14, on Plate 9 (Fig. 152, Art. 770).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    C. M. Graney and T. P. Grayson, “On the Telescopic Disks of Stars: A Review and Analysis of Stellar Observations from the Early Seventeenth through the Middle Nineteenth Centuries,” Annals of Science (in press).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Graney, “Telescope Against Copernicus” (ref. 39), p. 461.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ricciolo [Riccioli], Almagestum novum (ref. 5), p. 477, par. LXX Responsio, website <…/141540>; pp. 460-463, chap. XXX, websites <…/141520>, <…/141523>, <…/141525>, and <…/141526>.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rienk Vermij, “Putting the Earth in Heaven. Philips Lansbergen, the Early Dutch Copernicans and the Mechanization of the World Picture,” in Massimo Bucciantini, Michele Camerota, and Sophie Roux, ed., Mechanics and Cosmology in the Medieval and Early Modern Period (Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 2007), pp. 121-141.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ricciolo [Riccioli], Almagestum novum (ref. 5), pp. 460-463, chap. XXX, websites <…/141520>, <…/141523>, <…/141525>, and <…/141526>; p. 467, website <…/141530>.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Grant, “In Defense of the Earth’s Centrality and Immobility” (ref. 10), p. 3.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Albert Einstein, “Vorwort/Foreword,” in Galileo, Dialogue (ref. 1), pp. vi-xix, on pp. vi-vii, xvii-xviii; “Foreword,” pp. xxiii-xxix, on xxiii, xxviii.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Christine Schofield, “The Tychonic and semi-Tychonic World Systems,” in Taton and Wilson, Planetary astronomy (ref. 7), pp. 35-44, especially pp. 41-44; Owen Gingerich, “Truth in Science: Proof, Persuasion, and the Galileo Affair,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 55 (June 2003), 80-87, especially 85-86; idem, God’s Universe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006), pp. 91-95.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel AG 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jefferson Community & Technical CollegeLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations