Synthese

, Volume 180, Issue 3, pp 337–356

How Galileo dropped the ball and Fermat picked it up

Article

Abstract

This paper introduces a little-known episode in the history of physics, in which a mathematical proof by Pierre Fermat vindicated Galileo’s characterization of freefall. The first part of the paper reviews the historical context leading up to Fermat’s proof. The second part illustrates how a physical and a mathematical insight enabled Fermat’s result, and that a simple modification would satisfy any of Fermat’s critics. The result is an illustration of how a purely theoretical argument can settle an apparently empirical debate.

Keywords

Foundations of physics History of mathematics Freefall Acceleration Galileo Fermat 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Archimedes. (1912). The works of Archimedes. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  2. Cazré P. (1645a) Physica demonstratio qua ratio, mensura, modus ac potentia accelerationis motus in naturali descensu gravium determinantur, adversus nuper excogitatam a Galilaeo Galilaei Florentino philosopho ac mathematico de eodem motu pseudoscientiam. Ad clarisimum virum Petrum Gassendum Cathedralis Ecclesiae diniensis praepositum dignissimum. J. du Brueil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  3. Cazré P. (1645b) Vindiciae demonstrationis physicae de proportione qua gravia decidentia accelerantur. Ad clarissimum D. Petrum Gassendum Cathedralis Ecclesiae diniensis praepositum dignissimum. G. Leblanc, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark J. (1963) Pierre Gassendi and the physics of Galileo. Isis 53: 352–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drake S. (1975a) Free fall from Albert of Saxony to honoré Fabri. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 5: 347–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drake S. (1975b) Impetus theory reappraised. Journal of the History of Ideas 36: 27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drake, S. (1989). History of freefall (Chap. 7). Toronto: Wall and Emerson Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Euclid. (1956). The thirteen books of the elements (Vol. 2). New York: Dover Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Fermat, P. (1894). Fermat a Gassendi (1646?). In P. Tannery & C. Henry (Eds.), Oeuvres de Fermat (Vol. 2, pp. 267--276). Paris: Gauthier-Villars et Fils.Google Scholar
  10. Galilei, G. (1967). Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems (2nd revised edition). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Galilei G. (1974) Two new sciences. University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  12. Galluzzi P. (2001) Gassendi and l’Affaire Galilée of the Laws of motion. In: Renn J. (eds) Galileo in context. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 239–275Google Scholar
  13. Gassendi P. (1642) De motu impresso a motore translato: Epistolae duae in quibus aliquot praecipuae, tum de motu universe, tum speciatim de motu terrae attributo, difficultates explicantur. V. de Lanville, ParisGoogle Scholar
  14. Gassendi P. (1646) De proportione qua gravia decidentia accelerantur: Epistolae tres quibus ad totidem epistolas R. P. Cazraei, Societatis Iesu, respondetur. L. de Heuqueville, ParisGoogle Scholar
  15. Huygens C. (1673) Horologium oscillatorium sive de motu pendulorum ad horologia aptato demonstrationes geometricae. Apud F. Muguet, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Lakatos I. (1968) Criticism and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 69: 149–186Google Scholar
  17. Laudan, L. (1981). A problem-solving approach to scientific progress. In I. Hacking (Ed.), Scientific revolutions (Chap. vii, pp. 144–155). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mahoney M. S. (1973) The Mathematical Career of Pierre de Fermat, 1601–1655 (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  19. Mersenne, M. (1973a). Les nouvelles pensées de Galilée, mathématicien et ingénieur (Vol. 1, critical edition). Paris: J. Vrin.Google Scholar
  20. Mersenne, M. (1973b). Les nouvelles pensées de Galilée, mathématicien et ingénieur (Vol. 2, critical edition). Paris: J. Vrin.Google Scholar
  21. Palmerino C. R. (2002) Two Jesuit responses to Galilei’s science of motion: Honoré Fabri and Pierre Le Cazre. In: Feingold M. (eds) The new science and Jesuit science seventeenth century perspectives, No. 6 in New studies in the history and philosophy of science and technology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 187–227Google Scholar
  22. Palmerino C. R. (2004) Galileo’s theories of free fall and projectile motion as interpreted by Pierre Gassendi. In: Palmerino C. R., Thijssen J. M. M. H. (eds) The reception of the Galilean science of motion in seventeenth-century Europe, No. 239 in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 137–164Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations