HoST Fall 2011

Week of 11/15-11/17

Back to HoST Fall 2011 Syllabus

Email me:

Assignment 11

A Scientific Revolution: Part II

–Galileo and Newton–

:::::AV:History Images:By Person or Org:Galileo:Finger:EpurSiBird.jpg

Galileo's Finger: Museo di Storia del Scienza in Italy


Updated: 11/16/11 1:03 PM


For Tuesday


1-Read pp. 223-240 in McClellan and Dorn: Chapter 12, “The Crime and Punishment of Galileo."  Refer to the additional materials posted below as you read this.


2- Read Jardine, Lisa. Ingenious Pursuits: Building the Scientific Revolution: Anchor Books, 2000. Excerpt on extensions of Harvy-esque techniques. Jardin_IngeniousPursuitExcerpt-Beyond_Harvey-988KB.pdf  This reading is short and rather morbid.


For Wednesday


1-Read pp. 249-253 and 256-266 in McClellan and Dorn: Chapters 13, “God said, ‘Let Newton Be!” Refer to the additional materials posted below as you read this.


2- Read this short (one page) fictional free association: Newton-Reverie-1666ish.htm.  This is an example of a way you might approach an essay assignment, except with some citations added.


For Thursday


1- No assignment.  Yeah!






Citations for the above readings and audio:


Jardine, Lisa. Ingenious Pursuits: Building the Scientific Revolution. Anchor Books, 2000. 


McClellan, James E., and Harold Dorn. Science and Technology in World History : An Introduction. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.


Me being weird.


Short Essay Option: Write an approx. 600 word, single-spaced essay (about 1 full page of single-spaced text).  Remember, you all still have one short essay to write....

Galilean materials:


View movie of Medician moons: GalileoMediceanMoonspseudoanimation.pdf [67KB] To make this work, view it in Acrobat (or similar) in single page view (not scroll view) and hit the next page button over and over again.  It’s not a good animation, but it represents what Galileo had to work with.  I have no evidence that Galileo ever made a flip-card animation similar to this one.  These drawings appear inline in his text (see image below) and cannot work as an animation the way they are arranged on the pages.  In fact, I am unaware of any flip-card animations existing until the 19th century, but this in no way means that similar animation techniques didn’t exist earlier.  I have never looked into it.  Feel free to explore this question.



Pages from Galileo’s Sidereus nuncius (1610)


This is a photograph taken through a Galilean-style

telescope of Jupiter and its largest moons. (I enhanced the contrast.)


Newtonian materials:



Dark Side of the ... 

This is a diagram from Newton’s Opticks from 1704. 

I have added some interpretive images and a new title.



Newton-lightprism copy

Newton drew this for a French ed. of Opticks.  It says, “Light doesn’t vary color when refracted.”

Nec variat lux fracta colorem.  More literally: Light doesn’t change when broken into color.

I colorized it to for clarity. Some of the light from the hole in the window-covering on the left (focused by that big lens) is intercepted by the prism, and some of it continues on to hit the lower part of the screen. The prism emits a rainbow.  The red-part of the rainbow then passes through a hole in the screen and into another prism where it is not broken up anymore, proving that…

Nec variat lux fracta colorem – Light doesn’t change when broken into color

Read this.


From Newton’s Opticks, 1st ed. 1704.  Read this.





Above is a diagram from Newton’s Opticks (1704) which I have colorized for clarity.

Notice that he is suggesting that the rainbow is divided into 7 colors

just as the string of a monochord is divided into 7 intervals, the seven intervals of our major scale: Do, re, mi, fa… etc.

Newton even gives the Pythagorean-style intervals: 8/9, 3/4, 2/3, 1/2….

Below I have added to his diagram the profile of a monochord/guitar with the Pythagorean intervals shown below. 




Interesting trivia… (extracted from a paper I once wrote…)


Leibniz, the German/French counterpart to Newton, after having read Newton’s Opticks, wrote, “Sir Isaac Newton says, that space is an organ, which God makes use of to perceive things by.”  [from Clarke, Leibniz, Newton and Alexander, The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence: Together with Extracts From Newton's Principia and Opticks. Philosophical Classics (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1956), p. 11.]


What Leibniz was responding to was this (in the Latin edition of Opticks that Leibniz was reading), “Universal Space is the Sensorium of the Incorporeal, Living, and Intelligent Being;…”  Newton had actually corrected this passage by making it clear that he was making an analogy, but Leibniz somehow had gotten an uncorrected edition.


What Newton means is this: Perception occurs by exposing  “sensing substance” [What he calls “substantia sentiens” in Latin] to the  “sensible species of things” [“sensibiles rerum species”], which are gathered and brought to the brain where this “sensing substance” is located.  This description needs almost no modification to be a Galenic/Avicennic description of sensory perception based on spiritus animalis, which we have discussed in previous classes. I find it quite interesting that Newton is still operating on this theory of perception.


Newton goes on in the corrected passage to suggest that God, being omnipresent, perceives the entire universe merely by being present throughout all space.  It is not so much that the all of space is God’s sensorium, but that God is everywhere and acts as if [tanquam] He were the spiritus animalis of human perception. Unlike humans, who need spiritus or “sensing substance” to connect their souls to the world, God needs no intermediary for the perception of the world.   He is Himself, as it were, the intermediary, the spiritus.  After all, what do you think the Holy Spirit is? 


Put another way: It would be like saying that God is the machine code (or perhaps the system software) of the universal computer that we call reality.  He permeates everything and is everywhere.  Nothing is instigated or caused without His 0s and 1s.  For Him, causing and perceiving are one and the same activity.  Freaky. 


Disclaimer: Newton had a rather radical opinion of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  He was secretly an anti-Trinitarian and a follower of the teachings of Arius from the early 4th century AD, who proposed that the Son was not coeternal with God but had actually been created by God in time. This issue is directly addressed in the Nicaean Creed, which makes the Trinity “one in being.”  It was written very specifically against Arius who was then excommunicated for his heretical ideas.  The Council of Nicaea (the meeting that wrote the creed) was largely instigated by the Emperor Constantine and can quite easily be seen as a political exercise whereby a certain group of theologians seized control and solidified their power by officially making their adversaries heretics.  It is not much of a surprise that the winners of this controversy were the ones backed by the Emperor Constantine.  Christianity in the first couple hundred years was theologically very diverse, but when the Roman Emperor got involved such variety was no longer acceptable. Power from the top down became the structure.  After all, the Roman Catholic Church is Roman, as in Roman Empire. 


Newton, an avid Biblical scholar, and probably several other major players in the later Scientific Revolution were secretly followers of Arius.  Secretly, because even after fourteen-hundred years, Arius was still considered a threat to both Catholic and Protestant theologians.  To be perfectly honest, I have tried to understand this issue, but have never really figured it out.  It is very complicated and esoteric and seems to be concerned with theological details that I simply don’t find all that critical.  But this probably means that I simply haven’t tried hard enough to understand. 


If anybody is interested, Wikipedia has a pretty good article on Arius and Arianism and the Arian controversy.  I can also hook you up with more stuff if you want.  Just email me.



Donne-shroud copysma.jpg



Newton supposedly drew a portrait of Donne on the wall of his domicile in Grantham, while in grammar school.

Donne wrote the original “For Whom the Bell Tolls.”

It’s a nice poem if you need a break.  The whole idea of collective humanity reminds me of Averroestic or Platonic world-soul stuff that we discussed several weeks ago.  Here is the specific line: "any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."


Donne as a young dapper fellow.


John Donne (1572-1631): Here is the poem: Meditation 17: Bell Tolls.  It's short.



Back to HoST Fall 2011 Syllabus



Email me:


Interesting Sciencey News

–If you run across an interesting story, let me know–

Google X-Top Secret Lab of Crazy Ideas

This article describes a division of Google that focuses on the really out-there ideas.

It employs people like you.  Problem is, it's top secret.  Who do you send your resume to?