Paper detail

Learning from Galileo's errors

Four hundred years after its publication, Galileo's masterpiece Sidereus Nuncius is still a mine of useful information for historians of science and astronomy. In his short book Galileo reports a large amount of data that, despite its age, has not yet been fully explored. In this paper Galileo's first observations of Jupiter's satellites are quantitatively re-analysed by using modern planetarium software. All the angular records reported in the Sidereus Nuncius are, for the first time, compared with satellites' elongations carefully reconstructed taking into account software accuracy and the indeterminacy of observation time. This comparison allows us to derive the experimental errors of Galileo's measurements and gives us direct insight into the effective angular resolution of Galileo's observations. Until now, historians of science have mainly obtained these indirectly and they are often not correctly estimated. Furthermore, a statistical analysis of Galileo's experimental errors shows an asymmetrical distribution with prevailing positive errors. This behaviour may help to better understand the method Galileo used to measure angular elongation, since the method described in the Sidereus Nuncius is clearly wrong.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.