Siga este enlace para ver otros tipos de publicaciones sobre el tema: Galileu, Galilei, 1564-1642.
Artículos de revistas sobre el tema "Galileu, Galilei, 1564-1642"
Crea una cita precisa en los estilos APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard y otros
Consulte los 17 mejores artículos de revistas para su investigación sobre el tema "Galileu, Galilei, 1564-1642".
Junto a cada fuente en la lista de referencias hay un botón "Agregar a la bibliografía". Pulsa este botón, y generaremos automáticamente la referencia bibliográfica para la obra elegida en el estilo de cita que necesites: APA, MLA, Harvard, Vancouver, Chicago, etc.
También puede descargar el texto completo de la publicación académica en formato pdf y leer en línea su resumen siempre que esté disponible en los metadatos.
Explore artículos de revistas sobre una amplia variedad de disciplinas y organice su bibliografía correctamente.
1
KETT, C. W. "GALILEO GALILEI-1564-1642". Australasian Journal of Optometry 14, n.º 11 (19 de abril de 2010): 13–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.1932.tb00533.x.
Texto completo
2
Espinoza Lolas, Ricardo, Pamela Soto García y Patricio Lombardo Bertolini. "Galileo y Zubiri… los inicios de la técnica moderna. El método experimental como «probación física de la realidad»". Pensamiento. Revista de Investigación e Información Filosófica 73, n.º 276 (29 de agosto de 2017): 319. http://dx.doi.org/10.14422/pen.v73.i276.y2017.005.
Texto completoResumen
Este artículo busca pensar los orígenes de la Técnica moderna en la vida y obra del científico pisano Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) a la luz de dos ideas fundamentales, por una parte, lo acontecido en la propia época de Galileo (siglos XVI y XVII) y, por otra parte, en la categoría fundamental de «experimentación» como «probación física de la realidad» que aparece en la obra Inteligencia y razón (1983) de Xavier Zubiri (1898-1983). Desde esta categoría de análisis podremos ver la riqueza de la inicial investigación científico-técnica de Galileo y cómo ésta ha sido decisiva en el desarrollo ulterior de la investigación humana a lo largo de la Historia.
3
Vasconcelos, Julio. "“Inércia circular” como falácia existencial". Revista Ideação 1, n.º 30 (18 de abril de 2018): 247. http://dx.doi.org/10.13102/ideac.v1i30.1329.
Texto completoResumen
Segundo alguns estudiosos das obras de Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), encontram-se nestas algumas pioneiras conceituações do que virá a ser a conhecida lei de inércia, formulada por Descartes e Newton em sua completude. Porém, para estes estudiosos, a inércia galileana é diferente da lei cartésio-newtoniana, na medida em que Galileo possui, segundo eles, um princípio de “inércia circular”, i.e., um entendimento de que somente os movimentos circulares poderiam se conservar na ausência de resistências. A finalidade do presente artigo é argumentar que estes estudiosos cometem, em suas análises das palavras de Galileo, o que se pode entender como uma variação da chamada falácia existencial, extraindo indevidamente de pronunciamentos sobre o mundo real um princípio que trata de um movimento de efetivação impossível, o movimento inercial. Outro objetivo que aqui se busca é o de apresentar ao leitor duas conceituações de Galileo envolvendo conservação de movimentos retilíneos, o que se pretende que constitua falsificações inequívocas da interpretação da “inércia circular”.
4
WILDING, NICK. "The return of Thomas Salusbury's Life of Galileo (1664)". British Journal for the History of Science 41, n.º 2 (6 de marzo de 2008): 241–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0007087408000861.
Texto completoResumen
AbstractThomas Salusbury's Life of Galileo (1664) was the first substantial biography of Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) in any language. All copies but one were destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1666. The surviving copy was lost in the library of the Earls of Macclesfield at Shirburn Castle in the mid-nineteenth century. With the auction of the library in 2004–7, it temporarily re-emerged. This essay presents a preliminary description of the copy and its contents. It argues that to understand the existence and nature of the book we need to explore the social relations governing the control of information in early modern Europe. It is shown that Salusbury's project was launched in the face of social and political information blockades and in direct competition with other similar ventures. In particular, rumours of the future publication of an official biography by Vincenzo Viviani (1622–1703) and continuing negotiations over the memory and reputation of Galileo in Italy presented insurmountable barriers to the successful completion of his project. Despite these problems Salusbury's biography, produced on the margins of the emerging Royal Society, presents a spirited portrait of Galileo. Moreover, nearly four hundred years after the event, it offers a new and provocative explanation of the famous trial.
5
Erazo, Franklin. "Hermenéutica acerca de la caída de los cuerpos. Un modelo filosófico - pedagógico para explicar el vacío tecnológico / Debate about the falling bodies phenomena; philosophical and pedagogical model to explain the technological vacuum". Sophía 1, n.º 15 (30 de diciembre de 2013): 126. http://dx.doi.org/10.17163/soph.n15.2013.04.
Texto completoResumen
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;" align="justify"><span style="font-family: serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">El presente trabajo constituye una alegoría didáctica en donde los filósofos Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) y Aristóteles (384 a.C–322 a.C), en una simulada confrontación de criterios, debaten ante un tribunal científico moderno para dilucidar quién tuvo más certeza al juzgar la caída de objetos. Se plantea la pregunta: ¿si se sueltan dos objetos de distintos pesos desde un mismo nivel, cuál de ellos llegará primero al suelo? Para esto, se introduce la definición de “grave” y se realiza un estudio comparativo entre la visión clásica griega y la llamada galileo-newtoniana, arbitrado por la ciencia moderna para lo cual se crea un modelo físico-pedagógico que explica el vacío tecnológico Desde un punto de vista puramente cualitativo, se muestra la coherencia de la física pragmática de Aristóteles frente a la física ideal de Galileo Galilei. Después de esta contraposición a nivel cualitativo, se hace una extensión cuantitativa de la visión galileana, en donde se muestra la metodología moderna de la ciencia, para concluir respondiendo la pregunta inicial y establecer en qué medida eran acertadas las posiciones de estos grandes filósofos.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;"> </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;"> </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;"> </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;"><span style="font-family: serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;" align="justify"> </p>
6
Herrmann, Dieter B. "ASTRONOMERS AS SKETCHERS AND PAINTERS: THE EYE – THE HAND – THE UNDERSTANDING1". Contributions, Section of Natural, Mathematical and Biotechnical Sciences 39, n.º 1 (2 de julio de 2018): 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.20903/csnmbs.masa.2018.39.1.115.
Texto completoResumen
Today we are accustomed to seeing the objects of the universe in magnificent digital pictures vividly before our eyes. But before the invention of photography, the art of painting and drawing played an important role in scientific research. Those who were powerful astronomers of this art had the advantage. This article substantiates this thesis by means of selected examples. The drawings and the related discoveries of Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), Johannes Hevelius (1611–1687), Tobias Mayer (1723–1762), Johann Heinrich Mädler (1794–1874), Julius Schmidt (1825–1884), Giovanni Schiaparelli (1835–1910), Eugenios Antoniadi (1870–1944), William Parsons alias Lord Rosse (1800–1867), Ernst Wilhelm Leberecht Tempel (1821–1889), Etienne Trouvelot (1827–1895) and Walter Löbering (1895–1969) and showed their most important drawn observation documents. It can be seen that thanks to their art and the associated highly developed ability to perceive it, astronomers' drawings have made astounding discoveries that others have been denied. Finally, some thoughts on the role of drawn or painted astronomical motifs in the present are developed.
7
Shoenfeld, Y. "Eppur si muove (Galileo Galilei 1564-1642): the idiotypic dysregulation of autoantibodies as part of the etiology of SLE". Lupus 9, n.º 7 (septiembre de 2000): 481–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/096120330000900701.
Texto completo
8
Radhakrishna, B. P. "Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) The 400th anniversary of the invention of the telescope causing a great revolution in astronomy". Journal of the Geological Society of India 74, n.º 4 (octubre de 2009): 429–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12594-009-0149-y.
Texto completo
9
Kofoed, Jens Bruun. "Approaching Genesis and science: Hermeneutical principles and a case study". Theofilos 12, n.º 1 (15 de diciembre de 2020): 4–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.48032/theo/12/1/3.
Texto completoResumen
The purpose of the present paper/article is to discuss the hermeneutic principles used in reading ‘God’s two books,’ creation and Scripture, together. The first part of the paper outlines and recommends the hermeneutical principles and procedures used by Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) in the Copernican controversy conflict between the Church and (Christian) scientists on the right to interpret scripture and how to do this informed by science. In the second part of the paper these principles and procedures are applied to a case study on the apparent conflict between the doctrine on common descent in evolutionary biology and the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve as the sole progenitors of humankind. A recent attempt by Joshua Swamidass to synthesize mainstream evolutionary theory with a high-view interpretation of Scripture is commended for allowing the scientific consensus to prompt a reconsideration of the traditional ‘spinal cord reflex’ against evolutionary understandings of humankind’s descent among Evangelical scholars. For the same reason it is recommended that sandboxes for interpretative and hypothesizing experimentation are created in both the academy and the church in order for various syntheses between interpretations of Scripture and scientific theories to be discussed without inquisitorial strategies hindering a healthy and constructive debate.
10
Débarbat, Suzanne. "Discoveries in the Solar System". International Astronomical Union Colloquium 165 (1997): 133–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0252921100046455.
Texto completoResumen
The subject of IAU Colloquium 165 and the year 1996, which is the 150th anniversary of the discovery of the planet Neptune, give the opportunity to recall facts which have led to the discovery of three new major planets in the Solar System.Five planets plus the Earth, the Sun and the Moon were the only permanent objects known in the Solar System from Antiquity up to the 17th century when Galileo (1564–1642) discovered four new bodies around Jupiter.The question of the dimensions of the Solar System and the distances of the stars soon became one of the main problems. From the parallax of Mars J.-D. Cassini (1625–1712) deduced the diameter of the Earth’s orbit and the astronomers attempted to determine the stellar parallax at six-month intervals at the Paris and Greenwich Observatories, leading Bradley (1693–1762) to the discoveries of aberration in 1726, and nutation in 1745.
11
Ribeiro Junior, Luiz A., Marcelo F. Cunha y Cássio C. Laranjeiras. "Simulação de experimentos históricos no ensino de física: uma abordagem computacional das dimensões histórica e empírica da ciência na sala de aula". Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física 34, n.º 4 (diciembre de 2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1806-11172012000400023.
Texto completoResumen
Neste trabalho propomos a utilização de simulações computacionais de experimentos históricos no ensino de física como estratégia de resgate e articulação das dimensões histórica e empírica da física na sala de aula. Como exemplo, apresentamos uma classe de simulação computacional didática, caracterizada aqui como Simulação Didática Interativa (SDI), utilizando o software Modellus para apresentar a experiência do plano inclinado proposta por Galileu Galilei(1564-1642) em sua obra Discursos e Demonstrações Matemáticas em Torno de Duas Novas Ciências (1638), onde a lei da queda dos corpos é investigada.
12
Vasconcelos, Julio Celso Ribeiro de. "GALILEO E A FORMA PARABÓLICA DA TRAJETÓRIA DOS PROJÉTEIS". Revista Ideação, 17 de diciembre de 2020, 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.13102/ideac.v0i0.6132.
Texto completoResumen
RESUMO: O artigo descreve polêmicas envolvendo o estabelecimento da forma parabólica da trajetória dos projéteis, atribuído a Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). A primeira envolve o estudioso Raffaello Caverni afirmando que Galileo teria roubado a descoberta do discípulo Bonaventura Cavalieri, e, de outro lado, Emil Wohlwill e Antonio Favaro opondo-se decididamente, com Favaro acusando Caverni até de falsificação de documento. A segunda envolve Alexandre Koyré propondo que Galileo estabeleceu a priori, à maneira platônica, suas “leis fundamentais do movimento”, e Stillman Drake defendendo um Galileo que teria começado com experimentos anotados em manuscritos redescobertos pelo mesmo Drake em 1973. Em comum, ambos entendem a forma da trajetória dos projéteis como resultado de dedução matemática a partir daquelas “leis fundamentais”. David Hill e Ronald Naylor trarão uma inversão interpretativa, afirmando que alguns dos manuscritos redescobertos registram experimentos destinados à confirmação da trajetória parabólica, que seria, assim, a descoberta fundamental. A última polêmica envolve David Hill propondo que Galileo primeiramente viu a forma parabólica na “urina masculina” (sic), enquanto Jürgen Renn, Peter Damerow e Simone Rieger defendem que em 1592 o jovem pisano e o Marquês Guidobaldo del Monte a viram exatamente das formas posteriormente descritas pelo próprio Galileo em seus Discorsi de 1638.PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Galileu, Discorsi, projéteis, trajetória, forma parabólica.ABSTRACT: The article describes controversies involving the establishment of the parabolic shape of projectiles’ trajectory, generally attributed to Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). The first one involves Raffaello Caverni stating that Galileo stole the discovery of his disciple Bonaventura Cavalieri, and, on the other side, Emil Wohlwill and Antonio Favaro decisively refusing Caverni’s thesis, with Favaro accusing him of document forgery. The second controversy involves Alexandre Koyré proposing that Galileo established a priori, in a Platonic way, his “fundamental laws of movement”, and Stillman Drake saying that Galileo started with experiments annotated in manuscripts rediscovered by the same Drake in 1973. In common, both understand the shape of the projectiles’ trajectory as a result of mathematical deduction from those “fundamental laws”. David Hill and Ronald Naylor will say that the parabolic trajectory has been the fundamental discovery and that some of the rediscovered manuscripts record experiments aimed at confirming it. The latest controversy involves David Hill proposing that Galileo first saw the parabolic shape in “male urine” (sic), while Jürgen Renn, Peter Damerow and Simone Rieger argue that in 1592 the young Pisan and Marquis Guidobaldo del Monte saw it exactly in the ways later described by Galileo himself in his 1638 Discorsi.KEYWORDS: Galileo, Discorsi, projectiles, trajectory, parabolic shape.
13
Zanatta, Alberto, Fabio Zampieri, Cristina Basso y Gaetano Thiene. "Galileo Galilei: Science vs. faith". Global Cardiology Science and Practice 2017, n.º 2 (31 de julio de 2017). http://dx.doi.org/10.21542/gcsp.2017.10.
Texto completoResumen
[first paragraph of article]Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), professor of mathematics at the University of Padua from 1592 to 1610, was a pillar in the history of our University and a symbol of freedom for research and teaching, well stated in the university motto ‘‘Universa Universis Patavina Libertas’’ (Total freedom in Padua, open to all the world). He invented the experimental method, based on evidence and calculation (‘‘science is measure’’) and was able, by using the telescope, to confirm the Copernican heliocentric theory, a challenge to the Bible. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), in his book ‘‘The Problems of Philosophy’’ stated: ‘‘Almost everything that distinguishes modern world from earlier centuries is attributable to science, which achieved the most spectacular triumphs in the seventeenth century. Together with Harvey, Newton and Keplero, Galileo was a protagonist of this scientific revolution in the late Renaissance’’.
14
Calvo Díaz, Andrea. "Arte y Ciencia: Tres anotaciones epistémicas para un estudio interdisciplinario". Estudios, 20 de febrero de 2019, 274–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.15517/re.v0i0.36272.
Texto completoResumen
El presente artículo analiza desde una perspectiva epistémica y reflexiva la importancia de la praxis académica en el arte y la ciencia respecto a los estudios interdisciplinarios enunciados por Rolando García. Para ello, se han formulado tres objetivos de estudio: la apreciación disciplinaria, el rigor metodológico y la dimensión humanista y ética en el ejercicio interdisciplinario. Además, se toma en consideración el proceder intelectual de Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) y Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) para justificar las elucidaciones a esgrimir. De ese modo, se concluye que el arte y la ciencia asumen puntos convergentes en el quehacer disciplinario, sin dejar de lado, que cada área mantiene un acerbo diferente en el modo de abordar un experimento, un problema o un proceso. Por su parte, a pesar de la relación entre ambas disciplinas (un ejemplo, el empleo del dibujo) persiste un rigor metodológico diferente en el abordaje de estudio. Por último, ambas disciplinas asumen un quehacer humanista en la elaboración de sus enunciados y resultados.
15
Ascaso Puyuelo, FJ y JA Cristóbal Bescós. "La mirada casual de Hans Lippershey (Wesel 1570 - Middelburg 1619) y la deslumbrante ceguera de Galileo Galilei (Pisa 1564 - Arcetri 1642)". Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmología 78, n.º 8 (agosto de 2003). http://dx.doi.org/10.4321/s0365-66912003000800009.
Texto completo
16
"El método científico y las ciencias de la salud." Revista Española de Enfermería de Salud Mental, n.º 2 (1 de septiembre de 2017). http://dx.doi.org/10.35761/reesme.2017.2.01.
Texto completoResumen
Históricamente, la “revolución científica” vio la luz durante el Renacimiento, desde mediados del siglo XVI hasta finales de siglo XVII, estableciéndose así una línea divisoria entre la aportaciones dadas por la Filosofía y la Ciencia. Son las ciencias empíricas las que establecieron rasgos específicos y autónomos en su organización, lo que fue el germen del “método científico”. Este método de investigación usado principalmente para la producción de conocimiento de las ciencias fue diseñado por primera vez por Francis Bacon (1561-1626). Para él, el conocimiento del mundo, libre de todo prejuicio y de las falsas ideas, debía nacer en la observación, ayudándose de la experiencia para “leer la naturaleza”. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), a diferencia de Bacon, empleó dos caminos descoordinados hasta entonces, la vía teórica y la experimental, donde las herramientas fundamentales fueron las matemáticas y no solo la deducción racional (“método hipotético deductivo”). Pero es con Isaac Newton (1642-1727) con quien culmina la obra. Parte de una interpretación mecanicista del mundo, apoyándose también en las matemáticas y la experiencia. Mediante el estudio de las leyes, logró así abandonar la hipótesis metafísico-teológica que procuraba dar una interpretación lógica del Universo, lo que definió a posteriori la ciencia moderna.Al centrar nuestra mirada en la Enfermería descubrimos que esta disciplina no es ajena a todo esto. Existe en ella un método científico definido por una serie de pasos correlativos e interconectados que buscan el equilibrio del individuo sano con el medio en el que está inserto; en cambio, en el sujeto enfermo busca el regreso a la armonía física, psíquica, social y espiritual. Según la enfermera Patricia Iyer (1947), el Proceso de Atención de Enfermería, PAE, es el método científico de los “cuidadores profesionales”. Está compuesto por una serie de etapas claramente definidas, ordenadas y jerarquizadas, que delimita a cinco: Valoración, Diagnóstico, Planificación, Realización (Ejecución) y Evaluación. El PAE emplea técnicas y procedimientos propios que buscan ejecutar razonamientos para dar solución a los problemas de salud que presenta el individuo, la familia y la comunidad, basándose en los principios del método universal materialista dialéctico del conocimiento.
17
Gillingham, Susan E. "Theology amongst the sciences: A personal view from the University of Oxford". Verbum et Ecclesia 32, n.º 1 (4 de marzo de 2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ve.v32i1.576.
Texto completoResumen
The paper focuses on two individuals who have each made a seminal contribution to the debates between theology and the sciences in Oxford - Charles Darwin (in the mid�19th century), and Richard Dawkins (from the 1990s to the present day). It introduces Darwin by way of a more personal and visual view from Worcester College Chapel. The restoration of the chapel took place at about the same time as the debates between Huxley and Wilberforce in the Oxford University Museum over Charles Darwin�s On the Origin of the Species. The first part of the paper then traces these debates back: first to an earlier period of disputation represented by Galileo Galilei (c. 1564�1642), and then to a period of greater accommodation represented by Isaac Newton (1643�1727). Darwin represents a third, more controversial, stage. The paper then looks at a fourth period, from the mid�20th century onwards, which is marked by more eirenical attempts to demarcate science and theology by seeing the former again as asking the �how� questions and the latter, the �why� questions. It then focuses on a fifth, more disputatious stage, which was initiated by Richard Dawkins, professor in the Public Understanding of Science until 2008. Professor Dawkins challenges the idea that theology cannot be studied, because its focus is a non-existent object, �God�.The second part of the paper looks at various Oxford projects and Oxford theologians who have risen to this contemporary challenge. They include the work of the Ian Ramsey Centre; Justin Barret�s and John Trigg�s joint � 2 million project, supported by the John Templeton foundation, which examines scientific ideas about religion and the mind; Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford from 1987 to 2006, who has conducted a number of media interviews with Richard Dawkins; Keith Ward, who has written several books engaging not only with Dawkins but is also the Cambridge Professor of Mathematics, Stephen Hawking; and Alistair McGrath, who has a doctorate in both science and theology, and who has similarly written and entered into public debates challenging Dawkin�s ideas.The paper ends by referring to John Barton, Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford, who argues that provided that theology is a subject which is properly critical, open to alien truth and combines both intellectual and emotional modes of perception, it can set an example for almost any academic discipline, both in the humanities and the sciences. The conclusion is therefore that, far from theology having to become more like another science, the sciences might be challenged to become more like theology.