From Galileo to Navier and Clapeyron

Galileo (1564-1642), in his well-known Discorsi (Galileo, 1638), briefly turning his attention to the fracture of a beam, starts an interesting discussion on the beam’s breakage as well as its location. Could the section and breaking point of a beam have been determined beforehand? Furthermore, is i...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Josep Maria Pons
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN ES FR
Publicado:	Universidad de Salamanca 2021
Materias:	aristotelian legacy scientific revolution pisan discorsi beam Technology (General) T1-995 Social sciences (General) H1-99
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/b91d0b113b974081bc4e85e3edd61cc1
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:b91d0b113b974081bc4e85e3edd61cc1
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:b91d0b113b974081bc4e85e3edd61cc12021-11-30T09:53:29ZFrom Galileo to Navier and Clapeyron1989-361210.14201/art2021102520https://doaj.org/article/b91d0b113b974081bc4e85e3edd61cc12021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://revistas.usal.es/index.php/artefactos/article/view/25221https://doaj.org/toc/1989-3612Galileo (1564-1642), in his well-known Discorsi (Galileo, 1638), briefly turning his attention to the fracture of a beam, starts an interesting discussion on the beam’s breakage as well as its location. Could the section and breaking point of a beam have been determined beforehand? Furthermore, is it specific to the material? What Galileo did was not merely challenge a physics problem, but the prevailing knowledge of his time: namely, Aristotelianism on one hand, and Nominalism on the other. As a matter of fact, must the breakage of an element be treated as a universal or is it particular to a given material? The present essay aims to prove how Galileo, confronting the structural problem and bringing it into the realm of science, was not just raising a problem but, using Salviati’s words, he also established what actually takes place. Many years later, with the progress of physics, strength of materials and theory of structures, figures such as Claude Navier (1785-1836) and Benoît Clapeyron (1799-1864) confirmed once again that the Pisan turned out to be right. This article intends to combine technical fields such as strength of materials and theory of structures with others like the history of science and philosophy proper. A cooperative approach to these disciplines can be doubtlessly helpful to improve the knowledge, learning and teaching of their different curricula, giving the reader a global, holistic perspective.Josep Maria PonsUniversidad de Salamancaarticlearistotelian legacyscientific revolutionpisandiscorsibeamTechnology (General)T1-995Social sciences (General)H1-99ENESFRArtefactos, Vol 10, Iss 2, Pp 5-20 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN ES FR
topic	aristotelian legacy scientific revolution pisan discorsi beam Technology (General) T1-995 Social sciences (General) H1-99
spellingShingle	aristotelian legacy scientific revolution pisan discorsi beam Technology (General) T1-995 Social sciences (General) H1-99 Josep Maria Pons From Galileo to Navier and Clapeyron
description	Galileo (1564-1642), in his well-known Discorsi (Galileo, 1638), briefly turning his attention to the fracture of a beam, starts an interesting discussion on the beam’s breakage as well as its location. Could the section and breaking point of a beam have been determined beforehand? Furthermore, is it specific to the material? What Galileo did was not merely challenge a physics problem, but the prevailing knowledge of his time: namely, Aristotelianism on one hand, and Nominalism on the other. As a matter of fact, must the breakage of an element be treated as a universal or is it particular to a given material? The present essay aims to prove how Galileo, confronting the structural problem and bringing it into the realm of science, was not just raising a problem but, using Salviati’s words, he also established what actually takes place. Many years later, with the progress of physics, strength of materials and theory of structures, figures such as Claude Navier (1785-1836) and Benoît Clapeyron (1799-1864) confirmed once again that the Pisan turned out to be right. This article intends to combine technical fields such as strength of materials and theory of structures with others like the history of science and philosophy proper. A cooperative approach to these disciplines can be doubtlessly helpful to improve the knowledge, learning and teaching of their different curricula, giving the reader a global, holistic perspective.
format	article
author	Josep Maria Pons
author_facet	Josep Maria Pons
author_sort	Josep Maria Pons
title	From Galileo to Navier and Clapeyron
title_short	From Galileo to Navier and Clapeyron
title_full	From Galileo to Navier and Clapeyron
title_fullStr	From Galileo to Navier and Clapeyron
title_full_unstemmed	From Galileo to Navier and Clapeyron
title_sort	from galileo to navier and clapeyron
publisher	Universidad de Salamanca
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/b91d0b113b974081bc4e85e3edd61cc1
work_keys_str_mv	AT josepmariapons fromgalileotonavierandclapeyron
_version_	1718406705651384320

From Galileo to Navier and Clapeyron

Ejemplares similares