Carlos Solís Santos

Brahe creía que su teoría sobre los cometas refutaba el copernicanismo. Analizamos el argumento y mostramos que ningún sistema existente podía acomodarlos. Tras el decreto anticopernicano de 1616, muchos jesuitas que rechazaban a Ptolomeo e incluso coqueteaban con Copérnico se vieron obligados a abrazar el sistema de Brahe. La discusión de los cometas de 1618 permitía a los jesuitas reforzar a Brahe en un momento en que Galileo no podía defender el copernicanismo. La disputa de los cometas se examina bajo esta luz y se conjetura la orientación pro-Brahe de las censuras del Diálogo de Galileo.It was Brahe’s belief that the motion of comets refuted Copernicus’ system and complied with his own. His argument is analyzed to show that neither could explain their motion. After the anti-copernican decree of1616 quite a few Jesuits that rejected Ptolemy and even courted Copernicus were bound to accept Brahe’s system. The appearance of comets in 1618 allowed the Jesuits to describe them and support Brahe, while Galileo could not treat them in copernican terms. So he crossed them off. The comets war is seen under this light and the pro-Brahe bias in the censorship of the Dialogo is strongly conjectured

El corpuscularismo sirvió a los físicos del XVII para matematizar la naturaleza al considerarla un conjunto de sistemas mecánicos. Pero la discontinuidad del atomismo chocaba con la continuidad de las magnitudes básicas, espacio y el tiempo, y derivadas. En su madurez, Galileo fundió física y matemáticas propo-niendo componer tanto los cuerpos como las magnitudes continuas a base de átomos inextensos (indivisibles). En el proceso inició el análisis de las propiedades de los conjuntos infinitos, pero no logró elaborar un cálculo que le permitiese computar diferentes movimientos acelerados, mientras que en física no resolvió en problema fundamental de la condensación y la rarefacción.Seventeenth century atomism envisioned Nature as a set of mechanical systems to be treated mathematically. But the basic discontinuity of atomic theory of matter appeared inconsistent with the essential continuous character of geometrical magnitudes. In his old age Galileo devised a way to unify mathematics and physics via composing matter and continuous magnitudes out of an infinity of indivisible (atomic) units. Even though he forwarded the analysis of infinite sets, he couldn’t establish a calculus to compute and compare different accelerated motions. In physics he never solved the basic problem of condensation and rarefaction of substances. But the side results were interesting and even fascinating.

Brahe creía que su teoría sobre los cometas refutaba el copernicanismo. Analizamos el argumento y mostramos que ningún sistema existente podía acomodarlos. Tras el decreto anticopernicano de 1616, muchos jesuitas que rechazaban a Ptolomeo e incluso coqueteaban con Copérnico se vieron obligados a abrazar el sistema de Brahe. La discusión de los cometas de 1618 permitía a los jesuitas reforzar a Brahe en un momento en que Galileo no podía defender el copernicanismo. La disputa de los cometas se examina bajo esta luz y se conjetura la orientación pro-Brahe de las censuras del Diálogo de Galileo.It was Brahe’s belief that the motion of comets refuted Copernicus’ system and complied with his own. His argument is analyzed to show that neither could explain their motion. After the anti-copernican decree of1616 quite a few Jesuits that rejected Ptolemy and even courted Copernicus were bound to accept Brahe’s system. The appearance of comets in 1618 allowed the Jesuits to describe them and support Brahe, while Galileo could not treat them in copernican terms. So he crossed them off. The comets war is seen under this light and the pro-Brahe bias in the censorship of the Dialogo is strongly conjectured.

Descartes' God put some rein to his omnipotentia absoluta (able to make a square circle), and ordained it to our particular world. Being a nice guy unwilling to cheat US, sowed our minds with the right logic and ¡deas. Burt Descartes' key identification of matter and extensión did not work, and he was bound to accept something obscure and confuse: corpuscles without three dimensions and a size that no number can express. God omnipotentia could créate that, but in so doing he was deceiving and spoiiing the clear-and-distinct criterion.