Galileo's Theory of Projectile Motion

Author(s): R. H. Naylor
Source: Isis, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Dec., 1980), pp. 550-570
Published by: University of Chicago Press on behalf of History of Science Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/230500
Accessed: 07-11-2015 23:18 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

History of Science Society and University of Chicago Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Galileo's

Theory

Projectile

of

Motion

By R. H. Naylor*
ALILEO'S EARLIEST WORK on projectile motion dates from the time
J of his professorship at Pisa in 1589-1592. Late in life he was to recount
that the first objective of his study of motion was to discover the curve described
by a projectile. However that is not the impression given by his essay De motu,
written around 1592, in which the projectile trajectory figures as but one of
many problems of motion and where no particular importance is attached to it.
Only in the period 1604-1608 did he identify the trajectory as parabolic and, as
a result of further considerable effort, come to recognize the great theoretical
significance of his discovery. It was quite natural for Galileo, when he looked
back on his research of 1604-1608, to regard it as the culmination of his mature
creative work on motion. This article studies the development of Galileo's
theory of projectile motion. Further, it argues that not only were Galileo's
experiments closely connected with his theoretical work, but that they were
designed primarily to investigate theoretical problems.
It is clear from his essay Le meccaniche, written around 1596, that Galileo had
adopted the principle of horizontal inertia only a few years after coming to
Padua in 1592. By 1602 he had discovered the isochronism of the pendulum and
had developed two or three basic theorems relating to motion on inclined
planes. In 1604 he wrote to Paolo Sarpi telling him of the law of fall. Though
convinced that the law was valid he was at that time attempting to justify it, by
deducing the law from a more fundamental empirical principle. He believed that
the percussive effects of falling bodies showed that instantaneous velocity increased with distance in free fall, and he attempted to deduce the s oc t2 law
from that assumption. A draft of such a proof survives on one of his manuscript
notes (fol. 128); there he argues that average velocity increases with the square
of the distance fallen. This meant that average velocity was proportional to the
square of the final instantaneous velocity.
By 1609 Galileo's theory had changed considerably. He had rejected the idea
that velocity increased with distance and believed instead that velocity increased
with time in free fall. In addition to this new principle Galileo also saw instantaneous velocity and average velocity as increasing steadily with time. That is to
say, by 1609 Galileo saw average velocity as proportional to instantaneous
velocity. This process of theoretical evolution was a direct result of Galileo's
work on the projectile trajectory.
*School of Humanities, Thames Polytechnic, London SE18 6PF, England.
The completion of the research involved in the preparation of this paper was made possible by the
generous support of the British Academy and the Krieble Delmas Foundation.
Isis, 1980, 71 (No. 259)

550

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GALILEO'S THEORY OF PROJECTILE MOTION

551

I. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FORM OF A PROJECTILE TRAJECTORY AS PARABOLIC

(FOLIOS 81r AND 107r)

The motion of projectiles interested Galileo from his earliest work on motion,
De motu, written around 1592.1 There he advanced a theory similar to earlier
sixteenth-century discussions of projectile motion-notably that proposed by
Niccolo Tartaglia in his Nova scienza of 1537.2 Galileo's interest in this subject
was shared by his patron Guidobaldo del Monte, who some time before 1600
devised an experiment revealing important features of the trajectory, the account
of which survives in a manuscript preserved in the Bibliotheque Nationale,
Paris:
If one throws a ball with a catapult or with artillery, or by hand, or by some other
means, above the horizontal line, it will take the same path in falling as in rising, and
the shape is like that which, when inverted under the horizontal line, a ropes makes which
is not pulled, being composed of both the natural and the forced, and it is a line
which in appearance is similar to the parabola and hyperbola....
The experiment of
this movement can be made by taking a ball colored with ink, and throwing it over a
plane of a table which is almost perpendicular to the horizontal. Although the ball
bounces along, yet it makes points as it goes, from which one can see clearly that as
it rises so it descends, and it is reasonable since the force it has acquired in its ascent
operates so that in falling it goes in the same way, overcoming the natural movement
in coming down so that the force that it overcame from B to C, conserving itself,
operates so that from C to D it is equal to CB, and the force, descending and gradually
lessening, is such that from D to E it is equal to BA, seeing that there is no reason to
show that from E towards DE the force is at all expended that, although it lessens
continually towards A, yet continues to be the reason why the weight never travels in a
straight line towards E.3
C
This experiment and its analysis represented an important advance in the understanding of the trajectory insofar as it reB
D
cognized for the first time that the trajectory
-whatever its precise geometrical formwas symmetrical about its vertical axis.
Previous analyses of projectile motion, like A
E
those of Tartaglia and Galileo, had been
primarily concerned with the trajectories Figure 1. Trajectory as traced by
of cannon shot. For this reason it had been Guidobaldo del Monte.
argued-on the basis of observation- that missile trajectories were not symmetrical in form. The argument advanced by Guidobaldo was a direct result of his
carrying out the experiment on a small scale, thus avoiding interference from air
resistance, and of his obtaining a permanent trace of the projectile trajectory, thus
avoiding the difficulties of relying on direct observation of the moving projectile.4

ILe Opere di Galileo Galilei, ed. Antonio Favaro, 20 vols. (Florence, 1890-1909), Vol. I, p. 337;
translation in I. E. Drabkin and Stillman Drake, Galileo Galilei on Motion and on Mechanics
(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1960), pp. 110-114.
2Niccol6 Tartaglia, Nova scienza (Venice, 1537), pp. 39-43; translation in Stillman Drake and I. E.
Drabkin, Mechanics in Sixteenth Century Italy (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969),
pp. 84-85.
3Quoted in G. Libri, Histoire des sciences mathematiques en Italie, 4 vols. (Paris, 1838-1841),
Vol. IV, pp. 387-398. My translation; italics added.
4For details of the reconstruction of Guidobaldo's experiment and its relationship to Galileo's

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

552

R. H. NAYLOR

No doubt Guidobaldo kept Galileo abreast of these new ideas and methods of
research. There is evidence of this exchange of ideas in Galileo's letter to
Guidobaldo of 29 November 1602.5 Unfortunately earlier letters of this correspondence do not survive, but it is clear that they had already exchanged letters
concerning the subjects under discussion. Moreover this letter, when compared
with De motu, reveals that Galileo had adopted a radically different view of the
relationship between experiment and theory, one rather similar to the view
expressed by Guidobaldo when discussing his experiments on the projectile trajectory. Both that discussion and Galileo's letter reveal a new awareness of the
significance of close agreement between experiment and theory in carefully controlled or selected instances.
One other piece of evidence that can be dated with certainty-and that reveals the
same attitude toward experimentation-is the letter Galileo wrote to Paolo Sarpi
on 16 October 1604.6 In it Galileo explicitly states his view that when a
projectile is thrown vertically upward and thereafter falls along the same vertical
line, the velocities at each point on that line are the same for upward and downward motion. The letter also shows that Galileo had proposed extending his
theory to cases in which missiles were projected at an angle to the horizontal. In
these cases he conjectured that the speed of the projectile was the same at equal
distances from the highest point on the trajectory. Thus, according to Galileo's
theory, a stone or arrow projected at an angle to the horizontal should return to
the level of projection with a -speed equal to that with which it had been
projected.
Now whereas this theory does explain instances in which air resistance is very
small, like that described by Guidobaldo in his experiment, it does not explain
many other phenomena for which air resistance is significant. This point was
made by Sarpi in the letter to which Galileo was replying, written to Galileo on
9 October 1604.7 Sarpi referred to the case of an arrow shot from a strong
Turkish bow and pointed out that the arrow exerted greater force and moved
most rapidly immediately after being released. The speed of the arrow, it
seemed, continually decreased during its trajectory. From this it appeared that
Galileo's theory did not apply to arrows or firearms.
But Galileo was less interested in exploring projectiles of all sorts than in
obtaining precise information that could be related to a mathematical model of
the trajectory. From the surviving manuscript notes it is possible to establish
that he studied the projectile trajectory by means of small-scale experiments that
provided, in permanent form, details of the trajectories. His approach was thus
similar to Guidobaldo's.
In one such experiment, an early one dating from about 1605, Galileo used a
grooved plane inclined at a small angle to the horizontal. A metal sphere was
released from a point on the inclined plane elevated some distance above
ground level and allowed to roll off the end and complete a free trajectory.

views in De motu and the Discorsi see R. H. Naylor, "The Evolution of An Experiment: Guidobaldo del Monte and Galileo's Discorsi Demonstration of the Parabolic Trajectory," Physis, 1974,
16:323-346.
5Opere, Vol. X, pp. 97-100.
6Ibid., pp. 114-116.
7Ibid., p. 113.

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

553

GALILEO'S THEORY OF PROJECTILE MOTION

Table 1. Comparisonof data on folio 81r and resultsof the reconstructedexperiment(RE).Data for
the reconstructed experiment are expressed in millimeters. Galileo's measurements, on folio
81r as elsewhere, are likely to have been expressed in punti, a unit of distance (= nearly 0.95
mm) found on the linear scale of his proportional compass.
Vertical drop below
end of groove

Value of horizontal projection shown as an

increase over previous columns

folio 81r

RE

folio 81r

RE

folio 81r

RE

folio 81r

RE

329.5
183.5
106.0
53.0

329.5
183.5
106.0
53.0

250
170
121
81

250
171
124
80

250.0
177.5
130.5
87.5

250.0
178.0
130.0
88.5

250
178
131
89

250.0
179.0
132.0
89.5

Points on this trajectory were located by placing a horizontal plane at various

measured distances below the point of projection. The point at which the sphere
hit the plane was located using some substance that bore an impression of impact-perhaps clay or some suitably treated paper. The data on folio 81r, which
represent the measurements Galileo obtained in carrying out this form of experiment, are transcribed in Figure 2. If the experiment is reconstructed with a plane
inclined at 20?30' to the horizontal, it is possible to obtain values for the projections at four horizontal levels below the point of projection very similar to those
indicated against the smaller curve on folio 81r. With the plane inclined at 7? and
3.50, two further sets of projections similar to the values adjacent to the other two
curves on folio 81r may be obtained (see Table 1). Such an experiment would
have provided Galileo with a means of establishing the geometrical form of the
trajectories, revealing that, with due allowance for the rather small experimental
errors, the trajectories were parabolic in form.8
After this Galileo progressed to other experimental investigations and to
mathematical analyses of the trajectory, attempting to establish the mechanical
principles that would account for the phenomena. One manuscript, folio 107,

89

131

178

1775

87.
130-5

5 81

121

170
146

250

250

250

Figure 2. Transcriptionof detailfromfolio 81r.

8For full details of the reconstruction of this experiment see R. H. Naylor, "Galileo: The Search
for the Parabolic Trajectory," Annals of Science, 1976, 33:153-172 (a photograph of folio 81r
appears in that paper).

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

554

R. H. NAYLOR

*.

*.

-*

L'-,'T'"

::''*

-4

~~~~~~~~~~~~..~.~.....~~
~~~~~~ &.
/~~~

-.

.... .

,. * *

j
. .

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*4

. ....

FigUre3. Folio 107r(Vol. 72, MSSGalileani;courtesyof the BibliotecaNazionaledi Firenze).

reveals evidence of both activities. The object of the analysis on folio 107r is
unclear, but an apparentlysimilartype of investigationon folio 117rprovidesjust
sufficient detail for the formeranalysisto be reconstructed.This will be discussed
presently.
Folio 107r (see Fig. 3) bears evidence of Galileo's study of two curves. One
curve is sketched as a dotted line and the second and continuouscurve is drawn
adjacent to it. Both lines have a common axis and apex and meet at one other
point. Both curves are catenaries. The resemblance between the form of a
projectile trajectoryand the curve formed by a hangingrope or chain was noted
by Guidobaldo in the passage quoted above. But as Galileo was to point out
later in Two New Sciences,9there are in fact differencesbetween these curves.
The dotted line on folio 107r has a numberof figures markedagainstit along
one side. They appear to representvalues obtained from the study of distances
related to points on the dotted ink line. It is very clear that Galileo was
interested in the differencesbetween the figures associatedwith particularpoints
on that curve, that is, in the differences between the successive distances. The
figures written alongside it are 25'/2, 40, 54, 67, 79, 91, 1021/2, 1131/2, and
123'/2. At the side of the manuscriptis a list of the differencesbetween these
figures: 141/2, 14, 13, 12, 12, 111/2, 11, 10.
Below the curves can be seen three series of numbers. The upper series is
spaced out just above the edge of the manuscriptat distancesequally spaced
from the apex; the figures of the series, the squares 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 81,
100, 121, 144, are spaced at intervalsof 10 punti along the line at right angles to
the axis. They represent the distance from the x axis of points on the parabola
spaced at 10 punti intervals. Thus the spacing and the figures provide the
90pere, Vol. XliI, pp. 186, 310; translationin H. Crew and A. de Salvio, DialoguesConcerning
Two New Sciences (New York: McGrawHill, 1963), pp. 143, 278.

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

555

GALILEO'S THEORY OF PROJECTILE MOTION

Table 2. Figuresfound on folio 107v. The empiricaldata in the third column are compared to the
figures in the first column and to the data of the reconstructed experiment.
Data on folio 107v

Analysis of folio 107v data

Column
1

Column
2

Column
3

Column 1 x 33
(= column 4)

Percentage
difference
between
columns 3 and 4

Data of the
reconstructed
experiment
in punti

1
4
9
16
25
36
49
64

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

33
130
298
526
824
1192
1620
2123

33
132
297
528
825
1188
1617
2112

0
-1.5
+0.3
-0.4
-0.1
+0.4
+0.2
-0.5

33
133
296
530
828
1190
1615
2101

equivalent of the equation y cc x2 and indicate that Galileo was comparing these
curves with a parabola.
Folio 107v bears further signs of an investigation related to the parabola. The
same figures appear representing the distances that define a parabola, but in this
case there is no sketch. Instead there appears a third column of figures, clearly
obtained by measurement. The three series of figures are shown in Table 2. The
fourth column in the table shows the measurements obtained by the author in
conducting a reconstructed experiment on a projectile trajectory (described
below). The similarity between the third and fourth columns shows that the
third series probably records an experiment aimed at establishing the form of
the trajectory.
The very presentation of the data on folio 107v is consistent with the supposition that Galileo conducted the experiment to establish whether or not the
trajectory was parabolic. That is, the successive values of the coordinates placed
the controlled variable (the x coordinate) next to the measured variable (the
measured y value). Galileo knew the ratios to be expected between the coordinates if the trajectory was parabolic along its entire length. Folio 81r records
this form of investigation, and it would of course have been necessary for
Galileo to establish the form of the trajectory before he conducted his final
experiment on folio 116v. Moreover, the catenary on folio 107r suggests that
Galileo may have possibly compared the two curves as an independent means of
assessing the folio 107v experiment.
The folio 107v experiment, like Galileo's earlier investigations, used a grooved
inclined plane, in this case one that curved at its lower end (see Fig. 4). A small
metal sphere about 1 centimeter in diameter was released at A to run down a
smooth straight wooden groove to B where the groove bends smoothly to become
horizontal at C. The sphere therefore leaves the groove at C traveling horizontally
and completes its trajectory at F, where it strikes a horizontal board. The figures in
the third column on folio 107v correspond to the measured values obtained in its
experiment, while the figures in the first and second columns represent points on a
parabola.

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

556

R. H. NAYLOR

/~~~~
H

Figure 4. Schematic
representation of the
experiment depicted
on folios 114r and
116v.
h

F'4

D- v

Such an apparatus was built for the reconstructed experiment. In it the sphere
was always released from the same point on the inclined groove AB. Measurements were made on a smooth, flat wooden plank. The plank had nine equally
spaced lines marked upon it, which we assumed to be 200 punti apart, the first
being positioned immediately below the point of projection C. The plank could
be raised or lowered. Its position was first adjusted so as to make the sphere,
when released, project to the second line; the plank was then lowered to the
next position the sphere was expected to reach according to the equation y x x2.
Slight adjustments were then made in order to make the sphere project to the
third line. However, the sphere did not project the same distance from C each
time it was released from the fixed point on the inclined groove AB. A scatter
of values was obtained, and the plank was raised or lowered slightly to obtain
the best distribution about the line on the plank. A spirit level was then used to
ensure that the plank was level, and the vertical drop was found by measuring
the distance of the top of the plank below the point of projection C. There is
evidence on folio 107v that Galileo also measured distances to obtain the values
in the third column. That he used a rule having major divisions of 60 punti is
clear when measured values are converted into the values used in the third
column.
It is worth noting that unlike other of Galileo's mathematical investigations, in
which distances were measured on scale diagrams-as is probably the case for
folio 107r-there would obviously be no point whatsoever in measuring the
consecutive y values on a sketched parabola. Galileo did use measurements in
mathematical investigations when doing so yielded a result directly or avoided
lengthy calculation. But he already knew the mathematical characteristics of each
point on a parabola; the question that interested him on folio 107v was how well
his empirical data corresponded with a mathematical model.
The measured values were very close to the ideal values, as can be seen from
Table 2. The variations of the measured values from the mathematical model
are less than 2%. These variations, in a group of eight measurements, are less
than those of the later folio 116v experiment, where a maximum variation of

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GALILEO'S THEORY OF PROJECTILE MOTION

557

3.6% arose in five measurements.'0 If one considers the average deviation from
the ideal values, it is less than 0.4% in the case of the folio 107v data, whereas
the average deviation of the data on folio 116v is more than 1.7%. The folio
116v experiment was evidently accurate, and there were two reasons for this:
first, that only distances were measured, and second, that a mean value for the
projected distance could be obtained from the observation of a number of projections. Probable sources for the variation between the different measurements recorded in the folio 116 experiment include errors in measuring the
projection (D) and the vertical drop (H). A further source of variation might be
some non-uniformity in the inclined groove. In the experiment associated with
folio 107v any effects of the non-uniformity of the groove are very much
reduced, since the sphere always rolls along the same section of the groove,
Again, errors that arise in measuring the vertical drop (H) are there avoided,
since the sphere is always released from the same point on the inclined groove.
Finally, it seems possible that when Galileo was investigating the validity of a
particular mathematical model his knowledge of the idea may also have influenced his measurements.

II. THE CONSERVATION OF HORIZONTAL INERTIA (FOLIO 175v)

In investigating projectile trajectories through such experiments, Galileo would

have been refining further the technique devised by Guidobaldo. If taken up by
Galileo during the early 1600s, the technique would quite logically have led to
the experiment recorded on folio 81r and then to the folio 107 investigations. To
this point the mathematically formulated experiments would have centered on
issues of geometry. But as Guidobaldo's discussion of his original experiment
shows, the symmetry of the trajectory about the vertical axis leads inevitably to
the study of motion and mechanics, since it suggests that the motion itself is
symmetrical and thus that momentum in the horizontal direction is preserved.
As Guidobaldo implied, the form of the trajectory suggests that the velocity of
the projectile is the same at points equally distant from the apex of the trajectory-a view, as we have seen, Galileo expressed in his letter to Sarpi in 1604.
We might then expect Galileo to use the knowledge he had gained of the geometrical form of the trajectory as he attempted to establish a mechanical explanation of projectile motion. Two manuscripts in particular show evidence of his
taking such a course when analyzing the problems-folios 175v and 117r. These
documents show that once he confirmed that the projectile trajectory was
parabolic, Galileo became concerned about the motion along the trajectory.
And once he reached the view that horizontal momentum was conserved without
change and that motion tended to be conserved in any direction, as a result of
his study on folio 175v, he then examined on folio 117r the way in which the
velocity of the projectile changed.
On folio 175v Galileo used a theoretical construction in order to examine the
form of the trajectory that would result according to a particular model of pro10For further details of the reconstruction of this experiment see R. H. Naylor, "Galileo and the
Problem of Free Fall," British Journal for the History of Science, 1974, 7:105-134.

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

558

R. H. NAYLOR

jectile motion: one in which horizontal

and vertical motions were independent.
vertical motion was considered to
The
D
be unaffected by the direction in which
the projectile moved and to be determined solely by the s x t2 law of fall.
I
What
is interesting is that in Galileo's
H
model the horizontal motion of the projectile steadily decreased.
On folio 175v, transcribed in Figure
|K
5, are drawn three straight lines and a
roughly drawn curve tangential to two
of the straight lines. One of these lines
appears intended to be almost vertical,
SI~~~~~~~~~~
M
while the other is inclined somewhat in
relation to the third, apparently horizontal line, which seems to be present
simply for reference. What looks like a
sphere is represented on the vertical line
R,
Q
and on the inclined line. It appears that
folio 175v relates to a study of the motion of a sphere down a near vertical
Figure 5. Transcription from folio 175v, with
incline followed by its deflection by the
added lettering; all points depicted appear on
curve,
followed by a free flight. It is
the manuscript except those on OV and the
not
immediately
clear on first examinaPX.
trajectory
tion whether the sketch or diagram is
intended to represent some observation-perhaps with an experimental arrangement-or whether it refers to a purely theoretical problem.11
On the near vertical line on folio 175v (AO in Fig. 5) there are a number of
carefully marked intervals (AB, BC, . . . ,NO in Fig. 5). The measured dimensions of these intervals in millimeters are indicated in column 1 of Table 3; the
values expected for the intervals according to Galileo's s x t2 law of fall appear in
column 3. Table 3 thus indicates that the intervals Galileo marked on the
vertical line were first calculated and then carefully marked out.
Firsthand examination of folio 175v reveals that Galileo also carefully marked
out intervals along the horizontal line (OX in Fig. 5). That a compass was
centered on 0 to mark out an interval OP equal in magnitude to ON is clear on
the manuscript itself. Galileo marked out other intervals along OX in a similar
fashion; they are shown in Table 4. Immediately beneath for comparison are the
corresponding series of distances that appear on the near-vertical line AO. Marked
very faintly vertically below the intersections on OX at P0, Q0, Ro, and S0 are
points-PF, Q1, R,, and S1. The distances from each of these points to OX is
shown in Table 5, column 1. Finally, the distances between Galileo's apparently
rather freely drawn curve and -the line OV inclined to the horizontal are
provided for comparison in Table 5, column 2. It was not possible to discern
points on OV or the trajectory OX, and thus the points P, Q, R, S, Pv, QV, RV,
A

IIStillman Drake has suggested that fol. 175 (and details on fol. 117r) represent an experimental
arrangement; "Galileo's Experimental Confirmation of Horizontal Inertia: Unpublished Manuscripts,"
Isis, 1973, 64:291-305 (see p. 296). That paper provides photographs of folios 114r, 116v, 117r, and
175v.

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

559

GALILEO'S THEORY OF PROJECTILE MOTION

Table 3. Comparisonbetween the points markedout on the verticalline in Figure5 and the lengths
expected from Galileo's theoreticalmodel.
Measured values to
nearest mm

AB
AC
AD
AE
AF
AG
AH
AJ
AK
AL
AM
AN
AO

1+
59+
17
26
37
51
66
83
102
123
146
171

Values to nearest

punto

Length expected
according to s t2,
in mm

1+
5+
1018
27
39
54
69
87
107
129
154
180

Base
4+
9+
16+
25+
36+
49+
64+
81+
100+
121+
144+
169+

and Sv used here do not appear on the manuscript, but are constructed from the
verticals formed by POP,, QoQ1, and so forth.
As can be seen, the series of distances in Table 5, column 1, correspond with
the first four distances in Table 3, column 1. The first three values for the
distances in Table 5, column 2, correspond with the first three distances on
Table 3 and Table 5, column 1. The correspondences reveal the following:
* Uniformly accelerated motion in the vertical (perpe-ndicular to OX) and
near vertical (along AO); the odd-number rule for the distances traversed in
successive time intervals.
* Continuity of motion on deflection (OPO = ON, OQ0 = OM, ORo -OL,
OSO = OK); that is, motion after deflection is the reverse of uniform
acceleration and follows the inverse odd-number rule.
Table 4. Distances on the horizontaland vertical lines in Figure5 compared.Length expressed to
the nearest millimeter.
OP0
P0QO
Q0R0
R0S0

25
23
21
19

ON
NM
ML
LK

25
23
21
19

Table 5. Comparisonof the relations between points on the curves in Figure5 and points on the
straightlines OV and OX. Lengthexpressed to nearest millimeter.
Column 2

Column 1

1+

Pop,
QoQI
RoRl

1+
5
10-

PPV
QQV
RRV

510+

SoSz

17

SSv

20

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

560

R. H. NAYLOR

* The principle of superposition (P0P, Q0Q, ROR, SOS correspond closely to

AB, BC, CE, DE for a case of fall in the near vertical AO).
* A steadily decreasing horizontal motion.
* A resulting trajectory that is not symmetrical about the vertical: the trajectory is not a parabola.
The lower series of points Pl, Q1, Rl, S, does not represent a parabola.
Similarly if OX is rotated to coincide with OV and Pl, Q1, R1, and S1 are
relocated the same distances vertically below the new positions of Po, Q0, Ro,
and S0 as they fall below the old positions on folio 175v, then the series of
points Pl, Q1, Rl, S1 will still not lie on a parabola. The curve joining them will
be closer to 0 than P, while P1 is the same distance below P0 as P is below PV.
Similar considerations show Q1, R1, and S, in their new locations to be below
the curve OPQRS. Thus the curve obtained in this case of the continuation of
the motion along OV according to the inverse odd-number rule yields a less
symmetrical trajectory than PQRSX and accordingly one that is less like a
parabola. There is an alternative lower tail to the curve sketched on folio 175,
which may simply show that Galileo entertained this possibility.
The form of OPQRS suggests that Galileo may have also considered the
possibility that for motion in the direction OV horizontal momentum decreases
according to the inverse odd-number rule. This appears to provide the best fit
for the curve OPQRS, though the curve does not seem to have been drawn
with care. But since 0, PI, Ql, RI, S, do not lie on a parabola, then P, Q, R,
S, X also cannot if these points are also related to Pv, Q,, RV,and Sv by the oddnumber rule. Even if this was not immediately obvious, it becomes clear after
two or three points are plotted. This could explain why Galileo did not take
great care in plotting this curve.
It is also true that if, after the projectile was deflected in the direction of OV,
the horizontal component of its motion decreased according to the inverse oddnumber rule, then the speed of the projectile would have to become infinite as
the incline OV approaches the vertical. Galileo would have been bound to
recognize this in time. From these geometrical constructions it was plain that if
the momentum of a projectile decreased after deflection according to the inverse
odd-number rule, then the trajectory could not be parabolic.'2
The data on folios 81r, 107v, and 175v allow the reconstruction of the ways in
which Galileo related his investigations of the projectile trajectory to his pre1604 theory of motion. They show that he was able to account for its parabolic
form in terms of the two major components of that theory: the law of fall and
the principle of the conservation of momentum. Folio 175v indicates that Galileo
could well have formulated this principle as he did as a consequence of his study
of the trajectory. Folio 175v also indicates the relationship between the principle
of superposition and the parabolic trajectory. It suggests that the principle of
superposition as expounded by Galileo in Two New Sciences was known to be
12Winifred Wisan discusses a number of the draft proofs, etc., of Vol. 72 of the Galilean MSS and
makes a quite different interpretation of Galileo's use of experiment and mathematics in "The New
Science of Motion: A Study of Galileo's De motu locali," Archive for the History of Exact Sciences,
1974, 13:103-306, on pp. 227-228. She has drawn my attention to the discussion of the decrease of
momentum on the inclined plane in the Discorsi, pointing out that it appears to be a remnant of an
early consideration of this problem. See Opere, Vol. VIII, pp. 243-244. (Crew and de Salvio,
Dialogues, pp. 206-207.)

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

561

GALILEO'STHEORY OF PROJECTILEMOTION

Table 6. Comparison of figures on folio 114r to results achieved with the reconstructed experiment.

Reconstructed experiment from folio 116v

Figures on folio 114r

in punti

in cm

in punti

as observed, in cm

253
337
394
451
495
534
574

23.75
31.64
36.99
42.34
46.48
50.14
53.89

30
50
70
90
110
130
150

24.0
31.1
36.7
42.3
46.0
50.4
53.9

"true" because it alone was capable of accounting for the experimentally determined form of the trajectory.13
111.GALILEO'SSTUDYOF THE VELOCITYOF THE PROJECTILE

Having once established the relationship between the conservation of momentum and the form of the trajectory, Galileo was then faced with the difficult task
of relating both ideas to the basic principle of the 1604 theory: the idea that
velocity increased with distance in free fall. He pursued two lines of investigation. One, found on folio 114r, involved experiments similar to those on folio
107v. Another analysis, on folio 117r, shows that he investigated the way in
which the average velocity of the projectile changed along its trajectory.
For the experiment recorded on folio 114v the inclined plane previously used
in the folio 107v experiment was placed on a table and the sphere released at a
series of points on the groove. (That Galileo used this equipment on a table in
this way can be seen from folio 116v, the later experiment, where the height of
the table is referred to as being 828 punti.) The points on the groove were
selected to provide a regular series of increases in the total vertical drop from
the point of release to the point of projection. According to Galileo's 1604
principle of motion (v x d), the speeds of projection in the horizontal should be
proportional to these vertical drops. The principle of conservation of motion
indicates that the projections (D) will be proportional to the velocities of
projection.
The evidence of this experimentation is found on folio 114r, where an inclined
line is joined to a series of crudely drawn curves terminating at the same level.
At the end of each curve is found a single figure. The series of figures is 253,
337, 394, 451, 495, 534, and 574. The line and curves resemble the diagram on
folio 116v. Here on folio 114r the larger curves in particular indicate that a
change in direction occurs at the end of the inclined line. If these figures are
assumed to represent horizontal projections in punti, they can be duplicated
when the inclined plane is placed on a table 828 punti high and the sphere
dropped from heights (H) of 30, 50, 70, 90, 110, 130, and 150 punti (see Table
6). This provides a series of vertical drops in the ratios 3:5:7:9:11:13:15. The
obviously missing initial 1 from this series of odd numbers corresponds to an
13Opere, Vol. VIII, pp. 268-269;

Crew and de Salvio, Dialogues, pp. 234-235.

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

562

R. H. NAYLOR

initial drop of 10 punti. The point that would give a vertical drop of 10 punti lies
on the curved section of the inclined plane and makes the location of the point
of release rather awkward. (It has to be borne in mind that an error of 1 or 2
punti would represent an overall error of 10 to 20% in a measurement of 10
punti. In fact the variation in the data from the theoretical ideal is very small-only
about 5%.)
Both this experimentation and the work on folios 107 and 175 make it clear
that since horizontal motion is conserved in projectile motion, then Galileo's
principle that velocity increased with distance cannot be correct: the projections
are not proportional to the vertical falls.
That this experimentation is related to the folio 107v investigation is suggested
by some details on the far right-hand edge of the latter manuscript. Folio 107v
was probably used to record two phases of the experiment, since turning it
through 900 shows a series of regularly increasing vertical lines, marked a, b, c,
d, e, f, representing a series of heights in the ratios 1:2:3:4:5:6. Two series of
numbers appear nearby: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 1, 5, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21. The
second series has been crossed out. The deletion suggests that Galileo saw the
undeleted series to be more relevant or more suitable for consideration. In
addition there is a triangle, one side of which is a vertical line while the base is
roughly at right angles to it. There are a number of equally spaced lines drawn
parallel to the base, so that the triangle resembles the diagrams Galileo used in
the letter to Paolo Sarpi in 1604 and on folio 128 to represent an increase of
velocity with distance according to his principle v a d.
The folio 114r experiment was evidently concerned with the increase of
projected distance (D) with an increase in the initial vertical fall (H). The
possible connection between velocity and projected distance is obvious. My
examination of Volume 72 has not revealed another series like those found on
folio 107v or folio 114v. There is of course the possibility that the relationship
between these series is merely coincidental, but that seems remote.
The other manuscript concerned with Galileo's study of velocity, folio 117r,
like folio 107 provides only the barest indication of what Galileo was investigating. Two things are clear, however. First, Galileo was analyzing the distances
traversed by a projectile in successive intervals of time; second, he was interested in the relationship between the velocity at a point on the trajectory and
the average velocity of the projectile along the trajectory. Galileo's objective
was to establish the way in which the average velocity of the projectile was
changing in relation to time.
There is a rough sketch of a parabola on the upper half of the folio (Fig. 6).
It represents a projectile with a horizontal velocity of 40 units accelerating in the
vertical such that it falls through distances of 10, 30, 50, and 70 units in successive
intervals of time. Galileo endeavored to obtain an approximate value for the
average velocity along the successive sections of the trajectory. These values were
obtained as (10 + 40)1/2 = 41.2, (30 + 40)1/2 - 50, (50 + 40)1/2 = 64 and
(70 + 40)1/2 - 80.6. This series of values, though indicating in a rough way the
manner in which the average velocity of the projectile was increasing, did not make
clear the pattern in the sequence of values itself. Galileo therefore converted the
first number of the series, 41.2, to a figure of 100 and multiplied the remaining
three values, 50, 64, and 80.6, by the factor of 100/41.2, which yielded the series 100,

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

563

GALILEO'S THEORY OF PROJECTILE MOTION

40

40

40
_

160

-40

-90

Figure 6. Transcription from folio 117r.

121, 155, and 196. These figures can be seen written alongside a line drawn on
folio 117r to represent those distances; they represent the values of the average
velocity in succeeding intervals of time. The differences between these values
could only be the result of increases in the velocity of the projectile due to
an increasing vertical momentum, since horizontal momentum was constant.
The rate of increase is not steady, however: the increases are 21, 34, and
41 (i.e., 121 - 100, 155 - 121, 197 - 155). Galileo was interested in these rates
of increase, for the three values 41, 34, and 21 are written on folio 117r just
above two sketches of parabolic sections. These figures are significant because
they reveal that the rate of increase tends toward a steady value. (Evidently as
the sequence of increases is 21 + 13, 21 + 13 + 7, they form a series the terms
of which converge towards a limiting value.) As has already been pointed out,
these increases in the average velocity of the projectile could only be due to the
successive increases in its vertical momentum.
This evidence conflicts with the principle Galileo had adopted in 1604, that
velocity in fall increases with distance fallen. According to the theory developed
in 1604, the average velocity over the spaces traversed in successive equal intervals
of time increases at an ever greater rate. This results in a diverging series for the
successive increases in average velocity in succeeding equal intervals of time: the
series of average velocities is 1, 15, 65, 175, 369, 671, . . .; the series of increases in
average velocity is 1, 14, 40, 120, 194, 302,.
Figure 7, which appears on folios 85v and 128v, depicts Galileo's earlier
demonstration of his law s a t2 from the principle that instantaneous velocity
increased with distance. AB, BC, CD, and DE in the figure are equal intervals
of distance in the path of fall of the body from A to F. The instantaneous
velocity at B is represented by the horizontal line BM and at C by CN and at D
by DO. As the velocity is increasing at every point on the line AF, these points
are infinite and the infinite number of lines from these points constitute the
triangle AEP. Therefore, Galileo argues, the velocities at all points on the line

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

R. H. NAYLOR

564

A
M

C
D

0
Figure 7. Transcription from
folios 85v and 128 v.

Figure 8. Second transcription

from folio 117r.

AB to those at all points on the line AC are as the area of triangle ABM to the
area of the triangle ACN, that is, as the square of line AB to the square of line
AC. The crucial link between instantaneous velocity and average velocity is
provided on folio 128 as follows: the velocitd with which the line AD is traversed
to the velocita with which the line AC is traversed is as the square AD to the
square of A C.
According to the theory explicating Figure 7 that Galileo expounds on folio
128, the average velocities through AB, AC, AD, and AE in Figure 6 will be
as 12, 22, 32, and 42-that is, 1, 4, 9, 16. The average velocities through AB, BC,
CD, DE will be as the areas ABC, BCNM, CDON, DEPO. These are in the
ratio 12, 22

1, 32

22, 42

32-that

is, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9. But Galileo

does

not refer to these distances being traversed in equal time intervals-nor could
he, as this would be paradoxical. In accelerated motion successive equal distances must be traversed in ever smaller time intervals, as he appreciated. On
folio 117r Galileo investigates the issue of the increase of average velocity in
relation to time beginning with the series of distances actually traversed in
successive equal time intervals, that is, 1, 3, 5, 7. According to the theory
developed on folio 128, the average velocities over the distances traversed in
these successive equal intervals of time should be as 12, 42
92_that is, as 1, 15, 65, and 175.

12, 92 - 42, 162-

When we examine the series of average velocities along the parabolic trajectory as Galileo did, we find the velocities 100, 121, 155, 196 and the series of
differences 21, 34, 41 . . ., both of which indicate that the rate of change
decreases, giving rise to a converging series. This shows that the rate of increase
in the average velocity of the projectile along its trajectory cannot be that
required by the folio 128 theory. On the contrary, the convergence of the series
on folio 117r indicates that the rate of increase in average velocity with time
tends to be a steady value, that is, the rate of increase of the increase in average
velocity tends to zero as convergence occurs. The earlier theory required that
instantaneous velocity increased with distance, but this in turn required that

"4Opere, Vol. II, pp. 181-183; Drabkin and Drake, On Motion, pp. 173-174.

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GALILEO'S THEORY OF PROJECTILE MOTION

565

average velocity increased ever more rapidly with time-a requirement impossible to reconcile with the parabolic trajectory.
Galileo had an important insight about the direction of motion of a body
moving along or tending to move along a curved path. In De motu and Le
meccaniche he had argued that the tendency to motion of a body on the point of
moving in a circular path was along the tangent at that point. 14 The same idea
proved invaluable when he analyzed the projectile trajectory. That Galileo
recognized that the direction of the instantaneous velocity of the projectile at a
point on the trajectory was along the tangent is indicated by the sketches on
folio 117r (see Fig. 8). The tangent property of the parabola gave its direction
at 0 as OA, where AB =,BC, AC being the axis and B the apex of the parabola.
The instantaneous velocity V has two components, one due to the horizontal
motion H, the other due to the vertical motion U. Thus V2 = H2 + U2. From this
simple relationship and from the tangent property of the parabola Galileo could
establish the vertical component of the projectile's motion after the first, second,
third, and fourth intervals of time. The parabola gave the tangent after those
time intervals, and since the tangent indicated the ratio of the vertical velocity to
the steady horizontal velocity of 40 units, it followed directly that the vertical
velocities were 20, 40, 60, and 80 units-that is, there was increase with time.
In 1604 Galileo had not regarded the relationship between instantaneous
velocity and average velocity in uniformly accelerated motion as a simple one:
average velocity was proportional to the square of the instantaneous velocity.
His rejection of the older 1604 view relating to average velocity in accelerated
motion would have opened the way to a reappraisal of the relationship between
instantaneous velocity and average velocity.
The tangent property indicated a steady increase in instantaneous velocity with
time, but not with distance. Indeed, the instantaneous velocity appeared to
increase with the square root of the distance fallen. That is, the instantaneous
velocity doubled, from 20 to 40 and from 40 to 80, as the total vertical fall
quadrupled, from 10 to 40 and from 40 to 160 respectively.
Again, the average velocity along the projectile path indicated that the average vertical velocity increased at a steady rate with time. By calculating the
average vertical velocity from the ratio of distance to time, as he had calculated
the average velocities along the trajectory on folio 117r, Galileo could obtain the
values for the average velocity in one, two, three, and four of the intervals of
time. The values of these average velocities would be 10, (10 + 30)/2, (10 + 30
+ 50)/3, (10 + 30 + 50 + 70)/4-that is, 10, 20, 30, 40. This shows a constant
rate of increase in average velocity, a feature Galileo did expect in uniform
acceleration, though originally in 1604 he had regarded it as a steady increase
with regard to distance. The steady increase in average vertical velocity indicated by the parabolic trajectory was in relation to time and thus in agreement
with the values for the changes in average velocity of the projectile along its
trajectory. Thus all four features of the projectile's motion could be brought into
agreement. The uniform horizontal motion could be related to instantaneous
vertical velocity by the tangent property, average vertical velocity could be
related to the uniform horizontal velocity by consideration of time and distance,
the average velocity along the trajectory could be related to average horizontal
velocity and the average vertical velocity, and finally instantaneous vertical
velocity could be related to average vertical velocity.

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

566

R. H. NAYLOR
IV. THE DOUBLE-VELOCITY RULE

It is clear from studies of the kind found on folio 117r that average vertical
velocity to a point on the trajectory is always one-half the instantaneous vertical
velocity at that point. This form of analysis provided Galileo with the doublevelocity rule. The rule is found on folio 163v as well, where its expression
suggests that Galileo regarded it as a basic rule before he had fully grasped the
implications of the rule itself.
On folio 163v a body is first considered to move from A to B with naturally
accelerated motion beginning from rest A (see Fig. 9). The body is then considered
to move from A to B with a uniform motion equal to A _
_
_C
the maximum speed attained by the accelerated motion. In this case, it is said, the body would complete
X
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the space twice as quickly as in the first case. Galileo
argues that this conclusion follows from the ratio of the
instantaneous velocities in accelerated motion and in
uniform motion. The total number of points on AB and
\\I
hence of instantaneous velocities is the same in uniform
motion and accelerated motion.'5 The ratio of the totals of these instantaneous velocities is said to be the
B
D
ratio of the areas of ACB to ADCB.
Consideration of folio 163v suggests that it represents Figure 9. Transcriptionfrom
Galileo's ideas during the stage when he was beginning folio 163v.
to see the implications of the idea that average velocity increased steadily during
natural motion.
The diagram used to demonstrate the double-velocity rule was similar to that
which Galileo was accustomed to use in discussing the increase of instantaneous
velocity with distance. But examination of the consequences of the new approach very soon shows that the double-velocity rule cannot be validly related to
the old principle of motion. Galileo's adoption of the view that a comparison
could be made directly between a uniform motion and the average velocity of a
uniformly accelerated motion was of fundamental importance. The key to Galileo's method on folio 163v was that he compared motions made in the same
time. It is just such a comparison that the parabolic trajectory allows.
Consider the case of accelerated motion over a distance AE equal to 2AB.
Then if v oc d the final instantaneous velocity will be double that at the point B
and the overall average velocity will be double that through AB. Thus the time
required to complete AB will be the same as that required to complete AE.
That Galileo came to regard this to be a disproof of the v oc d principle is clear
from the Two New Sciences.16 More than this could be seen, however. According to the folio 128 theory, the average velocities through AB and AE are as
AB2 and AE2, that is, 1:4. Combining this with the new double-velocity rule is
clearly impossible. The average velocities cannot be in this ratio. A ratio of
1:2, which the double-velocity rule leads to when combined with v ac d, does as
we have seen require the completion of any given distances in the same time; a
greater ratio would suggest that the greater distance is completed in less timet
Vol. VIII, pp. 383-384; Wisan, "New Science of Motion," pp. 203-204.
15Opere, Vol. VIII, pp.
203-204; Crew and de Salvio, Dialogues, pp. 160-162.
'6Opere,

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GALILEO'S THEORY OF PROJECTILE MOTION

567

We know that Galileo examined this problem, which arose directly from the
adoption of the new principle of the steady increase in average velocity with
time. His consideration of the relationship between average velocity and instantaneous velocity is found on folio 152r, which dates from the same period as
folio 163v. On folio 152r Galileo examined the consequence of the new relationships between average velocities, instantaneous velocities, and distances.17
He also examined the average velocities for the case in point as predicted by his
old theory of motion.
Galileo considered the case of a body accelerated through a distance of 4
miles for 4 hours with an average velocity of 10 degrees. Beneath this is asked
the question: how long will it take the same body to move 9 miles with 15
degrees of speed? That Galileo was still in the process of considering the
implications of his newly developed double-velocity rule is suggested by his
questioning approach. On the manuscript appears a diagram representing the
case under consideration. The distances traversed are represented by a vertical line
abc, the instantaneous velocity at b by a horizontal line be, and the instantaneous
velocity at c by a horizontal line cf. The consequence of Galileo's new theory that
velocity increases with the square root of distance fallen is represented by a
parabolic line joining a, e, and f. On the left-hand side are written corresponding
values of distance, time, and instantaneous velocity:
Distances
ab 4
ad 6
ac 9

Instantaneous velocities
be 20
cf30

Times through
ab 4
ac 6

The values 20 and 30 are those determined by the double-velocity rule from the
average values of 10 and 15. The average values are written out again.
According to the proof of s x t2 on folio 128 (see above) the average velocities
are given as follows:
velocity through ab
velocity through ac

area of abc
area of acf

20
671/2

If as stated the velocity through ab is 4, then the velocity through ac would be

671/2

20

4 =

131/2

These would be the values that would follow if instantaneous velocity did
increase with distance to the value of 30 degrees at c and 20 degrees at b. The
statement
through ab velocity as 4
through ac velocity as 131/2
appears on the top right-hand corner of the manuscript. But these values cannot
be reconciled with the analysis of the parabolic trajectory on folio 117r, and
therefore cannot be correct.
'7Published by Stillman Drake in "Galileo's Discovery of the Law of Free Fall," Scientific
American, May 1973, 228(5):84-92. Discussed by R. H. Naylor in "Galileo's Theory of Motion:
Processes of Conceptual Change in the Period 1604-1610," Ann. Sci., 1977, 34:365-392.

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

568

R. H. NAYLOR

On the central right-hand section of the manuscript Galileo provides a sliort

demonstration showing that if instantaneous velocity (vi) is proportional to the
square root of the distance traveled (s) then v12a s; he concludes that the line
representing diagrammatically the change of velocity with distance is a parabola.
Thus folio 152r reveals that Galileo had reassessed the relationship between
average velocity and instantaneous velocity and therefore changed his view of
the relationship between instantaneous velocity and distance. Both changes can
be seen to relate to the analyses of the projectile trajectory found on folios 117r
and 175v. Those analyses also provided another rule of naturally accelerated
motion-Galileo's
so-called double-distance rule.
V. THE DOUBLE-DISTANCE RULE

Since a projectile's trajectory is parabolic, its horizontal motion continues unaffected by its vertical acceleration; this relationship is clear in folio 175v. What is
more, the distance traversed vertically during fall can be directly related to the
final instantaneous velocity. Thus on folio 117r the consideration of the vertical
falls over one, two, three, and four intervals of time shows that average vertical
velocity equals distance divided by time and that it increases steadily with time.
As the average velocity is clearly also equal to half the final instantaneous
velocity, from the tangent property, it follows directly that the instantaneous
velocity equals double the distance traversed divided by time.
A different and more general way of expressing this relationship is to consider
a vertical fall followed by a deflection into a horizontal direction. In such a case
the average velocity in the horizontal will be double the average velocity of the
preceding fall. In equal intervals of time the distance traveled in the horizontal
will be double the intitial free fall. This is Galileo's double-distance rule.
The double-distance rule makes its first apearance in the manuscript on folio
163v with the double-velocity rule. They were evidently developed at the same
time, and the brief statement of the velocity rule leads into the statement of the
double-distance rule.
The double-distance rule, however, assumes a direct proportionality between
instantaneous velocity and average velocity considered in relation to time. All
this was a radical break with the older view where no such direct relationship
existed. On folio 128 the average velocity of an accelerated motion had been
shown to be proportional to the square of the final instantaneous velocity. The
double-distance rule explicitly assumes that average velocity in accelerated motion is equal to half the final instantaneous velocity for any time interval considered. Thus instantaneous velocity and average velocity both increase with
time in the same manner.
The combination of the double-distance rule with the law of fall relating
distance and time (s a t2) shows that the instantaneous velocity in free fall is
directly proportional to time. 18 Galileo deduced this on folio 91v and that
manuscript provides the earliest surviving demonstration of the principle. The
handwriting, the language, and watermark of the manuscript all indicate a date
in the late Paduan period. That the demonstration itself was developed during
Galileo's work on the projectile trajectory is clear from the context. It appears
below a draft of what was to become Proposition II on projectile motion and
x'Wisan, "New Science of Motion," pp. 227-228.

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GALILEO'S THEORY OF PROJECTILE MOTION

569

above an outline draft for Proposition IV. The demonstration itself was later
adapted to become Proposition III on projectile motion. Evidently Galileo's
draft on folio 91 was developed as a direct consequence of his discovery of the
parabolic trajectory recorded on folios 81r and 107v.
By the time he had reassessed the relationship between velocity, time, and
distance, Galileo would have been able to return to folio 114r and to confirm
that the horizontal projections (D) were, as folio 117r suggested, proportional to
the square root of the corresponding vertical drops (H). At this point the
evidence was brought into agreement with the theory.
The last stage in the process was thus very probably the experimentation
related to folio 116v. Here Galileo appears to have examined the relationship
between his theory of projectile motion and his theory for motion in the inclined
plane.
Galileo's study of the parabolic trajectory had thus led him ultimately to
formulate the double-velocity and double-distance rules as applicable to natural
motions. The parabolic form of the trajectory demonstrated the validity of both
of these rules beyond doubt. At the same time the unraveling of the explanation
of the form of the trajectory provided Galileo with a means of conducting a
further investigation into motion on the inclined plane. The experiment recorded
on folio 114r examined the relationship between velocity and distance. It could
also be used to examine the validity of the double-distance rule and Galileo's
postulate. According to the postulate the velocity gained by a sphere in rolling
down any incline depends only on the vertical distance fallen. The experiment
on folio 116v quite obviously aimed to check the validity of the double-distance
rule and presumably also involved a cross check on the postulate.
The measurements on folio 116v were obtained using the same experimental
arrangements as those used earlier in the folio 114r experiment. In one instance
the sphere rolled down the incline and in so doing fell through a vertical
distance of 828 punti. After being projected horizontally, it fell through a further
vertical distance of 828 punti before striking the floor. According to the doubledistance rule it should have moved 2 x 828 punti horizontally in this time, that
is, 1656 punti. However, as folio 116v shows, the sphere only traveled 1340 punti
horizontally. The reason for this is that rolling down an incline cannot be linked
to free fall in the simple way Galileo assumed. Galileo did not solve the puzzle
presented by this result. One obvious source of the discrepancy might have been
that the curve used to deflect the sphere was slowing the sphere down. However, the use of different inclines and more gentle curves would have shown
that this was not the case. At the same time conducting the experiment would
have provided evidence in favor of the postulate, for it shows that over a
considerable range of inclinations the projections were dependent only on the
vertical drop (H).
Galileo would have been able to recognize from his 1602 experiments on semicircular inclined planes that the sphere met surprisingly little resistance while
moving in smooth curves of large radius of curvature. The use of a semicircular
groove in the folio 116v experiment makes no difference to the projections
obtained. This remained an unsolved problem for Galileo. His inability to
confirm the double-distance rule, though probably puzzling, could not bring the
physical validity of the rule into doubt. The truth of the rule was clearly
established by the parabolic form of the projectile trajectory itself.

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

570

R. H. NAYLOR

Galileo was left with the problem of providing a suitable demonstration of

his double-distance rule. He recognized, after he had reconsidered the proof
technique on folio 152r, that the proof technique was not a very satisfactory
means of establishing physical relationships. To avoid using it in establshing
the foundations of his theory of motion he apparently expended some effort
in the search for an independent demonstration of the validity of the doubledistance rule, and indeed it seems he may even have hoped to base the theory
of motion on this fundamental rule. As in other of his mathematical investigations his search proved unsuccessful. He reached a position in which the
only demonstration available to him required the subtraction of two infinite
magnitudes. Nevertheless, though he evidently never felt he had obtained a
completely satisfactory demonstration, he included what he had in Two New
Sciences. What is more, to emphasize its importance for him, he went so far as
to place it before the demonstration employing the proof technique and the
definition that velocity increased with time in natural motion.
VI. CONCLUSION

The clear impression created by the manuscript evidence of Galileo's work on

the projectile trajectory is that it was not, indeed could not have been, either a
purely "rational" or a simply "empirical" investigation. Beginning with an initial
hypothesis, Galileo used experiment to identify the shape of the trajectory. This
established, he proceeded to an extended analysis of the relationship between its
parabolic form and the two basic features of his theory-the principle of inertia
and the law of fall. In this Galileo inevitably used analysis, as it was in any case
impossible to devise independent empirical tests, because the parabolic trajectory was only produced by the combined effects of inertia and fall. Only by
means of a repeated process of comparison of theory and experiment and the
analysis of theory was Galileo able to bring this work to a successful conclusion.
The work revealed by the manuscripts establishes the continuity of Galileo's
work in mechanics in that it shows a progressive development of his theory as he
attempted to account for what was undoubtedly a problem of great topical
interest in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. There is no evidence that
the work on the trajectory was part of a general program to establish the
Copernican theory. And if instead Galileo had been attracted to the problem as
a means of demonstrating the principle of inertia, he would surely have deduced
the form of the trajectory directly. Such views of both Galileo's metaphysical
commitment and his method have in the past led to just such claims. His notes
reveal a much more tentative approach. Logically Galileo would have been
unable to claim that he had explained the trajectory using his theory until he
had resolved all the theoretical problems it posed. Eventually he was able to do
this-up to a point. The nature of the relationship between the principle of
horizontal inertia and the principle of circular inertia as it applied to the
Copernican theory remained an unsolved problem for Galileo. Thus Galileo's
work on the trajectory, while it destroyed once and for all the Aristotelian view
of such motions, never really provided strong evidence for Copernicanism-as
has often been implied.

This content downloaded from 121.209.203.25 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:18:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions