Pendulum Motion

Honestly, this article was a little difficult for me to fully understand. I think I got the major points out of it though by rereading some sections. I had no idea the pendulum was so important to time keeping and science. Previously, all I knew was that it was the big swinging thing in grandfather clocks. haha! I learned that it was inspired by Galileo and that it went from being accurate to plus or minus half an hour to just a second. I also did not know that the pendulum played such a major role in the work of Isaac Newton and the development of modern science.

Another thing I did not know was that having an accurate time measurement (the pendulum) had such a positive impact on navigation. The problem was with determining longitude. Before the pendulum was developed, ships were getting lost, crashing, and running out of food. It was quite a problem for societies, and scientists were searching for the solution. They had already figured out how to determine latitude. With a reliable clock being taken on journeys, longitude could finally be determined. In order to determine longitude, captains had to look at the clock when the sun was at its highest to find out how many degrees east or west they were. This discovery allowed for the world to be mapped and allowed for European exploitation, colonization, and commerce. I think this proves that science is influenced by social and economic problems, and can in turn influence societies and cultures. Other examples include scientists finding cures for diseases. A problem arises (an outbreak of disease) and scientists begin searching for a cure. If a cure is found then this will affect the society for the better.

Galileo's work with the pendulum faced criticism from Guidobaldo del Monte. Galileo claimed that no  matter the size of the pendulum, the amount of time it takes to swing would be the same. Del Monte found this to be untrue with his experiments. Galileo was using math to prove his theory, while del Monte was using actual cylinders and balls to do his experiments. Del Monte argued that math only tells us about an "abstract unreal world" and that "physics (natural philosophy) has to tell us how the real world actually behaves. I can see both sides of the argument.For Galileo's case it is easy for me to believe that if the math is done correctly it should hold true. But only in situations were everything is exact and there is no type of interference. I think it is highly unlikely for things to be exact with no interference in real life all the time, but I do see the point. I also can agree with del Monte and his idea that things need to be examined in the real world as they actually happen. This seems like the natural way of thinking to me. I think Nancy Cartwright sums the issue up very well. She says, "My basic view is that fundamental equations do not govern objects in reality; they govern only objects in models." I would have to say that I completely agree with her statement. I think there are benefits to both sides of the argument.

Galileo's use of math in science was the beginning of the Scientific Revolution. His work with the pendulum eventually lead to being able to keep time that was accurate to one second per day. This then lead to a rapid progression of Western Science. I think this article shows that there will be many differing views and opinions in science, but that it is OK. If everyone agreed on things in science, then there would not be much investigating. I think it is good for people to question other people's theories and work to find out the truth. To me that is one of the basics of science. Trying to find what is true, and experimenting until you find the answer.