Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2015 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Menegat, Alessandro
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Saito, Fumikazu
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em História da Ciência
|
| Departamento: |
História da Ciência
|
| País: |
BR
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/13303
|
Resumo: |
This work aims to address some aspects of Niccolò Tartaglia's (1500-1556) different arguments on the trajectories of projectiles. On one hand, at Nova Scientia (1537), the author explained that the trajectories were composed by two straight lines and a circular arc; on the other, at Quesiti et Inventioni Diverse (1546), the same trajectories were presented only as curves. These two different approaches to the trajectory of projectiles suggested to some historians that Tartaglia had changed his mind, leaving, in a way, his old beliefs. Thus, based on original documents, this paper seeks to resume Tartaglia arguments in order to understand the reasons which would have led him to change his approaches in those two works. Despite other factors, we present evidence that Tartaglia had, around 1540, come in contact with works that had almost none circulation before. With this in mind, our work provides evidence that there is some continuity between the arguments of Tartaglia on the trajectories in these two works |
