Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2008 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Canato, Veranice |
| Orientador(a): |
Beltran, Maria Helena Roxo |
| 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/13395
|
Resumo: |
In the year of 1604, with the objective to produce a theory, that would explain the refraction of light of celestial bodies and solve the existing problems in the observation of solar eclipses through camera obscura, Johannes Kepler published Ad VItellionem Paralipomena, quibus Astronomiae pars Optica Traditvr. Paralipomena has been raising the attention of history of science researchers since the first decades of the twentieth-century, and its classification, as either a continuity or a break with the treatises of optics developed during the Middle Ages, has become a controversial theme. Different aspects in this debate lead to a comprehension of Kepler's work as an appreciation of several studies of optics, astronomy and natural magic available at the end of sixteenth- century. Several studies available in Kepler s times, which probably contributed for his solution of the problems with the camera obscura, are presented in this dissertation in an attempt to show that Kepler s elaboration of his camera obscura theory, presented in chapter second of Paralipomena, is a consequence of this appreciation |
