The following paper was reproduced with the permission of the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada.

It was written north of the

PROJECTILES, PARABOLAS, AND VELOCITY EXPANSIONS

BYJ. N. HARRIS
Cape Parry, N.W.T.

(Received October 4, 1988)

ABSTRACT
Kepler's Third Law of planetary motion: T 2 = R 3 (T = period in years, R = mean distance in astronomical units)
may be extended to include the inverse of the mean speed Vi (in units of the inverse of the Earth's mean orbital speed)
such that:

R = Vi 2
and
T 2 = R 3 = Vi 6

The first relationship - found in Galileo's last major work, the Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences (1638),
- may also be restated and expanded to include relative speed Vr (in units of Earth's mean orbital speed k) and absolute
speed Va = kVr , thus:

T = Vi 3
Vi = T/R
Vr = R/T
Va = kR/T
Vr = kR -1/2
Vr = kT -1/3
Va = kR -1/2
Va = kT -1/3

This paper explains the context of Galileo's velocity expansions of the laws of planetary motion and applies these
relationships to the parameters of the Solar System. A related "percussive origins" theory of planetary formation is
also discussed.

207

J. Roy. Astron. Soc. Can., Vol. 83, No. 3., 1989.

1. Introduction. Galileo's velocity expansions of the Third Law of planetary motion are buried in his
Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences in two adjoining passages concerned with parabolas and the
trajectories of projectiles.1 In the first passage Galileo defines a semi-parabola in terrestrial contexts, but in
the second he states in an unexpected historical aside that this semi-parabola pertains to the origins and
velocities of the planets. In addition, Galileo states here that he has successfully tested the second application
on the Solar System, and further, that he has provided all the materials necessary for the reader to verify the
latter application.
The semi-parabola proves to be applicable to planetary motion as Galileo claimed, while the integral
velocity variants of the laws of planetary motion and the implications of Galileo's application lead in turn
to an examination of Galileo's "percussive origins" theory of planetary formation.

2. The Parabola. The parabolas used by Galileo initially describe the paths followed by projectiles in
terrestrial applications. In this context Galileo elects to standardize his procedures on the grounds that an
infinite number of uniform horizontal velocities may be compounded with the " naturally accelerated"
velocity of a falling body. Accordingly, Galileo combines accelerated velocity on the vertical axis with a
specific uniform velocity on the horizontal axis to create a semi-parabola with the vertex at the origin and
a distance of "four" units between the vertex and the directrix.2
This semi-parabola apparently has a second function, however, for following its {p. 209} construction
Galileo states in the dialogue 3 that he is returning to the subject at hand only to embark on a historical aside
dealing with:4

" ...the beautiful agreement between this thought of the Author (Galileo) and the views of Plato concerning the origin
of the various uniform speeds with which the heavenly bodies revolve" (italics supplied).

The relationship between the parabola, the "views of Plato," and planetary velocity is described in detail
in the ensuing dialogue. At the conclusion Galileo states that he has applied the parabola to planetary
motion and that:

he once made the computation and found a satisfactory correspondence with the observation. But he did not wish
to speak of it, lest in view of the odium which his many new discoveries had already brought upon him, this might
be adding fuel to the fire. But if anyo ne desires su ch inform ation he ca n ob tain it for himself from the theory set
forth in the present treatment. 4 (italics supplied)

From the last part of this passage it thus appears that Galileo successfully tested the new application on the
parameters of the Solar System. Moreover, Galileo also asserts here that he as provided sufficient
information for the reader to verify his results.
Once alerted to Galileo's intention, it becomes clear that the inclusion of the " views of Plato " on the
subject is a relevant and necessary device permitting the use of parameters and concepts common to both
applications.5 Somewhat surprisingly, the semi-parabola is directly applicable to the Solar System with no
modification at all, once the heliocentric concept is invoked and the frames of reference are understood to
be provided by the mean period, the mean distance, and the mean velocity of Earth, i.e., unity in all cases.
With these two provisos Galileo's semi-parabola may then be treated in terms of planetary motion with the
mean distance R from the SUN represented by the "distance" down the vertical axis, and the inverse (Vi) of
the mean planetary speed Vr represented by the "uniform velocity" along the horizontal axis. Galileo's
semi-parabola thus demonstrates the relationship:

R =Vi 2 (1)

while the further relationships:

Vr = R/T (2)

Vi = T/R (3)

T = Vi 3 (4)

Vi 6 = R 3 = T 2 (5)

where T is the sidereal period in years, follow from Kepler's Third Law of planetary motion. Relation (5)
may also be expressed in exponents (i.e., [Vi 0, Vi 1,Vi 2 ,Vi 3]) {p. 210} and applied to the parabola as the first
three integer sets which illustrate the Third Law: 7

The parabola in the standard context is illustrated in figure 1a, and in the astronomical context with (Vi ,
R) as the subset of [1, (Vi , R ), T] in figure 1b.
For absolute velocity (Va ), Relation (2) may be modified such that:

Va = kR/T (2a)

where k is the mean velocity of Earth. With k = 29.79 kilometers per second for this constant we obtain the
comparison with modern estimates (Table 1). The superior planets are shown on the inverted parabola in
figure 2.
3. The Parabola and Planetary Origins. In spite of the limited treatment of the parabola in its astronomical
context, it remains possible to hypothesize from material provided in The New Sciences and passages in his
previous treatise, the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, that Galileo's analysis of the parabola
and projectile trajectories could be expanded to a logical yet momentous conclusion.{p.212} Specifically,
his analysis of projectile paths could also conceivably be extended to encompass those special cases in which
the projectiles "fall" into orbit about their parent bodies. In both terrestrial and astronomical applications
the direction of "fall" may be understood to take place towards the centre, and indeed, in his earlier Two
Chief World Systems Galileo had previously suggested in what is an undoubted heliocentric context:

(that) among the decrees of the divine Architect was the thought of creating in the universe those globes which we
behold continually revolving, and establishing a cen tre of the ir rotations in which the sun was located im mo vab ly.
Next, suppose all the said globes to have been created in the same place, and their assigned tendencies of motion,
descending towards the centre until they had acquired those degrees of velocity which originally seemed good to
the Divine mind. These velocities being acquired, we lastly suppose that the globes were set in rotation, each
retaining in its orbit its prede termined veloc ity. Now, at what altitude and distance from the sun would have been
the place where the said globes were first created, and cou ld they have be en created in the sa me place?"(italics
supplied)

while later, in The New Sciences he proposed that:

...God, after having created the heavenly bodies, assigned them the proper and uniform speeds with which they were
forever to revolve... (and) made them start from rest and move over definite distances under a natural and rectilinear
acceleration such as governs the motion of terrestrial bodies... a body could no t pass from rest to any given speed and maintain
it uniformly except by passing through all the degrees of speed intermediate betw een the given speed and rest ... once these bodies
had gained their proper and permanen t speed, their rectilinear motion was converted into a circular one, the only motion
capable of maintaining uniform ity, a motion in w hich the body revolves without either receding from or approachin g its
desired goal." (italics supplied)

and finally asked with respect to the parabola:

... whether or not a definite 'sublimity' might be assigned to each planet, such that, if it were to start from rest at this
particular height and to fall with naturally accelerated motion along a straight line, and were later to change the speed thus
acquired into uniform m otion, the size of the orbit and its period of revolution would be those actually observed ." (italics
supplied)

In the initial passage Galileo poses two questions: firstly whether the planets originated in one place, and
secondly, whether the place in question can be identified. From a heliocentric viewpoint, because relative
velocity decreases with distance from the Sun, one can understand how Galileo may have come to conceive
that the planets originated with "zero" velocity beyond the region of Saturn (the outer limit of the Solar
System in Galileo's era), but this does not address the question of origins itself. In the second passage in The
New Sciences, however, these questions are accompanied by further amplifying details which also pertain to
the fundamental parabola.10
Could Galileo have extended his treatment of terrestrial projectile paths to embrace satellite orbits and
also have expanded the idea one step further to include the planets as satellites of the Sun? While
acknowledging that there are dangers in attributing to Galileo modern or Newtonian concepts, it is
necessary to recall that the initial discussion of the parabola concerned the path traced by a projectile with
uniform horizontal velocity applied down the horizontal axis, and "naturally accelerated" velocity applied
down the vertical axis. Visually, a projectile launched almost horizontally will obviously gain very little
height before falling back to ground when the initial velocity is relatively low.11 As the initial velocity
increases, however, some height will be gained because of the curvature of the Earth, and although the
projectile may still fall to ground, with sufficient velocity, a projectile will finally "fall" into orbit around
Earth itself.12 Thus in general, by reversing matters, all objects in specific orbits may be treated in terms of a
"percussive origins theory" with the parent body the initial source. The hypothesis may therefore be applied to
the planets and the Solar System with the Sun as the single percussive point of origin.13
 Could Galileo have taken this final step? If he did, then undoubtedly criteria provided by Galileo in his
historical aside becomes more significant than ever, i.e., if planetary origins are considered in terms of
projectiles originating from the Sun, the planets would indeed "start with zero velocity" and "move through
successive speeds" until their initial "rectilinear motion" changed into "circular motion" {p. 14} (or orbital
motion) as they "fell" into their respective orbitals positions. And once established, the planets would then
"revolve without either receding from or approaching" their common point of origin, or deviating from
their "final" positions in the Solar System.
Although no causal mechanism is associated with this "percussive origins" (or "Small Bang") theory, the
hypothesis might possibly assume that the Sun was essentially formed at this stage, and for whatever reason,
the planetary material was ejected from the Sun in one enormous explosion.14 In this sense the hypothesis
is a variation of catastrophe theory, with the exception that the source of the catastrophe is internal rather
than external. The latter, involving collisions or near misses with double or triple stars, etc., are not generally
well supported today, but the percussive elements of the basic hypothesis may perhaps have some affinity
with the massive explosion of the solar core (i.e., the "T Tauri winds") thought by some accretion theorists
to be a possible explanation for the expulsion of unaccreted dust and gas from the Solar System.

4. Summary. Galileo's last work, the Dialogues Concerning the New Sciences followed his trial by the
Inquisition for supporting the heliocentric concept in two previous publications. In addition to his
subsequent imprisonment for this "crime", he was also required to recant his heretical views and refrain from
any future discussion of the heliocentric hypothesis. In view of this restraint it is understandable that his
treatise on projectile trajectories and their relationship to planetary velocities was both oblique and limited.
Once alerted to his intentions, however, examination of The New Sciences indicates that Galileo did indeed
manage to provide sufficient materials to permit his readers to apply the semi-parabola in the claimed
terrestrial and astronomical contexts. 15
The relative paucity of direct information notwithstanding, it has proved feasible to apply Galileo's
semi-parabolas in the given astronomical context and understand the application in terms of the relationship
between mean inverse speed Vi and mean planetary distance R, R = Vi2 (see equation (1)). The distance R
must be obtained initially from Kepler's Third Law,16 which in turn may be combined with equation (1)
to include the inverse of the velocity as in equation (5), and the velocity-based variants of the laws of
planetary motion given by equations (2), (3) and (4).
For a given mean distance R or a given sidereal period T the absolute mean speed Va and relative mean
speed Vr may be obtained from equations (2) and (3), or from the following inverse square and inverse cube
relations:
Vr = R -1/2 (6)
-1/3
Vr = T (7)
-1/2
Va = kR (8)
-1/3
Va = kT (9)
{p. 15}
The fundamental understanding and application of the semi-parabola in the astronomical context
depends on the heliocentric concept, Kepler's Third Law for the mean distances, and relation (1). Although
absolute confirmation may be lacking, it seems likely that Galileo - the originator of the material in its dual
contexts - would have known, or would have been able to derive (in one form or another) all the velocity
expansions of the laws of planetary motion given here.
The "percussive origins" theory of planetary motion also credited in this work to Galileo may perhaps
be open to alternative interpretations, but the transition from projectile trajectories to satellite orbits is
nevertheless a logical one. In view of his pioneering researches in the former area, and his discoveries in the
other (the four Jovian moons which bear his name) such a progression would seem in keeping with both
his heliocentric orientation and the general directions of his research.
Finally, three and a half centuries have passed since Galileo published the Dialogues Concerning The New
Sciences. Apart from Mersenne's negative assessment of related concepts,17scant attention seems to have been
paid to Galileo's oblique treatment of planetary velocities and planetary origins. Although his research may
have been overshadowed by the works of Kepler and Newton, it seems that the obscure methodology forced
on Galileo was if anything, only too successful. One cannot but help admiring Galileo's tenacity, however,
for The New Sciences was written when he was in his seventies, with failing eyesight, and under the threat
of most dire consequences should he ever attempt to discuss the heliocentric hypothesis again. Galileo may
or may not have claimed at the conclusions of his trial that the Earth still moved, but it appears from the
material in the Dialogues Concerning The New Sciences that he had the last word on the matter after all.

John N. Harris
570A Ferry Road,
Winnipeg,
Manitoba,
R3H OT7

APPENDIX

A1. The following dialogue between Salviati and Sagredo occurs in association with Galileo's "standard"
parabola and an unexpected expansion that includes Plato, planetary motion, and the Solar System. (Fourth
Day, [282-283] pp.259-260).

S A LVIA T I. But before w e proceed further, since this discussion is to deal with the motion compounded of a uniform
horizontal one and one accelerated vertically downwards - the path of a projectile, namely, a parabola - it is necessary
that we define some common standard by which we may estimate the velocity, or momentum of both motions; and since
from the innumerable uniform velo cities on e only, an d not selected a t random , is to be com pounded w ith a velocity
acquired by naturally accelerated motion, I can think of no simpler way of selecting and measuring this than to assume
another of the same kind. For the sake of clearness, draw the vertical line ac to meet the horizontal line bc. A c is the
height and bc is the amplitude of the semi-parabola ab, which is the resultant of the two motions, one that of a body
falling from rest at a, through the d istance ac, with naturally accelerated motion, the other a uniform motion along the
horizontal ad. The speed acquired at c by a fall through the dist ance ac is determined by the height ac; for the speed
of a body falling from the same elevation is always one and the same; but along the horizontal one may give a body an
infinite number of uniform speeds. However, in order that I may select one out of this multitude and separate it from
the rest in a perfectly definite manner, I will exten d the height ca upwards to e just as far as is necessary and will call this
distance ae the "sublimity." Im agin e a body to fall from rest at e; it is clear that we may make its terminal speed at a the
same as that with which the same body travels along the horizontal line ad; this speed will be such that, in the time of
descent along ea, it will describe a horizontal distance twice the length of ea. This preliminary remark seems necessary.
The reader is reminded that above I have called the horizontal line cb the " am plitude " of the sem i-parabola ab; the
axis ac of this parabola, I have called its " altitude "; but the line ea the fall along which determines the horizontal speed
I have called the " sublimity. " T hese m atters having b een explain ed, I proceed w ith the demonstration .

S A G RE D O. Allow me, please, to interrupt in order that I may point out the beautiful agreement between this thought
of the Author and the views of Plato concerning the origin of the various uni fo rm s pe ed s w ith wh ich the heaven ly
bodies revolve. Th e latter chanced upon the idea that a body could not pass from rest to any given speed an d m ainta in
it uniformly except by passing through all the degrees of speed intermediate between th e given speed and rest. P lato
thought that God, after having created the heavenly bodies, assigned them the proper and uniform speeds with which
 they were forever to revolve; and that He made them start from rest and move over definite distances under a natural
and rectilinear acceleration such as govern s the motion of terrestrial bodies. He ad ded that once these bodies had gained
their proper and perm anent speed, their rectilinear motion was converted into a circular one, the on ly motion capable
its desired goal. ... This conception is truly worthy of Pla t o; a nd it is all the more highly prized since its undying
principles remained hidden un til discovered by our Author who removed from them the mask and poetical dress and
set forth the idea in correct historical perspective. In view of the fact that astronom ical science furnishes us such com plete
information concerning the size of the planetary orbits, the distances of these bodies from their centers of revolution,
and their velocities, I cannot help thinking that our Author (to whom this idea of Plato was not unknown) had some
curiosity to discover whether or not a definite "sublimity" m ight be assigned to each plan et, such that, if it were to start
from rest at this particular height and to fall with naturally accelerated motion along a straight line, and were later to
change the speed thu s acquired into uniform motion, the size of the orbit and its period of revolution would be those
actually observed.

S A LVIA T I. I th in k I re m em ber his having told me that he once made the computation and found a satisfactory
correspond ence with the observation. But he did not wish to speak of it, lest in view of the odium which his many n ew
discoveries h ad al re ad y b ro ug ht up on him , this might be adding fuel to the fire. But if anyone desires such
inform ation he can obtain it for him self from the theor y set forth in the present treatm ent. 18 (emphases supplied)

NOTES

1. Galileo's obscure an d limited treatment of this subject may be explained by the fact that the Dialogues Concerning Two New
Sciences was written after his trial for heresy for supp orting the heliocentric con cept in two previous treatises. Follow ing h is
conviction by the Inquisition in 1633 he was forced to recant and expressly forbidden to discuss the heliocentric hypothesis again,
or suffer the penalties of relapse.
2 Thus the ratio of the vertical to the horizontal axis at the point of calibration is 2:1. For this parabola a uniform velocity of
T W O on the horizontal axis corresponds to distance of FOU R on the vertical axis. The same parabola also appears to have been
used by Galileo to illustrate his observation that "... a moving body starting from rest and acquiring velocity at a rate proportional
to time, will during equal intervals of time, trav erse distan ces w hich are related to each other as the odd numbers beginning w ith
unity, 1, 3, 5; or considering the total space traversed, that covered in double time will be quadruple that covered during unit time
in triple time, the space is nine times as great as in unit time. And in general the spaces traversed are in the duplicate ratio of the
times, i.e., in the ratio of the squares of the times." The Tw o New Sciences, Third Day [211-212]; also discussed in the Fourth Day
[272-273 ].
3 Galileo follows Plato in his effective use of the Dialectic Method. The passages dealing with the parabola and the historical
aside which follows are given here in the Appendix.
4 The Dialogues Concerning Two N ew Sciences, Fourth D ay [283 -284].
5 For example, Galileo discusses th e sets: [1,2,4,8] and [1,3,9,27] with respect to squaring an d cubing in the Tw o Dialogues
Concerning Two N ew Sciences (First Day [83]). The same sets are also mentioned by Plato in the Timaeus (35b and 43d) and the
first set [1,2,4,8] is discussed again in the Epinomis (991a-992 a).
6 Matters are greatly simplified if mean circular motion is assumed, i.e., if the velocity of Earth is expressed in terms of the
distance moved around the circumference divided by the mean period of revolution: 2Pi1/1 = 2Pi then the ratios of the mean
velocities of the planets with respect to that of Earth will also reduce to ratios of mean distances divided by mean periods of
revolution, i.e., 2PiR/T divided by 2Pi = R/T , and V a = KR /T etc.
7 Also the ancient relationship between a point, a line, an area, and a volume. See Galileo's discussion of the latter pair and the
"sesquialteral ratio" between them in the Tw o New Sciences, First Day, (134-135).
8 The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, translated by Stillman Drake, 1967, p.29.
9 The Dialogues Concerning The New Sciences, Fourth Day, (282-283 ), translated by Henry Crew and Alphonso de Salvio,
1914, pp. 259-260. The "sublimity" may be understood to correspond to the distance between the vertex and the directrix for
the parabola in both terrestrial and astron omical contexts.
10 I perhaps place too much significance on this point, but it does seem, in the last reference at least, that Galileo requires a
common, yet specific point of origin with respect to each of the planets and the parabola. It is relevant to note here that the rotation
of Earth is not directly involved in this app lication , although G alileo's view s on this subject are of interest; for details see Stillman
Drake's "Galileo and the Projection A rgum ent," Anna ls of Science, 43, (1986), pp. 77-79.
11 Galileo discusses horizontal, near-horizontal projectile trajectories, and the parabola near the end of the Dialogues Concerning
The New Sciences in the Fourth Day, (309-3 21).
12 But even though Galileo could have extended his work to this final conclusion, it should nevertheless still be acknowledged
that it is at odds with w hat is generally known concerning these aspects of Galileo's physics.
13 At least from a theoretical poin t of view or sim ple exercise, capture and accretion theories not exclu ded; to generalize, one
might also include origins in other known satellite systems, even perhaps those of Jupiter and Saturn.
14 Or more than one single explosion.
15 Galileo seems to have supplied at least three alternative paths to reach this goal; once attained the rest follows almost as a
matter of course.
16 The F irst and Second Laws of planetary m otion are found in Johann es Kepler's New Astronomy published in 1609; the
ma teria containing the Third (or the Harmonic) Law occurs in his Harmony of the Worlds published in 1618, some twenty years
prior to the publication of Galileo's Dialogues Concerning The New Sciences. Applying Kepler's Third law in Galileo's astronomical
application of the semi-parab ola therefore causes no difficulties historically. Galileo's adherence to mean circular motion is also
relevan t in this sam e con text.
17 Ha rmonie Un iversalle, second livre des mouvemen ts, prop. 6.p.103 , Paris, 1936 . The un critical acceptance of M ersenne's
analysis appears to have und uly influenced subsequent com men tators.
18 The Dialogues Concerning The New Sciences, Fourth Day, [282-283 ] translated by Hen ry Crew and Antonio de Salvio, 1914,
pp. 259-26 0. the "sublimity" (the distance ae) may be understood to be the distan ce between the vertex and the directrix for the
parabo la in both terrestrial and astrono mical contexts.

REFERENCES
Drake, S., (1986) Anna ls of Science, 43, 77-79.
Galilei, G. Dialogues Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, translated by Stillman D rake. 2nd Revised Edition, Berkeley
and Los Angeles, 1967.
Galilei, G. Dialogues Concerning The New Sciences, translated by Henry Crew and Antonio de Salvio, Dover, New York,
1954.
M ersenne, M . Ha rmonie Un iversalle, Paris, 1636.