Galileo’s Law of Inertia

G. Daniel Goehring
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio 43210

One of the most interesting and important topics in the history

of physics is the development of the concept of inertia. The evolution
of that concept spans the two thousand years from Aristotle to Newton,
and to a great extent, the classical formulation of the law of inertia
signifies the transition from ancient and medieval science to classical
science.
In this paper Galileo’s role in the formulation of the law of inertia
will be examined. Specifically, a common misunderstanding concerning
his conception of the law of inertia and his alleged derivation of
that law will be discussed. A correct interpretation of Galileo’s position
will then provide a better understanding of the development of the
concept of inertia.
The typical textbook presentation begins by correctly pointing out
that before the time of Galileo, it was an accepted principle of
mechanics that a body would remain in motion only as long as something
continued to move it. In other words, it was believed that a force
was required to maintain a body in motion, and that in the absence
of such a force bodies would come to rest. This was certainly a
reasonable position to hold, in that everyday experience provided
a wealth of observations confirming such a principle.
It is usually pointed out, again correctly, that Galileo departed from
this principle, and asserted that in the absence of any resistance causing
it to stop, a body in motion would remain in motion. However, it
is usually incorrectly asserted that Galileo held that this motion would
continue indefinitely in a straight line. In addition to this incorrect
assertion, it is not uncommon to find accounts of demonstrations
that Galileo allegedly employed to derive the rectilinearity of unimped-
ed motion. How far these accounts are from Galileo’s actual position
is not difficult to see upon an examination of Galileo’s writings. It
is, in fact, no secret to most historians of science that Galileo’s principle
of inertia referred to a continuing circular motion rather than to a
continuing rectilinear motion.
To understand Galileo’s position, it is instructive to turn to his
first published statement of a "law of inertia." This announcement
of a principle of inertia occurred in his History and Demonstrations
Concerning Sunspots and Their Phenomena, published in 1613. Here
he states (I):

519
520 School Science and Mathematics

Finally, to some movements they are indifferent, as are these same heavy bodies
to horizontal motion, to which they have neither inclination (since it is not toward
the center of the earth) nor repugnance (since it does not carry them away from
that center). And therefore, all external impediments removed, a heavy body on
a spherical surface concentric with the earth will be indifferent to rest and to
movements toward any part of the horizon. And it will maintain itself in that state
in which it has once been placed; that is, if placed in a state of rest, it will conserve
that; and if placed in movement toward the west (for example), it will maintain
itself in that movement. Thus a ship, for instance, having once received some
impetus through the tranquil sea, would move continually around our globe without
ever stopping; and placed at rest it would perpetually remain at rest, if in the
first case all extrinsic impediments could be removed, and in the second case no
external cause of motion were added.

Clearly, Galileo is asserting that a body at rest "on a spherical surface

concentric with the earth" would, if no net force acted upon it, remain
at rest; and that a body in motion "on a spherical surface concentric
with the earth" would, if all resistive forces were removed, remain
in motion. Furthermore, it is clear that for Galileo horizontal motion
is motion "not toward the center of the earth" nor "away from
that center," i.e., horizontal motion is motion on a spherical surface
having the center of the earth as its center. Thus it is clear that in
this first presentation of his law of inertia, Galileo is referring to
a continuing circular motion rather than to a continuing rectilinear
motion.
In his subsequent writings Galileo does not depart from the ideas
contained in this first announcement of his principle of inertia.
However, a misunderstanding does arise concerning his use of the
term "horizontal," the meaning of which is not specified as clearly
in many passages of his later works.
In these later works, Galileo is misinterpreted as using the term
"horizontal" to refer to tangency to the surface of the earth. A careful
examination of these works, however, makes it clear that Galileo
had in no way changed his use of this term. In his Dialogues Concerning
Two New Sciences, published in 1638, he states (2):
. . . remember that this body experiences no resistance to motion along the horizontal
(because by such a motion the body neither gains nor loses distance from the
common center of heavy things) . . .

Clearly, as in his first publication twenty-five years earlier, horizontal

motion is motion on a spherical surface concentric with the earth.
A careful examination of Galileo’s use of the term "horizontal"
thus reveals that Galileo did not announce the classical law of inertia,
according to which inertial motion is a continuing rectilinear motion,
but rather that he presented a special law of inertia, according to
which inertial motion is a continuing circular motion. It should also
be obvious then that any accounts of demonstrations that Galileo
used to derive the rectilinearity of unimpeded motion are mistaken.
Such accounts involve Galileo’s inclined plane demonstrations. In
 Galileo’s Law of Inertia 521

these accounts he is said to have reasoned that since motion up a

plane decreases and motion down a plane increases, then motion
along a horizontal plane, understood as rectilinear motion, is constant.
These accounts are inaccurate, of course, in that for Galileo such
a horizontal plane turns out to be a spherical surface concentric with
the earth.
Galileo realized that a truly horizontal plane is tangent to the surface
of the earth, and states that (3):
... we suppose the horizontal plane, which slopes neither up nor down, to be
represented by a straight line as if each point on this line were equally distant
from the center, which is not the case; for as one starts from the middle [of
the line] and goes toward either end, he departs farther and farther from the center
[of the earth] and is therefore constantly going uphill. Whence it follows that
the motion cannot remain uniform through any distance whatever, but must continually
diminish.
Thus, as Galileo recognized, such truly horizontal planes are inclined,
and motion along them cannot be constant.
In examining Galileo’s works, it becomes clear that he did not
reach the level of understanding that would have enabled him to
formulate the classical law of inertia. Just as importantly, such an
examination also reveals the conceptual steps that needed to be taken
before the classical law could be formulated.
Galileo was never able to free himself from the Aristotelian view
of a finite universe. Before the perpetual rectilinear motion of the
classical law could be allowed, this traditional view had to be discarded.
Furthermore, Galileo’s physics was never free of the effects of gravity,
i.e., he regarded gravity as an internal property of bodies. His failure
to recognize gravity as an external force acting upon bodies was,
of course, directly related to his failure to recognize that the motion
of a body over a frictionless surface concentric with the earth was
non-inertial motion.
Although it is clear that Galileo failed to reach the level of
understanding that would have enabled him to formulate the classical
law of inertia, his special law did include essential elements of the
classical law. His ideas of a body’s indifference to motion and rest,
and of a body’s conservation of the state of motion or rest it is
once given, were to be embodied in the classical law of inertia. Galileo
is thus properly seen not as having taken the final step, but as having
taken an important step toward the concept of inertia that was to
be formulated in Newton’s first law of motion.
REFERENCES
1. STILLMAN DRAKE, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (Garden City, New York:
Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1957), pp. 113-14.
2. GALILEO GALILEI, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, trans. by Henry Crew
and Alfonso de Salvio (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1954), p. 182.
3. Ibid, pp. 250-51.