The late origins of the timeline, or: three paradoxes explained

Annals of Science 82 (1):1-43 (2025)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We are all used to drawing straight lines to represent time, and above them, we plot historical events or physical or economic data. What to us is a self-evident convention, is however of an astonishingly recent date: it emerged only in the second half of the eighteenth century. To us, this late date seems paradoxical and cries out for an explanation. How else did earlier periods measure change, if not as a function of time? it will be argued that since Antiquity, time was taken to measure change, and change to occur in space. ‘Our’ idea of representing time as an independent dimension would have seemed aberrant. But then, a second issue arises. Did not medieval natural philosophers employ timelines, Oresme’s diagram of the mean speed theorem being the most famous case? However, as will be shown, our interpretation of his diagram is probably wrong. This insight, in turn, takes care of a third paradox, namely Galileo’s initial inability to represent the law of free fall correctly. This article will document that the timeline first emerged in the late sixteenth century in works on chronology, made its first appearance in physics in Galileo’s diagrams, and had its general breakthrough in the eighteenth century.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,486

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-02-05

Downloads
38 (#622,493)

6 months
11 (#246,005)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Christoph Lüthy
Radboud University Nijmegen

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references