DavidTopper, “Galileo, sunspots, and the motions of the Earth: Redux”, Isis, xc (1999), 757–67.
2.
PaulR. Mueller, “An unblemished success: Galileo's sunspot argument in the Dialogue”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxxi (2000), 279–99.
3.
StillmanDrake, Galileo studies: Personality, tradition, and revolution (Ann Arbor, 1970), 180–96; SmithMark A., “Galileo's proof for the Earth's motion from the movement of sunspots”, Isis, lxxvi (1985), 543–51; KeithHutchison, “Sunspots, Galileo, and the orbit of the Earth”, Isis, lxxxi (1990), 68–74; DavidTopper, “Galileo, sunspots, and the motions of the Earth: Redux”, Isis, xc (1999), 757–67; idem, “‘I know that what I am saying is rather obscure…’: On clarifying a passage in Galileo's Dialogue”, Centaurus, xlii (2000), 288–96.
4.
Galileo, Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems — Ptolemaic and Copernican, transl. by StillmanDrake (Berkeley, 1967), 355. In fact the situation is more complex than this, and here Mueller makes a mistake. Galileo actually proposed an alternative case of four motions, which I discussed in Topper, op. cit. (ref 3, 2000), but Mueller (p. 290) erroneously asserts that there is only one case.
