Two New Sciences

It has become a habit with me that I read more than one book at a time. I never used to, in fact it confused me when I would try. But not any longer. I find that having several books on hand at once (and completely of different character) makes getting through all of them much easier. I am knee deep in three books at the moment, but the one I am choosing to write about now is the one I consider the most "difficult" of the three. It is the one I only read when I am wide awake, and very clear headed as it was written originally in 1665, and originally in Latin. I am reading an English translation of course, and the book is titled Two New Sciences and was written by Galileo. (The same Galileo that discovered the moons of Jupiter, and was forgiven for...whatever by the Roman Catholic Church in 1996 I think.)
Anyway, in an attempt to be honest, I am a quarter way into the book and have no idea what the first "new science" is. It's hard to tell what was cutting edge "new" science in the late 1600's from my position in time.
But my interest in not in discovering whatever genius Galileo had to impart on his readers, but more the...spirit, or historical value of his writing. I'm more interested in "listening" to Galileo speak, and admiring how his brain worked than what he thought. (Or maybe it's just me inadvertently admitting that I don't get all of what he's saying?)
Anyway, so far, the thing I find the most interesting is that the book is written as a dialogue. It's basically a discussion between three men; Simplicio, Sagredo, and Salviati. Galileo is not a "speaker" although he is referenced by the men as the Academician, and they are obviously discussing his ideas.
They are having a conversation, and trying to explain to each other the parts of Galileo's ideas (i.e. the Academican) the other doesn't understand.
One will begin by telling a story, or giving an analogy for a given point, and the others will be amazed by it, and confused and need clarification. For example Sagredo says. "My brain already reels. My mind like a cloud momentarily illuminated by a lightning-flash, is for an instant filled with an unusual light, which now beckons to me, and which suddenly mingles and obscures strange, crude ideas." (At this point I'm thinking to myself, "Dude! I am totally with you!") And so the dialogue progresses. Explanation, question, etc.
So far they have spent a fair amount of time talking about hemp rope and explaining why twisting it makes it stronger than each of the fibers it is made of. To be fair, while I don't really get what the "new science" part is about, I do now thoroughly understand why twisting rope makes it strong. And reading that the characters feel confused makes me feel slightly less idiotic. And that's nice. Maybe that was the point? I have no idea why you would write a scientific treatise as a dialogue, but I don't know who Galileo's audience was either. And maybe they were a lot like me? You know, 30-something geologists, who have nothing better to do than read books that were written hundreds of years ago:)
Anyway, I'll keep you posted on how the rest of the book goes. This is only my second attempt to read classic historical science, and well, it's a bit of a bear to weed through the language and ideas. At least for me, and my brain.