Galileo

[JohnR7]

Where do you get this info? Hate to tell you, Hollywood is a BAD source. Your own imagination is worse. It was generally accepted among educated men and women that the world was round in the 1400s.

The Greeks knew the earth was round in 400 bc. The Chaldeans knew the earth was round in 2000 bc.

The Chaldean Book of Numbers is taken from the same "old book" which was used as the basis of the Secret Doctrine. The original of it served as the basis of the Kabbalah of the Jews. In it is stated that "The one Universal Light, which to man is Darkness, is ever existent." Again, "The Blessed Ones have nought to do with the purgations of matter." "In the beginning of time the great invisible one had his holy hands full of celestial matter which he scattered throughout infinity; and lo, behold! it became balls of fire, and balls of clay; and they scattered like the moving metal (quicksilver) into many smaller balls, and began their ceaseless turning; and some of them which were balls of fire became balls of clay; and the balls of clay became balls of fire; and the balls of fire were waiting their turn to become balls of clay; and the others envied them and bided their time to become balls of pure divine fire." An epitome of the arts and sciences, not only of the Chaldeans, but also of the Assyrians and Canaanites of pre-historic ages, by a Babylonian Adept, Qu-tamy (who said he was instructed by the idol of the moon)(11) has been published under the title Nabathean Agriculture. The Nabatheans were descendants of Ham, who settled in Babylonia under the leadership of Nimrod (the mighty hunter of Genesis x, 9-10) and the sect is similar to the Nazarenes, whose city Nazareth wasthe birthplace of Jesus.

http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/ancientlandmarks/BabyloniaAndAssyria.html

 

[Volos]

Originally Posted By: Darwin's Bulldog

I suppose you have studied all pagan religions? I think it would depend more on the individual religion but truely religious greeks truly believed in the real world existence of spirtual realms, take haties or mt olympious. These where thought to be real world places.

My studies of Pagan religion and spirituality have been largely confined to the Indo-European cultures. (and Finnish as well the Kalevala is an interesting read).

Like Other Indo-European cultures the ancient Greeks used mountains (specifically the highest local mountain such as Mt. Olympus) as a metaphor for the meeting place between the physical world and the upper world or the realm of the Gods. Wells and springs have a similar function for connecting the physical world with the underworld or the spiritual world. Mt. Olympus was simply the local highest mountain and it is easily scaled. The ancients knew that Olympus as in the realm of the Gods was not physically on Mt. Olympus rather because it was the highest mountain it was the closest to the heavens.

I think Volos, makes a valid point that the Catholics adopted it (from the pagan romans), and perhaps the earlier christians followed greek thinking (helocentric).

Regardless it was adopted by catholics, threw the pagan romans, that the universe was geocentric.

So it is not a lie.

Did you read what I posted?

The Ancient Pagans did not believe the universe was geocentric, the ancient Greeks had correctly identified that the solar systems was heliocentric. The Romans certainly knew this. They weren’t the only ones.

 

[ThePhoenix]

The Greeks knew the earth was round in 400 bc. The Chaldeans knew the earth was round in 2000 bc.

http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/ancientlandmarks/BabyloniaAndAssyria.html[/QUOTE]
I meant that it was general knowledge at the time. I didn't mean to imply that it was discovered then, simply that Columbus was hardly some enterprising pioneer fighting for reason against the forces of ignorance.

 

[Freodin]

The reason why the Portuguese did not employ Columbus was because they knew that the world was round, and what its size was. The Portuguese started their expeditions long before Columbus, and had a large experience in navigation.
Columbus used a calculation of the earth´s size that was only a third of it´s real size. It was only luck that he hit land at exactly the range he assumed he would. If the Americas had not existed, we would never have heard from him again.

 

[JohnR7]

Columbus used a calculation of the earth´s size that was only a third of it´s real size. It was only luck that he hit land at exactly the range he assumed he would. If the Americas had not existed, we would never have heard from him again.

I thought that Columbus was looking for a new trade route to India. At the time they always followed the land. It was sort of a bold move to sail out into the open sea like that.

Even today they could save up to three hours of flying time to Asia if they went up over the North Pole, but they don't. The pilots just consider it to be to much of a risk. If at all possible they will not fly out over the open sea, they would rather stay over land. That is why when you go to Hong Kong, you fly over Alaska and down the China coast. So they are never to far from a airport, if they should run into trouble.

 

[ZiSunka]

Now when you read about God on High and Jesus ascending into heaven and coming down from Heaven, you'll know where the notions comes from.

Do some of you think of Jesus or any heavenly body, as literally comming down to earth from heaven?

Looking for God in this physical universe is like looking for a 747 inside a tuna can. He isn't physically within this universe, this universe is within HIM. He's not on any planet or stars, because they aren't big enough to accomodate Him.

You often hear the question, "What is beyond this universe?" The answer is, "God."

 

[lucaspa]

That would be like asking George the Mechanic what his opinion is of Biology. Cosmas was known for his travels and his tales of far away lands. He had no training in astronomy, nor did anyone take him serious. People most likely thought most of his stuff was fiction. Right up there with tales of Mermaids and Sea Dragons.

I notice you put no sources for this information. Making it up as you go along again? What is your source for no one taking him seriously?

Even if they did not, that is hardly relevant to the discussion at hand. The contention is that the Bible teaches a flat earth if read literally. Well, Cosmas read the Bible literally and came up with a flat earth. If no one took him seriously, you have just told us that reading the Bible literally was already not taken seriously. So why do you do it?

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/awiesner/cosmas.html
"It proceeds from postulates upon which the validity of each step of the contruction is ultimately grounded. On the other hand, these *postulates* are like no other. They derive entirely from the Christian bible, and the truth of Cosmas' construction, therefore, derives from the self-evidence of scripture. Cosmas represents a strange confluence of Greek scientific and early Christian theological ideals."

You can find the work yourself at that site. It makes a fascinating read. Look at all the Biblical verses he uses.

" NOTE This is the first heaven, shaped like a vaulted chamber, which was created on the first day along with the earth, and of it, Isaiah speaks thus: He that hath established the heaven as a vaulted chamber. (2) But the heaven, which is bound to the first at the middle, is that which was created on the second day, to which Isaiah refers when he says: And having stretched it out as a tent to dwell in. (3) David also said concerning it: Stretching out the heaven as a curtain, (4) and indicating it still more clearly he says: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters (5). Now, when scripture speaks of the extremities of heaven and earth, this can not be understood as applicable to a sphere. Isaiah again says: Thus saith the Lord, he that made the heaven and pitched it; (6) and the apostle in like manner says: Of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man. (7) They both speak of the heaven as standing on and fixed on earth, and not as revolving round it. Nay more, the extremities of the heaven are bound together with the extremities of the earth, and on both sides, and concerning this it is written in Job: And He inclined heaven to earth and the earth is poured out as dust, and I have fastened it as a square block to a stone. (8) And with regard to the earth it is again written in Job: He that hangeth the earth upon nothing; (9) meaning, that it had nothing underneath it. And David in harmony with this, when he could discover nothing on which it was founded says: He hath founded the earth upon its own stability (10) , as if he said, it hath been founded by thee upon itself, and not upon anything else. "

Quotes even more Biblical verses that you do, John.

 

[lucaspa]

I thought that Columbus was looking for a new trade route to India. At the time they always followed the land. It was sort of a bold move to sail out into the open sea like that.

He was. But the trade route that hugged the land around Africa was already controlled by the Portuguese. To take a Spanish ship along that route was to have it attacked and sunk by the Portugese. They were very jealous of their sea monopoly on trade to the east.

So Columbus had to strike out straight west to avoid the Portugese. As Freodin said, if the Americas had not been there, Columbus would have run out of water and food and simply died out in the middle of a very large ocean.

 

[JohnR7]

The contention is that the Bible teaches a flat earth if read literally.

Nonsense.

Answer a question for me though. Do you have both a Phd and a MD?

 

[lucaspa]

The Greeks knew the earth was round in 400 bc. The Chaldeans knew the earth was round in 2000 bc.

http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/ancientlandmarks/BabyloniaAndAssyria.html

You should have kept reading, or at least quoting. Right below the paragraph you used is:

"The Seven Tablets of Creation, greatly mutilated and incomplete, found at Nineveh by the Assyriologist George Smith in 1872, read as follows:

When above were not raised the heavens:
And below the earth was not called by name, "

Now we are back to a flat earth again.​

BTW, you should read further on the site, John, and you will understand Genesis 1 a lot better.​

"The similarities between Genesis and the far older Chaldean records are so striking that one cannot escape the conclusion that Babylonia was the source of the Old Testament writing. In both accounts darkness precedes light, all is chaos, "without form, and void," and water fills the great deep of Space. "The Spirit of God" that "moved upon the face of the deep" in Genesis is the same as the Chaldean Ea, the god of wisdom. The "waters" are the divine Akasa, or Æther, which in course of time became the visible waters of earth,"​

Thank you for finding such a fine site that backs my point that Genesis 1 is not literal but is intended to reduce the Babylonian gods to created entities!​

"The word translated "God" in the first chapter of Genesis is the Logos, the Elohim -- a plural word, and refers to the host of builders -- the Dhyan Chohans or angels, of whom there were many orders, some high and some low. The lower angels, among whom was Jehovah, made the animal form of man, the man of dust, mentioned in the second chapter. The higher angels, represented by "Light" in Gen. i, 3, made the ethereal man, sometimes spoken of as the "archetypal man," or Adam. This is the immortal first race of Theosophy. The first animals (belonging to what is called the Primal Creation) are the sacred animals of the zodiac, the "great whale" of verse 21 referring to the zodiacal sign of Capricorn -- the leviathan of the Hebrews. It is possible to trace in Genesis the orderly development of the elements -- not the elements of science, but their originals. Since there are seven planes there must be seven elements, of which ether is the fifth, the "waters" of space. The element of fire is represented by light (verse 3). The word "firmament" (verse 7) should be translated "expanse," the word used to express the idea of "air" which passes everywhere unobstructed. After this appears the water and lastly the earth. The elements having been evolved for the building up of forms, we may now trace the various kingdoms. The earth undoubtedly answers tothe mineral kingdom, the basis for all the rest. In verse II, we have the three divisions of the vegetable kingdom, corresponding to the three geological periods known as the age of cryptogams, the phænogams, and the fruit trees. "The moving creature that hath life" (verse 20), should be "swimming and creeping creatures," agreeing with the zoological order of fishes (mollusks) and reptiles. Then come the birds, the beasts and cattle of the field. We must remember that Genesis has been incorrectly translated and tampered with, just as happened to the Chaldean tablets, and without the key which Theosophy furnishes, it cannot be understood or properly interpreted. While in the first chapter of Genesis what is there called man is created after the animals, in the second chapter man, that is, the human form, is created first: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and man became a living soul." Now there were two versions of creation among the Babylonians; and Prof. Jastrow points out that the resemblance of the second Babylonian version to the second chapter of Genesis extends even to certain phrases which they have in common. "And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up" (verse 5) might serve almost as a translation of the second line of the Babylonian counterpart. Read in its true esoteric sense, chapter one of Genesis contains the history of the first Three Rounds, as well as the first Three Races of the Fourth, up to the moment when Man is called to self-consciousness by the Sons of Wisdom. In chapter two, Adam comes first, so at the beginning of the Fourth Round on Globe D, Man is the first to appear. Even the state of mental torpor and unconsciousness of the first two races, and of the first half of the Third Race, is symbolized in Genesis ii, by the deep sleep of Adam. "​

You know what John? I think you found a site that falsifies Genesis. Rather than being about a real deity, Genesis 1 and 2, according to the guy you quoted, are simply retellings of the Babylonian creation stories!

Good work!! You earned your atheist pay today!

​

 

[ObbiQuiet]

When you start off with a lie like that, don't expect that people are going to pay any attention to the rest of what your saying.

John, it wasn't a lie, but a logical assumption.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well Galileo and many other scientists were persecuted by the Church for various reasons. Galileo is admittedly by many experts considered to have been persecuted for his science.

It is known to everyone that Galileo was denounced to the Inquisition in 1615 and that he was tried and condemned by the Inquisition in 1633, living the rest of his life under house arrest. All of this was for Copernicanism, not for any heretical theological views.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/galilei_gal.html

Lucas Pa's view is half-way correct but misses some key points. While it is true the Church never outlawed science outright or condemned anyone for the charge of doing science: the Church would still scientists for holding opinions contrary to dogma and restricted thought.

Whenever the Church punished a scientist though the charge was always called heterodoxy, not science, since "true science" never conflicted with the Church...of course.

 

[lucaspa]

Nonsense.

Nope. That is the claim, John. Why didn't you address the verses Cosmas used?

Answer a question for me though. Do you have both a Phd and a MD?

Not until you start answering mine. This one way street ends now.

For instance, you can start by addressing the quotes and the implications of the website http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/ancientlandmarks/BabyloniaAndAssyria.html that I posted above.

You can also address the quote from Cosmas book and start showing us how the verses he quoted do not indicate a flat earth.

 

[lucaspa]

Well Galileo and many other scientists were persecuted by the Church for various reasons. Galileo is admittedly by many experts considered to have been persecuted for his science.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/galilei_gal.html

Lucas Pa's view is half-way correct but misses some key points. While it is true the Church never outlawed science outright or condemned anyone for the charge of doing science: the Church would still scientists for holding opinions contrary to dogma and restricted thought.

Whenever the Church punished a scientist though the charge was always called heterodoxy, not science, since "true science" never conflicted with the Church...of course.

Please document that. Names of scientists charged with heterodoxy, when, and what the sentences were.

This vague claim of censorship is always thrown around in these discussions, but I've never found any substantiation.

What other scientists were persecuted? And don't say Bruno. I've got the goods on that one and it won't fly.

Yes, the Church made an error. It made a scientific theory part of its theology and some within the Church were theologically threatened. However, this was at a time when there were no precedents in the relationship of religion and science and so no one knew this was a mistake. It was from this affair that the Catholic Church learned not to do this. Notice that they did not make special creation part of Catholic theology.

However, what gets overlooked in all this is that Galileo was lucky. He is vindicated solely in hindsight. By data he didn't collect or analyze! At the time, heliocentrism fit the data worse than geocentrism and therefore there were solid scientific reasons for rejecting Galileo's dogmatic statements. If Galileo had presented his work today, he would have gotten just as cold, if not colder, reception. It is probable that some research money would have been allocated to projects testing heliocentrism further (just like money was given to plate tectonics in the 1920s and 30s), but Galileo's grand pronouncements would have received the equivalent of house arrest from the scientific community. He simply did not have the data to back up his claims.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Please document that. Names of scientists charged with heterodoxy, when, and what the sentences were.

This vague claim of censorship is always thrown around in these discussions, but I've never found any substantiation.

What other scientists were persecuted? And don't say Bruno. I've got the goods on that one and it won't fly.

Bruno, yes I will mention him why not? Do you think he dserved being tortured and burned at the stake for expressing his views?

There is Bruno:http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/People/bruno.html


Also the actual reasons for Bruno's execution i.e. the charges are largely unknown because of Bruno's missing person's record.

It is often maintained that Bruno was executed because of his Copernicanism and his belief in the infinity of inhabited worlds. In fact, we do not know the exact grounds on which he was declared a heretic because his file is missing from the records. Scientists such as Galileo and Johannes Kepler were not sympathetic to Bruno in their writings.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24015&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

There is Roger Bacon:http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial96/breu/bacon.html



William of Occam:http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial96/breu/ockham.html






Galileo: http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial95/

Barocius [Barozzi], Franciscus: http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/barocius.html

Campanella, Tommaso: http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/campnela.html

Magni, Valeriano: http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/magni.html

Vanini, Giulio Cesare:

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/vanini.html

Servetus, Michael: http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/servetus.html

Yes, the Church made an error. It made a scientific theory part of its theology and some within the Church were theologically threatened.

The Pope included. http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/newsite/galileo/chr/urban_viii.html

And some chief Catholic officials: http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Bio/narrative_7.html

Also do you have any evidence that only a small minority of Catholics at that time felt threatened by the heliocentric system?

However, this was at a time when there were no precedents in the relationship of religion and science and so no one knew this was a mistake.

Actually they did have a precedence, it was called the inquisition and it had been dealing with heretics for centuries.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn.htm

It was from this affair that the Catholic Church learned not to do this. Notice that they did not make special creation part of Catholic theology.

No just because today the Church is officially ok with evolution (though not abiogenesis nor the development of the earth from something other then ex nihilo) does not mean creationism was never part of church theology. In facy ot was, which is why 45 percent of Catholics in the US are young-earth creationists and why there was so much controversy.

However, what gets overlooked in all this is that Galileo was lucky. He is vindicated solely in hindsight. By data he didn't collect or analyze! At the time, heliocentrism fit the data worse than geocentrism and therefore there were solid scientific reasons for rejecting Galileo's dogmatic statements.

No, Galileo wasn't lucky: he was right. The heliocentric system had its faults, but it was better then the geocentric.

Galileo's theories were based on the best, most cutting edge evidence at the time, including the telescope:

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Astronomy96/

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial95/

Also the Church didn't enter into all academic disputes at the time, even where the evidence was sketchy.

More likely then the excuse of lack of evidence, the Church was upset about the religious implications of Galileo's worldview:

There was another problem. A stationary Sun and moving Earth also clashed with many biblical passages. Protestants and Catholics alike often dismissed heliocentrism on these grounds. Martin Luther did so in one of his "table talks" in 1539, before De Revolutionibus had appeared. (Preliminary sketches had circulated in manuscript form.) In the long run, Protestants, who had some freedom to interpret the bible personally, accepted heliocentrism somewhat more quickly. Catholics, especially in Spain and Italy, had to be more cautious in the religious climate of the Counter Reformation*, as the case of Galileo clearly demonstrates. Christoph Clavius, the leading Jesuit mathematician from about 1570 to his death in 1612, used biblical arguments against heliocentrism in his astronomical textbook.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Things/copernican_system.html

Geocentrism was a theory developed over centuries, it placed man in the center of the universe, united Catholic theology, science and astrology. Basically the whole idea was entrenched in Church theology at the time and any blow to it had massive ramifications that the Church more or less wanted time to prepare for. The Church hence wanted a gradual change in its theology and public ideology.

If Galileo had presented his work today, he would have gotten just as cold, if not colder, reception.

He would have gotten harsh criticisms, maybe. Many people today now propose radicaly new theories, and not all of them are given cold rejections.

Likewise I doubt such a man would be brought forth by a government body, forced to recant his beliefs and then placed under house arrest and told never to speak of the subject again.

If you are aware of this happeining now at days in the west, I'd like to hear about it.

It is probable that some research money would have been allocated to projects testing heliocentrism further (just like money was given to plate tectonics in the 1920s and 30s), but Galileo's grand pronouncements would have received the equivalent of house arrest from the scientific community. He simply did not have the data to back up his claims.

Actually he did have the data to back up his claims, in fact Coopernicus had the data.

The modern day version of "house arrest" is far more lenient under scientists then it was under the Church. Now at days it merely amounts to mere criticism, perhaps even shunning if the person goes way too far. (In fact many leading scientists wished that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann be given lenient treatment for making an honest mistake.)

So far neither man in the cold fusion fiascle has been placed under house arrest, both are still allowed to present their views to the public and both are actually very well off. And both are not only just wrong or have insufficient data, both are very, very obviously wrong.

Is the above really comparable to the Inquisition, that used torture, threats, censorship, imprisonment and execution?

 

[MartinM]

No, Galileo wasn't lucky: he was right. The heliocentric system had its faults, but it was better then the geocentric

Actually, you're both wrong. The Copernican system beat the hell out of the Ptolemaic system, which couldn't handle the phases of Venus, as studied by Galileo himself. It also couldn't handle another of Galileo's discoveries, the moons of Jupiter. The Ptolemaic system held that everything orbited the Earth, with no exception. The existence of Jupiter's moons also falsified one of the geocentrists key arguments - that if the Earth moved, it would leave the Moon behind.

But the Ptolemaic system wasn't the only geocentric model. There was also the Tychonian system, in which the Sun and Moon orbited the Earth, and everything else orbited the Sun. As far as the orbits of the planets and their moons are concerned, this is just heliocentrism wearing a funny hat - the two systems are mathematically equivalent. Compared to the Copernican system, Tycho's model was hopelessly, needlessly complicated. The only thing going for it, besides Church dogma, was the apparent lack of parallax in the distant stars. Galileo correctly argued that this was because the stars were too distant for any such effect to be observable.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

I was well aware of Tycho's model. In fact information about it can be found on one of my links:

The situation was never simple, however. For one thing, late in the sixteenth century Tycho Brahe devised a hybrid geostatic heliocentric system in which the Moon and Sun went around the Earth but the planets went around the Sun. In this system the elegance and harmony of the Copernican system were married to the solidity of a central and stable Earth so that Aristotelian physics could be maintained. Especially after Galileo's telescopic discoveries, many astronomers switched from the traditional to the Tychonic cosmology. For another thing, by 1600 there were still very few astronomers who accepted Copernicus's cosmology. It is not clear whether the execution of Giordano Bruno, a Neoplatonist mystic who knew little about astronomy, had anything to do with his Copernican beliefs. Finally, we must not forget that Copernicus had dedicated De Revolutionibus to the Pope. During the sixteenth century the Copernican issue was not considered important by the Church and no official pronouncements were made.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Things/copernican_system.html

 

[David Gould]

I just wanted to say that while at the very start Fleischman and Pons may have made an honest mistake they did not remain honest about it for very long.

Read 'Cold Fusion: the greastest scientific fiasco in history'.