My Galileo Challenge

[TLK Valentine]

TLK, simple question:

In 1633, what was the consensus of opinion among astronomers on the configuration of the solar system?

Inside the Church's sphere of influence: whatever the Church said it was.
Outside The Church's sphere of influence: heliocentric.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Inside the Church's sphere of influence: whatever the Church said it was.
Outside The Church's sphere of influence: heliocentric.

A study of history in depth would help

"Although the basic tenets of Greek geocentrism were established by the time of Aristotle, the details of his system did not become standard. The Ptolemaic system, developed by the Hellenistic astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus in the 2nd century AD finally standardised geocentrism. His main astronomical work, the Almagest, was the culmination of centuries of work by Hellenic, Hellenistic and Babylonian astronomers. For over a millennium European and Islamic astronomers assumed it was the correct cosmological model. Because of its influence, people sometimes wrongly think the Ptolemaic system is identical with the geocentric model.

It was more prevalent outside of the church and in cultures not even associated with the church......

 

[TLK Valentine]

You should really go back to school and study history.

"Although the basic tenets of Greek geocentrism were established by the time of Aristotle, the details of his system did not become standard. The Ptolemaic system, developed by the Hellenistic astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus in the 2nd century AD finally standardised geocentrism. His main astronomical work, the Almagest, was the culmination of centuries of work by Hellenic, Hellenistic and Babylonian astronomers. For over a millennium European and Islamic astronomers assumed it was the correct cosmological model. Because of its influence, people sometimes wrongly think the Ptolemaic system is identical with the geocentric model.

It was more prevalent outside of the church and in cultures not even associated with the church......

None of which contradicts what I said -- AV's question specifically said "...in 1633..."

You should really read the conversation you're participating in.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

None of which contradicts what I said -- AV's question specifically said "...in 1633..."

You should really read the conversation you're participating in.

Yes, I am sure Galileo raged against his contemporaries because they all believed as he did......

"My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth"

if it was the common belief at the time outside of the church in scientific circles, it would not have been a scientific revolution in thought......

You should think before you speak what you know not......

'Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial during his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[4] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism because of the absence of an observed stellar parallax."

"According to Stephen Hawking, Galileo probably bears more of the responsibility for the birth of modern science than anybody else,[183] and Albert Einstein called him the father of modern science.[184][185]"

Ptolemy's view reigned supreme until Galileo. His own contemporaries refused to even look into the telescope so sure they were that he was incorrect. Not the priests, they looked and tested and repeated and agreed........

Your unsubstantiated hatred of religion has blinded you to the truth...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, I am sure Galileo raged against his contemporaries because they all believed as he did......

"My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth"

if it was the common belief at the time outside of the church in scientific circles, it would not have been a scientific revolution in thought......

You should think before you speak what you know not......

I keep forgetting that there was no such thing as science outside Christendom.

'Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial during his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[4] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism because of the absence of an observed stellar parallax."

"According to Stephen Hawking, Galileo probably bears more of the responsibility for the birth of modern science than anybody else,[183] and Albert Einstein called him the father of modern science.[184][185]"

Ptolemy's view reigned supreme until Galileo. His own contemporaries refused to even look into the telescope so sure they were that he was incorrect. Not the priests, they looked and tested and repeated and agreed........

Your unsubstantiated hatred of religion has blinded you to the truth...

And your blind copy/paste of Wikipedia has caused you to miss the point.

Our understanding pf history can be pretty Eurocentric, although there are people who are seeking to fix that -- and folks such as yourself who illustrate why it needs to be fixed.

 

[AV1611VET]

None of which contradicts what I said -- AV's question specifically said "...in 1633..."

QV please:

In the Christian world prior to Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed either to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth, or the Tychonic system that blended geocentrism with heliocentrism. Nevertheless, following the death of Copernicus and before Galileo, heliocentrism was relatively uncontroversial; Copernicus's work was used by Pope Gregory XIII to reform the calendar in 1582.

Followed by:

Opposition to heliocentrism and Galileo's writings combined religious and scientific objections and were fueled by political events. Scientific opposition came from Tycho Brahe and others and arose from the fact that, if heliocentrism were true, an annual stellar parallax should be observed, though none was.

SOURCE

It appears that Wikipedia is separating Church and Science and saying that the majority of Church was geocentric, while the majority of Science opposed heliocentrism, but blames it on politics.

A poorly-written article.

But I'm already under the impression no one knows who the majority was back in 1633, so I'm free to speculate.

And I speculate that Galileo was indeed ridiculed by his scientific peers for espousing heliocentrism.

 

[TLK Valentine]

QV please:

Followed by:

SOURCE

It appears that Wikipedia is separating Church and Science and saying that the majority of Church was geocentric, while the majority of Science opposed heliocentrism, but blames it on politics.

Gosh, I wonder who held a big share of the political clout back in the day...

A poorly-written article.

Indeed -- not quite the slamdunk you were hoping for, was it? But fret not, I'm certain there's enough ambiguity for a skilled equivocator such as yourself to root around in...

...aaaand here it comes:

But I'm already under the impression no one knows who the majority was back in 1633, so I'm free to speculate.

And I speculate that Galileo was indeed ridiculed by his scientific peers for espousing heliocentrism.

Speculate away, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

Note: this is why science can take a hike.

Research a simple question about what ruled in 1633 -- geocentrism or heliocentrism -- and you have to plod through:

1. Christian vs Science
2. Aristotelian geocentric view
3. Tychonic system that -- LOL -- blends both geocentrism and heliocentrism
4. After Copernicus, but before Galileo, heliocentrism was uncontroversial (whatever that means)
5. Opposition was fueled by politics (whatever that's supposed to mean)
6. And Tycho Brahe gets thrown in for whatever reason

And all I want is one single word: "geocentrism" or "heliocentrism"!

No wonder the Challenger blew up, the Deepwater Horizon sank, and Three Mile Island & Chernobyl glow in the dark.

-- Science can take a hike, and take its verbose, chatty-cathy, Philadelphia lawyer technoblab with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gosh, I wonder who held a big share of the political clout back in the day...

What's politics have to do with anything?

I want to know what the consensus of opinion was ... and couldn't care less how it was reached.

We're talking about a man who almost was burned at the stake ... and you're saying it's because his scientific peers were in bed (in a manner of speaking) with politicians!?

And if it was the politicians, why is the Catholic church blamed?

 

[TLK Valentine]

What's politics have to do with anything?

You really don't know, do you?

I want to know what the consensus of opinion was ... and couldn't care less how it was reached.

We're talking about a man who almost was burned at the stake ... and you're saying it's because his scientific peers were in bed (in a manner of speaking) with politicians!?

And if it was the politicians, why is the Catholic church blamed?

Again, you really don't know who held political power back in the day? How droll.

 

[AV1611VET]

You really don't know, do you?

And judging from your *ahem* answers, you don't either.

Again, you really don't know who held political power back in the day? How droll.

Then why wasn't politics on the side of Galileo?

And where were Galileo's heliocentric friends at, while Galileo was on trial for his life?

I take it they were either cowards, or they were stumbling around wondering if they were Aristotelian this or Tychonic that? or both?

I mean, why put your life on the line for something you're not sure you know what you are?

 

[SkyWriting]

So that makes you a chemist.
Are there chemical beliefs that don't agree with the Bible?

Turning water into wine and water pouring out of rock face
are a couple of events with no clear chemical explanation.
Oh and the dead walking after death. Here is what one amature chemist Martha
noted in scripture:

38 Jesus, once again deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39“Take away the stone,” Jesus said.

“Lord, by now he stinks,” said Martha, the sister of the dead man. “It has already been four days.”

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Inside the Church's sphere of influence: whatever the Church said it was.
Outside The Church's sphere of influence: heliocentric.

What are you talking about? In the 17th century the only place where people were debating Heliocentrism was Europe. The rest of the world was firmly geocentric. The Islamic astronomers were working from the same Ancient Greek sources, and had also denied Ptolemy, but their models were also geocentric. In India there was a model not unlike Tycho Brahe's.

That one or two old Islamic astronomers though Aristarcus might be right, this paradigm never became dominant in the Islamic world and was never properly articulated.

Heliocentrism isn't obvious. From the earth, the solar system looks geocentric at first glance. With careful observation, some inconsistencies appear, the attempt to unravel of which, led step by step to Heliocentrism. It is an involved process, which happened few and far between. It was more a hope of getting symmetry instead of epicycles, that made Aristarchus propose it (his circles didn't work either though, hence it languished until Copernicus made them ellipsoid).

Trying to pin some Eurocentrism here is silly. The Europeans were the only Heliocentrists on Earth at that stage. While the Catholic Church did condemn it, this was far from a foregone conclusion, and one they tacitly regretted - Copernicus' works were placed on the index of banned works, but an exception was made for calendrical determinations, ie. they knew he was right, but it had become politically inexpedient to say so, after Galileo's public trial. That trial was more a witchhunt by his enemies, than an attempt to muzzle science or propogate theology.

Only about 50-70 years later did everyone agree Heliocentrism was valid, due to Kepler and Newton, and only confirmed observationally in the 18th and 19th centuries; but at the time of the trial, it was still debatable scientifically if this was the case.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And did it ever occur to you that some scientists would agree with that?

And they didn't do so because of scientific reasons, it was because of religion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Our understanding pf history can be pretty Eurocentric, although there are people who are seeking to fix that -- and folks such as yourself who illustrate why it needs to be fixed.

Oh yes, I am quite aware that there are people that seek to rewrite history to fit their own ends. That think they understand history better than the people that lived it and recorded it.

On that we agree 100%......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And they didn't do so because of scientific reasons, it was because of religion.

No, they didn’t do so because of the absence of an annual stellar parallax, and other scientific reasons.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What are you talking about? In the 17th century the only place where people were debating Heliocentrism was Europe. The rest of the world was firmly geocentric. The Islamic astronomers were working from the same Ancient Greek sources, and had also denied Ptolemy, but their models were also geocentric. In India there was a model not unlike Tycho Brahe's.

That one or two old Islamic astronomers though Aristarcus might be right, this paradigm never became dominant in the Islamic world and was never properly articulated.

Heliocentrism isn't obvious. From the earth, the solar system looks geocentric at first glance. With careful observation, some inconsistencies appear, the attempt to unravel of which, led step by step to Heliocentrism. It is an involved process, which happened few and far between. It was more a hope of getting symmetry instead of epicycles, that made Aristarchus propose it (his circles didn't work either though, hence it languished until Copernicus made them ellipsoid).

Trying to pin some Eurocentrism here is silly. The Europeans were the only Heliocentrists on Earth at that stage. While the Catholic Church did condemn it, this was far from a foregone conclusion, and one they tacitly regretted - Copernicus' works were placed on the index of banned works, but an exception was made for calendrical determinations, ie. they knew he was right, but it had become politically inexpedient to say so, after Galileo's public trial. That trial was more a witchhunt by his enemies, than an attempt to muzzle science or propogate theology.

Only about 50-70 years later did everyone agree Heliocentrism was valid, due to Kepler and Newton, and only confirmed observationally in the 18th and 19th centuries; but at the time of the trial, it was still debatable scientifically if this was the case.

You should know by now that facts and truth don’t matter to those that hate religion and seek to promote their hate into the history books.....

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh yes, I am quite aware that there are people that seek to rewrite history to fit their own ends. That think they understand history better than the people that lived it and recorded it.

On that we agree 100%......

As long as we understand that there was an entire world that existed outside Europe and the Catholic Church... how else can you explain those Islamic astronomers exploring a heliocentric system centuries before Galileo...

Of course, the real (European) credit for heliocentricism should go to Copernicus... De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium offered mathematical backing for a sun-centered solar system.

Of course, Copernicus managed to escape most of the ire Galileo received, mostly because:

1. It was published the year of his death, meaning he wasn't around to receive too much ire.
2. Years earlier, Copernicus decided to distribute his main thesis anonymously among fellow astronomers... none of whom seemed to object to his math.
3. A page-turner, it was not. It was highly technical, a dull read, a poor seller, and on the whole, was a mathematics text about as popular as... well, a mathematics text.

Not to say he got off scot-free... Martin Luther was no fan of the idea, even when it was anonymous: "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon ... This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

And of course, the Church weighed in some 70 years after Copernicus' death: "This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicholaus Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and by Diego de Zúñiga's In Job ... Therefore, in order that this opinion may not creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus [De revolutionibus] and Diego de Zúñiga [In Job] be suspended until corrected."

Those "corrections" included specifying that heliocentricism was only a hypothesis, which meant removing Copernicus' claims of certainty from the text. The math spoke for itself, but people didn't start listening until later...

...but I digress.


Now, you and I both know that very few scientific discoveries come completely out of the blue -- many scientists look at the work that came before them, and simply take the next step. after Copernicus, Tycho Brahae and Johannes Kepler seemed on the same track as Muʾayyad al-Dīn al-Urḍi, who proposed elliptical, not circular orbits, for the planets (including Earth, of course)... but Al-Urdi couldn't back up his observations with math -- neither could Brahae; Kepler could.

But I'm probably not telling you anything you didn't already know, amirite?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then why wasn't politics on the side of Galileo?

Because the Church was politics -- just like it is now, only stronger.

And where were Galileo's heliocentric friends at, while Galileo was on trial for his life?

Hiding for their own lives, as like as not. You saw where Galileo's ideas got him.

Those in power love to occasional make an example out of one in order to send a message to the others... often, it works.

I take it they were either cowards, or they were stumbling around wondering if they were Aristotelian this or Tychonic that? or both?

I mean, why put your life on the line for something you're not sure you know what you are?

Science isn't really a martyr factory... you're confusing it with religion.

But I do find your dichotomy amusing, AV -- I know all about your martyr fetish, but those who don't die for their beliefs are cowards?

You're still alive -- what does that make you?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You should know by now that facts and truth don’t matter to those that hate religion and seek to promote their hate into the history books.....

projecting again?