Query about the Galileo case

Galois · 28th April 2012, 03:14 PM

Thomas Henry Huxley apparently said that the Church had more evidence on its side than Galileo had on his. Knowing what Huxley thought about the persecution of Galileo, I'd like to know the context in which he made this remark and would really appreciate it if anyone can tell me in which work it appeared. (Huxley was way too prolific for me to flip through.)

Augustus de Morgan supposedly made the same point, and I would also appreciate learning where he expressed this sentiment.

Thanks for any help you can give!

Galois

The Central Scrutinizer · 28th April 2012, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Galois

Thomas Henry Huxley apparently said that the Church had more evidence on its side than Galileo had on his. Knowing what Huxley thought about the persecution of Galileo, I'd like to know the context in which he made this remark and would really appreciate it if anyone can tell me in which work it appeared. (Huxley was way too prolific for me to flip through.)

Augustus de Morgan supposedly made the same point, and I would also appreciate learning where he expressed this sentiment.

Thanks for any help you can give!

Galois

Evidence of what?

Furcifer · 28th April 2012, 04:13 PM

Sorry, I'm more an Aldous Huxley fan myself.

slingblade · 28th April 2012, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

Sorry, I'm more an Aldous Huxley fan myself.

Have you checked your dose of Soma lately for LFBT? It could be in there, you know.

Furcifer · 28th April 2012, 04:38 PM

it's in the milk.

Skeptical Greg · 28th April 2012, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Galois

Thomas Henry Huxley apparently said that the Church had more evidence on its side than Galileo had on his. Knowing what Huxley thought about the persecution of Galileo, I'd like to know the context in which he made this remark and would really appreciate it if anyone can tell me in which work it appeared. (Huxley was way too prolific for me to flip through.)

Augustus de Morgan supposedly made the same point, and I would also appreciate learning where he expressed this sentiment.

Thanks for any help you can give!

Galois

You might want to post your question in the Science or Religion and Philosophy Forums..

The regulars in here think " The Galileo Case " is an episode from Star Trek ...

MG1962 · 28th April 2012, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Galois

Thomas Henry Huxley apparently said that the Church had more evidence on its side than Galileo had on his. Knowing what Huxley thought about the persecution of Galileo, I'd like to know the context in which he made this remark and would really appreciate it if anyone can tell me in which work it appeared. (Huxley was way too prolific for me to flip through.)

Augustus de Morgan supposedly made the same point, and I would also appreciate learning where he expressed this sentiment.

Thanks for any help you can give!

Galois

There were a couple of major issues. First - heliocentric system didn't predict the positions of the planets any better than the existing one. And in one instance Mercury - it was actually less accurate

There was an expectation that parallax errors should be recorded between the planets and the stars - none were seen - we now understand why

Galileo rejected Copernicus' theory but never explained why. In fact in this element he was right - however he was using observation and intuition - he had no mechanism to explain the observations that could conclusively prove him right

Finally - the heliocentric system doesn't work till you invent gravity - As soon as Newton posted his famous calculations - the problem went away.

Also be aware this whole case had less to do with doctrine and science and a lot to do with personal grudges - And Galileo was as much to blame for this as anyone

Gord_in_Toronto · 28th April 2012, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

There were a couple of major issues. First - heliocentric system didn't predict the positions of the planets any better than the existing one. And in one instance Mercury - it was actually less accurate

There was an expectation that parallax errors should be recorded between the planets and the stars - none were seen - we now understand why

Quote:

Galileo rejected Copernicus' theory but never explained why. In fact in this element he was right - however he was using observation and intuition - he had no mechanism to explain the observations that could conclusively prove him right

But he did have his observations of the moons of Jupiter. Just try working them into a geocentric Copernican model. They obviously revolve around Jupiter. Extend the model.

Quote:

Finally - the heliocentric system doesn't work till you invent gravity - As soon as Newton posted his famous calculations - the problem went away.

No need of gravity. Kepler's Laws provide a descriptive model.

Quote:

Also be aware this whole case had less to do with doctrine and science and a lot to do with personal grudges - And Galileo was as much to blame for this as anyone

Yet his trial did revolve around his heresy wrt to the motion of the Earth.

quarky · 28th April 2012, 07:30 PM

Got to wonder, who will be the next in line?

MG1962 · 28th April 2012, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

But he did have his observations of the moons of Jupiter. Just try working them into a geocentric Copernican model. They obviously revolve around Jupiter. Extend the model.

And - what did that prove other than moons revolved around Jupiter just as the Moon revolved around Earth

Quote:

No need of gravity. Kepler's Laws provide a descriptive model.

I hate to break it to you but Galileo was one of the biggest detractors of Kepler. Unfortunately for Kepler the best test of his theory didn't come till a number of years after Galileo's trial

Quote:

Yet his trial did revolve around his heresy wrt to the motion of the Earth.

The heresy charge was the trigger - but that wasn't the real issue - Enemies of Galileo got into Pope Urban's ear and pretty much had Galileo condemned before a shot was fired.

Galileo had a habit of turning supporters against him so I suspect he was either a very forthright person or very egotistical, so the sort of diplomacy he needed to display to hose the issue down was well beyond his desires.

One important element here is also the understanding that the clash with the Catholic Church was a real slow burn situation. From beginning to end was about 1616 to 1633, and in that period he clashed with a Jesuit priest and used Ptolemy's theory to argue against the priest even though the priest was using a variation of Kepler's theory.

In truth I believe Galileo was rebelling against the Aristotelean wet dream that had suddenly consumed western thinking and had sadly embraced by the church over the previous 200 years or so

Gord_in_Toronto · 28th April 2012, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

And - what did that prove other than moons revolved around Jupiter just as the Moon revolved around Earth

And yet Jupiter was supposedly revolving around a stationary Earth. Here was somethings that were not but were revolving around another body. The rule was broken. Just a few steps more . . .

Quote:

I hate to break it to you but Galileo was one of the biggest detractors of Kepler. Unfortunately for Kepler the best test of his theory didn't come till a number of years after Galileo's trial

But you don't need to understand gravity to see the descriptive and predictive results of Kepler's Laws.

Quote:

The heresy charge was the trigger - but that wasn't the real issue - Enemies of Galileo got into Pope Urban's ear and pretty much had Galileo condemned before a shot was fired.

Galileo had a habit of turning supporters against him so I suspect he was either a very forthright person or very egotistical, so the sort of diplomacy he needed to display to hose the issue down was well beyond his desires.

One important element here is also the understanding that the clash with the Catholic Church was a real slow burn situation. From beginning to end was about 1616 to 1633, and in that period he clashed with a Jesuit priest and used Ptolemy's theory to argue against the priest even though the priest was using a variation of Kepler's theory.

In truth I believe Galileo was rebelling against the Aristotelean wet dream that had suddenly consumed western thinking and had sadly embraced by the church over the previous 200 years or so

Galileo was convicted of heresy by the Inquisition and that is the only thing that stands the test of time. Galileo appears to have been a real prick, not too politically smart and in the end saved by his powerful friends.

And yet:

Quote:

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....

—Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992

MG1962 · 28th April 2012, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

And yet Jupiter was supposedly revolving around a stationary Earth. Here was somethings that were not but were revolving around another body. The rule was broken. Just a few steps more . . .

And it proves what to who - Jupiter's moons go around Jupiter. Earth's Moon goes around Earth. It proves nothing else.

Quote:

But you don't need to understand gravity to see the descriptive and predictive results of Kepler's Laws.

So? What did Kepler's law predict that was not already being predicted by the existing theory?

Quote:

Galileo was convicted of heresy by the Inquisition and that is the only thing that stands the test of time. Galileo appears to have been a real prick, not too politically smart and in the end saved by his powerful friends.

So let me see - the highlighted is clearly important to you even though it is wrong. Does the incorrect fact that Columbus thought the world was flat has stood the test of time also makes it correct?

But because I know you will ask - this is what Galileo was found guilty of We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy,

Here is the link of a translation of the verdict

http://web.archive.org/web/200709300...nocchiaro.html

Now just on the assumption you may try to make the case I am splitting straws. If he had been found guilty of outright heresy - He would have been dead in 1633

ponderingturtle · 29th April 2012, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

And it proves what to who - Jupiter's moons go around Jupiter. Earth's Moon goes around Earth. It proves nothing else.

It proves that there are objects in the universe that do not revolve around the earth. That is not accounted for in a geocentric model. How do you attach a celestial sphere to another one like that with out breaking them?

MG1962 · 29th April 2012, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

It proves that there are objects in the universe that do not revolve around the earth. That is not accounted for in a geocentric model. How do you attach a celestial sphere to another one like that with out breaking them?

The planets were not part of the celestial sphere that was reserved for the stars. What's interesting is the celestial sphere was a fairly recent add on to the theory. Previously people had been pretty comfortable with the idea stars may just be examples of the sun seen at great distance.

In Thomas Wright's biography the author references important Catholic pronouncements from the 13th Century that show the Church had completely reversed it's thinking about the sky. Unfortunately the author gives us nowhere near enough information for me to cross check the details

I do think if Galileo ever had a scope good enough to reveal the true nature Saturn it might well have been game over. With Jupiter it was an intuitive leap for Galileo to interpret the left to right motion of Jupiter's Moons as orbits. With Saturn however because of the angle of the rings we can see a 3D representation of orbits

shemp · 29th April 2012, 09:06 AM

Like many great men, Galileo was both a genius and a dick.

MG1962 · 29th April 2012, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by shemp

Like many great men, Galileo was both a genius and a dick.

Although today he is largely remembered for his work in astronomy his contribution in other fields is amazing - He constantly displays an amazing ability for intuitive thinking - when virtually the whole world can not grasp what you are talking about - it can lead to terrible frustration

Gord_in_Toronto · 29th April 2012, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

And it proves what to who - Jupiter's moons go around Jupiter. Earth's Moon goes around Earth. It proves nothing else.

It proves that not all heavenly bodies go around the Earth? Contrary to Ptolemy. Let's add the phases of Venus to the mix. Explain that using the Ptolemaic system.

Quote:

So? What did Kepler's law predict that was not already being predicted by the existing theory?

"Existing theory" = Ptolemy -->

Quote:

The model of the solar system developed by Ptolemy (87 - 150 A.D.) was a refinement of Aristotle's (384 - 322 B.C.) universe. This model consisted of a series of concentric spheres, with the Earth at the center (geocentric). The motions of the Sun, Moon, and stars was based on perfect circles. To account for the observed retrograde motion of the planets, it was necessary to resort to a system of epicycles, whereby the planets moved around small circular paths that in turn moved around larger circular orbits around the Earth.

In its final form, the model was extremely complicated, requiring many nested levels of epicycles, and with even the major orbits offset so that they were no longer truly centered on the Earth. Despite all of this fine tuning, there remained significant discrepancies between the actual positions of the planets and those predicted by the model. Nevertheless, it was the most accurate model available, and it remained the accepted theory for over 13 centuries, before it was finally replaced by the model of Copernicus.

Copernicus replaced the geocentric universe of Ptolemy with one that was centered on the Sun (heliocentric), with only the Moon orbiting the Earth. His model was still based on circular orbits (and therefore still required further refinement), but it was able to achieve superior precision than the Ptolemaic model without the need for epicycles or other complications. The explanation for retrograde motion in this system arises from the fact that the planets further from the sun are moving more slowly in their orbits than those closer to the sun. The retrograde motion of Mars occurs when the Earth passes by the slower moving Mars . . .

http://www.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html
(Highlighting mine.)

Kepler refined Copernicus through his discovery of the elliptical orbits based on Brahe's observations.

Quote:

So let me see - the highlighted is clearly important to you even though it is wrong. Does the incorrect fact that Columbus thought the world was flat has stood the test of time also makes it correct?

Quote:

But because I know you will ask - this is what Galileo was found guilty of We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy,

Here is the link of a translation of the verdict

http://web.archive.org/web/200709300...nocchiaro.html

Now just on the assumption you may try to make the case I am splitting straws. If he had been found guilty of outright heresy - He would have been dead in 1633

Sorry about that. I'm only a dilettante in the History of Science and relied on my memory. Of course, Galileo recanted, so he was not convicted of heresy and put to death. Thus, the most likely apocryphal, "Eppur si muove".

And Pope John Paul II still apologized.

MG1962 · 29th April 2012, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

It proves that not all heavenly bodies go around the Earth? Contrary to Ptolemy. Let's add the phases of Venus to the mix. Explain that using the Ptolemaic system.

By banging in another epicycle - and I am not being flippant - thats exactly they had been doing for some 900 years. And that was fundamental to the approach. Until Newton, it was assumed all astronomy could be explained using just geometry. Even Kepler approached the problem from that mind set

Quote:

"Existing theory" = Ptolemy -->
http://www.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html
(Highlighting mine.)

See my point above

Quote:

Kepler refined Copernicus through his discovery of the elliptical orbits based on Brahe's observations.

And this is an important point - Kepler himself was still refining his calcuations until 1639 - which is after the last trial in '33. If Brahe had not been such a dick Kepler would have gotten his answers a lot sooner and it may have ultimately lead to a whole different outcome

Quote:

Sorry about that. I'm only a dilettante in the History of Science and relied on my memory

Don't sweat it

I am old, I am very familar with memory miss fires lol

Quote:

And Pope John Paul II still apologized.

And so he should have - The Catholic Church was certainly not innocent in all this. A personal vendetta was instigated using Church doctrine, and that's wrong on every level. It fascinates me that it took 50 something years for the Church to suddenly get really bent out of shape over Copernicus' theory, almost at the exact same time someone wanted to shut Galileo up.

I have always had a personal theory that Galileo rather than trying to prove a scientific truth was actually trying to move science away needing to answer to the Church.

For a long time natural philosophers basically had to get their research signed of by the Church before proceeding. Particularly in the medical field this was really holding up some of the most basic of advances.

Galois · 30th April 2012, 03:13 PM

Thanks to everyone who commented on the Galileo case. I believe that even in light of the information available in his day, Galileo’s arguments were much better than those of his opponents. But Thomas Henry Huxley and Augustus De Morgan thought otherwise, and I just wanted to read their statements in context.

A side issue: Galileo could be abrasive, but the arguments his contemporaries brought against him would try anyone’s patience, including that of a modern reader who tries to sort them out.

Galois

HansMustermann · 30th April 2012, 03:38 PM

Just to make it clearer, though,

1. in the end the accuracy of the model is a moot point for that trial, since the only thing that really mattered was that Galileo had been a dick to the pope. There had been narrow minded popes and cardinals, mind you, but Pope Urban VIII had actually been very favourable towards him and heliocentrism, and actually encouraged him to write the book. The pope was not convinced, but not opposed either. So it's hard to explain the flipping around to accusing him of heresy by any other thing than that he flamed and trolled the pope in that book. At any rate, prior to that, obviously he found nothing heretical about the notion. The accusation of heresy was pretty much just manufactured so the pope can show him who's boss.

2. The problem with the moons of Jupiter was bigger than that. It wasn't just that something doesn't revolve around the Earth, but it contradicted a lot of the hare-brained numerological and human-centric reasons in the Aristotelian model.

It may sound like "so what, just change the model" by the scientific method NOWADAYS, but really Aristotle's system wasn't based on such corrections. The idea was more that if the premises make sense to someone really smart, and it's based on solid logic, the result must be true. What those moons showed was that by that method you can arrive at horribly false results.

It may have been a minor point for the Copernican model, but it's really the kind of thing that ultimately precipitated the demise of the old system and helped usher in the scientific method.

MG1962 · 30th April 2012, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by Galois

Thanks to everyone who commented on the Galileo case. I believe that even in light of the information available in his day, Galileo’s arguments were much better than those of his opponents. But Thomas Henry Huxley and Augustus De Morgan thought otherwise, and I just wanted to read their statements in context.

A side issue: Galileo could be abrasive, but the arguments his contemporaries brought against him would try anyone’s patience, including that of a modern reader who tries to sort them out.

Galois

One of the hardest parts of any discussion like this is putting ourselves into the mindset of the people involved as well as the personalities. We only have the writings of the time to base our opinions off - The Church is not going to write anything that puts itself in a bad light and Galileo is not going to talk himself down either.

All up though regardless of your position it is a fascinating moment in history that provides endless musing and complications about events

Craig B · 30th April 2012, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

All up though regardless of your position it is a fascinating moment in history that provides endless musing and complications about events

Here's some musings on the topic by Cardinal Ratzinger, delivered in 1990.

Quote:

From the point of view of the concrete consequences of the turning point Galileo represents, however, C.F. Von Weizsacker takes another step forward, when he identifies a “very direct path” that leads from Galileo to the atomic bomb.
To my great surprise, in a recent interview on the Galileo case, I was not asked a question like, ‘Why did the Church try to get in the way of the development of modern science?’, but rather exactly the opposite, that is: ‘Why didn’t the church take a more clear position against the disasters that would inevitably follow, once Galileo had opened Pandora’s box?’

http://ncronline.org/node/11541 Perhaps he should have been burned like Giordano Bruno, and then that horrid thing "modern science" would never have come into being.

MG1962 · 30th April 2012, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Craig B

Here's some musings on the topic by Cardinal Ratzinger, delivered in 1990. http://ncronline.org/node/11541 Perhaps he should have been burned like Giordano Bruno, and then that horrid thing "modern science" would never have come into being.

Na - The English were very well placed to carry the torch - the science of astronomy through to aiding of Newton with his calculations occurred with very little consideration for Galileo's work

28th April 2012, 03:14 PM	#1
Galois New Blood Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3	Query about the Galileo case Thomas Henry Huxley apparently said that the Church had more evidence on its side than Galileo had on his. Knowing what Huxley thought about the persecution of Galileo, I'd like to know the context in which he made this remark and would really appreciate it if anyone can tell me in which work it appeared. (Huxley was way too prolific for me to flip through.) Augustus de Morgan supposedly made the same point, and I would also appreciate learning where he expressed this sentiment. Thanks for any help you can give! Galois
Galois New Blood Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3

28th April 2012, 03:26 PM	#2
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,266	Originally Posted by Galois Thomas Henry Huxley apparently said that the Church had more evidence on its side than Galileo had on his. Knowing what Huxley thought about the persecution of Galileo, I'd like to know the context in which he made this remark and would really appreciate it if anyone can tell me in which work it appeared. (Huxley was way too prolific for me to flip through.) Augustus de Morgan supposedly made the same point, and I would also appreciate learning where he expressed this sentiment. Thanks for any help you can give! Galois Evidence of what?
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

28th April 2012, 04:36 PM	#4
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Furcifer Sorry, I'm more an Aldous Huxley fan myself. Have you checked your dose of Soma lately for LFBT? It could be in there, you know.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

28th April 2012, 04:51 PM	#6
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by Galois Thomas Henry Huxley apparently said that the Church had more evidence on its side than Galileo had on his. Knowing what Huxley thought about the persecution of Galileo, I'd like to know the context in which he made this remark and would really appreciate it if anyone can tell me in which work it appeared. (Huxley was way too prolific for me to flip through.) Augustus de Morgan supposedly made the same point, and I would also appreciate learning where he expressed this sentiment. Thanks for any help you can give! Galois You might want to post your question in the Science or Religion and Philosophy Forums.. The regulars in here think " The Galileo Case " is an episode from Star Trek ...
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

28th April 2012, 07:21 PM	#8
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,415	Originally Posted by MG1962 There were a couple of major issues. First - heliocentric system didn't predict the positions of the planets any better than the existing one. And in one instance Mercury - it was actually less accurate There was an expectation that parallax errors should be recorded between the planets and the stars - none were seen - we now understand why Quote: Galileo rejected Copernicus' theory but never explained why. In fact in this element he was right - however he was using observation and intuition - he had no mechanism to explain the observations that could conclusively prove him right But he did have his observations of the moons of Jupiter. Just try working them into a geocentric Copernican model. They obviously revolve around Jupiter. Extend the model. Quote: Finally - the heliocentric system doesn't work till you invent gravity - As soon as Newton posted his famous calculations - the problem went away. No need of gravity. Kepler's Laws provide a descriptive model. Quote: Also be aware this whole case had less to do with doctrine and science and a lot to do with personal grudges - And Galileo was as much to blame for this as anyone Yet his trial did revolve around his heresy wrt to the motion of the Earth.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

28th April 2012, 04:13 PM	#3
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Sorry, I'm more an Aldous Huxley fan myself.

28th April 2012, 04:38 PM	#5
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	it's in the milk.

28th April 2012, 05:01 PM	#7
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Galois Thomas Henry Huxley apparently said that the Church had more evidence on its side than Galileo had on his. Knowing what Huxley thought about the persecution of Galileo, I'd like to know the context in which he made this remark and would really appreciate it if anyone can tell me in which work it appeared. (Huxley was way too prolific for me to flip through.) Augustus de Morgan supposedly made the same point, and I would also appreciate learning where he expressed this sentiment. Thanks for any help you can give! Galois There were a couple of major issues. First - heliocentric system didn't predict the positions of the planets any better than the existing one. And in one instance Mercury - it was actually less accurate There was an expectation that parallax errors should be recorded between the planets and the stars - none were seen - we now understand why Galileo rejected Copernicus' theory but never explained why. In fact in this element he was right - however he was using observation and intuition - he had no mechanism to explain the observations that could conclusively prove him right Finally - the heliocentric system doesn't work till you invent gravity - As soon as Newton posted his famous calculations - the problem went away. Also be aware this whole case had less to do with doctrine and science and a lot to do with personal grudges - And Galileo was as much to blame for this as anyone

28th April 2012, 07:30 PM	#9
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Got to wonder, who will be the next in line?
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

28th April 2012, 07:53 PM	#10
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto But he did have his observations of the moons of Jupiter. Just try working them into a geocentric Copernican model. They obviously revolve around Jupiter. Extend the model. And - what did that prove other than moons revolved around Jupiter just as the Moon revolved around Earth Quote: No need of gravity. Kepler's Laws provide a descriptive model. I hate to break it to you but Galileo was one of the biggest detractors of Kepler. Unfortunately for Kepler the best test of his theory didn't come till a number of years after Galileo's trial Quote: Yet his trial did revolve around his heresy wrt to the motion of the Earth. The heresy charge was the trigger - but that wasn't the real issue - Enemies of Galileo got into Pope Urban's ear and pretty much had Galileo condemned before a shot was fired. Galileo had a habit of turning supporters against him so I suspect he was either a very forthright person or very egotistical, so the sort of diplomacy he needed to display to hose the issue down was well beyond his desires. One important element here is also the understanding that the clash with the Catholic Church was a real slow burn situation. From beginning to end was about 1616 to 1633, and in that period he clashed with a Jesuit priest and used Ptolemy's theory to argue against the priest even though the priest was using a variation of Kepler's theory. In truth I believe Galileo was rebelling against the Aristotelean wet dream that had suddenly consumed western thinking and had sadly embraced by the church over the previous 200 years or so
	Last edited by MG1962; 28th April 2012 at 07:54 PM.

28th April 2012, 08:20 PM	#11
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,415	Originally Posted by MG1962 And - what did that prove other than moons revolved around Jupiter just as the Moon revolved around Earth And yet Jupiter was supposedly revolving around a stationary Earth. Here was somethings that were not but were revolving around another body. The rule was broken. Just a few steps more . . . Quote: I hate to break it to you but Galileo was one of the biggest detractors of Kepler. Unfortunately for Kepler the best test of his theory didn't come till a number of years after Galileo's trial But you don't need to understand gravity to see the descriptive and predictive results of Kepler's Laws. Quote: The heresy charge was the trigger - but that wasn't the real issue - Enemies of Galileo got into Pope Urban's ear and pretty much had Galileo condemned before a shot was fired. Galileo had a habit of turning supporters against him so I suspect he was either a very forthright person or very egotistical, so the sort of diplomacy he needed to display to hose the issue down was well beyond his desires. One important element here is also the understanding that the clash with the Catholic Church was a real slow burn situation. From beginning to end was about 1616 to 1633, and in that period he clashed with a Jesuit priest and used Ptolemy's theory to argue against the priest even though the priest was using a variation of Kepler's theory. In truth I believe Galileo was rebelling against the Aristotelean wet dream that had suddenly consumed western thinking and had sadly embraced by the church over the previous 200 years or so Galileo was convicted of heresy by the Inquisition and that is the only thing that stands the test of time. Galileo appears to have been a real prick, not too politically smart and in the end saved by his powerful friends. And yet: Quote: Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.... —Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

28th April 2012, 08:39 PM	#12
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto And yet Jupiter was supposedly revolving around a stationary Earth. Here was somethings that were not but were revolving around another body. The rule was broken. Just a few steps more . . . And it proves what to who - Jupiter's moons go around Jupiter. Earth's Moon goes around Earth. It proves nothing else. Quote: But you don't need to understand gravity to see the descriptive and predictive results of Kepler's Laws. So? What did Kepler's law predict that was not already being predicted by the existing theory? Quote: Galileo was convicted of heresy by the Inquisition and that is the only thing that stands the test of time. Galileo appears to have been a real prick, not too politically smart and in the end saved by his powerful friends. So let me see - the highlighted is clearly important to you even though it is wrong. Does the incorrect fact that Columbus thought the world was flat has stood the test of time also makes it correct? But because I know you will ask - this is what Galileo was found guilty of We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, Here is the link of a translation of the verdict http://web.archive.org/web/200709300...nocchiaro.html Now just on the assumption you may try to make the case I am splitting straws. If he had been found guilty of outright heresy - He would have been dead in 1633

29th April 2012, 04:21 AM	#13
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,423	Originally Posted by MG1962 And it proves what to who - Jupiter's moons go around Jupiter. Earth's Moon goes around Earth. It proves nothing else. It proves that there are objects in the universe that do not revolve around the earth. That is not accounted for in a geocentric model. How do you attach a celestial sphere to another one like that with out breaking them?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

29th April 2012, 07:51 AM	#14
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle It proves that there are objects in the universe that do not revolve around the earth. That is not accounted for in a geocentric model. How do you attach a celestial sphere to another one like that with out breaking them? The planets were not part of the celestial sphere that was reserved for the stars. What's interesting is the celestial sphere was a fairly recent add on to the theory. Previously people had been pretty comfortable with the idea stars may just be examples of the sun seen at great distance. In Thomas Wright's biography the author references important Catholic pronouncements from the 13th Century that show the Church had completely reversed it's thinking about the sky. Unfortunately the author gives us nowhere near enough information for me to cross check the details I do think if Galileo ever had a scope good enough to reveal the true nature Saturn it might well have been game over. With Jupiter it was an intuitive leap for Galileo to interpret the left to right motion of Jupiter's Moons as orbits. With Saturn however because of the angle of the rings we can see a 3D representation of orbits

29th April 2012, 09:06 AM	#15
shemp Timothy, Timothy, where on earth did you go? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: trapped in a cave-in with Joe Posts: 12,885	Like many great men, Galileo was both a genius and a dick.
	__________________ Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to tell us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real - compared to what?

29th April 2012, 10:16 AM	#16
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by shemp Like many great men, Galileo was both a genius and a dick. Although today he is largely remembered for his work in astronomy his contribution in other fields is amazing - He constantly displays an amazing ability for intuitive thinking - when virtually the whole world can not grasp what you are talking about - it can lead to terrible frustration

29th April 2012, 12:17 PM	#17
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,415	Originally Posted by MG1962 And it proves what to who - Jupiter's moons go around Jupiter. Earth's Moon goes around Earth. It proves nothing else. It proves that not all heavenly bodies go around the Earth? Contrary to Ptolemy. Let's add the phases of Venus to the mix. Explain that using the Ptolemaic system. Quote: So? What did Kepler's law predict that was not already being predicted by the existing theory? "Existing theory" = Ptolemy --> Quote: The model of the solar system developed by Ptolemy (87 - 150 A.D.) was a refinement of Aristotle's (384 - 322 B.C.) universe. This model consisted of a series of concentric spheres, with the Earth at the center (geocentric). The motions of the Sun, Moon, and stars was based on perfect circles. To account for the observed retrograde motion of the planets, it was necessary to resort to a system of epicycles, whereby the planets moved around small circular paths that in turn moved around larger circular orbits around the Earth. In its final form, the model was extremely complicated, requiring many nested levels of epicycles, and with even the major orbits offset so that they were no longer truly centered on the Earth. Despite all of this fine tuning, there remained significant discrepancies between the actual positions of the planets and those predicted by the model. Nevertheless, it was the most accurate model available, and it remained the accepted theory for over 13 centuries, before it was finally replaced by the model of Copernicus. Copernicus replaced the geocentric universe of Ptolemy with one that was centered on the Sun (heliocentric), with only the Moon orbiting the Earth. His model was still based on circular orbits (and therefore still required further refinement), but it was able to achieve superior precision than the Ptolemaic model without the need for epicycles or other complications. The explanation for retrograde motion in this system arises from the fact that the planets further from the sun are moving more slowly in their orbits than those closer to the sun. The retrograde motion of Mars occurs when the Earth passes by the slower moving Mars . . . http://www.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html (Highlighting mine.) Kepler refined Copernicus through his discovery of the elliptical orbits based on Brahe's observations. Quote: So let me see - the highlighted is clearly important to you even though it is wrong. Does the incorrect fact that Columbus thought the world was flat has stood the test of time also makes it correct? Quote: But because I know you will ask - this is what Galileo was found guilty of We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, Here is the link of a translation of the verdict http://web.archive.org/web/200709300...nocchiaro.html Now just on the assumption you may try to make the case I am splitting straws. If he had been found guilty of outright heresy - He would have been dead in 1633 Sorry about that. I'm only a dilettante in the History of Science and relied on my memory. Of course, Galileo recanted, so he was not convicted of heresy and put to death. Thus, the most likely apocryphal, "Eppur si muove". And Pope John Paul II still apologized.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

29th April 2012, 12:44 PM	#18
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto It proves that not all heavenly bodies go around the Earth? Contrary to Ptolemy. Let's add the phases of Venus to the mix. Explain that using the Ptolemaic system. By banging in another epicycle - and I am not being flippant - thats exactly they had been doing for some 900 years. And that was fundamental to the approach. Until Newton, it was assumed all astronomy could be explained using just geometry. Even Kepler approached the problem from that mind set Quote: "Existing theory" = Ptolemy --> http://www.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html (Highlighting mine.) See my point above Quote: Kepler refined Copernicus through his discovery of the elliptical orbits based on Brahe's observations. And this is an important point - Kepler himself was still refining his calcuations until 1639 - which is after the last trial in '33. If Brahe had not been such a dick Kepler would have gotten his answers a lot sooner and it may have ultimately lead to a whole different outcome Quote: Sorry about that. I'm only a dilettante in the History of Science and relied on my memory Don't sweat it I am old, I am very familar with memory miss fires lol Quote: And Pope John Paul II still apologized. And so he should have - The Catholic Church was certainly not innocent in all this. A personal vendetta was instigated using Church doctrine, and that's wrong on every level. It fascinates me that it took 50 something years for the Church to suddenly get really bent out of shape over Copernicus' theory, almost at the exact same time someone wanted to shut Galileo up. I have always had a personal theory that Galileo rather than trying to prove a scientific truth was actually trying to move science away needing to answer to the Church. For a long time natural philosophers basically had to get their research signed of by the Church before proceeding. Particularly in the medical field this was really holding up some of the most basic of advances.
	Last edited by MG1962; 29th April 2012 at 12:45 PM.

30th April 2012, 03:13 PM	#19
Galois New Blood Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3	On Galileo, Huxley and De Morgan Thanks to everyone who commented on the Galileo case. I believe that even in light of the information available in his day, Galileo’s arguments were much better than those of his opponents. But Thomas Henry Huxley and Augustus De Morgan thought otherwise, and I just wanted to read their statements in context. A side issue: Galileo could be abrasive, but the arguments his contemporaries brought against him would try anyone’s patience, including that of a modern reader who tries to sort them out. Galois
Galois New Blood Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3

30th April 2012, 03:38 PM	#20
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,833	Just to make it clearer, though, 1. in the end the accuracy of the model is a moot point for that trial, since the only thing that really mattered was that Galileo had been a dick to the pope. There had been narrow minded popes and cardinals, mind you, but Pope Urban VIII had actually been very favourable towards him and heliocentrism, and actually encouraged him to write the book. The pope was not convinced, but not opposed either. So it's hard to explain the flipping around to accusing him of heresy by any other thing than that he flamed and trolled the pope in that book. At any rate, prior to that, obviously he found nothing heretical about the notion. The accusation of heresy was pretty much just manufactured so the pope can show him who's boss. 2. The problem with the moons of Jupiter was bigger than that. It wasn't just that something doesn't revolve around the Earth, but it contradicted a lot of the hare-brained numerological and human-centric reasons in the Aristotelian model. It may sound like "so what, just change the model" by the scientific method NOWADAYS, but really Aristotle's system wasn't based on such corrections. The idea was more that if the premises make sense to someone really smart, and it's based on solid logic, the result must be true. What those moons showed was that by that method you can arrive at horribly false results. It may have been a minor point for the Copernican model, but it's really the kind of thing that ultimately precipitated the demise of the old system and helped usher in the scientific method.

30th April 2012, 06:08 PM	#21
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Galois Thanks to everyone who commented on the Galileo case. I believe that even in light of the information available in his day, Galileo’s arguments were much better than those of his opponents. But Thomas Henry Huxley and Augustus De Morgan thought otherwise, and I just wanted to read their statements in context. A side issue: Galileo could be abrasive, but the arguments his contemporaries brought against him would try anyone’s patience, including that of a modern reader who tries to sort them out. Galois One of the hardest parts of any discussion like this is putting ourselves into the mindset of the people involved as well as the personalities. We only have the writings of the time to base our opinions off - The Church is not going to write anything that puts itself in a bad light and Galileo is not going to talk himself down either. All up though regardless of your position it is a fascinating moment in history that provides endless musing and complications about events

30th April 2012, 06:28 PM	#22
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,920	Originally Posted by MG1962 All up though regardless of your position it is a fascinating moment in history that provides endless musing and complications about events Here's some musings on the topic by Cardinal Ratzinger, delivered in 1990. Quote: From the point of view of the concrete consequences of the turning point Galileo represents, however, C.F. Von Weizsacker takes another step forward, when he identifies a “very direct path” that leads from Galileo to the atomic bomb. To my great surprise, in a recent interview on the Galileo case, I was not asked a question like, ‘Why did the Church try to get in the way of the development of modern science?’, but rather exactly the opposite, that is: ‘Why didn’t the church take a more clear position against the disasters that would inevitably follow, once Galileo had opened Pandora’s box?’ http://ncronline.org/node/11541 Perhaps he should have been burned like Giordano Bruno, and then that horrid thing "modern science" would never have come into being.
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,920	Last edited by Craig B; 30th April 2012 at 06:32 PM.

30th April 2012, 07:18 PM	#23
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Craig B Here's some musings on the topic by Cardinal Ratzinger, delivered in 1990. http://ncronline.org/node/11541 Perhaps he should have been burned like Giordano Bruno, and then that horrid thing "modern science" would never have come into being. Na - The English were very well placed to carry the torch - the science of astronomy through to aiding of Newton with his calculations occurred with very little consideration for Galileo's work