5 ms·

> Context: Galileo was the first person to see with his own eyes with his first of the kind self-made telescope the moons that are today known as Galilean moons

> Context: Galileo was the first person to see with his own eyes with his first of the kind self-made telescope the moons that are today known as Galilean moons and recognized them as the satellites of Jupiter in March 1610. Which was not evidence for heliocentrism. In the early 1600s there were seven models floating around: Heraclidean (geo-heliocentric), Ptolemaic, Copernican (heliocentric, pure circles with lots of epicycles), Gilbertian, Tychonic, Ursine, Keplerian. Newton, in his Principia (1687), did not use calculus to present his Universal Graviation: rather it was carefully structured in Aristotelian form, with axioms and deductive logic. Kepler's laws can be deduced from principles. Still no coriollis or parallax. The first inkling of the Earth's motion comes in 1728 when James Bradley detects stellar aberration in γ-Draconis. In 1791 Giovanni Guglielmini finds a 4 mm Coriolis deflection over a 29 m drop, thus providing empirical evidence of rotation. In 1806 Giuseppi Calandrelli publishes "Ozzervatione e riflessione sulla paralasse annua dall’alfa della Lira," reporting parallax in α-Lyrae. So parallax, the chief evidence for the Earth's motion came 250+ years after Galileo. Stellar parallax was considered since at least Aristotle, as he mentions in his On the Heavens (II.14), and since it is not observed then it is reasonable to conclude that there is no motion (it took several thousand years to develop instruments to actually measure it). Galileo's chief problems were (a) he was an egotistical jackass, and (b) he had no evidence for what he was claiming to be true. He was allowed to put forward the Copernican model "suppositionally", i.e., as an hypothesis, and "not absolutely". The latter of which, (b), Galileo admitted in his first deposition (12 April 1633): it was concluded that his book put forward the idea 'absolutely', which is where his conviction comes from. By the late 1600s most folks had switched over to the Keplerian model: not necessarily because they thought it was what was actually happening in reality, but probably because it made the math easier. For a good timeline of events, see (recently late) Michael F. Flynn's "The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown": * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table-of.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-sma... Daniel Whitten's "Matters of Faith and Morals Ex Suppositione" is also an interesting read.

acqq 3y ago
So yes, that's exactly an example of the "guilty Galileo and the good church" false narrative. Many useless claims which don't disprove that his sentence was literally because of: "heresy" ... "that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world" ... "contrary to Holy Scripture" And the church forbade his book as "heresy" for 200 years. He was right. The church was wrong, directly referring to the effing "Holy Scripture" to support its claim and played fighting "heresy", keeping being wrong for 200 years afterwards. It's so clear.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > He was right. Monkeys throwing darts can also (just happen to) be "right" when picking stocks that do well in the market. Galileo had as much evidence in believing Copernicus was right as the monkeys. If he had simply stuck to simply arguing both sides of an hypothesis in his Dialogue, which he was asked to do by the pope in the first place, it would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. Heck, Kepler's stuff was already around for decades, and Galileo completely ignored it (along with Tycho): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems#Omissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Ch... If you want to argue 'for science' then Galileo is not a good example: the only thing he just happen to be right about was that the sun was the centre of things, whereas everything else in the Copernican system (including epicycles) was just as messy as in Ptolemy. There was no practical reason to switch systems, and no evidence to think it was correct. At the end of the day the person who actually got things right was Kepler, and he kept plugging away at the problem because of this belief that the physical world reflected the spiritual realm (KGW XIII, letter 23, 35; 1595) > In this way, then, the Sun, itself at rest in the middle and yet the fount of motion, carries the image of God the Father and creator. For what creation is to God, motion is to the Sun. Moreover, it moves [the planets] in a fixed place, as the Father creates in the Son. Unless the fixed stars offered a place, thanks to their motionlessness, no movement could exist. I defended this axiom while still in Tübingen. The Sun distributes motive virtue through the medium space, in which the planets are found: just as the Father creates by spirit or by the virtue of His spirit. And from the necessity of these presuppositions, it follows that motion is in proportion with distance. See Kozhamthadam's "The Religious Foundations of Kepler's Science" and "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy" by Barker and Goldstein. Going further, one needs to believe in certain metaphysical assumptions before you can even start doing what we know call science: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Providing_assumptions_required_for_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Provid... There were plenty ideas floating around at the time, but ideas are cheap. Galileo certainly made important improvements to telescope technology, but his efforts in moving forward new models (specifically Copernican) were a dead end, and he made no practical difference to things: Kepler was already defending Copernicus in his Mysterium Cosmographicum (1e 1596), and put forward his laws in Astronomia nova (1609), a copy of which he sent to Galileo, which Galileo promptly ignored even two decades later when he published his Dialogue (1632).

acqq 3y ago

So yes, that's exactly an example of the "guilty Galileo and the good church" false narrative. Many useless claims which don't disprove that his sentence was literally because of: "heresy" ... "that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world" ... "contrary to Holy Scripture" And the church forbade his book as "heresy" for 200 years. He was right. The church was wrong, directly referring to the effing "Holy Scripture" to support its claim and played fighting "heresy", keeping being wrong for 200 years afterwards. It's so clear.

throw0101b 3y ago
> He was right. Monkeys throwing darts can also (just happen to) be "right" when picking stocks that do well in the market. Galileo had as much evidence in believing Copernicus was right as the monkeys. If he had simply stuck to simply arguing both sides of an hypothesis in his Dialogue, which he was asked to do by the pope in the first place, it would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. Heck, Kepler's stuff was already around for decades, and Galileo completely ignored it (along with Tycho): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems#Omissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Ch... If you want to argue 'for science' then Galileo is not a good example: the only thing he just happen to be right about was that the sun was the centre of things, whereas everything else in the Copernican system (including epicycles) was just as messy as in Ptolemy. There was no practical reason to switch systems, and no evidence to think it was correct. At the end of the day the person who actually got things right was Kepler, and he kept plugging away at the problem because of this belief that the physical world reflected the spiritual realm (KGW XIII, letter 23, 35; 1595) > In this way, then, the Sun, itself at rest in the middle and yet the fount of motion, carries the image of God the Father and creator. For what creation is to God, motion is to the Sun. Moreover, it moves [the planets] in a fixed place, as the Father creates in the Son. Unless the fixed stars offered a place, thanks to their motionlessness, no movement could exist. I defended this axiom while still in Tübingen. The Sun distributes motive virtue through the medium space, in which the planets are found: just as the Father creates by spirit or by the virtue of His spirit. And from the necessity of these presuppositions, it follows that motion is in proportion with distance. See Kozhamthadam's "The Religious Foundations of Kepler's Science" and "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy" by Barker and Goldstein. Going further, one needs to believe in certain metaphysical assumptions before you can even start doing what we know call science: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Providing_assumptions_required_for_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Provid... There were plenty ideas floating around at the time, but ideas are cheap. Galileo certainly made important improvements to telescope technology, but his efforts in moving forward new models (specifically Copernican) were a dead end, and he made no practical difference to things: Kepler was already defending Copernicus in his Mysterium Cosmographicum (1e 1596), and put forward his laws in Astronomia nova (1609), a copy of which he sent to Galileo, which Galileo promptly ignored even two decades later when he published his Dialogue (1632).