4 ms·

I find it hilarious that Copernicus is forbidden, they cant possibly afford to let those incendiary heliocentric ideas get out!

graemep 1y ago
Copernicus's book was forbidden subject to the removal of one section. Copernicus was himself a priest and heliocentrism per se was never the problem. Even Galileo got into trouble for making the specific claim that it had been proved that the sun was the centre of the universe.
flohofwoe 1y ago
I find the helio- vs geocentrism debate infinitely fascinating, because if you just go by the 'scientific method' of observing the night sky from the Earth, then geocentrism also totally makes "scientific sense" as a hypothesis, it just requires a complicated explanation for the complex movement patterns of planets. Turns out that just moving the coordinate system origin from the Earth to the Sun (e.g. literally just a change of perspective) replaces any complicated explanation for those complex movement patterns that are visible from Earth with a much simpler explanation (but a simpler explanation alone doesn't mean yet that it's more correct than the complicated explanation - it's at best more likely until proven). It took until Newton and Einstein to really understand why planets move predictably around the sun and not entirely erratically (AFAIK Newton still believed the movement to be preserved by intervention of God - don't quote me on that though). So the initial stance of the Catholic Church to insist on geocentrism wasn't "unscientific" in the same sense that today's Flat Earthers, astrologists or anti-vaxxers are - compared to those, the 16th century Catholic Church was hardcore rationalist. The church finally recognized heliocentrism in the mid 18th century (so at least they only waited until Newton's death and not Einstein's death lol). But hey, what's a few centuries in the history of the Catholic Church ;)
- jenadine 1y ago
  Heliocentrism simplifies the equations of movement of the planets but that alone isn't a good justification. It did not explain the movement of the star that were thought to be much closer. And why we wouldn't feel the movement of the earth (Galileo said that in his book the rotation of the earth was causing the tide, which is factually wrong) At the time, this was a fringe theory, like MOND or string theories are today.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    > Galileo said that in his book the rotation of the earth was causing the tide, which is factually wrong I thought the tide was caused by earth and moon rotating about a common center, so how is that wrong?
    - jenadine 1y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Tides https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Tides Galileo incorrectly claimed tides were caused by Earth's motion around the sun, ignoring the true cause: gravitational forces between the Earth and Moon, which were later explained by Newton

graemep 1y ago

Copernicus's book was forbidden subject to the removal of one section. Copernicus was himself a priest and heliocentrism per se was never the problem. Even Galileo got into trouble for making the specific claim that it had been proved that the sun was the centre of the universe.

flohofwoe 1y ago

I find the helio- vs geocentrism debate infinitely fascinating, because if you just go by the 'scientific method' of observing the night sky from the Earth, then geocentrism also totally makes "scientific sense" as a hypothesis, it just requires a complicated explanation for the complex movement patterns of planets. Turns out that just moving the coordinate system origin from the Earth to the Sun (e.g. literally just a change of perspective) replaces any complicated explanation for those complex movement patterns that are visible from Earth with a much simpler explanation (but a simpler explanation alone doesn't mean yet that it's more correct than the complicated explanation - it's at best more likely until proven). It took until Newton and Einstein to really understand why planets move predictably around the sun and not entirely erratically (AFAIK Newton still believed the movement to be preserved by intervention of God - don't quote me on that though). So the initial stance of the Catholic Church to insist on geocentrism wasn't "unscientific" in the same sense that today's Flat Earthers, astrologists or anti-vaxxers are - compared to those, the 16th century Catholic Church was hardcore rationalist. The church finally recognized heliocentrism in the mid 18th century (so at least they only waited until Newton's death and not Einstein's death lol). But hey, what's a few centuries in the history of the Catholic Church ;)

jenadine 1y ago
Heliocentrism simplifies the equations of movement of the planets but that alone isn't a good justification. It did not explain the movement of the star that were thought to be much closer. And why we wouldn't feel the movement of the earth (Galileo said that in his book the rotation of the earth was causing the tide, which is factually wrong) At the time, this was a fringe theory, like MOND or string theories are today.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  > Galileo said that in his book the rotation of the earth was causing the tide, which is factually wrong I thought the tide was caused by earth and moon rotating about a common center, so how is that wrong?
  - jenadine 1y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Tides https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Tides Galileo incorrectly claimed tides were caused by Earth's motion around the sun, ignoring the true cause: gravitational forces between the Earth and Moon, which were later explained by Newton