Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Opposition to Galileo Was Scientific — Not Just Religious

Galileo Science Astronomy History of Astronomy

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,829 posts

Opposition to Galileo Was Scientific — Not Just Religious

 

https://www.alternet...-just-religious

 

 

 

 Introduction:

 

(Alternet) In 1614, when the telescope was new technology, a young man in Germany published a book filled with illustrations of the exciting new things being discovered telescopically: moons circling Jupiter, moon-like phases of Venus, spots on the Sun, the rough and cratered lunar surface. The young man was Johann Georg Locher, and his book was Mathematical Disquisitions Concerning Astronomical Controversies and Novelties. And while Locher heaped praise upon Galileo, he challenged ideas that Galileo championed – on scientific grounds.

 

You see, Locher was an anti-Copernican, a fan of the ancient astronomer Ptolemy, and a student within the Establishment (his mentor was Christoph Scheiner, a prominent Jesuit astronomer). Locher argued that Copernicus was wrong about Earth circling the Sun, and that Earth was fixed in place, at the centre of the Universe, like Ptolemy said. But Locher was making no religious argument. Yes, he said, a moving Earth messes with certain Biblical passages, like Joshua telling the Sun to stand still. But it also messes with certain astronomical terms, such as sunrise and sunset. Copernicans had work-arounds for all that, Locher said, even though they might be convoluted. What Copernicans could not work around, though, were the scientific arguments against their theory. Indeed, Locher even proposed a mechanism to explain how Earth could orbit the Sun (a sort of perpetual falling – this decades before Isaac Newton would explain orbits by means of perpetual falling), but he said it would not help the Copernicans, on account of the other problems with their theory.

 

Conclusion:

 

…Those who insist that the Apollo missions were faked, that vaccines are harmful, or even that the world is flat – whose voices are now loud enough for the ‘War on Science’ to be a National Geographic cover story and for the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson to address even their most bizarre claims – do not reject the scientific process per se. Rather, they wrap themselves in the mantle of Galileo, standing (supposedly) against a (supposedly) corrupted science produced by the ‘Scientific Establishment’. Thus Locher matters. Science’s history matters. Anti-Copernicans such as Locher and Brahe show that science has always functioned as a contest of ideas, and that science was present in both sides of the vigorous debate over Earth’s motion.

galileo-exhibition-padua.jpg?itok=JBTPrH


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#2
YourGuest

YourGuest

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Btw, with telescope, there was the simple method to verification: by phases of Venus. Their sequence was easily predictable, but completely different in Ptolemaic and Copernican systems. All you need is take your telescope and watch who was right:

 

venus-phases.png


  • Yuli Ban, caltrek, Erowind and 1 other like this

#3
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,798 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

It's funny that what easily made sense to them (those who followed the Ptolemaic model) makes absolutely no sense to us today. 

 

 

It's very telling how the power of knowledge affects the way we habitually think in certain ways.

 

 

Pretty sure there are truths we hold dear today will be basically rubbish to those who have greater knowledge in the future.


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#4
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim / https://youtu.be/VWoIpDVkOH0

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 829 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands
I've heard that those against heliocentrism said that the other planets could orbit the sun, which would explain Venus' phases.
The Prophet (saw) said: He who does not thank the people is not thankful to Allah.

#5
YourGuest

YourGuest

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 182 posts

I've heard that those against heliocentrism said that the other planets could orbit the sun, which would explain Venus' phases.

 

Yes, there was the "compromise" system of Tycho Brahe: inner planets (Mercury and Venus) revolve around Sun, and outer planets (Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) still revolve around Earth. This was too artificially and ugly, even for his era.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Galileo, Science, Astronomy, History of Astronomy

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users