PDA

View Full Version : Recanting saved Galileo from torture?



George
2008-Jan-18, 06:17 PM
It is sometimes stated that had Galileo not recanted, a formal retraction, of his view that the Solar system center was at or very near the Sun's position (which meant the Earth was not the center of the Universe), then he would have been put to painful torture or put to death. Bruno was one who was put to death as a result of the Inquisition.

I thought it might be interesting to learn more of Galileo since it was announced the UN is declaring 2009 the Year of Astronomy (400 years since Galileo's telescopic initial discoveries).

This one is not so humorous, regretably.

laurele
2008-Jan-18, 07:50 PM
I don't know the answer about whether Galileo's recanting saved him from torture or death, but I'm pretty sure the UN has the wrong date for the 400th anniversary of his first telescopic discoveries. The actual date is 1610.

Hydro
2008-Jan-18, 07:59 PM
I don't know the answer about whether Galileo's recanting saved him from torture or death, but I'm pretty sure the UN has the wrong date for the 400th anniversary of his first telescopic discoveries. The actual date is 1610.

This timeline (http://galileo.rice.edu/chron/galileo.html) says the fall of 1609.

ETA: New discoveries in January 1610. I apologize.

SeanF
2008-Jan-18, 08:03 PM
I don't know the answer about whether Galileo's recanting saved him from torture or death, but I'm pretty sure the UN has the wrong date for the 400th anniversary of his first telescopic discoveries. The actual date is 1610.
The 400th anniversary of Galileo's discoveries was 1610? Galileo's older than I thought...:whistle:

George
2008-Jan-18, 08:12 PM
I don't know the answer about whether Galileo's recanting saved him from torture or death, but I'm pretty sure the UN has the wrong date for the 400th anniversary of his first telescopic discoveries. The actual date is 1610. He made his first telescope in May 1609. I have read that his night sky discoveries were significant in December of '09 (including the Moon's mountains) and January of '10 (Jupiter's orbiting moons).

His publication, Sidereus Nucius (The Starry Messenger), did not come till 1610. So, going on publication, you have a good point. However, 1609 may make more sense in this case.

Celestial Mechanic
2008-Jan-18, 08:20 PM
[Snip!] This one is not so humorous, regretably.
It could be!

Inquisitor: Confess! Confess to the sin of heresy!

Galileo: I don't know what you're talking about. What sin of heresy?

Inquisitor: The heresy that the Earth orbits the Sun.

Galileo: Well, it does you know.

Inquisitor: Hmm, this one is made of stronger stuff. Fetch me [pauses] THE SOFT CUSHIONS!!!

[Loud sting]

Galileo: No! Not the soft cushions! I'll recant!

Inquisitor: That's much better now. I'll have my clerks draw up a recantation document.

Galileo: [Mutters under breath] It still moves.

Inquisitor: What was that?

Galileo: Nothing, nothing your reverence.

Gillianren
2008-Jan-18, 08:20 PM
The only answer I can give for this is "probably." I do not feel certain enough to say yes or no. I think Italian politics and influence of the era were too complicated for certainty.

George
2008-Jan-18, 08:58 PM
It could be! Ug, how narrrow of me, and humor is more my strength, too. :sad:



The only answer I can give for this is "probably." I do not feel certain enough to say yes or no. I think Italian politics and influence of the era were too complicated for certainty. I tried to edit the poll immediately after submitting it, but I saw no way to add another answer.

The results are a little surprsing so far. From my readings, Galileo was never at risk of physical torture or death. The threat of torture did take place, but this was an automatic procedure that had no teeth. [That's not quite true since torture came in five degrees, apparently. Only the final degree involved physical pain, and those of Galileo's age, 69 (I think), were not required to suffer physically.]

Doodler
2008-Jan-19, 12:02 AM
Its like those guys who say they're not abusing their wives if they only threaten to beat the crap out of them when they step "out of line" with their wishes, instead of just lunging in for the gut punch without warning.

Real humanitarians, they are...

mike alexander
2008-Jan-19, 12:33 AM
I voted 'yes', but from my reading the answer is probably indeterminate.

Galileo was 'shown the instruments of torture'. That might be pro forma, but as I recall the showing was accompanied with helpful descriptions of what they would do. It is my impression that Galileo let his own arrogance blind him to how far he had stuck his keister over the edge. In those days it was not a good idea to get the Pope mad at you. My guess is that he was pretty much still in a state of denial until being led to the dungeon, then pooped his pants.

Not that I wouldn't.

George
2008-Jan-19, 01:08 AM
Galileo was 'shown the instruments of torture'. That might be pro forma, but as I recall the showing was accompanied with helpful descriptions of what they would do.
That's my understanding, too. It was hoped that this would stimulate an honest reconsideration of their views.


It is my impression that Galileo let his own arrogance blind him to how far he had stuck his keister over the edge. In those days it was not a good idea to get the Pope mad at you. My guess is that he was pretty much still in a state of denial until being led to the dungeon, then pooped his pants.
He was definiety puganacious, and was known to set-up his opponent for his knock-down punches. This didn't always win him friendly opponents, but it did win admirers, especially among prominent officals and clergy. He was, undoubtly, convinced Copernicus was correct. The phases of Venus certainly proved Ptolemy was wrong (but failed to prove Tycho wrong).

His good friend Cardinal Bellarmine warned Galileo in 1615 that unless he had a "true demonstation that the Sun was in the center of the universe (and the Earth moved)... then it would be necessary to use careful consideration in explaining the Scriptures that seemed contrary, and we should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say that something is false...". Galileo eventually ignored this.

The lack of parallax was no small issue, too. Galileo really had only his opinion that favored Copernicus, and not sufficent evidence. He eventually thought the tides were his best arguments for Copernicus.

hhEb09'1
2008-Jan-19, 01:23 AM
He eventually thought the tides were his best arguments for Copernicus.And, as near as I can tell, he really pooted that. I think it was because he lived on the Mediterranean, and didn't have personal access.

Anytime he had hands-on, he nailed it.

mike alexander
2008-Jan-19, 01:24 AM
Sounds about right. One problem was that his explanation of the tides didn't really work. Like Kepler he had the correct intuition, but he didn't have the correct form of gravitation.

George
2008-Jan-19, 01:51 AM
Galileo’s Dialogue book was originally planned to be titled, Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea. In a letter to Elia Diodati, a Paris friend, he stated, that this would “provide, I trust, a most ample confirmation of the Copernican system”.

However, he changed the title and the content, probably due to the risk of censorship, to “Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican”. The tides were limited to the end of the book. The censors helped write the introduction. A thousand copies were originally printed; a huge number in those days.

astrotech
2008-Jan-19, 06:29 AM
Saved him from torture? Who knows? Made him see the error of his ways? (He WAS in error.) Indubitably.

The instrumentality and mathematics of the time were too inaccurate and inapropriate to definitavely support his conclusions.

That is the confession the inquisition got from him.

Even his deathbed confession admitted that.

THAT is a true scientist.

hhEb09'1
2008-Jan-19, 06:36 AM
Sounds about right. One problem was that his explanation of the tides didn't really work. Like Kepler he had the correct intuition, but he didn't have the correct form of gravitation.It wasn't just that, apparently. He had the idea that the water piled up on one side away from the sun, which would have made the solar tides dominant. Some of his opponents knew that wasn't true.

You can go a long ways with sarcasm and derision in scientific discourse, as long as you are right. :)

Gillianren
2008-Jan-19, 07:27 PM
You can go a long ways with sarcasm and derision in scientific discourse, as long as you are right. :)

Well, of course, it also depends on whom you're sarcastic and derisive toward, naturally. This was really where Galileo went astray. Had he been sarcastic and derisive toward another guy of his own standing, fine. A Medici? Pretty bad. The Pope? Really bad. (Remember that, according to his faith, the Pope could not only have him killed but also condemn him to Hell for all eternity. That's pretty serious stuff.)

George
2008-Jan-19, 08:01 PM
Saved him from torture? Who knows? Made him see the error of his ways? (He WAS in error.) Indubitably.
But what was his error, accepting Copernicus over Ptolemy? Ptolemy was demonstrated to be false. The phases of Venus did this.

But you are right, only the error was what his Cardinal friend tried to show him. He could not claim the Copernican model was absolutely how the planets really existed and moved; there just wasn't enough evidence. He could have claimed it might represent reality, and I think this is how, during his trial, he was able to honestly, IMO, make his recant. The Church never opposed Copernicus until several decades later when Galileo insisted Copernicus was right in reality, not just a math model. [If one reads Copernicus' Revolutionibus it seems pretty clear Copernicus was offering a real model and not a hypothetical one.]

I suspect that the scholarly Church authorities respected and many even considered Copernicus, and Galileo, were correct. They were both highly respected. Unfortunately, the Church was not open to the idea of reinterpretation of scripture, nor violate the Council of Trent requirements due to the huge social and political circumstances the Church was facing.

Had parallax been discovered, I think they would have realized they would have no choice but to, once again, integrate this new framework into their theology. [Several centuries earlier, it took several years of very stressful efforts by Thomas Aquinas to fuse the newly introduced and respected ideas of Aristotle into theology. The Church had little choice but to do so.]

The problem of parallax went further than one might expect. To assume the stars were unimaginably far away introduced the idea of infinity for the universe. The idea of infinity went very much contrary to the Creator & creation mental framework. The absence of parallax was an armor piercing bullet.

George
2008-Jan-19, 08:20 PM
Well, of course, it also depends on whom you're sarcastic and derisive toward, naturally. This was really where Galileo went astray. Had he been sarcastic and derisive toward another guy of his own standing, fine. A Medici? Pretty bad. I doubt he was ever hard on the Medici family as they were his protection and support. They were powerful, even with the powers in Rome. It was this reason why the four moons of Jupiter he coined as the Medician moons. It helped him greatly. [The naming of a newly discovered celestial object to gain favor and bucks with the named leader happened later regarding a certain planet. Anyone want to guess this one? :)]


The Pope? Really bad. He certainly stepped on his toes in his publication. It is a little perplexing to me that he would not realize how upsetting his Dialogue would be to the Pope. Pope Urban VIII was very cordial and respectful to Galileo when he was in Rome to work on the books publication. The prior Pope, or was it Pope Urban, insisted that Galileo not kneel before. This was rare indeed. A few of the prominent Cardinals had been students of his. [Galileo was always hurting for money due to a debt he inherited, so he boarded and tutored students during his teaching years at Padua. Some students became quite important.] So, it just seems almost too careless of him to not expect repercussions to his Dialogue from the office of the Pope.

Disinfo Agent
2008-Jan-19, 08:51 PM
It was hoped that this would stimulate an honest reconsideration of their views.How is that anything else than a euphemism for being threatened with torture?

laurele
2008-Jan-19, 09:30 PM
[The naming of a newly discovered celestial object to gain favor and bucks with the named leader happened later regarding a certain planet. Anyone want to guess this one? ]

William Herschel wanted to name the planet he discovered in 1781 Georgium Sidum, or George's Star, after King George III of England. The French refused to accept that and called it "Herschel's Planet." Eventually, someone--I think it may have been Herschel himself--came up with the name Uranus, a Latinized version of the Greek god Ouranos.

George
2008-Jan-19, 10:13 PM
How is that anything else than a euphemism for being threatened with torture? It certainly is debateable whether or not he could have been sincere with his abjuration. The story that he said, "and yet it still moves" seems to fit him nicely. [It is unlikely, however, that he actually said it. This claim did not surface till about 100 years later, in England I think, but it made for a better story.]

However, I favor, slightly, that he was actually sincere with his abjuration.

Even being 70 years old, I don't see Galileo acting cowardly. That was never his weakness or style. If he was sure he was right, he would stick with it, and often to the regret of his opponent. Also, I suspect he knew they would not apply painful physical torture to him since he had cardinals from the Holy Office visit him during his stay with the Florence ambassador during his "trial".

Galileo knew that the pope had been favorable to him in the past. They even dined together. The pope had told the amabassador that he was "sorry to subject him to these annoyances, but that it was a matter of faith and religion". All the respect he gained must have had some influence upon him enough to allow him to think he could, once again, win with his eloquent arguments. I don't think Galileo fully understood just how his views were not about planetary motions as much as they were on who has the say in what is reality. Though, I am not an expert in his history.

Yet, if he thought he had a chance, he should have known better. The trial meant you were guilty. There was no "not guilty" plea, and in those days, there were few, if any, rights of the individual (though the Church had helped with their ideas such as Aquinas' "dignity of man"). The judge was a prosecuter. They were not there to be persuaded as to his innocence, unless, I suppose, some major new evidence was presented worthy of consideration.

There were there interogations. The first one went very poorly for him as he disagreed with the Inquisitions conclussion that his book claimed the Earth moved, and claimed he did not violate his instructions to not hold and teach the Copernican system. Prior to the meeting, he was warned to tread lightly since he was there on the basis that they had already declared him guilty, which he was (even though he was right). This made things more difficult for him. Had he told them the Copernican system was merely a model and not, necessarily, reality, things might have gone differently.

Due to Galileo's objection to their view, another panel was formed to give their judgement of his book. It was unanimous against Galileo.

Although "seeing is believing" certainly has merit, it doesn't always trump other beliefs. It just isn't always that simple, and I suspect Galileo came to accept this, though I would agree that he still thought the Earth moved, but not to the point where he was absolutely sure. This seems to be the bigger lesson. Of course, the Church was wrong, too.

George
2008-Jan-19, 10:17 PM
William Herschel wanted to name the planet he discovered in 1781 Georgium Sidum, or George's Star, after King George III of England. The French refused to accept that and called it "Herschel's Planet." Dang those French! I can't imagine why they would object. ;)


Eventually, someone--I think it may have been Herschel himself--came up with the name Uranus, a Latinized version of the Greek god Ouranos. I think it was over 40 years later when the Germans stepped in with Uranus. It is seems they have quite a sense of humor. But, shouldn't we change it back to George. The word George seems to have a ring to it, whereas the word Uranus sounds ringless.

Disinfo Agent
2008-Jan-19, 10:21 PM
Also, I suspect he knew they would not apply painful physical torture to him since he had cardinals from the Holy Office visit him during his stay with the Florence ambassador during his "trial".

Galileo knew that the pope had been favorable to him in the past. They even dined together. The pope had told the amabassador that he was "sorry to subject him to these annoyances, but that it was a matter of faith and religion". All the respect he gained must have had some influence upon him enough to allow him to think he could, once again, win with his eloquent arguments. I don't think Galileo fully understood just how his views were not about planetary motions as much as they were on who has the say in what is reality.When he saw that the Pope was, in spite of all that, capable of sending him to be tried by the Inquisition, maybe he lost faith in the Church's good will towards him -- and their willingness to follow the rules. I know I would.

George
2008-Jan-20, 01:02 AM
When he saw that the Pope was, in spite of all that, capable of sending him to be tried by the Inquisition, maybe he lost faith in the Church's good will towards him -- and their willingness to follow the rules. I know I would.
Perhaps, but I suspect Galileo did understand what was happening regarding his efforts to overturn the ties of the Church to Aristotle. Galileo may have felt a strong leadership role to do it. Yet, he knew there would be a fight. He experienced it most his life. For instance, when two weights of differing masses were dropped from the tower of Pisa, not by him, the result was that one landed slightly sooner than the other, contrary to his theory. They ridiculed him for the slight error. He quickly turned their criticism against them by pointing out that Aristotle was in error by a significantly greater percentage since Aristotle claimed objects would fall proportional to their weight.

Galileo was never without admirers. Even during the Inquisition, Galileo was highly respected by the Church. Certainly he had made some enemies, but he still had good friends among some of the more prominent and powerful members. He may not have liked Pope Urban VIII as a result, perhaps.

It is noteworthy that the final judgement upon Galileo was not signed by all 10 cardinals. 3 cardinals did not sign, one was his friend Barberini.

It is also interesting that his most famous and best work came after all this, and at an elderly age. No doubt, he would have liked to have led the change toward the acceptance of what has become the scientific method, but that would have been an overly optimistic view. People don't like change, and tend to believe what they want. This is why I find the Galileo affair so instructive for those on both sides of the fence that sometimes separates religion and science. No fence is really necessary, but that requires reinterpretations of certain scriptures, as well as, understanding as to the limits of science.

hhEb09'1
2008-Jan-20, 01:12 AM
It is noteworthy that the final judgement upon Galileo was not signed by all 10 cardinals. 3 cardinals did not sign, one was his friend Barberini.
That Cardinal Barberini was the Pope's nephew I think (http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/18988-ultimate-astronomy-quiz-71.html#post840826). Cardinal Barberini, Galileo's friend, was the Pope.

George
2008-Jan-20, 01:43 AM
Yes, thanks. The Pope was his uncle and I had forgotten Urban VIII was the friend Barberini. That friendship may have ended with the trial. I am curious if it did.

Celestial Mechanic
2008-Jan-20, 06:04 AM
[Snip!] Galileo was 'shown the instruments of torture'. That might be pro forma, but as I recall the showing was accompanied with helpful descriptions of what they would do. [Snip!]
My imagination flies off ...

Inquisitor: Now these, Mr. Galilei, are thumbscrews, ooh, nasty little buggers, aren't they? Over here you'll notice the rack, great for dislocating shoulders, knees, and hip joints. There in the fireplace you'll see some pokers heating up, red hot and nasty! And lastly [opens with a flourish] the iron maiden!

Inquisitor: Oh, yes, one last thing: by law I must read you the Carmina Miranda Warning. "You have the right to remain silent under torture. Anything you say under torture can and will be used against you in a court of canon law. You have the right to sing in a tessatura just above the comfortable compass of your voice. You have the right to wear a basket of fruit on your head. You have the right to have an attorney tortured in a chamber nearby. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be pulled off the street and dragged in here at our expense.
:D

Maksutov
2008-Jan-20, 10:14 AM
My imagination flies off ...

:DAh, the good old days! Back when the Ministry of Love could legally love us to death!

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/liebe/s016.gif
http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/boese/a057.gif

torque of the town
2008-Jan-20, 11:18 AM
I think GG was certainly street-wise enough to know the consequence of wrong answers.

Gillianren
2008-Jan-20, 08:48 PM
I doubt he was ever hard on the Medici family as they were his protection and support. They were powerful, even with the powers in Rome. It was this reason why the four moons of Jupiter he coined as the Medician moons. It helped him greatly.

Oh, I know, of course. I'm just saying that, if he had, it would've been a bad idea, and largely for that very reason.

George
2008-Jan-20, 09:52 PM
I think GG was certainly street-wise enough to know the consequence of wrong answers. But do we really know what his consequences would have been? I doubt physical torture or death were likely had he not abrogated his claims favoring Copernicus. Here's why...

1) He was too old, 70. According to one source I read, the ~500 pages of Inquisition procedures, including the five levels of torture, did not allow this on the elderly. Perhaps a Spanish version was different. The purpose of the torture was to correct the views of the person and was not suppose to be an act of punishment. Just how true this was in practice would be interesting in itself. Was it rationalization to appease the masses? Perhaps. Yet, for the elderly, it would be much more foolish; like video taping humiliating prison acts knowing everyone could find out about it. Any elderly person tortured could easily state it happened.

2) He was beloved of the people and many, if not most, of the Church leaders. This popularity would bring problems for the Church if he were to be treated unfairly. His close ties to the Medici family added great political strength, too. The Duke had been crowned by the Pope, before Ubran VIII's reign, to rule the influential region of Tuscany.

3) He was a loyal Church member. At 15, after 4 years of education in a monastery, he joined the monastic order because he liked it. [His father was, apparently, horrified and yanked him out at the time Galileo had contracted a very bad eye problem. There's a little irony for you.] He was friends with not only a couple of popes but also many of the cardinals.

4) His planetary views did not attack the main tenets of the faith. Unlike Bruno, who held and preached very conflicting views of the Gospel, Galileo was never contrary to the beliefs of the Church. He felt his views were not counter to the faith. No church today has all of its members agreeing with each other on all passages, but the vast majority should and do agree on the tenets of their faith.

5) The Church was not opposed to varying theories on cosmology. Copernicus was encouraged by prominent church authorities to publish his heliocentric view. Since the one in charge to get it published, a Lutheran, elected to claim that the book was a hypothetical approach, and not a claim that the planets were necessarily ordered and moved in the fashion stated in the book, there was no problems with censorship. If one reads Revolutionibus, it is clear that Copernicus was claiming his heliocentric model was real. Yet, the censors accepted it, and this was 90 years before the official adjuration of Galileo.

If one looks closely at his official adjuration statement, it leaves open the idea that he still thought Copernicus was right. He first states the injunction terms of constraints upon his views, then he states the charges brought against him, then he states, “… with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies and generally every other error….contrary to the Holy Church…”. It seems to me he was shown that his scientific arguments were not proof that Copernicus was right. Indeed, he had none. Once he saw this, under duress, he could be sincere in what he stated, namely that the Copernican model could not claim it was real and the others not (ie the Tychonian model).

The real battle seems to have been who had the authority to state what was truthful, the office of the Pope, or Galileo and his scientific method. This is what really got him in hot water, apparently.

I suspect they knew brilliant Galileo would eventually come to realize he could not claim any absolutes, at least not with the evidence he had. There would be no need for any real threat of torture, even if it had been allowed. [Admitteldy, I have not seen the supporting evidence that confirms the age limitation for physical torture, so I could be wrong.]

George
2008-Jan-20, 10:00 PM
Oh, I know, of course. I'm just saying that, if he had, it would've been a bad idea, and largely for that very reason. Ok, I wondered it that is what you had meant. Of course, you are right. Galileo was a very wise person, and those were very tricky times for a rebel such as he. His intent behind naming the moons after the Medici family was very obvious, but this, and his other efforts, proved to be very sagacious.

ineluki
2008-Jan-21, 01:51 PM
My imagination flies off ...
:D

Galileo: I didn't expect the italian inquisition"

Mungascr
2008-Jan-22, 02:52 PM
I don't know the answer about whether Galileo's recanting saved him from torture or death, but I'm pretty sure the UN has the wrong date for the 400th anniversary of his first telescopic discoveries. The actual date is 1610.

Actually, my understanding is that 2008 - this year (yegods closer to '2010' now than '2001 : Space Odyssey'~wise!) is when the anniversary should be celebrated :

(From my article '2008 Astronomical Anniversaries' in the Astronomical Society of South Australia's February '08 Bulletin newsletter P.15-16.)

- 400th anniversary of spectacle maker Hans Lipperhey (sometimes spelt Lippershey) applying for a patent on the invention of the telescope to the Dutch States General. They promptly formed a committee and also told him to come up with a version that could be used with both eyes! Lipperhey then promptly invented the first binoculars. However, a number of others also claiming to have invented the telescope rapidly emerged making Lipperhey’s claim to have invented the first telescope ever a contentious one. 2009 – a year later is the international year of the telescope.

Source : Watson, Fred, ‘Stargazer : The life and Times of the Telescope’, McPherson’s Printing group, 2007.

See also via http://www.assa.org.au/ (Hope link works & is allowed & ok netiquette-wise.)

George
2008-Jan-22, 03:57 PM
Actually, my understanding is that 2008 - this year (yegods closer to '2010' now than '2001 : Space Odyssey'~wise!) is when the anniversary should be celebrated :

(From my article '2008 Astronomical Anniversaries' in the Astronomical Society of South Australia's February '08 Bulletin newsletter P.15-16.)

- 400th anniversary of spectacle maker Hans Lipperhey (sometimes spelt Lippershey) applying for a patent on the invention of the telescope to the Dutch States General. They promptly formed a committee and also told him to come up with a version that could be used with both eyes! Lipperhey then promptly invented the first binoculars. However, a number of others also claiming to have invented the telescope rapidly emerged making Lipperhey’s claim to have invented the first telescope ever a contentious one. 2009 – a year later is the international year of the telescope.

Source : Watson, Fred, ‘Stargazer : The life and Times of the Telescope’, McPherson’s Printing group, 2007.

See also via http://www.assa.org.au/ (Hope link works & is allowed & ok netiquette-wise.)
From what I've read, his patent application was denied because the telescope was already in use by others.

This is logical since optics were in increasing demand ever since Guttenberg's printing press (1440), and the many subesequent others, began cranking-out books. The more books, the greater the need for reading glasses. :)

There is some evidence that supports the idea that Thomas Digges (http://www.chocky.demon.co.uk/oas/diggeshistory.html) beat all of them by about 30 years.

It was Galileo, however, that changed the world, even more so than Copernicus. He was physicist and a charismatic salesman.

[This is a little off-topic, but might make an interesting thread, if you want to start one.]

laurele
2008-Jan-22, 09:45 PM
"Actually, my understanding is that 2008 - this year (yegods closer to '2010' now than '2001 : Space Odyssey'~wise!) is when the anniversary should be celebrated."

You are correct about Lippershey inventing the telescope in 1608 unless the earlier claim about Digges is true. I don't know. I realize that the 1610 date is when Galileo made his first telescopic observations of the moons of Jupiter. Of course, it makes sense he would have been observing with the telescope for several months before that discovery, meaning he likely began his observations in 1609.

George
2008-Jan-23, 03:21 AM
In 1608, a telescope with magnify power of 7x was offered for sale in Frankfurt. In 1609, small telescopes were offered for sale as novelties in Paris, London, and several cities in Germany.1 These telescopes were only about 3x.2

While Lippershey was traveling Europe selling his telescopes, Galileo heard rumors of them and immediately recognized their potential, especially when used to get the jump on which merchant ships were arriving. [Not to mention military applications.] In July of 1609, he rushed from Venice to Padua to find Lippershey only to learn that Lippershey had gone to Venice. Apparently, Galileo was distraught with the idea that he would loose any deal with the authorities in Venice, as well as the recognition and accolades.

Galileo quickly learned that the telescope consisted of only two lenses in a tube. Knowing this, he made one, and he made it in only 24 hours! Further, Galileo's design was superior since he chose to use one concave lens and one convex lens, which produces an upright image. Lippershey used two concave lenses, which flipped the image.

In a coded message sent Aug. 4th to his friend and adviser to the senate in Venice, Sarpi, he requested help to delay the Venetian Senate regarding any decision about telescopes till he could build one suitable for them. Galileo then had time to build a 10x scope he placed in a tooled leather case. The presentation to the Venice Senate was a sensation. Galileo then gave it to the Doge as a gift, whereupon he was soon rewarded with a doubled salary and a lifetime position at the Univ. of Pisa.

By March of 1610, he had made at least nine telescopes of about 20x. He sent one to Kepler. [Edit: Other reliable sources say Galileo did not send Kepler one.]

The more I read about Galileo, the more interesting it gets.

1 - Wade Rowland's book Galileo's Mistake, pg. 90.
2 - John Gribbin's book The Scientists, pg. 85

hhEb09'1
2008-Jan-25, 12:35 AM
By March of 1610, he had made at least nine telescopes of about 20x. He sent one to Kepler.I'm surprised by this. Usually, Galileo was not so generous.

From National Geographic (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-11/hubble/ferris-text.html)
Although he was a mathematical theorist who never owned a telescope, Kepler celebrated Galileo's innovation in an ode, addressing the telescope as, "You much knowing tube, more precious than any scepter." From The Ohio State University (http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/galileo.html):
Kepler was delighted, and soon got his own telescope, as did many others. The Galileo Project (http://galileo.rice.edu/Catalog/NewFiles/kepler.html):
Elector Ernst of Cologne sometimes occupied days of his time at court, and lent him a telescope. Kepler presented him with the manuscript of Dioptrice. UVa (http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundations/chapter2/chapter2.html):
(Kepler was unable to afford to purchase a telescope, a prohibitively expensive device at the time, though he was able to borrow one for a summer from a visiting nobleman. Galileo promised for several years to make a telescope for Kepler, but never got around to fulfilling his promise.)
Another (http://benedett.provincia.venezia.it/comenius/comunicazione/eng/g-k.htm):
But someone criticized Kepler for having taken sides without cognizance of the case, so he wrote to Galileo asking him for a telescope or at least some direct proof of the veracity of his observations. The answer arrived some months later full of thanks and tokens of esteem, but without proofs or a promise to send a telescope. Kepler could use a telescope when he borrowed one from the Elector of Bavaria and he could be sure of the effectiveness of Galilean observations for the theoretical support of which he publishede Dioptricae, first scientific treatise on lenses.As near as I can tell, the story is that Kepler didn't own one, but borrowed one--but it was not from Galileo. Does that jive with your research at all?

George
2008-Jan-25, 03:34 AM
I'm surprised by this. Usually, Galileo was not so generous. Oops. I recant! You are correct. Kepler's Witch (James Connor), but I just started it.]

You would think Galileo would have sent Kepler one since Kepler could have offered great support for him, and Kepler wanted to support him. But, the report I gave seems to be wrong.

However, it is mentioned in Kepler's Witch book that there was a chance Galileo feared Kepler might not see the moons. [This had happened earlier in an important demonstration with some of Galileo's powerful friends; they could not agree on what they saw, which was a set-back for Galileo.]

I also think Kepler was known for having poor vision, along with other ailments that seem to be associated with his childhood contraction of small pox.

Kepler wrote the amabassador, Julian de' Medici, in hopes he would request one from Galileo on Kepler's behalf. But, Galileo, surprisingly, ignored the request, even though Galileo was giving them out to those "who were important enough to help his cause". So, indirectly, he did get a telescope from Galileo, but not by Galileo's wishes. So, I'm partial right, maybe by about 1/(pi +1) out of 1. ;)

It was in August of 1610 when the Duke of Bavaria, who also held the title of the Ernst of Colgone, arrived in Prague from Vienna. Galileo had given him a telescope, and he took it with him knowing Kepler would want to use it.

Kepler, along with verifying friends, observed from Aug. 30th to Sept. 9, and they maintained detailed records. Each made drawings independent of the other, and later they compared them. The results were positive and Kepler published them in his "The Story of the Satellites of Jupiter".

Later, in the same month September, Kepler wrote the "first theoretical analysis of the workings of the telescope". Galileo, reportedly, was suppose to write one, but he never did.


As near as I can tell, the story is that Kepler didn't own one, but borrowed one--but it was not from Galileo. Does that jive with your research at all? It does now. :)

astrotech
2008-Jan-25, 11:25 AM
My reading of the Galileo trial transscript and related documents indicates that the recantation involved no scientific issues at all.

His friend the cardinal, had requested that Galileo no teach the Copernican model as fact. Galileo agreed but was so swept away with all the intrest from his peers that he stopped couching his discussions in the legalistic terms such as "it appears" or "observations can be interpreted as" and started just simply saying that it is.

He had critics both legitimate and illegitimate and occasionally impolite. He responded in kind and some of the recipients of his wrath were offended and influential with the powers that be including the church.

Since the church in a sense had a horse in the race they came down against Galileo. They could not handle him in terms of the geometry so they brought a case against him for violating his agreement with his friend the cardinal.

He confessed that he had in fact done that. He "recanted" doing it and was sentanced to never teach Copernicus again.

Click Ticker
2008-Jan-25, 01:36 PM
Were I threatened with torture - I would happily confess that the earth is the center of the universe. It's not so important that it's worth dying over (or even having paper cuts under your finger nails followed by a nice tobasco soak) and I figure they'll get it eventually.

So, whether or not the account is true, if he was threatened with torture my guess is that he would recant.

Argos
2008-Jan-25, 01:41 PM
Yeah. Top brains have the right to be coward. We need them alive.

torque of the town
2008-Jan-25, 01:42 PM
Were I threatened with torture - I would happily confess that the earth is the center of the universe.


And Apollo was hoax:shifty:

Noclevername
2008-Jan-25, 02:38 PM
He may or may not have been tortured or killed for his "heresy" (others were for advocating heliocentrism, but that was a couple of centuries earlier IIRC and Inquisition policies may have changed) but he was faced with the possibility of Excommunication, which would have destroyed his social standing and (perhaps) made him fear for his "soul".

George
2008-Jan-25, 08:20 PM
I agree that the threat of torture had significant influence on Galileo. Indeed, that was the purpose of the threat. Often the instruments of torture were shown to the heretic, or, in Galileo's case, one who is "vehemently suspected of heresy".

But the real question at hand is whether the Church really would have gone beyond just the threat of torture. There are those who claim the Church would have, but that is not how I see it, though I am not an expert.

Disinfo Agent
2008-Jan-25, 08:34 PM
But the real question at hand is whether the Church really would have gone beyond just the threat of torture.Why do you regard that as the real question? What difference does it make whether the threat was real or feigned?

Noclevername
2008-Jan-25, 09:21 PM
But the real question at hand is whether the Church really would have gone beyond just the threat of torture. There are those who claim the Church would have, but that is not how I see it, though I am not an expert.

Historically, they certainly did.

Per Wikipedia:

Torture was used after 1252. On May 15, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull entitled Ad exstirpanda, which authorized the use of torture by inquisitors. Torture methods that resulted in bloodshed, mutilation or death were forbidden. Also, torture could be performed only once. However, it was common practice to consider a second torture session to be a "continuation" of the first.

EDIT: Whoops, Galileo was actually under the Roman Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Inquisition). A branch off the original general Inquisition. The quote I gave was from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition article, I don't know if the Roman Inquisitors followed the same standards.

Celestial Mechanic
2008-Jan-25, 10:05 PM
Were I threatened with torture - I would happily confess that the earth is the center of the universe.


And Apollo was hoax:shifty:
And I would even confess to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby.

Halcyon Dayz
2008-Jan-25, 11:10 PM
It seems George has somehow conflated Maximilian I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I%2C_Elector_of_Bavaria), Duke of Bavaria and Elector Palatine, with his brother, Ernest of Bavaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_of_Bavaria), Prince-Archbishop and Elector of Cologne.

That's two votes controled by the house of Wittelsbach, but during the Thirty Year's War they were closely aligned with the Habsburgs. The whole idea was not to have a protestant emperor.

The fact that the Galileo thing happened during the counter-reformation should not be overlooked.
The church authorities (and the catholic princes) were particularly on edge in this period.
As demonstrated by the fact that they were in the process of getting millions of people killed over ideological issues which an outsider might consider trivial.

hhEb09'1
2008-Jan-27, 03:29 AM
Why do you regard that as the real question? What difference does it make whether the threat was real or feigned?What else are polls for? :)

Disinfo Agent
2008-Jan-28, 10:25 AM
You got me with that one. I'd almost forgotten about the poll.

George
2008-Jan-28, 02:21 PM
Yes, the poll reveals opinions and stimulates them.