PDA

View Full Version : Galileo discovered Neptune!



ToSeek
2009-Jul-09, 09:50 PM
Well, maybe:

New Theory: Galileo Discovered Neptune (http://www.livescience.com/space/090709-galileo-neptune.html)


History books tell us that the planet Neptune was found in the mid-1800s after years of speculation and search.

But in 1613, more than two centuries before Neptune was officially discovered, Galileo Galilei knew he had found it, according to a new theory by University of Melbourne physicist David Jamieson.

Jamieson has been studying Galileo's notebooks and found some interesting, buried notations that suggest the great astronomer – then working with a crude, early telescope he crafted himself – was onto something big.

It has long been known that Galileo observed Neptune, but it was thought that he discounted the object as a star and gave it no further thought. But it turns out Galileo may have known the "star" had moved in relation to other stars, Jamieson reveals. That sort of movement would have caught Galileo's attention, since he knew that it was just the sort of thing planets did.

Ara Pacis
2009-Jul-09, 11:08 PM
How did he discover it, just by looking around or did he make an educated guess?

tdvance
2009-Jul-09, 11:17 PM
no doubt by looking around--he didn't know Newtonian mechanics and would not be able to predict a planet's location from its perturbation of other planets. He didn't even realize the planets had elliptical orbits.

baric
2009-Jul-10, 02:24 AM
well, we don't know yet if he realized it was a planet, although it seems likely. According to the article, he first stumbled across Neptune when it was near Jupiter and later noted its movement.

I love this kind of discovered history! This is kind of like when we discovered that Archimedes was developing calculus.

AndrewJ
2009-Jul-10, 04:36 AM
I love this kind of discovered history! This is kind of like when we discovered that Archimedes was developing calculus.

There may be tendency to give the earlier candidate premature credit. [Example: who discovered the mainland Americas? Many quote Ericson's viking settlement on Newfoundland although Newfoundland is no more the mainland than Cuba. To get to Newfoundland Ericson must have seen the Canadian coast and might have felled timber in Labrador. Columbus, on the other hand, knew he'd found mainland in 1498 (beating Vespucci by a year) due to the size of the Orinoco.]

ToeQuestor
2009-Jul-10, 08:43 AM
Some humor: First Iceland, a land of ice, was discovered, but perhaps few went there at first due to the ice; then another icy place was found, but was named Greenland as an advertising ploy, it being worse than Iceland. Then a new found land was discovered, called Newfoundland. Then they improved the naming somewhat, as Vinland maybe has vines.

George
2009-Jul-10, 08:08 PM
There must be more to the story to support the idea that Galileo really had a clue he had a possible planet in hand.

It is surprisingly coincidental that Neptue was closer to Jupiter than some of the moons of Jupiter during just the time he was initially tracking the moons. He likely thought that Neptune was a satellite candidate for Jupiter, but would have quickly dismissed it once it moved off along with the stars.

Galileo was not shy, and I don't see why he would have recognized Neptune as a planet and not mention it anywhere. If he did mention it, then I would be interested in hearing about it.

Tuckerfan
2009-Jul-10, 10:52 PM
There must be more to the story to support the idea that Galileo really had a clue he had a possible planet in hand.

It is surprisingly coincidental that Neptue was closer to Jupiter than some of the moons of Jupiter during just the time he was initially tracking the moons. He likely thought that Neptune was a satellite candidate for Jupiter, but would have quickly dismissed it once it moved off along with the stars.

Galileo was not shy, and I don't see why he would have recognized Neptune as a planet and not mention it anywhere. If he did mention it, then I would be interested in hearing about it.

Galileo lived in dangerous times, however, and was no doubt aware that the Church took a dim view of anything which contradicted their views on things. Its not like today, where if you publish something controversial you risk getting your funding cut, back then you could be jailed or worse for such things. IIRC, just saying that Moon was pock marked got him in trouble, since it was thought by TPTB that heavenly bodies were "perfect" in form. Discovering the moons of Jupiter was a big deal, not merely because it was something no one had ever seen before, but because the doctrine of the Church at the time was that everything went around the Earth, and this threw that right out the window.

IIRC, Da Vinci concealed many of his discoveries because he worried about the consequences if someone knew what he was up to.

(None of this should be considered as a slam against the Catholic Church or religion in general, mind you. Things were very much different way back when, and even saying you didn't completely agree with a member of nobility on some minor issue was enough to get you thrown into jail.)

tdvance
2009-Jul-11, 12:30 AM
Remember Faust? He studied anatomy by dissecting human corpses, and suddenly stories got around that he was building zombies, and we get all these plays and operas, etc. about Faust selling his soul to the devil for the power to bring the dead back to life.


It's better now--you only get fired or lose funding or get criticized by the press if your results don't match what they are supposed to.

ToeQuestor
2009-Jul-11, 01:35 AM
If Galileo had noted that Mars increased and diminished in size during its orbit, then this could have been a good clue, although perhaps not a proof, that planets orbited the sun. The Church wished him to just say that he only had a hypothesis, not a truth. (Parallax measurements were not yet known.)

The real concern of the Earth not being the center of all was that perhaps Hell was not to be found within the bowels of the no longer so important Earth, as well as the concentric crystalline spheres surrounding it not being so, although this notion was really only proposed by Dante. And, too, for some reason, the notion of the universe being infinite.

It was also a time of challenge from the Protestant reformation and thus the necessary Catholic counter-reformation. Galileo was in the right mind at the wrong time.

matthewota
2009-Jul-11, 02:28 AM
It will be interesting to see if any other scholars can back up the claim. However, even if he did discover it, he sure did not publicize it well.

Sort of like how the Vikings got to North American first before Columbus, but Columbus published and got all of the credit.

tdvance
2009-Jul-11, 03:09 AM
Actually, Galileo did try to measure the distance to the stars with parallax--the technique was known but not practiceable at the time. He failed, though, the parallax being too small for him to measure.

baric
2009-Jul-11, 03:47 AM
The linked story mentions that Galileo noted that the dot we now call "Neptune" had, in fact, moved.

His recognition of that is pretty close to saying it was a planet. Lights that did not move = stars. Lights that did move = planets. The only problem was that he couldn't resolve it to a sphere, like the other planets.

George
2009-Jul-11, 03:47 AM
Galileo lived in dangerous times, however, and was no doubt aware that the Church took a dim view of anything which contradicted their views on things. In astronomical matters, there was not that much negativity until around 1616, six years from this time frame. Copernicus had no problems with how the Church saw his anti-Geocentric book written over 50 years before the time of Galileo.


IIRC, just saying that Moon was pock marked got him in trouble, since it was thought by TPTB that heavenly bodies were "perfect" in form. Yes, and some clergy thought that this was more damaging than his "Medician Stars" discovery, as it established corruptibility where none was suppose to be.

But the clergy took pride in knowing the truth. To their credit, IMO, they wasted little time dumping their most beloved Aristotle/Ptolemy/Thomist model as soon as they confirmed the phases of Venus. They were not all that dumb to not adopt the Copernican model since it predicted that stars would demonstrate stellar parallax, and that finding did not come for centuries.


Discovering the moons of Jupiter was a big deal, not merely because it was something no one had ever seen before, but because the doctrine of the Church at the time was that everything went around the Earth, and this threw that right out the window. The moons were still important. One of the big arguments favoring why things went around the Earth was that if the Earth moved, then the Moon would fall away, along with our atmosphere, etc. But this argument was clearly erroneous with the discovery of those Jovian satellites.


(None of this should be considered as a slam against the Catholic Church or religion in [I]general, mind you. Things were very much different way back when, and even saying you didn't completely agree with a member of nobility on some minor issue was enough to get you thrown into jail.) If you find any jail terms due to astronomical viewpoints, I'd be interested.

ToeQuestor
2009-Jul-11, 04:12 AM
A fanciful story of mine, blending fact and fiction:

Ah, thought Galileo, as he wandered past the deserted and flower-grown ruins of Rome, one night, this looks to be the same now as it will and was a thousand years before and after me. Would that there could be a day when science was free. What once great Roman glory would pale beside that brightest light of day!
Galileo looked about and around and behind. No one was following him to his ultra secret lair and meeting place, where other scientists would join him again on this starry night, safe therein to congregate and discuss the forbidden topics.

[To this day no one has found Galileo’s lair, called The Church of Illumination, at least according to Dan Brown, but, then again, he identified it in his book. I am obtaining all this information about Galileo from his little known ‘lost’ diary. ]


…go to Rome, which is the sepulchre,
Oh, not of him, but of our joy: ‘tis nought
That ages, empires and religions there
Lie buried in the ravage they have wrought;
For such as he can lend,--they borrow not
Glory from those who made the world their prey;
And he is gathered to the kings of thought
Who waged contention with their time’s decay,
And of the past are all that cannot pass away.
(Shelley)

Galileo noted the ancient sculptures still standing against mouldering time, knowing that the new scientists arriving, if they were worthily smart enough, would have to use the clues provided as the way to the lair, for there was sturdy no map made up, the clues supposedly being written kind of in a tissue paper book.
As the word of this scientific brotherhood began to spread, scientists would travel thousands of miles but upon the slim hope of chancing a glance through Galileo’s telescope and discussing the master’s ideas.


Go thou to Rome,--at once the Paradise,
The grave, the city, and the wilderness;
And where its wrecks like shattered mountains rise,
And flowering weeds, and fragrant copses dress
The bones of Desolation’s nakedness
Pass, till the spirit of the spot shall lead
Thy footsteps to a slope of green access
Where, like an infant’s smile, over the dead
A light of laughing flowers along the grass is spread;
(Shelley)

As Galileo wandered among the ruins made one with Nature in their decay, or gazed on the Praxitelean shapes that thronged the Capitol, and the palaces of Rome, his minding soul imbibed all the forms, this loveliness becoming a portion of himself, as well as its science, even right here, within the realm of the Holiness that shadowed him much as the darkness of night condemned the day.


And gray walls moulder round, on which dull Time
Feeds, like slow fire upon a hoary brand;
And one keen pyramid with wedge sublime,
Pavilioning the dust of him who planned
This refuge for his memory, doth stand
Like flame transformed to marble; and beneath,
A field is spread, on which a newer band
Have pitched in Heaven’s smile their camp of death,
Welcoming him we lose with scarce extinguished breath.
(Shelley)

Some had been burned before, thought Galileo, so ‘tis a difficult path to follow, yet the truth calls me forward… and so he had published the ‘Starry Messenger’.

Later on, Galileo had argued that the Holy Book had to be interpreted in the light of what science had shown to be true. Galileo had several opponents and they made sure that a copy of the ‘Letter to Castelli’ was sent to the Inquisition in Rome.

In 1616 Galileo wrote the ‘Letter to the Grand Duchess’ which vigorously attacked the followers of Aristotle. In this work, which he addressed to the Grand Duchess Christina of Lorraine, he argued strongly for a non-literal interpretation of Holy Scripture when the literal interpretation would contradict facts about the physical world proved by mathematical science.

… Galileo walked on slowly, for his health had become poor, and noted the setting moon—the sky would be wonderfully dark. He would soon be found guilty and condemned, but he knew none of that this night.
The eventual ‘Father of Science’ again sat with the scientific ‘Illuminati’ of his time, the discussions as free and glorious as ever…

He was later put under house arrest in his home in Florence, having by then nearly gone blind, but the starry memories of the Milky Way, the moons of Jupiter and more remained in a mind still free—that which could never be taken away.

His body was concealed and only placed in a fine tomb in the church in 1737 by the civil authorities against the wishes of many in the Church. On 31 October 1992, 350 years after Galileo’s death, Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun. (Wiki) [Only that Galileo was wise.]

George
2009-Jul-11, 04:16 AM
If Galileo had noted that Mars increased and diminished in size during its orbit, then this could have been a good clue, although perhaps not a proof, that planets orbited the sun. Yes, but I suspect that the Tychonic model may have been already adopted by the Jesuits before this was observed. Also, Mars was not observable much at all for at least the first half of the year.


The Church wished him to just say that he only had a hypothesis, not a truth. (Parallax measurements were not yet known.) Yes, and that is what greatly helped de Revolutionibus, thanks to Ossiander (a Lutheran) sneaking the hypothetical view for the book into the introduction.


It was also a time of challenge from the Protestant reformation and thus the necessary Catholic counter-reformation. Galileo was in the right mind at the wrong time. Yes. The Pope was taking flack from places like Spain who were demonstrating, apparently, more zeal than he and the Italians were. To punish Galileo, their hero, may have given the Pope more credibility in the larger political arena, though less credibility with powerful Tuscany (home of Galileo). The price paid by the Church, however, shouldn't last more than, say, 500 or 600 years. :)

Tuckerfan
2009-Jul-11, 04:19 AM
In astronomical matters, there was not that much negativity until around 1616, six years from this time frame. Copernicus had no problems with how the Church saw his anti-Geocentric book written over 50 years before the time of Galileo.You don't think that the fact that ol' Nicky was dead before it was published might have anything to do with that, do you? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus) Or the little disclaimer that the printer added to the work might have diffused any potential objections? And according to Wikipedia, Galileo got into hot water with the Church for endorsing the idea: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei)
After 1610, when he began supporting heliocentrism publicly, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. Although he was cleared of any offence at that time, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" in February 1616,[8]You'll note that from that quote it appears he was catching heat from some members of the Church before he was first ratted out to the Inquisition. It doesn't specify when they started in with the opposition, exactly, but I don't think its unreasonable to conclude that it was certainly possible that he was hearing grumblings from them by 1613, which would have been in the time frame of these observations.


But the clergy took pride in knowing the truth. To their credit, IMO, they wasted little time dumping their most beloved Aristotle/Ptolemy/Thomist model as soon as they confirmed the phases of Venus. They were not all that dumb to not adopt the Copernican model since it predicted that stars would demonstrate stellar parallax, and that finding did not come for centuries. [It was still better than the Tychonic model they adopted, but gravity was not well understood or appreciated at the time.]But, as the above Wiki quote shows, they were not above harassing Galileo for advocating the idea. Don't forget that since he had two children outside of wedlock by this point, Galileo would have been considered a bit suspect by a number of people. Nothing like tipping over someone's worldview to get them really riled up about you.


If you find any jail terms due to astronomical viewpoints, I'd be interested.
So you don't consider Galileo's house arrest to be considered "jail time" or "due to astronomical viewpoints"? Interesting. Don't forget that the things which could get one arrested for were somewhat arbitrary, and not completely codified into law.

Tuckerfan
2009-Jul-11, 04:26 AM
Yes. The Pope was taking flack from places like Spain who were demonstrating, apparently, more zeal than he and the Italians were. To punish Galileo, their hero, may have given the Pope more credibility in the larger political arena, though less credibility with powerful Tuscany (home of Galileo). The price paid by the Church, however, shouldn't last more than, say, 500 or 600 years. :)I'm sorry, but those individuals who work to actively oppress the expansion of human knowledge deserve no quarter. Not in 10 years, not in 100, not in 1,000. The Roman soldier who killed Archemedes all those millenia ago (against orders, I might add) deserves to be cursed for all eternity. The pain and suffering and centuries of darkness he caused all of humanity, outweigh the "simple" crime of him murdering one man by a large measure.

George
2009-Jul-11, 04:31 AM
:clap: Cool poetry!



Some had been burned before, thought Galileo, so ‘tis a difficult path to follow, yet the truth calls me forward… and so he had published the ‘Starry Messenger’. [At the time of that book] Have your seen any thing written to or from Galileo expressing any hint of encountering a similar fate as the well-established heretic Bruno? [There are no surviving trial documents for Bruno, apparently, but his heretical views were well known.]


In 1616 Galileo wrote the ‘Letter to the Grand Duchess’ which vigorously attacked the followers of Aristotle. In this work, which he addressed to the Grand Duchess Christina of Lorraine, he argued strongly for a non-literal interpretation of Holy Scripture when the literal interpretation would contradict facts about the physical world proved by mathematical science. Yes, she had requested this information, I think, and was quite an admirer of their own popular star.


He was later put under house arrest in his home in Florence, having by then nearly gone blind, but the starry memories of the Milky Way, the moons of Jupiter and more remained in a mind still free—that which could never be taken away. Nice.

George
2009-Jul-11, 04:53 AM
You don't think that the fact that ol' Nicky was dead before it was published might have anything to do with that, do you? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus) Or the little disclaimer that the printer added to the work might have diffused any potential objections? Copernicus was a well-respected Church canon and not a polemic for them. Books had to pass Church censorship, so Ossiander, apparently, added the hypothetical twist at the intro. to avoid the censors returning the book for corrections. [He may have done it, however, because he was opposed to it, but it is unclear just why he did it, and why he did it without conferring with Copernicus or Rheticus (? it's late). However, if one reads the book, there is no way one can suggest that Copernicus thought his model was merely a hypothetical model for simplicity sake, so the intro. amendment may well have been a wise one.


It doesn't specify when they started in with the opposition, exactly, but I don't think its unreasonable to conclude that it was certainly possible that he was hearing grumblings from them by 1613, which would have been in the time frame of these observations. There were many who didn't like him before he even made a telescope, because he opposed the Peripatetics (Aristotelians). [He knew Aristotle was wrong about some things, especially on the rate at which objects fall.] Yet he became internationally famous with his Starry Messenger.


But, as the above Wiki quote shows, they were not above harassing Galileo for advocating the idea. Don't forget that since he had two children outside of wedlock by this point, Galileo would have been considered a bit suspect by a number of people. I have not read that this hurt him much at all. Copernicus was known to have a mistress and may have turned down a bishop's position partly for this reason. Those were different times regarding fidelity, but, then again, maybe not that much after all.


So you don't consider Galileo's house arrest to be considered "jail time" or "due to astronomical viewpoints"? You appeared to be making a general statement about the Church's views, and it did not appear that you were referring to Galileo. My error. I do recall that a clergy member (Forcini sp?) did write favoring the Copernican view and got in trouble for it, so I was hopeful you knew of others.

George
2009-Jul-11, 04:56 AM
I'm sorry, but those individuals who work to actively oppress the expansion of human knowledge deserve no quarter. Not in 10 years, not in 100, not in 1,000. The Roman soldier who killed Archemedes all those millenia ago (against orders, I might add) deserves to be cursed for all eternity. The pain and suffering and centuries of darkness he caused all of humanity, outweigh the "simple" crime of him murdering one man by a large measure. You misread my statement. I was not being sarcastic in a way to favor the Church. [I was actually mocking them.] They blew it and it is lesson that has haunted them. But, I think they have learned much from it, though some other denominations seem to be making a very similar mistake.

ToeQuestor
2009-Jul-11, 05:07 AM
Good stuff in everyone's posts and thanks, George—you have good thoughts.

If we could discuss religion on baut, we would have to be somewhat tougher on the Church, but here it's best, I guess, to push forward with science rather than push against religion. I shouldn't say this, but the IDers, who have not much to push forward, must therefore resort to always pushing against science—evolution for example. Anyway, it is thought that Galileo could have done much more had he not been under house arrest.



The Torch Passes Its Light

His eyes were so weak
“that he could no longer see the sky.”

A young Illuminatus embarked on a long pilgrimage, “a sojourn to Galileo’s delightful villa at Arcetri, just beyond the walls of Florence.”
“There it was that I found and visited the famous Galileo grown old, a prisoner to the Inquisition, for thinking in Astronomy otherwise then the Franciscan and Dominican licensers thought.”


I was his last disciple, as you say
I went to him, at seventeen years of age,
And offered him my hands and eyes to use.

Galileo recalls the momentous occasion
(‘‘that day of days’’):
When, quietly as a messenger from heaven,
Moving unseen, through his own purer realm,
Among the shadows of our mortal world,
A young man, with a strange light on his face
Knocked at the door of my house.
His name was John Milton.

Milton at the gate: Friend! let me pass.
Dominican: Whither? To whom?
Milton: Into the prison; to Galileo Galilei.
To this, the Dominican guard protests that, where Galileo is being held, there are no prisons, only confinements of sorts for those guilty of ‘‘heretical pravity’’ and ‘‘other less atrocious crimes.’’ Not to be taken in by such rhetoric, Milton stands his ground and demands (on divine authority) that the gates that confine the great astronomer be opened at once. Responding to the demand, the Dominican guard can only admire the young man who confronts him. To himself the guard exclaims: ‘‘What sweetness! what authority! what a form! what an attitude! what a voice!’’ after which he acknowledges that his ‘‘sight staggers; the walls shake; he must be—do angels ever come hither?’’)

…Plots had been perhaps laid against Milton as one who had ‘seen’ and ‘heard’ matters that were best left untold.
In Galileo, ‘frail and old,’ Milton had ‘seen’ one of those near blind illustrious of whom he had so often dreamt, and of whom he was to be himself another.


O, dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of noon,
Irrecoverably dark

Some thought that Milton’s Lucifer (Latin for ‘light bringer’), came off much better in ‘Paradise Lost’ than did God Himself.


Lieber in der Hölle regieren als im Himmel dienen.

[Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.]

http://www.uploadandgo.com/images/1_galileotelescope.jpg

Actual photograph (ha-ha) of young Milton
looking through Galileo’s telescope
(They didn’t have color photo film in those days)

Tuckerfan
2009-Jul-11, 09:13 AM
Copernicus was a well-respected Church canon and not a polemic for them. Books had to pass Church censorship, so Ossiander, apparently, added the hypothetical twist at the intro. to avoid the censors returning the book for corrections. [He may have done it, however, because he was opposed to it, but it is unclear just why he did it, and why he did it without conferring with Copernicus or Rheticus (? it's late). However, if one reads the book, there is no way one can suggest that Copernicus thought his model was merely a hypothetical model for simplicity sake, so the intro. amendment may well have been a wise one.Ossiander, being a Lutheran no doubt had good reason to be paranoid. Its entirely possible that he was worried about the Church coming after him and not Copernicus, claiming that he'd published the work as an attempt to undermine the Church and slapped ol' Nicky's name on it to air it a level of credibility it might not otherwise have had.


There were many who didn't like him before he even made a telescope, because he opposed the Peripatetics (Aristotelians). [He knew Aristotle was wrong about some things, especially on the rate at which objects fall.] Yet he became internationally famous with his Starry Messenger. Which means that he no doubt wanted to be careful in what he wrote. We're kind of used to having brand new scientific ideas tossed out at us, that wasn't the case back then. Still, even today, if someone did find unequivocal evidence that aliens built the pyramids, they'd have to be incredibly careful about how they presented the evidence, for fear of mockery. Odds are, they'd take a "stepped" approach to the matter, releasing little tidbits here and there, to get people ready for the larger picture. They'd also want to have their evidence completely nailed down, with no room for speculation that they got something wrong. Given that he knew his discovery of the Jovian moons would be earth shattering and that an unknown object by Jupiter which moved like a planet, would be equally earth shattering, Galileo may have decided to not mention anything about it until he had a better idea of what it was. (With Neptune taking about 165 years to orbit the sun, it was impossible for him to know for certain that it was a planet.)


I have not read that this hurt him much at all. Copernicus was known to have a mistress and may have turned down a bishop's position partly for this reason. Those were different times regarding fidelity, but, then again, maybe not that much after all.No doubt, then as now, who you know plays a big role in how you're treated. Given some of his familial connections, Copernicus no doubt a little more freedom than other folks.


You appeared to be making a general statement about the Church's views, and it did not appear that you were referring to Galileo. My error. I do recall that a clergy member (Forcini sp?) did write favoring the Copernican view and got in trouble for it, so I was hopeful you knew of others.IIRC, there was a Greek philosopher or two who expressed a belief in heliocentricism long before Copernicus and anyone who made too overt a reference to those philosophers found themselves subject to rather unwanted attention from the Church, if you know what I mean.

Tuckerfan
2009-Jul-11, 09:36 AM
You misread my statement. I was not being sarcastic in a way to favor the Church. [I was actually mocking them.] They blew it and it is lesson that has haunted them. But, I think they have learned much from it, though some other denominations seem to be making a very similar mistake.

The only reason they have learned something from it (and how much they've learned from it is debatable, they did, after all, only apologize for the whole business with Galileo a few years ago) is that people heaped so much scorn and distain on them that they realized they had to make a shift in their views if they wanted to retain credibility. That other demoninations feel safe in expousing utterly unscientific views is because people are unwilling, for whatever reason, to rise up against them.

Those who hold unscientific views have no qualms about agitating every time they feel like it, while the rest of us can't be bothered half the time to speak up on the matter. Reasoned arguments are fine and dandy when both parties are willing to discuss the facts in an honest manner, but when you have individuals who're unwilling to even consider the possibility that there might be a flaw in their belief structure, then rational discourse is impossible. Your only recourse then is distain and scorn (if you wish to avoid violence) to shut them up. Granted, this is somewhat unpalatable to many people, and with some justification, as often a scientific idea is treated with the same respect that one could expect if they announced that the Moon was made of green cheese, before becoming accepted. However, certain ideas are clearly nonsense and presented without a shred of evidence of any kind ("free energy" claims spring to mind) and need to be crushed as quickly as possible before they can do damage. (Think how much better off South Africa would be today if the claims made by the former health minister that AIDS could be cured by using certain herbal remedies had been silenced the moment he'd made them.)

ToeQuestor
2009-Jul-11, 09:45 AM
I forgot to say that I’m not sure how much Galileo knew and worried about Bruno and his fate; however, Bruno did preach an infinite universe, which was to be the same result concluded if the Earth revolved around the sun without the “fixed stars” moving, meaning that they and the firmament had to be very far away.

One could say that Galileo should probably have known about the sensitivities of the Church, and probably did, but perhaps felt safe in his association with Pope Urban; however, it was also that the Pope had to perform his job. The last straw that broke this friendship was when Galileo portrayed the God argument through the mouth of ‘Simplicio’ (the simpleton), even presenting it much as the Pope would have to present it and actually did present to Galileo once upon a time. It was just that Galileo had come upon a great secret of the universe and so, like anyone, could hardly contain himself.

I enjoy looking behind the formulas and equations and on into the humans behind them and have written many a ‘poem’ on some of the bizarre and humorous happenings, although Galileo was a more straight foreword case.

We sometimes forget that there was so much else that he discovered and invented, much of it useful to his patrons, such as a crude thermometer. He performed quite a balancing act, though, even stating, perhaps as a deflection, that his argument was with Ptolomy, not the Church.

I forgot to say that I’m not sure how much Galileo knew and worried about Bruno and his fate; however, Bruno did preach an infinite universe, which was to be the same result concluded if the Earth revolved around the sun without the “fixed stars” moving, meaning that they and the firmament had to be very far away.

One could say that Galileo should probably have known about the sensitivities of the Church, and probably did, but perhaps felt safe in his association with Pope Urban; however, it was also that the Pope had to perform his job. The last straw that broke this friendship was when Galileo portrayed the God argument through the mouth of ‘Simplicio’ (the simpleton), even presenting it much as the Pope would have to present it and actually did present to Galileo once upon a time. It was just that Galileo had come upon a great secret of the universe and so, like anyone, could hardly contain himself.

I enjoy looking behind the formulas and equations and on into the humans behind them and have written many a ‘poem’ on some of the bizarre and humorous happenings, although Galileo was a more straight foreword case.

We sometimes forget that there was so much else that he discovered and invented, much of it useful to his patrons, such as a crude thermometer. He performed quite a balancing act, even stating, perhaps as a deflection, that his argument was with Ptolomy, not the Church.


http://www.uploadandgo.com/images/UGE 8.5 Art.cwk (WP)_Page_170.jpg

Is Galileo Looking Past the ‘Gods’?

‘Twas here,
His final resting place,
In a church…
At last enshrined as
The Father of Science.

Embellished,
As the Master in stone,
He’s ever looking up
Whence forth came the light
From the starry skies.

George
2009-Jul-11, 04:07 PM
Ossiander, being a Lutheran no doubt had good reason to be paranoid. Its entirely possible that he was worried about the Church coming after him and not Copernicus, claiming that he'd published the work as an attempt to undermine the Church and slapped ol' Nicky's name on it to air it a level of credibility it might not otherwise have had. That is a reasonable point and it could explain why he left his name out of it. He must have known Copernicus and, possibly, Rheticus (who was put in charge of getting the publication done, but had to have Ossiander finish it) would not appreciate his hypothetical spin.


Which means that he no doubt wanted to be careful in what he wrote. We're kind of used to having brand new scientific ideas tossed out at us, that wasn't the case back then. Still, even today, if someone did find unequivocal evidence that aliens built the pyramids, they'd have to be incredibly careful about how they presented the evidence, for fear of mockery. Yes, incredible claims require almost incredibly credible evidence. J


Odds are, they'd take a "stepped" approach to the matter, releasing little tidbits here and there, to get people ready for the larger picture. They'd also want to have their evidence completely nailed down, with no room for speculation that they got something wrong. Good point. It has been said that the reason Dialogue was written in such a step-by-step approach, which was very comprehensive in addressing the scientific arguments, is because he was trying to dismantle the entrenched view of Aristotle & Ptolemy. He had to get his readers to the point they would be open to his view as most were simply closed to it.


Given that he knew his discovery of the Jovian moons would be earth shattering and that an unknown object by Jupiter which moved like a planet, would be equally earth shattering, Galileo may have decided to not mention anything about it until he had a better idea of what it was. (With Neptune taking about 165 years to orbit the sun, it was impossible for him to know for certain that it was a planet.) Yes, and the tiny apparent movement of Neptune relative to the supposed bright star could easily gone unnoticed due to many circumstances including weather and excessive focus on plotting the moons to refine his orbital calculations that had become important to him for several reasons, including financial.

This is interesting. According to my accurate Starry Night Pro software, Neptune was essentially frozen in the sky in early January due to its retrograde turn. If this's the time the author is using for the possible discovery of Neptune, his argument just became much worse. In late January, however, the two became close again, and Neptune did exhibit some relative motion among the stars.


No doubt, then as now, who you know plays a big role in how you're treated. Given some of his familial connections, Copernicus no doubt a little more freedom than other folks. That is possible. It seems to me that the Chruch, with all the reformation and other financial problems hitting them, that math and science were rather trivial issues. Math itself was barely a respectable curriculum as many felt it was superfluous, and they paid math professors accordingly, much to Galileo’s regret. Science to them meant “knowledge” and theory was hardly a word at all. Hmmm, I wonder when “theory” became a word?


IIRC, there was a Greek philosopher or two who expressed a belief in heliocentricism long before Copernicus and anyone who made too overt a reference to those philosophers found themselves subject to rather unwanted attention from the Church, if you know what I mean. Yes, but the “big gorilla” was Aristotle and better evidence would have been required to convince the Greeks that he was wrong. This is a small analogy of the gorilla (Church doctrine) Galileo was up against, contrary to what he had expected.



The only reason they have learned something from it (and how much they've learned from it is debatable, they did, after all, only apologize for the whole business with Galileo a few years ago) is that people heaped so much scorn and distain on them that they realized they had to make a shift in their views if they wanted to retain credibility. Their error was to not correct this much, much earlier, but it demonstrates an important theological mindset that disallows suggestions that they do not have first rights on the Truth, at least when it comes to the more phenomenological issues [, they should not have held such a view]. 350 years was too long, and it’s not over still. When the new Pope took office, he was not allowed to speak at a prominent Italian university because of his views, which included one that, apparently, defended the Church in their actions against Galileo. Given all the facts, I can see better now what was happening and how Galileo didn’t help matters much, but the image of the Church is too important to risk not making amends.

This story interests me much because of how it applies to many similar issues today, especially for those who favor YEC. Why can’t they see how important this lesson really is?


Reasoned arguments are fine and dandy when both parties are willing to discuss the facts in an honest manner, but when you have individuals who're unwilling to even consider the possibility that there might be a flaw in their belief structure, then rational discourse is impossible. Yes, and Galileo faced this and attempted to open the discussion with his Dialogue. It did manage to get approved past the Church censorship and even was praised by many clergy, but Galileo was quite hard on the Pope’s arguments (turning his friend, the Pope, against him) along with a very important document from 1616 that showed he was not suppose to promote the heliocentric model. [This second factor is an interesting story in itself.]

George
2009-Jul-11, 05:11 PM
I forgot to say that I’m not sure how much Galileo knew and worried about Bruno and his fate; however, Bruno did preach an infinite universe, which was to be the same result concluded if the Earth revolved around the sun without the “fixed stars” moving, meaning that they and the firmament had to be very far away. It is safe to say Galileo was very aware of Bruno's story. I would be surprised if anyone, especially in academia, had not learned about Bruno’s exploits around Europe.

Just what percent of his cosmological views impacted their decision to condemn him may be hard to ever say unless the trial documents are discovered, or we find respectable authors of that time writing about it. [I am no expert at all on this, but would welcome a reading source on it.]

My guess is that his cosmological views had only marginal impact due to his determination to promote blatant seeds of heresy to others, including prominent Church members. He was known to have remarkable memory and was quite a promoter.


One could say that Galileo should probably have known about the sensitivities of the Church, and probably did, but perhaps felt safe in his association with Pope Urban; however, it was also that the Pope had to perform his job. That is most likely true. They were friends indeed and Galileo was even granted relaxed protocol around him. This was partly because of their prior relationships, but also because so many others liked him, both the public and the scholars. The Jesuits admired his discoveries, inventions, and engineering skills. Eventually, a number of them turned against him.


The last straw that broke this friendship was when Galileo portrayed the God argument through the mouth of ‘Simplicio’ (the simpleton), even presenting it much as the Pope would have to present it and actually did present to Galileo once upon a time. It was just that Galileo had come upon a great secret of the universe and so, like anyone, could hardly contain himself. Yes, and he wasn’t very shy about such things. He had already bested the best of the Peripatetics with his falling object demonstrations, including one from the Tower of Pisa, apparently done by a colleague and not him.

Further, he knew he had liberty to be somewhat contrary if he could present “necessary demonstration”. Having vanquished the dogmatic Aristotle/Ptolemy/Thomist model (because the Church wisely recognized that they had "necessary demonstration" in the phases of Venus and Mercury) he knew he had opened the door (same door as above :)). His discovery of how the motion of the Earth could easily explain the tides (by adding the rotation vectors to the orbital vectors to get both two tides, and one being greater than the other) may have caused him to be over confident about it. No doubt, he really did want to win them over.

I read somewhere also that his brash style of writing was not uncommon during this period, because people had gotten tired of the more bucolic bliss style that preceded this time frame. Anyone know of this?


I enjoy looking behind the formulas and equations and on into the humans behind them and have written many a ‘poem’ on some of the bizarre and humorous happenings, although Galileo was a more straight foreword case. I hope you share them with us. Have you posted them in the IYA2009 forum?

I don’t know why no one has done a major motion picture on the Galileo Affair. Besides the important crux that is applicable to issues today, it is laced with all the stuff that makes good movies great.


We sometimes forget that there was so much else that he discovered and invented, much of it useful to his patrons, such as a crude thermometer. He performed quite a balancing act, though, even stating, perhaps as a deflection, that his argument was with Ptolomy, not the Church. Yes, he not only invented them but sold them by the bushel to help him with his financial burden, including his sister’s dowry (thanks Dad! J ). I suppose this additional stress may have actually helped him in some ways.


I forgot to say that I’m not sure how much Galileo knew and worried about Bruno and his fate; however, Bruno did preach an infinite universe, which was to be the same result concluded if the Earth revolved around the sun without the “fixed stars” moving, meaning that they and the firmament had to be very far away. I don’t see the connection between an infinite universe and Earth’s motion, except that both were contrary to the religious doctrine at the time.

Their distance is another matter and one that puzzles me on just how the scholars saw it. It was easy for the church scholars to argue against the Copernican model because no parallax was observed. But, if it was assumed these stars were all on a single spherical shell, then parallax would have to be found relative to the planets, which I assume would require even tougher astrometry than they were capable of, but I haven’t really considered it closely.

Hornblower
2009-Jul-11, 06:10 PM
If the stars were on a spherical shell just over 1 astronomical unit beyond Saturn, enough for the Ptolemaic epicycle to clear it, then the Earth's orbital motion in the Copernican model would cause them to oscillate visibly by a few degrees from their mean apparent position. A simple sighting device aimed at the celestial pole would make it obvious. Polaris would have spiralled in and out from it in an annual cycle.

ToeQuestor
2009-Jul-11, 06:27 PM
I read somewhere also that his brash style of writing was not uncommon during this period, because people had gotten tired of the more bucolic bliss style that preceded this time frame. Anyone know of this?

It also didn't help that Galileo wrote in the Tuscan, a language with words somehow more amenable to sarcasm, but strangely, also, for poetry. I read about it but I haven't looked into it. I guess they translated it too literally to Italian.


I don’t see the connection between an infinite universe and Earth’s motion, except that both were contrary to the religious doctrine at the time.

Now I remember. It is that if the universe is infinite then there is no place for the Creator to be outside of it. They must of then figured that if He was in it, then he had to be a natural part of it. If they knew the word 'alien' at that time maybe they would have said that.



Yes, Galileo had an associate do the gravity testing at the Tower of Pisa.
That 'someone' was one of my ancestors and looked very much like me:

http://www.uploadandgo.com/images/1_Pisa F.jpg

George
2009-Jul-11, 06:55 PM
If the stars were on a spherical shell just over 1 astronomical unit beyond Saturn, enough for the Ptolemaic epicycle to clear it, then the Earth's orbital motion in the Copernican model would cause them to oscillate visibly by a few degrees from their mean apparent position. A simple sighting device aimed at the celestial pole would make it obvious. Polaris would have spiralled in and out from it in an annual cycle. Thanks, I had flat forgot about that.

George
2009-Jul-11, 07:13 PM
It also didn't help that Galileo wrote in the Tuscan, a language with words somehow more amenable to sarcasm, but strangely, also, for poetry. I read about it but I haven't looked into it. I guess they translated it too literally to Italian. I knew it was a little unorthodox for him to not write in Latin, but I didn't consider that Tuscany would be a different style compared to the others at that time. Regardless, it was probably a smart move on his part as it reached the public with great excitement. Even the Chinese back then wrote favorably of his book.


That 'someone' was one of my ancestors... Wow. [I've forgotten his name and where I read it.]


and looked very much like me: How'd you manage to get all that stuff up there? ;)

At an early, it is said that Galileo noticed that different sizes of hail all hit the ground at the same time. Thus, he discovered that Aristotle, who claimed the heavier the faster, was wrong. The Tower of Pisa and other similar experiments, or demonstrations, were futher convincg evidence that the Aristotelians had a problem.

ToeQuestor
2009-Jul-11, 07:34 PM
How'd you manage to get all that stuff up there? ;)

There was an elevator, plus the watermelon wasn't really as big as it looks.


At an early [age], it is said that Galileo noticed that different sizes of hail all hit the ground at the same time. Thus, he discovered that Aristotle, who claimed the heavier the faster, was wrong. The Tower of Pisa and other similar experiments, or demonstrations, were futher convincg evidence that the Aristotelians had a problem.

Some use this fact to say the Earth is really rising up (expanding) to meet the falling objects. I wouldn't have considered this but for 'Dynamic Matter Theory' by Jack Hohner.

See http://www.dynamicmatter.com/

Amazingly, he has matter itself expanding by taking in space, not just the universe expanding, and even uses it to solve the Pioneer spacecraft anomaly and the slowing of the Earth's rotation. I think he still lets people read his book for free online. I couldn't refute any of it.

ToeQuestor
2009-Jul-11, 08:41 PM
George, I started putting some science stories here:

http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/90593-science-stories-behind-scenes.html#post1526747