Galileo

[hecd2]

hecd2:

However when you make apparently knowing statements about what we know and don’t know, as you have, you really should be in a position to defend them.

I cannot trust you for you have deliberately excluded from your conclusions God, which renders you impotent.

I am not asking you to trust me, just to get things right if you present them as fact. As for excluding religious conclusions from scientific considerations, I can assure you that it does not make me impotent.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

I am not asking you to trust me, just to get things right if you present them as fact. As for excluding religious conclusions from scientific considerations, I can assure you that it does not make me impotent.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

hehehe!

 

[mich2]

No it was not. How much do you know about this model? Have you read the original papers? Do you know what they show? And most of all, do you know what the starting point of the model is, and why, therefore, you cannot use it to prove geocentrism?

Again, you’re right in all of the above. I’m not a scientist, so maybe you could correct me as to where my understanding of what Born wrote went awry.

:"…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’…

First, he seem to point to whaterver follows has consequences supporting Ptolemy’s model of a motionless earth.

One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.

Einstein’s field, I would understand to be something similar to a space gravity medium.
As distant masses revolve, the space central to the masses behave as if they experience centrifugal and other inertial forces, something which is attributed to an absolute space medium. I understand this to be the behavior of spacetime
existing inside a rotating “hollow, thick-walled sphere”.

If we place a mass at rest inside the sphere, it would experience the same as if it would rotate and everything else would be static. This would therefore include all of the elements associated with centrifugal force, including the Coriolis effect.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Andre

 

[StAnastasia]

Because this is an equal opportunity forum, I personally believe that some of things which are being said regarding Galileo’s situation 400 years ago should be responded to…especially when both the teachings and the organization of the Catholic Church are being misrepresented.

grannymh, the theory of pulmonary circulation of the blood dates from roughly the same time as other elements of the scientific revolution. Maybe we could start a thread doubting circulation, since it is opposed to Aristotelian-Galenic medicine, and no doubt accepting the theory will challenge the faith of some.

 

[grannymh]

grannymh, the theory of pulmonary circulation of the blood dates from roughly the same time as other elements of the scientific revolution. Maybe we could start a thread doubting circulation, since it is opposed to Aristotelian-Galenic medicine, and no doubt accepting the theory will challenge the faith of some.

Dear StAnastasia,

Guess what!

When I was trying to get the hang of the period, the pulmonary circulation of the blood was one of the first things I found. That was really impressive, seriously.

As for starting a new thread, I don’t have the status of a holey [sic] office.
Besides, it would be easier on my brain to do Greek drama. That would be sure to challenge the faith of at least one politically correct person.

Honestly, I do appreciate your point especially since it did tickle my funny bone.

Blessings,
granny

 

[StAnastasia]

Dear StAnastasia,When I was trying to get the hang of the period, the pulmonary circulation of the blood was one of the first things I found. That was really impressive, seriously.

Grannymh, one of the early proponents of the theory of pulmonary circulation of the blood pushed it for theological, rather than for physiological reasons. Michael Servetus (1511-1553) – in whose execution at the stake Protestants and Catholics cooperated – proposed that the virginal concept of Jesus might reasonably be explained through pulmonary circulation of the blood. When the Holy Spirit breathed on Mary, she breathed the Spirit into her lungs, thence into her bloodstream and eventually into her uterus, thus conceiving Jesus. (This was before early modern science knew of sperm and egg, of course.)

Thus, it is interesting to discover that a theological agenda pushed a scientific “research program,” a line of inquiry which turned out to produce real results for our human knowledge of physiology.

StAnastasia

 

[mich2]

where are you getting this idea? do you mean it as a ‘point of balance’?

That would be a good way of putting it,warpspeedpetey, but then again, not precisely.
We know that two bodies of equal mass will produce a system center of gravity resting halfway between the two bodies. However, a space curvature, in which the lowest point is found halfway between the two bodies, would be a better image to follow than simply use a point force of gravity. Now if we introduce another body having the same mass and put it beside one of the two bodies, a mirror image of the space curvature is introduced.
However, now, the whole system also has a gravitational center being the body in the middle.
No matter how much more mass you introduce to the system, there will be a system gravitational center somewhere.
Now, I do understand that within the “balloon model” of the universe, no true center seems to exist, however, such a model does have it’s problems, and for such reasons is very limited.
How does such a model explain the increase of red shift we observe? Also a sphere does indeed have a central gravitaional point as well; it’s located inside the sphere. When we look out in deed space, we are looking, in my opinion “into” the sphere, and not mearly on the surface of it. It would be reasonable to suspect the farthest galaxies away would be closer to the center of such universal gravitational center. It would be expected, in my opinion, to observe the microwave universal radiation as being localized at the very center of the universe, but such microwave radiation exists all over. This could indeed suggest a model in which we observers are located in the center of the universe and looking out.

so now i am to accept, against all observation, and laws of physics, that the universe is a thick walled hollowed sphere?

Well, first, as Alec has told me, I maybe misunderstanding the experiment. So I will simply explain it the way I believe it implies.

The thick walled hollow sphere, represents everything in the universe experiencing an orbit.
The space in the middle, if it was mearly empty space, would not be affected by the rotational sphere. However, observation does show that the space inside does experience effects that would be identified on a medium type of space, which GR calls spacetime. If another smaller sphere would be placed, static, inside the hollow sphere,
it would ecperienced the same effect as if it would be rotating and the hollow sphere would be that which is at rest.
Again, I’m waiting for Alec to correct me as to where I’m wrong in assuming this.

absolutly false. in an expanding universe, which is what we observe, any point with an observable body out to the limit of its light horizon roughly 13.8 billion light years, would show the same effect.

But according to Hawkins, we have no proof of this.

its a matter of 2 factors, both of which we are familiar with.

1. an expanding universe

1. the speed of light.

there is nothing philosophical about it, it is merely logical deduction from known factors.

i think you misconstrue what hawking means, and i am no hawking fan.

That could be true indeed ,Warpspeedpetey.

that aside, you have no evidence to support any of your positions, but you have no problem accepting them,

how can you seriously support accepting ideas for which there is no evidence, against the combined reasoning of the rest of humanity, then reject all, even photographic evidence of my position?

what would satisfy you?

Just by conversing with you and others satisfy my
curiosity greatly,Warpspeedpetey. Have you ever
made crosswords or other type of puzzles? It’s not in beating the game that makes it enjoyable, but just playing it . I don’t mind whether I’m right or wrong in such issues, but they’re still personal issues for me which makes me look for answers.
I do explain clearly that I am no scientists, in order for others not to take my issues too seriously.

Andre

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

If you mean by this statement that no unmoving centre of the universe has been identified, of course that is true as such a concept is quite meaningless

…making heliocentrism meaningless as well.

Correct. In GR, any-centrism is meaningless. However, it is not meaningless to talk about the centre of the solar system, or the Milky Way galaxy, or any gravitationally bound finite system.

Because of our present observation of the universe. We seem to be located at the center.

I don’t think so. We seem to located on a planet orbiting a star 3/4 of the way out on an unremarkable spiral arm of an ordinary galaxy, which is part of a loosely bound group of galaxies, one of hundreds of billions of galaxies within our observable horizon, and who knows how many beyond. In other words, if we appear to be anywhere, we seem to be in an insignificant backwater of the universe.

The problem lies, in my opinion, in Galileo refusing to hold heliocentrism as a model, but claimed it as an absolute truth.

You need to explain the difference between a model and absolute truth in your mind. All scientific theories are models that describe reality imperfectly. Cosmological models from Ptolemy through the Islamic cosmologists such a al-Biruni and al-Tusi to Bruno, Brahe, Copernicus and Galileo were never meant to be some sort of abstract idea unconnected to reality, but to reflect reality. Galileo was no different in this respect, and I am not sure that the distinction you are trying to make here is valid.

This requires an absolute static frame of reference; he chose the sun instead of the earth.

Absolute frames of reference were how the universe was understood up to the 1900s.

We are sometimes quick in showing stupidity on the part of the church in believing the earth is actually static. However, nobody seems to find problems in Galileo believing the sun was static instead of the earth

It is, with respect to the solar system

The sun is not static, this is the point, making heliocentrism, which means placing the sun static, that is, absent of motion in the universe, to be just as erronious as the geocentric absolute static frame.

No, the point is that Galileo’s observations undermined forever the idea that the earth is at the centre of the universe and was an important step in demolishing the Church’s claim that Scripture should take precedence over science as well as the Church’s claim to have the authority to censor scientific ideas.

My point was mearly to point out that it could be just as true to speak geocentric universe as it is to speak of a heliocentric one, in the same way that it is just as true to speak of wave or particle properties of matter. I was trying to make the point that neither can be said to be more truer than the other.

But it is a poor analogy, in that light can be described successfully as a wave with respect to some phenomena and a particle with respect to others. In other words, both views of loght are true under certain conditions. On the other hand, neither geocentrism nor heliocentrism can be true (although a heliocentric solar system is a closer description of reality than a geocentric one.

Again, I will accept your explanation as I’m no scientist. I do have a couple of questions though. Is it not shown that the Foulcault’s pendulum is affected by a solar eclipse?

No. I believe a measurement was made that suggested such a disturbance, but it has not been observed again by any proper scientific measurement as far as I know even in the total solar eclipse that crossed the UK and Europe in 1999. Until such time as there is dependable data that indicates such a disturbance, there is nothing to discuss. The phenomenon of Foucault’s pendulum is explained fully and quantitatively (eg the variation in the period of precession with latitude) as an effect of the earth’s rotation.

Secondly, why is the stellar aberation affected by the earth’s movement only, and is not due to the star/earth relative velocity?

Because light arriving at the earth follows a path which is a geodesic between the star’s position at the time of emission and the earth’s position at the time of detection, and the geometry of this path is independent of the star’s transverse velocity with respect to the earth at the time of emission. The light carries no information about any transverse component of the star’s velocity with respect to the earth (the axial component of the star’s velocity can, however, be determined by red shift)

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

The surface of the balloon is a representation of a model.How does this model explain the increase of red shifts per the increase of distance observed?

If a balloon is expanding, the speed of recession of points on the surface of the balloon over the surface, measured from any point on the surface, is directly proportional to the distance that the receding points are from the reference point.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Dear Alec,

If one agrees that the distinction between the solar system and the universe was not properly understood in Galileo’s day, then why not look at the whole context of the Renaissance?

For example, the positions of Copernicus and Martin Luther were opposite because of sola scriptura. Thomas Aquinas and other Scholastic writers were popular. To say that the years leading to the Council of Trent and following were turbulent would be an understatement. In the midst, the idea that the earth was not the center of the universe wounded men’s pride. And considering the prestige of a position in an university, “publish or perish” probably existed as well.

To understand the Catholic Church’s position regarding science in the time of Galileo, one should avoid using the perspective of today’s world with its vast explosion of knowledge and technology. From reading a lot of what Cassini has presented in various threads, it appears that the Church’s questioning was not all that toxic. Galileo continued his work. As far as I know, Johannes Kepler and others stayed busy and intrigue helped one get an university position.

Apparently, the Church 400 years ago was concerned with preserving its truths. Same as today. Today, relativism is attacking absolute truth. Four hundred years ago, the Church, on one hand was supporting science and on the other was carefully watching its results. It was a tricky balance especially with Galileo and literalism. You can’t blame them for being edgy in the aftermath of the Reformation.

The material which I read showed that members of the Church were negotiating so that science could advance. This is because the Catholic Church had never said that a word by word literal interpretation was the only way to read the bible. The material presented by Cassini refers to the reverence for the teachings of scripture which of course are in the area of faith and morals.

One more note. After checking Church procedure, it appears that the commissions, courts, etc. involved did not have the authority of proclaiming dogma despite their highfalutin names and membership. However, everyone involved liked to throw around tough sounding conclusions at the same time they were busy name calling.

My point is that we should look at Galileo according to his times and not according to the journalistic style of the check-out counter tabloids.

I understand and am sympathetic to your desire to take this historical perspective. However, I think a historical perspective will also tell us that this affair was the first step in the process that culminated in the full flower of the Enlightenment which resolved the tension between reason and evidence on the one hand, and revelation, authority and tradition on the other hand.

While I understand the historical context of the affair and the reasons for the Church’s actions, I believe that religious interference in matters of science (I don’t mean in considering how scientific knowledge is used but in matters of theory and fact) is always inappropriate as a matter of principle and is toxic both to science and, ultimately to religion, as this affair shows. I understand *why *the Great powers mobilised in July and August of 1914 - that does not mean that I condone their action. I understand why the Church acted as she did in the Galileo affair, but I will never condone the suppression of ideas by imprisonment and threats of torture in that or any other historical era. Our freedom to express ourselves was dearly bought and one of those who paid the price was Galileo. My blood boils when I think of a man as great as Galileo being forced to kneel before such men as signed the sentence of 1633.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I understand your concern, Alec, and do respect this. However, I am not a scientist, so the best I could do is look up some material and get back at you. In the meantime, why would scientists, such
as George Ellis write :
**
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models**. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

I’ll wait for the maths.

As far as Ellis goes, I have no idea what model he is talking about in this popular article. If he published a paper on it and you give me a reference, I’ll get hold of it and give you a response. What you need to understand is that without the paper containing the maths, the claim is empty, just as the geocentrists claim is empty until the quantitative mathematical description can be produced to be checked against observation. Hand-waving arguments don’t cut it in cosmology.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Buffalo never really engaged at the detail level. As I said I watch for the conclusions. As far a s I can see it still can be either way and we cannot for certain until we look from outside our frame.

But you can’t see very far because you have no idea how to support the idea that the phenomena I’ve listed several times can arise on a static earth. In otherb words, you have an opinion, but no way of supporting that opinion or any criteria on which decide whether that opinion is more valid than any other, except for your wish that it should be so.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That would be a good way of putting it,warpspeedpetey, but then again, not precisely.
We know that two bodies of equal mass will produce a system center of gravity resting halfway between the two bodies. However, a space curvature, in which the lowest point is found halfway between the two bodies, would be a better image to follow than simply use a point force of gravity. Now if we introduce another body having the same mass and put it beside one of the two bodies, a mirror image of the space curvature is introduced.
However, now, the whole system also has a gravitational center being the body in the middle.
No matter how much more mass you introduce to the system, there will be a system gravitational center somewhere.
Now, I do understand that within the “balloon model” of the universe, no true center seems to exist, however, such a model does have it’s problems, and for such reasons is very limited.
How does such a model explain the increase of red shift we observe? Also a sphere does indeed have a central gravitaional point as well; it’s located inside the sphere. When we look out in deed space, we are looking, in my opinion “into” the sphere, and not mearly on the surface of it. It would be reasonable to suspect the farthest galaxies away would be closer to the center of such universal gravitational center. It would be expected, in my opinion, to observe the microwave universal radiation as being localized at the very center of the universe, but such microwave radiation exists all over. This could indeed suggest a model in which we observers are located in the center of the universe and looking out.

how does this necessitate a point around which the universe rotates?

the curvature of space does not reach a ‘low point’ between 2 bodies, there would be a ‘peak’. each body has its own gravity well, there is no synergy by which a ‘low point’ could be achieved.

place 2 bowls touching side by side on a piece of paper and trace around them. now look at the pencil line, do you see the 2 inward pointing 'peaks at the junction of the bowls?

Well, first, as Alec has told me, I maybe misunderstanding the experiment. So I will simply explain it the way I believe it implies.

The thick walled hollow sphere, represents everything in the universe experiencing an orbit.
The space in the middle, if it was mearly empty space, would not be affected by the rotational sphere. However, observation does show that the space inside does experience effects that would be identified on a medium type of space, which GR calls spacetime. If another smaller sphere would be placed, static, inside the hollow sphere,
it would ecperienced the same effect as if it would be rotating and the hollow sphere would be that which is at rest.
Again, I’m waiting for Alec to correct me as to where I’m wrong in assuming this.

i dont understand what you are try ing to say, but i dont see its application to geocenttricity

Just by conversing with you and others satisfy my
curiosity greatly,Warpspeedpetey. Have you ever
made crosswords or other type of puzzles? It’s not in beating the game that makes it enjoyable, but just playing it . I don’t mind whether I’m right or wrong in such issues, but they’re still personal issues for me which makes me look for answers.
I do explain clearly that I am no scientists, in order for others not to take my issues too seriously.

unfortunately, by not prefacing every post with such a statement you, unwittingly, or not, expose the church to ridicule. there are usually more lurkers than members onthis forum, i hate to think how many would read you, cassini, logos, etc. and be misled that what you corporately compose is what most Catholics believe

 

[hecd2]

Actually in the model I had in mind, the earth remains at the center while the rest of the universe expands.

There is no centre on the surface of a sphere.

I think a great deal more energy is used in creating a plutonium atom than it is to create an iron atom, it would seem.

Well, yes, but so what? The earth and the sun were formed from the same pre-stellar disc containing the same elements, all created in a previous stellar generation. Perhaps you think that the earth has heavier elements than the sun? It isn’t so. I still don’t understand how this would support the idea that the earth is somehow special in the universe anyway.

Sorry if I offended you.

You didn’t offend me. I just got frustrated with a constant stream of hopeless and trivially wrong hypotheses to save an indefensible idea

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, one of the early proponents of the theory of pulmonary circulation of the blood pushed it for theological, rather than for physiological reasons. Michael Servetus (1511-1553) – in whose execution at the stake Protestants and Catholics cooperated – proposed that the virginal concept of Jesus might reasonably be explained through pulmonary circulation of the blood. When the Holy Spirit breathed on Mary, she breathed the Spirit into her lungs, thence into her bloodstream and eventually into her uterus, thus conceiving Jesus. (This was before early modern science knew of sperm and egg, of course.)

Thus, it is interesting to discover that a theological agenda pushed a scientific “research program,” a line of inquiry which turned out to produce real results for our human knowledge of physiology.

StAnastasia

Dear StAnastasia,

That is very interesting. What politically and religious turbulent times Servetus lived in. The person I found was William Harvey (1578-1657) with 1628 as the date of his discovery of human blood circulation. He was described as one who emphasized the use of experiment, observation and dissection in medicine, rather than relying on classical authorities. It seems that all around Galileo, before and after, there was upheaval, including the Council of Trent, the political fallout from the death of Henry VIII, and the various splits of Protestantism. Such wild complex times!

Blessings,
granny

 

[mich2]

Correct. In GR, any-centrism is meaningless. However, it is not meaningless to talk about the centre of the solar system, or the Milky Way galaxy, or any gravitationally bound finite system.

I don’t think so. We seem to located on a planet orbiting a star 3/4 of the way out on an unremarkable spiral arm of an ordinary galaxy, which is part of a loosely bound group of galaxies, one of hundreds of billions of galaxies within our observable horizon, and who knows how many beyond. In other words, if we appear to be anywhere, we seem to be in an insignificant backwater of the universe.

Not according to Stephen Hawking

**
"Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. **

You need to explain the difference between a model and absolute truth in your mind. All scientific theories are models that describe reality imperfectly. Cosmological models from Ptolemy through the Islamic cosmologists such a al-Biruni and al-Tusi to Bruno, Brahe, Copernicus and Galileo were never meant to be some sort of abstract idea unconnected to reality, but to reflect reality. Galileo was no different in this respect, and I am not sure that the distinction you are trying to make here is valid.
Absolute frames of reference were how the universe was understood up to the 1900s.
It is, with respect to the solar system
No, the point is that Galileo’s observations undermined forever the idea that the earth is at the centre of the universe and was an important step in demolishing the Church’s claim that Scripture should take precedence over science as well as the Church’s claim to have the authority to censor scientific ideas.

I am not ridiculing Galileo’s hypothesis, but am sharing my position against those who accept the biased position of ridicule over the church in accepting a static earth model but very sympathetic upon Galileo’s static sun model, on the grounds that absolute frames of reference were the only model understood up until the 1900s, something that I personally don’t accept, by the way. In the writings during the time of Copernicus,
the use of the term " appearances" were used often to differentiate between absolute frames and what we call today relative frames.

But it is a poor analogy, in that light can be described successfully as a wave with respect to some phenomena and a particle with respect to others. In other words, both views of loght are true under certain conditions. On the other hand, neither geocentrism nor heliocentrism can be true (although a heliocentric solar system is a closer description of reality than a geocentric one.

I accept your criticism; it’s logical.

No. I believe a measurement was made that suggested such a disturbance, but it has not been observed again by any proper scientific measurement as far as I know even in the total solar eclipse that crossed the UK and Europe in 1999. Until such time as there is dependable data that indicates such a disturbance, there is nothing to discuss.The phenomenon of Foucault’s pendulum is explained fully and quantitatively (eg the variation in the period of precession with latitude) as an effect of the earth’s rotation

Since it centers your argument of an absolute rotationary movement of the earth,I believe that it’s worth mentioning it.

Here’s a review of the 1999 eclipse, for example.

plus.maths.org/issue9/xfile/

.

**During this year’s eclipse in August, NASA and other groups attempted a range of experiments to finally confirm or deny the result. Their conclusions are still awaited, though at PASS Maths we have already heard that one laboratory in Austria replicated the effect. If it is shown that the effect really is a true one, and not the result of widespread experimental errors, then the search will be on for an explanation.

At the moment it is a true mystery: nobody has any real idea what the cause might be. Some suggestions have included gravitational waves, solar radiation, and the anisotropy of space (the fact that space is different in different directions). All of these physical phenomena are governed by highly complex mathematical models, and unravelling the mystery will take the combined efforts of mathematicians, physicists and astronomers the world over! **

Would you have more recent information of this? Notice how such deviation of Foucault’s pendulum raises interest on the concept of gravity, which ought not to affect the pendulum in the first place.
For this reason, Alec, I do think it is of great interest.

Because light arriving at the earth follows a path which is a geodesic between the star’s position at the time of emission and the earth’s position at the time of detection, and the geometry of this path is independent of the star’s transverse velocity with respect to the earth at the time of emission. The light carries no information about any transverse component of the star’s velocity with respect to the earth (the axial component of the star’s velocity can, however, be determined by red shift)

I certainly accept your explanation, although I don’t understand it. If a photon is released from a source having a transverse velocity relative to the observer, there will be no abberation index, while if the observer has a transerse velocity relative to the source,there will be an abberation observed? Is this what you are basically saying?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Andre

 

[mich2]

There is no centre on the surface of a sphere.

But were not talking of mearly a surface of a sphere anymore. We’re speaking of a sphere within a sphere within a sphere…my model puts the earth in the middle of the sphere and the rest of the sphere rotates around the earth…this is used as a model only in order to try to achieve a form of equivalence principle…not as an absolute reality.

Well, yes, but so what? The earth and the sun were formed from the same pre-stellar disc containing the same elements, all created in a previous stellar generation. Perhaps you think that the earth has heavier elements than the sun? It isn’t so. I still don’t understand how this would support the idea that the earth is somehow special in the universe anyway.

Well, you actually have given me some interest in looking at some data…the model I had given was only a quick thought and was not the central point. The central point was concerning the possibility of us as being in a special frame of universal observation as mentioned by Hawking.
This was my very easy to imagine scenario, or thought experiment, if you wish.Just imagine a quiet sea of massless particles…at one point upon the sea, some energy particle forms a massive particle. The energy deplenishment to create such a particle is what comes to be what we call gravity, or spacetime curvature…again, I was not trying to sell such an idea, but mearly to implement a simple thought which could give a very basic form of visualization as to why we could actually be central to the universe, if at some point in time some evidence would point to it.
Philosophy is much more pleasant to deal with than science… Anything goes.

You didn’t offend me. I just got frustrated with a constant stream of hopeless and trivially wrong hypotheses to save an indefensible idea

While I would understand a catholic as being frustrated at my posts, I wonder why you would be.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Andre

 

[grannymh]

I understand and am sympathetic to your desire to take this historical perspective. However, I think a historical perspective will also tell us that this affair was the first step in the process that culminated in the full flower of the Enlightenment which resolved the tension between reason and evidence on the one hand, and revelation, authority and tradition on the other hand.

While I understand the historical context of the affair and the reasons for the Church’s actions, I believe that religious interference in matters of science (I don’t mean in considering how scientific knowledge is used but in matters of theory and fact) is always inappropriate as a matter of principle and is toxic both to science and, ultimately to religion, as this affair shows. I understand *why *the Great powers mobilised in July and August of 1914 - that does not mean that I condone their action. I understand why the Church acted as she did in the Galileo affair, but I will never condone the suppression of ideas by imprisonment and threats of torture in that or any other historical era. Our freedom to express ourselves was dearly bought and one of those who paid the price was Galileo. My blood boils when I think of a man as great as Galileo being forced to kneel before such men as signed the sentence of 1633.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Dear Alec,

Well said. Especially the distinction between “how scientific knowledge is used” and “matters of theory and fact”.

Please know that my words regarding your last sentence would be my heart breaks. I’m a nobody in the Catholic Church. But if it would be any consolation, please accept my apology for what happened.

Blessings,
granny

 

[wildleafblower]

Dear wildleafblower,

Currently, the institution which stands firm on fundamental truths is under a stealth attack. One of many examples is the current discussion about Galileo, God rest his courageous soul. The tool being used is innuendo by way of non sequitur statements.

Because this is an equal opportunity forum, I personally believe that some of things which are being said regarding Galileo’s situation 400 years ago should be responded to…especially when both the teachings and the organization of the Catholic Church are being misrepresented.

Thank you for sharing some very pertinent information here and previously. By the way, I’m going to study astronomy when I turn 80 because a man in my 1986 preparation class for Halley’s Comet was seeing this comet for the second time. He was the best “student” and I hope to follow his lead.

Blessings,
granny

Hi Grannie, my nephew just left to fly home. He’s a physicist and may eventually join in the discussions. He was trying to sign-up to be a member though his time is limited since he travels all over the world. Well, I’m pleased to know that you have the desire to study astronomy. Of course I have studied pretty much ever thing under the sun so to speak. I now have over 3,000 books in my library. I hope you don’t mind me repeating once again what I attempted to state earlier which is **extremely important **because the two documents I am presenting from the Vatican:Holy See are artifacts. I have to admit that there are still tears in my eyes whenever I think about Galileo having been imprisoned. The Vatican:Holy See has recently opened up for scholars the PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL AGAINST GALILEO GALILEI Rome 1616, 1632-33 [document 1]:

*Despite all the long and extensive researches conducted by many scholars in the past, to “discover” or better find again the proceedings of the inquisitorial trial against Galileo Galilei, until now we only have a poor part of the original documents, which was extracted from the voluminous inquisitorial files of the period of the trial (1633) against Galileo or shortly after. This “abstract” was kept for many centuries in the archives of the Index Congregation (which asked the Holy Office for those documents), then it went to Paris after the sad seizure of the Vatican Archives in 1810 by Napoleon, then it passed into the hands of the Duke of Blacas and it was finally sent to the Secret Vatican Archives by the Duke’s widow in 1843.

The volume, which for a long time has been erroneously called “the trial of Galileo Galilei”, is actually a group of documents collected after Galileo’s conviction by the Index Congregation, in order to deal with, on the basis of the trial evidences and confessions, the prohibition of his books and the teaching of his doctrine (it contains many letters of bishops or papal representatives who certify the notification of this prohibition). Some of these documents were taken from the lost papers (seemingly there were many volumes) on Galileo’s trial, of which we still keep the foliation (one of these volumes had at least 560 folios, that is 1120 pages).

In document (a), you can see one of the original interrogations of Galileo Galilei before the Inquisition (ff. 78r-87r). In particular, it is the final part of Galileo’s testimony, given on the 12th April 1633 with his signature, according to the rule (line 8: Io Galileo Galilei ho deposto come di sopra) and the beginning of the next interrogation (line 9: Die sabbathi 30 aprilis 1633. Constitutus personaliter Romae in aula congregationum, coram et assistente quibus supra, in meique <etc.> Galileus de Galileis de quo supra …]).

After the condemnation of Galileo’s scientific theses, there was, as everyone knows, the abjuration pronounced by the famous native of Pisa in the Church of the Minerva on the 22nd June 1633. In the months that followed, Galileo obtained from Pope Urban VIII the possibility to serve the **imprisonment sentence *in his villa at Arcetri (1st December 1633). From there, on the 17th December 1633, he sent an entirely holograph letter to his “patron” Cardinal Francesco Barberini. In fact, it was thanks to his intervention that Galileo obtained this favour (b).
asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1616.htm
http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1616.htm
I repeat the Church back then did make a mistake. None of us are perfect as you must know. Pope John Paul II realized this mistake of the Church and said to the SCIENTISTS ON THE OCCASION OF THE STUDY WEEK ORGANIZED BY THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES on October 2, 1984[document 2], "Centuries have passed since Galileo’s telescope penetrated the heavens and gave mankind a new vision of the universe. In his brief but fundamental work entitled Sidereus Nuncius, published in Venice in 1610, he spoke of the discoveries made by means of his telescope, but he added, being both a scientist and a believer, that he had made them divina prius illuminante gratia, preceded by the enlightenment of divine grace.

“Other great scientists such as Kepler and Newton likewise searched the heavens with the spirit of believers. Poets and philosophers such as Pascal contemplated with awe the mysterious silence of outer space.”
I hope to present in a few days a list of ‘the discoveries he made by means of his telescope’. There has been one particular discovery of Galileo that has recently been of great interest to astrophysists. Maybe someone besides myself knows? Anyone know all the discoveries of Galielo?

I’ll end on this sweet note, yesterday is gone. May our future be be brighter. And for us who love Jesus, may he give us the strength to move onward with a smile and forgiveness in our hearts. Blessings to everyone!

 

[grannymh]

Regarding Post 159

Dear Wildleafblower,

The next time a family member wonders why I have a lot of books, I will say that I have a friend who has over 3,000 books–so there

At least for this poster, it is a good thing you repeated your information because I never (well almost never) believe anything I hear the first time. Would you please review my interpretation of what I’ve learned so far including what I’ve learned from other posters?

As to where I come from, my educational background of the early Renaissance and following focused on English literature, the Reformation, and some philosophy set in a broad historical context. Thus, I know poets and Protestants on a more personal basis. Looking back, I’m sure I confused Galileo with someone else thinking that Galileo had some rocky moments but for the most part it was smooth sailing. :tsktsk:

I now know differently, even double checked different historical perspectives.
My heart breaks knowing what really happened.

Alec, hecd2, Post 150, " I think a historical perspective will also tell us that this affair was the first step in the process that culminated in the full flower of the Enlightenment which resolved the tension between reason and evidence on the one hand, and revelation, authority and tradition on the other hand.

From what I learned from the “documents” on a number of threads, the facts support the above quote as there were two tracks operating in the Galileo issue, support for Galileo as a scientist and support for a literal word by word interpretation of Scripture. Even the out of context quotes from Robert Bellarmine show that high ranking theologians were aware of the two tracks/issues involved. It is also very obvious that kitchen negotiations were going on. I totally agree that a lot of mistakes were made which caused unnecessary suffering.

On the other hand, two of the worse possible mistakes ever were deftly avoided either through the shrewdness of some theologians who recognized the value of science or by the guidance of the Holy Spirit–most likely a combination of both.

The first big mistake that did not happen was to have the Church, in its official position of authority in the areas of faith and morals, declare that the literal word by word interpretation of Scripture could be applied infallibly to science. Despite all the church-type words like heretical, dogma, declarations, abjuration, degrees,and very impressive titles. etc. which are used in the various documents, the requirements for official authoritative infallibility are missing. (There is plenty of evidence on other threads regarding infallibility.) Instead, the Church stayed in step with the Church Fathers regarding creation. The Catholic Church’s formal statement of doctrine on creation dates to 325 and following when the Nicene Creed was adopted. It is that God is the maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. The “how” is still being freely explored by science. Thankfully, it is not being explored by me.

The second big mistake that did not happen was to have the Church isolate itself from science. Apparently, high ranking theologians were given the task of looking into Galileo’s situation. While these individual men made awful mistakes, the precedent was set forever that the Catholic Church could use its resources such as talented individuals and university facilities to advance science’s development. The understanding, which still exists today, is that when it comes to matters of scientific theory and scientific fact, members of the Church, including its Pope, are speaking as individuals and should be regarded individually. They are not speaking infallibility as a public official of the Church. However, their opinions have the right to be respected.

It is society’s use of scientific knowledge or how society applies scientific knowledge to daily living which can be examined from the Catholic moral perspective. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that all human life is worthy of profound respect.

Personally, I recognize that some of the above can be debated. That is fine as long as it is kept in a respectful context.

One more thought. It is understandable that some people would wonder how the Catholic Church can still be called holy considering its sinners. It will always be seen as holy because it witnesses with fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus, Whose Holy Presence continues within the Church. (Matthew 28: 16-20) Jesus Christ is constantly calling us to a holy life. Nonetheless, we are sinners. When we acknowledge our sins and follow the path of conversion, penance, and renewal, we are united with Jesus Chirst in our imperfect holiness.

I will end with wildleafblower’s closing:

I’ll end on this sweet note, yesterday is gone. May our future be brighter. And for us who love Jesus, may He give us the strength to move onward with a smile and forgiveness in our hearts. Blessings to everyone!