The Truth about the Gallileo affair - by an Atheist

[Stephen168]

All motion is relative… Ironically, this fact has been established by Galileo.

Ever heard of Aristarchus of Samos?

No – he proved that the proof is unobtainable (at the time) and cannot be required. Which, BTW, was obvious to any professional.

Aristarchus of Samos floated the idea of the earth rotating around the sun. It was rejected by his peers and perhaps by himself due to the observation of the apparent rotation of the sun, stars, planets, and moon around the earth. And no observed stellar parallax.
Tycho Brahe was not able to observe stellar parallax either, so he concluded that either the stars were too far away or the earth did not move. Being a true scientist, he went with ‘what is,’ not with ‘what might be,’ and went with a earth that did not move.
Galileo was faced with the same decision but went with ‘what might be’ but not ‘what is.’ Not good science. His Dialogue did not consider the tychonian model or admit that stellar parallax was required because it was more of a work to stir popular opinion then a work for peer review.

Yeah? Then please explain 8’ error in prediction of position of Mars under Tychonian model! Ironically, observed by Tycho himself.

Please provide a formulation of Kepler’s 2nd and 3rd laws in Tychonian system.

Please provide a proof that Tychonian system allowed for a better ephemeris calculation than Keplerian system.

In 1593, Tycho Brahe observed both the Ptolemaic model and the Copernican Model missed the predicted location of Mars by about 5’. Tycho Brahe observed where Mars was, so it wasn’t 8’ off. Kepler’s laws were his explanation of Tycho’s data. There was nothing different to be seen in the sky; as Kepler basically said in 1625. The Rudolphine Tables published by Kepler using Tycho’s data were not accepted until the 1631 transit of Mars across the sun.
So Tycho had not been falsified at the time of the trial because it was consistent with all things observed.
Claiming Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around is a myth.

 

[weller2]

In 1593, Tycho Brahe observed both the Ptolemaic model and the Copernican Model missed the predicted location of Mars by about 5’.

And, how does Tycho’s model solve that issue?

The Rudolphine Tables published by Kepler using Tycho’s data were not accepted until 1631 transit of Mars across the sun.

So, by your own words, the proof was there 2 years before the trial!

BTW, transit of Mars… really?

 

[Stephen168]

And, how does Tycho’s model solve that issue?

So, by your own words, the proof was there 2 years before the trial!

BTW, transit of Mars… really?

Sorry, it was Mercury.
Kepler’s laws were his explanation of Tycho’s data. It was the same data, providing the same out come based on two different stories to explain the data. The Rudolphine Tables published by Kepler using Tycho’s data were not accepted until the 1631 transit of Mercury across the sun. There was nothing different to be seen in the sky; as Kepler basically said in 1625. So Tycho had not been falsified at the time of the trial because it was consistent with all things observed.

Claiming Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around is a myth.

What did Galileo see that proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around?

Answering this question would go along way to proving Galileo had proved the earth moves.

 

[DrTaffy]

weller2;12549697:

BTW, transit of Mars… really?

Sorry, it was Mercury.

As you would put it:


Or as I would put it:
uch:

Kepler’s laws were his explanation of Tycho’s data. It was the same data, providing the same out come based on two different stories to explain the data. The Rudolphine Tables published by Kepler using Tycho’s data were not accepted until the 1631 transit of Mercury across the sun. There was nothing different to be seen in the sky; as Kepler basically said in 1625. So Tycho had not been falsified at the time of the trial because it was consistent with all things observed.

(emphasis added)

The trial (the one for which the Church is most criticised) took place in 1633.

So at that time it should have been obvious even to you that Galileo was justified in his claims.

What did Galileo see that proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around?

What did the Pope see that proved that the Sun went around the earth and not the other way around?
Answering this question would go a long way to justifying the Church’s actions.

 

[weller2]

Kepler’s laws were his explanation of Tycho’s data. It was the same data, providing the same out come based on two different stories to explain the data.

Ah-ah.

The Tychonian model is Copernicus’ model in Earth’s reference frame. Since all inertial reference frames are equal, the planet’s position calculated using both methods must be the same. Thus, Tycho’s model gets the position of Mars wrong by up to 8’. This is, of course, because Tycho’s model uses circular orbits.

You would have a point if someone proposed Tychonian model with elliptical orbits, but there is no historical record anyone ever did.

And the reason they didn’t is that postulating a Tychonian system in which Kepler’s laws hold leads to a logical contradiction once you get to the 3rd law.

 

[Stephen168]

Ah-ah.

The Tychonian model is Copernicus’ model in Earth’s reference frame. Since all inertial reference frames are equal, the planet’s position calculated using both methods must be the same. Thus, Tycho’s model gets the position of Mars wrong by up to 8’. This is, of course, because Tycho’s model uses circular orbits.

You would have a point if someone proposed Tychonian model with elliptical orbits, but there is no historical record anyone ever did.

And the reason they didn’t is that postulating a Tychonian system in which Kepler’s laws hold leads to a logical contradiction once you get to the 3rd law.

See Post #357

What did Tyco Brahe observe that proved the earth moved?

What did Kepler observe that proved the earth moved?

What did Johannes Kepler observe that Tyco Brahe did not observe?

What did Galileo observe that proved the earth moved?

 

[weller2]

See Post #357

Do you know what orbital eccentricity is?

 

[Stephen168]

Do you know what orbital eccentricity is?

What did Tyco Brahe observe that proved the earth moved?

What did Kepler observe that proved the earth moved?

What did Johannes Kepler observe that Tyco Brahe did not observe?

What did Galileo observe that proved the earth moved?

I asked first and I’ve been asking one question a few times.

Is there a reason you have refused any attempt and answering?

 

[weller2]

Is there a reason you have refused any attempt and answering?

Yes. You are attempting to set up a straw man.

The correct question is: what was it that Tycho observed, yet was unable to explain?

The answer has to do with orbital eccentricity.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes. You are attempting to set up a straw man.

What straw man? Please explain.

 

[weller2]

What did Johannes Kepler observe that Tyco Brahe did not observe?

Tycho measured position of Mars to 2’.

Measured position differed from position predicted by Tycho’s model by up to 8’ (i.e. 4x measurement accuracy). This is of course because Tycho assumed circular orbits. So Tycho falsified his own model, except that he refused to acknowledge that.

Only Kepler’s model with elliptical orbits could explain the position of Mars.

Kepler’s model requires a moving Earth, because assuming a stationary Earth leads to a logical absurdity when considering the 3rd law.

 

[Stephen168]

So Tycho falsified his own model, except that he refused to acknowledge that.

Falsified?
How is claiming Tycho ‘falsified’ his model different than claiming Ptolemy ‘falsified’ his model?

 

[Stephen168]

Yes. You are attempting to set up a straw man.

As you said stellar parallax is the direct proof the earth moves. You refuse to answer the question because nobody proved the earth moved because stellar parallax was not observed.
Which means Galileo never proved the earth moves.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Fascinating theological theory but:
a) it is couched entirely in terms of your own faith system. If you want to explain to outsiders why the Church should not be blamed for events like the persecution of Galileo or the genocide of the cathars, you need to do so in terms that will make sense to them
b) we don’t apply this logic to any other case. If I go out, give some money to charity, then rob a bank, I will not successfully argue in court that I should not be blamed for the robbery but should instead be rewarded for the charity because God made me be charitable but ‘the evil one’ made me rob the bank.

So again, why should the Church get credit for charitable acts performed even by minor members, yet not accept the blame for evil done by its upper echelons?

Fascinating theological theory but:
a) it is couched entirely in terms of your own faith system. If you want to explain to outsiders why the Church should not be blamed for events like the persecution of Galileo or the genocide of the cathars, you need to do so in terms that will make sense to them
b) we don’t apply this logic to any other case. If I go out, give some money to charity, then rob a bank, I will not successfully argue in court that I should not be blamed for the robbery but should instead be rewarded for the charity because God made me be charitable but ‘the evil one’ made me rob the bank.

So again, why should the Church get credit for charitable acts performed even by minor members, yet not accept the blame for evil done by its upper echelons?

Do we blame a government because some highly placed individuals act immorally or corruptly? We do blame corporations for the evil and/or mistakes committed by some in the corporation, but that is a legal matter and one really does have to question the justice of that. So why should the Church be blamed for the errorw, evils of some men/women? That makes no sense. I don’t blame England becuase Henry Vlll, Cromwell, Queen Elizabeth etc. were villans, murderers, thieves,etc. I’ve always felt sorry for the English for the mistreatment they suffered and for a legacy lost.

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

Do we blame a government because some highly placed individuals act immorally or corruptly?.

Yes, of course we do, especially if the ‘highly placed individuals’ consist of the head of state, his ministers, the judiciary and the police force all acting in concert.

We certainly don’t say that the state should get the credit for running a healthcare system but not the blame for rounding up and persecuting some convenient minority. We do both - congratulations on the NHS but please stop incarcerating all the black people just for being black. No?:ehh:

Indeed your whole apologia seems more than a little reminiscent of the concept of indulgences - i.e. that the Church should be allowed to get away with some horribly immoral things if it ‘makes up for it’ by charitable acts elsewhere!

 

[Stephen168]

Do we blame a government because some highly placed individuals act immorally or corruptly? We do blame corporations for the evil and/or mistakes committed by some in the corporation, but that is a legal matter and one really does have to question the justice of that. So why should the Church be blamed for the errors, evils of some men/women? That makes no sense. I don’t blame England because Henry Vlll, Cromwell, Queen Elizabeth etc. were villains, murderers, thieves, etc. I’ve always felt sorry for the English for the mistreatment they suffered and for a legacy lost.

I think we can blame an organization for the actions of highly placed individuals if the individual’s actions are consistent with the mission/teachings/purpose of the organization. And blame the individual if their actions are not consistent with the mission/teachings/purpose of the organization.
If someone hates an organization, they will blame the organization for the actions of individuals regardless of the mission/teachings/purpose of the organization. It is probably something about the mission, teachings, or purpose which the person hates in the first place.

Guy Fawkes, a Catholic, was tortured and killed for attempted murder. Did England torture and kill? Did King James do it? We don’t torture and kill people for attempted murder anymore, so can we claim that England was unjust in what they did to Guy Fawkes? Should England be a little embarrassed about its treatment of Guy Fawkes or hold an annual celebration to remember it by? History can be interesting, complicated, and full of myths, e.,g. Guy Fawkes was the main plotter.

You listed five myths of the Galileo affair which could be the foundation of an interesting discussion, but if someone can’t at least admit to the clear myths of history there is no foundation on which to go forward. When I say ‘admit,’ I mean directly attempt to refute them or admit they are myths. Any other discussion is an excuse to beat up the Church. While it is interesting to expose their prejudices, I see no benefit in having a discussion with someone who can’t first admit the myths. I think you might be wasting your time, but its just me.

 

[weller2]

Falsified?
How is claiming Tycho ‘falsified’ his model different than claiming Ptolemy ‘falsified’ his model?

Was Ptolemy in possession of observations which could not be explained within his model? No.

Tycho was.

 

[weller2]

nobody proved the earth moved because stellar parallax was not observed.

False.

1. Kepler’s model was the only one which could explain observations of Mars.
2. Kepler’s model is heliocentric.
3. Trying to construct a Tychonic version of Kepler’s model leads to a contradiction when considering 3rd law. This is at minimum a very strong indicator that Earth does indeed move.

In professional circles, the controversy was already settled at the time of the trial.

The popularity of the Tychonic model through the 17th century can be ascribed to the fact that merely describing heliocentrism became an excommunicable offense.

 

[weller2]

I think we can blame an organization for the actions of highly placed individuals if the individual’s actions are consistent with the mission/teachings/purpose of the organization. And blame the individual if their actions are not consistent with the mission/teachings/purpose of the organization.

In the case at hand, the actions were clearly consistent with the goals of the organization – namely, suppression of heretical teachings.

You are refusing to accept the fact that in 1633, objective truth was declared to be a heresy.

Guy Fawkes, a Catholic, was tortured and killed for attempted murder. Did England torture and kill? Did King James do it? We don’t torture and kill people for attempted murder anymore, so can we claim that England was unjust in what they did to Guy Fawkes? Should England be a little embarrassed about its treatment of Guy Fawkes or hold an annual celebration to remember it by?

Yes. No, though he bears responsibility. Yes, if one believes that we can retroactively apply today’s moral standards. Ditto.

You listed five myths of the Galileo affair which could be the foundation of an interesting discussion, but if someone can’t at least admit to the clear myths of history there is no foundation on which to go forward.

Well, before discussing myths, we should first settle the facts of the case.

And speaking of facts, you are still refusing to answer the fundamental question:

Was Earth circling around the Sun in 1633, or not?

 

[Stephen168]

Measured position differed from position predicted by Tycho’s model by up to 8’ (i.e. 4x measurement accuracy). This is of course because Tycho assumed circular orbits. So Tycho falsified his own model, except that he refused to acknowledge that.
Stephen168;12551911:

Falsified?
How is claiming Tycho ‘falsified’ his model different than claiming Ptolemy ‘falsified’ his model?

Was Ptolemy in possession of observations which could not be explained within his model? No.
Tycho was.

The standard as explained by Kepler was 10 minutes of arc. All three models, at the time of Tycho Brahe and the trial, met that standard. Kepler used Tycho’s observations for his own model. Nothing was falsified.