Originally posted by no1marauderBesides calling things, on your own infallible authority, "untrue" - do you actually have any argument to make?
That is also untrue. But you are quite the hypocrite; above you state the "science is not decided by public opinion polls" but here you claim you are right because some historians supposedly come to the same conclusion as you!
And where do you get off calling me a "hypocrite"? Your best answer to the evidence for Bruno's mystical approach was to cite research a decade and a half before Yates's!
Neither science nor history is a matter of opinion polls - both science and history have reasonably well-defined methods (the scientific method being the more precise of the two - in no small part because the subject matter makes it easier to be so). When scientists and historians adhere to the method that is proper to their fields, a consensus is a good indicator of the truth of the matter. The problem here is that the heliocentrist scientists between Galileo and Newton did not adhere to the scientific method - making their apparent consensus suspect. We know that Kepler (the most prominent of the lot), for instance, based his choice of heliocentrism on non-scientific grounds.
Show me evidence that Yates and Bruno-historians since Yates have been deviating from the historical method to the detriment of their judgment and I'll happily eat my words.
Originally posted by no1marauder1. Yes.
Answer two questions circa 1620:
1) Was heliocentricism a heresy according to the RCC?:
2) What was the penalty for heresy in European Catholic countries?
The whim of Popes and Emperors could have changed at any time regarding the enforcement of the dictate.
2. Depends.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is not a court of Law, marauder, though you keep behaving as if you were the prosecutor.
You read his two posts and tell me he's not being a hypocrite. And give a reason why.
It is about the fact that you label almost all your opponents "hypocrites". That's remarkable, isn't it ? Is this a coincidence or what ?
Originally posted by no1marauderYou just have no clue what you're talking about. I'll say it again - leave the science to the scientists.
Again, you've demonstrated no such thing and don't have a D-level understanding of virtually anything. Please cite in the article where it says there are infinite centers of the Universe and that's what it meant when it said there was no center! You're a joke.
The article explains exactly what I said for the reasons I said it did. Maybe all th ...[text shortened]... s you have hanging around to check Brahe's theory against Galilleo's can explain it to ya.
You continue to claim your article meant there was "no center" when it clearly says "no unique center". If anything is a "joke" here - it's your explanation of the article. I'll repeat it again - all you did in three prolonged sentences was elaborate on the terms 'homogenous' and 'isotropic' (of which, incidentally, you have little clue as to the meaning of in physics - despite challenging me to look up a dictionary!)
You want me to cite where it says there are infinite centers? Why don't you cite where the article "explains" that the appearance of the Universe expanding in all directions is true for every location in the Universe? Please tell me how, from the authors derivation of the relationship between energy density in vacuum and pressure associated with vacuum from Einstein's field equations, you get this idea that the appearance of the Universe expanding in all directions is true for every location. The only way for you to do that is to go back to the two words - 'homogeneity' and 'isotropy'.
Ask someone who actually understands physics to explain to you why those two conditions imply that the Universe has a non-Euclidean geometry (like a Reimann geometry). And ask them to explain to you why, in such a geometry, a uniform mass distribution spanning space yields a centre at every point.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt's been awhile since i studied Riemann geometry, but you should limit yourself to Minkowski 3-space since the 4th dimension can and should be viewed as being a separate and discrete entity, just the negativity of it when space is viewed in differential form should tell you that.
You just have no clue what you're talking about. I'll say it again - leave the science to the scientists.
You continue to claim your article meant there was "no center" when it clearly says "no unique center". If anything is a "joke" here - it's your explanation of the article. I'll repeat it again - all you did in three prolonged sentences ...[text shortened]... a uniform mass distribution spanning space yields a centre at every point.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI've answered most of this garbage in other threads and don't want to waste my time finding it again. When presented with solid evidence that Bruno did not believe in astrology, you simply changed the meaning of astrology to include any belief that is similar to those that are in sympathy with the universe being some kind of "Divine Entity" where all actions have some effect on all others. The modern physicists who believe in superluminal connections and Bell's Theorem's would be quite surprised to find out they were "astrologers"!
Besides calling things, on your own infallible authority, "untrue" - do you actually have any argument to make?
And where do you get off calling me a "hypocrite"? Your best answer to the evidence for Bruno's mystical approach was to cite research a decade and a half before Yates's!
Neither science nor history is a matter of opinion polls - both ...[text shortened]... m the historical method to the detriment of their judgment and I'll happily eat my words.
Your assertion about Kepler is rubbish and was debunked before. Your argument that Brahe's theory was preferable to Copernician and other heliocentric theories is completely nonsense culled from Catholic forums that don't like the Pope's half-hearted apology to Galilleo. Brahe's theory was ignored at the time because it was an obvious attempt to impose religious beliefs into science (it's got more attention in the last 12 years than it did in the over 400 before). When Jupiter's moons were discovered and it was seen that they revolved around Jupiter, this was the death knell of any type of geocentricism. The sunspots were another. According to you, scientists of the day should have tried to hammer them into the existing Tychonian model, perhaps by creating little epicyles for the Jovian moons. They knew better than you and your superstitious church.
Finally consider these two men:
A observes the Universe and thinks about it. He concludes that it is vast. He reasons that it is interconnected. He writes of these beliefs. Hundreds of years later, his beliefs are vindicated by observation with instruments that didn't exist at the time of his (all too brief) life.
B mathematically calculates the path the Sun uses in its rotation around the Earth. It turns out, however, that his calculations are useless as the Sun does not revolve around the Earth.
Who was the "scientist", LH?
Originally posted by lucifershammerFirst off, either give the citations to the articles that you have had published in peer reviewed, scientific journals regarding cosmological questions or knock off the hypocritical "leave the science to the scientists" crap, you arrogant parrot.
You just have no clue what you're talking about. I'll say it again - leave the science to the scientists.
You continue to claim your article meant there was "no center" when it clearly says "no unique center". If anything is a "joke" here - it's your explanation of the article. I'll repeat it again - all you did in three prolonged sentences ...[text shortened]... a uniform mass distribution spanning space yields a centre at every point.
The article is regarding the "cosmological constant". The history of the "cosmological constant" is as follows:
Seed Expert José Navarro writes:
From the Earth, it looks to us like the Milky Way is the center of the Universe because all the galaxies around us appear to be moving away. However, we now know that the same is also true everywhere else – no matter where you are in the Universe, all the galaxies appear to be moving away - the whole Universe is expanding, with no preferred center.
The Astronomer Edwin Hubble observed in 1929 that distant galaxies were moving away from the earth and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. Before that time people thought that the universe was static, including Albert Einstein, who was annoyed to find that his famous General Theory of Relativity predicted either an expanding or contracting universe. Einstein added a “cosmological constant” to his equations to make them consistent with a static universe – until he heard about what Hubble had discovered.
So, the Universe DOES appear to be expanding away from every single point in it as I stated.
The idea of a center is logically inconsistent with the existence of an infinite number of centers. You are using the term "center" in a nonstandard manner. This "Humpty Dumpty" style of debate is typical of you.
Originally posted by frogstompIt's been a while since I studied Riemann geometry as well. Is there anything mathematically inaccurate about what I've been saying so far? If so, what exactly and why?
It's been awhile since i studied Riemann geometry, but you should limit yourself to Minkowski 3-space since the 4th dimension can and should be viewed as being a separate and discrete entity, just the negativity of it when space is viewed in differential form should tell you that.