Originally posted by no1marauder1. What "solid evidence" that Bruno did not believe in astrology? An outdated historian?
I'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 act ...[text shortened]... the Sun does not revolve around the Earth.
Who was the "scientist", LH?
2. You never "debunked" the Kepler assertion. You're lying.
3. Jupiter's moons and sunspots attacked the metaphysical foundations of the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian model - but they have nothing to do with the fact that the Tychonian model fits the data available in Galileo's time better than the Copernican-Galilean model.
4. The scientists of the day probably had their own prejudices for opposing a theory that had the backing of the church. Nevertheless, prejudice against such a theory is still prejudice - it is not in accordance with the scientific method.
5. (A and B) A scientist is not a poet or a day-dreamer. Science fiction writers can think about the Universe and have beliefs that may be vindicated centuries later. That does not make them scientists. A scientist builds a theory on the basis of the data. His model must explain all available data at least as well as other models - even if discriminating data can only be found later.
Btw, in the example of B you've given, B's calculations will not be useless because a model where the Sun revolves around the Earth is mathematically equivalent to a model where the Earth revolves around the Sun (as far as those two bodies go).
Originally posted by no1marauderAs long as you continue to show an abyssmal understanding of science coupled with the arrogance to make scientific judgments authoritatively, I will keep asking you to leave the science to the scientists. If you want me to knock it off, step off your high horse and acknowledge that there are areas of human learning that you know next to nothing about, where you can be wrong and where you're willing to learn -- or demonstrate you actually know what you're talking about. Don't waste your time trying to turn this around on me personally -- I've presented all my arguments such that anyone with a reasonable level of mathematics and physics understanding can evaluate those claims.
First 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.
The article is regarding the "cosmological constant". The history of the "cosmological constant" is a ...[text shortened]... nter" in a nonstandard manner. This "Humpty Dumpty" style of debate is typical of you.
Not sure what your Jose Navarro citation (source?) was supposed to accomplish - we all know that bit already. You claimed that the author of the article you first cited "explained" how expansion appears to be directed away from every point in the Universe - it does no such thing. It takes the homogeneity and isotropy of the Universe as a given - which is all that statement asserts given an expanding Universe.
As an aside, note how your second expert in this thread uses the term "no preferred center"? What does "prefer" mean here, no1? Why would scientists have a preferred centre in a system? What would that centre be?
I am using the term "centre" in its technical sense (e.g. centre of mass). It's only "nonstandard" if what's "standard" to you does not include physics.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYou tell me.
2. Was the death penalty ever imposed? Was torture ever used against heretics in France, Austria and the Catholic portions of Germany?
In the midst of the Reformation, there were far serious "heresies" than heliocentrism (which, btw, was not declared heretical by a Council or a Pope) to worry about. And countries that were trying to weaken the power of the Pope were hardly going to burn people they could use against the Pope, were they?
As I said earlier, instead of making vague generalisations (ignoring the complex political realities of the time even in the "Catholic" parts of Europe) - simply provide a concrete example of a heliocentrist scientist who, say, fled Catholic parts of Germany, or France, or Austria for fear of his life. That should be simple enough, right?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder... and isn't this whole discussion of yours evolving around trying to bash the Roman-Catholic Church, marauder ?
LMFAO!!! As Bruno was murdered by the RCC, LH insists that he was merely an ignorant, superstitious astrologer. This BS was also demolished in another thread.
Your discours isn't about science at all. It's about politics.
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "Science is about getting to the truth."
As I said, I wasted a lot of time before digging up sites which refuted this ridiculous argument and don't feel like rediscovering the wheel. Brahe's model was prepared after Copernicius' and so he was able to make it mathematically equivalent. However, it was more complicated and unwieldy and his main reason for coming up with it was to preserve geocent ...[text shortened]... cept an incorrect theory showns your pitiful arrogance and stubborness, but little else.
..... and what is politics all about, marauder ?
Originally posted by no1marauderHa ha ha .... you're cornered .... you'd better admit it .....
You're ridiculous. You're ignoring the whole import of the article to try to concentrate on a single word. This is what shallow nitpickers like you do. Please cite the place in the article where it says the Universe has infinite centers or that any point can be considered its center.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour argument seems to be 'The RCC wasn't wrong to believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe because now we have this neat tool that says that we can define the centre of the universe to be everywhere.'
If you've got a rebuttal against one of the arguments I've made in this thread, make it.
This of course forgets the fact that at the time the big deal wasn't the centre of the universe bit it was the do we orbit the sun or does the sun orbit us. Now it doesn't matter where the hell you define the centre or what crazy geometry you want to work in one of those answers is wrong and one is right.
As for the evidence at the time, I'm staying out of that as I haven't recently read anything of substance on 17th century astronomical observations.
No1 was right, you don't have anything other than fragments of arguments that you couldn't string together in a lifetime of rambling about Minkowski Geometry.
Originally posted by XanthosNZMinkowski geometry is basically Euclidean. I'm talking about non-Euclidean geometries here.
Your argument seems to be 'The RCC wasn't wrong to believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe because now we have this neat tool that says that we can define the centre of the universe to be everywhere.'
This of course forgets the fact that at the time the big deal wasn't the centre of the universe bit it was the do we orbit the sun or does th ...[text shortened]... s that you couldn't string together in a lifetime of rambling about Minkowski Geometry.
The statement "The RCC was/wasn't wrong etc." is too ambiguous. 'Wrong' in what sense? If you're talking morally, then simply believing a cosmology isn't a moral matter. If you're talking about the Galileo affair as a whole, then I'll readily admit that the RCC was largely wrong morally. That doesn't mean I'm going to side with those who carricature a complex historical event and try to make a pantomime villain of the RCC.
If you're talking scientifically wrong, however, you need to be more precise. Are we talking scientifically wrong according to the standards of the time, or modern standards? By modern standards (i.e. according to the current accepted theory) it wasn't. It's funny how no1 gets so worked up when I say this, but has no problems applying the same principle to Bruno or Galileo.
If we are talking by the standards of the time (the scientific method was already reasonably established by then), then they weren't wrong either. Remember, the theory of gravitation hasn't yet been formulated so there is no reason to suppose that the earth is more likely to revolve around the sun than the other way around. Nor was there any astronomical data (e.g. stellar parallax) to support the heliocentric view.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer*pounce*
(the scientific method was already reasonably established by then)
No it wasn't really at all. Hell we didn't get any actual understanding of different types and sources of error until the beginning of the 19th century.E Even in the late 18th Mechain saw no problem in changing data to fit the answers he needed and ignoring (not acknowledging and ignoring which is fine) data that didn't fit during his work to measure the Meridian.
EDIT: Premature posting.
Originally posted by XanthosNZI mean the basic scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation, validation etc.
*pounce*
No it wasn't really at all. Hell we didn't get any actual understanding of different types and sources of error until the beginning of the 19th century.E Even in the late 18th Mechain saw no problem in changing data to fit the answers he needed and ignoring (not acknowledging and ignoring which is fine) data that didn't fit during his work to measure the Meridian.
EDIT: Premature posting.
🙂
That's been around since St. Albert the Great in the 12th century. Popularised by Bacon (Francis, I think).
Originally posted by lucifershammerMaking the results fit your preconcieved notions doesn't completely destory the scientific method?!
I mean the basic scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation, validation etc.
🙂
That's been around since St. Albert the Great in the 12th century. Popularised by Bacon (Francis, I think).
Originally posted by XanthosNZOf course it does. I'm sure his peers were not too happy when they found it.
Making the results fit your preconcieved notions doesn't completely destory the scientific method?!
And does it really prove the scientific method wasn't well established? Scientists falsify their data even today - heck even that Korean guy who claimed to have cloned humans did so.