Originally posted by lucifershammerThe scientific theory wasn't even close to universal. Some used it, some used it without knowing why they were using it and others just ignored it.
Of course it does. I'm sure his peers were not too happy when they found it.
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.
Originally posted by XanthosNZAs far as explaining observations go, it was pretty universal. What wasn't universal was the idea that a scientific model that better fits the data is a better approximation to reality.
The scientific theory wasn't even close to universal. Some used it, some used it without knowing why they were using it and others just ignored it.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou mean like when Galileo observed that Venus must orbit the Sun and Brahe made up a crazy model where the sun still orbited the Earth but most of the other planets orbited the Sun? And then he didn't actually make any predictions based on his theory that could be observed to be true or false?
As far as explaining observations go, it was pretty universal. What wasn't universal was the idea that a scientific model that better fits the data is a better approximation to reality.
Also turns out the whole "Everywhere is a centre of the universe" thing isn't new. Copernicus came up with it. I guess it doesn't require relativity after all.
Originally posted by lucifershammerCenter as used by those at the time meant a geometric point in the middle of the universe. So basically all you've done is use the term center in a way they didn't. Since I was responding to that, your entire discussion is off-topic.
As 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, ...[text shortened]... It's only "nonstandard" if what's "standard" to you does not include physics.
Since you're not a scientist, you have no business using such a phrase as you have been.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe Kepler assertion was discussed previously and I showed that Kepler had indicated support for heliocentricism in letters to Galilleo as early as the late 1590's. This was contrary to your source's claims. I guess I'll have to find the thread again; of course, this won't stop you from making the same false claim 6 months later.
1. What "solid evidence" that Bruno did not believe in astrology? An outdated historian?
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 ...[text shortened]... ent to a model where the Earth revolves around the Sun (as far as those two bodies go).
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhat are you talking about?
You mean like when Galileo observed that Venus must orbit the Sun and Brahe made up a crazy model where the sun still orbited the Earth but most of the other planets orbited the Sun? And then he didn't actually make any predictions based on his theory that could be observed to be true or false?
Also turns out the whole "Everywhere is a centre of the uni ...[text shortened]... ing isn't new. Copernicus came up with it. I guess it doesn't require relativity after all.
Copernicus placed the Sun at the centre of the Universe.
Brahe's model came before Galileo.
What's so crazy about the model?
Any prediction made by Copernicus's model (within the Solar System) would also be made by Brahe's. Copernicus's model predicts stellar parallax - Brahe's doesn't.
Originally posted by no1marauderNow your crystal ball tells you I'm not a scientist, does it? ROFL!
Center as used by those at the time meant a geometric point in the middle of the universe. So basically all you've done is use the term center in a way they didn't. Since I was responding to that, your entire discussion is off-topic.
Since you're not a scientist, you have no business using such a phrase as you have been.
Even if we're talking about a geometric centre, any point (including the Earth) would be a real centre of the Universe in an appropriate frame of reference.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't care if Kepler had indicated support for heliocentrism in the mid-1550s - I am talking about the why, not the when.
The Kepler assertion was discussed previously and I showed that Kepler had indicated support for heliocentricism in letters to Galilleo as early as the late 1590's. This was contrary to your source's claims. I guess I'll have to find the thread again; of course, this won't stop you from making the same false claim 6 months later.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_1_72/ai_n13807652
Originally posted by lucifershammerCopernicus placed the Sun at the centre of the Universe.
What are you talking about?
Copernicus placed the Sun at the centre of the Universe.
Brahe's model came before Galileo.
What's so crazy about the model?
Any prediction made by Copernicus's model (within the Solar System) would also be made by Brahe's. Copernicus's model predicts stellar parallax - Brahe's doesn't.
Wrong.
The Copernican system can be summarized in seven propositions, as Copernicus himself collected them in a Compendium of De revolutionibus that was found and published in 1878.
The seven parts of Copernicus' theory are:
1. There is no one center in the universe
2. The Earth's center is not the center of the universe
3. The center of the universe is near the sun
4. The distance from the Earth to the sun is imperceptible compared with the distance to the stars
5. The rotation of the Earth accounts for the apparent daily rotation of the stars
6. The apparent annual cycle of movements of the sun is caused by the Earth revolving around the sun
7. The apparent retrograde motion of the planets is caused by the motion of the Earth, from which one observes
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat page is this assertion on? I don't feel like reading an over 32 page article to find one quote.
I don't care if Kepler had indicated support for heliocentrism in the mid-1550s - I am talking about the why, not the when.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_1_72/ai_n13807652
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI asked you to provide documentation if you are and you have refused or been unable to. Not hard to figure out why.
Now your crystal ball tells you I'm not a scientist, does it? ROFL!
Even if we're talking about a geometric centre, any point (including the Earth) would be a real centre of the Universe in an appropriate frame of reference.
No there is no "real center" of the Universe in a geometric sense. Again you keep reading "no unique center" to mean "infinite geometric centers". The latter is a logical impossibility. Please cite a scientific article that says every point in the Universe is REALLY the geometric center of it.
Originally posted by XanthosNZAren't 1 and 3 incompatible?
[b]Copernicus placed the Sun at the centre of the Universe.
Wrong.
The Copernican system can be summarized in seven propositions, as Copernicus himself collected them in a Compendium of De revolutionibus that was found and published in 1878.
The seven parts of Copernicus' theory are:
1. There is no one center in the universe
2. The Earth's ...[text shortened]... retrograde motion of the planets is caused by the motion of the Earth, from which one observes[/b]