Originally posted by no1marauderI think it was page 12 or 13 (I'm having troubles accessing it now with my computer - but the article is a good read).
What page is this assertion on? I don't feel like reading an over 32 page article to find one quote.
One of the co-authors of the article makes the same point in a speech:
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/gingerich/lecture3.html
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe. Or maybe I just don't like posting personal details on an Internet forum. Trying to "discredit" me will get you nowhere (not to mention it's an ad hominem) - attack my arguments instead of me personally. There is no jury here - you'll gain nothing with the usual defence tricks of attacking my credibility.
I asked you to provide documentation if you are and you have refused or been unable to. Not hard to figure out why.
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.
No unique/preferred centre means precisely that - no centre distinct from others. (or does "unique" and "preferred" mean something else in your dictionary?) It doesn't mean no centre at all. Just as x = 2x/2 does not have a unique solution does not mean it has no solution at all. (it has infinite solutions) Infinite centres (in this context) simply means infinite frames of reference (which is, of course, true) - and since no frame of reference is more or less "valid" than another as a frame to describe the universe, (that's the whole point of relativity) every frame of reference is equally "real" as a description of the universe. Ergo, every point is a "real" centre of the universe within a specified frame of reference.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm not afraid to say what I am (a translator); no1 is a two-bit lawyer; you're a student of (mechanical?) engineering, unless you explicitly say no, chief.
Maybe. And maybe you're Charlize Theron. Maybe no1 is the Attorney General of the United States.
Lots of "maybe"s.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't normally ask people for personal details on internet forums (as in NEVER BEFORE), but your constant insulting phrase "leave the science to the scientists" is hypocritical if you aren't one. Surely you realize that.
Maybe. Or maybe I just don't like posting personal details on an Internet forum. Trying to "discredit" me will get you nowhere (not to mention it's an ad hominem) - attack my arguments instead of me personally. There is no jury here - you'll gain nothing with the usual defence tricks of attacking my credibility.
No unique/preferred centre means pre ...[text shortened]... point is a "real" centre of the universe within a specified frame of reference.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst, the article contains numerous errors that you have repeated before like that Tychonian theory was widely taught and believed throughout the 1600's and that Hooke conceded that their was still a serious debate about it in 1674. I see where you get most of your material for these threads from now, but you conceded the first was incorrect before and anyone who reads Hooke can see the passages used are satirical and mocking. Thus, their research was sloppy.
What page is this assertion on? I don't feel like reading an over 32 page article to find one quote.
The authors presume to know what attracted Kepler to heliocentricism. It is a fact of human nature that we almost invariably have psychological reasons for the beliefs we develop. But that does not mean that we don't compare our initial preferences to what it is reality in order to decide what to believe; this is the essence of human existence. To claim that Kepler did otherwise is clearly false as this passage from page 14 indicates:
In a physical vein, he argued that just as the sun is the source of all light and heat in the universe, so it is the source of the motion of the planets, and that as such it was more fitting for the sun to sit motionless at the center than to circle the earth. This idea had an interesting consequence developed in the disputation: if the sun distributed motion to the planets, then the periods of the planets ought to diminish in a regular way with distance from the sun, their source of motive power. Copernicus had previously noted that the heliocentric arrangement furnished a neat regularity in the relationship between the sizes of the planets' orbs and their observed periods, "such as can be found no other way." Kepler proposed to explain this regularity on a physical basis. It was precisely this unique pursuit of a physics of heliocentrism that would lead to Kepler's triumphs in planetary theory.
Doesn't sound "mystical" to me. Of course, Kepler's laws spelled finis to the Tychonian and Copernician systems.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat link clearly refutes your claim, which was:
I think it was page 12 or 13 (I'm having troubles accessing it now with my computer - but the article is a good read).
One of the co-authors of the article makes the same point in a speech:
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/gingerich/lecture3.html
Kepler's decision to back heliocentrism was based entirely on mystical grounds