Originally posted by no1marauderYour whole "Hooke was being satirical" point was rather weak when you first made it - and you offered no evidence then to support your point. Sorry - I'd rather take the word of two published and well-recognised authors on the subject than yours (especially given your penchant for ignoring historical context when evaluating historical texts).
First, 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 ...[text shortened]... o me. Of course, Kepler's laws spelled finis to the Tychonian and Copernician systems.
As to the mystical bit, did you miss the part about the Trinity? Even in the passage you cited, Kepler's argument is more mystical and philosophical ("it was more fitting for the sun to sit motionless..."😉 than scientific (it fits the data better).
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerGee, people who believe in the Trinity are "mystics"? You apparently missed the point that it was Kepler's striving to prove heliocentricism that led to his laws. If he had done the supposed "scientific" thing of following the Tycohonian system (though hardly anybody else did), he never would have accomplished that.
Your whole "Hooke was being satirical" point was rather weak when you first made it - and you offered no evidence then to support your point. Sorry - I'd rather take the word of two published and well-recognised authors on the subject than yours (especially given your penchant for ignoring historical context when evaluating historical texts).
As to more fitting for the sun to sit motionless..."😉 than scientific (it fits the data better).
Try reading Hooke yourself, the whole chapter and in context. Why "take the word" of anybody when it's right there for you? If you don't agree that he's being satirical (99 proofs of geocentricism are mentioned), then you should take a reading course.
Originally posted by no1marauderPeople who base their choice between two competing theories on the basis of the Trinity are making a mystical choice - yes.
Gee, people who believe in the Trinity are "mystics"? You apparently missed the point that it was Kepler's striving to prove heliocentricism that led to his laws. If he had done the supposed "scientific" thing of following the Tycohonian system (though hardly anybody else did), he never would have accomplished that.
Try reading Hooke yourself, t ...[text shortened]... cal (99 proofs of geocentricism are mentioned), then you should take a reading course.
It's actually 77 proofs of geocentrism. And while there is satire elsewhere, there is no evidence he's being satirical in the sections Dr. Gingerich cites.
Maybe I need to get on the same reading course that you went on - especially if it identifies satire in texts that are nearly four centuries old.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't intend to because I do not consider it a reasonable request on an Internet forum. Drop by my house some time and I'd be happy to discuss my qualifications and publications with you.
Then saying "prove it" is a reasonable request. Please cite to the articles you have written regarding cosmology which have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals.
As I said earlier, if you want me to knock off the "leave the science to the scientists bit" -- either get off your high horse or actually learn some science.
EDIT: And, btw, most of my arguments require just a high-school understanding of maths and physics. You don't need a sledghammer to knock a little nail into a wall.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIn other words, you're not a scientist. Just admit it and YOU get off your high horse.
I don't intend to because I do not consider it a reasonable request on an Internet forum. Drop by my house some time and I'd be happy to discuss my qualifications and publications with you.
As I said earlier, if you want me to knock off the "leave the science to the scientists bit" -- either get off your high horse or actually learn some science.
...[text shortened]... ding of maths and physics. You don't need a sledghammer to knock a little nail into a wall.
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, I am (was?) a scientist - just not in cosmology. But I've studied enough astrophysics to refute the nonsense you so confidently sprout around here.
In other words, you're not a scientist. Just admit it and YOU get off your high horse.
How many people have stepped up to say that my maths or physics was faulty in this thread, no1? Why do you think that is?