Originally posted by ChurlantWelcome to LucifershammerWorld. This is to "prove" that the RCC was right all alone and that Galilleo and Kepler et al were lousy scientists for not accepting the Tychonian model.
I'd just like to be clear in understanding there have now been 15 pages of semantics arguments concerning whether or not the statement "the Earth is the center of the universe" can be considered scientifically valid?
-JC
Modern geocentrism / Wikipedia :
" Some Catholics hold to geocentrism on the basis of official interpretations of the Catholic Church, some even invoking the doctrine of papal infallibility. The three popes who issued decrees on the subject, (Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander VII) all ratified the statement: "the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith".
Alexander VII, in a Papal Bull declared that "the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture" and the principles advocated by Copernicus on the position and movement of the earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and to its true and Catholic interpretation".
These declarations have yet to be officially overturned by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, and there have been no official declarations on the subject since "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism
Originally posted by drjegcThey're nuts. You can't invoke Papal Infallibility on a subject that is not a matter of faith and morals.
Modern geocentrism / Wikipedia :
" Some Catholics hold to geocentrism on the basis of official interpretations of the Catholic Church, some even invoking the doctrine of papal infallibility. The three popes who issued decrees on the subject, (Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander VII) all ratified the statement: "the Earth is not the centre of the world and ...[text shortened]... l declarations on the subject since "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism
Do you have any references to afore-mentioned Bulls? AFAIK, Pope Urban did not even sign the Inquisition condemnation of Galileo personally.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOne doesn't have to be engaged in scientific research in an ongoing basis to know what the sceintific method is, what the do's and don't's of research are, what the boundaries and limitations of a particular experiment are.
I'm not sure if a degree in sociology, anthropology, computer science or similar is sufficient to qualify one as a scientist, particularly if one is not engaged in scientific research on an ongoing basis.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, this isn't to "prove" that the RCC was 'right' all along - it's just to say that, in modern relativity, the RCC wasn't wrong. Neither was Galileo/Kepler.
Welcome to LucifershammerWorld. This is to "prove" that the RCC was right all alone and that Galilleo and Kepler et al were lousy scientists for not accepting the Tychonian model.
And yes, if you cling on to your theory despite the data, then you are being a lousy scientist. It's as true of Galileo as it is of the humble researcher in a modern lab.
5 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerExcept the data confirmed heliocentricism and couldn't possibily confirm geocentricism since it was wrong. And if Kepler had listened to you, he would never have developed his laws and science (at least astronomy) would have stagnated for 200 years. Your own sources verify that, as well as showing that your claim about Kepler was false.
No, this isn't to "prove" that the RCC was 'right' all along - it's just to say that, in modern relativity, the RCC wasn't wrong. Neither was Galileo/Kepler.
And yes, if you cling on to your theory despite the data, then you are being a lousy scientist. It's as true of Galileo as it is of the humble researcher in a modern lab.
EDIT: From your second source:
Kepler always justified his choice in terms of the Holy Trinity, but this could hardly have been the starting point. Surely it was the aesthetic appeal that arrested their attention, the sheer geometrical beauty of an arrangement that included the distant promise of a new physics. And it was Kepler who first glimpsed this new physics when he discovered not only that Mars moved in an orbit with the sun at one focus of the ellipse—that focal point is far more important than the elliptical shape itself—and also that the earth in its orbit had the property of speeding up when it was closer to the sun. I hasten to point out that this momentous physical discovery was not present in De revolutionibus and had to be teased out through Kepler’s insight into the nature of the problem. These discoveries were made by 1605, though publication of Kepler’s Astronomia nova was delayed until 1609.
LH: Kepler's decision to back heliocentrism was based entirely on mystical grounds
Care to retract?
Originally posted by no1marauderNo - aesthetic grounds are still not scientific grounds. And, as is clear from the passage cited, Kepler himself openly justified his selection on mystical grounds (even though the author speculates it started on aesthetic grounds).
Except the data confirmed heliocentricism and couldn't possibily confirm geocentricism since it was wrong. And if Kepler had listened to you, he would never have developed his laws and science (at least astronomy) would have stagnated for 200 years. Your own sources verify that, as well as showing that your claim about Kepler was false.
EDIT: From you ...[text shortened]... ecision to back heliocentrism was based entirely on mystical grounds
Care to retract?
As to the data, how many times do you need to be told that the data within the Solar System could not validate Copernicus's theory more than Brahe's? It didn't "confirm" heliocentrism.
If Kepler had listened to me, nothing significant would've changed in science. He would still have to develop his elliptical orbits to explain the observational data and Newton would still have discovered gravity when he did.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're ridiculous and do you know what the word "entirely" means? It doesn't matter; you'll play Humpty Dumpty with that one, too: mystical = something else in LH speak, astrology = something else in LH speak. Absurd.
No - aesthetic grounds are still not scientific grounds. And, as is clear from the passage cited, Kepler himself openly justified his selection on mystical grounds (even though the author speculates it started on aesthetic grounds).
As to the data, how many times do you need to be told that the data within the Solar System could not validate explain the observational data and Newton would still have discovered gravity when he did.
You are wrong about the data in the solar system as well. The Jovian moons and the eccentricities of sunspot activity were unexplainable by Tycho. Not that it mattered; hardly anyone paid attention to his system which was created purely on religious grounds, as it added nothing to the Copernician system except God's own favored planet Earth being in the middle.
Your own source (which you now seem to want to repudiate though before you were "taking their word"😉 says Kepler was led to his laws by his belief in heliocentricism. Are your "experts" wrong?
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat do you mean the Jovian moons and the eccentricities of sunspot activity were unexplainable by Tycho? Their significance was in showing that not everything revolved the Earth and that the Sun was not a pefect source of light - which attacked the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian system - not the Tychonian. The Tychonian is as good a model as the Copernican for observations within the Solar System.
You're ridiculous and do you know what the word "entirely" means? It doesn't matter; you'll play Humpty Dumpty with that one, too: mystical = something else in LH speak, astrology = something else in LH speak. Absurd.
You are wrong about the data in the solar system as well. The Jovian moons and the eccentricities of sunspot activity were unexpl ...[text shortened]... epler was lead to his laws by his belief in heliocentricism. Are your "experts" wrong?
Here's what Gingerich and Voelkel say on page 13:
For Kepler, the Tychonic system was all a big mistake. As we will elaborate in the next section, Kepler always thought in theological terms. He saw the Copernican system as the embodiment of the Holy Trinity, with God represented by the sun and Jesus Christ by the outer shell of stars. The sun, the source of power and light, would provide the motive power for the planets, just as Aristotle believed that the love of God turned the outer shell of stars around each day in his own earth-centered model of the cosmos.
Kepler's belief in heliocentrism may have led to his laws but, as the passage above makes clear, his belief in heliocentrism itself was not based in science. As for the laws themselves, he didn't need heliocentrism to tell him that planets moved in elliptical orbits or that their periods of revolution depended on the distance from the sun - the observational data makes it clear. What he needed was the theory of gravitation. Once you had that, Kepler's laws were easily derivable from them.