Originally posted by lucifershammerScrew it; I give up. Your stubbornness knows no bounds. You can't get it through your head that whatever someone's initial impression is, does not rule over all their scientific conclusions if they are rational. If you knew anything about the Enlightenment, you would know that the Universe as the Big Machine with its workings being a manifestion of God's plans is absolutely common in Christian Europe. Please actually read a book on scientific endeavors in this period; your lack of knowledge regarding these matters is utterly abysmal.
What 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 Coper ...[text shortened]... the theory of gravitation. Once you had that, Kepler's laws were easily derivable from them.
I notice you selectively quoted again. Read the next section; it demolishes your argument.
1 edit
The very existence of sunspots showed another difficulty with the perfection of the heavens as assumed in the older philosophy. And the annual variations in their motions, first noticed by Francesco Sizzi, presented great difficulties for either the geocentric system or that of Tycho Brahe.
absoluteastronomy.com/d/dialogue_concerning_the_two_chief_world_system
Also, check out the discussion on page 25 of your first source, which is summarized as follows on the top of page 26:
This finding--that taking heliocentrism seriously and treating the earth just like the other planets would result in a huge increase in accuracy--was Kepler's initial inspiration to write the Astronomia nova in the fall of 1602.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat are you trying to pull?
The very existence of sunspots showed another difficulty with the perfection of the heavens as assumed in the older philosophy. And the annual variations in their motions, first noticed by Francesco Sizzi, presented great difficulties for either the geocentric system or that of Tycho Brahe.
absoluteastronomy.com/d/dialogue_concerning_the_two_chief_world_system
First, the correct link is:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/d/dialogue_concerning_the_two_chief_world_systems
Second, Galileo's book does not deal with or mention the Tychonic system at all - it is an attack of the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic system:
The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was Galileo's comparison of the Copernican system, in which the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun, with the traditional Ptolemaic system, in which everything in the Universe circles around the Earth... The dialogue does not treat the Tychonian system, which was becoming the preferred system of the Catholic church at the time of publication. The Tychonian system is mathematically equivalent to the Copernican system, and therefore there was at the time no valid disproof of it on empirical grounds.
The sunspots presented no difficulty to the Tychonic system. The only thing that Galileo could come up with which indirectly attempted to tackle it was his rubbish theory of tides. Here's what Einstein (surely you're not about to argue that he wasn't a scientist) had to say about it:
It was Galileo's longing for a mechanical proof of the motion of the earth which misled him into formulating a wrong theory of the tides. The fascinating arguments in the last conversation would hardly have been accepted as proof by Galileo, had his temperament not got the better of him.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerCut the crap. I'm having some problem with links; for some reason the address isn't showing on top so I have to copy from the search page.
What are you trying to pull?
First, the correct link is:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/d/dialogue_concerning_the_two_chief_world_systems
Second, Galileo's book does not deal with or mention the Tychonic system at all - it is an attack of the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic system:
The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was Galile have been accepted as proof by Galileo, had his temperament not got the better of him.
Galilleo's book doesn't deal with the Tychonian system for a very simple reason; as I have shown by multiple citations including from the website ran by Tycho Brahe's ancestors, his theory was almost completely ignored. Conservative Catholics like you who are mad at the prior Pope's half hearted apology for the Galilleo affair are paying it more attention now then anyone did 400 years ago.
Apparently the astronomers at the time recognized that features of the sunspots presented "major difficulties" to the Tychonian system. Hold yer breath, stamp yer feet and claim otherwise; I don't care. The tides thing is a red herring you've presented before; Galilleo made an error - so what? If Einstein had been told he had to come up with immediate, observable proof of relativity or he might get executed, he might have made some errors, too (he never believed in Quantum Mechanics, BTW; maybe you should say what a fool he was like Kepler and Galilleo were).