Originally posted by lucifershammerAs I said, I wasted a lot of time before digging up sites which refuted this ridiculous argument and don't feel like rediscovering the wheel. Brahe's model was prepared after Copernicius' and so he was able to make it mathematically equivalent. However, it was more complicated and unwieldy and his main reason for coming up with it was to preserve geocentrism for religious reasons. This was quickly realized and few scientists of the day were interested.
no1: The Brahe model was rejected by the vast majority of scientists at the time for valid scientific reasons
Name one (reason, not scientist).
The fact that the majority(?) of 17th century scientists rejected Brahe's model does not necessarily mean they did it for scientific reasons. Modern scientists (I'd listed a few in that thread) lo ...[text shortened]... scientist and ask for his professional opinion as to which model he would've upheld?
Science is about getting to the truth. "Everything else revolves around the Sun but the Earth and the Sun revolves the Earth" is not a conclusion that is true, is it? Nor does it satisfy Occam's Razor as you point out. The vastness of the Universe was generally accepted after Galilleo's discoveries (if not before) so the stellar parallax problem remained only a last ditch defense for those who wanted to believe the Bible instead of their eyes. Your continued stubborn insistence that any reasonable scientist would agree with Brahe, so therefore the scientists back then were idiots because they didn't accept an incorrect theory showns your pitiful arrogance and stubborness, but little else.
Originally posted by no1marauderJust as you twist the meaning of "science" to an absurd degree?
You demonstrated no such thing. Perhaps in your deluded mind you believe that, but all that you showed was that you can twist the meaning of the word "magician" to an absurd degree. You continue to be hopelessly confused over the state of scientific thought in the 1500's and try to apply invalid standards on Bruno and others.
In any case, Bruno was a Hermeticist who believed in magic in the traditional sense of the word (sorcery, alchemy, "magick" etc.) In fact, that was his primary obsession - all the canonisation of him as a visionary scientist is the real misapplication of scientific standards.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI said no such thing. I said they risked it. The RCC declared a belief in heliocentrism a "heresy" in 1616. What was the penalty for heresy in Catholic Austria? Or Catholic France? Or the Catholic parts of Germany?
1. Be specific. You said that heliocentrists were threatened with torture and death in "many" place of Europe. Which places? Only Spain and Italy had Inquisitions. How many scientists were tortured or killed for heliocentrism in these countries? In the rest of Europe? Galileo himself had his letters published in Germany, where Copernicus's book was al ...[text shortened]... ce?
EDIT: FYI, Catholic France fought on the Protestant side during the war.
My point about the Thirty Years War was merely that what parts of Europe would come under Catholic hegemony was uncertain in the 1600's. Thus any scientist who supported heliocentricism (a heresy) was risking the penalties for it IF his realm became Catholic. What part of that is particulary hard to understand?
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou've made that claim repeatedly. It remains untrue.
Just as you twist the meaning of "science" to an absurd degree?
In any case, Bruno was a Hermeticist who believed in magic in the traditional sense of the word (sorcery, alchemy, "magick" etc.) In fact, that was his primary obsession - all the canonisation of him as a visionary scientist is the real misapplication of scientific standards.
Originally posted by no1marauderI've already demonstrated how the properties of homogeneity and isotropy imply that any point can be considered the centre of the Universe. Anyone with an A-level understanding of physics and at least a conceptual understanding of non-Euclidean spaces can check the explanation for themselves. It's not my fault you can't.
You're ridiculous. You're ignoring the whole import of the article to try to concentrate on a single word. This is what shallow nitpickers like you do. Please cite the place in the article where it says the Universe has infinite centers or that any point can be considered its center.
As to ignoring the whole import of the article - the article deals with the cosmological constant in the expansion of the universe. Your entire "explanation" (on page 5) is just an elaborate way of saying "homogenous and isotropic". In fact, you are dead wrong when you say "as the article explains, this appearance is true for every location in the Universe" - the article does no such thing. Please read your own articles thoroughly (if you can) before making such statements.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou never posted a single article that refuted the claim - the only things you posted went along the lines of "Galileo's theory was more popular than Copernicus's". As I said, Science isn't about opinion polls. We know that, for instance, Kepler's decision to back heliocentrism was based entirely on mystical grounds (I posted the links to that in the mentioned thread). After Newton's Theory of Gravitation*, of course the heliocentric model was more viable (stellar parallax wasn't necessary). But we are talking about the pre-Newton era. And Brahe's model certainly fitted the data better than Galileo's (and no - Galileo's discoveries didn't show the Universe was more vast than previously supposed).
As I said, I wasted a lot of time before digging up sites which refuted this ridiculous argument and don't feel like rediscovering the wheel. Brahe's model was prepared after Copernicius' and so he was able to make it mathematically equivalent. However, it was more complicated and unwieldy and his main reason for coming up with it was to preserve geocent cept an incorrect theory showns your pitiful arrogance and stubborness, but little else.
And let's get one thing straight about this whole "truth" business - Galileo may have come closer to the truth than Brahe, but there was no way he could scientifically justify it at the time. If you want to credit him for being a soothsayer or crystal ball-gazer, fine. But don't say he arrived at his support of heliocentrism as a scientist. (The same goes for Bruno.)
As I've said repeatedly both in that thread and this - why don't you actually present the facts to a scientist and see which theory he would professionally choose?
* To be more precise, after Newton both the Brahean and Copernican-Galilean models were rejected for a gravitational one with a common centre of mass.
Originally posted by no1marauderName one scientist since Galileo who actually faced persecution for heliocentrism. You're making theoretical assumptions about "Catholic" countries - most of which were involved in political struggles with the Pope and had little interest in chasing "heretical" philosophers - quite the opposite at times (e.g. France).
I said no such thing. I said they risked it. The RCC declared a belief in heliocentrism a "heresy" in 1616. What was the penalty for heresy in Catholic Austria? Or Catholic France? Or the Catholic parts of Germany?
My point about the Thirty Years War was merely that what parts of Europe would come under Catholic hegemony was uncertain in the 1600 ...[text shortened]... ies for it IF his realm became Catholic. What part of that is particulary hard to understand?
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat is also untrue. But you are quite the hypocrite; above you state the "science is not decided by public opinion polls" but here you claim you are right because some historians supposedly come to the same conclusion as you!
Every prominent Bruno-historian since Yates makes that claim. Yet you claim it's untrue. Do you know something they don't?
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnswer two questions circa 1620:
Name one scientist since Galileo who actually faced persecution for heliocentrism. You're making theoretical assumptions about "Catholic" countries - most of which were involved in political struggles with the Pope and had little interest in chasing "heretical" philosophers - quite the opposite at times (e.g. France).
1) Was heliocentricism a heresy according to the RCC?:
2) What was the penalty for heresy in European Catholic countries?
The whim of Popes and Emperors could have changed at any time regarding the enforcement of the dictate.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis is just chocked fill with lies.
You never posted a single article that refuted the claim - the only things you posted went along the lines of "Galileo's theory was more popular than Copernicus's". As I said, Science isn't about opinion polls. We know that, for instance, Kepler's decision to back heliocentrism was based entirely on mystical grounds (I posted the links to that in the ...[text shortened]... ean models were rejected for a gravitational one with a common centre of mass.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAgain, you've demonstrated no such thing and don't have a D-level understanding of virtually anything. Please cite in the article where it says there are infinite centers of the Universe and that's what it meant when it said there was no center! You're a joke.
I've already demonstrated how the properties of homogeneity and isotropy imply that any point can be considered the centre of the Universe. Anyone with an A-level understanding of physics and at least a conceptual understanding of non-Euclidean spaces can check the explanation for themselves. It's not my fault you can't.
As to ignoring the whole i ...[text shortened]... g. Please read your own articles thoroughly (if you can) before making such statements.
The article explains exactly what I said for the reasons I said it did. Maybe all those scientists you have hanging around to check Brahe's theory against Galilleo's can explain it to ya.
Originally posted by no1marauderYour opponents are all "hypocrites", marauder. How is this possible ?
That is also untrue. But you are quite the hypocrite; above you state the "science is not decided by public opinion polls" but here you claim you are right because some historians supposedly come to the same conclusion as you!