Originally posted by lucifershammerwouldnt that be a prison of mediocrity?
It's easy for us in the 21st century to look back and judge the actions of those in the past. I bet most parents in the 1950s would've looked at me strangely if I told them that spanking could get them jailed some day.
To answer your question - yes, I think killing people that don't agree with one's belief system is evil. However, that is polit ...[text shortened]... ea that the most stable political entity is one where the populace share the same belief system.
Maxwell's equations were about "waves" in a medium called the Ether. Is there any connection to Gallileo's tides in whatever ?
Originally posted by frogstompWhat relation would there be between Maxwell's "waves" and Galileo's tide theory? IIRC, the latter basically said that tides were the result of water "sloshing around" as the Earth orbitted the sun.
wouldnt that be a prison of mediocrity?
Maxwell's equations were about "waves" in a medium called the Ether. Is there any connection to Gallileo's tides in whatever ?
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, I won't. Officials of the Church were saying that the Scriptures made his theories heretical and he responded by saying no they didn't. How this is "meddling in theology" is beyond my comprehension; Galileo knew what could happen to heretics and was asserting a defense to the charge. The RCC in 1616 did say that the Sun being the center of the universe part of Galileo's theories (albeit an incorrect part) was heresy and forbade him to teach and/or write that it was. The entire sentence makes it absolutely clear that his writing about his scientific theories was THE reason he was sentenced to imprisonment and it's entirely possible that he might have shared Bruno's fact if he hadn't recanted. Contrary to your baseless assertion, Galileo did stick to science and almost got executed for it.
From the same document:
"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having discip ...[text shortened]... n your implication that his scientific theories were the sole reason for his sentence (in 1616)?
Originally posted by frogstompDo you have a problem with my agreeing with you???
before you agree any more read this
Charles Darwin wrote in 1861:
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801. . . he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the ...[text shortened]... aw, and not of miraculous interposition
didnt exactly invent the TOE out of whole cloth
Hate to do this to you, but I agree - Darwin did not make TOE out of whole cloth. He was not some pioneer discovering something no one ever thought of before him. He's just the poor slob who became famous for the ideas he was pushing. That's all. Darwin was no Einstein.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm pretending to know the facts concerning geological processes like
If you are pretending to not know the facts concerning the geological processes, like plate tetonics as one example of many, that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is billions of years old, then you're being a jerk; if you are actually so uneducated that you don't know them, then you need to study some rudimentary science texts. ...[text shortened]... it's up to you, not me, to drag yourself out of the cesspool of ignorance you're dwelling in.
tetonics as one example? Where have I done this, one example would
be nice, though I doubt you have an example of me speaking about
geological processes. I doubt your facts, your assumptions are
boundless, you assume facts when things are not, and you paint
those that disagree with you with insults using examples that are as
real as your so called facts.
Kelly
Originally posted by lucifershammerdo you have the math that went described the " sloshing" ,,,
What relation would there be between Maxwell's "waves" and Galileo's tide theory? IIRC, the latter basically said that tides were the result of water "sloshing around" as the Earth orbitted the sun.
considering he was under the threat of death, enough so that he recanted heliocentricism, he might have been grasping at straws to explain it. remember too he didnt have Keplers or Newton's work to refer to.
I really would like to see his explaination about " sloshing ".
4 edits
Originally posted by ColettiNot if we are agreeing on the same thing.
Do you have a problem with my agreeing with you???
Hate to do this to you, but I agree - Darwin did not make TOE out of whole cloth. He was not some pioneer discovering something no one ever thought of before him. He's just the poor s ...[text shortened]... r the ideas he was pushing. That's all. Darwin was no Einstein.
Lamarck was before Darwin.
No one ever thought of Einstein before he published the paper on Special Relativity , either. and biology takes a different mindset than Natural Philosophy ( IMHO) anyway.
Theoretical Physics leans heavily on mathematics, Biology leans more on observation.
In a contest of rationality between a theory based on Calculus vs one based on Statistics, the Calculus one should seem the more rational of the two.
edits all proof reading ,,, still probably is a mess lol
Originally posted by KellyJayIt was an either/or: either you were pretending to not know the facts of geological processes (and were thus disingenous) OR you really don't know them (and should study some rudimentary science texts to cure your ignorance). I presume you are working backwards from your own Biblical interpretations like Coletti; if it's in the Bible it's literally true and any empirical facts in contradiction must be false. Therefore, it is a waste of time for me to show you the facts of geological processes which prove beyond any reasoned doubt that the Earth is extremely old. If you ever decide to open your mind to something beyond the ramblings of semisavages lacking virtually any knowledge of the physical facts of geological processes, an 8th grade Natural Science textbook would be a good place to start. If you're happy with your ignorant superstitions that's your problem.
I'm pretending to know the facts concerning geological processes like
tetonics as one example? Where have I done this, one example would
be nice, though I doubt you have an example of me speaking about
geological processes. I doubt your facts, your assumptions are
boundless, you assume facts when things are not, and you paint
those that disagree with you with insults using examples that are as
real as your so called facts.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder
No, I won't.
You're obstinate. And wrong. I'll quote you from your previous post:
Originally posted by no1marauder
The entire sentence is at: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html it puts the lie to Lucifershammer's assertion that Galileo was punished for "meddling in theology"; the sentence is based entirely on his exposition of his scientific theories.
1. The 1633 sentence is based entirely on Galileo's violating his 1616 injunction. Everything else is irrelevant to the merits of the 1633 case - he had a court order on him that he violated. Period.
2. The 1633 sentence refers to the list of charges that Galileo faced in 1615-16 which includes "glossing the ... Scriptures according to [Galileo's] own meaning" (i.e. meddling with theology).
3. The qualifications and judgment of the 1615-16 Tribunal was intended to proceed against the "disorder and mischief ... resulting" from all his charges - including the one in (2) above.
4. Ergo, the 1616 sentence is based at least partially on his meddling in scriptures.
Hence, neither the 1616 sentence nor the 1633 sentence was based "entirely" on his exposition of his scientific theories. You're either illogical, ignorant or dissimulating. Take your pick.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Officials of the Church were saying that the Scriptures made his theories heretical and he responded by saying no they didn't.
If you're referring to Fr. Lorini's All Soul's Day address, then Galileo had no need to respond - Fr. Lorini was reproved by his own superiors and forced to apologise for it. Even in his letter to Castelli, Galileo acknowledges that Castelli dealt quite adequately with the Archduchess's concerns (we don't know quite what he said, though).
Galileo wrote what he did in 1613 because he wanted to, not because he had to. You're being disingenous to suggest otherwise.
If you're referring to the 1615 trial, then that is just anachronistic.
How this is "meddling in theology" is beyond my comprehension; Galileo knew what could happen to heretics and was asserting a defense to the charge. The RCC in 1616 did say that the Sun being the center of the universe part of Galileo's theories (albeit an incorrect part) was heresy and forbade him to teach and/or write that it was. The entire sentence makes it absolutely clear that his writing about his scientific theories was THE reason he was sentenced to imprisonment and it's entirely possible that he might have shared Bruno's fact if he hadn't recanted. Contrary to your baseless assertion, Galileo did stick to science and almost got executed for it.
If he'd stuck to science he would've seen that his theory had no more scientific merit (at that point of time) than Brahe's; he would've seen that his theory of tides was easily refuted. If he'd stuck to science he could even have improved his theory vastly by combining it with Kepler's laws of elliptical orbits - and then he could have defended his theory more successfully before Cardinal Bellarmine at the 1616 Tribunal - and Bellarmine was open to solid, irrefutable scientific argument.
Originally posted by lucifershammerhow can "Shut up or we'll kill you" not be meddling?
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]No, I won't.
You're obstinate. And wrong. I'll quote you from your previous post:
Originally posted by no1marauder
The entire sentence is at: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html it puts the lie to Lucifershammer's assertion that Galileo was puni ...[text shortened]... armine at the 1616 Tribunal - and Bellarmine was open to solid, irrefutable scientific argument.
Originally posted by frogstomphttp://cnx.rice.edu/content/m11980/latest/
do you have the math that went described the " sloshing" ,,,
considering he was under the threat of death, enough so that he recanted heliocentricism, he might have been grasping at straws to explain it. remember too he didnt have Keplers or Newton's work to refer to.
I really would like to see his explaination about " sloshing ".
The main objection to Galileo's theory being, of course, that there would've been only one tide a day - not two.
Originally posted by lucifershammerthank you 🙂
http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m11980/latest/
The main objection to Galileo's theory being, of course, that there would've been only one tide a day - not two.
here's an excerpt from a letter written by Gallileo,,
Many years ago when the stir about Copernicus was beginning, I wrote a letter [to the Grand-Duchess Cristina], in which, supported by the authority of numerous Fathers of the Church, I showed what an abuse it was to appeal so much to Holy Scripture in questions of natural science. As soon as I am in less trouble I will send you a copy. I say in less trouble, because I am just now going to Rome, whither I have been summoned by the Holy Office, which has already prohibited the circulation of my Dialogues. I hear from well-informed persons that the Jesuit Fathers have insinuated in the highest quarters that my book is more execrable and injurious to the Church than the writings of Luther and Calvin . . .
From a Letter to Elia Diodati, January 15, 1633
5 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerComplete and Total BS!!!!!
[b/]Originally posted by no1marauder
[b/]No, I won't.[/b/]
You're obstinate. And wrong. I'll quote you from your previous post:
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b/]The entire sentence is at: http://www.law.umkc ...[text shortened]... nd Bellarmine was open to solid, irrefutable scientific argument.[/b/]
Here's the first paragraph of the sentence:
Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:
Only an illiterate could possibly claim that Gailleo wasn't condemned for his scientific theories and his scientific theories alone.
What are the charges which led to the ridiculous 1615 injunction:
1. holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves - Scientific
2. for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine - Scientific
3. for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same - Scientific
4. for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true - Scientific
5. and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: - See Below
6. and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:
6 makes clear that it is the teaching of the Church that the Copernician model - a SCIENTIFIC one - is contrary to Holy Scripture. Galilleo theories were, of course, based on the Copernician model. You're basing everything on the thin reed of 5 but please read it. It makes clear that Galilleo was "replying to objections from the Holy Scriptures'; that is, objections to his SCIENTIFIC theories. Unless you want to adopt the circular argument that Holy Scripture said Gallileo's scientific theories were false and his arguing that the Holy Scriptures that Holy Scripture did not say his theories were false was "meddling in theology", your position is untenable. The only problem with Galilleo's "glossing the said Scriptures accoprding to his own meaning" was that he "glossed" them to mean that his Scientific theories were OK according to Scripture. Therefore, the claim that he "meddled in theology" is a red herring.
You're either a complete idiot or a complete liar to claim differently. The injunction (if it existed) forbade him to write or teach about his scientific theories; I said "the sentence is based entirely on his exposition of his scientific theories" - that is unquestionably and obviously true. The violation of the 1616 order was claimed because of his writing regarding his scientific theories, period.
Your version of science and/or the Church's version is besides the point; Gallileo was condemned for his scientific theories, period. If you want, you can claim more precisely that he could have believed whatever scientific theory he wanted as long as he didn't write or teach about it; I assume that even you would concede that a scientist who cannot publicize his theories is having work censored and his work will be unavailable to later scientists. Galilleo, in fact, tried to abide by the ridiculous order but his book written in 1629 which was in the form of a dialogue between a Copernician and a Ptolemic which made the latter's arguments look foolish was apparently the last straw for a Church that believed the Copernician system was "heretical". In short, Galilleo "stuck to science" and almost got executed for it.
I realize it's important for you RCC arch-conservatives to never admit the Church was wrong and thus it MUST have been Gallileo, the victim, fault but it is abundunantly clear that he was condemned for his exposition of his scientific theories and nothing else. Sorry, lucifershammer, all the sophistry in the world can't change the words written by your predecessors in fanaticism in 1633.
Originally posted by frogstompHigh praise indeed.
...I hear from well-informed persons that the Jesuit Fathers have insinuated in the highest quarters that my book is more execrable and injurious to the Church than the writings of Luther and Calvin . . .
From a Letter to Elia Diodati, January 15, 1633
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammera quick reading of that site tells me to drop Kepler off the list of scientists he had no access to the works of.
http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m11980/latest/
The main objection to Galileo's theory being, of course, that there would've been only one tide a day - not two.
other than that it tends to support the idea that the church required him to produce extra proof that the earth moved....which without Newton's Laws was mountain he couldnt climb.
The idea he came up with reminds me of an aerodynamic explanation of why a spinning basebase curves. which leads me to believe he indeed had some concept of the Ether!
btw, the curveball explanation didn't work either: until you added cohesion of the medium and the ball to the equation.