On Sep 7, 12:09Â am, Michael Press
pacbell.net> wrote:>> On Sep 6, 12:46Â am, Michael Press
pacbell.net> wrote:>>> In article
,
>>> Â "Dan Drake" dandrake.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 04:39:19 UTC, Michael Press
pacbell.net> wrote:>
>>>>> In article
>>>>>
d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Â chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>>>> On Sep 4, 4:17 pm, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 4:41 pm, "Dan Drake"
dandrake.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:59:25 UTC, z
snail-mail.net> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> If anyone wants to know a bit more about the development of the work of
>>>>>>>>>> Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo it's well worth finding the Koestler book.- Hide quoted text -
>
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>>>>>>>>> according to an article by arthur c clarke, galileo couldn't resist
>>>>>>>>> insulting the officials. i don't know if he's right or not, Â but he
>>>>>>>>> deserves the benefit of the doubt.
>
>>>>>>>> Which "he" is the one who deserves the benefit of the doubt here? The
>>>>>>>> honored historical figure, or the writer expressing an opinion about him?
>>>>>>>> (Surely not actual historians, who don't rate a mention.) One way of
>>>>>>>> reducing the doubt would be to read what Galileo wrote. Then you could
>>>>>>>> come back with, let's say, three clear instances of his insulting the
>>>>>>>> officials.
>
>>>>>>>> The first, I know, will be the big famous one, which is actually false or
>>>>>>>> at least an unfounded charge. I'm curious to see what the other two will
>>>>>>>> be.
>
>>>>>>> Galileo was trying to advance his own views at the expense of those
>>>>>>> with more power than he had. Â This does tend to get one into
>>>>>>> difficulties, in general, unless your evidence is overwhelming --
>>>>>>> which Galileo's was not, at the time. Â He was able to challenge the
>>>>>>> existing system, not establish a new one, as Newton did.
>
>>>>>> Newton was just one more link in the chain of reason. The heliocentric
>>>>>> system already made mush more sense at the time of Kepler and Galileo.
>>>>>> All Newton was to do was to describe it all mathematically from a
>>>>>> suggestion made by Robert Hooke.
>>>>>> Of the 2 systems available the heliocentric one was far and away the
>>>>>> most elegant and simple. The church's objections were never scientific
>>>>>> but psychological. Psychological in two ways: first, was that it was
>>>>>> thought that "divinely inspired" ideology should and could not be
>>>>>> wrong; any gainsaying of church dogma was "heretical", and secondly
>>>>>> the heliocentric hypothesis moved the earth away from its special
>>>>>> position at the centre of a relatively small universe to a subordinate
>>>>>> position which (with the evidential lack of stellar parallax evidence)
>>>>>> expanded the distance to the nearest star to unimaginable distances.
>
>>>>> Or it could be the RCC entered into a contract where they paid
>>>>> Copernicus to develop a method to calculate the date of Easter.
>>>>> Copernicus delivered a correct, easily calculated method. Implicit in,
>>>>> but not necessary to, his method is a heliocentric model. Since
>>>>> the project was funded by the RCC, they contended that they had
>>>>> the rights; and prosecuted those who used it without permission.
>
>>>> The Intellectual Property theory. Oh joy, warring sect appears over the
>>>> horizon! Write a book, and you could get some people believing it.
>
>>> Intellectual property is a contentious matter today. Why not then?
>
>>> Or maybe Galileo was not taken to task for his work with the telescope,
>>> but rather his work with the microscope.
>
>> and maybe - just maybe you should read a book or two before you shoot
>> your mouth off?
>
> History books? Which ones support the view you take,
> and which ones oppose it?
>
> --
> Michael Press
None support yours - is the point.
