Michael Press wrote:
>>On Sep 7, 12:09 am, Michael Press
pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sep 6, 12:46 am, Michael Press
pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>In article
,
>>>>> "Dan Drake" dandrake.com> wrote:>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 04:39:19 UTC, Michael Press
pacbell.net> wrote:>>>
>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>
d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> 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, 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. This does tend to get one into
>>>>>>>>>difficulties, in general, unless your evidence is overwhelming --
>>>>>>>>>which Galileo's was not, at the time. 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.
>
>
> Galileo: Eretico, Pietro Redondi.
>
Well the late A.C.Clarke was dead right there!
Hasn't anyone had a look at Galileo's "Dialogue on the two world
systems". He really spares no effort to make Simplicimus ( the supporter
of the Papal line) look like several kinds of Idiot.
I'm very definitely on his side, but in my translation he really laid it
on a bit thick for the church to ignore.
If he had left them a bit more dignity he might just have got away with
it, at least for a while. But then Galileo wasn't the first or last
scientist with an axe to grind, and he had his telescope to prove some
of it!!!
Cliff Wright.
