Augustine, Galileo and natural science
#21
(06-26-2011, 04:38 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 04:21 PM)wulfrano Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 03:00 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 02:35 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote:
(06-19-2011, 11:58 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Galileo in many ways got what he deserved.  Most of the people pushing the Heliocentric view of the universe did so as a way to discredit scripture and to undermine the church.  Nonetheless, Pope Urban VIII asked Galileo to privately a compose a book dealing with the controversy, Galileo rather than politely fulfilling his request wrote a caustic and mocking book that depicted Urban VIII as a simpleton and then published the book in Italian for the public to see.  The fact that he published in Italian was a big deal as it was seen as an attempt to undermine the authority of the Pope by going directly to the people.

That's what got Galileo in hot water.  Not his scientific views, but that he was a disrespectful ass toward the Holy Father. Instead of sharing his scientific views on the universe privately with the Pope, as the Pope had requested, Galileo decided to be mocking and belligerent. 

In short, if Galileo could have posted on these forums he would have banned for belligerency and then complained that he was persecuted for his views.

Thank you for that simple explanation. I am woefully uninformed on this issue, but trusted in people like you who have said there was much more to the story. However, you are the first person to explain it very clearly and briefly. Would you happen to have a link to a simple explanation for this? My soon to be 4th grader was in a situation where his teacher told the class, after watching a film, that the Roman Catholic Church was the bad guy in this saga. I would like to read it to him as he did defend his Faith, but unfortunately, I was not able to give him what he was really after. Except to say that the story has been twisted. It sufficed for the moment, but he needs more.

Also keep in mind that the idea that the earth is stationary is true according to modern science.

Movement is only relative. To us and many models scientists use, the earth is stationary while all else moves about. There is no basis for using a perspective besides our own. Physics works regardless of the perspective. For those who say the earth moves, one could say "demonstrate it". We have all the evidence in the world that the earth does not move. All else moves. Modern scientific theories prove this. We do not experience the effects of movement, but we experience the effects of bodies moving around us.

Please quote scientists living today who say that the Earth is stationary and that the sun and planets revolve around the Earth.  Thank you.

I did not say the sun and planets revolve around the Earth.

And scientists wouldn't put it that way. Just study modern physics and you'll see.

And drop assumptions about what I meant. I am not saying that ancient ideas are true. I am pointing out the big picture based on modern science.


"To us and many models scientists use, the earth is stationary while all else moves about. We have all the evidence in the world that the earth does not move. All else moves. Modern scientific theories prove this. "

You contradict yourself.
Reply
#22
http://geocentrism.com/index.htm
Reply
#23
(06-26-2011, 04:58 PM)wulfrano Wrote: "To us and many models scientists use, the earth is stationary while all else moves about. We have all the evidence in the world that the earth does not move. All else moves. Modern scientific theories prove this. "

You contradict yourself.

The point was more than just a simple fact.

The key is physics. Our modeling of reality confirmed by observation.
Reply
#24
(06-26-2011, 03:00 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 02:35 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote:
(06-19-2011, 11:58 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Galileo in many ways got what he deserved.  Most of the people pushing the Heliocentric view of the universe did so as a way to discredit scripture and to undermine the church.  Nonetheless, Pope Urban VIII asked Galileo to privately a compose a book dealing with the controversy, Galileo rather than politely fulfilling his request wrote a caustic and mocking book that depicted Urban VIII as a simpleton and then published the book in Italian for the public to see.  The fact that he published in Italian was a big deal as it was seen as an attempt to undermine the authority of the Pope by going directly to the people.

That's what got Galileo in hot water.  Not his scientific views, but that he was a disrespectful ass toward the Holy Father. Instead of sharing his scientific views on the universe privately with the Pope, as the Pope had requested, Galileo decided to be mocking and belligerent. 

In short, if Galileo could have posted on these forums he would have banned for belligerency and then complained that he was persecuted for his views.

Thank you for that simple explanation. I am woefully uninformed on this issue, but trusted in people like you who have said there was much more to the story. However, you are the first person to explain it very clearly and briefly. Would you happen to have a link to a simple explanation for this? My soon to be 4th grader was in a situation where his teacher told the class, after watching a film, that the Roman Catholic Church was the bad guy in this saga. I would like to read it to him as he did defend his Faith, but unfortunately, I was not able to give him what he was really after. Except to say that the story has been twisted. It sufficed for the moment, but he needs more.

Also keep in mind that the idea that the earth is stationary is true according to modern science.

Movement is only relative. To us and many models scientists use, the earth is stationary while all else moves about. There is no basis for using a perspective besides our own. Physics works regardless of the perspective. For those who say the earth moves, one could say "demonstrate it". We have all the evidence in the world that the earth does not move. All else moves. Modern scientific theories prove this. We do not experience the effects of movement, but we experience the effects of bodies moving around us.

I agree.
Reply
#25
(06-26-2011, 04:58 PM)timoose Wrote: This is just an observation from a guy that used "applied science" all of his life as a mfg. tool engineer. Where folks go wrong is they think science is easily accessible and some sort of "big theory" can be discovered and we should all accept it as fact. Science is continously being upgraded. Our understanding of the laws behind our observations is mostly incomplete. Sir Issac Newton was replaced by Einstein, that's classical mechanics with relativity. Today quantam physics is doing the same to Einstein, who incidentally fought this notion till his death. . But  wait, we still use Newtonian physics, though it's superceded. How can that be ? It is because "science" is a just a place holder for the current state of our imperfect knowledge of the world the Almighty has created. Grand theories aside sometimes we stumble on great laws and the inverse square law is one of these. It has application in grvitation, electrostatics, light, and other electro-magnetic forces. What it does is show us behind things are elegant little gems of science. What we humans do is make rube goldberg rules with apppendages sticking out at any angle making for a very inelegant hodge podge of our vaunted smarts. I've realized it's just like everything else in God's world he respects the small and the humble because that is how He likes it, including laws of science. When I get to heaven, I'm going to corner one of the Angels that are in charge of a big galaxy like the Crab Nebulae, and jaw bone him till I understand the underlying principles God has in this magnificent Creation, till then I'll be happy with force equals mass times acceleration.

tim

I agree with you in some parts, disagree in others.

I don't like the implication (intentional or not) that science really doesn't tell us very much. What we know about the world today compared to 100, 200, 500 and 2,000 years ago is enormous. We're 400 years into physics and while we haven't even begun to tap into a real knowledge of the world, we know a helluva lot more than we did when Sir Isaac was around.

Reply
#26
(06-26-2011, 08:05 PM)Alabama Trad Wrote: I agree with you in some parts, disagree in others.

I don't like the implication (intentional or not) that science really doesn't tell us very much. What we know about the world today compared to 100, 200, 500 and 2,000 years ago is enormous. We're 400 years into physics and while we haven't even begun to tap into a real knowledge of the world, we know a helluva lot more than we did when Sir Isaac was around.

But some things remain the same. Regardless of the advances in physics at levels incomprehensible to historical geniuses, we still experience the world the same as any.

Science does not actually tell us very much. It is just something we use occasionally.
Reply
#27
(06-26-2011, 08:21 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 08:05 PM)Alabama Trad Wrote: I agree with you in some parts, disagree in others.

I don't like the implication (intentional or not) that science really doesn't tell us very much. What we know about the world today compared to 100, 200, 500 and 2,000 years ago is enormous. We're 400 years into physics and while we haven't even begun to tap into a real knowledge of the world, we know a helluva lot more than we did when Sir Isaac was around.

But some things remain the same. Regardless of the advances in physics at levels incomprehensible to historical geniuses, we still experience the world the same as any.

Science does not actually tell us very much. It is just something we use occasionally.


So... Galileo, NASA, the Vatican Observatory, the Russian Academy of Astronomical Sciences, etc.  are all wrong?
Reply
#28
Alabama Trad it was intentional. Sometimes there are problems which can not be described by mathematics, yet it must be made, so you wing it. Science or better or accumulated knowledge sometimes fall very short. A Nasa Engineer spokesman on TV when asked why so many of our unmaned space shots never even came close to Mars, losing nearly half of them. The reporter asked jokingly if the Martians were shooting them down ? He went on to say that the early space shots including the moon shots were all achieved by WWII test pilots, not all trained aerospce engineers. The spokesman said they are dead and we don't know what they knew. As the hippies used to say ponderous Man !

tim
Reply
#29
(06-26-2011, 09:08 PM)wulfrano Wrote: So... Galileo, NASA, the Vatican Observatory, the Russian Academy of Astronomical Sciences, etc.  are all wrong?

You are missing the point here.

Come back after you've studied physics and spacetime.

And Galileo was wrong. Kepler was more right. Galileo stuck to ancient works foolishly and disregarded observation and science.



Reply
#30
(06-26-2011, 10:04 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 09:08 PM)wulfrano Wrote: So... Galileo, NASA, the Vatican Observatory, the Russian Academy of Astronomical Sciences, etc.  are all wrong?

You are missing the point here.

Come back after you've studied physics and spacetime.

And Galileo was wrong. Kepler was more right. Galileo stuck to ancient works foolishly and disregarded observation and science.


Wow!  This is neat!  Heliocentrism is out!  Geocentrism is back in!  Marvelous!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)