The notion that the Earth was the center of the universe was once "settled science"...

[luchitociencia]

Except the notion that the earth was the center of the universe wasn't based upon science- and science hadn't even been invented yet.

That is like saying that the stories in the Bible were once considered settled science......

So your thread just doesn't make any sense.

Science was invented a long time before Galileo. The ancient Greeks had scientists. So did the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Chinese. So you're making a very ignorant statement.

The scientific method was not invented until the 17th century. The concept of the earth being the center of the universe was a matter of faith based upon the Bible- not based upon science.

That is incorrect.

The theory -because it was a theory- that the earth was the center of the universe was made thru observation without accurate calculation.

Aristotle argued against Pythagoras' disciples about this issue. The school of Pythagoras had the theory based on speculative calculations and observation that the earth and the rest of stars were the whole orbiting around a center of fire.

Aristotle, on the other hand, rejected such idea and proposed the earth as fixed without motion and the whole universe rotating around us.

(Take note that Pythagoras never wrote a single paper for posterity, everything we know about him is thanks to his disciples who followed his teachings for some more time, and thanks to Aristotle who mentioned him several times in his writings).

Ptolemy went further making very accurate calculations of the Sun orbiting earth.

Then, yes, it was an epoch in the far away past when it was a scientific approach the theory of the planets and stars orbiting around the earth.

A curiosity: using the Doppler Effect it has been found that practically almost the whole galaxies of the universe appear to be going away from us in all directions. This illusion caused by the motion of bodies observed from our angle of reference caused me laughs, and was funny making jokes saying that Aristotle was right after all...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This illusion caused by the motion of bodies observed from our angle of reference caused me laughs

Illusion? No. No matter where you stand in the universe, all objects will be speeding away from you, in general.

 

[martybegan]

Except the notion that the earth was the center of the universe wasn't based upon science- and science hadn't even been invented yet.

That is like saying that the stories in the Bible were once considered settled science......

So your thread just doesn't make any sense.

Science was invented a long time before Galileo. The ancient Greeks had scientists. So did the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Chinese. So you're making a very ignorant statement.

The scientific method was not invented until the 17th century. The concept of the earth being the center of the universe was a matter of faith based upon the Bible- not based upon science.

it was based on the observations they were able to make at the time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

it was based on the observations they were able to make at the time.

Hmm, kind of. Even then they had some tools to see that the earth orbited the sun. They just couldn't get out of the box.

For instance, they had already observed retrograde planetary motion. Also, the extreme crescent phase of Venus was visible to the naked eye.

 

[martybegan]

it was based on the observations they were able to make at the time.

Hmm, kind of. Even then they had some tools to see that the earth orbited the sun. They just couldn't get out of the box.

For instance, they had already observed retrograde planetary motion. Also, the extreme crescent phase of Venus was visible to the naked eye.

We have the hindsight of current understanding to help us. Put yourself in their position, with the data they had, the tools they had, and the education they had.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We have the hindsight of current understanding to help us.

Yes, which is exactly as I said: they couldnt think out of the box. Galileo quickly determined that the earth orbited the sun due to the phases of Venus. People then could determine venus had phases. Someone had to be the first to get out of the box. It could have been someone who lived at that time.

This is not the same as the observations which led to the Great Debate, which could only have occured from contemporary physics.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The first heliocentric model was proposed in the third century BC. It was later bolstered by a greek astronomer.

One has to wonder where we would be today, if the dark ages of religion had not stomped out Hellenistic thought for millennia.

 

[martybegan]

We have the hindsight of current understanding to help us.

Yes, which is exactly as I said: they couldnt think out of the box. Galileo quickly determined that the earth orbited the sun due to the phases of Venus. People then could determine venus had phases. Someone had to be the first to get out of the box. It could have been someone who lived at that time.

This is not the same as the observations which led to the Great Debate, which could only have occured from contemporary physics.

By not considering the planets to be demons staring down at them the Ancient Greeks were thinking out of the box of their time.

Again, your usual self importance makes you wonder why people thousands of years ago can't figure things out that you take for granted.

To the Greeks the phases could have been a rotating disk that covered the object they were observing, and they didn't have the telescopes galileo had, nor the more expansive concept of our own earth that the late middle ages/early renaissance had.

 

[martybegan]

The first heliocentric model was proposed in the third century BC. It was later bolstered by a greek astronomer.

One has to wonder where we would be today, if the dark ages of religion had not stomped out Hellenistic thought for millennia.

More monday morning quarterbacking.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again, your usual self importance makes you wonder why people thousands of years ago can't figure things out that you take for granted.

No it doesn't. Stop being a crybaby. I described exactly why: they couldn't get out of the box of their primitive thinking. There was already a heliocentric model on the table in the third century BC. And astronomers were attempting to flesh ot out.

Then greece fell, and the dark ages of religion and religious Roman fascism, followed by the fall of the muslim world into its own religious dark age (that continues to this day), stomped out Aristotelian, Socratic, and hellenistic thought for millennia.

To the Greeks the phases could have been a rotating disk that covered the object they were observing, and they didn't have the telescopes galileo had

And yet still an ancient Greek formed a heliocentric model. So your points are undermined from the start, there. Add to that the fact that Copernicus had none of those tools either, yet he formulated a heliocentric model based largely on information available to Hellenistic thinkers in the time before the religious dark ages... And your point is bunk.

The moral of the story? Religion set us back millennia.

 

[martybegan]

Again, your usual self importance makes you wonder why people thousands of years ago can't figure things out that you take for granted.

No it doesn't. Stop being a crybaby. I described exactly why: they couldn't get out of the box of their primitive thinking. There was already a heliocentric model on the table in the third century BC. And astronomers were attempting to flesh ot out.

Then greece fell, and the dark ages of religion and religious Roman fascism, followed by the fall of the muslim world into its own religious dark age (that continues to this day), stomped out Aristotelian, Socratic, and hellenistic thought for millennia.

To the Greeks the phases could have been a rotating disk that covered the object they were observing, and they didn't have the telescopes galileo had

And yet still an ancient Greek formed a helicentric model. So your points are undermined from the start, there. Add to that the fact that Copernicus had none of those tools either, yet he formulated a helicentric model based on information available to hellenistic thinkers in the time before the religious dark ages... And your point is bunk.

Wow, and you get to blame your religion boogeyman for all that.

They had a model, but it didn't catch on. Copernicus worked off the original greek ideas.

Considering they had no method of actually sending anything to said planets, and navigation at the time worked under either overall system, the use of either system was mostly academic. This is similar to what we saw with Newton's models of physics that worked for most applications at the time until taken over by Relativity.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wow, and you get to blame your religion boogeyman for all that.

Oh, absolutely. If the Roman fascism had been to implement hellenistic and Socratic thought, instead of magical religious nonsense, things would have been different. And if you say otherwise, you're a liar.

They had a model, but it didn't catch on.

Right, because it was stomped out by primitive, religious dogma. These are facts of history. Love them or hate them, they are facts. If that makes you uncomfortable as a christian, thats a "you" problem. Nobody is accusing you of this....yet.

There was no way to "explain away" the heliocentric model, without wild,magical ideas. To say it "just didn't catch on", and to reduce the body of compelling observations as you would the fad of bell bottoms, is dishonest.

Copernicus may have been working on space rockets, not reviving a 1700-year old model,had religious fascism not stomped out the gains of hellenistic thought.

 

[martybegan]

Wow, and you get to blame your religion boogeyman for all that.

Oh, absolutely. If the Roman fascism had been to implement hellenistic and Socratic thought, instead of magical religious nonsense, things would have been different. And if you say otherwise, you're a liar.

They had a model, but it didn't catch on.

Right, because it was stomped out by primitive, religious dogma. These are facts of history. Love them or hate them, they are facts. If that makes you uncomfortable as a christian, thats a "you" problem. Nobody is accusing you of this....yet.

There was no way to "explain away" the heliocentric model, without wild,magical ideas. To say it "just didn't catch on", and to reduce the body of compelling observations as you would the fad of bell bottoms, is dishonest.

Copernicus may have been working on space rockets, not reviving a 1700-year old model,had religious fascism not stomped out the gains of hellenistic thought.

The Romans concentrated on Engineering, and practical applications, as seen by their roads and bridges. They also applied themselves to the military arts.

I am a lapsed Catholic at best. My issue is with you not seeming to get your own bias begotten by hindsight.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. For all we know they could have used those rockets to spread poison gas, eliminating western civ before it could flourish.

You put too much weight on the fight over the models, considering the practical empirical data was used for navigation regardless of the model fight.

And of course you ignore the whole black death thing reducing Europe's population, and thus its development, due to your need to grind a religious axe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Staying with heliocentrism (as, if the earth isnt even the center of the solar system, the idea that it is also not the center of the universe is academic):

In the year 1031, Muslim astronomer Al-Biruni questioned the Ptolemaic model and considered the idea of whether the earth may both revolve on its own axis and orbit the Sun. He then proceeded to dismiss the compelling evidence of this by reaffirming his religion-based faith that the Sun revolved about the Earth.

So now we have three instances from history (Aristarchus, Am-Biruni, Copernicus) of religious dogma and faith stomping out the accurate,heliocentric model.

And lets not forget how Galileo was treated by the church. He was forced to recant his scientific conclusions.

So, four examples. Where would we be now, if the scientists who immediately followed Aristarchus had developed scientific method, a theory of gravity, and optics, instead of being assimilated into a primitive, religious paradigm? What might the muslim astronomers have discovered? Copernicus? Newton? What would the Great Debate of 1920 have been about?

 

[martybegan]

Staying with heliocentrism (as, if the earth isnt even the center of the solar system, the idea that it is also not the center of the universe is academic):

In the year 1031, Muslim astronomer So-Biruni questioned the Ptolemaic model and considered the idea of whether the earth may both revolve on its own axis and orbit the Sun. He then proceeded to dismiss the compelling evidence of this by reaffirming his religion-based faith that the Sun revolved about the Earth.

So now we have three instances from history (Aristarchus, Am-Biruni, Copernicus) of religious dogma and faith stomping out the accurate,heliocentric model.

And lets not forget how Galileo was treated by the church. He was forced to recant his scientifoc conclusions.

So, four examples.

You harp on one example, and ignore all the good the Muslim world did preserving the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans while Europe went through their dark ages.

You also assume current muslim views for the views they had at the time, which were far more "liberal" compared to now, even if they were a bit on the conquering and making slave soldiers side of the equation.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Except the notion that the earth was the center of the universe wasn't based upon science- and science hadn't even been invented yet.

That is like saying that the stories in the Bible were once considered settled science......

So your thread just doesn't make any sense.

Science was invented a long time before Galileo. The ancient Greeks had scientists. So did the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Chinese. So you're making a very ignorant statement.

"So you're making a very ignorant statement."


if he makes 1 million MORE ignorant statements he might catch up to you!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Romans concentrated on Engineering, and practical applications, as seen by their roads and bridges. They also applied themselves to the military arts.

Yep. And they required feudalism and strong fascism. Surely you understand that a religion of a sort lends itself more well to this venture than does hellenistic thought.

And of course you ignore the whole black death thing reducing Europe's population, and thus its development, due to your need to grind a religious axe.

Nonsense. Where was the black death, when the evil muslim caliphate stomped out the gains of muslim astronomers? Where was the black death, when Galileo was forced to recant his scientific conclusions?

Had the dark ages of religion not stomped out hellenistic thought, we may have had, at the time, a better understanding of the black death and have ameliorated its effects. Instead, Europe was still suffocated by primitive, religious nonsense.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You harp on one example, and ignore all the good the Muslim world did preserving the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans while Europe went through their dark ages.

I have clearly listed four examples.

And you make my point for me , to point out the preservation of this thought in the early muslim world. You see the gains it brought them. And you see what happened when the evil caliphate destroyed them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So,to tie it all to the thread title:

This was never "settled science". It was "settled" religious dogma, and it functioned to squash science.

 

[martybegan]

The Romans concentrated on Engineering, and practical applications, as seen by their roads and bridges. They also applied themselves to the military arts.

Yep. And they required feudalism and strong fascism. Surely you understand that a religion of a sort lends itself more well to this venture than does hellenistic thought.

And of course you ignore the whole black death thing reducing Europe's population, and thus its development, due to your need to grind a religious axe.

Nonsense. Where was the black death, when the evil muslim caliphate stomped out the gains of muslim astronomers? Where was the black death, when Galileo was forced to recant his scientific conclusions?

Had the dark ages of religion not stomped out hellenistic thought, we may have had, at the time, a better understanding of the black death and have ameliorated its effects. Instead, Europe was still suffocated by primitive, religious nonsense.

Both feudalism and Fascism came after Rome. Rome actually delegated many powers to the outlying regions as long as they accepted Roman power.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda. And of course your view aligns with your hatred of religion. Surprise surprise.