Author Topic: Galileo (Read 1090 times)

roscoe · « **on:** January 23, 2008, 09:32:02 PM »

Can anyone tell me why Galileo was indicted by INQ in 1616? I am not referring to later events, just 1616 for the moment.

Keep in mind that Copernicus' book De Revolutionibus speculating that the Earth revolves around Sun had been published for 73 years and no-one had raised the slightest objection.

And Copernicus himself was employed as a consultant in the re-organisation of the Calendar which had been an ongoing process. The Idea that the Earth revolves around Sun was used in computation of the Gregorian Calendar.

If one wanted to follow my advice, I would say that it is a good idea to ACTUALLY READ Copernicus--or at least the first 11 Chaps of book 1 where the general theory is presented.

I think the Easton Press edition is avail at addall. It is excellent because it contains two long intros and Copernicus letter to Pope as well. There was no English translation available until the 20th Century. Ciao

roscoe · « **Reply #1 on:** January 24, 2008, 05:20:24 PM »

All the Catholics here and no one knows why Galileo was in trouble?

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #2 on:** January 24, 2008, 05:27:15 PM »

If I'm not mistaken, Galileo pretty much disrespected the Scriptures with his scientific findings, and that is why he was tried. It is indeed possible to calculate the calendar using the heliocentric theory, but it depends on the reference point you use. I would think using our own reference point on earth would be easier to do. The positions of the earth, sun, and planets in the geocentric and heliocentric theories are the same. The only differences are the manner of orbits and the center. I go with what the Bible says about the subject though, as much as some might argue it is being metaphorical like in the case of Joshua and both the sun and moon kept from moving.

roscoe · « **Reply #3 on:** January 24, 2008, 05:40:04 PM »

Keeping the discussion to strictly astronomical terms for the moment(because everything that happens in this case before 1616 has to do only with astronomy), Galileo was charged with three things before INQ.

One of course is the correct idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Copernicus spoke hypothetically about this and the other two(false) propositions that Galileo was indicted for. Galileo was a very arrogant man who(some say at the behest of Sarpi and his ilk) demanded these three propositions be accepted as dogma when there was no actual proof. Scientific proof that the Earth revolves around Sun do not appear until Newton's theory of gravity combined with James Bradley's experiment in 1725.

What were the other two astronomical propositions that Copernicus and Galileo were both wrong about?

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #4 on:** January 24, 2008, 06:05:00 PM »

I don't know what the other two propositions were, but the heliocentric theory is not at all proven. It is still a theory, and theories are not absolutes. To know for sure by observation what goes in the whole universe, we would have to observe from the outside, but only God and the saints could do that.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #5 on:** January 24, 2008, 06:08:04 PM »

Roscoe, did you already know the answer to your initial question and were trying to test us then?

roscoe · « **Reply #6 on:** January 24, 2008, 09:40:09 PM »

This isn't exactly a test but there is a point to be made. But let's stick to astronomy for the moment.
Galileo was indicted on three counts and he demanded that all three be accepted as dogma even though there was no proof.

1)The Earth revolves around Sun. Pythagoras and Copernicus speculated on this but actual proof doesn't come until later with Newton's theroy of gravity and James Bradley's experiment in 1725.
2)Since no one could conceive of the idea that the Sun and Earth are BOTH in motion Pythagoras, Copernicus and Galileo decided that the Sun was stationary(fixed). This is wrong as science has now shown that the Sun is flying through space at about 40,000mph. This is why De Revolutionibus was not published until the year of Copernicus' death. He was uncomfortable with the idea.
3)The Sun is the center of the Universe--The Sun is not the center of the Universe as the Earth is. The Earth is because the Bible says so and the Bible is speaking ultimatly in a spiritual sense because of religeous events that have taken place here--not because two rocks have some sort of attraction to each other.

So on a 2 out of 3 basis, Galileo, even if he had one right was mostly wrong. All three propositions were considered on an equal basis at the time.

Now we have made it through 1616. The Sun is in motion(but not around Earth).Where is the Sun going? Is it here?

http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/the_photonic_belt.htm

What happens between the years 1616 and 1633 when he is indicted again? Hint: Galileo's main occupation in life was as a physicist(tower of Pizza etc), not an astronomer. More later.

roscoe · « **Reply #7 on:** February 01, 2008, 11:20:20 PM »

In 1623 Galileo publishes The Assayer and this book goes into Galileo's theories about Physics. It is not to be confused with The Dialogues which appears in 1632 and is about astronomy. I cannot find a copy of Assayer on the net.

However, there is a book by Pietro Redondi(non-cath) published by Einstiens Princeton U called Galileo Heretic.
This work is an evaluation of the Assayer's physical theories.

Galileo was an 'atomic materialist' of the kind that originates with Pythagoras--everything can be defined as a number(and they both thought the Sun was stationary). This is sometimes called Quantum Physics--based on a quantity. Senor Einstien was of this type and we all know where he has gotten us.

Aristotle was a 'Qualitative' physicist and although he made an astronmical error, as a physicist he is of much greater value than an enemy of the Catholic Church like Einstien.

At any rate, Galileo Heretic explains that what began to upset the Church was that while The Assayer didn't actually say it in so many words, what was being suggested by Galileo's physical theories conflicted with with the Doctrine Of The Real Presence in the Sacrifice of the Mass. This is one of the first things heretics(Luther, Calvin, Wycliff etc) do. So it appears that the allegation of Galileo's association with Sarpi may be true.

How the book got by Urban VIII is not one of the high points of his Papacy and unless I am mistaken, the Pope had a left leaning reputation until he woke up(he practically collaborated openly with Richelieu in the latters alliance with Gustavus.)

Now it is true that Galileo's condemnation in 1633 is again in astronomical terms, however I believe it to be symbolic and the real problem to be as described by Redondi(while as Catholics, we will of course disagree with a good portion of the conclusions that the author reaches.) It is unique how the physics of Aristotle are compatable with the Mass and those of the others are not.

A couple of quotes:Fr Parsons--Some Lies and Errors of History pg86. "To a tribunal, a denunciation was made that Galileo or his deciples had asserted that God Was an accident, and not a substance, a personal being: that miracles are not miracles at all. Then the Pontiff declared that for the end of the scandal, Galileo should be indicted."

Prof Pastor v29 where he quotes Urban as follows--"Galileo has dared to meddle with matters beyond his competence and with the most important as well as the most dangerous which it is possible to discuss in these days. ..........it was an injury to religion as grievous as ever there was and of a perversion as bad as could be encountered." It sounds to me a little more important than if two rocks in space have an attraction of some sort to each other.

Prof Pastor expresses his wonderment that the Pope is being so harsh on Galileo, but then the former makes no mention at all in his coverage of the Galileo case of anything other than astronomy--albeit the best and most thorough coverage at least on the major points and their relationship to Holy Church.

roscoe · « **Reply #8 on:** February 02, 2008, 02:26:57 PM »

Two more excellent books are Galileo And Freedom on thought by Sherwood Taylor and Galileo's Mistake by Wade Rowland. Mr Rowland does understand 'Galileo's Mistake' (trying to explain things without God--which is what an atomic materialist{epicurean}does) however, like Pastor cannot conceive of the dilema in any other form than as astronomical.