Einstein v the Church v Galileo?

Galileo-Church affair, downplay the wrongs done and to excuse the Church. But this is the first time I have seen Einstein dragged into it.

You have it all wrong. In no way did Einstein disagree with a heliocentric solar system. Quite the opposite, his ideas supported it.

The problem is that you have appealed to Special relativity – which applies to bodies in uniform motion – not orbiting planets. In contrast general relativity covers acceleration/gravity and shows that this distortion of space/time by a large mass (the sun) will cause a smaller mass to rotate in orbit. General relativity does not allow you to choose the Church’s position over Galileo’s – no matter where you are.

We should recognise that this conflict was not about a particular theory of geocentricity or heliocentricity and who was right or wrong. Like all scientists (all honest people) Galileo was sometimes wrong (influence of tides for example). Many ideas in science are wrong (see Most ideas in science are wrong) – and because of the way science works we find that out.

The Church was wrong on this point – again not the problem. The real problem is that they declared that they couldn’t be wrong – and punished Galileo for daring to suggest they were.

The sentence declared that his heresy was that “that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture.”

For this he was imprisoned for the rest of his life and his book Dialogue of Galileo Galilei banned for 200 years. Only recently has the Catholic Church apologised for this behaviour.

And this (not any mistakes of heliocentricity) is what is behind the religion-science conflict. While the attitude expressed in that sentencing survives there will continue to be a conflict. And every time religious apologists claim a special knowledge of reality they are feeding that conflict. Religion should learn its place.

In this International year of Astronomy when we are celebrating Galileo’s contributions of humanity we should not allow this history to be distorted. Or the names of other great scientists used in this distortion.

Ken, I think you’re looking for something that aint there. You suggested that I was trying to “excuse the Church.”

Would you care to point out where I did this? The church was wrong in a similar way that Galileo was wrong. While you’re at it, I note your comment about people re-writing the Galileo affair, so it would be helpful if you could show which parts I’ve re-written, as I don’t see where I have misreported anything. Thanks.

Secondly, you say that the issue was the church’s view that it could not be wrong. Well, that’s an issue, but as anyone can see, it’s not the issue that this blog post is about. This blog entry is about whether or not Galileo was objectively right, which is a different issue altogether.

Thirdly, you equate “all scientists” with “all honest people.” That made me laugh. Thanks for that. Experience has emphatically shown me that those who see themselves as scientists are as prone to anyone else to partisanship and the practice of intellectual dishonesty.

Fourthly, it looks to me like you’re suggesting that in fact there is an absolute reference point by which we can say that the sun does not move around the earth (ether, a backdrop against which all motion happens, call it what you will). If you do not think this, then your objection to my claim about Galileo being wrong would not make sense, so you must mean this.

If this is your view, can you tell me where that reference point is? Which point in space is it? Or what is this backdrop?

Thanks.

The Church was wrong on this point – again not the problem. The real problem is that they declared that they couldn’t be wrong – and punished Galileo for daring to suggest they were.

Actually the Church did not say they “couldn’t be wrong” in fact Cardinal Bellemare stated that if adequate proof could be provided he would grant that the position he held was mistaken. His point was that the Theological and Scientific consensus of the day supported Geocentricism ( which it did) and so until adequate proof was forthcoming Galileo should teach Heliocentricism as a hypothesis but not as true.

Galileo did not prove it, as you note his proof from the tides was wrong.

I am not condoning the Churches actions, simply pointing out that the facts are not as simple as you and others make out.

Glenn – on reading the post and comments I wish to make 2 points of clarification,

1: re Einstein. You herself say: “This view is no longer a tenable one, largely thanks to the work of Albert Einstein on special relativity. “ This is important. You specifically refer to Special Relativity – and your argument is based only on that. Special Relativity considers only bodies in uniform motion.

It does not consider bodies under acceleration. It doesn’t consider gravity. It is not relevant to the geocentric/heliocentric argument.

This is where Einstein’s later work – General Relativity – comes in. You have confused the two. From my internet search I find a few examples of others who have done that. But do you want to be associated with Brownback (Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine).

General Relativity clearly supports heliocentricism – Special Relativity is not relevant.

2: Scientists and honesty. I can now see why you may have jumped to the misunderstanding you did. I wrote: “Like all scientists (all honest people) Galileo was sometimes wrong ” when I should have written “Like all scientists (like all honest people) Galileo was sometimes wrong”. Sorry for that. But, maybe Freudian slips on my part – and yours for the uncharitable interpretation.

Clearly I was making the point that we are all wrong from time to time. Honest people are able to admit that.

There is a lesson here relevant to your blog post declaring with reference to Galileo “This guy was wrong.” When on this issue he was so obviously correct.

Ken

I am basing what I say on what Cardinal Bellemare ( of the Inquisition) wrote in explaining how the Inquisition came to the conclusion they did.

The Inquisition did appeal to the scientific consensus as a reason in its statement from memory.

Glenn – reference points are irrelevant. You are still thinking of Special Relativity – which does not apply to rotating, accelerating bodies, to gravitation. Only bodies in uniform motion.

Answer me this. Did you not refer to Special Relativity? Is that not different to General Relativity? Do you think that the earth is undergoing uniform motion, has no gravitation, not in a gravitational field and not accelerating??

It’s all really quite simple. You have misunderstood or confused the issue. On this matter Galileo was, and still is, correct. We do live in a heliocentric solar system. The earth does orbit the sun.

Can you honestly think otherwise?

Matt – I don’t know what you are talking about. Give a reference for the article. It seems very confused talking about frames of reference and then the earth revolving around the sun. Nothing about gravitation/acceleration.

Or are you replying to Glenn?

Ken, if you say that the question of a reference point is not relevant in asking whether the earth goes around the sun or vice versa, then you are just wrong. It is clearly relevant to ask which reference point we are asking about. You are attributing a confusion to me that I do not have here. This is not subtle or tricky. It is big and plain and I don’t know why you don’t see it.

You are now being unreasonable in asking me to “seriously read” what you wrote. I made it clear that I was putting that on hold until you actually provided an answer. And your answer – which you have only just now given – is that there is no absolute reference point from which to observe the movement of the earth and the sun. Although you don’t like it, I take this as a concession of the whole argument here, combined with an unwillignness to give the appearance of conceding anything at all.

It is no good giving the rhetorical impression of stamping your feet, using bold text and insisting that I answer you. As I told you already, I will do so after you answer the question already put to you, which you now have. I was unwilling to do so before because I was waiting for an overdue answer from you. As you have now decided to answer, I am now prepared to answer you as I said I would. I do this in spite of you refusing to substantiate your claims about what I think Einstein said (if you ever feel like owning up to it, you could just concede that I never claimed that Einstein rejected heliocentrism).

I now turn to your complaint that I referred to special relativity. You say in passing that general relativity supports heliocentrism (presumably by which you mean the claim that it’s false that the sun goes around the earth). That claim wasn’t substantiated at all, so I’ll ignore it.

However, you may find the following helpful:

Michael Fowler of the University of Virginia (physics), had this to say in his article on “Special Relativity”:

Just as Galileo had asserted that observing gnats, fish and dripping bottles, throwing things and generally jumping around would not help you to find out if you were in a room at rest or moving at a steady velocity, Einstein added that no kind of observation at all, even measuring the speed of light across your room to any accuracy you like, would help find out if your room was “really at rest”. This implies, of course, that the concept of being “at rest” is meaningless. If Einstein is right, there is no natural rest-frame in the universe. Naturally, there can be no “aether”, no thin transparent jelly filling space and vibrating with light waves, because if there were, it would provide the natural rest frame, and affect the speed of light as measured in other moving inertial frames as discussed above.
SOURCE

There appear to be enough reputable looking sources that tie this concept to special relativity to assure me that I am not mistaken in thinking that they are closely related.

HOWEVER, it’s possible that I have incorrectly followed the lead of short pieces like this (i.e. misconstrued how they were applying their terms), and I am happy to concede that because it makes no difference to any conclusion I have drawn. The result is the same. It is not the name of the theory to which this concept belongs that matters, it is the concept itself. Please don’t miss this concession, or the follow up point – that it actually doesn’t matter, because it is the concept that matters rather than the theory to which the concept attaches.

Ken, you will dislike me saying this, but I say it earnestly. Please get some perspective and be less emotive here. Your first comment was absolutely ridden with hasty claims – not the least being claims about what I think so-and-so believed. Yet now, after all of your objections (a possible labelling issue aside), my original blog post survives every one of your attempted critiques. What’s apalling (to me, at least) is that you will walk away from this encounter thinking that you have been the defender of science here!

You guys may wish to look up this quote from Lawrence Krauss (a rather popular atheist and physicist)…

http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/is-science-up-for-grabs/

The energy of empty space that isn’t sero (Lawrence Krauss)

“The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is [s]imply (sic) incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. (Lawrence Krauss)

Ken says “Your quote is again referring to Special Relativity – not applicable to an accelerating body. Clearly you don’t understand this and your ego won’t allow you to rethink your arguments.”

This is so ironic it’s just becoming strange. Ken – It was I who explicitly announced to you that the quote that I was about to give came from an article called “special relativity,” and then I produced a quote that does not conform to the restriction you gave. I was excusing my possibly erroneous use of that term on the grounds that plenty of other people use it the same way. Why would you complain on the grounds that the article is about special relativity?

But seriously Ken, to have you now at this stage complaining about people’s ego not allowing them to concede things is just not plausible. I mean come on, let’s review:

1. You entered this thread claiming that I was excusing the church. This was false, and I called you on it, asking for evidence. You fell silent. No evidence, and no admission of error.
2. Twice you then accused me of attempting to claim that Einstein was opposed to heliocentrism. More than once I asked you to substantiate or retract, but you were silent. No evidence and no concession.
3. You declared that the issue was the Church’s belief that it could never ever be wrong about this. When Matt showed evidence that the church asserted that it was open to evidence and would reconsider if sufficient evidence was given, you brushed it off.
4. You suggested that because your personally aren’t experienced with people appealing to Einstein’s ideas in connection with the idea of a reference point and its implications for geocentrism, it must be rare or unusual for this appeal to be made (arrogance extraodinaire!), yet when I pointed out that the examples are there and gave one, noting an easy way to find more, you brushed such facts off as examples of whackos.
5. Even after Matt showed that in an article that you are familiar with (according to you), this connection is spelt out, you remained steadfast in your suggestion that the connection is a fringe idea.
6. After you finally (finally!) agreed to answer my initial question to you, I replied to your charge that I was appealing to a theory on a another subject. I did this in two ways: I quoted a physicist who makes a connection between special relativity and the more general thesis that there is “no natural rest-frame in the universe.” Secondly, I conceded the possibility that this and other sources could be mistaken and also that I could be reading this statement as a feature of special relativity when it isn’t, but I reminded you that the idea, rather than the theory to which it attaches, is the important thing.

And then you – in the most ironic turn of events I’ve seen in some time – say that I am refusing to concede anything because of my ego.

Ken, you came in flailing wildly, uttering numerous falsehoods, and each time you’ve been corrected, you’ve fallen silent, hoping the claim in question would just go away, rather than having to admit a mistake. By contrast, the very first time I replied to your comment about relativity (after you replied to my first questions to you), I conceded the possibility of error, but explained the limits of what that error would mean.

Please consider showing a little more humility.

Ken, I’ve addressed your questions. I think your pretence to the contrary has become dishonest.

Equally dishonest is your new pretence that I never conceded anything in regard to special relativity, and your suggestion that you are free to quote me sans that concession. You are being dishonest. You are being anything but fair or “scientific.” I am sure you must be able to see this.

Should you “quote” me in the manner you have described, you will, of course, be lying, and you will be indicating your willingness to be descibed as such. Suit youraself, it’s your reputation. Choose to avoid the questions that reveal your errors, and choose to ignore answers given. That, it seems, is how Ken Perott wishes to be known. As much as it would benefit you for me to remove your comments so as to cover your tracks, I will, in fact, refer to them when people want an example of Ken being dishonest.

Thanks for taking part.

Ken you’re admitting that you’ll quote from a comment of mine about special relativity, and remain silent about a comment in that same thread about the correctness of the use of that term ansd the possibility that it is not the correct term to use, as well as the reason for so using it as explained. Simply amazing. I don’t think I’ve actually encountered a blogger with less intellectual integrity than that, and I’m glad it’s on record.

Does that method represent your normal level of honesty?

OK, outsider’s perspective here: I dont know Ken, but woah, got an axe to grind Ken?

Reading through this article, it seems pretty unobjectionable: The dispute in Galileo’s age presupposed a certain view of how motion in space ought to be viewed: fixed backdrop and all that, but this view of space and movement has been reviewed largely thanks to Einstein (and let’s at least agree that he did reject the old view of space and motion in exactly the way Glenn noted, because he did).

What is to object to here? Getting knickers in a twist over whether this is the claim of special relativity or not, or throwing in a handful of misrepresentations just to spice things up (and Ken, they are pretty obvious, as is your refusal to even acknowledge them) suggests that you just have to find a gnat to strain at – you’re somehow, for some reason, motivated to find something to take issue with. That’s my take on it, anyway (could be wrong, but I gotta call ’em as I see ’em).

Glenn, I’d still be a little uncomfortable saying that I “reject” heliocrentism, although I suspect this is not because of any disagreement with what you say. It’s just that people are likely to assume that if you reject heliocentrism, you must embrace geocentrism, or some other kind of “centrism.” But yes, I know, that’s the fault of the person doing the assuming. 🙂

Ken, you said: “Sandra – You have identified a problem with Glenn’s analysis in that it has led him to assert something you intuitively know is not true.”

All I can say is: Oh my gosh, I can sympathise with Glenn’s complaints! In the very first sentence that you have directed toward me, Ken, you misrepresented what I said. I really hope this was an accident!

You’ve said that I intuitively know thats omething Glenn says isn’t true – but I said know such thing. You’ve said that I think the connection between Glenn’s stance on “no reference point” and Einstein is utter rubbish. I didn’t say this.

I think I’ll pass on the invite to your site if this is what I can expect to find. Anger may be rare with you (I can’t tell, I don’t even know you), but you’re being anything but fair, coolheaded and rational, I can tell you!

Incidentally, this is a blog. Why can’t you discuss it here, and why are you inviting me to have this disucssion at your blog instead. Is this about website traffic?

Sandra – of course my reference to your identification of a problem with Glenn’s argument was to your comment “I’d still be a little uncomfortable saying that I “reject” heliocrentism, ”

But you knew that, didn’t you?

And it should also be obvious that Glenn’s anger problems are the reason that such subjects can’t be discussed here. (Although, I am beginning to suspect that there is also a personality factor involved his attitude towards me specifically).

Anyway, you are welcome to involve yourself in any discussion arising from my analysis of Plantinga’s mistake.

Reading Ken’s comments is enough to decide that his writing is just not worth reading.

Good point Nick.

Special Relativity, proposed by Einstein in 1905, was more than just about relativity of motion and points of reference (as is sued in Glenn’s argument).

However, it did formalise the relativity concepts of previous scientists like Newton and Galileo himself.

So, it is a bit rich to attempt to use Galilean relativity to argue that Galileo was wrong about heliocentricity!

Ken, you claim that I have said that special relativity was about nothing other than “relativity of motion and points of reference.” In fact I said no such thing. Surprise surprise, Ken is saying untrue things about me. That’s new!

Ken, “come on.” You said that Einstein’s theory “was more than just about relativity of motion and points of reference (as is sued in Glenn’s argument).”

This is manifestly false. Have a very close read of what you said. Maybe you misspoke, used words that you didn’t mean to? Said something you now reject? I don’t know, but as it stands, it’s just one more in a long line of falsehoods by you. You have displayed a pattern, and it isn’t a flattering one.

Notice how this works – I’m merely talking about your errors without attempting to psychonalayse. Try it sometime. 🙂

Absolutely astounding arrogance. I have yet again documented a claim on your part that is false, and you stubbornly refuse to admit it. This speaks volumes.

Bob, yeah it’s technically true that the Sun’s not the centre of any planet’s circular orbit given literal ond objective heliocentrism (it’s the “objective” that this blog post questioned) since those orbits are not eliptical, that wasn’t really the point. The point is that once you remove the concept of the ether and everything that it implies, we end up unable to say, in any objective sense, that with the earth and the sun, one travels around the other and that the converse is false.

A number of sources connect the rejection of the ether and the claim about fixed reference points to Einstein and his theory as noted above (something that Ken has an issue with, but I’m not to blame), so I have merely noted that connection that other people draw. But whether that connection is right is hardly the point. But I’m sure you can see that Bob – unlike some. 🙂

Hi Glenn,

Ken has pointed this out more correctly than I, but you don’t seem to be listening to him.

You said:

It will be at once obvious that the position of both Galileo and his clerical dissenters takes for granted the view of motion that I outlined at the start of this article: All motion has a fixed reference point; it happens against a backdrop against which it can be objectively measured. This view is no longer a tenable one, largely thanks to the work of Albert Einstein on special relativity. Without going into mind numbing detail, here’s a simple summary:

You are wrong. It was Galileo himself who discards the view of a fixed reference point, not Einstein. As I understand it, Einstein’s special relativity is rejecting the view of objective time for all reference frames. It does this by postulating a fixed speed of light for all reference frames. This has nothing at all to do with heliocentricism.

I would suggest the following reading on Galilean relativity (this is part of an introduction to special relativity):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity#Reference_frames_and_Galilean_relativity:_a_classical_prelude

“It seems to me that this article is saying exactly that heliocentrism is false. Sure, Glenn has tacked the word objective on the front, but that does not change anything.”

That is not correct. It changes much. To say that heliocentrism is false is to say that no matter what, it is false. To say that it is incorrect to claim that heliocentrism is “objectively” true and that other views are “objectively” false is to say that from all perspectives it is false.

Hopefully you now see this.

Oh, and Nick, you characterise epistemic externalism as “believing that something was true without requiring evidence/justification, and then punishing people who disagreed with them.”

This is one way to cast doubt over anything you say, I’ll grant.

Maybe I wasn’t very precise with my sentence there Glenn. Here, I will correct it for you:

“believing that something was true without requiring evidence/justification” without the punishment bit.

“believing that something was true without requiring evidence/justification”

Much of modernist “science” has little to do with evidenceand often a great deal to do with ignoring it. It is a mass of theories piled on assumptions piled upon more assumptions piled on yet more assumptions. The assumptions themselves arise both from the darkened minds of the unregenerate children of Satan and are based on lies, the false worldviews of secularism and naturalism.

As for punishment, in many places questioning the assumptions of modernist “science” can get your career killed and your education ended.

Shawn – your comment is a real gem – and perhaps reveals some of the thinking behind Glenn’s mistake.

I have taken the liberty of copying over your middle paragraph to the comments on my blog post Einstein on Galileo’s contribution. It deserves wider attention.

Ken, again – why seek the facts? Just assume that whatever Shawn said is my view. Same old, honesty just isn’t your thing.

Nick, you (and Ken) seem to think that if Galileo knew in principle that there is not ether, no absolute backdrop to what happens in space (as I have been putting it), no fixed “frame of reference” as your prefer to put it, then it is impossible that he could have been wrong to think that the heliocentric model was objectively true and any alternative was objectively false. But this is false. It is possible for a person to hold both those views. It just means that there’s a tension within one’s belief set.

I understand that people might resist a geoncentric model (a model I do not say is true) because it is incredibly complicated. It has (taking into account the motion of all the planets) many different shaped orbits around the earth, and it would be simpler to say that all the planets orbited around one thing, the sun, because that involves positing only one uniform orbit for all the planets, and it appears less contrived. I agree. But that is obviously not the point.

The problem is absolutely not that I cannot understand what you’re presenting. What I see is that it is not an adequate argument to show that heliocentrism = objectively true, geocentrism = objectively false.

This may (or may not) be ken’s unfortunate influence rubbing off on you, but I hope it can be seen that every time I have seen a point that I recognise as fair (like the doubt over whether or not the connection between Einstein’s theory and this argument is as I claimed), I concede it without delay. I’d like it if others were as forthright (this is Ken’s principle weakness, in my view). For example, earlier you said that my “objectively” qualifier changes nothing. I trust you can now see how that qualifier is essential, and changes much.

People do not just reject the Ptolemaic system because of it’s complexity. They reject it because the evidence shows that it is false. See the above mention of phases of Venus. We do not require Occam’s razor for this.

It seems to me that you have some sort of problem when it comes to comparing differing hypotheses about something. This is perhaps the blind spot I alluded to in our past discussion about epistemic externalism. It seems that you discount the role/value of evidence when it comes to knowledge.

Wow. I will try again then.

You said:
The problem is absolutely not that I cannot understand what you’re presenting. What I see is that it is not an adequate argument to show that heliocentrism = objectively true, geocentrism = objectively false.

You might want to further define what you mean by objectively true then, perhaps this will help me understand you. If you mean 100% certain truth, then that is obviously not the case, science and evidence does not provide 100% certainties.

Based on your post(s), I have understood this to mean objectively true regardless of the frame of reference taken. In other words true for all frames of references. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Ken, you’re becoming increasingly absurd. This is not Dr Phil.

Fred Hoyle wrote:
The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view. (Hoyle, 1973, p. 78)

Ok. Then I will put the Ptolemaic system also to one side.

You said:
The right hand side presents a model devoid of privileged reference points (i.e. no place is deemed the “correct” place from which to observe things: not the earth, not the moon, not the sun, not some other place, watching the earth and the sun, no place). It shows the earth (since were are asking what is true from the perspective of an earthdweller – a perspective that is not better or worse than any other) in the middle, and the movements of other bodies. See the clear difference.

I assume that you meant “left side” above, and this was just a typing error.

It seems to me that you are now confusing 2 dimensional representations of 3 dimensional models.

Your left side drawing is not an accurate 2d representation of what the orbits of the sun and planets look like from all reference points. You cannot meaningfully represent this in a 2d drawing. The only way you can do this is with a 3d model that can then be viewed from all reference points.

Heres a youtube movie of the motion of solar system objects taken from a range of different reference frames.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbPkdBJUhyc&NR=1

The movement of the planets, sun and moons in relation to each other is exactly the same from all frames of reference. Sure, the 2 dimensional view you have on this from any particular reference point is completely different. You will get no argument from me there.

But, what is your point? How could you say that Galilelos support of Heliocentrism is not obectively true?
What do you mean when you say:
What you will now see is that the reason this model would be rejected is not that it falls afoul of the evidence – ont he contrary, it accords perfectly with all the evidence ever discovered. The problem is it’s incredible complexity as a model.
What/which model are you talking about here?

No Nick, I meant the right hand side. The left hand side is Ptolemny’s view. I meant the right. if the remainder of your post proceeded on the assumption that this was an error on my part, then you were using the wrong picture and you need to have another go. None of the above actually works towards a rebuttal of what I’ve said.

Bob, never mind, I found the source. Fred Hoyle, Nicholas Copernicus: An Essay on his life and work (Harper and Row, 1973).

Nick (and anyone else reading), see the quote from Hoyle as used here, and see also the comment from Ellis.

@Glen You also said>The right hand side depicts Ptolemny’s view, wherein everything orbits the earth as shown. Clearly, this is nothing like what I have suggested, and his view is shattered by evidence (such as the phases of Venus, as you rightly note, which says nothing in the least about anything I’ve said).

So perhaps you would understand why I had trouble knowing what you were talking about.

But that does not really matter, it does not detract from anything I said. To repeat, you are trying to produce a 2d dimensional representation of a 3d model observed from multiple reference points at one time. Of course this is not very clear or useful. If you want to do have a 2d representation, then you must choose a reference point to make it understandable.

@Bob. Rereading your post. You said:
In modern calculations, the origin and orientation of a coordinate system often have to be selected, for practical reasons, and in such systems the origin in the mass, solar mass or the center of mass of the solar system are frequently selected. However, such selection of coordinates has only practical implications and not philosophical or physical ones.

This essentially says exactly what I have been saying. The movement of the sun and planets relative to each other is not changed (i.e objective to) by the point of reference. Sure you can choose a point of reference for your co-ordinate system to do your calculations, but this does not change the relative movements of the objects in relation to each other.

To spell it out further. The sentence “the planets go around the sun” relates to the relative motion of the planets to the sun. This phrase is still true for every point of reference, be it earth, the moon, pluto or anything else you choose.

Yes, I correctly referred to my model as the right hand side (you thought I meant really left, but I didn’t), but (my bad) I also referred to Ptolemny’s model as the right hand side, when it’s actually the left.

Your point about 2d vs 3d changes nothing at all. It has no impact on anything said here. It is literally irrelevant.

Ken, click on “older comments” to see, well, the older comments (including Bob’s).

Now, Bob, I can appreciate that you as you say, “didn’t know anything about this before” [reading] Glenn’s post.” However, this should have suggested to you a bit of humility and warned you to actually read a bit more deeply (there are some fabulous modern books on astronomy available) before lining up with Glenn against everyone else – including all astronomers.

You should surely have been aware of the trap of “quote mining.” You have searched for a quote to use to support a position – and produced something out of context. I am sure if I had Hoyle’s book I could produce quotes from it to show that he accepted that the earth orbited the sun. Unfortunately I can’t find the text of that book on-line.

This particular quote from Hoyle is commonly used by creationists and crackpot theologians to make various points. It is usually used inappropriately (much as you have used it Bob).

You and Glenn have been confused about the use of words like geocentricism and heliocentrism – and are therefore taking quotes like this out of context.

In the old day these were basically theological terms – Geocentricism was derived from scriptures and meant that the earth was the centre of the universe.

As we started to use evidence rather than scripture this changed to a Heliocentric model – which considered the sun as the centre of the universe.

More evidence, mathematics, etc., we started to accept that the sun was at the centre of the Solar System – and there was no such thing as the centre of the universe.

In modern usage heliocentric usually means from the viewpoint of the sun, and geocentricism from the viewpoint of the earth. This is the way that Hoyle uses the terms. (Although we may also still talk about a heliocentric solar system meaning the planets orbit the sun).

Now from Galilean relativity (later incorporated into Special relativity) it doesn’t matter what viewpoint you use and, for bodies undergoing uniform motion, one cannot say which body is moving in absolute terms. There is no such thing. We talk about relative motion. So we can determine relative motion – and we can determine when that motion changes because one or other, or both, of the bodies are accelerating (as it is if in orbit and if in a gravitational field).

What this relativity means is that it doesn’t matter if Galileo was on the sun or the earth he would have still concluded that the earth orbited the sun.

Now some of his evidence may have differed because of the viewpoint. Things appear to move in different directions, etc. But he would still have detected the orbiting of Jupiter’s moons. As an extra he would have detected the orbiting of our moon. He would have missed the phases of Venus (and all the other planets). So some things differ because of perspective. But the objective facts don’t change. The planets still orbit the sun. And Galileo’s observation and mathematical analysis would have produced the same conclusion.

Hoyle’s quote is a clear support for the position I have described. Because of your preconceived position you have interpreted it wrongly. What it means is that the theological position is destroyed by relativity. We cannot say that either the earth or the sun (or anything) is at the centre of the universe. There is no such thing. But we can say, because of the mass of the objects, the gravitational fields, our measurement of the relationships between them and our detection of their acceleration (whatever our perspective) that the earth and other planets (and many other bodies in our solar system) orbit the sun.

All this is pretty basic science which would be taught in schools.

I think if you avoid words like heliocentricity and egocentricity and stick to the question of the relationship between the sun and the earth – which orbits which, you will be less confused.

Ken: “This particular quote from Hoyle is commonly used by creationists and crackpot theologians to make various points. It is usually used inappropriately (much as you have used it Bob).”

Since you admit that you have never seen the book and do not know the context, it’s interesting that you claim as fact that Bob has misused Hoyle, and that Hoyle didn’t mean what he appears to mean.

Funny, Hoyle says everything that would be necessary to express agreement what my point, yet because you are unwilling to think that a scientist could disagree with you (especially an astronomer of Hoyle’s standing), he couldn’t possibly mean what he seems to say.

Ken, you need to re-think that method, because it rules out the possibility of learning.

“I only did a brief search for “orbit” but I think it’s clear that Hoyle has the same picture of the solar system as all other astronomers today”

Not the point, Ken. The way you are replying really does suggest that you don’t quite understand what is being said to you. Are you sure you see the position I am advocating for what it is?

Hoyle is pretty easy to find quotes for, in the following way: My local library has the book in question, and after work today I will be checking out a copy. I will get back to you and inform you of what Hoyle said and in what context. Then you can stop guessing about what he must have meant instead of what it looks like he meant.

Watch this space.

Ken, no need to get angry. I have been clear all along what I mean. I have been saying from the very beginning that the claim that the earth moves around the sun is no more objectively true than the view that the sun moves around the earth. I have stated that these two viewpoints would not require different observations to be made. In fact I believe I’ve even used the phrase “observationally identical.”

That Hoyle has the same picture of the solar system as Galileo as far as observations go is, therefore, trivial and beside the point. If you don’t realise this, then you total lack of grasp on what is being said here (and also said by Hoyle) explains why you are responding as you are.

I now hold in my hand a copy of Hoyle’s book, and as I suspected (but could not definitively claim until checking), you were wrong in your assumption about him. In fact, he meant to say exactly what Bob and I thought. That particular quote, far from being “mined” as you unfairly claimed (unfair because you admitted to not ever have read the work), is only reinforced at numerous other places int he same work, and definitely means what I have said.

Ken, I know you will not be happy about me saying this – but given that you freely admitted to being completely unfamiliar with the connection between Einstein and this subject and given that you were absolutely confident that no reputable scholar would ever suggest the things I have suggested and (as you’ll soon see) a highly esteemed astronomer did just that, I would back of witht he hubris just a bit. You do, actually, have something to learn here. I’m not saying this to be adversarial.

Now that I’ve had a further look at Hoyle’s work I’ve decided to writer “Part 2” to this blog where I sketch my initial argument and outline Hoyle’s strong support of it. In the meantime I’ll have a scout around and see if others have written on this too.

Expect this new post within the next few days. Please be patient until then.

Sorry, you may have to interpret some of those words. Not easy on an iPod.

Glenn – the idea you were expressing was that ”
Galileo was wrong. Specifically stated “this guy was wrong”.

This is what I have been asking evidence from you for.

I suspect you may just try to repeat the essence of the quote used by Bob. If that is your plan then gave a careful read of my respose to Bob. I would expect you to understand and deal with my points. After all they were made as a clarification for Bob. As I said the quote from Hoyle actually supports the argument I have been making.

By the way – Bob. Did you understand my explanation of Hoyle’s quote?

There is an issue of professional integrity here, Glenn.
You did say Galileo was wrong to claim the planets orbit the sun. You claimed that this position, and the alternative sun orbiting the earth were equally wrong. That is what is at issue.

Now you justified your poition by using a midundertsanding of Galilean relativity. I believe you are still confused in your understanding of this and that is why you cannot see what Hoyle is saying in Bob’s quote. A hint, although I have already explained it, is in appreciating how Hotle uses the tea heliocentric and geocentric as applying to the concept of a priveliged position in the universe – not to the solar system. Galilean relativity says there is no priveliged
position.

But this is irrelevant to the structure of the solar system which we know is composed of bodies orbiting the sun. You deny we can know that. So your task is to find a credible quite in this book saying that. Saying Galileo was wrong or that we just don’t know if the anets and other bodies in our solar syst orbit the sun.

I have made that clear many times and stress it now so that you are aware that further attempts to create confusion over relativity as regards heliocentricity or geocentricity of the universe are going to be obvious.

I think Ken makes a very good summary of the facts in his November 11, 2009 at 12:25 pm post, so I have nothing more to add to that.

Glen, your point is not hard to understand. Of course you can look at things from different frames of reference, of course later knowledge gained by Newton and Einstein provides a more correct model of reality than that provided by Galileo. This is obvious.

I don’t personally know what Galileo believed (he was a little before my time), and I have not read any of his books (a bit remiss on my part, but I have heard that he had a few constraints on his writing), but he was correct for backing an heliocentric model because that is what his evidence showed. This was major progress over what came before as it set the scene (along with his other work) for everything that came later. Imagine trying to come up with a theory of gravitation consistent with the Ptolemaic system.

I strongly suspect that the root problem here harks back to your views on knowledge. The way that you sprinkle words such as “objectively” and “literally” around in your original post provides, I think, the key to your thinking. Example:

The point I want to drive home is that Galileo clearly thought that the view held by those clergy who opposed him (namely that the sun travels around the earth) was literally false, and that his view (that the earth travels around the sun) was literally true.

Your usage of the word “literally” here is the smoking gun. What exactly does “literally true” or “literally false” mean? I suspect this is related to your belief in 100% certain knowledge. Judged to this standard, then all models of reality are incorrect. Although a much better word is incomplete.

The most obvious and often used example here is Newtonian mechanics which provides a very good approximation that is later superseded by Einstein, which provides a much better approximation. You will find that Newtonian mechanics is still used today for all sorts of calculations. But you will have heard all the before.

The point is, there will always be some observations that are problematic when it comes to knowledge. This is also the case with general relativity (search Pioneer anomaly perhaps). This does not make the knowledge untrue, unless you define “true” as meaning 100% certain. It just means that there is some level of uncertainty.

So how then do we handle knowledge in an uncertain universe? This seems to be something that a lot of (but not all, or only) religious people have trouble with. The answer is: We need to evaluate as best as possible the levels of (un)certainty about the knowledge when we are using it. We need to balance the risks brought about by these uncertainties when applying the knowledge, and also be clear about the context and limitations about any piece of knowledge. Last but not least, we need to also review, refine and/or correct knowledge in the light of new evidence. Does this sound familiar to you? Of course I am referring to the “scientific method” in all it’s many wonderful/messy forms. You might have heard Ken making some mention of this on his blog 🙂

The fact is that Galileo was right to challenge the Ptolemaic system of planetary motion for the simple fact that he had better evidence for the Copernican model. The fact also is, that the church were not interested in the evidence, but were instead interested in controlling what people thought.

This brings me to my last point. What were you actually trying to achieve with your post? Increasing knowledge definitely doesn’t seem to be your objective. It seems to me that your objective is to raise doubts about scientific knowledge in the mind’s of people who read this that don’t necessarily know better. Perhaps you feel that science is attacking your cherished beliefs, so you must defend the ramparts.

Thats probably enough for one post. The very last thing. If anybody is reading this thread and would like to know in more detail where Glenn stands on the 100% certainty of knowledge issue, I would recommend you have a look at the following thread on Glenn’s blog:

http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/nuts-and-bolts-what-is-knowledge/

It’s a bit heavy going, but for entertainment value, you get to observe me “floundering like a fish out of water” or some such thing.

PS. Good luck hitting the books….

Here’s another way to get Hoyle quotes:
http://books.google.co.nz/books?as_q=earth+orbits+sun&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&as_auth=Hoyle&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_maxm_is=0

“What is also clear, is that the other planets also orbit the sun, and do so regardless of your reference point. ”

But they don’t orbit the sun. In fact the sun also moves/orbits.

Ken, once again, it is unwise of you to make confident claims about how Hoyle uses the terms if you have not even read Hoyle. Having read the chapter in question and observed what Hoyle himself says that he is talking about, I am in a position to know that your assumption – one that you admit is not informed by having read the work in question – is just flat wrong.

You will see this when I present the post elaborating on what Hoyle said. Don’t you think it’s best to minimise the amount of crow you’ll have to eat by waiting until you’ve seen the facts?

Oh, and Ken, in addition to the fact that I know that Hoyle meant to talk about the relationship between the earth and the sun, as a second and also sufficient rebuttal to you is to point you to what you yourself have quoted. According to you, Hoyle is saying that it’s not objectively false to claim “that the Earth is the center of the universe and other objects go around it.”

Really Ken? Even the sun? Oh dear.

So there are two responses: Firstly I know that Hoyle was actually talking about which goes around which: the earth, or the sun. That’s also what I was originally talking about, and have been all along.

Secondly, if Hoyle said what you claim he said, then he was also saying that Galileo was wrong, for if the entire universe revolves around the earth, then the sun does too.

Double fail.

Glenn – this sounds a bit like revelation to me. “I know what God (Hoyle) thinks, take my word for it. You don’t have the access to God (Hoyle) that I have”

No, we don’t have that book – and you can therefore put whatever words you like into his mouth (after all this is what the tele-preachers do, don’t they?).

But you forget that scientific knowledge is available to everyone. We don’t need to rely on a specific book (scripture or revelation). That is what you must deal with.

However, I don’t believe you can find anything in Hoyle to support you on this specific issue (he has some weird statements in other areas which theists us). And, I have already quoted from one of his papers which makes clear that he supports the view that the earth and other bodies in the solar system orbit the sun. Of course, you have ignored those specific quotes because you can’t manipulate them.

However, it is going to be fun to see you try distorting some more extracts. Let the show begin.

But I am not holding my breath and am willing to continue this discussion with Bob, who is the only other person supporting your viewpoint here.

I’m a bit confused now with all the anger and hostility.

The points that Glenn’s post is trying to make is that, scientific theory should not be taught as fact.

Was Galileo right or wrong? Well he was right about somethings and wrong about other things. But he was wrong to claim his scientific theory as fact because in fact his scientific theory has been shown to be less than correct.

He held heliocentrism:

In astronomy, heliocentrism is the theory that the Sun is stationary and at the center of the universe.

We now know this is not correct. And this means that the view that Galileo represented in his time as fact, was not so.

This is not to discredit Galileo or any scientist, but to illustrate that no scientific theory should be taught as fact. History is littered with such examples we can learn from.

On another note, discussion about theory vs fact is not scientific domain, but the domain of philosophy.

“Another religious claim I hear lately is that science grew out of Christianity.”

I think you meant modern western science? Also any reference on who made that exact claim?

But for start, don’t forget that Galileo was a theist (religious). From Wikipedia:

Galileo has been called the “father of modern observational astronomy,”[6] the “father of modern physics,”[7] the “father of science,”[7] and “the Father of Modern Science.”[8] Stephen Hawking says, “Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science.”[9]

Maybe I wasn’t very precise with my sentence there Glenn. Here, I will correct it for you:

“believing that something was true without requiring evidence/justification” without the punishment bit.

Then Nick, Glenn’s point would still stand because all foundationalists accept this, whether externalist or internalist. Moreover, taking the term “evidence/justification” the way Glenn meant it pretty much all coherentist systems (which are internalist) believe this too. There is almost no one in epistemology who believes that every true belief needs to be justified by an inference from another (which is how the term evidence is used in the context Glenn is refering to) and this has been pretty much established since the time of Aristotle.

Thats the problem Nick, people like you and Ken come in, make outright false statements showing you misunderstand the basics of another field and then repeat these dogmatically.