Started by the Jesuits?

I think it was Copernicus.

The theory pre-dates the existence of the Jesuits. Indeed, it was Aristotle who taught the sun revolved around the Earth, and other Greek philosophers, who proved less influential. thought the opposite was the case, so Heliocentrism pre-dates the existence of Christianity

Learn something new everyday! I confess to knowing little about the Greek philosophers.

Some bloke on Facebook said that the Jesuits popularized the idea in public schools through "Satanic Numbers!" He's a staunch flat earther.

It was other philosophers who proposed the heliocentric theory, but Aristotle shot them down. He pointed out that if the earth revolves around the Sun, then the orbit must be enormous (he was correct -- the orbit is over 90 million miles). We should, therefore, see parallax among the stars -- that is they should seem to change position relative to each other due to our motion. Since we don't see parallax, the heliocentric theory should be wrong.

(We see a bit of a wobble due to parallax with modern instruments. Aristotle didn't realize how FAR apart the stars are.)

There is also the fact that they were far less interested in “truth” than in ease of mathematical computation, and before the invention of modern telescopes and the ability to collect extremely precise computations, the math of the heliocentric model was much more complex than the geocentric model. They didn’t care if geocentric model was true or not only that the math was easier. Galileo’s insight was that he found a way to make the heliocentric model easier then the heliocentric one, although his critics were right that just because the math is easier doesn’t make is true. And it was Galileo’s stubborn insistence that “the fact that the math is easier proves that it is true” that got him into trouble with the Inquisition. Ironically, it was Galileo’s assumption that the planets rotate the sun in perfect circles that made it impossible for him to actually prove his theory. The solution was Kepler’s theory that the orbits are elliptical, a theory which Galileo rejected as “absurd”.

Yes. Alphonso X of Castile in the 1200s convened the astronomers and mathematicians of his day in his court and put them to developing astronomical tables. They used the Geocentric Theory and their tables worked (Christopher Columbus had a set of Alphonsine Tables). Galileo's attempts to produce working astronomical tables failed.

Galileo also went out of his way to make enemies.

de Santillana's THE CRIME OF GALILEO is something I often recommend. As is Heilbron's GALILEO.

No one except experts in this era can even accurately state what Galileo was accused of or what his punishment was. He wasn't accused of "heresy", and certainly wasn't convicted of it. What he was accused of would be more like "offensive to pious ears" which meant not that he was necessarily wrong but that he was rash and was making claims which could lead others to cast on the scriptures even if that was not his intention. And he wasn't ordered to be silent, he was told merely to hedge his opinion so as not to cause unnecessary offense. His punishment was house arrest, and the result of that was that he actually did his best and most important work, known as "Galilean relativity" which inspired Einstein. This isn't to say he wasn't mistreated, he was, in particular, it seems likely some of the evidence used against him was forged.

*Aristarchus

Interesting.

I head, stating in a rather crude way, that, "Galileo couldn't just keep his mouth shut," and this is what got him in trouble.

Oddly enough, having read these, and related matter, I am aware of the general points you raise.

Have you read the de Santilliana?

I had also read that Galileo asked the Pope for help, to which he told him to write something and he would help him if he could. Galileo wrote a scathing rebuke of the Pope, to which the Pope then wrote something criticizing Galileo. So iow, they went tit-for-tat.

When it came time for Galileo to be sentenced, he was confined to Castel Gandolfo. So the two of them had to spend at least a few months together each year. Kind of like the parent whose kids can't get along, and they get sent to a room together, and told 'you're not coming out until you can treat each other with respect'.

If true, I always thought it was poetic justice.

What happened was the Pope asked him some of the questions his detractors were asking, and suggested he write a book addressing those questions. Galileo's book was a dialog between "Dotori" (Galileo) and "Simplicio" (the Pope.) If he'd tried that on Henry VIII, he'd have been beheaded.

I always recommend books. Can't read them for anyone, of course.

But I'm rereading THE CRIME OF GALILEO (3rd time, at least). Just because.

Books are useful. History is complicated, as I often point out. Galileo's case is max complicated.

Thanks for the specifics.

Sounds like anawim has a pretty good grasp on it already.

An oversimplification at best.


He wasn't told to be silent, he was told he could publish but he should hedge his opinion, in other words, he should make clear that the fact that the math is easier doesn't mean his theory is actually true. And he was told not to attempt to offer his own Biblical interpretations because he wasn't a theologian and his doing so could lead others to cast doubt on the scriptures. As a matter of fact, Galileo actually had no proof other than the fact that the math was easier, which doesn't actually prove anything.

The request not to claim that the math proves the theory is reasonable, and modern scientists certainly recognize the validity of this position.

For example, even nearly a century later, Quantum Mechanics is still quite controversial. The math isn't the question, the question is the interpretation of the results of the math. The mainstream view is what is known as the Copenhagen interpretation, but that isn't the only interpretation, there are several competing explanations, the most extreme of which is the Multiverse Explanation, which is basically that every time the wave collapses, new universes are created in which each possible outcome is true.

If you are in a room full of Quantum physicists and you want to start a knockdown, drag-out argument, pretend to innocently ask which of the several competing interpretations of Quantum theory is the "correct" one. After several hours of a heated argument, eventually, someone will say "look, just because the math suggests an interpretation, doesn't mean it's true, the outcome will be the same regardless of the interpretation we adopt, so ultimately it doesn't matter what interpretation we adopt, they are all equally true." This is the compromise Quantum Physicists long ago agreed on.

That Quantum Physicists agree that the math doesn't actually prove any particular theory so no one should claim that the math proves his own, personal pet theory is exactly analogous to what Galileo was asked to acknowledge about his heliocentric theory. The Church did not make an unreasonable request.

On this particular point (Galileo, not quantum physics), di Santillana, chaps V, VI, VII, VIII.

Complicated. Personal. Political/sectarian.

Very like history, in short.