Deconstructing the History of Heliocentrism and Modern Physics

In “Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge” Popper set out from the conflict between the Church and Galileo Galilei and wrote that the former had “no objection to Galileo’s teaching the mathematical theory, so long as he made it clear that its value was instrumental only; that it was nothing but a ‘supposition’, as Cardinal Bellarmine put it; or a‘mathematical hypothesis’ – a kind of mathematical trick, ‘invented and assumed in order to abbreviate and ease calculations’.” 6
Popper (1956 [1963] 98, n. 2) considered Osiander and Cardinal Bellarmine among the “founding fathers of the epistemology which … I am
going to call ‘instrumentalism’.” {Opposed to the 'Realists' like Galileo}
Duhem and Popper thus joined hands in recognizing as instrumentalists some historical figures. But whereas for the former Osiander and
Bellarmine were the “good guys,” the latter hastened to contrast them with his own positive hero, Galileo Galilei: “Galileo himself, of course,
was very ready to stress the superiority of the Copernican system as an instrument of calculation. But at the same time he conjectured, and even believed, that it was a true description of the world; and for him (as for the Church) this was by far the most important matter” (Popper 1956 [1963] 98, italics in the original).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229474792_'Instrumentalism'_and_'Realism'_as_Categories_in_the_History_of_Astronomy_Duhem_vs_Popper_Maimonides_vs_Gersonides

"Copernicus studied at the University of Kraków and then travelled to Italy to study canon law at the University of Bologna and medicine at the University of Padua. Through all this time he was also studying and thinking about astronomy. Upon his return to Poland, Copernicus served as secretary and physician to his uncle, who also obtained a position for him as canon of Frombork (or Frauenberg) Cathedral. When his uncle’s died, Copernicus took up his duties as cathedral canon and remained in Frombork for most of the rest of his life. Though an official of the Church, it is doubtful whether Copernicus was ever ordained to the priesthood."
Nicolaus Copernicus - The Society of Catholic Scientists

The Jesuits were founded in 1534.
Lots up for investigation I agree.
Just a bit more for the discussion.

The Jesuits & The Globe Earth: The Mother Of All Conspiracies!

"At the very time Copernicus was resisting appeals to publish his theory of a heliocentric solar system, the Roman Catholic Church was waging war on the new Protestantism. Catholics admit the “Counter Reformation” was “an effort to stem the tide of Protestantism by genuine reform within the Catholic Church.” The Jesuit order was established in 1540 under the approval of Pope Paul III—the very pope with whom Copernicus had corresponded regarding calendar reform and to whom Copernicus dedicated his book, Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies!
It cannot be overstated: the Catholic Church was the force behind Copernicus, persistently urging the reluctant cleric to spread abroad his heliocentric theories that contradicted Scripture."

Galileo as we're told, was punished for pushing this heliocentric view: Paradox? Maybe there's a deeper agenda over centuries ...

Let's remember : "The author of the Big Bang theory was none other than the Jesuit-trained priest, Father Georges Lemaître. On October 28, 2014, Sarah Kerr reported on Pope Francis’ address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. In his remarks, the pontiff “said the Big Bang theory is compatible with the Catholic Church’s teaching on creation.” Pope Francis stated: “The Big Bang, that today is considered to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the creative intervention of God; on the contrary, it requires it.” He is a Jesuit of course.

I'm not taking sides but there's something being hidden behind all this blabber and smoke ...
 
"The concept of a Sun-centred solar system was known to the ancient Greeks. It predates Copernicus by nearly two millennia and can be traced back several centuries before Ptolemy's pronouncement that the Earth stood fixed and motionless at the centre of the universe." (Article)

"In 1595, an early Jesuit missionary to China, Matteo Ricci, recorded that the Chinese say: "The earth is flat and square, and the sky is a round canopy." In the 17th century, the idea of a spherical Earth spread in China due to the influence of the Jesuits, who held high positions as astronomers at the imperial court." (Article)

The Ancient Egyptians believed the Earth was flat and geocentric (although how that works with the supposed encoding of the circumference of the Earth in the Great Pyramid is a mystery.) Norse mythology is based on a flat earth plane through which grows the 'One Tree'. The Vedas contain both a globe model geocentric planetary system and a flat one, so you can take your pick.

Vedic Astrology, claimed to be the oldest in the World, was geocentric, although in modern times they have started to say that it is 'geo-referenced' rather than geocentric. The only vague reference to heliocentricism.. heliocentricness.. heliosychronictivity is in an English translation (i.e. deliberate mistranslation) of the Rig Veda.

It's my considered opinion that the default concept of the Earth is of a flat, geocentric one, everything else came after.
Would love to get my hands on as proper a translation of the Vedas as there exists outside of the Vatican..
 
proper a translation of the Vedas as there exists outside of the Vatican
I think that's in the Vatican libraries, hidden from the sheep. I'd like to know everything the Vatican and the Smithsonian is hiding.
I think a lot of 'discovery' that people have done and are doing were/are meant to destroy history.

It is important to know that people derive their strength from knowing what their culture is or has been: destroying it makes many people unstable and impressionable; and that's what the TPtB want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would love to get my hands on as proper a translation of the Vedas as there exists outside of the Vatican..
Where, one wonders, did Atri Bhauma observe and record that famous total solar eclipse of the Rig Veda? Where exactly did Yajnavalkya of the Shatapatha Brahmana conjure the intercalary 95 year cycle to align the lunar and solar years? Where was he struck by thoughts, some dare say, so close to heliocentrism? Somewhere in Mithila perhaps. Where did Dirghatamas Auchatya conceive of the celestial circle of 360- which would later become the 360 degrees of mathematics? Both appear in his cryptic Rig Vedic hymns and in clearer, more developed forms in later texts such as the Shatapatha Brahmana and the Vedanga Jyotisha. We may never know.Where, one wonders, did Atri Bhauma observe and record that famous total solar eclipse of the Rig Veda? Where exactly did Yajnavalkya of the Shatapatha Brahmana conjure the intercalary 95 year cycle to align the lunar and solar years? Where was he struck by thoughts, some dare say, so close to heliocentrism? Somewhere in Mithila perhaps. Where did Dirghatamas Auchatya conceive of the celestial circle of 360- which would later become the 360 degrees of mathematics? Both appear in his cryptic Rig Vedic hymns and in clearer, more developed forms in later texts such as the Shatapatha Brahmana and the Vedanga Jyotisha.
We may never know.
 
Where, one wonders, did Atri Bhauma observe and record that famous total solar eclipse of the Rig Veda? Where exactly did Yajnavalkya of the Shatapatha Brahmana conjure the intercalary 95 year cycle to align the lunar and solar years? Where was he struck by thoughts, some dare say, so close to heliocentrism? Somewhere in Mithila perhaps. Where did Dirghatamas Auchatya conceive of the celestial circle of 360- which would later become the 360 degrees of mathematics? Both appear in his cryptic Rig Vedic hymns and in clearer, more developed forms in later texts such as the Shatapatha Brahmana and the Vedanga Jyotisha. We may never know.Where, one wonders, did Atri Bhauma observe and record that famous total solar eclipse of the Rig Veda? Where exactly did Yajnavalkya of the Shatapatha Brahmana conjure the intercalary 95 year cycle to align the lunar and solar years? Where was he struck by thoughts, some dare say, so close to heliocentrism? Somewhere in Mithila perhaps. Where did Dirghatamas Auchatya conceive of the celestial circle of 360- which would later become the 360 degrees of mathematics? Both appear in his cryptic Rig Vedic hymns and in clearer, more developed forms in later texts such as the Shatapatha Brahmana and the Vedanga Jyotisha.
We may never know.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fehFdW5n2Kk

Muslim mathematicians were great force before Copernicus & Gallileo, so may have influenced them completely:
I was wondering when Islam moved to the heliocentric view- apparently they always had it since AD 750 or so!

When they calculate the position of Mecca :

Which Direction Is Mecca - IslamiCity

"Muslim prayers have a geographic angle not found in other religious traditions. The holiest site in Islam is the Kaaba, a mosque in Mecca, and observant Muslims perform their daily prayers literally facing that spot. But figuring out which way to pray isn’t quite as simple as it seems-especially in the very odd case of Tematangi, a remote atoll in French Polynesia.
In the Quran, the direction that Muslims are instructed to face when they pray is called the qibla, which means “direction” in Arabic. The need to calculate the qibla correctly was one factor that led to the development of sophisticated math and geography in the Arab world during the so-called “Islamic Golden Age,” between the 8th and 13th centuries.
On a flat Earth, calculating the qibla would be easy: You would use a “rhumb line,” a line of standard bearing that crossed all meridians of longitude at the same angle. If you were praying in Anchorage, Alaska, for example, you’d face Mecca by facing roughly west-southwest. But here’s the problem: The Earth is round. Most scholars of Islam, from the Middle Ages up to today, have recommended that believers pray using a so-called “great circle” to find the path of least distance to Mecca. By this math, a Muslim in Anchorage would actually face almost due north to pray! (Check a globe if you don’t believe me on this.)"

16th and 17th C Iranian maps: Two Iranian World Maps for Finding the Direction and Distance to Mecca on JSTOR

It's mostly new to me ... appreciate some of our community with their vast expertise may like to share here


Dan Gibson (author) - Wikipedia

"In 2017, historian David A. King authored a highly critical review of Gibson's Early Islamic Qiblas[1] in which he cites plagiarism, misconstruction and misunderstanding of his 1990 work on Qibla direction.[2] King also published a systematic review in 2018 entitled "The Petra fallacy - Early mosques do face the Sacred Kaaba in Mecca but Dan Gibson doesn't know how / Comparing historical orientations with modern directions can lead to false results".[3]

King argued that early Muslim Arabs were unable to precisely establish Qiblas when building new mosques until later mathematical developments made precision possible.[4] Further, King wrote, many variations in orientation are better accounted for by regional and local practices, imperfect geography, and folk astronomy. King noted Gibson's inadequate grasp of mathematics, citing Gibson's "spherical polygons" (p. 170) as inexplicable. King summarized his analysis of Gibson's work as an "amateurish, non-scholarly document that is both offensive to Muslims and also an insult to Muslim and Western scholarship."[4] Gibson placed a response to King on academia.edu, "Dr. King on the other hand is convinced that the sloppy qiblas actually intended to point: east, west, solstices, sunrises and so forth. I have not come across anything in Islamic religious manuscripts that support these Qiblas. But perhaps in time someone, somewhere will stumble across something that will change our understanding of Qiblas. All I have found so far, is that every Muslim expects the Qibla to point to Masjid Al Harām."[5]"

David A. King (historian) - Wikipedia

"The first volume of his magnum opus entitled In Synchrony with the Heavens (2004) contains the first descriptions of the astronomical tables used by Muslim astronomers for timekeeping by the sun and stars and the regulation of the astronomically-defined times of Muslim prayer throughout the year for different localities. The sophistication of some of these tables and instruments is remarkable, especially those that are universal, in the sense of serving all latitudes. Also remarkable is the way in which Muslim astronomers tabulated all conceivable functions relevant to the problems of spherical astronomy. The vast majority of these tables were unknown in medieval Europe, which is why they have only come to light in modern times." (NW emphasis)
 
Coincidentally or not, the modern pursuit of wisdom begins (and ends) with an examination of heliocentrism. The publication of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962 alerted the world to the fact that basic paradigm theories are more sociological than scientific. Kuhn himself contended himself with instancing the Copernican Revolution and leaving it at that, academics have contented themselves with instancing Kuhn and leaving it that.

They are all terrified of going any further because the clear implication of Kuhn's work is that all basic paradigm theories are of their nature deeply suspect. Nobody minds people of the past being laughed at for believing risible things, everybody minds being laughed at for believing risible things themselves.
 
Sorry about the duplication. My posts were edited by an admin person/bot is my excuse.

It's been interesting for me at least looking at the period and I end (for now) ...

... by looking at 1615, (AD/BCE/??) and see Fr Bellarmine's letter to Fr Foscarini. But where is Foscarini's letter to Fr Sebastione Fantone? It provoked Bellarmine's well known response, succintly summed up as Realists vs Instrumentalists. Fr Bellarmine was a very astute man but he was stuck in a difficult position, so it seems (going by what I can find out in translations) his job as arch Inquisitor :

"For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this." trying to reconcile the dispute just as Osiander had attempted with his preface to Copernicus' book

" It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens". This is tghe key point which was a turning point away from possible reconciliation, as had up till 1615.

What agenda was being served by banning that Foscarino letter? It's a little hard to find even now: It was edited at times along the way ...
Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible : including a translation of Foscarini's Letter on the motion of the earth : Blackwell, Richard J., 1929- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

"The realist approach assumes that concepts,, theories and other aspects in science are a true or approximately a true reflection of the natural physical world (Hesse, 2020)

"According to instrumentalists, scientific theories are used to predict various issues instead of providing the true or approximately true descriptions of the physical world. Instrumentalism is the opposite of scientific realism where people tend to believe in observable and unobservable aspects as an explanation to the physical world. It is vital to understand the difference between the two as a way of gaining a deeper understanding on the discussion topic. A physical theory is not an explanation about the natural world and instead, it is a system of propositions whose aim is to represent as possible the whole group of experimental laws (Bhakthavatsalam and Kidd, 2019)"

This leads off into epistemology: The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

Mick Harper may have something to add here ...
Coincidentally or not, the modern pursuit of wisdom begins (and ends) with an examination of heliocentrism. The publication of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962 alerted the world to the fact that basic paradigm theories are more sociological than scientific. Kuhn himself contended himself with instancing the Copernican Revolution and leaving it at that, academics have contented themselves with instancing Kuhn and leaving it that.

They are all terrified of going any further because the clear implication of Kuhn's work is that all basic paradigm theories are of their nature deeply suspect. Nobody minds people of the past being laughed at for believing risible things, everybody minds being laughed at for believing risible things themselves.
It is so obvious once we see something for ourselves.
Having it pointed out means either we may start to see it too or we deny it because we are already tied into a belief system. For most of us it is 'textbook history' We do not want to see the ramifications of "not seeing what is pointed out"; maybe something in us does NOT want to be shown- whatever. That's where the real battles might be fought and either lost or won.

Edwin Johnson is my example , of someone who picked away at assumptions he had taken for granted ... and found he could'nt stop

Why are we so afraid of being laughed at by our peers. If we admit we don't know and want to find out, we are immune from that. But it takes courage in the face of experts who we are taught to believe in, as we are taught to follow the straight & narrow path. Kept in line.

Thanks Mick

Critique of Kuhn's Argument
 
Actually, one is not laughed at by adopting the Don't Know position. You might be thought a bit thick, you might be accused of not caring, but the Don't Know position is generally quite a respectable one. That is why people usually describe themselves as Agnostics when in reality they are, for all practical purposes, Atheists.

However, if you oppose the current position you will get the treatment. Both barrels.
 
But the point often made, via mass "education", is that you're more than thick if you say 'I don't know'; even young children KNOW (fill in any example here).
It has become a paradigm for society, ignorance (non belief) is to be eliminated in all areas as a human right of course.

Your saying 'I don't know' is weaponised into 'You simply don't want to know' - in other words you're promoting ignorance over truth etc
 
That is true and a common bane. No talking head has ever said, "I don't know." Or rather "We don't know." We have watched the consequences of this for two years as the Covid pandemic played itself out. The Crazies turned out to be right (though for the wrong reasons). It would probably have been best to do nothing.

But there I go. Claiming to know.
 
If I can really say "I don't know", I can safely argue by analogy "Nor do you. Where's your proof, not where's your belief?"
We see that most of what people say "I know" is really "I believe" because I was told or shown by somebody else.

Never mind Descartes still believing in his mind and God. What about Feynman?
"This is a notion that the eminent 20th-century theoretical physicist, Richard Feynman noted when he stated: “What we call scientific knowledge is just a body of information of varying degrees of certainty”, and that certainty can never reach 100%."

Richard Feynman Creates a Simple Method for Telling Science From Pseudoscience (1966)

"The problem of demarcation, or what is and what is not science, has occupied philosophers for some time, and the most famous answer comes from philosopher of science Karl Popper, who proposed his theory of “falsifiability” in 1963. According to Popper, an idea is scientific if it can conceivably be proven wrong. Although Popper’s strict definition of science has had its uses over the years, it has also come in for its share of criticism, since so much accepted science was falsified in its day (Newton’s gravitational theory, Bohr’s theory of the atom), and so much current theoretical science cannot be falsified (string theory, for example)." (NW emphasis)

Back to the Sixties Mick. Thanks again

Heavy stuff for Sunday morning ...
 
Interesting topic and while I appreciate the need to deconstruct mainstream science I think their is a limit to how far one can deconstruct science in general. I say this because we are limited in our ability to perceive and interact with reality, much less understand it and our observations are limited by our senses. Some great arguments and insights shared and I agree with much of it. This is however just so that we can make sense of a world that doesn't make sense.

Theories about heliocentrism or earth shape are not borne out in reality because of our perceptual limitations or in this case, our inability to remove ourselves from the earth environment and gaze upon it outside the earth. While many place science on a pedestal as the answer to solving the mysteries of history and life and defeating the BS of the PTB, I feel it is telling that during a period in our history, when it would seem we were very technologically advanced (and it is my view that we were way more advanced than the present), these people with their understanding of science, the universe and their architectural marvels and amazing technologies were religious. Whether they worshipped pagan deities or the God of Abraham, science and technology did not create a society of atheists. A more advance civilization concluded there is more to reality than science and they appealed to what some would the supernatural. I don't think it's supernatural at all but rather beyond our experience of reality but be that as it may, this is very telling.

Linked to the above paragraph and the topic of heliocentricity is the worship of the sun. I don't have answers to provide as I'm not a researcher and I'm really on this site to learn from way more knowledgeable members. I simply am interested in why so many civilizations, tribal, urban, jungles, cities, etc. they worshipped the sun as a sentient being. This I find puzzling. Why do the lumi and their lumi friends still push the sun-worship agenda, which I think is the real purpose behind heliocentricity, sun-worship. I can understand an uneducated people but those who were the scientists of old...not so much.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fehFdW5n2Kk

Muslim mathematicians were great force before Copernicus & Gallileo, so may have influenced them completely:
I was wondering when Islam moved to the heliocentric view- apparently they always had it since AD 750 or so!

As a Muslim I understand the position shared by the presenter and the opinion of the scholars she references however I do not share the opinion. It's just not a topic that seems to come up much in the history of Islam so I don't know about the claim that it a widespread belief. I get the feeling that a false dichotomy has been presented and accepted and then a position need to be adopted based on this, ignoring any and all other possibilities e.g. crater earth? Or my own view, we just don't know.

Nature of the evidence of widespread historical belief in a stationary earth

Islamically I understand the earth to be stationary. There are different interpretations on whether it is round or flat based upon the works of early scholars however you can explore quite a lot of them at the following link.

The earth may be round, it may be flat. Whatever it is, my feeling is that it is definitely stationary.

Peace
 
Interesting topic and while I appreciate the need to deconstruct mainstream science I think their is a limit to how far one can deconstruct science in general. I say this because we are limited in our ability to perceive and interact with reality, much less understand it and our observations are limited by our senses. Some great arguments and insights shared and I agree with much of it. This is however just so that we can make sense of a world that doesn't make sense.

Theories about heliocentrism or earth shape are not borne out in reality because of our perceptual limitations or in this case, our inability to remove ourselves from the earth environment and gaze upon it outside the earth. While many place science on a pedestal as the answer to solving the mysteries of history and life and defeating the BS of the PTB, I feel it is telling that during a period in our history, when it would seem we were very technologically advanced (and it is my view that we were way more advanced than the present), these people with their understanding of science, the universe and their architectural marvels and amazing technologies were religious. Whether they worshipped pagan deities or the God of Abraham, science and technology did not create a society of atheists. A more advance civilization concluded there is more to reality than science and they appealed to what some would the supernatural. I don't think it's supernatural at all but rather beyond our experience of reality but be that as it may, this is very telling.

Linked to the above paragraph and the topic of heliocentricity is the worship of the sun. I don't have answers to provide as I'm not a researcher and I'm really on this site to learn from way more knowledgeable members. I simply am interested in why so many civilizations, tribal, urban, jungles, cities, etc. they worshipped the sun as a sentient being. This I find puzzling. Why do the lumi and their lumi friends still push the sun-worship agenda, which I think is the real purpose behind heliocentricity, sun-worship. I can understand an uneducated people but those who were the scientists of old...not so much.



As a Muslim I understand the position shared by the presenter and the opinion of the scholars she references however I do not share the opinion. It's just not a topic that seems to come up much in the history of Islam so I don't know about the claim that it a widespread belief. I get the feeling that a false dichotomy has been presented and accepted and then a position need to be adopted based on this, ignoring any and all other possibilities e.g. crater earth? Or my own view, we just don't know.



Islamically I understand the earth to be stationary. There are different interpretations on whether it is round or flat based upon the works of early scholars however you can explore quite a lot of them at the following link.

The earth may be round, it may be flat. Whatever it is, my feeling is that it is definitely stationary.

Peace
Thank you for your comments. It is a subject worth further investigation ...
Interesting topic and while I appreciate the need to deconstruct mainstream science I think their is a limit to how far one can deconstruct science in general. I say this because we are limited in our ability to perceive and interact with reality, much less understand it and our observations are limited by our senses. Some great arguments and insights shared and I agree with much of it. This is however just so that we can make sense of a world that doesn't make sense.

Theories about heliocentrism or earth shape are not borne out in reality because of our perceptual limitations or in this case, our inability to remove ourselves from the earth environment and gaze upon it outside the earth. While many place science on a pedestal as the answer to solving the mysteries of history and life and defeating the BS of the PTB, I feel it is telling that during a period in our history, when it would seem we were very technologically advanced (and it is my view that we were way more advanced than the present), these people with their understanding of science, the universe and their architectural marvels and amazing technologies were religious. Whether they worshipped pagan deities or the God of Abraham, science and technology did not create a society of atheists. A more advance civilization concluded there is more to reality than science and they appealed to what some would the supernatural. I don't think it's supernatural at all but rather beyond our experience of reality but be that as it may, this is very telling.

Linked to the above paragraph and the topic of heliocentricity is the worship of the sun. I don't have answers to provide as I'm not a researcher and I'm really on this site to learn from way more knowledgeable members. I simply am interested in why so many civilizations, tribal, urban, jungles, cities, etc. they worshipped the sun as a sentient being. This I find puzzling. Why do the lumi and their lumi friends still push the sun-worship agenda, which I think is the real purpose behind heliocentricity, sun-worship. I can understand an uneducated people but those who were the scientists of old...not so much.



As a Muslim I understand the position shared by the presenter and the opinion of the scholars she references however I do not share the opinion. It's just not a topic that seems to come up much in the history of Islam so I don't know about the claim that it a widespread belief. I get the feeling that a false dichotomy has been presented and accepted and then a position need to be adopted based on this, ignoring any and all other possibilities e.g. crater earth? Or my own view, we just don't know.



Islamically I understand the earth to be stationary. There are different interpretations on whether it is round or flat based upon the works of early scholars however you can explore quite a lot of them at the following link.

The earth may be round, it may be flat. Whatever it is, my feeling is that it is definitely stationary.

Peace
"As a Muslim" as indicator of how this is true? Is it? Can there ever be the same cognitive norms. Fundamental point imo...

'definition of traditional epistemology, followed by an explanation of how class, gender, and race can affect what one can know.
Traditional epistemology can be defined as all knowers, regardless of who you are or what your social situation is, are bound by the same cognitive norms'
It is surprising how geocentric are our current theories of how it all works. As instanced in this YouTube from a well-known contributor to this thread
A New Model of the Solar System


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPWH9xh_Jy0

Thank you Mick.
It is surprising how geocentric are our current theories of how it all works. As instanced in this YouTube from a well-known contributor to this thread
A New Model of the Solar System


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPWH9xh_Jy0

Is this part of a series? It should get people looking further: Applied Epistemology
The Applied Epistemology Library :: View Forum - Basics
 
Last edited:
The general theme is: "All paradigm theories of the past have been found wanting so there is no reason why our current crop should be taken as gospel." But people will have to explore the visible threads (there are others that are for working out new ideas) to find out what subjects have been taken to task.
 
The general theme is: "All paradigm theories of the past have been found wanting so there is no reason why our current crop should be taken as gospel." But people will have to explore the visible threads (there are others that are for working out new ideas) to find out what subjects have been taken to task.
as an assumption let's say everything is up for grabs, for reinterpretation.

Start with your heliocentric video posted above ...
 
Just look at tge reactions in this post, some people will never question the infinite space vacuum Screenshot_20221007-210201_Facebook.jpg
 
A fundamental idea in the geography of ancient China is "round sky and square earth." It first appeared, according to the Chinese scientists (I will not argue if they are correct or not... ;)) at least 2,000 years ago and has had a considerable negative and positive impact on Chinese topography. The history of geographical philosophy is a recent academic topic in China. This change first started in the 1980's and "The center of geographical history" has emerged (Yang 1989, p. 7; Wang 1982, p. 4).

The history of exploration, cartography, and the geographers themselves received more focus in earlier studies of ancient Chinese geography.The idea of a circular sky and a square earth was not given any consideration.

Chinese astronomy in antiquity was founded on this fundamental world view.

The Gnomon of the Zhou, a fundamental collection of writings composed during the Han dynasty, confirmed that the sky was a revolving umbrella located far above the square earth.

We shouldn't think that the Chinese were prevented from creating an advanced and precise astronomy by their view of the world.

All things considered, the calendar was an imperial prerogative. The Emperor also needed to be mindful of natural occurrences like eclipses since they served as a warning that the heavenly authorities were not happy with his rule. The Imperial Astronomical Bureau has been in charge of keeping an eye on the sky and establishing the calendar since ancient times.


It seems that for all these people everything is about taking advantage... Ricci understood that the Jesuits needed to be both necessary and non-threatening if his colleagues were to be permitted to publicly preach. He had the chance to demonstrate how useful he could be by studying European geography and astronomy. Late in 1595, Ricci wrote letters outlining what he had learned about the Chinese worldview.
He observed that they believed the earth to be flat and square and the sky to be a circular canopy. In private, he dismissed these opinions, but he was aware that he needed to use caution in his attempts to correct them. He chose his first project after observing how Chinese guests at the Jesuits' mansion would stare at a world map that was displayed on the wall.

The Chinese had excellent maps of their own country, so Ricci combined these with European charts plotted during the voyages of Portuguese and Spanish explorers. Diplomatically, he placed the Americas on the right and Europe on the left so China remained near the center. He filled out the unexplored parts of the world with elements of Chinese and classical fantasy such as the land of the dwarfs and a realm of one-eyed people. The lower half of the southern hemisphere was filled by an enormous and non-existent continent, the terra australis, that Europeans had convinced themselves was awaiting discovery. (A colored Japanese copy of the map made about 1610 can be found HERE.)
https://catholicscientists.org/articles/round-or-square-china-christianity-shape-of-earth/
https://catholicscientists.org/articles/round-or-square-china-christianity-shape-of-earth/
Ricci improved his map in several stages before it reached its most developed form in 1602, which he called the “Complete Geographical Chart of Ten Thousand Countries.” When printed, it was twelve and half feet long and over five feet high. This was more than just a map of the world. Ricci included diagrams of the whole universe in each corner, as well as lengthy explanatory captions. He broached the subject of the Globe in the map’s general introduction:
https://catholicscientists.org/articles/round-or-square-china-christianity-shape-of-earth/
https://catholicscientists.org/articles/round-or-square-china-christianity-shape-of-earth/
“The earth and sea are both spherical. Together they form a single globe situated at the centre of the celestial spheres, like the yoke in a hen’s egg that is surrounded by the white. Those who said the earth is square were referring to the earth’s fixed and immobile nature and not its physical form.” 4
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.
Back
Top