Deconstructing the History of Heliocentrism and Modern Physics

[Shabda Preceptor]

Except the dates are all wrong, and we don't know if Alexander was macedonian, scythian or persian, or all these at the same time.

Even more than the dates, it is well known that the Greeks (and many other cultures) were P.I.E. civilizations (Proto-Indo-European), even if only compared based on linguistics the relationship is undeniable, so in the area of astronomy and the comparisons made, the Indians already influenced the Greeks before they ever came to be a group in the first place due to their origins being in the land now called India, but that seems to be discounted in the astronomy statement or at least considered insignificant. On that I disagree personally. Linguistics are known to be very influential on all cultures as they're part of the basis upon which most else is laid within a culture group, regardless of time period. Linguistic influences have fingers that reach into nearly every other aspect of a culture. Just my opinion, but an important one.

 

[JohnDee]

@JohnDee you're absolutely right about absolutely everything and I'm so tired of arguing against the mainstream (and other) narratives and its 'facts'. The majority of people here already know these 'facts' and rejected them long ago - that's why they're here in a stolen history forum. If you're here to convert us poor deluded fools then congratulations, I now worship at the altar of your 'facts'. Thank you so much. Now I can stop fighting against mainstream opinions and get on with my life.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this, nor do I fully understand your hostility. But you have judged me wrong here. Please don't attribute to me intentions I do not have.

I do not care about nor seek to push any kind of "mainstream" narrative. I'm not here to "convert poor deluded fools". It is not about me being "right" and you being "wrong". I was merely responding to things you said, offering my understanding. Certainly I might be wrong, but Ancient/classic astronomy (and Hermeticism) are subjects I spend much time studying on my own, without regard for any mainstream narrative. I have not come to my ideas because some institution has indoctrinated me; I do not follow the proscriptions of some priestly class of "Scientists", "historians", etc dictating what is "truth" or not. I prefer to consult source texts (when available) for ideas, not some manipulated, out of context, vague accounts used to push whatever narrative. But of course I am open to suggestion.

I certainly understand to some degree what 'stolen history' is about. Hiding, covering up, or distorting history is just as much 'stolen history' as trying to take away real and honest discoveries and insights of those in the past, be they Eastern, Western, or whatever. Every "big name" in the "narrative" is not an enemy, every discovery is not some theft. Yes, there are many problems with the typical "Western/Eurocentric narrative" of history that is commonly taught. But I prefer not be merely reactionary against it, but instead to understand what semblance of "truth" that can be found in it. And certainly there has been a great deal of influence passed back and forth from the Mediterranean to India.

If I am wrong or am misunderstanding things, then I am glad to be corrected. I am open to any discussion. I have not read everything, I have not studied all the ideas. There is a vast amount of knowledge that I do not possess. But in terms of ancient astronomy, among other things, it certainly seems like I should engage with the source writings and ideas of the ancients themselves to attempt to understood them. Otherwise, who/what should I consult? If the source texts are not a good place to start, then what is? If I am to reject them, as I should some mainstream narrative, then what am I left with? If I have been led astray, then can you not point out where I have gone wrong?

 

[FarewellAngelina]

The problem with source texts are that there are no ancient ones . Copies of copies . In terms of the ancient Greek astronomy , where are the original works attributed to Aristarchus for example ? Heliocentric model attributed to this guy but none of his work survives - some say one work survives but this makes no mention of this heliocentric stuff. This where the myth starts.

The point is that there are no trustworthy sources for ancient astronomy . No proof has ever been put forward from today's theorists that we live in a heliocentric system.

My opinion is that the heliocentric model was written into history retrospectively - by the Jesuits probably.

I would genuinely like to know which sources you use which formed your views on ancient astronomy

 

[JohnDee]

Even more than the dates, it is well known that the Greeks (and many other cultures) were P.I.E. civilizations (Proto-Indo-European), even if only compared based on linguistics the relationship is undeniable, so in the area of astronomy and the comparisons made, the Indians already influenced the Greeks before they ever came to be a group in the first place due to their origins being in the land now called India, but that seems to be discounted in the astronomy statement or at least considered insignificant. On that I disagree personally. Linguistics are known to be very influential on all cultures as they're part of the basis upon which most else is laid within a culture group, regardless of time period. Linguistic influences have fingers that reach into nearly every other aspect of a culture. Just my opinion, but an important one.

The 'Great Thread of History' is woven between the Ganges and the Mediterranean, the Silk Road. Along it has passed back and forth most of the great knowledge and development of the world. The linguistics you reference are a testament to this. Once people start writing, everyone begins influencing everyone else. At times it is coming from India, at times Mesopotamia, at times the Mediterranean, and from further out; many things spreading and mixing. There is no discounting anyone, nor is anything insignificant. It is not a zero sum game. Some people wrote stuff down, others didn't. It is more about trying to follow the weave and understanding the pattern.

I see no issue with the idea that the Greeks were influence by the Indians -- just as I see no issue with the idea that the there was a 'golden age' of Greek/Hellenistic astronomy, were they wrote many things down, making references to Egypt and Babylon; and then a little later a golden age of Indian astronomy where they wrote many things down and made some references to the Greeks; and then a little later a golden age of Arabic-Islamic astronomy where they wrote even more stuff down, making references to both Indian and Greece; culminating into the Renaissance where still more stuff was written down, referencing all manner of things. As it stands this is the thread of astronomy that has woven the debate of geocentrism/heliocentrism, among numerous other things.

The problem with source texts are that there are no ancient ones . Copies of copies .

Certainly the further back you go the more rare "source texts" become. Almost all of "history" is copies of copies. The lost works of Aristarchus are in many ways no different than rumors of some lost papyrii of Ancient Egypt, hidden scrolls of Babylon, some temple hidden in the Jungle, the monks of Tibet -- whatever supposed wisdom from any lost civilization. History is always some part myth, because myth is part of making culture. And in studying the surviving works of history there is always the assumption of mistranslations, copy errors, agendas, etc. "Trustworthy" or not, we have what we have.

The point is that there are no trustworthy sources for ancient astronomy .

I do not agree with this, mainly because I don't know what "trustworthy" is supposed to mean. What is the criteria? It is not that some lost person/work/etc. contained the "truth" -- it's that things get referenced to a point that it at least seems "true" somebody, somewhere was doing something. It's not about "trusting" in Aristarchus or his myth. It doesn't matter if he even existed.

Should one discount or reject works on the premise that they merely reference things no longer extant? Should Ptolemy and all his writing be tossed out because he spends a paragraph saying "this guy Hipparchus did some neat stuff, but I'm gonna do this other neat stuff"?

In the case of Aristarchus, nothing, heliocentrism or otherwise, is predicated on him and nothing is "proved" by his lost works. He is merely someone who other ancients (Archimedes, Plutarch, Strabo, etc) reference as being an astronomer and having made an argument for heliocentrism. Some agreed, many didn't. The ideas have long been debated.

My opinion is that the heliocentric model was written into history retrospectively - by the Jesuits probably.

Of this I am not convinced. Certainly the Jesuits were/are very devious and have long been up to no good. But I'm not sure where they are "writing in" heliocentrism or what "good" that would do. They surely don't seem to be hiding the fact that most of the old writings are geocentric...

I would genuinely like to know which sources you use which formed your views on ancient astronomy

As far as sources go, there are a great many. Astronomy has been one of the most recorded and written about things in history, the world over. It goes back to agriculture; calendars, math, physics, navigation, etc all come out of astronomy. It hard to talk about the history of Astronomy without talking about the history of Math. Many things have been lost, and many more remain untranslated. An understanding of Latin and Greek greatly helps, as would Arabic and Sanskrit. It would help if you could be a little more specific. But I shall offer a few suggestions here and link a few things.

There are the ancient star charts and astronomical tables of the Babylonians and Egyptians, their comments on their calendars and the seasons. Ideas on architecture. One can find many things. The Greeks mention getting many things from them, but don't give specifics.

In terms of the Ancient Greeks, astronomy was integrated into their mathematical and geometric studies, as well as the cosmology of the Philosophers. As such many of the famed works of Euclid, Archimedes, Plato, Aristotle, Hesiod, etc. all contain thoughts and ideas on the subject. Of great interest is Apollonius' work on Conic Sections. Otherwise, yes, many works of Hipparchus, Aristarchus, Posidonus, Meneleaus, etc are "lost". But still they are referenced by others, not because they were "correct" or "true", just as people who did or said certain things interesting to certain areas of study.

There is of course the very famous Ptolemy, the great geocentrist. His works Almagest and Planisphaerium (among others) are both of great interest, and have long been studied across the world.

In term of India, their astronomy flourished around 5th century. There is the famous Aryabhatiya or the Pañcasiddhāntikā. You also have the very old Vedanga Jyotisha. Many more.

In terms of the Arabs/Muslims, who for a some time (primarily 9th-12th centuries) did a great deal of work in the astronomy tradition (anwa). Their works are numerous, bringing together the traditions of Mesopotamia, Greece, and India. They also did much work with the astrolabe. One can find a general overview here.

Then of course there are the later works of Copernicus and Kepler; Brahe, Galileo, Bruno, Dee, Leibniz, Newton, etc. There are the works of Portuguese, Spanish, English, etc navigators. One can go in so many directions.

So on and so forth. The subject goes very deep. As I have said, it has been long studied, so there are a great many things to look through.

 

[fabiorem]

Copies of copies means there is no history at all, unless of course you want to know the history of those who made those copies, and most of them were involved in all sorts of fraud.
But then, the same logic applied to ancient Greece, can also be applied to ancient India. Do we have the original Rig Veda? I will not be surprised if the Rig Veda was actually written in the 19th century and given this ancient clothing to match it with the greek texts.

I have seem people talking about the western US belonging to Tartaria once, when the so-called "tartarian architecture" is not present in the open eastern russian steppes (at least not in the same quantity). We could imagine some big event wiping out the evidence. Ok, anything is possible, because since history was falsified, we could give wings to alternative theories.
However, when we apply the same logic to Rome, and speculates the evidence could have been wiped out in the same way in the balkans, the same people who were pushing the tartarian theory start asking for "proof". Why these people want to question the (official) history of the West, but not the (official) history of the East? If the history of the West was falsified, it is obvious the history of the East also was.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

There is of course the very famous Ptolemy, the great geocentrist. His works Almagest and Planisphaerium (among others) are both of great interest, and have long been studied across the world.

Ptolemy the great geocentrist's work has not survived - the earliest copy is given as a 9th century translation from Greek to Arabic .

Mentioning as many names of so-called ancient Greek astronomers as you can does not hide the fact that that no original work survives of those many named .
Mainstream does not equate to trustworthy .

Copernicus and Kepler already dealt with . And Dee - leave Kellys wife alone .

I think you may have wandered onto the wrong forum .

 

[JohnDee]

Copies of copies means there is no history at all, unless of course you want to know the history of those who made those copies, and most of them were involved in all sorts of fraud.

But the only way to have any kind of "history" is to "copy" it. Whether it's the oral tradition or the written word. If you don't repeat some kind of information, in some kind of way you will have nothing, history or otherwise. And people need history, as in remembering time spent together, to form any kind of bonds. And things can still be learned, myth or otherwise. It all goes hand in hand with language, and writing exponentiates it to a great degree.

You make good points. The "west" is often held to a different standard.

Ptolemy the great geocentrist's work has not survived - the earliest copy is given as a 9th century translation from Greek to Arabic .

Mentioning as many names of so-called ancient Greek astronomers as you can does not hide the fact that that no original work survives of those many named

What difference does it really make? We still have many copies, in many languages, of a work full of math and astronomical calculations to look at. Texts that have beyond a doubt influenced astronomy and math for a long time, at least since the "9th century". The words written and ideas contained in these texts have been key to the debates in astronomy, geocentrism/heliocentrism, etc. What's in the text is what matters, not the name of the person that did or didn't write it. No one says "Ptolemy said X, and therefore it is true". Same for the Greeks. Absolutely no one is hiding the fact that the "original work" of these supposed people has not survived. Trigonometry, etc is still a thing, despite who "invented" it. And if we had the "original works" would you accept them, or would you find reasons to just reject them too? What "sources" do you consult?

Mainstream does not equate to trustworthy .

I'll ask again, what is the criteria for "trustworthy"? Certainly "mainstream" does not equate to trustworthy, but what exactly does "mainstream" mean here? At a certain point it would seem one would have to just reject everything and make up their own narrative. But what would this narrative based on? Old books, pure imagination? Is it more "trustworthy" to just make up history, than to try and make sense what has been left behind?

Copernicus and Kepler already dealt with . And Dee - leave Kellys wife alone .

If the works of Copernicus and Kepler have been "already dealt with" I would love to know where. Vague conspiracies about who they were or what their motives were doesn't change the fact that they left works behind, and it is the ideas in these works that are the important thing.
Take what you will from Dee's diaries but it was Kelly that first proposed that they "share everything", including wives. To which Dee doesn't come across as being to pleased about.

I think you may have wandered onto the wrong forum .

I have lurked here for some time, enjoying the discussions on various things. I post in this thread because it is a subject that I study. If trying to study old works, to find whatever truth, to see where history has been distorted, and come to my own conclusions is not something for this forum, then perhaps I am in the wrong place. But it quite seems that is some of what "stolen history" is about...

 

[FarewellAngelina]

You have only to click on the links provided throughout this thread to find out about Copernicus and Kepler. These links will also provide you with with the anomalies and contradictions which show the heliocentric model to be untenable .

Is post 72 of this thread where you came in? Just after it was shown that the speed of light , that cornerstone of modern physics and astronomy had never been measured . You start of with the "don't mention FE stuff " (nobody had if I recall correctly) and follow that with Ptolemy and Copernicus having covered the shape of earth .

You say you study the subject of this thread - the deconstruction of the heliocentric model and modern physics - yet you indulge in silly sophistry - very brigade 77 like . Though you may have contributed to the debate - equinox anomaly maybe - there's alot more to that.

I trust my own senses ,experience and judgement on scientific matters .

 

[JohnDee]

What difference does it matter where I came in? It was when I got around to posting. I'm not sure what the speed of light stuff has to do with anything. I was only responding to a few things I took slight contention with, particularly in regards to Newton and John Dee. I don't have much of an issue with anything else in this thread. Otherwise I have been responding to things that were in response to me.

I mention FE echoing what other posts had said, that it is good to try to have a discreet discussion on heliocentrism vs geocentrism. The simple reference to Ptolemy and Copernicus was just to point out that the shape of the planet was not something that was particularly in debate in astronomy for some time, while helio vs geo were. Make what you will of that.

Yes, I defended Newton, which is perhaps taboo. But you don't see me defending Kepler for stealing Brahe's data or faking his own. And certainly I have not said anything is true because X, Y, or Z said 1, 2, or 3. Nor have I said heliocentrism, geocentrism, or whatever is true. Particularly because my mind is not made up on the subject.

Yes there are links in this thread to some of it, but still nothing of great depth in regards to the books themselves. I am trying to make my stumbling way through Kepler's Astronomia Nova and Harmonices Mundi, so I guess I'm looking for stuff that deals more intensely with just his work. So far with Coperincus's De Revolutionibus I have found it to be a flawed but still quite beautiful book. These are some of the books that the narrative has been based on, so I'm just trying to see what I can piece together and what can be found in them, if anything at all.

You say you study the subject of this thread - the deconstruction of the heliocentric model and modern physics - yet you indulge in silly sophistry - very brigade 77 like . Though you may have contributed to the debate - equinox anomaly maybe - there's alot more to that.

I'm not sure what "silly sophistry" I'm indulging in. Tho accusing me of being some British Army Intelligence spook quite seems like some. But if you want to go into that subject I would much rather talk about Dee, heliocentrism, mapping the New World, cryptography, Walshingham, and the foundations of British Intelligence. Yes there is a lot more to all of this. People were responding to me about the nature of "sources", as such I was responding in turn.

I see no reasons for any dispersions to be cast.

 

[fabiorem]

But the only way to have any kind of "history" is to "copy" it. Whether it's the oral tradition or the written word. If you don't repeat some kind of information, in some kind of way you will have nothing, history or otherwise. And people need history, as in remembering time spent together, to form any kind of bonds. And things can still be learned, myth or otherwise. It all goes hand in hand with language, and writing exponentiates it to a great degree.

You make good points. The "west" is often held to a different standard.

But here lies a problem: if everything is copied from oral traditions, and oral traditions vary greatly from one region to another, how can we trust those copied sources?

See the case of the bulgarian threads. The OP mistook a cursive F for a S, while looking at it on the screen. Now imagine this during the middle ages, with old yellow paper and only the light of candles to read the ornated text. It is easy, in those conditions, to mistake the cursive F for a S, and hence the name Slavius was popularized in the East (also due to slavic languages being more sharp in pronunciation), and later the same word was captured by the Vatican, to distort it's meaning, which now would be "slave" instead of "glory". So you see two distortions of the source, the first caused by a mistake, the second caused by xenophobic leanings. How many more cases we could have of it? Hundreds, thousands, which leaves history as a convoluted mess. That's why we have to question these copies of copies.

 

[RumbaV]

I'm confused why people think the geocentric model must also imply a flat stationary earth.

It's possible that these people knew perfectly well that earth was a globe, and the sun was at the center of the solar system.

Then why are there pictures that suggest they believed in a geocentric model?

A very compelling reason for that could be that it simply makes their mathematics easier to do, and has nothing to do with a flat earth

It makes perfect sense to chose your coordinate system in such a way that makes the earth central to all your calculations and diagrams, because the earth is where we live and from here we interact with the other energies in our solar system.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Jupiter is around 6AU from the sun . 1AU = 93,000,000 miles or 150,000,000km

Insolation for earth ( at 1AU ) = 1370W per square metre - of which a small part is in the visible spectrum. From my days as a swot .

Electromagnetic light propagates according to the inverse square law , so once that sunlight passes earths orbit very little will reach Jupiter.

Jupiter , being a globe , will scatter these incoming rays in all directions according to the principles of optics (it's why we have hotspots on curved objects) . An extremely tiny amount will then be reflected another 5AU to earth again propagating as per inverse square law .

I once calculated all this for the planet Saturn at 9AU from the sun , which one can clearly see with the naked eye . I do not know how we can even see the planets .

They must be luminaries and nearby , or we know nothing about light .

Just deconstructing a bit more.

I'm confused why people think the geocentric model must also imply a flat stationary earth.

It's possible that these people knew perfectly well that earth was a globe, and the sun was at the center of the solar system.

Then why are there pictures that suggest they believed in a geocentric model?

A very compelling reason for that could be that it simply makes their mathematics easier to do, and has nothing to do with a flat earth

It makes perfect sense to chose your coordinate system in such a way that makes the earth central to all your calculations and diagrams, because the earth is where we live and from here we interact with the other energies in our solar system.

Geocentric model does not imply a flat stationary earth . Geocentric implies nothing about shape.

The fact that no scientific experiment has ever found the earth to be spinning implies a stationary earth.

 

[DanFromMN]

If people stopped putting their faith in men to be truthful about experiments that they cant repeat and observe themseves, the PT(should not)B would lose all control.

Imagine how much more willing to accept a close relationship with God people would become if the true nature of this place were to become common knowledge?

How many more people would be saved?

Theres certainly an agenda.

 

[alltheleaves]

He is a science and technology journalist.

Yes, for TIME.

In 1922/23 TIME was funded by the Harkness family and their Standard Oil dough. Luce & Hadden (Yale, Skull & Bones) were the prime movers. Several other Bonesman invested along with other frequently sighted "elite" family names like Harriman, Cheney and Gates.

As "mainstream" as it gets.

 

[grav]

I'm confused why people think the geocentric model must also imply a flat stationary earth.

I will rise to defend what Nasa and the military have described in their documents as a "stationary atmosphere above a flat non-rotating surface."

Water seeks its own level; oceans are water, so ....
Air which is still is probably not moving over a surface which spins 1000 mph; it is very hard to not say duh right now. So I won't. Gravity drag as the official explanation is ouch-worthy.
Optics and math - Chicago is visible from 50 miles. The Suez is over 100 miles long and level along a datum line its entire distance as it connects 2 seas without locks.

 

[suspicious]

I hope it's not too late to give a humble contribution to this thread. When I heard the FE stuff for the first time back in 2015 I said "that's insane". But I was honest and tried to proof the earth is a ball. And guess what? It's flat. The simple way to check that is looking at sunrise and sunset, no matter where you are on earth the sun always rises on the east moving upward AND slightly to the right. And then the sunsets downward AND slightly to the right again. If we were in a ball the sun should have a different behavior on the southern hemisphere, specially high summer, rising on the east and going slightly to the left and setting on the west and going slightly to the left again. I have been to Argentina and could check that's not what happens.

On a spinning ball things should have the same pattern in high latitudes both in Greenland and Ushuaia, considering an observer looking at the sun rotating and a fixed point on the ground that also goes around the observer. That happens in Greenland, but when you are in Ushuaia the observer looks at the sun during the all day and the fixed point on the ground does not rotate, SO it's the sun that's going around and the ground is fixed. Ergo, we are on the same plane, north and south. I have some drawings to show that in a graphic way but I think that's not necessary to attach here.

Not to mention the artificial horizon on a plane, that's another silver bullet on the ball. However I consider the sun observation good enough since people from the past came to the same conclusion and "smart people" of the 20th century couldn't see that because they were looking at the TV screen.

 

[grav]

I have been to Argentina and could check that's not what happens.

On a spinning ball things should have the same pattern in high latitudes both in Greenland and Ushuaia, considering an observer looking at the sun rotating and a fixed point on the ground that also goes around the observer. That happens in Greenland, but when you are in Ushuaia the observer looks at the sun during the all day and the fixed point on the ground does not rotate, SO it's the sun that's going around and the ground is fixed. Ergo, we are on the same plane, north and south. I have some drawings to show that in a graphic way but I think that's not necessary to attach here.

Ushuaia is an important clue.
Its proximity to Antarctica means that it can never have a Midnight Sun, which is easily observable in the Arctic.
If heliocentrism were real, there would be tons of videos of the sun appearing above the horizon 24/7 in southern summers.
On the other hand, with modern cinematic software, it should be possible to create believable videos that fake the phenomenon.

 

[Akanah]

I suppose heliocentrism arose parallel to geocentrism, because both are like the respective one or other side of a medallion. That is so similar as with spherical earth vs. concave earth which perhaps also both came up at the same time. We live in a dual world and therefore there are always two sides from the beginning. I see no point in picking apart the heliocentrism model of modern physics without also examining the geocentrism model (which is common among religions).

 

[Nick Weech]

"Nor is it necessary that these hypotheses should be true, nor indeed even probable, but it is sufficient if they merely produce calculations which agree with the observations... And let no one expect from astronomy, as far as hypotheses are concerned, anything certain, since it cannot produce any such thing, in case if he seizes on things constructed for another other purpose as true, he departs from this discipline more foolish than he came to it. The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood." (Nicolaus Copernicus 'To the Reader on the Hypotheses In this Work', Unsigned preface by Andreas Osiander to Copernicus: On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (1543), trans. A. M. Duncan, 1976)



Imo, the Jesuits were in it up to their necks. Copernicus was a Jesuit.

"300 years before Quantum Mechanics, Sir Isaac Newton came up with Classical Mechanics which describes very basic action and reaction. Newton’s entire work in Physics and Calculus was taken wholesale from the Vedas and Kerala book of Calculus. It was simply taken from the Vedas where it was originally used for calculating rates of change in Astronomy and Astrology for many thousands of years before Newton." (I wrote that down about 8 years ago and don't remember where I found it, sorry.)

Great idea to try and discuss this subject without the emotionally contentious FE.

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/public...nomy_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.

 

[sekito]

Since this thread has been pushed, I will give my two cents on it:
1. It seem to me that the “Church condemned Galileo‘s heliocentric model” is a contrived lie. Given the fact that Christianity worships the Sun, there is only reason for them to support it rather than reject it.

2. Personally, I think most people who thinks about this to be too limited in their conception of space and reality. Whether you agree with Einstein or not(Einstein simply got his “theory” from copying others after all), it is conceivable that reality is not limited to 3 dimensions. When physicists talk about space(or space time, which I personally disagree with) curvature, they are conceiving of a 4-dimensional universe. Therefore descriptions of 3-dimensional objects like round or flat are inadequate to describe Earth which is (at least) 4 dimensional.

In my view, the Earth is both round and flat simultaneously depending on one’s position and perspective(on Earth’s surface vs. far away from it) - this is possible when we do not limit ourselves to a 3-dimensional world. (Note: I consider the possibility of it being a flat torus to be highly likely, so in a way, it can also be said to be ‘hollow’). Similarly, the Earth is both static and in motion depending on how you conceive it (Mach’s principle). It is my belief that all cosmic objects are stationary in the absolute reference frame, and it is the space(or ether) that is changing between them(due to what we call ‘gravity’), thus giving rise to the illusion/sensation of movement. To clarify, my view is that both Heliocentrism and Geocentrism are ulimately incorrect, as they are both illusions due to the changes in space, and not truly ‘movement‘ of cosmic objects.

3. My view on the TYCHOS model(or Tycho Brahe’s model). I agree with the observation that the sidereal position seems to suggest a stationary Earth in relation to the stars. However(!) if one is able to accept the existence of space curvature, then this apparent effect can also be explained by gravitational lensing - that is to say, our perception of the stars are not the true positions of the stars, but instead a refraction that ‘moves’ along with the Earth due to the combined gravitational effect of the Sun and the Earth. In that case, it is unable to be taken as evidence for or against any model of the solar system. On this basis, by Occam’s razor, I would take that the Earth is, like the rest of the planets, ‘moving around’ the Sun; rather than the more convoluted “the solar system except the Earth moves around the Earth” model.