Re: Galileo and science teaching

"On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:27:38 +0200, in article
<1i2pcj4.zdsblt1z10rnnN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, J. J. Lodder stated..."

TomS <TomS_member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:27:33 +0200, in article
<1i2odei.n1jqn9klcmnN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, J. J. Lodder stated..."

<bimms@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


No prizes for picking out the analogy.

You are trying to make a false analogy between Copernican astronomy
and evolution.

Only one teensy little problem. You see, Copernican astronomy made
precise mathematical predictions about planetary motion, that could be
directly observed with mathematical precision.

None that Ptolemian astronomy couldn't make.
The superioriy of Copernicus was based only
on a thousand years of extra observation time.
[...snip...]

And Copernican astronomy made one prediction which was *not*
confirmed by observation. Not until centuries later, long after the
motion of the earth was universally accepted.

If the earth is in motion, relative to the "fixed stars", then one
should be able to observe that relative motion, known as "stellar
parallax". Stellar parallax, as it turns out, is far too small to have
been observable without telescopes, good telescopes, and it was
first observed only in 1838.

Copernicus couldn't, and didn't, predict
how large the parallax should be.
He, and others, like Tycho and Kepler, understood
that parallax was limited to what they called
'sub-lunary' phenomena.
They used simple techniques (with threads)
to establish that comets and supernovea are not sub-lunary.
Since no one doubted that the fixed stars were not sub-lunary
the absence of stellar parallax wasn't an argument against Copernicus.

I am puzzled by this.

I don't understand how, for example, Kepler could have calculated
the positions of Mars without taking into account the parallax
coming from the annual motion of the earth. Or why there would
be any annual parallax to account for, for the Moon or anything
else closer than the Moon.

Then I remembered that there was an ancient method for
calculating the distance to the Moon, based on the parallax
coming from the daily motion (the rotation, whether ascribed
to the earth or to the heavens). Is this what you have in mind
when you speak of parallax for sub-lunary objects?


--
---Tom S.
"... to call in a special or miraculous act of creation reduces every
conceivable world to accident."
Jacob Bronowski, in "American Scholar" v.43 (1974) page 400

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Galileo and science teaching
    ... You are trying to make a false analogy between Copernican astronomy ... motion of the earth was universally accepted. ... If the earth is in motion, relative to the "fixed stars", then one ... Stellar parallax, as it turns out, is far too small to have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Galileo and science teaching
    ... You are trying to make a false analogy between Copernican astronomy ... motion of the earth was universally accepted. ... If the earth is in motion, relative to the "fixed stars", then one ... Stellar parallax, as it turns out, is far too small to have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Galileo and science teaching
    ... You are trying to make a false analogy between Copernican astronomy ... motion of the earth was universally accepted. ... If the earth is in motion, relative to the "fixed stars", then one ... Stellar parallax, as it turns out, is far too small to have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Galileo and science teaching
    ... If the earth is in motion, relative to the "fixed stars", then one ... Stellar parallax, as it turns out, is far too small to have ... willing to believe that God _could_ create a universe that big. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Galileo and science teaching
    ... You are trying to make a false analogy between Copernican astronomy ... motion of the earth was universally accepted. ... Stellar parallax, as it turns out, is far too small to have ...
    (talk.origins)