ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, January 13, 2020

Galileo had it coming

The Renaissance Mathematicus considers the importance that Galileo's famously controversial work, Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo, actually played in the development of modern astronomy:
What role did the Dialogo actually play in the ongoing cosmological/astronomical debate in the seventeenth century? The real answer is, given its reputation, surprisingly little. In reality Galileo was totally out of step with the actual debate that was taking place around 1630. Driven by his egotistical desire to be the man, who proved the truth of heliocentricity, he deliberately turned a blind eye to the most important developments and so side lined himself.

We saw earlier that around 1613 there were more that a half a dozen systems vying for a place in the debate, however by 1630 nearly all of the systems had been eliminated leaving just two in serious consideration. Galileo called his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, but the two systems that he chose to discuss, the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian geocentric system and the Copernican heliocentric system, were ones that had already been rejected by almost all participants in the debate by 1630 . The choice of the pure geocentric system of Ptolemaeus was particularly disingenuous, as Galileo had helped to show that it was no longer viable twenty years earlier. The first system actually under discussion when Galileo published his book was a Tychonic geo-heliocentric system with diurnal rotation, Christen Longomontanus (1562–1647), Tycho’s chief assistant, had published an updated version based on Tycho’s data in his Astronomia Danica in 1622. This was the system that had been formally adopted by the Jesuits.

The second was the elliptical heliocentric system of Johannes Kepler, of which I dealt with the relevant publications in the last post.

Galileo completely ignores Tycho, whose system could explain all of the available evidence for heliocentricity, because he didn’t want to admit that this was the case, arguing instead that the evidence must imply a heliocentric system. He also, against all the available empirical evidence, maintained his belief that comets were sublunar meteorological phenomena, because the supporters of a Tychonic system used their perceived solar orbit as an argument for their system.  He is even intensely disrespectful to Tycho in the Dialogo, for which Kepler severely castigated him. He also completely ignores Kepler, which is even more crass, as the best available arguments for heliocentricity were to be found clearly in Kepler published works. Galileo could not adopt Kepler’s system because it would mean that Kepler and not he would be the man, who proved the truth of the heliocentric system.

Although the first three days of the Dialogo provide a good polemic presentation for all of the evidence up till that point for a refutation of the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian system, with the very notable exception of the comets, Galileo’s book was out dated when it was written and had very little impact on the subsequent astronomical/cosmological debate in the seventeenth century. I will indulge in a little bit of hypothetical historical speculation here. If Galileo had actually written a balanced and neutral account of the positive and negative points of the Tychonic geo-heliocentric system with diurnal rotation and Kepler’s elliptical heliocentric system, it might have had the following consequences. Firstly, given his preeminent skills as a science communicator, his book would have been a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate and secondly he probably wouldn’t have been persecuted by the Catholic Church.
Like Giordano Bruno and the Library of Alexandria, Galileo's status as a secular saint and martyr rests almost entirely upon a false characterization of the historical events due to his utility in attacking the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity.

Labels: ,

64 Comments:

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 13, 2020 12:38 PM  

Galileo was persecuted by the Church for his theological excursions, and for being a major jerk. The astronomical controversy was just an excuse because it was an open-and-shut case.

Blogger The Observer January 13, 2020 12:51 PM  

But but but, "yet, it turns!"

Such a famous phrase, coined more than a century after the man's death.

Blogger Nostromo January 13, 2020 12:55 PM  

All that may be true, be he stood none the less. Not a small thing in those days.

Blogger Bernard Korzeniewicz January 13, 2020 12:57 PM  

That man was unable to look after his own 2 daughters. Burn gamma at the stake.

Blogger tublecane January 13, 2020 1:01 PM  

To be faur, the Dialogues was not a work of science. It was more of a Platonic dialogue, i.e. philosophy mixed with drama. Which is why people still read it, as opposed for instance to the Principia.

That, and it's infamously on the ominous-sounding Index librorum prohibitorum. Modrens are fascinated by banned book lists. I remember when they immediately tried to torpedo Palin one of the first things they did was connect her to banned library books.

All that meant, of course, was that the work was heretical and Catholics couldn't touch it unless they had special access. Big whoop.

In Galileo's defense it's easier to contrast the Copernican system with the Ptolemaic system than to be painstakingly up-to-date with all natural philosophy. Which I appreciate, because I have read *about* Renaissance physics figures--Brahe, Bruno, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo--but Dialogues Concerning Two Chief World Systems is the only period original I've read.

Blogger Uncle John's Band January 13, 2020 1:13 PM  

That's Gammaleo of House Gammalei

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother January 13, 2020 1:24 PM  

G for Gamma

Blogger R Webfoot January 13, 2020 1:32 PM  

I did a paper on the controversy for my History of Science course a decade ago. On the one hand, his claims that tides have nothing to do with the moon, and merely align with the lunar cycle because shut up, did not endear him to the scientific community. On the other, his original telescope observations making him the most celebrated man in Italy puts the lie to the "Catholics hated new discoveries" narrative.

Fun class. Next semester, in an Intro to Philosophy course, a classmate said he was taking the course because History of Science shattered his "faith in science."

Blogger bodenlose Schweinerei January 13, 2020 1:33 PM  

Galileo Galilei was a gamma. Even by the scientific standards of the day, his case was lacking, and when told firmly but fairly by the Catholic CHurch to stop spreading it as fact, he wouldn't because he was a Smart boy, thus leading to his fairly tame "persecution". Certainly Bruno paid a much higher price.

Blogger tublecane January 13, 2020 1:34 PM  

By the way, I'm sensitive to the idea that Galileo's work wasn't as influential when written as it is now. Contemporary pop-science may be pulling a con, tricking us into thinking the Dialogues meant more than they did. Which helps them simplify the little morality play they have running perpetually in the public square on Faith vs Science.

I'm not a fan of historical "retcons" whereby things people in the future might love or hate retroactively become important now. If in 50 years anyone pretends the works of Scalzi dominated sci-fi literature, I swear to God...

Blogger Vaughan Williams January 13, 2020 1:44 PM  

Imagine if, in addition to the Index prohibitorum, there was an ancillary Index asinorum, and you could read anything on it in a special room, while wearing a head-dress with donkeys ears, and mitts like donkey hooves, in full public view.

Blogger Stilicho January 13, 2020 1:48 PM  

So, Galileo was a dishonest gamma attention whore who deserved far worse than he got, but was protected from justice by his friend, the Pope.

Blogger SebastianX1/9 January 13, 2020 1:51 PM  

Excellent! In this vein, allow me to recommend Arthur Koestler's The Sleepwalkers, and the work of Stanley Jaki and Alexandre Koyre. Huge topic and very important imho.

Blogger Vaughan Williams January 13, 2020 1:52 PM  

@5 tublecane, your defense of Galileo reminds me of the old Newfie joke. It is a dark and windy night. He drops a coin in the gutter, and is looking for it very hard. A passerby sees him under the street light, looking, and comes to help. Where did you last see the coin? Newfie points a dozen yards down the road. Then why are you looking here? The light here is better!

Blogger Barbarossa January 13, 2020 2:08 PM  

In addition, Galileo's reputation was also dogged by the fact that he had earlier conned the Venetian government into thinking he had invented the telescope to get a boost in salary. When Dutch imports started arriving shortly thereafter, they realized they had been swindled.

He was constantly trying to claim credit for firsts that were not his. While he may have made the first serious telescopic observations of the moon, he was definitely not the first to turn a telescope there. Ditto for sunspots. But gammas gotta gamma. Oh, yeah. He also had three illegitimate children, all by the same woman, shipping two of the daughters off to convents.

Lesson: Don't be a gamma.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( if you don't want to Racist, you must confess: Islam is right about the Jews ) January 13, 2020 2:15 PM  

much of what we are taught as "history" is similarly false.

George Washington and the cherry trees is absurd fabulation,less historical than Santa Claus.

so why is it taught to elementary school children?

Blogger rumpole5 January 13, 2020 2:26 PM  

Much of the history of any given subject seems to be more a result of publicity, puffery, and panache than of truth when one examines the actual facts carefully.

Blogger tublecane January 13, 2020 2:26 PM  

@14- If all I cared about was finding coins I would adopt the most efficient means I could think up, like carrying a flashlight. But we humans entertain ourselves. I have shelves full of books about lies called "fiction."

I'll say again: the Galilean Dialogues are not works of science. Probably none of the classics of scientific literature are, including On the Origin of Species/Descent of Man/Voyage of the Beagle. Yet they are readable.

Blogger R Webfoot January 13, 2020 2:37 PM  

@10
"By the way, I'm sensitive to the idea that Galileo's work wasn't as influential when written as it is now. Contemporary pop-science may be pulling a con, tricking us into thinking the Dialogues meant more than they did."

The Dialogues weren't important, then or now. His physics research, however, was a precursor to Newtonian physics. Newton = Galileo + calculus.

Blogger S1AL January 13, 2020 2:38 PM  

Galileo's great contribution was being a broad polymath. He was an artist and a craftsman-engineer (he made his own lenses/telescopes), which is why he was the first one to be able to simultaneously

(1) Observe the surface of the moon in some detail
(2) Recognize the details for what they were *and draw them to demonstrate such*

He was also a talented and entertaining speaker, hence his pop-sci status in Renaissance Italy and elsewhere. Combined with being a rather notorious asshole, that made him some very powerful enemies who would later use both science and religion as an excuse for payback. The persecution was merely personal.

Perhaps there's more to the story, but accusations that Galileo was a Gamma - rather than merely being a jackass - appear unfounded.

Blogger Steve Samson January 13, 2020 2:46 PM  

As a complete layman it is news to me that there were more than half a dozen systems in contention: helio- and geo-centric are the only ones I have ever heard of, and that probably goes for most other laypeople as well.
I'm going to enjoy learning what a 'Tychonic geo-heliocentric system with diurnal rotation' might be, and silently curse Galileo while I do it.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 13, 2020 3:03 PM  

Some breakthroughs have been coming about in recent years that actually point to a geocentricly-oriented universe. Even Einstein had to admit he couldn't disprove geocentrism.

Shortly after the scientific documentary, The Principle, came out, the Flat Earth conspiracy train got started. Most geocentrists recognize the Flat Earth movement as a likely counter intelligence orchestration.

Blogger The Masked Menace January 13, 2020 3:14 PM  

My entire conception of history has continually and drastically changed since my youth. Over time the narratives I was fed as a child are revealed to be lies one after another, after another, after another. The only thing I'm certain of is that there is very little that I'm certain of.

Blogger Alexander January 13, 2020 3:41 PM  

He's more than a jackass.

Trying to undermine what was still the greatest bulwark against Ottoman expansion into Europe as that Empire was still in ascendency so that everyone would call him the smartest boy in the room...

Especially when the Church had already recognized that the specifics of the universe's mechanics were not settled knowledge, and the Church's (along with the contemporary scientific community) opinion was that it was not going to adopt Galileo's (wrong, as it turned out) views without substantial support for doing so.

Being a jackass is one thing, being one when there are barbarians burning down the gatehouse is another level entirely.

Blogger Stilicho January 13, 2020 3:47 PM  

@S1AL-- ignoring the current science to construct a false narrative so that he could claim credit that was 1) due to Kepler; and 2) avoid highlighting the fact that he couldn't effectively dispute the current geocentric model is pure gamma. Wannabe smart boy avoids actual conflict to portray himself as conquering hero.

Blogger tublecane January 13, 2020 4:18 PM  

@22- Einstein in fact disproved heliocentrism. That is, if you follow his system.

There is no "center" in relativity theory.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 13, 2020 4:34 PM  

tublecane wrote:Einstein in fact disproved heliocentrism
No, he didn't.
Einstein (stole and) promulgated a theory of non-centrism, replacing the idea of a center with the idea of a gravitational frame of reference. Which theory is self-contradicting because it requires both for c to be the ultimate speed limit which nothing can exceed, and for gravitation to be instantaneous.

Blogger Kari Hall January 13, 2020 4:40 PM  

I know this is not the right place to do this but I have tried every way to contact anyone about SG2 Invite, all emails are sent back as undeliverable. Any clues?

Blogger Vaughan Williams January 13, 2020 4:41 PM  

When geocentrics get together, you find calm, humility, and love of truth. When you find a gathering of flat earthers, it is hard to distinguish from a pack of braying jackals. In real life I know one man and three women who buy into flat earth. The man made statements such as people who learned calculus and trigonometry were one step short of demon possessed and unsaved. The women... they all were extremely high on the narcissism scale. As in, run away, don't walk.

Blogger Newscaper312 January 13, 2020 4:48 PM  

Way I learned it, Copernicus helped get the ball rolling on the 'what' - heliocentrism for the basic paradigm shift, not that he was first one to propose it.

Kepler figured out the 'how' - doing the math with ellipses to finally yield better predictions matching the observations than the geocentric systems could. Copernican perfect circles actually did worse.

Newton gave us the 'why' - incorporating mass and gravity into the math for a more complete picture.

Einstein figured out the broader scope, high relative speed differentials or intense gravity. Newton not 'wrong' per se - the Einstein math basically turns into Newton when under more 'normal' conditions the the contributions of the extra components are effectively zero.

I did completely forget that Kepler and Galileo were contemporaneous.

@26 Yes, no preferred 'reference frame'. Read a pretty good article a few weeks back how Theory of Relativity was a horrible name, that a better one would be Invariance Theory (speed of light is locally the same in all frames). "Relativity" had unfortunate spillover into the real world with being twisted into 'See? 'Science' supports philosophical and moral relativism!".

Blogger Newscaper312 January 13, 2020 4:54 PM  

@27 FWIW Gravity waves are predicted to move at the speed of light.
Interesting that the first detection claim from 2015 ago is in dispute.

Blogger Newscaper312 January 13, 2020 5:01 PM  

I have wondered how much of our understanding of European history has been warped by the fact that being English speakers meant most of our secondary sources were Protestants with a hostility to the Catholic Church -- yes, I know sometimes/often warranted. The post-Reconquista Spanish Inquisition is the most obvious example of some misrepresentation I am aware of. One can only wonder about other more subtle cases.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 13, 2020 5:01 PM  

Newscaper312 wrote:FWIW Gravity waves are predicted to move at the speed of light.

Interesting that the first detection claim from 2015 ago is in dispute.

That prediction is merely a restatement of the Einsteinian speed limit. They are predicted to move at the speed of light because that's as fast ans anything is allowed to move.
But that prediction is at variance with the actual data.
Look up LeSage and Lesagian gravity, and the work of Tom VanFlandern.

Blogger Shane Bradman January 13, 2020 5:31 PM  

The Catholic Church was completely right in persecuting Major Asshole Mr Galileo. He was a heretic that was snarky and passive aggressive in his attacks. Harmful and extremely annoying. I only wish the Catholic Church did more persecution in this vein.

Blogger Shane Bradman January 13, 2020 5:35 PM  

The American understanding of history is especially bad due to the rampant freemasonry in the early decades of the United States. Freemasons not only hated the Catholic Church, but they also hated Luther. Their historical interpretation is at odds with the Catholic European understanding as well as the protestant European understanding. For God's sake, they still frequently call it the American Revolution instead of the War of Independence.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 13, 2020 5:39 PM  

The theory attributed to Einstein is a self-contradictory mess, but that's not something that can be demonstrated in a comment section. A couple of nice treatments of it from different angles are Science at the Crossroads by Herbert Dingle and Einstein: the Earth Mover by Robert Sungenis. There are others.

BB explains very well in his way that the cosmological model that won out into the present seems carefully designed to invert the Christian worldview's features like the importance of man, the purposefulness of creation. On its scientific merits, it's retarded and impossible.

Blogger Pathfinderlight January 13, 2020 5:48 PM  

@Steve Samson

Yes. Kepler's system of elliptical heliocentrism turned out to be more accurate than Galileo's system of circular heliocentrism. Galileo's epic assholery not only made a showdown inevitable, it also alienated his biggest protector in the church, the Pope himself.

Also, Kepler was a German astronomer who created and argued for the adoption needed all the help he got from the Catholic Church because many Protestants were out for his hide.

The one of many philosophies policy the Church enforced was so they could patronize many secular theories that would allow a real scientific debate to take place. As discussed earlier, Galileo's work wasn't actually very scientific; he deliberately broke the rules set out for everyone in his attempt to win the debate.

Blogger First Principles January 13, 2020 6:42 PM  

"Like Giordano Bruno and the Library of Alexandria, Galileo's status as a secular saint and martyr rests almost entirely upon a false characterization of the historical events due to his utility in attacking the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity."

You can add Hypatia to that list as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

Blogger Dwayne Thundergrit January 13, 2020 6:51 PM  

@22 " . . . as a likely counter intelligence orchestration."

I've had the same feeling about some sort of orchestration in reviews and comments about the movie, "Risen". Some things in it are speculation and the sequence of events is a bit off kilter, but for a movie that treats Christ rising from the dead as a fact it seems to be slammed for things that pale by comparison to that fundamental point being the entire premise of the movie.

Blogger Kingly Gift January 13, 2020 6:57 PM  

I highly recommend a book by Michael Newton Keas entitled "Unbelievable - 7 myths about the history and future of science and religion." It goes through 7 historical 'breakthroughs' in science, and tracks how/when the revisionist mythologizing of the event later manipulates the popular understanding (often centuries afterward) always in favor of atheism/materialism and against Christianity. The Galileo story is just one of the 7 myths. Great book. Quick read.

Blogger A trite re-white January 13, 2020 7:24 PM  

What about the Tartaria empire, mudfloods and resets? Was Galileo even real?

Blogger Azimus January 13, 2020 8:00 PM  

I wonder if his name was Pigg, or Wienerwald, or Lipschitz, if Galileo would be this resilient. There IS something in a name, thats why you know Copernicus instead of Niklas Koppernigk or Mikolaf Kopernik - thats why actors, writers, our host even, use stage names. Galileo Galilei has a certain pleasant ring to it. I don't know how important it is, but it works in his favor. I was doing a little study on US Senators and noticed how names followed this pattern. I haven't studied it seriously, but I can say that there have been few US politicians named Lipschitz. Kind of touches on the "wizardry" thing BB talks about.

Blogger RedJack January 13, 2020 8:26 PM  

Tartaria... You mean Monghols right?

Blogger MrNiceguy January 13, 2020 9:10 PM  

And a sub-list, where you have to wear the donkey suit backwards.

Blogger Crave January 13, 2020 9:19 PM  

Galileo was the 17th century Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Blogger RedJack January 13, 2020 9:35 PM  

Dusty attic.

My previous favorite conspiracy was the Phantom Time one. Now I am going down the rabbit hole of Tartaria....

First take is that people keep forgetting the earth is more of a liquid (settling). But now I have a new rabbit hole to explore. Thank you!

Blogger M Cephas January 13, 2020 10:21 PM  

Galileo did recant of his Copernican beliefs a year before his death. Robert Sungenis had Galileo's written letter translated from the Italian in his book "Galileo Was Wrong".

I had heard that the discovery of that letter is the reason why they now mostly use Giordano Bruno as their would-be science martyr.

Blogger ÆtherCzar January 13, 2020 10:35 PM  

Michael Flynn wrote an excellent account of the controversy: The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown in Analog a few years ago.

Blogger Newscaper312 January 13, 2020 11:43 PM  

@36 James Lovebirch
Man in the scope of a vast cosmos is one of those things which gets twisted to uses which are not purely scientific, and in opposing the BS alleged larger lessons too many religious people accept the framing by the anti-Christians and wrongly IMO throw out the underlying science.
Two examples:

Man had DNA 98%+ the same as chimps (thats been revised downward IIRC)), therefore they push 'Man is just another animal' as a larger, actually unscientific, lesson. The proper lesson from this is the inversion to 'Relatively small genetic changes can be vastly powerful."

Other one is the vast size and age of the universe is used for the demoralization message "Man is insignificant in the cosmos", when the just as valid, if not moreso, lesson is again the inverse: "The obvious rarity of life, particularly intelligent life shows just how very precious and special the Earth and human beings are."

Don't accept their frame.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 14, 2020 3:39 AM  

@49

I don't disagree with you, but would it make sense for so many people in the West to be materialist atheists if everybody believed the Earth was the center of the universe? Or even more extreme, if they believed what a lot of the FEers believe now, that the Earth is a plane enclosed by a dome as supposedly the ancient Hebrews did.

Or is heliocentrism, being as widely construed in that way that undermines Christianity as it is, possibly a prerequisite or a natural progression of the West falling away from Christianity? It's more foundational to the materialist-atheist worldview than evolution.

Blogger Avalanche January 14, 2020 3:57 AM  

@16 "so why is it taught to elementary school children?"

Because their lying parents want them to "do as we say, not as we do." And because teaching children "history tales" (Aesop, anyone?) gives them a shared cultural underpinning, however false in its telling.

In some ways, it may be better than insisting the children pretend they don't see the Emperor's wiener hanging out of his invisible new clothes!

Blogger Shimshon January 14, 2020 5:32 AM  

I was fortunate to take a History of Science course taught by a professor who was well-read and interested in the truth, with a genuine love of history and science. Even though it had nothing to do with my major, it ended up being one of (if not the) my favorite courses during my entire time in college. I learned a lot in that course from that man.

I don't remember what his source material was, but this story is not new to me, because I learned all of it back in the mid-1980s. Galileo was nothing more than a science popularizer of the day, no different than Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, or Bill Nye today, and about as talented too.

Blogger JE Hamilton January 14, 2020 6:17 AM  

"He is even intensely disrespectful to Tycho in the Dialogo..."
According to James Hannam's God's Philosophers, he was intensely disrespectful of *everybody*. He even indirectly dissed the Pope, who had been his main sponsor.
Considering what happened to someone who made a snarky remark about King Charles I having a lady-boy around the same time, he was very lucky to get away with only house arrest.

Blogger Dwayne Thundergrit January 14, 2020 7:06 AM  

@40 James Lovebirch

". . . what a lot of the FEers believe now, that the Earth is a plane enclosed by a dome as supposedly the ancient Hebrews did."

Tikun Olam, Baby, repairing the world one goy FEer at a time.

Blogger VFM #7634 January 14, 2020 7:40 AM  

Einstein in fact disproved heliocentrism. That is, if you follow his system.

There is no "center" in relativity theory.


The center is wherever the observer is.

And every observer is on the earth, with the exception of a few space probes. So every human observer.

Which means, technically, the (geocentric) Tychonic system is most correct.

I had heard that the discovery of that letter is the reason why they now mostly use Giordano Bruno as their would-be science martyr.

Bruno simply works better. He was a flat-out gnostic and apostate. He's also routinely given credit for first suggesting that the sun is a star and that there are other solar systems.

Blogger Akulkis January 14, 2020 8:27 AM  

@46

"First take is that people keep forgetting the earth is more of a liquid (settling)."

The term you are looking for here is plastic.

Plastic as an adjective ((in science and technology) relating to the permanent deformation of a solid without fracture by the temporary application of force).

Blogger justthinkin January 14, 2020 9:08 AM  

@42 I wondered why Buttigieg is so popular.

Blogger Akulkis January 14, 2020 9:14 AM  

""Man is insignificant in the cosmos", when the just as valid, if not moreso, lesson is again the inverse: "The obvious rarity of life, particularly intelligent life shows just how very precious and special the Earth and human beings are.""

I sometimes think of it this way:
"ALL of it was made just for us!"

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 14, 2020 11:55 AM  

VFM #7634 wrote:The center is wherever the observer is.

And every observer is on the earth, with the exception of a few space probes. So every human observer.

Which means, technically, the (geocentric) Tychonic system is most correct.

That's so wrong it's astonishing.
No, the observer is not the center. The observer is (almost) irrelevant. The center doesn't exist, only frames of reference, which frames also bear an external frame of reference, as the Moon-Earth binary system has an external frame of reference to the Sun, and the sun to the spiral arm and the spiral arm to the galaxy.

Blogger Azimus January 14, 2020 12:33 PM  

justthinkinJanuary 14, 2020 9:08 AM
@42 I wondered why Buttigieg is so popular.


Err, like I said, I haven't studied it seriously. Just a thought at this point. But even if its legit, its a curve and there will be exceptions.

Blogger Joe January 14, 2020 1:07 PM  

Lot's of good stuff here, good on all of you! Another very good book is, The Perversion of Science. Basically, science under the Soviets. Author shows how politics often drives science, the photos of little kids standing on top of growing wheat is an all time classic!

Blogger Akulkis January 14, 2020 1:25 PM  

Buttiplug is popular
1) because of Gay/Tranny (((media agenda))).
2) Because the same media want to rub it in your face every chance they can get
3) They can covertly subsidize him. He could be absolutely broke, and the (((media)) could make him look like a viable candidate. Example: He's supposed to make an appearance at X, so... a hometown reporter drives there to cover the appearance, and takes him as a passenger to place X. The fact that he essentially hitch-hiked can be covered up by merely not reporting it.
4) When poll numbers are printed, the (((media))) inflate his numbers from 0.001 to whatever they want.

Seriously. What do you know about him which has not come from the (((media))) who is full-bore supporting the GBLT agenda?

Blogger James Lovebirch January 14, 2020 4:05 PM  

@55

Observers don't matter. This is a conflation that has stopped people from seeing how simple the theory is and also how stupid.

Relativity is a metaphysical statement that any given object in reality can equally validly be considered the stationary frame of reference while devising a coordinate system. Most of Einstein's paper is the math to try to make that metaphysical position work.

It doesn't work because if the universe is relative and any object can be considered the stationary one, then no object can be considered to be objectively moving. The math includes concepts like time dilation which apply to objects that are moving, so there's no objective means within the framework of the theory to adjudicate which object (or living being in the Twins Paradox, or clock in Herbert Dingle's formulation of the problem) is undergoing time dilation.

Equally validly, both Twins/clocks are older/younger than the other by the non-logic of relativity.

Blogger Akulkis January 14, 2020 9:10 PM  

You guys are missing something.

Relativity does NOT say that all observers are equally valid.

Relativity says that all NON-ACCELERATED observers are equally valid.

Therefore, there is no "equal validity" with both twins being younger than the other.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts