[Simone]

Hi guys, I would really love more information on the wiki about more recent historical figures who were involved in building the traditional western model of the universe. There is information about Aristotles arguments and their counters. Why is Aristotle the only one mentioned?

Galileo dedicated his life to demonstrating that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. He spent the last years of his life imprisoned due to blasphemy. There was great risk involved in this for him. Even before him, even those thinkers who believed in a geocentric universe still believed the Earth to be round and dedicated their life to this science (Kepler, for example). Is it true that these incredibly intelligent and dedicated thinkers could not figure out the Earth was not in fact round. What does the Flat Earth Society make of these individuals? They were SIMPLY wildly wrong? With everything that was at stake?

[Tom Bishop]

I was thinking about writing a section about that.

Summarily, I would say that by Galileo's time it was already widely believed that the Earth was a globe, largely based on Greek knowledge. The debate was whether the Earth was in motion and moving in the Solar System or whether the Earth was the center of it all. They got it right that the planets were revolving around the Sun, because that is the most natural inclination when you see Mercury and Venus following the sun in the sky, and moving to either side of it.

See this Dance of the Planets animation where Mercury, Venus, and Mars follow the Sun, appearing to travel to either side of it at different times: http://www.davidcolarusso.com/astro/

In that sense, I would agree that the Solar System is Heliocentric (Sun centered). The Earth just isn't a planet in the Solar System. The Solar System sits above the Earth.

I have seen other FE'ers disagree that the planets move around the Sun. Mercury, Venus, and Mars would need to seem to be moving back and fourth around the Sun for another reason, in that case.

[stack]

I was thinking about writing a section about that.

Summarily, I would say that by Galileo's time it was already widely believed that the earth was a globe, largely based on Greek knowledge. The debate was whether the Earth was in motion and moving in the Solar System or whether the Earth was the center of it all. They got it right that the planets were revolving around the Sun, because that is the most natural inclination when you see Mercury and Venus following the sun in the sky, and moving to either side of it.

See this Dance of the Planets animation where Mercury, Venus, and Mars follow the Sun, appearing to travel to either side of it at different times: http://www.davidcolarusso.com/astro/

In that sense, I would agree that the Solar System is Heliocentric (Sun centered). The earth just isn't a planet in the Solar System. The Solar System sits above the Earth.

I have seen other FE'ers disagree that the planets move around the Sun. Mercury, Venus, and Mars would need to be coincidentally be following the Sun or something in that case.

Would you say the dividing line which drives you to a flat earth is that the solar system sits above it, therefore it must be flat? And you're kind of a helioplanetary-geoflatearthcentrist?

[George Jetson]

Hi guys, I would really love more information on the wiki about more recent historical figures who were involved in building the traditional western model of the universe. There is information about Aristotles arguments and their counters. Why is Aristotle the only one mentioned?

Galileo dedicated his life to demonstrating that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. He spent the last years of his life imprisoned due to blasphemy.

No.

This is perhaps the most recurring motif, and yet it is entirely untrue. Galileo was treated by the church as a celebrity. When summoned by the Inquisition, he was housed in the grand Medici Villa in Rome. He attended receptions with the Pope and leading cardinals. Even after he was found guilty, he was first housed in a magnificent Episcopal palace and then placed under "house arrest" although he was permitted to visit his daughters in a nearby convent and to continue publishing scientific papers.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/galileo/debunking-the-galileo-myth.html
 

There was great risk involved in this for him. Even before him, even those thinkers who believed in a geocentric universe still believed the Earth to be round and dedicated their life to this science (Kepler, for example).

There were also great thinkers who disagreed with Kepler and Galileo and were geocentrists (see Tycho Brahe.) 

Is it true that these incredibly intelligent and dedicated thinkers could not figure out the Earth was not in fact round. What does the Flat Earth Society make of these individuals? They were SIMPLY wildly wrong? With everything that was at stake?

The controversy was about geocentrism vs. heliocentrism not RE vs. FE.  And what matters is what the evidence says, not the opinions of those who are deemed to be great minds.

[stack]

Hi guys, I would really love more information on the wiki about more recent historical figures who were involved in building the traditional western model of the universe. There is information about Aristotles arguments and their counters. Why is Aristotle the only one mentioned?

Galileo dedicated his life to demonstrating that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. He spent the last years of his life imprisoned due to blasphemy.

No.

This is perhaps the most recurring motif, and yet it is entirely untrue. Galileo was treated by the church as a celebrity. When summoned by the Inquisition, he was housed in the grand Medici Villa in Rome. He attended receptions with the Pope and leading cardinals. Even after he was found guilty, he was first housed in a magnificent Episcopal palace and then placed under "house arrest" although he was permitted to visit his daughters in a nearby convent and to continue publishing scientific papers.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/galileo/debunking-the-galileo-myth.html
 

There was great risk involved in this for him. Even before him, even those thinkers who believed in a geocentric universe still believed the Earth to be round and dedicated their life to this science (Kepler, for example).

There were also great thinkers who disagreed with Kepler and Galileo and were geocentrists (see Tycho Brahe.) 

Is it true that these incredibly intelligent and dedicated thinkers could not figure out the Earth was not in fact round. What does the Flat Earth Society make of these individuals? They were SIMPLY wildly wrong? With everything that was at stake?

The controversy was about geocentrism vs. heliocentrism not RE vs. FE.  And what matters is what the evidence says, not the opinions of those who are deemed to be great minds.

Regardless of how he was treated under the laws of the inquisition, there's still this from "After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves"
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

The "It moves" bit is most likely historical hyperbole, no doubt. However, not that the Vatican holds any real sway when it comes to astrophysics, they are, apparently now Gallileo-ins:
"We today know that Galileo was right in adopting the Copernican astronomical theory," Paul Cardinal Poupard, the head of the current investigation, said in an interview published this week."

[tellytubby]

The Earth just isn't a planet in the Solar System. The Solar System sits above the Earth.

OK Tom that is just a statement or opinion that anyone with a particular point of view can make.   Now back it  up with some verifiable, independent evidence rather than just referring us to some link in FE Wiki or SBR quote.  This particular aspect of FET just doesn't seem to have any real founding or evidence for it whatsoever. So please do enlighten us about where mainstream science has been going wrong all these years.

I would also refer you to all the various exo-solar systems that we now know about forming and formed around loads of other stars. All the planets are formed out of material from an accretion disk that forms in a flat disk around the planet. Nowhere have we seen a star with planets orbiting it and then situated under the plane of the planets and star, there is some other mysterious flat surface that has somehow manifested itself as separate to the rest of the 'solar system'.  At no point is the accretion disk a solid body so the Earth could not possibly be said to be the remains of the accretion disk that formed around the Sun.

Talking of FE Wiki I refer you back to what it says on the front page...

The Flat Earth Society holds that there is a difference between believing and knowing. If you don't know something, and cannot demonstrate it by first principles, then you shouldn't believe it.

[Tom Bishop]

The Earth just isn't a planet in the Solar System. The Solar System sits above the Earth.

OK Tom that is just a statement or opinion that anyone with a particular point of view can make.   Now back it  up with some verifiable, independent evidence rather than just referring us to some link in FE Wiki or SBR quote.

Interesting, but off topic. The question is about our thoughts on Galileo. Read the FAQ, Wiki, Flat Earth books, etc, for your queries. If you have anything to contribute to the FE interpretation of Galileo feel free to contribute.

[tellytubby]

How can I be 'off topic' if I am simply and directly asking you to provide evidence for a statement that you made.  Practice what you so often preach Tom. I couldn't be more 'on topic' I would suggest.

[Tom Bishop]

How can I be 'off topic' if I am simply and directly asking you to provide evidence for a statement that you made.  Practice what you so often preach Tom. I couldn't be more 'on topic' I would suggest.

The question is how the story of Galileo is explained in FET. You don't see us following you around every time you mention globe and saying "where is your proof for globe?!?" Start your own thread if you want to talk about something else.

[stack]

How can I be 'off topic' if I am simply and directly asking you to provide evidence for a statement that you made.  Practice what you so often preach Tom. I couldn't be more 'on topic' I would suggest.

The question is how the story of Galileo is explained in FET. You don't see us following you around every time you mention globe and saying "where is your proof for globe?!?" Start your own thread if you want to talk about something else.

Would it be fair to say that from an FE perspective something like this is what Galileo was observing:

[tellytubby]

The question is how the story of Galileo is explained in FET

I'm not entirely sure it can be. All the years I have read up about Galileos observations I don't think I have ever read any reference to where he considered whether the Earth was flat. I might be wrong and I stand as ever to be corrected on that if appropriate.

In fact just the opposite. His observations provided the first real observational evidence for the heliocentric theory from Copernicus (Venus phases) and his observations of the satellites of Jupiter provided evidence that the Earth was not at the centre of the Universe.

The question is, if we observe all the planets in motion around the sky as we do, then why should the Earth be any different?

[Macarios]

... Start your own thread if you want to talk about something else.

Exactly. Tom is right here. This topic is about Galileo.

~~~~~

What Galileo observed was comparison between Geocentrism and Heliocentrism.
As far as I can see, FE denies both. Flat model has ONE, SINGLE dome and set of "wandering stars"
moving around back and forth, following "complex patterns" (their owh - fertile ground for astrology).
Those "wandering stars" in Flat model are not planets and they don't revolve around Sun.

[stack]

... Start your own thread if you want to talk about something else.

Exactly. Tom is right here. This topic is about Galileo.

~~~~~

What Galileo observed was comparison between Geocentrism and Heliocentrism.
As far as I can see, FE denies both. Flat model has ONE, SINGLE dome and set of "wandering stars"
moving around back and forth, following "complex patterns" (their owh - fertile ground for astrology).
Those "wandering stars" in Flat model are not planets and they don't revolve around Sun.

What I was getting at was Tom's FET model and how it relates to what Galileo observed, in essence, Galileo's 'story'.

From what I've seen, FE obviously rejects heliocentrism from the earth revolving around the sun perspective. But Tom brought up the notion of Galileo as being right in that the planets revolve around the sun, but in FET they are above earth.

I don't know what other FE models think in terms of that. There are many, that much I do know. Domers and non-domers alike.