"Dude...

>"Dude, stop being such a fedora tipper! Galileo never faced any opposition from religion! Nobody has ever used formal religion to take advantage of others!"

>The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."[8][9][10] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[8] He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[11][12]

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wyRJZbNmC7U
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Standard Christian damage control, fight facts for centuries, then change your mind and pretend you always thought that.

That qoute has the ordering of events backwards. Galileo had support by the establishment until he attacked the Pope, then they started branding him with "heresy". It was a clear example of misuse of institutional power, but what it was not was a case of Religion vs Science, since Galileo lacked sufficient evidence in the first place, and that was the reason why he got into conflict with the church in the first place.

>was the reason why he got into conflict with the church in the first place.
he got into conflict because he wanted the Church to support his heliocentric interpretation of several Bible verses, when heliocentrism was pretty much a fringe theory slowly getting serious attention. Had he actually focused on getting evidence and not trying to impose his Biblical interpretations on the Church the transition to heliocentrism wouldve been much earlier and Galileo would be overshadowed by Kepler, who pretty much got it right

Hello samefriend

Galileo was fucking mad and his theory wasn't worth jackshit, he was calmly requested to offer proofs for what he was saying and dropped to the floor, spaghetti flowing out of his pockets, very low energy man.

>strawman thread

sage

Is this what you folks call creepypasta?
>The matter was investigated...[11][12]
This is one serous shitpost (as you folks call it)

This is a surprisingly accurate depiction of what boards like /christian/ have to say on the topic.

>Galileo dindu muffin
He was a reeeing edgecase

Nobody but you ever said the quote in OP. You probably got rekt in some thread after claiming the Catholic Church persecuted science, so you decided to make a new thread arguing against an imaginary opponent with a stupid strawman opinion so you could roleplay not getting rekt.

This is pathetic even by fedora standards.

Everyone always leaves out the part where Galileo was wrong. He was right about Heliocentrism but his model didn't make any sense. Geocentrism made more scientific sense considering the stellar parallax problem

> Catholic Church
> being more than just bunch of liars

> stellar parallax problem
That was only minor problem and it isn't like geocentrism was without its own problems too.

>heliocentrism vs geocentrism
Both are right, it is just a question of relativity. Disgusting, just do a model comparison.

You're being too literal. Obviously OP was exaggerating and his general issue is the narrative being pushed around that the catholic church dindu nuffin when it comes to Galileo.

If it wasn't clear enough I'm not him so you can fuck off with that.

Real problem was between Aristotelian Physics and new kind that was created by Galileo and a some other guys.

>He was right about Heliocentrism but his model didn't make any sense.

The phases of Venus killed that Ptolemy shit dead.

>Geocentrism made more scientific sense considering the stellar parallax problem

youtube.com/watch?v=wyRJZbNmC7U

Aristotelian Physics was not really a problem because Weight was not defined before Euclid, 300 BCE, "weight is the heaviness or lightness of one thing, compared to another, as measured by a balance." Aristotle is from 384–322 BC, he is talking about the object's Density proportional to speed(a feather compared to a rock), he even includes the Density of the Medium in his affirmation as inversely proportional to the speed.

None of that was created by Galileo. Everything that Galileo said about physics was already discovered in the 14th century by Buridan and Oresme and taught at the University of Paris. It just got discarded during the Renaissance by classicist humanist academia, until Galileo rediscovered it.

Literally nobody ever claimed that the Church never opposed Galileo. It's a strawman.

I didn't say they did. I have seen it claimed that the church had every right to oppose Galileo and were completely reasonable in their objections though.

The OP is kinda shit, especially with the "RELIGION NEVER OPPOSED SCIENCE XDDDD" but I get his general meaning. I've seen this narrative passed around.

>Ptolemy defines geocentrism
disappointedTycho.jpg

Going further, Archimedes of Syracuse c.287 BC – c.212 BC, long after Euclides, still defined weight as a force relative to the Medium and opposed to Buoyancy. He is "generally considered the greatest mathematician of antiquity and one of the greatest of all time,[4][5] Archimedes anticipated modern calculus and analysis by applying concepts of infinitesimals and the method of exhaustion to derive and rigorously prove a range of geometrical theorems, including the area of a circle, the surface area and volume of a sphere, and the area under a parabola.[6]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

Buoyancy = weight of displaced medium
Weight in a medium = Weight in vacuum - Buoyancy

The medium's pressure is opposed to altitude, thus so is the medium's density. Thus buoyancy increases with pressure. The object sinks until it goes deep enough to meet equal density, and the rate it sinks is proportional to this difference of densities.

A simpler way to look at this: compare 2 falling objects of same volume and shape, the second is twice as heavy. They displace the same amount of air until they hit the earth, so drag is equally proportional to their speed. But while the first object has a drag opposed to its inertia, the second object has more mass opposed to the same drag at the same speed. Because F=ma, F=m1a1 and F=m2a2 are so that m2>m1 and a1>a2, a1 and a2 being the drags not subtracted from g1 and g2, respectively.

Holy fucking shit, Aristotles was right, you were memed against him. You are "Galileo's cuck". And he also said absolute vacuum does not occur, so he was right for all things outside of Earth's atmosphere as well.

(You)
Going further, Archimedes of Syracuse c.287 BC – c.212 BC, long after Euclides, still defined weight as a force relative to the Medium and opposed to Buoyancy. He is "generally considered the greatest mathematician of antiquity and one of the greatest of all time,[4][5] Archimedes anticipated modern calculus and analysis by applying concepts of infinitesimals and the method of exhaustion to derive and rigorously prove a range of geometrical theorems, including the area of a circle, the surface area and volume of a sphere, and the area under a parabola.[6]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

Buoyancy = weight of displaced medium
Weight in a medium = Weight in vacuum - Buoyancy

The medium's pressure is opposed to altitude, thus so is the medium's density. Thus buoyancy increases with pressure. The object sinks until it goes deep enough to meet equal density, and the rate it sinks is proportional to this difference of densities.

A simpler way to look at this: compare 2 falling objects of same volume and shape, the second is twice as heavy. They displace the same amount of air until they hit the earth, so drag is equally proportional to their speed. But while the first object has a drag opposed to its inertia, the second object has more mass opposed to the same drag at the same speed. Because F=ma, F=m1a1 and F=m2a2 are so that m2>m1 and a1>a2, a1 and a2 being the drags not subtracted from g1 and g2, respectively.

Holy fucking shit, Aristotles was right, and we were memed against him. We are "Galileo's cucks". And he also said absolute vacuum does not occur, so he was right for all things outside of Earth's atmosphere as well.

>I have seen it claimed that the church had every right to oppose Galileo and were completely reasonable in their objections though.

Scientifically they did though. They were heavy handed on punishing him for shit talking the Pope, but as far as opposing his claims that that his theory had enough evidence for it to be considered a fact, and that all other models should stop being taught, he was wrong and the church was right. Being able to show something wrong with one model isn't enough to justify another one.

Great

It is enough to promote discarding the previous models, since he destroyed a fundamental component of those models.

Why did Copernicus have no problems at all and Galileo did?

That's not a minor problem; that's a necessary element of evidence.

It's true that the discovery of the phases of Venus effectively disproved Ptolemy's geocentric models, but it didn't disprove the *other* geocentric models, like Tycho's, for instance.

No, he destroyed a fundamental concept of one of those models.

>It's true that the discovery of the phases of Venus effectively disproved Ptolemy's geocentric models, but it didn't disprove the *other* geocentric models, like Tycho's, for instance.

The Tychonian system was just a muddled compromise between the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems, since he couldn't deny the accuracy and efficiency of the former while emotionally clinging to the religious philosophy underpinning the latter.

Galileo had observational evidence that was a direct assault on religious beliefs in a way that Copernicus did not.

>“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”
-Karl Marx