On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:07:18 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

Which is, in fact, what it was at that point. It couldn't be
confirmed until Newton invented calculus.

This is an interesting point.

It is true that after Newton, the controversy about heliocentricism versus
geocentricism died.

Basically, as I understand it, it was because Newton came up with this thing
called "gravity", and once it was clear how that explained what Kepler matched
to observations, the fact that the Sun was *bigger and heavier* than the Earth
made it pretty obvious what was revolving around what.

This, of course, goes a long part of the way to explain why Oriel36, who praises
the insights of Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, but condemns Newton as setting
science off on the wrong foot, seem merely amusing or bizarre to many here.

As even Oriel36 knows, Newton's _Principia_ is complicated and hard to read.
This is because, calculus having been newly invented independently by both him
and Leibnitz, he felt it necessary to translate his insights into how inverse-
square gravitation led to Kepler's Laws into the language of basic geometry and
algebra.

That Newton would invent calculus, and apparently be content with *keeping it to
himself* rather than explaining this wonderful new tool so as to further the
progress of science and technology... is a thing which comes close to motivating
me to criticize him in language no less scathing than what Oriel36 uses, but
that's quite another issue.

Thus, it is Leibnitz we have to thank for living in the modern world that
calculus has made possible. Not those who were so foolish as to think they could
keep the dodecahedron a secret when the icosahedron was visible in public, or
those who followed in the misguided footsteps of the Pythagoreans.

John Savard