who does this remind you of?

Who does this quote by Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist at Washington
University in St. Louis remind you of?

In “How I Found Glaring Errors in Einstein’s Calculations,� Boyer discussed
his hobby of “[collecting] webpages created by crackpot physicists, those
marginal self-styled scientists whose foundational, generally revolutionary
work is sadly ignored by most established scientists.�

Boyer’s focus was on crackpottery in physics, so his list of what separates
a crackpot from a run-of-the-mill crazy person is somewhat specific to
physics. However, one of the more relevant characteristics of a
crackpottery was that “all crackpottery is foundational.� By that, Boyer
meant that

[c]rackpots do not go for the small problems, for what Kuhn called the
puzzle-solving of normal science, they invariably shake the foundations of
modern physics. They provide a new structure for the atom, a new unified
theory of field and energy, a complete alternative to general relativity,
an entirely novel cosmology, etc.
He also went on to write that “[t]he crackpot theory is invariably more
intuitive than the standard one… In the same way, the crackpot alternative
is, almost universally, less mathematically challenging than the standard
account.�

Ultimately, Boyer located the driven force of (physics) crackpottery as the
“notion that you cannot do science by just studying the right books, having
the right mathematics and being commited to (some form of) ‘scientific
method’. What you ned (sic), over and above all that, is constant social
interaction with other practising scientists.�

On Apr 21, 8:30*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Who does this quote *by Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist at Washington
University in St. Louis remind you of?

In “How I Found Glaring Errors in Einstein’s Calculations,” Boyer discussed
his hobby of “[collecting] webpages created by crackpot physicists, those
marginal self-styled scientists whose foundational, generally revolutionary
work is sadly ignored by most established scientists.”


http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

" Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends
more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and
retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that
really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is
acutely demonstrated by Copernicus ." Galileo

This what astronomer who work with interpretative astronomy do,they
look into the vast arena and take the time out to admire not only that
arena for what it is but also the enjoyable way the great astronomers
understood it,it is humanity's heritage and does not belong to
mathematicians who clearly distinguished themselves from astronomers
back a few centuries ago for when mathematicians try to handle those
old observations they make a complete mess of things -

" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton

People today get to choose and even if they don't wish to journey too
far into interpretative/intuitive astronomy they can marvel at what
contemporary time lapse footage can do for the great astronomical
insights of the past and get out of the poverty created by Newton and
his followers.

oriel36 wrote:
On Apr 21, 8:30 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Who does this quote by Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist at Washington
University in St. Louis remind you of?

In “How I Found Glaring Errors in Einstein’s Calculations,� Boyer discussed
his hobby of “[collecting] webpages created by crackpot physicists, those
marginal self-styled scientists whose foundational, generally revolutionary
work is sadly ignored by most established scientists.�


http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

" Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends
more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and
retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that
really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is
acutely demonstrated by Copernicus ." Galileo

This what astronomer who work with interpretative astronomy do,they
look into the vast arena and take the time out to admire not only that
arena for what it is but also the enjoyable way the great astronomers
understood it,it is humanity's heritage and does not belong to
mathematicians who clearly distinguished themselves from astronomers
back a few centuries ago for when mathematicians try to handle those
old observations they make a complete mess of things -

" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton

People today get to choose and even if they don't wish to journey too
far into interpretative/intuitive astronomy they can marvel at what
contemporary time lapse footage can do for the great astronomical
insights of the past and get out of the poverty created by Newton and
his followers.

Snipping again?

This came to mind after re-reading a 2009 blog post by Pascal Boyer, an
anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis. In “How I Found
Glaring Errors in Einstein’s Calculations,� Boyer discussed his hobby of
“[collecting] webpages created by crackpot physicists, those marginal
self-styled scientists whose foundational, generally revolutionary work is
sadly ignored by most established scientists.�

Boyer’s focus was on crackpottery in physics, so his list of what separates
a crackpot from a run-of-the-mill crazy person is somewhat specific to
physics. However, one of the more relevant characteristics of a
crackpottery was that “all crackpottery is foundational.� By that, Boyer
meant that

[c]rackpots do not go for the small problems, for what Kuhn called the
puzzle-solving of normal science, they invariably shake the foundations of
modern physics. They provide a new structure for the atom, a new unified
theory of field and energy, a complete alternative to general relativity,
an entirely novel cosmology, etc.
He also went on to write that “[t]he crackpot theory is invariably more
intuitive than the standard one… In the same way, the crackpot alternative
is, almost universally, less mathematically challenging than the standard
account.�

Ultimately, Boyer located the driven force of (physics) crackpottery as the
“notion that you cannot do science by just studying the right books, having
the right mathematics and being commited to (some form of) ‘scientific
method’. What you ned (sic), over and above all that, is constant social
interaction with other practising scientists.�

On Apr 21, 10:12*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Apr 21, 8:30 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Who does this quote *by Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist at Washington
University in St. Louis remind you of?

In “How I Found Glaring Errors in Einstein’s Calculations,” Boyer discussed
his hobby of “[collecting] webpages created by crackpot physicists, those
marginal self-styled scientists whose foundational, generally revolutionary
work is sadly ignored by most established scientists.”

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

" Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends
more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and
retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that
really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is
acutely demonstrated by Copernicus ." Galileo

This what astronomer who work with interpretative astronomy do,they
look into the vast arena and take the time out to admire not only that
arena for what it is but also the enjoyable way the great astronomers
understood it,it is humanity's heritage and does not belong to
mathematicians who clearly distinguished themselves from astronomers
back a few centuries ago *for when mathematicians try to handle those
old observations they make a complete mess of things -

*" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton

People today get to choose and even if they don't wish to journey too
far into interpretative/intuitive astronomy they can marvel at what
contemporary time lapse footage can do for the great astronomical
insights of the past and get out of the poverty created by Newton and
his followers.

Snipping again?


Interpretative astronomy ceased in the late 17th century with the
emerging dominance of mathematicians and their system of double
modeling so that readers today can choose to become involved in
astronomy once more by accepting the words and ideas of astronomers
that really matter hence the links to the great arena where Jupiter
and Saturn are being overtaken by the Earth's own orbital motion
around the Sun -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Newton's version of retrogrades and how they are resolved are linked
into absolute/relative time,space and motion definitions and his
double modeling so all this demonstrates is that the guys following
him never understood what he was doing or what the terms represented
within his scheme.I have just given empiricists a chance to clean up
their own mess so they can work productively with astronomers the next
time around and not go on a solo run and use the celestial arena as a
dumping ground for their wayward notions.

Even I have to go back outside and discover the night sky once more
after many years in this hostile environment and the sheer apathy of
the wider world,it is there that the great arena becomes gentle once
more and not an ideological battleground with all the 'crackpot'
terminology.

Once again you have snipped the embarrassing bits.
Do they make you feel uneasy?



In “How I Found Glaring Errors in Einstein’s Calculations,� Boyer discussed
his hobby of “[collecting] webpages created by crackpot physicists, those
marginal self-styled scientists whose foundational, generally revolutionary
work is sadly ignored by most established scientists.�

Boyer’s focus was on crackpottery in physics, so his list of what separates
a crackpot from a run-of-the-mill crazy person is somewhat specific to
physics. However, one of the more relevant characteristics of a
crackpottery was that “all crackpottery is foundational.� By that, Boyer
meant that

[c]rackpots do not go for the small problems, for what Kuhn called the
puzzle-solving of normal science, they invariably shake the foundations of
modern physics. They provide a new structure for the atom, a new unified
theory of field and energy, a complete alternative to general relativity,
an entirely novel cosmology, etc. He also went on to write that “[t]he
crackpot theory is invariably more intuitive than the standard one… In the
same way, the crackpot alternative is, almost universally, less
mathematically challenging than the standard account.�

Ultimately, Boyer located the driven force of (physics) crackpottery as the
“notion that you cannot do science by just studying the right books, having
the right mathematics and being commited to (some form of) ‘scientific
method’. What you ned (sic), over and above all that, is constant social
interaction with other practising scientists.�

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:30:26 PM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:
Who does this quote by Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist at Washington

University in St. Louis remind you of?



In “How I Found Glaring Errors in Einstein’s Calculations,” Boyer discussed

his hobby of “[collecting] webpages created by crackpot physicists, those

marginal self-styled scientists whose foundational, generally revolutionary

work is sadly ignored by most established scientists.”



Boyer’s focus was on crackpottery in physics, so his list of what separates

a crackpot from a run-of-the-mill crazy person is somewhat specific to

physics. However, one of the more relevant characteristics of a

crackpottery was that “all crackpottery is foundational.” By that, Boyer

meant that



[c]rackpots do not go for the small problems, for what Kuhn called the

puzzle-solving of normal science, they invariably shake the foundations of

modern physics. They provide a new structure for the atom, a new unified

theory of field and energy, a complete alternative to general relativity,

an entirely novel cosmology, etc.

He also went on to write that “[t]he crackpot theory is invariably more

intuitive than the standard one… In the same way, the crackpot alternative

is, almost universally, less mathematically challenging than the standard

account.”



Ultimately, Boyer located the driven force of (physics) crackpottery as the

“notion that you cannot do science by just studying the right books, having

the right mathematics and being commited to (some form of) ‘scientific

method’. What you ned (sic), over and above all that, is constant social

interaction with other practising scientists.”

And from this page...

http://physics.about.com/b/2012/02/17/physicscranks.htm

"The crank phenomenon is sociologically incredibly interesting. I think that there's essentially nothing that it adds to the progress of science, because science is hard.... I don't think that the problem is people who just make stuff up. It's people who think they can get the right answer just by thinking about it without asking what anyone else has ever thought about"...

This sounds even more like you-know-who...

On Apr 22, 12:15*am, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:30:26 PM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:
Who does this quote *by Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist at Washington

University in St. Louis remind you of?

In “How I Found Glaring Errors in Einstein’s Calculations,” Boyer discussed

his hobby of “[collecting] webpages created by crackpot physicists, those

marginal self-styled scientists whose foundational, generally revolutionary

work is sadly ignored by most established scientists.”

Boyer’s focus was on crackpottery in physics, so his list of what separates

a crackpot from a run-of-the-mill crazy person is somewhat specific to

physics. However, one of the more relevant characteristics of a

crackpottery was that “all crackpottery is foundational.” By that, Boyer

meant that

[c]rackpots do not go for the small problems, for what Kuhn called the

puzzle-solving of normal science, they invariably shake the foundations of

modern physics. They provide a new structure for the atom, a new unified

theory of field and energy, a complete alternative to general relativity,

an entirely novel cosmology, etc.

He also went on to write that “[t]he crackpot theory is invariably more

intuitive than the standard one… In the same way, the crackpot alternative

is, almost universally, less mathematically challenging than the standard

account.”

Ultimately, Boyer located the driven force of (physics) crackpottery as the

“notion that you cannot do science by just studying the right books, having

the right mathematics and being commited to (some form of) ‘scientific

method’. What you ned (sic), over and above all that, is constant social

interaction with other practising scientists.”

And from this page...

http://physics.about.com/b/2012/02/17/physicscranks.htm

"The crank phenomenon is sociologically incredibly interesting. I think that there's essentially nothing that it adds to the progress of science, because science is hard.... I don't think that the problem is people who just make stuff up. It's people who think they can get the right answer just by thinking about it without asking what anyone else has ever thought about"....

This sounds even more like you-know-who...

It is not that astronomy is hard,empiricism is contrived and
intentionally so which scares so many people away so 'science is hard'
may make many reputations and pay a lot of salaries but all it does is
serve pretension.The resolution of retrograde motion is a case in
point insofar as the clear and easy way it was done is obscured by
those who themselves fail to grasp the evidence in the time lapse
footage and why an alternative approach the Newton took fails and with
it all the voodoo of absolute/relative time,space and motion on which
the early 20th century extensions depend.

So science is not hard but people are cruel and unfortunately few know
the difference.

..

oriel36 wrote:
On Apr 22, 12:15 am, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:30:26 PM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:
Who does this quote by Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist at Washington

University in St. Louis remind you of?

In “How I Found Glaring Errors in Einstein’s Calculations,� Boyer discussed

his hobby of “[collecting] webpages created by crackpot physicists, those

marginal self-styled scientists whose foundational, generally revolutionary

work is sadly ignored by most established scientists.�

Boyer’s focus was on crackpottery in physics, so his list of what separates

a crackpot from a run-of-the-mill crazy person is somewhat specific to

physics. However, one of the more relevant characteristics of a

crackpottery was that “all crackpottery is foundational.� By that, Boyer

meant that

[c]rackpots do not go for the small problems, for what Kuhn called the

puzzle-solving of normal science, they invariably shake the foundations of

modern physics. They provide a new structure for the atom, a new unified

theory of field and energy, a complete alternative to general relativity,

an entirely novel cosmology, etc.

He also went on to write that “[t]he crackpot theory is invariably more

intuitive than the standard one… In the same way, the crackpot alternative

is, almost universally, less mathematically challenging than the standard

account.�

Ultimately, Boyer located the driven force of (physics) crackpottery as the

“notion that you cannot do science by just studying the right books, having

the right mathematics and being commited to (some form of) ‘scientific

method’. What you ned (sic), over and above all that, is constant social

interaction with other practising scientists.�

And from this page...

http://physics.about.com/b/2012/02/17/physicscranks.htm

"The crank phenomenon is sociologically incredibly interesting. I think
that there's essentially nothing that it adds to the progress of
science, because science is hard.... I don't think that the problem is
people who just make stuff up. It's people who think they can get the
right answer just by thinking about it without asking what anyone else
has ever thought about"...

This sounds even more like you-know-who...

It is not that astronomy is hard,empiricism is contrived and
intentionally so which scares so many people away so 'science is hard'
may make many reputations and pay a lot of salaries but all it does is
serve pretension.The resolution of retrograde motion is a case in
point insofar as the clear and easy way it was done is obscured by
those who themselves fail to grasp the evidence in the time lapse
footage and why an alternative approach the Newton took fails and with
it all the voodoo of absolute/relative time,space and motion on which
the early 20th century extensions depend.

So science is not hard but people are cruel and unfortunately few know
the difference.

.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22105898

An essay about Galileo and empirical science.

On Apr 22, 1:57*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Apr 22, 12:15 am, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:30:26 PM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:
Who does this quote *by Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist at Washington

University in St. Louis remind you of?

In “How I Found Glaring Errors in Einstein’s Calculations,” Boyer discussed

his hobby of “[collecting] webpages created by crackpot physicists, those

marginal self-styled scientists whose foundational, generally revolutionary

work is sadly ignored by most established scientists.”

Boyer’s focus was on crackpottery in physics, so his list of what separates

a crackpot from a run-of-the-mill crazy person is somewhat specific to

physics. However, one of the more relevant characteristics of a

crackpottery was that “all crackpottery is foundational.” By that, Boyer

meant that

[c]rackpots do not go for the small problems, for what Kuhn called the

puzzle-solving of normal science, they invariably shake the foundations of

modern physics. They provide a new structure for the atom, a new unified

theory of field and energy, a complete alternative to general relativity,

an entirely novel cosmology, etc.

He also went on to write that “[t]he crackpot theory is invariably more

intuitive than the standard one… In the same way, the crackpot alternative

is, almost universally, less mathematically challenging than the standard

account.”

Ultimately, Boyer located the driven force of (physics) crackpottery as the

“notion that you cannot do science by just studying the right books, having

the right mathematics and being commited to (some form of) ‘scientific

method’. What you ned (sic), over and above all that, is constant social

interaction with other practising scientists.”

And from this page...

http://physics.about.com/b/2012/02/17/physicscranks.htm

"The crank phenomenon is sociologically incredibly interesting. I think
that there's essentially nothing that it adds to the progress of
science, because science is hard.... I don't think that the problem is
people who just make stuff up. It's people who think they can get the
right answer just by thinking about it without asking what anyone else
has ever thought about"...

This sounds even more like you-know-who...

It is not that astronomy is hard,empiricism is contrived and
intentionally so which scares so many people away so 'science is hard'
may make many reputations and pay a lot of salaries but all it does is
serve pretension.The resolution of retrograde motion is a case in
point insofar as the clear and easy way it was done is obscured by
those who themselves fail to grasp the evidence in the time lapse
footage and why an alternative approach the Newton took fails and with
it all the voodoo of absolute/relative time,space and motion on which
the early 20th century extensions depend.

So science is not hard but people are cruel and unfortunately few know
the difference.

.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22105898

An essay about Galileo and empirical science.

Just another uninteresting commentary that would suit empirical
spectators about an individual coming up against the intransigence and
ignorance of the Catholic Church - a kind of dumbing down of the
technical and historical details surrounding this crucial period in
astronomical history and more importantly an unresolved technical
issue arising from that time,at least until now -

"In 1623 Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, a Florentine who had praised
Galileo’s achievements, was elected Pope under the name of Urban VIII.
Galileo had recently helped his nephew, Francesco Barberini, obtain
his doctorate at the University of Pisa, and the Cardinal had written
to express his appreciation. The postscript to his letter, which is in
his own hand, leaves no doubt about his feelings. ‘I am much in your
debt,’ he writes, ‘for your abiding goodwill towards myself and the
members of my family, and I look forward to the opportunity of
reciprocating. I assure you that you will find me more than willing to
be of service in consideration of your great merit and the gratitude
that I owe you.’ Events moved rapidly, and less than two months after
writing this letter, Maffeo Barberini had become Urban VIII, and was
about to appoint his nephew, then only twenty-seven years old, to the
College of Cardinals. Francesco became the Pope’s right hand.

Two close friends of Galileo, Giovanni Ciampoli and Virginio Cesarini,
were also named to important posts. Cesarini was appointed Lord
Chamberlain, and Ciampoli Secret Chamberlain and Secretary for the
Correspondence with Princes. Under these favourable auspices Galileo
thought the moment had come to renew his campaign for Copernicanism,
and in 1624 he set off for Rome where he had the rare privilege of
being received by the Pope six times in six weeks. Although the 1616
decree of the Index against Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus was not
suspended, Galileo felt that he could now argue for the motion of the
Earth as long as he avoided declaring that it was the only system that
fitted astronomical observations.

Here lurked the danger of serious misunderstanding. Maffeo Barberini,
while he was a Cardinal, had counselled Galileo to treat Copernicanism
as a hypothesis, not as a confirmed truth. But ‘hypothesis’ meant two
very different things. On the one hand, astronomers were assumed to
deal only with hypotheses, i.e. accounts of the observed motions of
the stars and planets that were not claimed to be true. Astronomical
theories were mere instruments for calculation and prediction, a view
that is often called ‘instrumentalism’. On the other hand, a
hypothesis could also be understood as a theory that was not yet
proved but was open to eventual confirmation. This was a ‘realist’
position. Galileo thought that Copernicanism was true, and presented
it as a hypothesis, i.e. as a provisional idea that was potentially
physically true, and he discussed the pros and cons, leaving the issue
undecided. This did not correspond to the instrumentalist view of
Copernicanism that was held by Maffeo Barberini and others. They
thought that Copernicus’ system was a purely instrumental device, and
Maffeo Barberini was convinced that it could never be proved. This
ambiguity pervaded the whole Galileo Affair."

http://www.unav.es/cryf/english/newlightistanbul.html

The fact is that the predictive convenience of the 365/365/365/366 day
format which allows the mechanical side of astronomy to predict
eclipses,transits ect is not the same one that proves the daily and
orbital motions of the Earth which in turn affect observations of
planets and moons within the solar system.If the Pope's position was
something similar to the difference between predictive astronomy and
interpretative astronomy which extrapolates the Earth's motions from
observations then he got it right for you cannot extract the Earth's
daily and orbital motions from stellar circumpolar motion and that
Collins is a fact that you and your colleagues must get familiar with.

Never seen so much false propaganda and you know what Collins,the
Church would favor your version of things than actually deal with the
issues left unattended since the Galileo affair.

oriel36 wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:57 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Apr 22, 12:15 am, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:30:26 PM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:
Who does this quote by Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist at Washington

University in St. Louis remind you of?

In “How I Found Glaring Errors in Einstein’s Calculations,� Boyer discussed

his hobby of “[collecting] webpages created by crackpot physicists, those

marginal self-styled scientists whose foundational, generally revolutionary

work is sadly ignored by most established scientists.�

Boyer’s focus was on crackpottery in physics, so his list of what separates

a crackpot from a run-of-the-mill crazy person is somewhat specific to

physics. However, one of the more relevant characteristics of a

crackpottery was that “all crackpottery is foundational.� By that, Boyer

meant that

[c]rackpots do not go for the small problems, for what Kuhn called the

puzzle-solving of normal science, they invariably shake the foundations of

modern physics. They provide a new structure for the atom, a new unified

theory of field and energy, a complete alternative to general relativity,

an entirely novel cosmology, etc.

He also went on to write that “[t]he crackpot theory is invariably more

intuitive than the standard one… In the same way, the crackpot alternative

is, almost universally, less mathematically challenging than the standard

account.�

Ultimately, Boyer located the driven force of (physics) crackpottery as the

“notion that you cannot do science by just studying the right books, having

the right mathematics and being commited to (some form of) ‘scientific

method’. What you ned (sic), over and above all that, is constant social

interaction with other practising scientists.�

And from this page...

http://physics.about.com/b/2012/02/17/physicscranks.htm

"The crank phenomenon is sociologically incredibly interesting. I think
that there's essentially nothing that it adds to the progress of
science, because science is hard.... I don't think that the problem is
people who just make stuff up. It's people who think they can get the
right answer just by thinking about it without asking what anyone else
has ever thought about"...

This sounds even more like you-know-who...

It is not that astronomy is hard,empiricism is contrived and
intentionally so which scares so many people away so 'science is hard'
may make many reputations and pay a lot of salaries but all it does is
serve pretension.The resolution of retrograde motion is a case in
point insofar as the clear and easy way it was done is obscured by
those who themselves fail to grasp the evidence in the time lapse
footage and why an alternative approach the Newton took fails and with
it all the voodoo of absolute/relative time,space and motion on which
the early 20th century extensions depend.

So science is not hard but people are cruel and unfortunately few know
the difference.

.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22105898

An essay about Galileo and empirical science.

Just another uninteresting commentary that would suit empirical
spectators about an individual coming up against the intransigence and
ignorance of the Catholic Church - a kind of dumbing down of the
technical and historical details surrounding this crucial period in
astronomical history and more importantly an unresolved technical
issue arising from that time,at least until now -

"In 1623 Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, a Florentine who had praised
Galileo’s achievements, was elected Pope under the name of Urban VIII.
Galileo had recently helped his nephew, Francesco Barberini, obtain
his doctorate at the University of Pisa, and the Cardinal had written
to express his appreciation. The postscript to his letter, which is in
his own hand, leaves no doubt about his feelings. ‘I am much in your
debt,’ he writes, ‘for your abiding goodwill towards myself and the
members of my family, and I look forward to the opportunity of
reciprocating. I assure you that you will find me more than willing to
be of service in consideration of your great merit and the gratitude
that I owe you.’ Events moved rapidly, and less than two months after
writing this letter, Maffeo Barberini had become Urban VIII, and was
about to appoint his nephew, then only twenty-seven years old, to the
College of Cardinals. Francesco became the Pope’s right hand.

Two close friends of Galileo, Giovanni Ciampoli and Virginio Cesarini,
were also named to important posts. Cesarini was appointed Lord
Chamberlain, and Ciampoli Secret Chamberlain and Secretary for the
Correspondence with Princes. Under these favourable auspices Galileo
thought the moment had come to renew his campaign for Copernicanism,
and in 1624 he set off for Rome where he had the rare privilege of
being received by the Pope six times in six weeks. Although the 1616
decree of the Index against Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus was not
suspended, Galileo felt that he could now argue for the motion of the
Earth as long as he avoided declaring that it was the only system that
fitted astronomical observations.

Here lurked the danger of serious misunderstanding. Maffeo Barberini,
while he was a Cardinal, had counselled Galileo to treat Copernicanism
as a hypothesis, not as a confirmed truth. But ‘hypothesis’ meant two
very different things. On the one hand, astronomers were assumed to
deal only with hypotheses, i.e. accounts of the observed motions of
the stars and planets that were not claimed to be true. Astronomical
theories were mere instruments for calculation and prediction, a view
that is often called ‘instrumentalism’. On the other hand, a
hypothesis could also be understood as a theory that was not yet
proved but was open to eventual confirmation. This was a ‘realist’
position. Galileo thought that Copernicanism was true, and presented
it as a hypothesis, i.e. as a provisional idea that was potentially
physically true, and he discussed the pros and cons, leaving the issue
undecided. This did not correspond to the instrumentalist view of
Copernicanism that was held by Maffeo Barberini and others. They
thought that Copernicus’ system was a purely instrumental device, and
Maffeo Barberini was convinced that it could never be proved. This
ambiguity pervaded the whole Galileo Affair."

http://www.unav.es/cryf/english/newlightistanbul.html

The fact is that the predictive convenience of the 365/365/365/366 day
format which allows the mechanical side of astronomy to predict
eclipses,transits ect is not the same one that proves the daily and
orbital motions of the Earth which in turn affect observations of
planets and moons within the solar system.If the Pope's position was
something similar to the difference between predictive astronomy and
interpretative astronomy which extrapolates the Earth's motions from
observations then he got it right for you cannot extract the Earth's
daily and orbital motions from stellar circumpolar motion and that
Collins is a fact that you and your colleagues must get familiar with.

Never seen so much false propaganda and you know what Collins,the
Church would favor your version of things than actually deal with the
issues left unattended since the Galileo affair.

Published: November 01, 1992

Moving formally to rectify a wrong, Pope John Paul II acknowledged in a
speech today that the Roman Catholic Church had erred in condemning Galileo
359 years ago for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
The address by the Pope before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences closed a
13-year investigation into the Church's condemnation of Galileo in 1633,
one of history's most notorious conflicts between faith and science.
Galileo was forced to recant his scientific findings to avoid being burned
at the stake and spent the remaining eight years of his life under house
arrest.
John Paul said the theologians who condemned Galileo did not recognize the
formal distinction between the Bible and its interpretation.
"This led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the
faith, a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.
Though the Pope acknowledged that the Church had done Galileo a wrong, he
said the 17th-century theologians were working with the knowledge available
to them at the time.