„If we consider that the advocates of the fixed and central position of the Earth can explain the heavenly phenomena as accurately, according to their own understanding, as we do, and that they additionally have the evidence of their senses, the Holy Scripture, and the facts on their side which we do not have, it is not without reason that they claim the superiority of their system. [...] However perfect our theoretical model may appear in our eyes, and however simple and satisfactory the Newtonian hypothesis may appear to us in explaining all celestial phenomena, here we must admit the astonishing truth that if our premises are challenged and our facts questioned, all of astronomy contains no proof of its own accuracy.“
Dr. Robert WoodhouseDr. Robert Woodhouse reveals why astronomy without solid evidence guarantees no absolute truth. A fascinating insight into science and critique.
Dr. Robert Woodhouse was an English mathematician and astronomer known for his contributions to analytical mechanics and astronomy in the early 19th century.
This quote reminds us that established scientific models must also be critically questioned and that claims of truth must not stand without solid evidence.
Translation or original: 🇩🇪Click here
Quelle: Hier klicken
i
3.0
/ 5
👥 Community:
Share this entry
Robert Woodhouse (1773–1827) was a prominent English mathematician and astronomer. He taught mathematics at the University of Cambridge where he advanced analytical mechanics and critically examined various astronomical theories. His work significantly contributed to mathematical education and the understanding of astronomical phenomena of his time.
Copyright © yoice.net – Quote Artwork"You wonder that there are so few followers of the Pythagorean opinion [that the earth moves] while I am astonished that there have been any up to this day who have embraced and followed it.
Nor can I ever sufficiently admire the outstanding acumen of those who have taken hold of this opinion and accepted it as true:
they have, through sheer force of intellect, done such violence to their own senses as to prefer what reason told them over that which sensible experience plainly showed them to be the contrary.
For the arguments against the whirling [the rotation] of the earth we have already examined are very plausible, as we have seen; and the fact that the Ptolemaics and the Aristotelians and all their disciples took them to be conclusive is indeed a strong argument of their effectiveness.
But the experiences which overtly contradict the annual movement [the movement of the earth around the sun] are indeed so much greater in their apparent force that, I repeat, there is no limit to my astonishment when I reflect that Aristarchus and Copernicus were able to make reason so conquer sense that in defiance of the latter, the former became mistress of their belief."
Salviati
Copyright © yoice.net – Quote Artwork"In Newton’s day, the Ptolemaic system and the Keplerian version of the Copernican system were taught side by side in the universities of the world. But the pendulum of belief had swung irreversibly to the Copernican side. In the minds of most scientists, the heliocentric universe had become fact…Yet there remained a crucial missing element in what was otherwise a complete and compelling picture of the universe: Not one shred of indisputable observational proof existed that the Earth moved through space.Here then was the holy grail of many an astronomer. To prove that the Earth in fact revolved in a wide orbit around the Sun, the parallax of just one star – any star – had to be detected. The hunt for stellar parallax was on."
Alan Hirshfeld
Copyright © yoice.net – Quote Artwork"In this respect, it is interesting to contrast Einstein and Copernicus. Before Copernicus, people thought that the earth stood still and the heavens revolved about it once a day. Copernicus taught that “really” the earth rotates once a day, and the daily revolution of sun and stars is only “apparent.” Galileo and Newton endorsed this view, and many things were thought to prove it—for example, the flattening of the earth at the poles, and the fact that bodies are heavier there than at the equator. But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two statements: “the earth rotates once a day” and “the heavens revolve about the earth once a day.” The two mean exactly the same thing, just as it means the same thing if I say that a certain length is six feet or two yards. Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the earth, just as accounts are easier in a decimal coinage. But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. All motion is relative, and it is a mere convention to take one body as at rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not all are equally convenient."
Bertrand Russell
Copyright © yoice.net – Quote Artwork"Actually neither this Galileo, nor his mentor Copernicus, had a shred of truly tangible and unequivocal evidence for their heliocentric belief – and well do historians, astronomers, and philosophers of science know it! As I recently found it succinctly expressed in a research paper “Since Galileo science has shed logical proofs in favour of plausibility. Indeed, by this “scientific method” of adding plausible explanations to plausible explanations astronomy has arrived at the present view of the cosmos. However, those who forget that “plausible” and “proven” are not synonyms inevitably will see their chickens come home to roost.”"
Walter van der Kamp
Copyright © yoice.net – Quote Artwork"For centuries the case of Galileo Galilei has been the cornerstone of every major argument against the church and its supposedly unscientific dogmatism. The church seems to have condemned Galileo for his heresies, just because it couldn’t and wouldn’t handle the truth. Galileo was a hero of science wrongfully accused and now – at last – everyone knows that. But is that true? This paper tries to examine the case from the point of modern physics and the conclusions drawn are startling. It seems that contemporary church was too haste into condemning itself. The evidence provided by Galileo to support the heliocentric system do not even pass simple scrutiny, while modern physics has ruled for a long time now against both heliocentric and geocentric models as depictions of the “truth”. As Einstein eloquently said, the debate about which system is chosen is void of any meaning from a physics’ point of view. At the end, the selection of the center is more a matter of choice rather than a matter of ‘truth’ of any kind. And this choice is driven by specific philosophical axioms penetrating astronomy for hundreds of years now. From Galileo to Hubble, the Copernican principle has been slowly transformed to a dogma followed by all mainstream astronomers. It is time to challenge our dogmatic adherence to the anti-humanism idea that we are insignificant in the cosmos and start making true honest science again, as Copernicus once postulated."
Spyridon Kakos
Copyright © yoice.net – Quote Artwork"People give ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firma-ment, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but the sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth."
Martin Luther
Copyright © yoice.net – Quote Artwork
Copyright © yoice.net – Quote Artwork
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!