I know that his idea of a heliocentric universe is correct but I need some arguments for a staged debate....
2007-11-11 11:51:46 · 9 answers · asked by The Lone Trumpeter 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
In spite of what everyone else has said, Not all the arguments against him were religious. Some were, but not all.
If Earth orbits the Sun then we should see stars shifting position in the sky back and forth in a regular 1 year pattern. This is called stellar parallax. Since no parallax was observed, everyone concluded Earth was not moving. Because the stars are so extremely far away, much MUCH farther away than anyone in Galileo's time imagined, the parallax angle is way WAY too small to be measured by the telescopes Galileo had. The first successful measurement of a stellar parallax had to wait for MUCH better telescopes, long after Galileo died.
In addition, they challenged him to provide some direct proof Earth is moving. You can't feel the motion and it seemed unlikely to the people at the time that such a fast motion could not be felt. Galileo tried to claim that the tides were a result of the Earth's motion. Galileo rejected the idea that the tides are caused by the Moon as being Astrology, where the planets have an influence in events on Earth. But he was wrong. The Moon DOES cause the tides. This really hurt his case since it was pretty clear to everyone else (even back then) that the Moon DID cause the tides. The physical proof that Earth moves came long after Galileo died when the Foucault pendulum showed it.
All this and more appears in the PBS program about Galileo. See the source.
2007-11-11 13:54:06 · answer #1 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can just take the arguments that creationists make against evolution and modify them slightly to correct for certain details. Basically, do the following:
Whenever Galileo points out an easily observable, verifiable phenomena, question the plausibility of the method. Thus - carbon dating doesn't work. And telescopes are bogus.
If a speculation is at the very least reasonable, make the claim that any evidence arising from this speculation is not even relevant. So the fossil record tells us nothing. And we don't know for sure that gravity would explain how the earth stays in orbit around the sun.
Most importantly, make sure you frequently resort to quoting the Bible, regardless of whether or not it has anything to say about the subject. And if he asks how you know the bible is true and should be trusted, point out that it says that the bible is true IN THE BIBLE. That's got to be double-true, at least.
2007-11-11 19:58:24 · answer #2 · answered by relaxification 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
When church officials came to Galileo's house to question him about some of his discoveries in the solar system, he invited them to look through his telescope and see the bumps on Saturn. (They were the rings, but he didn't know that's what they were.) They told him, "There is no need to look through your telescope. We *know* you're lying."
Galileo wrote a book called "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems." It was written as if it was a conversation between three people: Sagredo, Salviati, and Simplicio. Simplicio represented the ancient views and those supported by the church. I don't know if you are interested but there are the arguments against him, in his own words.
You can look it up here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems
I'm sure you could find some excerpts on the Internet.
2007-11-11 20:07:25 · answer #3 · answered by Brant 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The idea at the time was that Earth was God's greatest creation, and that it was heresy to suggest that ANYTHING other than the Earth could be the centre of things. Essentially the Catholic church hated being questioned and told Galileo to shut up or face the consequences for his heresy.
2007-11-11 19:54:35 · answer #4 · answered by Mordent 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the only real arguments against galileo were that of the church. they're only arguments were that the bible said the earth was the center, so that is the way it is.
2007-11-11 19:55:04 · answer #5 · answered by just some chick 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it was much like the denial of evolution, and later, global warming. Not really an argument, just denial.
2007-11-11 19:54:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
the world is flat
everything revolves against Earth
2007-11-11 19:54:56 · answer #7 · answered by L Cameezy... Simply 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That he was a heretic!
2007-11-11 19:55:05 · answer #8 · answered by Monte T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"That's not what the bible says as far as I can tell!"
Really, that's about it.
2007-11-11 19:54:11 · answer #9 · answered by eri 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋