This little machine shows Ptolemy’s model. The planets were imagined to go around the Earth, attached to perfect crystal spheres — but not attached directly to the spheres, but indirectly, through a kind of off-center wheel. The sphere turns, the little wheel rotates, and — as seen from the Earth — Mars does its loop-the-loop. This model permitted reasonably accurate predictions of planetary motion: where a planet would be on a given day. Certainly good enough predictions for the precision of measurement in Ptolemy’s time and much later. Supported by the church through the Dark Ages, Ptolemy’s model effectively prevented the advance of astronomy for 1,500 years.So Ptolemy developed a reasonably accurate model, but it was somehow used by the Catholic Church to keep everyone in the Dark Ages?Finally, in 1543, a quite different explanation of the apparent motion of the planets was published by a Polish cleric named Nicolaus Copernicus. Its most daring feature was the proposition that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the universe. The Earth was demoted to just one of the planets. The retrograde (or loop-the-loop) motion happens as the Earth overtakes Mars in its orbit. You can see that, from the standpoint of the Earth, Mars is now going slightly backwards and now it is going in its original direction. This Copernican model worked at least as well as Ptolemy’s crystal spheres, but it annoyed an awful lot of people. The Catholic Church later put Copernicus’s work on its list of forbidden books.
No, this is mostly nonsense. The Church only objected to nine sentences in the Copernicus book, and not to publication of the model. Ptolemy did not require crystal spheres.
The Wikipedia article on epicycles is much more sensible:
Epicycles worked very well and were highly accurate, because, as Fourier analysis later showed, any smooth curve can be approximated to arbitrary accuracy with a sufficient number of epicycles. However, they fell out of favor with the discovery that planetary motions were largely elliptical from a heliocentric frame of reference, which led to the discovery that gravity obeying a simple inverse square law could better explain all planetary motions.The first Ptolemy epicycle for each planet is the orbit of the Earth, and is used to explain the retrograde modtion. People can argue that this epicycle is not real, because Mars never really goes backwards. But Mars does go backwards, as viewed from the Earth, and that is what Ptolemy was modeling.
Subsequent epicycles were used to model variations in speed and direction from uniform circular motion. The Copernicus model did not need the first epicycle, as the Earth had its own orbit, but needed the subseqent epicycles, as deviations from uniform circular motion was observable at the time.
As Sagan later explained, Tycho Brahe made the observations that enabled models superior to Ptolemy's. Astronomy was not held back by epicycles, but by a lack of more precise data. That data came from Tycho, and later the invention of the telescope
Sagan pushes his anti-religion beliefs, but all these advances took places in Christendom, and not elsewhere.
Roger,
ReplyDeleteNo. Epicycles are not 'real', no math is. They exist solely as mathematical abstraction, not actuality. Stop hypostatizing.
You made my own point for me with your mentioning that the mathematical model of epicycles got in the way of developing actual physical orbits and gravity. Propping up Ptlomey's ideas as unquestionable doctrine didn't help advance understanding, it impeded it. The map is not the terrain, studying the map will only reveal what the mapmakers thought, not the greater reality it is based upon. I'm not saying don't use maps, I'm saying don't ever conflate them with the reality they depict.
You are missing the point in your crusade to bitch about Sagan being an atheist. The hard truth is, outside of the initial inspiration, religion and spirituality are incredibly poor tools for examining how the heavens go (as Galileo said), they are far more suited to their suited task of asking questions, sparking curiosity, and providing guidance, wisdom, and morality in how that knowledge about the heavens is used. Every tool has a purpose, use the wrong tool and disaster ensues.
The problem was (and still is) the deep seated human foible of those in power trying to control others very thoughts by way of institutionalized dogma posed as cosmic truth, and it's always been the same result no matter when or where it is practiced. Kepler was persecuted (as were many others) for not submitting to the dogmas espoused by those in power in his time, much the same way as today's scientists and doctors today are punished by our OWN government for not submitting to magical dogmas of 'social distancing', 'DEI fantasies', or 'gender affirming care' and other such linguistic nonsense. I wouldn't have told Kepler 'religion is the problem' anymore than I would tell today's scientists 'government is the problem'. Any institution run by morally challenged people seeking unfettered power is compromised, regardless of a religious or secular nature.
Sagan's greatest failing was always his inability to accept human nature for what it truly was. He (like many) wanted to change human nature into what it wasn't. He mocked spirituality while not admitting it was the very source of inspiration for much of what lead to scientific discovery and the source of great beauty, art, architecture, and literature through out the world, from the ancients until us. Most of his damn COSMOS series was about curious religious men and loners who questioned strict orthodoxy and sought understanding of the creator which lead them to unsettling scientific discoveries, even if it cost them dearly on a personal level. It was only very late in the game that common place atheism became the norm in academia and science.
Sagan's main mistake was that he constantly wanted to externalize human evil as being a side effect of ignorance, religion, or superstition instead of a choice, much like most academics. Like the Marxists and progressives, many academics believe humanity to be perfectible by external means of authority, force, and bureaucratic control over groups of people, instead of the internal pursuit of individuals seeking the tempering of dark impulses by an inner dialogue of some kind.
I think Fourier analysis is quite harmless. However, your point about perfectibility is exactly what is wrong with genetic environmentalists and their religion of progress. Religion and the state both believe in a kind of coercive interventionism to bring about the millennium.
DeleteJohn Michael Greer has argued that Marxism is essentially a secularized version of Christian eschatology. Specifically, he states that Marx's theory is largely "secondhand theology" that copies the basic structure of the biblical narrative. Greer contends that Marx's historical materialism closely mirrors the Christian narrative of fall (private property) and redemption. He suggests that Marx essentially secularized the Christian concept of salvation history, replacing divine providence with economic forces as the driver of historical change. The proletariat, in Marx's theory, takes on a role similar to that of the messiah in Christian theology, destined to bring about a utopian future (analogous to the Kingdom of God). The concept of class struggle in Marxism is compared to the spiritual warfare between good and evil in Christian theology. The predicted communist utopia is seen as a secularized version of the Christian concept of heaven or the millennium. Greer's argument is part of a broader critique of modern ideologies that, in his view, often unconsciously replicate religious structures and narratives in ostensibly secular forms.
Christopher Lasch's student David F. Noble documented the utter compatibility between religion and science. Modern transhumanism is basically a religious undertaking. Religion is the problem.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete