Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Galileo

At 09:21 AM 7/18/2004, David A., you wrote:
///
My understanding of the pre Copernican explanation of the structure of
the "universe" was that the orbits of the planets, moon, sun and stars
were determined by transparent spheres on which these bodies were
mounted. Also that each body was a "perfect sphere" which was why there
were so many problems with Galileo's observation of sun spots
(imperfections), for example.

My question referred to the later concept. When one looks at the moon
with the naked eye it seems to be far from a perfect sphere with its
"blotches" that are easily visible. How did the early astronomers
(astrologers) explain that the concept of the perfect sphere apparently
did not need to be applied to the moon?

Was it in fact that it was thought to be corrupted by being so close to
the earth? Does anyone have more details?

David Abineri
dabineri@fuse.net


What we are discussing, I take it, is the development of a
proto-science theory.
If things that are not supported fall down, it seems reasonable
that heavenly bodies that move with respect to each other,
need some sort of matrix to support and motivate their movement:
a support that is transparent in order for one to see the superposition
of several heavenly bodies in motion.

When these bodies are held to be the direct creation of an Almighty,
or alternatively, harmoniously created with structures thought to be
geometrically superior, then it is reasonable to suppose that the crystal
spheres are perfect.

One might then make comparisons between the delightful texture of
the Earth, and the Moon: one might describe some features as Seas,
others as Mountains.

Certainly, there seems to be a dissonance between geometrical
perfection, and furrowed Earth and Moonscapes.

But philosophers or scientists, then and now, have a gift for
rationalizing the incommensurable. We move on to better, more
satisfying models.



Brian Whatcott Altus OK Eureka!