400 years ago today, Galileo got the bright idea of taking his
newly made telescope and pointing it at Jupiter. He saw some new stars, strangely in a straight line with Jupiter. Over the next couple of nights he kept looking, saw a fourth star, and then realized that the "stars" were moving with Jupiter, but not exactly. From his
Starry Messenger:
On the seventh day of January in this present year 1610, at the first hour of night, when I was viewing the heavenly bodies with a telescope, Jupiter presented itself to me; and because I had prepared a very excellent instrument for myself, I perceived (as I had not before, on account of the weakness of my previous instrument) that beside the planet there were three starlets, small indeed, but very bright. Though I believed them to be among the host of fixed stars, they aroused my curiosity somewhat by appearing to lie in an exact straight line parallel to the ecliptic, and by their being more splendid than others of their size. . . . There were two stars on the eastern side and one to the west. The most easterly star and the western one appeared larger than the other. I paid no attention to the distances between them and Jupiter, for at the outset I thought them to be fixed stars, as I have said. But returning to the same investigation on January eight -- led by what, I do not know -- I found a very different arrangement. The three starlets were now all to the west of Jupiter, closer together, and at equal intervals from one another . . . .
On the tenth of January . . . there were but two of them, both easterly, the third (as I supposed) being hidden behind Jupiter . . . . There was no way in which such alterations could be attributed to Jupiter's motion, yet being certain that these were still the same stars I had observed . . . my perplexity was now transformed into amazement. I was sure that the apparent changes belonged not to Jupiter but to the observed stars, and I resolved to pursue this investigation with greater care and attention . . . .
You just
know that what he really said to himself here was "Holy ..."
I had now decided beyond all question that there existed in the heavens three stars wandering about Jupiter as do Venus and Mercury about the sun, and this became plainer than daylight from observations on similar occasions which followed. Nor were there just three such stars; four wanderers complete their revolution about Jupiter . . . .
Here we have a fine and elegant argument for quieting the doubts of those who, while accepting with tranquil mind the revolutions of the planets about the sun in the Copernican system, are mightily disturbed to have the moon alone revolve about the earth and accompany it in annual rotation about the sun. Some have believed that this structure of the universe should be rejected as impossible. But now we have not just one planet rotating about another while both run through a greater orbit around the sun; our eyes show us four stars which wander about Jupiter as does the moon around the earth, while all together trace out a grand revolution about the sun in the space of twelve years.
33 Comments
Nick (Matzke) · 7 January 2010
PS: Here's a scan of the original:
http://contentdm.lindahall.org/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/classics&CISOPTR=5360&CISOSHOW=5292
Nick (Matzke) · 7 January 2010
Hand-written version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Galileo.script.arp.600pix.jpg.jpg
EoRaptor · 7 January 2010
"Science progresses most not by shouts of 'Eureka!' but by 'Hmm... That's odd.'"
Said by somebody very much smarter than me, but with a name I either can't remember, or never knew.
The Curmudgeon · 7 January 2010
The significance of this is largely forgotten now, but it had been argued that if the Earth moved it would leave the moon behind. (This was a generation before Isaac Newton described gravity's effect on such bodies.)
But by observing that Jupiter had four moons that definitely weren't getting left behind, one very strong argument for the geocentric universe was demolished.
OgreMkV · 7 January 2010
It was either Asimov or Clarke...I think Clarke.
Michael Suttkus, II · 7 January 2010
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'"
The quote, in several minor variations, is attributed to Asimov consistently, but nobody online seems to have sourced it. How rude.
Peter Buck · 8 January 2010
Check out the just-released book "Galileo's Dream" by Kim Stanley Robinson for an intriguing story which centers around this part of Galileo's life.
Just Bob · 8 January 2010
Interesting mental exercise: If Galileo hadn't realized what his observations meant--or if the biblically approved geocentric system had been successfully maintained by the Church--where would "modern" science be today?
If we hadn't broken with the Bible as describing physical nature, what would life be like now?
Anon · 8 January 2010
"If we hadn’t broken with the Bible as describing physical nature, what would life be like now?"
Pretty much the same, probably. If Galileo hadn't, someone else would have. Can't keep curiosity down, not in the long run.
Robert Byers · 9 January 2010
YEC here.
I like Galileo and insist that he never threatened or changed biblical creationism.
Perhaps the Catholic church leaders didn't like some ideas here because they accepted ideas here from the ancient Greeks.
So to challenge the greeks was to challenge Church writers who they said can't be questioned.
Yet protestantism questioned al this too.
This is not a case of knowledge fighting the bible but rather knowledge and freedom of knowledge fighting error in human thinking.
God or Genesis was never bothered by old Gal.
I am confident that if Gal was here today he would be the loudest supporter of freedom of ideas/speech/inquiry in all public institutions or private ones where the natual world is is investigated and conclusions made. He would not want creationism EXPELLED from anywhere.
Dave Luckett · 9 January 2010
For once, Byers has stumbled over a fact. Stopped watches are right once every twelve hours, and so on.
Galileo said nothing about creationism. He did demonstrate that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe, which was enough to get him threatened with a trial for heresy by the Byerses of his day, who were then in a majority. They actually showed him the instruments, as the saying goes. If he hadn't recanted, they'd have burned him, like they did Giordani Bruno.
If Galileo were alive in Darwin's day, or now, he would have recognised and applauded following the evidence where it led, and he would recognise in Byers the spirit of the Inquisition.
DS · 9 January 2010
Just Bob · 9 January 2010
Stanton · 9 January 2010
Germanicus · 9 January 2010
It seems to me that you (R. Bayer) are missing again the point. The analogy is that Galileo was accused because he was supporting the heliocentric theory of Copernicus that was considered at that time in contrast with a “literal” interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Galileo was obliged (otherwise he has been punished as heretic like Giordano Bruno) to abjure his opinions. The time proved Galileo right and a Pope (also if some centuries later) officially apologised for it.
The Galileo’s process remains a trauma in the story of the Church, too; it burdened the relationship between religion and science for the time after. I presume that this is one of the main reasons why the Catholic Church is now very prudent in questions related to the science.
By the way, the freedom of science from theology was already affirmed in the western philosophy later during the Enlightenment (about two centuries ago). So you can understand that the re-proposition of old thesis (literal interpretation of the Bible, submission of science to theology, etc.) stinks of mould.
Germanicus · 9 January 2010
Sorry, I mean R. Byers.
Mike Elzinga · 9 January 2010
Byers should read Galileo’s letter to the Grand Dutchess Christina.
It describes pretty accurately the fundamentalist mindset we see today among the anti-evolution and anti-science crowd. Byers would find himself in that crown Galileo criticized.
Frank J · 9 January 2010
C'mon everyone, stop entertaining Robert. If you must talk to a "YEC", FL is IMO infinitely more interesting.
Steve Taylor · 9 January 2010
Its SHOULD be noted that Galilei was NOT the first telescopic observer. It has only recently been discovered that Thomas Harriot
http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1547&Itemid=2
Robert Byers · 11 January 2010
Stanton · 11 January 2010
And you miss the point that saying a person is wrong because that person's claim contradicts observed reality does not and never did equal persecution.
In order to claim similarity with Galileo Galilei, one's claims must first match with observed reality.
DS · 11 January 2010
Robert wrote:
"to you and everyone I’m not missing the point. I see the point here as a simple equation. People in power or inclination try to stop or EXPELL important ideas on things that are important beyond themselves. The Catholic church tried to stop a threat to their idea of origins. Today the establishment tries to stop creationism(s) because they are a threat to their ideas on origins and surely bigger conclusions of the order of things."
you are still missing the point the church denied reality the evidence was all that mattered you still have not learned the lesson demanding evidence is not persecution demanding evidence is not EXPELLING anyone demansing evidence is the point deal with it
Wheels · 11 January 2010
yum install Jesus · 18 January 2010
MACROEVOLUTIONISTS THINK BECAUSE THEY CAN SEE DOTS ON THE TELESCOPE MOVING BACK AND FORTH AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF JUPITER THAT JUPITER DOESN'T REVOLVE AROUND THE EARTH BUT INSTEAD REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN AND THAT THE EARTH DOES TOO--WHAT A MORONIC NON-SEQUITUR! IF THE EARTH WAS REVOLVING AROUND THE SUN WE WOULD BE THROWN OFF! WHAT A BUNCH OF MORONS!
Stanton · 18 January 2010
Can someone put a muzzle on the moron Yum?
Ichthyic · 19 January 2010
Galileo is with us and i suspect he believed in a God creation.
more delusional and irrelevant ranting from byers.
next.
Ichthyic · 19 January 2010
If Galileo were alive in Darwin's day, or now, he would have recognized and applauded following the evidence where it led, and he would recognize in Byers the spirit of the Inquisition.
the only real danger with people like Byers, is that they themselves fail to recognize it, even as they apply it.
otherwise they would be harmless idiots.
SWT · 19 January 2010
DS · 19 January 2010
Rilke's granddaughter · 19 January 2010
Byers, your problem is that "freedom of inquiry" has NEVER lead to God; it has always led to science and a lack of God.
Unfortunately, you're too closed-minded to understand that point, but it's worth making anyway: freedom of inquiry has never, ever pointed to the hand of God.
Rilke's granddaughter · 19 January 2010
And if I could learn to spell, I could someday be a great and important scientist. Like Galileo. That would be "led" to God.
Sigh.
Though I'd like to have a creationist support this claim at some point: that given a situation of "free inquiry", examination of a problem logically led to the conclusion that it had a supernatural explanation.
Stanton · 19 January 2010
stevaroni · 19 January 2010