The Age of Evidence
Perhaps no one more illustrates the stifling power against scientific progress the Church had than the life and struggles of Galileo Galilei (15 February 1564 - 8 January 1642), an Italian mathematical genius - the polymath from Pisa. Up until Galileo, the evidence for heliocentrism was mounting but was of a mathematical nature, which meant the wider public, not having the skills to decode the data could neither understand it nor readily accept any deviation from conventional wisdom. For this persistently stubborn paradigm around geo vs heliocentrism to shift it would require observational proof - something that, once furnished could not be argued against because it would not just depend on empirical evidence - which needed to be decoded - but more straightforwardly, on observational data. Observational data, while still requiring reasoning power and application of mental faculties to be understood clearly, is a much easier puzzle to put together. It's pieces fit together more naturally to reveal underlying truths, and the truth, once understood, becomes a point of no return. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it!
We have already touched on some of the struggles Galileo faced, so here we will look at the amazing discoveries he made through his science and show how they proved to be the death knell of geocentrism and its many false philosophical underpinnings including the immutability of the heavens, that all celestial objects revolve around the earth, and the existence of sunspots on the surface of the sun - something which Aristotle claimed to be impossible as it would render the sun imperfect according to the man-made rational of how early philosophers defined perfection. But, before we get to what Galileo discovered when he peered through his telescope, first, a word about the nature and usefulness of the his instrument - the telescope - itself.
The Illuminating Telescope
We are not here interested in the mechanics of how telescopes work, you can easily search for that on the internet. We want to cover two, more fundamental, aspects of its operation and usefulness. The first is that telescopes work by gathering light. All telescopes are instruments that gather light. Different telescopes are classified by how they gather light (refracting and reflecting etc.), and what type of light they gather i.e., the different frequencies of light. There are for instance, radio telescopes, x-ray telescopes, ultra-violet telescopes and so on and so on. These telescopes are just designed to engage with the different frequencies of light in the electromagnetic spectrum, of which visible light is a very tiny fraction! So telescopes are instruments for gathering and concentrating light into an image that can be studied and analyzed by humans. The second aspect has to do with extracting 'value' from the light information itself - the image: it is called "resolving power." The following article: on the Scope The Universe website defines a telescope's resolving power as: "the ability it has to separate images of the two objects that are close to one another. Certain binary stars, or two stars in one solar system, appear as a single star when viewed with our eyes; however, when observed with a telescope, the images of two stars are resolved clearly." That definition is critically important for everything that follows! Resolving power is the ability to take two things that look to be the same and clearly define them as two, separate, objects. This applies not only for the instrument itself, but to the person making use of it. In fact, so important is the resolving power of the human wielding the telescope that it can make the difference between vague observations and discoveries that lead to profound new understandings of our universe, as we shall soon see through an anecdote from very early in the telescope's existence.
The first recorded person to see the moon through the lense of a telescope was not Galileo, but an Englishman by the name of Thomas Harriot, who was also a mathematician. He had done so, a full four months before Galileo, but his observations yielded no groundbreaking announcements as his personal power of resolution was low. He merely described what he saw as "strange spottednesse" (old English spelling). Remember that Aristotle and the Church had said the moon, along with all other heavenly bodies were perfect, and this, to them, meant perfectly round. By "strange spottedness" (in current English), Mr. Harriot meant uneven and he could not explain why a suposedly perfectly smooth sphere reflected light in a way that depicted its surface as being uneven. It was Galileo who deduced that the moon, like the earth, had mountains and craters (from contact with space debris - comets and asteroids). That error was due to a lack of human - and not telescopic - resolution power! Galileo did more, though, than merely apply his mental powers to resolving the seeming contradiction: he created topographical charts, that estimated the heights of the mountains. The important takeaway from this episode early in the history of science, is not only that Galileo might have used a telescope with superior resolving power to Harriot's telescope, but that the investigator at the other end of the collected data himself, had higher mental powers to resolve the data into its constituent parts, and then draw out its meaning and significance! That truth is of vital importance in the rest of our story. Now back to Galileo's amazing discoveries and their paradigm shifting impact.
a hitchiker's guide to the Universe
The Meaning of the Four Satellites of Jupiter
In early 1610, Galileo was intensely occupied with observing the heavens through his recently improved telescope. On the night of 7 January, he saw, in a straight line close to Jupiter, what he described as: "three fixed stars, totally invisible by their smallness." When he soon saw the 'stars' moving and one of them disappearing he rightly concluded, that they were not stars at all, but had to be Jupiter's moons and the disappeared one, did not in fact disappear but must be hidden behind Jupiter in its regular orbit. By the 13th of January he had discovered a fourth. Within a week he had discovered Jupiter's four largest moons! This discovery would have far reaching effects. In the below illustration we depict the discovery from a perspective behind Jupiter, so we can focus on the dynamics of Jupiter having four moons. The aim of the illustration is only to show that as per Galileo's observations, Jupiter had four satellites that orbited it. The orientation of those orbits, or the relative sizes of those moons to each other, or Jupiter, is irrelevant to our discussion, and therefore not factored in to our illustration. Furthermore, the orbits of the planets themselves, and the celestial sphere has been stopped in order to keep a consistent perspective between the earth and Jupiter. As always you can zoom in and out and move the illustration around all three axes - x, y, and z - to get a clearer understanding, if necessary.
EXPLANATORY NOTE:
I cannot tell you how monumental the discovery you are looking at was in Galileo's time. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. That is why I have shown it from the perspective of Jupiter and the four moons (it has more), that Galileo discovered. This was the biggest jolt to his heliocentric theory, and simultaneously the biggest blow to the narrative of false science and false religion. No longer could they claim all objects revolved around the Earth! With that door open. The topic of whether the Sun itself, revolved around the Earth, became an urgent topic - that required an urgent, evidence-backed answer. Galileo was ready.
The Aristotelian worldview and Church doctrine which was based on it held that nothing of the sort could be possible as all celestial bodies orbited exclusively around the earth. Here, for the first time was observational data and empirical evidence to the contrary! This first evidentiary crack was proof that not all heavenly bodies revolved around the earth, but, as yet, it was still far from proving that the earth was not the center of the universe! Enter Venus.
Conventional wisdom, also held, as you will remember: that the earth must be stationary, since a moving earth would leave the moon behind. Moreover, this view assumed, the only reason humans don't themselves, fall off from the surface of the earth is due to it being stationary. Were the earth to move, they felt, then all objects on the surface of the earth would be disturbed and fall off from its surface. Hence, the existence of the four moons of Jupiter and the fact that they followed Jupiter in its orbit, was an Evidence Profile, proving that mobile heavenly structures could move through space, even if they had satellites, like moons. This realization, was another blow for the geocentric model, and its insistence on the immobility of the earth due to these very same - now falsified - reasons!
With love from Venus
The Full Phases of Venus: An EVIDENCE PROFILE for heliocentricity
All celestial objects in our solar system receive a constant stream of sunlight from our local star. Whether we are speaking of the moon, the earth, or any of the other planets and their satellites, the sun continually shines on all celestial bodies at all times (with the obvious exception of eclipses, when another heavenly body is blocking the sun's rays). This means that all heavenly bodies also have phases, as in the phases of the moon. To understand why this is important to our story, first, please watch the excellent video entitled: Moon Phases Demonstration, from the YouTube channel: National Science Teaching Association. The phases and how they come about are expertly explained by the host, Emily Morgan. It will help you to understand the basics of how the different phases of the closest celestial object to us, the moon, are generated by its position relative to the earth, and of course, to the sun itself.
In Figure 14 to the left, we have the earth at the center and the moon revolving around it in its orbit - the dotted line. You will notice that both the earth and the moon are half bright and half dark at all times. This is because all spherical heavenly bodies orbiting a star like our sun will always have light on 50% of their surface area. How then do we get the phases of the moon? That is what the outer images of the moon labeled with names of its phases like "first quarter" and "waxing gibbous" are meant to represent. They represent the effect that we see from the earth. Take for instance, the top left phase called a "waxing gibbous." Here the moon still has 50% of its surface lit by the Sun and 50% in darkness (as shown by the inner circle on the dotted line), but because of its angle as seen from the earth, the overall effect is a moonphase known as "waxing gibbous." So, the phases of the moon occur because of the position of the moon in the sky relative to the earth and the Sun. Though, it always has 50% light, and 50% darkness covering its surface, but depending, on the angle that that light is reflected to the earth from, we see either all of the lit surface - a full moon; or if the moon is between the Sun and the earth, then we see none of the lit side and all of the dark half, in which case we have a new moon. Now, let us explain some key dynamics about the terms for moon phases. The first thing is that the naming convention for the phases of the moon, always is in reference to the light, and never in reference to the darkness! So if we speak of a crescent moon, we mean the light, is forming a crescent shape, as in the figures at roughly 2 and 5 o'clock on the right side of our illustration, which depict the waxing and waning crescent moon phases respectively. The remainder of the half of the moon we see under those conditions, is a shape called a "gibbous." However, again, when we speak of a gibbous moon we are talking of when the light forms that shape, and not the darkness: compare the names of the circles at roughly 10 and 7 o'clock on the left side of the illustration versus 2 and 5 o'clock as previously discussed. Lastly, we have waxing and waning phases. What do those words signify? To "wane,"" is decrease or get smaller. The moon goes through two intermediate stages between its fully dark (new moon), and its fully light (full moon) phases - as seen from the earth. When the moon changes positions in the sky from a full moon and we gradually see less and less of its lit side, we describe the gibbous and crescent phases it goes through as waning! Because the light is getting less and less. The outer image at 7 o'clock represents a waning gibbous, because the next step from there is counter clockwise and is called the "last quater." Clearly there is less light in the last quarter than the was in the waning gibbous, illustrating the use of the term "waning." Similarly,the 5 o'clock circle has even less light and is called a waning crescent. It waning because the light keeps getting less and less, and it's a crescent shape, because the light is in the shape of a crescent! The reverse is true when the moon is going from showing us its fully dark side to showing us its fully light side. Then the crescent phase is called a waxing crescent, and the gibbous phase in known as the waxing gibbous, as in the circles at 2 and 10 o'clock respectively. Again, this is because in this instance, we, from the earth, are seeing more and more of the half portion of the moon which is fully lit by the Sun.
Having understood how the phases of the moon come about, we can now delve deeper in our understanding of the mechanics of the universe. After confirming that not all bodies revolved around the earth, the central issue still unsettled in the early 1600's was geocentricity vs heliocentricity. Both of these competing models of the universe predicted phases of Venus and, importantly, their respective phase predictions - are incompatible. So whichever model agreed with observational data would be proven correct and the other, falsified! Here are the two competing phase predictions. First we define the phases of the geocentric, earth-centered model. The effect of Ptolemy's workaround to solve for why Venus was always seen in close proximity to the sun was the aforementioned epicycles. An quick mental picture might help us fully grasp how that model worked. The solar system's network of planets is classified in two categories: inferior and superior planets according to their relative position to earth. Planets that fall inside earth's orbit are known as "inferior;" and planets that are farther out from the sun than our own orbit are called "superior" planets. The difference visually can be likened to a scene at the olympics. Think of yourself as sitting in the stands watching a long distance race. As the athletes complete lap after lap you only have to swivel your head slightly from left to right to see all the action. That is what the earth's view of all planets with inferior orbits looks like. However, with superior planets, the dynamics are different. Some events (like the high jump, javelin, shotput etc.) take place on the field inside the track whilst track events are taking place. The earth's view of planets with superior orbits is like that. As if we were on the field watching the same long distance running contest on the track. Now instead of having all the action taking place in front of us, we have to turn to view the athletes on the track. 360 degrees if we are to see them complete a whole lap.
What everyone agreed on regardless of which model of the universe they supported was that the orbit of Venus lay between the earth and the sun, hence our view of the phases of Venus would be like watching the long distance race from the stands and not from the field. Let's define the phases geocentricity predicted. We will consider only four positions in its orbit: six and twelve o'clock; and three and nine o'clock. Both six and twelve o'clock, would be a new Venus, as Venus would be in a straight line between the earth and the sun. It would be closest to earth at six o'clock and farthest at twelve. The sun being on the far side, its rays would shine on the half of Venus that was out of sight for observers on earth, hence at both these positions, the heliocentric model predicted a new Venus.
Secondly, we consider what the heliocentric model predicts for exactly the same positions! Everyone agreed that Venus completed its orbit faster than the earth: their orbits are not synchronized. Since Venus and the earth are both orbiting the sun in this scenario, there are times when the faster traveling Venus is on the opposite side of the sun relative to the earth in a straight line. Those are the basics; again we consider the phases at six and twelve o'clock. Venus being closest to earth at six o'clock and farthest at twelve. In this case being at twelve o'clock also means Venus is on the other side of the sun in a straight line. The alignment of the three heavenly bodies is then: Venus, the sun, and the earth. Because the half of Venus we see is illuminated by sunlight in this scenario, we get a full Venus at twelve o'clock and a new Venus at six o'clock!
EXPLANATORY NOTE:
DEFERENTS & EPICYCLES: It is important to understand that Illustration 7 above is only of one part of the supposed geocentric dynamics of Venus: the epicycle. The second part of the story is called a "deferent" orbit, and describes the larger orbit that Venus would travel on as it orbited around the earth. The deferent, then, was the larger orbit upon which the smaller epicycle was itself traveling on. As Carlie Procell from USA Today put it in an article published 19 April, 2023: "The Ptolemaic model depicted planets moving around Earth in a big circle, known as a deferent, then going around a smaller circle while retrograding, called an epicycle. From this perspective, both Venus and the Sun are orbiting around the earth. On the other hand, the view you see when you move the red slider to the left, shows the correct understanding of he orbit of Venus around the Sun. In this model of our solar system: through simple motion, we see all the phases of Venus, as both Venus and the Earth orbit the Sun.
EXPLANATORY NOTE:
We take Illustration 7 and Figure 15 together. You must play around with Illustration 7 and slide right to see the geocentric view of the universe/solar system. Notice that all the phases there merely give you different kinds of crescent shapes. It is not possible in this scenario where the heavenly object does not orbit around the Sun to get a full phase - either a full Venus (in this case), or more normally, a full moon! Thus, the final nail in the coffin came in the form of Galileo observing a full Venus 1st February 1611. For that is the Evidence Profile of only one thing: a heavenly bodies orbit - around the Sun! Once the data is in, you cannot fudge the results!
The difference, then between the geocentric and heliocentric models is that geocentrism predicts two new Venus' at six and twelve o'clock and the heliocentric model predicts a new Venus at six o'clock, but a full Venus at twelve o'clock. I don't have to tell you - a person living in 2022 - what the evidence meant. After all, now, even flat-earthers believe in heliocentricity. The combination of a solid theory, empirical evidence, AND observational data put the matter beyond all doubt! This is always the case: both then, now, and for all eternity! The presence and intersection of all three of these factors is the definition of the practice of science. Or, put another way, the definition of: the scientific method.
The Two Approaches to Valid Scientific Theories
Understanding one more variable is required for a proper understanding of Science, and it swings like a pendulum between to extremes depending on who is conducting the science. For the three above mentioned factors to coincide, one of two approaches is required: for the experimenter to either fit empirical evidence to an already formulated theory, or for empirical evidence that has painstakenly been gathered through well designed experiments, to be formalized into a cohesive narrative, through a new Theory! But there is yet another level: when a human is conducting the science, they employ experimental theory; when God, the Creator is conducting the science, yes God conducts science, he employs revelation of theory, for in such a case Jehovah's theory is not a guess - educated or otherwise - about what may be, but instead a declaration of what he has already brought into existence! (Ps 115:3; Isa 46:10; Ge 1:21;2:1; Re 4:11) As surprising as it may be to you: God conducts science, and as we will soon see, the Creator is thee Master Scientist!
Pulverized into the Dust
The proof of the phases of Venus was the final nail in the geocentric coffin. Thereafter, all mounting evidence no longer served the purpose of deciding which theory and model was correct, but just added to the growing knowledge base of humanity about the true nature of reality. This quest will never end! It is a form of novelty that God has built into the universe so as to keep mankind forever entertained - and in awe.
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has even put eternity in their heart; yet mankind will never find out the work that the true God has made from start to finish.Ec 3:11
The diversity of the phenomena of nature is so great, and the treasures hidden in the heavens so rich, precisely in order that the human mind shall never be lacking in fresh nourishment." Johannes Kepler
One last indignity to the Aristotelian and Church world model was Galileo's discovery of sunspots. These, like the variations on the surface of the moon were proof against the unfounded belief in the immutability of the heavens. They were an added weight of evidence that further crushed and pulverized heliocentrism into the dustbin of scientific nonsense. You might think such assessment harsh, but will soon learn why it is not! As outlined at the beginning of this section, the early seventeenth century was a hotbed of activity with the invention and quickly developing accuracy of telescopes. This led to many independent, contemporaneous discoveries, and so it was with sunspots. Francesco Sizzi was another contemporary of Galileo who similarly observed sunspots during 1612-1613. Around that same time, Chritsoph Scheiner also discovered and correctly deduced the relevance of sunspots to the theory of heliocentrism. However he and Galileo were both beat to the punch by Johannes Fabricius who observed and published his findings on sunspots before either man.
What Defines Scientific Authority?
These anecdotes serve to show how the invention of the telescope ushered in a tipping point for the falsification of falsehoods - both scientific and theological. Heliocentrism's time had come, and once the dominoes started falling, no one could stem the tide - try as the Church might! False scientists were the first to fold, unable to argue against the simpler explanations and clearer understandings of phenomena that were quickly becoming conventional wisdom. The party with the most to lose is always the slowest to admit defeat. It took the Church until 1758 to remove its ban on heliocentric models of the universe! What hubris! Which raises the question: why did the Catholic Church feel it had any authority to ban knowledge? They don't even understand Christ! They think he is God. Why would they insert themselves into discussions of which they knew nothing? The truth is their authority, was assumed, and not earned. This bold-faced dogmatism on matters one is ignorant about, perfectly reflected the dogmatic statements of the early philosophers. They made sweeping statements about the nature of the universe, without any evidence to back them up. This is the appeal of ethers: the universal blank canvass, onto which philosophers can project the evidence-free inventions of their imaginations. What was needed was a more robust methodology, that would guide anyone, in a sincere quest for scientific truth. What was needed, was a well defined "scientific method." Only when theory is based on evidence; passes experiment; and agrees with observational data, is scientific authority established - and mankind's catalogue of knowledge expanded!
The next group of men, we are going to focus on are from all different ages of human history. They are not scientists who discovered anything, but thinkers who, in one way or another, helped shape how we think about science and how it is practiced. As such, our discussion of them, fits neatly into the unfolding principles that gird our story, and none is more appropriate than the separating of science fact, from the far less robust 'empty hypothesizing' - based as it is, on empty speculation free of experiment, that is - science fiction.