Talk:Galileo Galilei

Does my memory fail me - I thought that solar-centrism was scientifically around before G G. SJG^sjg 03:15, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Sure, the theoretical basis was laid by Copernicus in the first half of the 16th century, and he in turn built on ideas by a couple of other late medieval natural philosophers. Galilei's importance is rather in presenting the first scientific evidence for the Copernican model, through his telescope observations of Jupiter. Also, it's not entirely correct as the article says that he ended belief in geocentrism, since the modified geocentric system proposed by Tycho Brahe was around for about another century, until... sometime in the first half of the 18th century, as I recall. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 06:35, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

My understanding is that he stood out for being willing to stand up for heliocentrism. It certainly wasn't his idea. PoorEd 22:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The concept that the Earth revolves around the Sun is Copernican. Galileo was a prominent astronomer who risked his life and career by supporting the Copernican model of the solar system. Bizarro Ed^{Alternate Realities} 13:41, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

The line at the bottom of the introductory section says that the religious groups of G G's day wouldn't look through the telescopes. This is patent Bullshit. They did. Also, The reason why he was put under investigation was because he was a prick who made enemies. The pope of the time commissioned a debate, similar to Republic, but G G took the opportunity to make the pope out as a moron who could only quote from Aristotle. Unless my textbooks have also been bullshiting me. ^{— Unsigned, by: 65.183.136.128 / talk / contribs}

Bad edits

Human please don't edit when you've been drinking or when you've got a Hangover, there is a risk that you could remove good material from the wiki. Kirk Johnson (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Crank Idolisation?

Could we put in a section about how cranks love to use Galileo as a cheap argument? In debates, I often encounter people who support a minority theory that is not accommodated by the scientific consensus. When asked why this is their theory is so unpopular, that person will inevitably say "Galileo was that one guy who opposed the consensus, and he was right!" Usually, they go on to claim "mainstream scientists" are all about going with the flow and scrounging for tenure. Perhaps this article could do with a section to describe this tendency to use the "Galileo gambit", and explain its various glaring flaws. 13:44, 1 December 2011 (GMT)^{— Unsigned, by: 83.100.201.126 / talk / contribs}

Galileo gambit Тy^talk 13:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is just as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." - Cardinal Bellarmino

I agree CedricDoodlehopper (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Bellarmino's quote

I have made my reads about Galileo and I never found anything like "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is just as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." —Cardinal Bellarmino. See similar doubts at http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=1379.0;wap2 . In fact, the cardinal understood better than Galileo that at the time thought a possibility there was no demonstration of geomobility... I suggest you some atheist Tim O'Neill, Renaissance Mathematicus or The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown.

Replaced it with a genuine quote. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit to the "conservative Christians declined" to look scentence

the current sentence reads:

When invited to verify his findings by looking through his telescope, conservative Christians declined to do so.[citation needed] Some things never change.

This this web page:

https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/refusing-to-look/

Covers covers how this is a common myth.

I propose we reword it as such:

It is a common myth that conservative Christians of the day declined to look through his telescope.

with the above web page used as a reference or remove the sentence all together.Jkevo (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

copernican Connivance and the Council of trent

Urg.-- I was checking to see if it should read "heliocentric system as a mathematical convenience" or "heliocentric system as a mathematical connivance" because I really like the sound of 'Mathematical Connivance' and really want a reason to revert it back to that -- But while checking on that I'm running into a problem finding info about this sentence "But contrary to what one could expect, the Council of Trent accepted Copernicus' heliocentric system as a mathematical convenience, because it made calendar reform far easier then a geocentric system did." I can't find reference to what the C of Trent had to say about Copernicus. The source for the sentence is a 1995 paper-book (the book is an adaptation of a 1985 TV show) and some googling hasn't led me anywhere useful. I've found this https://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~klio/sci/cath&prot_on%20immobility.htm which is far from being a good source, saying that Copernicus was not discussed at the council. Anybody have suggestions on verifying this info without needing the paper-book? SolPyre (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)