W. Sungenis/Palm on Anfossi-Settele and Bruno, part IV of V

Proemium : With Sungenis on Settele-Anfossi Affair · W. Sungenis/Palm on Anfossi-Settele and Bruno : part I of V · part II of V · part III of V · part IV of V · part V of V

I

Me to Sungenis and Palm

15/04/15 à 10h26

Answering II of Sungenis 2

There was not just a local motion discussion, but also a local centre discussion. That local centre discussion means local centre of the whole world, i e the entire universe.

Condemned sentence 1: "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture."

This quote is from this page:

Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo (June 22, 1633)
Famous Trials
by Douglas O. Linder (2015)
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

Now, the words "center of the world" very clearly mean centre of the entire universe. BOTH sides were agreeing, as I do also, that fixed stars were a thin sphaeric shell around that centre.

That "sun is one star among many, each star a sun as centre of its world, and having planets, and each world having its own world soul and God being that of our world, but not for instance the world of Sirius" would be a very fair résumé of what Giordano Bruno was burned on the stake for in 1600.

And if you take away the part of world soul and of God being that of our world only, and rephrase terminology to make other stars centres not of "worlds" but only of "solar systems", this idea of Bruno's was exactly what Settele was promoting in 1820.

So, neither can the term "local motion" be used to deny the directly condemned sentence in 1633 was about Sun as centre of the entire universe, nor the fact that only movements involving the scale Sun and Earth within fixed stars, since it was in 1633 already a SETTLED (Settele will excuse the pun!) question that calling other stars other worlds was part of Bruno's condemned sentences.

Now, the exact wording of the condemnation against Bruno in 1600 is a bit less possible to get across even these days, after the documents have been returned from France to Vatican.

Even the exact wording of the Galileo case may be somewhat difficult to get across, I give this quote, but on a video I have heard Sungenis insert with emphasis the phrase "as is seen". Which would clearly imply necessity of sun having, not just any motion, but the precise one we see not being illusory.

Now, the cosmology discussed in 1820, unlike the very much more recent one we have since 1930 (Shapley and Kapteyn contributed to it) had each star, thus also the Sun, stand still. Eternally or since creation equidistant in a presumably endless cosmos.

The "endless cosmos" part is also part of Giordano Bruno's ideas, and I also do not know if it was condemned separately or only as part of a more general and more clearly blasphemous thesis of his or even not at all. But I think it likely it was condemned, because it gives "infinity", which is an attribute of God, to the world and also because an endless cosmos would demote "edge of the world" from being the Heaven where Seraphim adore God and where Blessed souls go and where the resurrected bodies of the Blessed will be along with the already glorious bodies of at least Our Lord and Our Lady.

Therefore, as likely as not, in 1616 and 1633 EVERYONE agreed as on a moral certainty, at least of Christian doctrine, that fixed stars or stellatum were a pretty thin layer, so that NO ONE risked falling under the shadow of the condemnation of 1600 against the non-recanting and executed Giordano Bruno.

The condemnations against Bruno were probably also missing in 1820, which is probably why even Anfossi did not dare to refer to them.

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Me to Sungenis and Palm

15/04/15 à 15h02

Expanding on previous reply, including on Bruno

Quote 1592 – 1600 From the Trial to the Stake: Giordano's trial lasted almost eight years. The Inquisition initially accused him for his anti-dogmatic ideals, which had already cost him his Dominican habit. As an anti-Trinitarian, the philosopher rejected the virginity of Mary and transubstantiation. His reflections in terms of cosmology, his rejection of geocentrism and his attraction for magic gradually gave rise to an impressive list of accusations. In the end, it was the whole of his freethinking that was challenged. In February 1593, Bruno was incarcerated in the prisons of the Holy Office. The trial dragged on for another two years before the decision was taken to conduct an in-depth study of his works, which were censured and subsequently burned at St Peter's Square. From his cell, Bruno finished writing a statement for his defence and presented his final plea on 20 December 1594 before the Holy Office. The trial was interrupted for six months, during which time Bruno continued to actively defend his theory on infinite worlds, sometimes stating that he was ready to recant, and at other times declaring that he was faithful to his ideas. Cardinal Bellarmin therefore drew up a list of the theories deemed to be heretical, over which Bruno again hesitated before categorically refusing to renounce his doctrine: The eight propositions that the philosopher refused to renounce were as follows:

1 - The statement of "two real and eternal principles of existence: the soul of the world and the original matter from which beings are derived".

2 - The doctrine of the infinite universe and infinite worlds in conflict with the idea of Creation: "He who denies the infinite effect denies the infinite power".

3 - The idea that every reality resides in the eternal and infinite soul of the world, including the body: "There is no reality that is not accompanied by a spirit and an intelligence".

4 - The argument according to which "there is no transformation in the substance", since the substance is eternal and generates nothing, but transforms.

5 - The idea of terrestrial movement, which according to Bruno, did not oppose the Holy Scriptures, which were popularised for the faithful and did not apply to scientists.

6 - The designation of stars as "messengers and interpreters of the ways of God".

7 - The allocation of a "both sensory and intellectual" soul to earth.

8 - The opposition to the doctrine of St Thomas on the soul, the spiritual reality held captive in the body and not considered as the form of the human body.

End of quote.

Source:

The Trials of Giordano Bruno: 1592 & 1600
Selected Links and Bibliography
by Lawrence MacLachlan
Famous Trials
by Douglas O. Linder (2015)
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/brunolinks.html

Both 1600, and 1687 (Principia), and most times by progressive astronomers and astronomical philosophers between Kant and very recent ones, the Heliocentric idea involved "infinite worlds" in the sense of an "infinite number of solar systems".

Newton and more recent ones would not have termed these "worlds". But they would have substantially repeated the meaning Bruno gave this term.

And in Newtonism it becomes kind of inevitable, at least until it is replaced by Big Bang (which is also a very recent thought, far more recent than the Anfossi-Settele affair).

How so?

Suppose sun and planets is all there is, no problem (in the Newton theory, I'll be back on it!) as long as centrifugal force of planets keep them out of the sun. Of course, we know this is not the case. Even in Galileo's one sheet spheric shell of fixed stars, as opposed to this idea, which coincides on this point with Classic Geocentrism, the Newtonian Heliocentrism would imply stars would be moving too slowly to stay out of the sun.

Suppose on the other hand that Sun were surrounded by six stars at 60° angle from each other and all same distance from Sun. Now, in such a case, gravitation would sooner or later add up to them getting an impulse to crash into the sun. But hold it: we get a few stars outside those, and therefore the six stars closest to sun won't crash into it, since also attracted by stars outside themselves. So, how about the twelve stars outside those? And so on. And same for three dimensions and not just plane. Therefore, a universe functioning on Newton's terms would need to be either an infinite universe of an infinite number of stars and solar systems OR expanding, so as to provide, in absense of circular motion, even so a centrifugal force.

And up to Lemaître "infinite" was more in vogue than "expanding".

This Bruno-ish idea is then what Settele and Olivieri considered sufficiently different from the exact system of Galileo to not fall under the condemnation of 1633.

Now, I think you may both guess that as I am not a Bruno fan, I am very much NOT a fan of modern cosmology either.

Btw, one argument I saw attributed to Bruno for the infinite universe was clearly borrowed from Flat Earth Geography, despite this being already refuted by da Gama. Chesterton gave the real and round Earth answer to that problem in Manalive : if you travel far enough, you will NOT see an infinity of new horizons, you will rather come back to see the same horizon you started out from.

Chesterton-Bruno 1:0.

Hans Georg Lundahl

III

Sungenis to me, cc Palm

15/04/15 à 16h15

Re: Answering I of 2 by Sungenis

It wouldn't make it any better for Kepler if it was just heliocentrism. It would make it worse, since it would mean that NO model of heliocentrism would be allowed, elliptical or no elliptical orbits.

If just elliptical orbits were banned, then Kepler could have come up with a heliocentric model without elliptical orbits (like Ptolemy's Equant, which did the same thing as Kepler's elliptical orbits).

Riccioli put elliptical orbits into his Tychonian model and it worked just like Kepler's model, and he remained a devoted geocentrist. The Church allowed that without any comment to Riccioli. So it wasn't elliptical orbits, per se, that was the problem, but heliocentrism, which, as I have consistently maintained, was the ONLY issue on the table, that is, whether the sun went around the earth or the earth went around the sun.

The point in fact remains, however, that Kepler's Epitome, which taught heliocentrism with elliptical orbits, was put on the Index, so the question is rather moot.

We also now know that putting the planets in elliptical orbits DOES NOT solve the problem of planetary orbits. They are simply too complicated to be solved by mere ellipses. Saturn is the worst. Putting it in a strict elliptical orbit results in it being off by many degrees every year. Mars is also complicated, because it is tilted 7 degrees off the ecliptic plane. Every planet has a problem, and none of them follow strict elliptical orbits. All in all, elliptical orbits are only approximations, not scientific fact.

Hence, this makes Olivieri's thesis all the more suspect, since he was motivated to legitimize heliocentrism by claiming that elliptical orbits were the final solution. They weren't. He was just looking for some excuse to help the Church save face in front of the world, much like it does today.

IV

Sungenis to me, cc Palm

15/04/15 à 16h51

Re: Answering II of Sungenis 2

In a message dated 4/15/2015 4:26:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hgl@voila.fr writes:

[Dialogue time!]

HGL

There was not just a local motion discussion, but also a local centre discussion. That local centre discussion means local centre of the whole world, i e the entire universe.

RS:

I have no problem with that.

HGL

Condemned sentence 1: "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture."

This quote is from this page:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

[Link given clickable above]

Now, the words "center of the world" very clearly mean centre of the entire universe. BOTH sides were agreeing, as I do also, that fixed stars were a thin sphaeric shell around that centre.

RS:

Granted. But the only reason Sentence 1 said that one could not say the Sun is the center of the world is that the Church didn't want anyone saying that the Sun was motionless, since that would mean the Earth would have to revolve around it. There was no thought about "other worlds" or about whether the Sun could move with respect to the galaxy nor anything of the sort. The only issue on the table was whether the sun went around the earth or the earth went around the sun. We know this from all the discussions that went on prior to the decrees being issued, both in 1616 and 1633. This needn't be very complicated at all.

RS:

One more thing. Galileo was convicted of being "vehemently suspect of heresy." In order to be so convicted, there had to be a formal and established doctrine of heresy concerning what he was convicted of. In other words, he could not be convicted of being suspect of heresy if there were no heresy already established that he could be convicted of, otherwise he would be falsely convicted. And this is precisely why the 1633 sentence says that the heresy was "declared and defined" for all to know, especially Galileo, BEFORE he was convicted.

Quote by RS:

“And whereas a book appeared here recently, printed last year at Florence, the title of which shows that you were the author, this title being: “Dialogue of Galileo Galilei on the Great World Systems: Ptolemy and Copernicus”; and whereas the Holy Congregation was afterwards informed that through the publication of the said book the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun was daily gaining ground, the said book was taken into careful consideration, and in it there was discovered a patent violation of the aforesaid injunction that had been imposed upon you, for in this book you have defended the said opinion previously condemned and to your face declared to be so, although in the said book you strive by various devices to produce the impression that you leave it undecided, and in express terms probable: which, however, is a most grievous error, as an opinion can in no wise be probable which has been declared and defined to be contrary to divine Scripture.”[1]

Footnote to Quote by RS:

[1] “non potendo in niun modo esser probabile un’opinione dichiarata e difinita per contraria alla Scrittura divina” (Le Opera di Galileo Galilei, vol. 5, pp. 335-336, translated by Finocchiaro, cited in Galileo: For Copernicanism, pp. 201-202).

HGL

That "sun is one star among many, each star a sun as centre of its world, and having planets, and each world having its own world soul and God being that of our world, but not for instance the world of Sirius" would be a very fair résumé of what Giordano Bruno was burned on the stake for in 1600.

RS:

Granted

HGL

And if you take away the part of world soul and of God being that of our world only, and rephrase terminology to make other stars centres not of "worlds" but only of "solar systems", this idea of Bruno's was exactly what Settele was promoting in 1820.

RS:

Perhaps

HGL

So, neither can the term "local motion" be used to deny the directly condemned sentence in 1633 was about Sun as centre of the entire universe, nor the fact that only movements involving the scale Sun and Earth within fixed stars, since it was in 1633 already a SETTLED (Settele will excuse the pun!) question that calling other stars other worlds was part of Bruno's condemned sentences.

RS:

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. All I can say at this point is that the insertion of "local motion" in the sentence, "The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion" is to curtail those who were saying that if the Sun, if it was in the center, would have no motion, and thus it couldn't revolve around the Earth. If the sun is not in the center of the world and has motion, then obviously it can revolve around the motionless earth. There was nothing else discussed. So all this talk from Palm about the "new astronomy" being more involved than the old astronomy is just a red herring.

HGL

Now, the exact wording of the condemnation against Bruno in 1600 is a bit less possible to get across even these days, after the documents have been returned from France to Vatican.

Even the exact wording of the Galileo case may be somewhat difficult to get across, I give this quote, but on a video I have heard Sungenis insert with emphasis the phrase "as is seen". Which would clearly imply necessity of sun having, not just any motion, but the precise one we see not being illusory.

Now, the cosmology discussed in 1820, unlike the very much more recent one we have since 1930 (Shapley and Kapteyn contributed to it) had each star, thus also the Sun, stand still. Eternally or since creation equidistant in a presumably endless cosmos.

The "endless cosmos" part is also part of Giordano Bruno's ideas, and I also do not know if it was condemned separately or only as part of a more general and more clearly blasphemous thesis of his or even not at all. But I think it likely it was condemned, because it gives "infinity", which is an attribute of God, to the world and also because an endless cosmos would demote "edge of the world" from being the Heaven where Seraphim adore God and where Blessed souls go and where the resurrected bodies of the Blessed will be along with the already glorious bodies of at least Our Lord and Our Lady.

Therefore, as likely as not, in 1616 and 1633 EVERYONE agreed as on a moral certainty, at least of Christian doctrine, that fixed stars or stellatum were a pretty thin layer, so that NO ONE risked falling under the shadow of the condemnation of 1600 against the non-recanting and executed Giordano Bruno.

The condemnations against Bruno were probably also missing in 1820, which is probably why even Anfossi did not dare to refer to them.

Hans Georg Lundahl

RS:

As far as I understand the Bruno case, he was condemned for denying the soteriology of the Church more than his ideas of cosmology, and the cosmological ideas were condemned because they infringed on the soteriology (e.g., that if there were beings on other worlds they would need a savior also).