Read Online The Forbidden Universe by Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince - Free Book Online
Authors: Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince
Tags: History, Retail, Non-Fiction, Gnostic Dementia, Fringe Science, Amazon.com, Science History, Occult History
Ads: Link
than this.
In his published works, Galileo explicitly distanced himself from certain of the esoteric arts (most specifically numerology derived from Pythagoras), which is taken by today’s commentators to indicate his modernity and rationalism. However, given what had happened to Bruno,this could equally have been simply an act of self-preservation : one specialist, Giorgio de Santillana, specifically links the disavowal of numerology to Galileo distancing himself from Bruno and his ilk. 10 And in any case, dismissing one arcane system does not necessarily mean dismissing everything esoteric. And yet on the other hand, Galileo practised astrology. It is often stated in popular histories that, although he drew up horoscopes for wealthy clients, he only did this for the money, and never actually believed in it. In fact, there’s no evidence at all that this was his attitude – it is yet another example of modern projection.
Galileo was undoubtedly a brilliant pioneering scientist who used observation and experiment to work out the laws governing physical phenomena and sought to explain them in mathematical terms. The methods he developed would inspire and shape the next generation and culminate in the genius of Isaac Newton. Both Einstein and Stephen Hawking have hailed Galileo as the father of modern science, and he has been described as ‘the world’s first celebrity scientist’ 11 – the Einstein of his day. But there are many ironies in his story and the way it has passed into history, or perhaps more precisely, legend.
The first irony is that what Galileo is best known for now – helping to establish the heliocentric theory – is actually one of the least important aspects of his work. His major contributions to science were in what we today would call the field of physics: motion, optics, acoustics and so on. In astronomy, his big innovation was to improve the telescope to the point that it was good enough for astronomical observations (although he originally thought in terms of military and maritime applications). And while the observations Galileo made with the telescope produced new evidence in favour of Copernicus, the arguments he thought proved the theory were, in fact, entirely mistaken.Galileo thought that the smoking gun was the phenomenon of the tides, arguing their ebb and flow could only be explained by the Earth’s rotation, airily dismissing Kepler’s suggestion that they were caused by the pull of the Moon. In this, Galileo was, of course, completely wrong.
In fact, his whole attitude to heliocentricity was at odds with the methodical and meticulously worked-out approach that characterized the rest of his work and which rightly justifies his status as the founding father of the modern scientific method. Einstein thought Galileo was so determined to prove Copernicus right that he was blind to the obvious problems with his argument. 12 As the Danish science historian Olaf Pedersen, speaking at a conference on the Galileo affair in Cracow in 1984, observed:
In consequence [of his acceptance of the theory] it became imperative to find convincing reasons for its being true in a physical sense, as Galileo tried to do with his somewhat unsatisfactory theory of the tides … 13
In other words, Galileo became convinced by the theory and then set out to find evidence for it – hardly a true scientific approach. He enjoyed his celebrity status and the material benefits it brought. He had a flair for self-publicity, never being one to hide his innovations and discoveries, if anything exaggerating them. But he seems to have made it his mission in life to see the theory of heliocentricity proved, while being uncharacteristically circumspect about his support for it. Although writing to Kepler as early as 1597 that he had ‘become convinced by Copernicus many years ago’, 14 publicly he was keen to be seen as much more equivocal, even evasive.
Of course, Bruno’s fate must always have been at the
In his published works, Galileo explicitly distanced himself from certain of the esoteric arts (most specifically numerology derived from Pythagoras), which is taken by today’s commentators to indicate his modernity and rationalism. However, given what had happened to Bruno,this could equally have been simply an act of self-preservation : one specialist, Giorgio de Santillana, specifically links the disavowal of numerology to Galileo distancing himself from Bruno and his ilk. 10 And in any case, dismissing one arcane system does not necessarily mean dismissing everything esoteric. And yet on the other hand, Galileo practised astrology. It is often stated in popular histories that, although he drew up horoscopes for wealthy clients, he only did this for the money, and never actually believed in it. In fact, there’s no evidence at all that this was his attitude – it is yet another example of modern projection.
Galileo was undoubtedly a brilliant pioneering scientist who used observation and experiment to work out the laws governing physical phenomena and sought to explain them in mathematical terms. The methods he developed would inspire and shape the next generation and culminate in the genius of Isaac Newton. Both Einstein and Stephen Hawking have hailed Galileo as the father of modern science, and he has been described as ‘the world’s first celebrity scientist’ 11 – the Einstein of his day. But there are many ironies in his story and the way it has passed into history, or perhaps more precisely, legend.
The first irony is that what Galileo is best known for now – helping to establish the heliocentric theory – is actually one of the least important aspects of his work. His major contributions to science were in what we today would call the field of physics: motion, optics, acoustics and so on. In astronomy, his big innovation was to improve the telescope to the point that it was good enough for astronomical observations (although he originally thought in terms of military and maritime applications). And while the observations Galileo made with the telescope produced new evidence in favour of Copernicus, the arguments he thought proved the theory were, in fact, entirely mistaken.Galileo thought that the smoking gun was the phenomenon of the tides, arguing their ebb and flow could only be explained by the Earth’s rotation, airily dismissing Kepler’s suggestion that they were caused by the pull of the Moon. In this, Galileo was, of course, completely wrong.
In fact, his whole attitude to heliocentricity was at odds with the methodical and meticulously worked-out approach that characterized the rest of his work and which rightly justifies his status as the founding father of the modern scientific method. Einstein thought Galileo was so determined to prove Copernicus right that he was blind to the obvious problems with his argument. 12 As the Danish science historian Olaf Pedersen, speaking at a conference on the Galileo affair in Cracow in 1984, observed:
In consequence [of his acceptance of the theory] it became imperative to find convincing reasons for its being true in a physical sense, as Galileo tried to do with his somewhat unsatisfactory theory of the tides … 13
In other words, Galileo became convinced by the theory and then set out to find evidence for it – hardly a true scientific approach. He enjoyed his celebrity status and the material benefits it brought. He had a flair for self-publicity, never being one to hide his innovations and discoveries, if anything exaggerating them. But he seems to have made it his mission in life to see the theory of heliocentricity proved, while being uncharacteristically circumspect about his support for it. Although writing to Kepler as early as 1597 that he had ‘become convinced by Copernicus many years ago’, 14 publicly he was keen to be seen as much more equivocal, even evasive.
Of course, Bruno’s fate must always have been at the
Similar Books
