Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler and the Royal Society

Just because Lloyd J and Michinson J, The Book of General Ignorance, Faber & Faber, 2006 and The Schiller Institute, Venice’s War Against Western Civilization, Summer 1995 issue of FIDELIO Magazine are sources which can be challenged on various points, does not mean that certain other points they make do not hold up, particularly when they allude to the same process.

One contention below is that Galileo, whilst not actually a charlatan or quack, was certainly promoted for political reasons extant today and this is the central point, plus his scientific brain was not of the same order as, for example, Kepler.

Most well-read people are aware that there is mistaken knowledge in many fields which has become the accepted version and even knowledge based on disinformation.

The BGI [above] points to one of these:

Aristarchus of Samos, born c 310 BC, suggested the earth and planets travelled around the sun, plus he calculated the relative distances of Earth, Moon and Sun and worked out that the heavens were not a celestial sphere but a universe of almost infinite size.

He studied at the Lyceum at Alexandria and was known primarily as a mathematician. He also invented a hemispherical sundial. He was later mentioned by the Roman architect Vitruvius as a man who was “knowledgeable across all branches of science”.

Only one of his works survives: On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and the Moon. It doesn’t mention his sun-centred theory but a single remark in one of Archimede’s texts does, only to disagree with it.

Copernicus was certainly aware of Aristarchus because he credits him in the MS of his On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. However, when the book was published in 1514, all reference to Aristarchus had been removed.

Similarly, Einstein was preceded on relativity by Galileo himself:

The theory of relativity was stated by Galileo in his Dialogue concerning the World’s Two Chief Systems, 1632.

An interesting aside here was:

The Catholic Church rounded smartly on Galileo but he did not rot in a rat-infested cell for his principles. He began his sentence in the luxurious home of the Archbishop of Sienna before being taken back to a comfortable house arrest in his villa near Florence.

Why such preferential treatment for a supposed heretic? And was he the vast intellect of popular imagination?

He was perfectly capable of making mistakes. His favourite argument for a moving earth was that this causes the tides. This argument was refuted by eyewitness testimony of seafarers who pointed out that there were, in fact, two tides a day. Galileo refused to accept it.

Why? Why would a supposed scientific brain refuse to accept something so easily verified by basic observation? It needs to be pointed out that BGI has no political axe to grind, unlike Schiller below and thus it’s worthy of note that not only was he accident prone but he was also capable of tenaciously hanging onto exploded ideas which fitted the narrative and rejecting facts which didn’t.

Years ago, I made reference to a Perry Mason novel in which there’s a character, an investigating officer named Sergeant Holcombe who has created a narrative as to a young woman’s guilt in a murder.

Perry Mason comes up with a counter-narrative which was derived from the facts, awkward though they were. The dialogue went like this:

Perry Mason, advocate, had just finished pointing out an anomaly in Sergeant Holcombe’s evidence in a murder trial and now asked, ‘Does that seem logical to you?’

Sergeant Holcombe hesitated a moment, then said, ‘Well, that’s one of those little things. That doesn’t cut so much ice. Lots of times you’ll find little things which are more or less inconsistent with the general interpretation of evidence.’

‘I see,’ Mason said. ‘And when you encounter such little things, what do you do, Sergeant?’

‘You just ignore ’em,’ said Holcombe.

‘And how many such things have you ignored, Sergeant, in reaching your [current] conclusion?’

The Schiller text below puts Galileo’s anomalies in perspective. In that text, certain “scientists” were chosen for promotion because of the direction of their beliefs at that political juncture in the west, particularly as they would not buck the narrative.

Scientus, in Galileo’s Battle for the Heavens, 2010, has this:

There was another, more pragmatic criticism: the Copernican model of planetary motion did not seem to work better than the geocentric Ptolemaic model. It is often forgotten that it was Kepler who made the Copernican model work, and Galileo knew of his work and rejected it.

We now know, using computer analysis and modern statistical techniques, that the original Copernican model was approximately as accurate as the Ptolemaic but performed worse for some planets. Galileo and Copernicus used perfect circles to model planetary motion. This would prevent their models from ever becoming much better than the geocentric model.

Where one scientist ignores another, sometimes in favour of a third , is worth pursuing, if only to see who was paying whom and with what desired result? Scientus continues:

Biographies such as Galileo’s Battle for the Heavens commonly portray Galileo relationship with his contemporaries as a lone star in an otherwise dark sky. Discounting Galileo’s contemporaries distorts the discussion of both church and science. Galileo had many important contemporaries including Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Gassendi and Mersenne.

A timeline of science contemporary with Galileo is found at Galileo’s Contemporaries. After Galileo’s death, when Newton took science the next giant step forward, it was Kepler’s work that he used as the anchor for his greatest work (the Principia Mathematica). Newton’s philosophy of science was also more influenced by the priest-scientist Gassendi than by Galileo.

Galilean biographies rarely mention Kepler. In the case of Galileo’s Battle for the Heavens this distortion reached extremes. Like many Galileo discussions, it presents Giordano Bruno as an important scientific figure, mentioning him 7 times, and completely discounts Kepler’s contributions, not mentioning him once. Bruno did not contribute a single advance in fact or theory to the science of the day.

Now, whilst true that Newton did base work on Kepler, he himself enjoyed the same patronage as Galileo. The whole history of how certain ideas are promoted and others rejected becomes easier to understand if there were some august body, for example, which could pronounce on scientific theories, according them the weight of official approval. If the Bible was the be-all-and-end-all of Church orthodoxy, Science also needed such a body which could hardly be gainsaid.

Enter the Royal Society, a political body if ever there was one. The RS itself acknowledges its debt to the “hidden college”:

The origins of the Royal Society lie in an ‘invisible college’ of natural philosophers who began meeting in the mid-1640s to discuss the new philosophy of promoting knowledge of the natural world through observation and experiment, which we now call science.

The RS intends its admission of the invisible college to mean those brave souls who argued for natural philosophy in the face of dogmatic Church orthodoxy but what it does not say is that the invisible college is also an entirely different reference to keepers of the hidden knowledge, e.g. the Freemasons [see below].

There has always been a counter-heavyweight to the monolithic Church model of how the world operates and it merges those of genuinely inquiring minds with those having specific agendas, with the latter more active, more organized, backed by money and therefore having their way. This is very much seen today with the IPCC.

It’s also almost an analogy for the way the modern left-liberal goes along with policies he vaguely sees as supporting the underdog but in fact, are supporting the enslavement of the globe. There are good people in the anti-Church mindset but there are also quite nasty combinations of people of like mind as well.

You see, you don’t even need to go to conspiracy sites to see this – you only need go to official sites of organizations themselves, e.g. the Freemasons:

In the beginning of Speculative Fraternity under the Grand Lodge system the Freemasons avowed their devotion to the sciences more boldly, and even dramatically. The Royal Society was in the British public mind synonymous with science, and for more than a century it, and its offshoots, were the only exponents and practitioners of science in Britain. It began in 1660 and took its first organized form at a meeting of scholars in Gresham College who had assembled to hear a lecture by Bro. Sir Christopher Wren.

Jumping to the current day [source: hauntingthelibrary July 5, 2011]:

In a move which once and for all removes [JH: confirms?] any doubt any reasonable person may have had on the impartial nature of climate science, the head of the Royal Society, Paul Nurse, has issued a statement calling for climate scientists to get get involved in activism and political agitation. An interview with the left-wing magazine, The New Statesman, quotes Nurse calling for climate scientists to drop any pretense of impartiality, and start agitating for political change:

Nurse’s undergraduate socialist spirit is still alive and well: he wouldn’t be against scientists getting involved in activism. “We are citizens, and citizens should be involved in politics, and I think those that have a strong view should be involved in party politics,” he says. “I’m happy to see fellows of the Royal Society politically engaged, if that’s what they see as right.”

So we’re hardly speaking of objective groups behind the RS, which was no more nor less than the oligarchy’s front institute for pushing its agenda. The Schiller Institute gives it a different name: The Venetians but we’re basically speaking of the same groups of people and the same names which keep popping up, such as Voltaire but some less well known ones as well, such as Zorzi, Contarini, Conti and Sarpi.

Just a note about Schiller’s Venetians. The name refers to the geographical roots rather than the philosophical and political movements but you may as well substitute other names for the same group of people and what they were trying to push Europe-wide.

We might start with the expurgated version of Paolo Sarpi is in Wiki, for general information.

Schiller [attributed at the top]:

Sarpi also marks a turning point in the methods used by Venetian intelligence to combat science.

Under Zorzi and Contarini, the Venetians had been openly hostile to Cusa and other leading scientists. Sarpi realized that the Venetians must now present themselves as the great champions of science, but on the basis of Aristotelian formalism and sense certainty.

By seizing control of the scientific community from the inside, the Venetians could corrupt scientific method and strangle the process of discovery. Sarpi sponsored and directed the career of Galileo Galilei, whom the Venetians used for an empiricist counterattack against the Platonic method of Johannes Kepler.

Galileo Galilei taught mathematics at the University of Padua from 1592 to 1610, and it was during his stay on Venetian territory that he became a celebrity. Galileo was a paid agent of Paolo Sarpi, the chief of Venetian intelligence, and, after Sarpi’s death, of Sarpi’s right-hand man Micanzio.

Galileo’s fame was procured when he used a small telescope to observe the four largest moons of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, and the phases of Venus. (The first telescope had been built by Leonardo da Vinci about a hundred years before Galileo.)

He reported these sightings in his essay The Starry Messenger, which instantly made him the premier scientist in Europe and thus a very important agent of influence for the Venetian Party. This entire telescope operation had been devised by Paolo Sarpi, who wrote about Galileo as “our mathematician.” In 1611, a Polish visitor to Venice, Rey, wrote that the “adviser, author, and director” of Galileo’s telescope project had been Father Paolo Sarpi.

Kepler and Galileo were in frequent contact for over thirty years. In 1609, Kepler published his Astronomia Nova, expounding his first and second laws of planetary motion. Nonetheless, in Galileo’s Dialogues on the Two Great World Systems, published in 1633, Kepler is hardly mentioned. At the end, one of the characters says that he is surprised at Kepler for being so “puerile” as to attribute the tides to the attraction of the Moon.

Sarpi’s achievement for Venetian intelligence was to abstract the method of Aristotle from the mass of opinions expressed by Aristotle on this or that particular issue. In this way, sense certainty could be kept as the basis of scientific experiments, and Aristotle’s embarrassingly outdated views on certain natural phenomena could be jettisoned. In the Art of Thinking Well, Sarpi starts from sense perception and sense certainty. Galileo’s epistemology is identical with that of Sarpi.

For Galileo, the trial before the Inquisition was one of the greatest public relations successes of all time. The gesture of repression against Galileo carried out by the Dominicans of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome established the equation “Galileo = modern experimental science struggling against benighted obscurantism.”

That equation has stood ever since, and this tragic misunderstanding has had terrible consequences for human thought. Lost in the brouhaha about Galileo, is the more relevant fact that Kepler had been condemned by the Inquisition more than a decade before.

During the first half of the 1700s, the most important activities of Venetian intelligence were directed by a salon called the “conversazione filosofica e felice”, which centered around the figure of Antonio Schinella Conti. Conti was a Venetian nobleman, originally a follower of Descartes, who lived for a time in Paris, where he was close to Malebranche. Conti went to London where he became a friend of Sir Isaac Newton.

The British oligarchy praises Newton as the founder of modern science.

But Newton’s real interest was not mathematics or astronomy. It was alchemy. His laboratory at Trinity College, Cambridge was fitted out for alchemy. Here, his friends said, the fires never went out during six weeks of the spring and six weeks of the autumn.

And what is alchemy? What kind of research was Newton doing? His sources were books like the Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum of Elias Ashmole, the Rosicrucian leader of British speculative Freemasonry.

Newton’s love of alchemy and magic surfaces as the basis of his outlook, including in his supposed scientific writings.

In his Opticks, he asks, “Have not the small particles of bodies certain powers, virtues, or forces, by which they act at a distance. … How those attractions may be performed, I do not here consider. What I call attraction may be performed by Impulse, or some other means unknown to me.”

This is Newton’s notion of gravity as action at a distance, which Leibniz rightly mocked as black magic. Newton’s system was unable to describe anything beyond the interaction of two bodies, and supposed an entropic universe that would have wound down like clockwork if not periodically re-wound.

How then did the current myth of Newton the scientist originate? The apotheosis of Newton was arranged by Antonio Conti of Venice. Conti understood that Newton, kook that he was, represented the ideal cult figure for a new obscurantist concoction of deductive-inductive pseudo-mathematical formalism masquerading as science.

Venice needed an English Galileo, and Conti provided the intrigue and the public relations needed to produce one, first through the French networks of Malebranche, and later, Voltaire.

Conti directed the operations that made Newton an international celebrity, including especially the creation of a pro-Newton party of French Anglophiles and Anglomaniacs who came to be known as the French Enlightenment.

Conti’s agents in this effort included Montesquieu and Voltaire. Conti was also active in intrigues against the German philosopher, scientist, and economist Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, whom Conti portrayed as a plagiarist of Newton. Conti also influenced Georg Ludwig of Hanover, later King George I of England, against Leibniz.

The Conti conversazione was also sponsored by the Emo and Memmo oligarchical families. Participants included Giammaria Ortes, the Venetian economist who asserted that the carrying capacity of the planet Earth could never exceed three billion persons.

Ortes was a student of the pro-Galileo activist Guido Grandi of Pisa. Ortes applied Newton’s method to the so-called social sciences. Ortes denied the possibility of progress or higher standards of living, supported free trade, opposed dirigist economics, and polemicized against the ideas of the American Revolution.

The ideas of Conti, Ortes, and their network were brought into Great Britain under the supervision of William Petty, the Earl of Shelburne, who was the de facto doge of the British oligarchy around the time of the American Revolution. The Shelburne stable of writers, including Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Malthus, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Charles Darwin, and other exponents of British philosophical radicalism, all take their main ideas from Conti and especially Ortes.

Francesco Algarotti, author of a treatise on “Newtonian Science for Ladies,” was another Venetian in the orbit of the Conti conversazione. Algarotti was close to Voltaire, and, along with the French scientist Pierre Louis de Maupertuis, he helped form the homosexual harem around British ally Frederick the Great of Prussia.

The contention in this post was that science is not always free of values and metaphysical overtones [e.g. Newton’s sidetracking was hardly incidental or unusual, given his backers] because it needs to be funded and that immediately brings in elements poised to offer such support and indeed to create new orthodoxies in the name of Science [capital S].

This can be traced back to organizations with specific agendas and though to publicize these involves seeking out little known histories which did not get to be championed at the time [e.g. Galileo’s skewing of the truth], taken as read today, nevertheless this is far more the true state of affairs than to blindly accept that Great Science is the bastion of fundamental truth.

To repeat one central point made by the Schiller Institute above:

That equation has stood ever since, and this tragic misunderstanding has had terrible consequences for human thought.

This is what we’re up against. Our intellectual, philosophical and scientific heroes are in many cases recipients of misplaced adulation, given the biased nature of what they were proposing. This is why it is so hard for some to think ill of the Frankfurt School, which has been shown to be a nest of vipers. Voltaire, in his time, was one of the worst and the blood of many French people is upon him. Darwin was certainly backed. Marx was no bright star against a dark sky but was part of a general movement at the time which threw up [used in both senses] the sort of guff he came out with which has blighted society ever since.

It was summed up by the character René Mathis, in Quantum of Solace who said:

But I guess when one is young, it seems very easy to distinguish between right and wrong but as one gets older, it becomes more difficult – the villains and the heroes get all mixed up.

When we don’t know our real enemies and confuse them for icons, then society is in deep trouble, as indeed it has been for quite some time.

11 comments for “Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler and the Royal Society

  1. Mary
    March 11, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    OK, so I am faced with the choice of believing in the results of peer-reviewed experiment, or in fables concocted in the desert two thousands of years ago by patriarchal, paranoid control freaks … Hmmm, tricky one ….

    • March 11, 2012 at 4:03 pm

      Come again?

      • March 11, 2012 at 5:46 pm

        I think Mary’s one of those people who think that it’s impossible to be a scientist and yet still have faith.

        I’ve no faith myself, but even I’m capable of imagining how that’s not true for everyone.

    • Twisted Root
      March 11, 2012 at 7:40 pm

      You could try coming to your own conclusions.

  2. Twisted Root
    March 11, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    The Guardians go to great lengths to conceal knowledge from the proles, do they not? Witness the savaging in the modern popular media of anyone who questions the current orthodoxy, cheered on by the exemplars of the scientific method.

  3. March 11, 2012 at 8:34 pm

    Andrew Montford’s analysis of the Royal Society –

    Richard Lindzen writes in his introduction:-

    “Andrew Montford provides a straightforward and unembellished chronology of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority.”

  4. Voice of Reason
    March 12, 2012 at 1:54 am

    I can’t be bothered to look up the Schiller Institute, but what is written there is largely crap, especially about Newton. While it is true that he did alchemy and had very non-traditional religious views for the time, it is also true that he did phenomenal science, in optics, gravitation, and, of course, the calculus. Many of his results and matheods are used and taught today.

    I have my suspicions about why Galileo didn’t mention Aristarchus in later editions of his work – the latter had been expunged from the major Greek philosopher schools, since he did actual observation and experiment, like a ‘mere artisan’. The major influence that went forward, and was absorbed and embraced by the Church, was the idea that Truth could be determined by pure thought and argument, without resort to experiment. This held back science for centuries.

  5. March 12, 2012 at 8:39 am

    We were having discussion yesterday about ignorance and how certain people of a certain political persuasion are SO hardwired into it – i.e. the brainwashing is so complete that one can’t budge them. It was said leading to a question about why I bothered.

    I replied that it wasn’t for the hardnuts – they will always come out with non-scholastic garbage like:

    I can’t be bothered to look up the Schiller Institute, but what is written there is largely crap

    This is not so much a blogpost as more in the nature of a record which people do come back and read in the future [they’re still doing it on the World Core Curriculum and the Frankfurt School], more often than not by google searching for certain terms. The important thing is that the historical characters involved, the timeline, the interrelations be shown correctly and that only verifiable data goes in.

    In preparing this post, for example, the amount which was left out was vastly more than the amount which went in because for every thing mentioned, e.g. Sarpi, I had to look far and wide for corroboration. There were two key players from the time I couldn’t get confirmation on and though it doesn’t mean they didn’t do those things, it couldn’t be put in.

    The next point made yesterday was that you can only go back a certain way in history. I disagreed – quite often, something from the last ten years is fraught because it’s still subject to spin and the whole tale hasn’t been allowed to come out, e.g. David Kelly, maybe even Princess Di. So things become clearer and more evidence becomes available, the longer one waits.

    Historians, by and large, are careful to address anomalies [the good ones are] and an example is with the Book of Mark. If the history was “thick” at the time, e.g. Rome/Greece, then there’s a wealth of material and the best is that which tries to detract from others, e.g. Josephus on Jesus.

    There was definitely something came out of Venice which contributed to the money set up we have today and tracing the people who settled there is not hard – it just takes patience. As with the Freemason quote above, you don’t even have to form any theory – just follow the trail.

    Another point which came up yesterday was the false trail and that’s true – there are people with agendas who create a whole new narrative – the global left has done that today, rewriting the history books to say what they want, e.g. the feminazi covens. There’s so much disinformation swirling around. Another example is the gnostic documents, suddenly “discovered” and rushed out to counter Christianity in the early days.

    In the end, rather than letting oneself fall into polarized camps and slanging off at someone from the other camp, it’s better to see the sum total of data on the table and make the theory fit it, rather than try to select parts of the data to fit the theory.

  6. March 12, 2012 at 9:08 am

    Something I forgot to mention in any detail, sorry, was the hijacking of the Enlightenment:

    That book is written by an atheist and is scathing about the type of atheist/humanism we’ve seen in some comments at this blog – all assertion and hatred but no substance, no facts to back up their assertions.

    Another I’d point you to is AK Haart [above] who is a scientist and most certainly not in the Christian camp. Yet he backs up his assertions and has to be taken seriously. Just as those of my persuasion can’t afford to make any statement which can’t be supported, neither can science. I for one am more than comfortable with this way of going about it, rather than just calling things crap.

    • Voice of Reason
      March 13, 2012 at 12:52 am

      The reason why I did not look up Schiller was to avoid muddying the waters by ad hominem attacks, since the quotes that you give suggest that they are conspiracy theorists, whether Young Earth Creationist, geocentrists, or something else. The quotes certainly suggest that they are anti-science. I would rather concentrate on the facts, and theirs are crap. On the other hand, they engage in a great many ad hominems of their own, such as “How then did the current myth of Newton the scientist originate?”
      Let’s start with this quote that you give from Scientus [2010]:
      We now know, using computer analysis and modern statistical techniques, that the original Copernican model was approximately as accurate as the Ptolemaic but performed worse for some planets. Galileo and Copernicus used perfect circles to model planetary motion. This would prevent their models from ever becoming much better than the geocentric model.
      Sounds very ‘sciencey’, doesn’t it? The problem is that it isn’t true. The Ptolemaic system had an epicycle for Venus, to take account of the apparent retrograde motion. Venus’ orbit also has very low eccentricity, which means that it is nearly a circle. Had the astronomers had the facility to do parallex measurements, they would have seen that the distance from Earth didn’t change the way that the Ptolemaic system said that it should. The system only gave the position in the sky.
      The history of modeling the Solar system is a fascinating window into science.
      Aristotle and others generated a system of perfect spheres to describe it, under the philosophical assumption that the heavens had to be perfect.
      Ptolemy then added the epicycles, which are just a ‘kludge’ to fit the data.
      Copernicus observed that the model was simpler, and almost as accurate, with heliocentrism.
      Galileo observed from the motion of the moons of Jupiter that the geocentrism is incorrect.
      Kepler added a further bit of data analysis, changing the ‘perfect’ circles to ellipses, and extracting his famous three laws, still providing no explanation.
      Newton deduced that there had to be an inverse square force between two bodies, proportional to their masses. From this brilliant insight, and his (and Leibnitz’) Calculus, one can deduce that the system conserves energy, and extract all of Kepler’s laws. This is a higher level of science, with explanatory power. After all, the existence of Uranus and Neptune were deduced using his models.

  7. Voice of Reason
    March 13, 2012 at 1:02 am

    In terms of your last point:”In the end, rather than letting oneself fall into polarized camps and slanging off at someone from the other camp, it’s better to see the sum total of data on the table and make the theory fit it, rather than try to select parts of the data to fit the theory”, I would note that the scientists with strong religious views who have also made significant contributions have ignored those same beliefs for that very work. That’s how science works.

Comments are closed.