Seeds of a Tychonic Revolution: Telescopic Observations of the Stars by Galileo Galilei and Simon Marius

Graney, Christopher M.

doi:10.1007/s00016-009-0002-0

“…Marius and other observers at that time saw stars as round circles through their (very small) telescopes, today known as Airy disks, but thought that they had resolved the stars; by assuming that stars have the same diameter as the Sun, they could then www.an-journal.org estimate their presumable (but far too small) distances; from the non-detection of their parallaxes they rejected the heliocentric model and preferred the geo-heliocentric model. See Graney (2009Graney ( , 2010Graney ( , 2015 and Graney & Grayson (2011) for details.…”

Section: Astronomical Discussion Of Their Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Sunspot numbers based on historic records in the 1610s: Early telescopic observations by Simon Marius and others

Neuhäuser

¹

,

Neuhäuser²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hoyt & Schatten (1998) claim that Simon Marius would have observed the sun from 1617 Jun 7 to 1618 Dec 31 (Gregorian calendar) all days, except three short gaps in 1618, but would never have detected a sunspot – based on a quotation from Marius in Wolf (1857), but mis‐interpreted by Hoyt & Schatten. Marius himself specified in early 1619 that for one and a half year... rather few or more often no spots could be detected... which was never observed before (Marius 1619). The generic statement by Marius can be interpreted such that the active day fraction was below 0.5 (but not zero) from fall 1617 to spring 1619 and that it was 1 before fall 1617 (since August 1611). Hoyt & Schatten cite Zinner (1952), who referred to Zinner (1942), where observing dates by Marius since 1611 are given but which were not used by Hoyt & Schatten. We present all relevant texts from Marius where he clearly stated that he observed many spots in different form on and since 1611 Aug 3 (Julian) = Aug 13 (Greg.) (on the first day together with Ahasverus Schmidnerus); 14 spots on 1612 May 30 (Julian) = Jun 9 (Greg.), which is consistent with drawings by Galilei and Jungius for that day, the latter is shown here for the first time; at least one spot on 1611 Oct 3 and/or 11 (Julian), i.e. Oct 13 and/or 21 (Greg.), when he changed his sunspot observing technique; he also mentioned that he has drawn sunspots for 1611 Nov 17 (Julian) = Nov 27 (Greg.); in addition to those clearly datable detections, there is evidence in the texts for regular observations. For all the information that can be compared to other observers, the data from Marius could be confirmed, so that his texts are highly credible. We also correct several shortcomings or apparent errors in the database by Hoyt & Schatten (1998) regarding 1612 (Harriot), 1615 (Saxonius, Tard´e), 1616 (Tard´e), 1617–1619 (Marius, Riccioli/Argoli), and Malapert (for 1618, 1620, and 1621). Furthermore, Schmidnerus, Cysat, David & Johann Fabricius, Tanner, Perovius, Argoli, and Wely are not mentioned as observers for 1611, 1612, 1618, 1620, and 1621 in Hoyt & Schatten. Marius and Schmidnerus are among the earliest datable telescopic sunspot observers (1611 Aug 3, Julian), namely after Harriot, the two Fabricius (father and son), Scheiner, and Cysat. Sunspots records by Malapert from 1618 to 1621 show that the last low‐latitude spot was seen in Dec 1620, while the first high‐latitude spots were noticed in June and Oct 1620, so that the Schwabe cycle turnover (minimum) took place around that time, which is also consistent with the sunspot trend mentioned by Marius and with naked‐eye spots and likely true aurorae. We consider discrepancies in the Hoyt & Schatten (1998) systematics, we compile the active day fractions for the 1610s, and we critically discuss very recent publications on Marius which include the following Maunder Minimum. Our work should be seen as a call to go back to the historical sources. (© 2016 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)

show abstract

“…Marius and other observers at that time saw stars as round circles through their (very small) telescopes, today known as Airy disks, but thought that they had resolved the stars; by assuming that stars have the same diameter as the Sun, they could then estimate their presumable (but far too small) distances; from the non-detection of their parallaxes they rejected the heliocentric model and preferred the geo-heliocentric model. See Graney (2009Graney ( , 2010Graney ( , 2015 and Graney & Grayson (2011) for details.…”

Section: Astronomical Discussion Of Their Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Sunspot numbers based on historic records in the 1610s - early telescopic observations by Simon Marius and others

Neuhaeuser,

Neuhaeuser

2016

Preprint

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hoyt & Schatten (1998) claim that Simon Marius would have observed the sun from 1617 Jun 7 to 1618 Dec 31 (Gregorian calendar) all days, except three short gaps in 1618, but would never have detected a sunspot -based on a quotation from Marius in Wolf ( 1857), but mis-interpreted by Hoyt & Schatten. Marius himself specified in early 1619 that for one and a half year ... rather few or more often no spots could be detected ... which was never observed before (Marius 1619). The generic statement by Marius can be interpreted such that the active day fraction was below 0.5 (but not zero) from fall 1617 to spring 1619 and that it was 1 before fall 1617 (since August 1611). Hoyt & Schatten cite Zinner (1952), who referred to Zinner (1942), where observing dates by Marius since 1611 are given, but which were not used by Hoyt & Schatten. We present all relevant texts from Marius where he clearly stated that he observed many spots in different form on and since 1611 Aug 3 (Julian) = Aug 13 (Greg.) (on the first day together with Ahasverus Schmidnerus); 14 spots on 1612 May 30 (Julian) = Jun 9 (Greg.), which is consistent with drawings by Galilei and Jungius for that day, the latter is shown here for the first time; at least one spot on 1611 Oct 3 and/or 11 (Julian), i.e. Oct 13 and/or 21 (Greg.), when he changed his sunspot observing technique; he also mentioned that he has drawn sunspots for 1611 Nov 17 (Julian) = Nov 27 (Greg.); in addition to those clearly datable detections, there is evidence in the texts for regular observations. For all the information that can be compared to other observers, the data from Marius could be confirmed, so that his texts are highly credible.

show abstract

“…As another example, Shea (1970, p. 125) concludes his article on Galileo's mission to disengage the influence of the Moon on the seas by pointing to Galileo's selective use of, and disregard for, empirical data. Shea severely rebukes Galileo's ‘blatant disregard for facts' as he ‘rode roughshod over the discrepancies between his theory and experience….’ And indeed Galileo did ride roughshod over discrepancies; as Graney (2009) has pointed out, Galileo ignored the discrepancy between the sizes of stars as seen in his telescope and the lack of parallaxes demanded by the Copernican hypothesis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shea severely rebukes Galileo's 'blatant disregard for facts' as he 'rode roughshod over the discrepancies between his theory and experience: : : .' And indeed Galileo did ride roughshod over discrepancies; as Graney (2009) has pointed out, Galileo ignored the discrepancy between the sizes of stars as seen in his telescope and the lack of parallaxes demanded by the Copernican hypothesis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Plausibility of Galileo's Tidal Theory

Clutton-Brock¹,

Topper²

2011

Centaurus

2

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Galileo's opinion, his most important argument for the Earth's motion was based on his theory of the tides that combined the Earth's rotation with its orbital motion so that it alternately accelerates and decelerates the sea. His theory deliberately ignored the Moon's influence, which at that time was generally regarded as occult. Galileo's confidence in his theory was strongly reinforced by its providing a mechanical model. That a theory that ignored the Moon's influence could seem plausible is confirmed by comparison with the theories of Bacon and Wallis. That Galileo's theory could seem plausible despite encountering difficulties is confirmed by comparison with Newton's theory, which is deeply flawed by its inclusion of a vertical response to the total tidal force. That many people now regard Galileo's theory as wrong is due to our having absorbed as natural Newton's idea of lunar attraction.

show abstract

Seeds of a Tychonic Revolution: Telescopic Observations of the Stars by Galileo Galilei and Simon Marius

Cited by 25 publications

References 8 publications

Sunspot numbers based on historic records in the 1610s: Early telescopic observations by Simon Marius and others

Sunspot numbers based on historic records in the 1610s: Early telescopic observations by Simon Marius and others

Sunspot numbers based on historic records in the 1610s - early telescopic observations by Simon Marius and others

The Plausibility of Galileo's Tidal Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About