Setting Aside All Authority

Graney, Christopher M.

doi:10.2307/j.ctvpj7g68

Cited by 38 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(These disks were not then understood to be spurious products of the diffraction of light waves -the "Airy disk" phenomenon. 10 ) The telescopic disks were smaller than what Brahe had measured, and this was attributed to the telescope stripping away glare and revealing the true bodies of the fixed stars, much as Hooke described above (and just as the telescope revealed the true bodies of wandering stars, or planets 11 ). Riccioli showed that the telescopically measured star sizes, combined with the increased ability to detect parallax that the telescope provided, still yielded giant stars.…”

Section: Giant Starsmentioning

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Starry Universe of Johannes Kepler

Graney

2019

Journal for the History of Astronomy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Johannes Kepler described the Copernican universe as consisting of a central, small, brilliant sun with its planetary system, all surrounded by giant stars. These stars were far larger than, and much dimmer than, the sun-his De Stella Nova shows that every visible star must exceed the size of the Earth's orbit, and the most prominent stars may exceed the size of the entire planetary system. His other writings, including his response to Ingoli, his Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo, and his Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae, also reflect this Copernican universe. To Kepler, such a universe was an illustration of divine power-and solid evidence against the stars being suns, against the universe of Giordano Bruno. Kepler's starry universe was in fact the Copernican universe supported by observations of the stars, which showed them to have measureable apparent sizes. Not until the later seventeenth century were those apparent sizes shown to be spurious, allowing for a universe in which the stars were suns.

show abstract

Section: Giant Starsmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…12 Riccioli rejected invoking the power of God as a response to the star-size argument, stating that "even if this falsehood cannot be refuted, nevertheless it cannot satisfy the more prudent men." 13…”

Section: Giant Starsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Starry Universe of Johannes Kepler

Graney

2019

Journal for the History of Astronomy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In his 1651 book Almagestum Novum, or New Almagest (referencing Ptolemy's classic Almagest), he further developed the star size argument against Copernicus; he also went beyond questions about falling bodies and differing speeds on the surface of a rotating Earth, to develop arguments against Earth's motion in which the modern reader will recognize the "Coriolis Effect" (Figure 8). 14 But while Riccioli may have been of like mind with Locher and Scheiner on these matters, he dismissed the Disquisitions orbit mechanism in short fashion (Figure 9). Crediting Disquisitions to Scheiner, Riccioli wrote, "that most acute explorer of the sun hallucinates [hallucinatur]."…”

Section: Rejected By Fellow Jesuitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17 Robert Hooke read it, and discussed with Newton some of the "Coriolis Effect" ideas within it. 18 England's first Astronomer Royal, John Flamsteed, used it as a textbook for public lectures at Gresham College in 1665 (certainly anyone carrying a copy of the New Almagest to a lecture would have looked quite learned for, compared to Disquisitions, the book was huge -two volumes, each the size of one of today's large coffee-table books, together comprising over 1,500 pages of dense text and diagrams). Perhaps Riccioli's dismissal is why another prominent Jesuit author, Athanasius Kircher, included in his 1680 book Physiologia a copy of the orbit diagram from Disquisitions (Figure 10), along with an insultingly dismissive discussion.…”

Section: Rejected By Fellow Jesuitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…21 He and Robert Hooke exchanged letters in 1679-1680 regarding the easterly deflection that a heavy ball, suspended by a cord and then released, should exhibit were Earth rotating -one of the "Coriolis" arguments advanced by Riccioli against Earth's rotation (the apparent absence of such deflection indicating Earth's immobility to Riccioli). 22 Newton references Riccioli in his first edition of the Principia, but only in relation to the distance to the moon. 23 Evidence that Newton ever encountered Disquisitions itself, however, is difficult to turn up, and it seems doubtful that Riccioli's perfunctory discussion of the Disquisitions orbit mechanism would have provided inspiration to anyone.…”

Section: Rejected By Fellow Jesuitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How to Make the Earth Orbit the Sun in 1614

Graney

2019

Journal for the History of Astronomy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1614 the Jesuit astronomer Christoph Scheiner and his student, Johann Georg Locher, proposed a physical mechanism to explain how the Earth could orbit the sun. An orbit, they said, is a perpetual fall. They proposed this despite the fact that they rejected the Copernican system, citing problems with falling bodies and the sizes of stars under that system. In 1651 and again in 1680, Jesuit writers Giovanni Battista Riccioli and Athanasius Kircher, respectively, considered and rejected outright this idea of an orbit as a perpetual fall. Thus this important concept of an orbit was proposed, considered, and rejected well before Isaac Newton would use an entirely different physics to make the idea that an orbit is a perpetual fall the common way of envisioning and explaining orbits.

show abstract

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

Neuhäuser

Neuhäuser²

2016

Astron Nachr

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

Setting Aside All Authority

Abstract: Setting aside all authority : Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the science against Copernicus in the age of Galileo / Christopher M. Graney. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index.

Cited by 38 publications

References 0 publications

The Starry Universe of Johannes Kepler

The Starry Universe of Johannes Kepler

How to Make the Earth Orbit the Sun in 1614

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About