Most of the opposition to heliocentrism was on the basis of valid (though incorrect) scientific observations and reasoning. The idea that the entire opposition to Galilei was, "nuh-uh, the Bible says so" is propaganda.
Not only that, but Copernicus was the first to hypothesize heliocentrism and he never got into trouble for it.
Galileo didn't have enough evidence to convince his peers, but he obstinately went on and printed his own book without the Church's approval (the Church was the arbiter of science back then), which could have been overlooked, except in his book he waxed literal about implications for faith and matters of God, which were actually heretical. In his trial, Galileo enraged the inquisition with his attitude, which resulted in house arrest.
It was his attitude, his arrogance, and his actual heretical ramblings that got him into trouble, not his defense for heliocentrism.
Also, in addition to what u/lapalapa said, in Galileo's book, he had the geocentric view be espoused by a character that was a blatant physical caricature of the Pope (who had been a patron of Galileo's) named Simplicio... "simpleton". When you write a book without much factual backing, after being warned not to do so, and you make the strawman of the other side look like the most powerful man in the world and name the character Idiot... well, you're gonna have problems.
The observations of the angular diameter of certain stars. We know now (and Galileo did later show) that from our distance stars are point sources of light. Tycho Brahe however estimated up to 2 minutes of arc for the brightest stars. This diameter was actually caused by bloom because the human eye isn't a perfect lens.
No stellar parallax was observed at the time. The reasoning was that with the apparent diameter of 2 minutes and no observable parallax stars would have to be absolutely massive compared to the sun (far bigger than any actual super giant). This reasoning is correct; it is only Brahe's observations that are incorrect.
That's not actually true and incorrectly makes the geocentric side seem scientifically naive. They did actually know what a reference frame was in the seventeenth century.
This has all been known for decades. Anyone who cared could find this out. It's a perfect example of the disinfo media industry. Solar and wind would die tomorrow if the media told the truth.
People at war with CO2 aren't claiming that energy would be cheaper if it was all "green". Price and standards of living are of no consequence in their minds. As they see it, they're making a situation in which rational people will have less children due to costs, so it's a double benefit if energy gets more expensive.
Politicians in Québec are routinely making corrupt deals with Private partnerships where Hydro-Québec buys 20c+++/kW/h from producers with wind turbines. They get backdoor indirect rewards for doing that.
Every single time H.-Q. get into another wind power deal they lose money from that on a continuous basis, forever.
Because the price of electricity in Québec ranges from 6c to 9c /kW/h. We export to the US at a loss from those deals too.
I’m in America but from what I’ve seen Net Zero is very unpopular with Europeans right? I heard someone say that the EU actually took policy advice from Greta Thunberg
Yes and no, (depends on the nation of europe), The EU is all for Net Zero, this is old climate change agenda and Paris accord etc. And before the energy crisis it has been quite the heresy to question net zero in middle class and upper class (these has gained quite a lot on the corruption of the system), not sure about the lower class but then they are already beholden to the system. And now the politicians are most likely to blame that it was not them and they cannot do any changes since that would break contracts with the EU... or something (atleast that looks to be the game plan atm).
Yes and no, depends on how long this winter is and how much of industry it will shut down and credits it will break, which will lead to the perfect opportunity for more laws to break the public with, as you are aware they already want rations of energy and price caps.
The continual lies constantly made by climate cultists made me realise humanity haven't changed one bit from the time of Galileo.
Most of the opposition to heliocentrism was on the basis of valid (though incorrect) scientific observations and reasoning. The idea that the entire opposition to Galilei was, "nuh-uh, the Bible says so" is propaganda.
Not only that, but Copernicus was the first to hypothesize heliocentrism and he never got into trouble for it.
Galileo didn't have enough evidence to convince his peers, but he obstinately went on and printed his own book without the Church's approval (the Church was the arbiter of science back then), which could have been overlooked, except in his book he waxed literal about implications for faith and matters of God, which were actually heretical. In his trial, Galileo enraged the inquisition with his attitude, which resulted in house arrest.
It was his attitude, his arrogance, and his actual heretical ramblings that got him into trouble, not his defense for heliocentrism.
Also, in addition to what u/lapalapa said, in Galileo's book, he had the geocentric view be espoused by a character that was a blatant physical caricature of the Pope (who had been a patron of Galileo's) named Simplicio... "simpleton". When you write a book without much factual backing, after being warned not to do so, and you make the strawman of the other side look like the most powerful man in the world and name the character Idiot... well, you're gonna have problems.
The observations of the angular diameter of certain stars. We know now (and Galileo did later show) that from our distance stars are point sources of light. Tycho Brahe however estimated up to 2 minutes of arc for the brightest stars. This diameter was actually caused by bloom because the human eye isn't a perfect lens.
No stellar parallax was observed at the time. The reasoning was that with the apparent diameter of 2 minutes and no observable parallax stars would have to be absolutely massive compared to the sun (far bigger than any actual super giant). This reasoning is correct; it is only Brahe's observations that are incorrect.
The sun fucking goes around the earth in the earth's frame of reference. Have you ever been outside?
That's not actually true and incorrectly makes the geocentric side seem scientifically naive. They did actually know what a reference frame was in the seventeenth century.
I'll grant it's simplistic and I make no claim it was what geocentricity was based on, but it's true by definition.
I meant that it wasn't true that that was the argument used by the geocentric side. As a fact, yes, I admit that it is a true observation.
This has all been known for decades. Anyone who cared could find this out. It's a perfect example of the disinfo media industry. Solar and wind would die tomorrow if the media told the truth.
People at war with CO2 aren't claiming that energy would be cheaper if it was all "green". Price and standards of living are of no consequence in their minds. As they see it, they're making a situation in which rational people will have less children due to costs, so it's a double benefit if energy gets more expensive.
Politicians in Québec are routinely making corrupt deals with Private partnerships where Hydro-Québec buys 20c+++/kW/h from producers with wind turbines. They get backdoor indirect rewards for doing that.
Every single time H.-Q. get into another wind power deal they lose money from that on a continuous basis, forever.
Because the price of electricity in Québec ranges from 6c to 9c /kW/h. We export to the US at a loss from those deals too.
That's your brain on Greenwashing + corruption.
I’m in America but from what I’ve seen Net Zero is very unpopular with Europeans right? I heard someone say that the EU actually took policy advice from Greta Thunberg
Yes and no, (depends on the nation of europe), The EU is all for Net Zero, this is old climate change agenda and Paris accord etc. And before the energy crisis it has been quite the heresy to question net zero in middle class and upper class (these has gained quite a lot on the corruption of the system), not sure about the lower class but then they are already beholden to the system. And now the politicians are most likely to blame that it was not them and they cannot do any changes since that would break contracts with the EU... or something (atleast that looks to be the game plan atm).
Is it true that this winter will bring some heavy energy issues due to them worshipping at the altar of climate change?
Yes and no, depends on how long this winter is and how much of industry it will shut down and credits it will break, which will lead to the perfect opportunity for more laws to break the public with, as you are aware they already want rations of energy and price caps.