Search For the Tomb of Copernicus Reaches an End 243
duh P3rf3ss3r writes "The Associated Press reports that after 200 years of speculation and investigation, the tomb of Nicolaus Copernicus has been found. Although the heliocentric concept had been suggested earlier, Copernicus is widely thought of as the father of the scientific theory of the heliocentric solar system. The positive identification was made by comparing the DNA from a skeleton's teeth with that from hairs in a book known to have belonged to Copernicus. A computer-generated facial reconstruction is said to also bear a resemblance to contemporary portraits of the scientist."
a better title: the lost tomb of copernicus (Score:5, Funny)
i'll take "indiana jones 4 movies i would actually have liked" for $2000, alex.
ed
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to repress any memories of seeing that movie. Thanks for sending me back to square one. Jerk.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, maybe the Nazis are looking for the skull of Copernicus which they can use in a ritual to undo physics, causing the sun to start revolving around the earth. But they'll vary the ritual, putting the sun into an eliptic orbit that will slingshot closely around the earth. This will have two effects: firstly, the proximity of the sun will burn America to a cinder. Secondly, slingshotting the sun around the earth will catapult the earth back in time to before the end of the second world war. With Americ
This is good news for the church (Score:5, Funny)
Now they can properly burn him at the stake for his heresy.
Re:This is good news for the church (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is good news for the church (Score:5, Informative)
They didn't take objection to HIS work because his work was published posthumously. The unfortunate bastard who came after Copernicus, Galileo, was the one who received the ire of the church. Not just because he was contradicting church doctrine, but because he was also using evidence to support his claims.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now they can properly burn him at the stake for his heresy.
Oh, god, that's disgusting. Haven't you ever smelled burning jerky before?!
OUCH! (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA:
the skull bears a cut mark above the left eye that corresponds with a scar shown in the painting.
Scars are one thing, but a wound that leaves a mark all the way down to the skull... that's gotta sting.
TFA also says that the reconstruction shows a broken nose. Is it even possible to have evidence of a broken nose on the skull? "Broken nose" as shown in the painting is cartilage damage, which would probably all be gone by now.
I'm sure you can add in a broken nose to the reconstruction, but in context, it was being cited as evidence. Just bad journalism, or dubious research?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Scars are one thing, but a wound that leaves a mark all the way down to the skull... that's gotta sting.
No kidding, but on the fact it isn't as if there is much more than skin to cut through, even the muscles there are pretty thin.
TFA also says that the reconstruction shows a broken nose. Is it even possible to have evidence of a broken nose on the skull? "Broken nose" as shown in the painting is cartilage damage, which would probably all be gone by now.
I'm sure you can add in a broken nose to the reconstruction, but in context, it was being cited as evidence. Just bad journalism, or dubious research?
Given that he seems quite the badass, what with scars that go all the way to his bone, I wouldn't be surprised if the broken nose was actually a true broken nose and had fractures on the bone that the cartilage connects to.
the price of fame (Score:2, Interesting)
So can they finally find Earth now? (Score:3, Funny)
Or do they have to wait around for another Bob Dylan track and more surprise skinjob revelations?
It's Nick's, all Nick's (Score:5, Insightful)
Although the heliocentric concept had been suggested earlier, Copernicus is widely thought of as the father of the scientific theory of the heliocentric solar system.
Please. All these qualifications are unnecessary.
Copernicus is not considered a great scientist because he woke up one day and said, "Gee, maybe the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around!" His greatness came from all the insight, creativity, and mind-boggling hard work he put in to make this idea objectively sound.
Being the first to have an idea doesn't give you precedence. It's inventing the scientific structure that allows people to validate (and, more importantly, invalidate) your ideas that matters. That's what separates real science from mere speculation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You've overlooked Nick's greatest contribution to humanity [google.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cute story, not very plausible. Both bread and butter have been around for thousands of years. Do you really think that before 1519, nobody thought to spread one on the other?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Please. All these qualifications are unnecessary.
While those qualifications are not necessary, they certainly are worth to be mentioned. Let me elaborate:
Copernicus is not considered a great scientist because he woke up one day and said, "Gee, maybe the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around!"
This would imply that earlier heliocentric models where just that, i.e. wild speculations. It doesn't seem to me that the advances of astronomy in the hellenistic period [wikipedia.org] can be described and explained that way. There is however a ...wild speculation in the historiography of science, which goes like this:
In the 3rd century BCE, Aristarchus of Samos proposed an alternate cosmology (arrangement of the universe): a heliocentric model of the solar system, placing the Sun, not the Earth, at the center of the known universe (hence he is sometimes known as the "Greek Copernicus"). His astronomical ideas were not well-received, however, and only a few brief references to them are preserved. We know the name of one follower of Aristarchus: Seleucus of Seleucia.
The argument that we can estimate the reception of the heliocentric model from the references known to
Re: (Score:2)
This would imply that earlier heliocentric models where just that, i.e. wild speculations. It doesn't seem to me that the advances of astronomy in the hellenistic period can be described and explained that way.
You're right, they can't. But you're imposing a false dichotomy here. I see at least 3 levels of reasoning.
I fail to see how facial reconstruction... (Score:3, Insightful)
... can give, from a skull, any hint about the size of the nose and the shape of the ear, both of which are made of just cartilage.
Any hint ?
Re:I fail to see how facial reconstruction... (Score:5, Informative)
... can give, from a skull, any hint about the size of the nose and the shape of the ear, both of which are made of just cartilage.
Any hint ?
It's a bit of an art, but even artists use models.
In this case, with facial recontstruction you have a lot of data to work from. We have been cataloging human anatomy for a long time, as such we have a lot of evidence for what certain bones look like. We have also are able to combine those bones with pictures of the actual person, or at least compare to facial features of that person's ethnic background.
Bones give a lot of clues to the soft tissue that used to surround them. Ligaments will leave 'scars' on the bones which indicate a whole slew of factors. Did that person use the muscle a lot, was it ever torn. By measuring the size and condition of the 'scar' you can extrapolate what the muscle that connected to it would have been like. The same way you can tell the joint of a 50yr old that ran a lot from a 30 yr old that was just a scribe.
Now the face is a bit different, but for the most part, you know what muscles go where, and they don't vary much. As for noses and ears, look at where the cartilage was attached and you will see similar effects as due to the ligaments. Combine that shape with what you have measured on 1000s of skulls before, and you select the shape of the nose or ear that corresponds to those markings.
And pictures help too ;)
Does not work. (Score:2)
As for noses and ears, look at where the cartilage was attached and you will see similar effects as due to the ligaments.
Basic Anatomy Failure.
The ears are mobile and aren't connected to the skull. The shape of the ear won't alter at all the surface of the skull (well except for elephant-sized ears. Those would require proper musculature which in turn will leave a mark on the skull).
The cartilage giving a shape to the nose is very distant for the bone structure. Bone marks won't give a lot of details about shape of nose. (Except for some obvious exceptions like broken nose, etc.) Ethnic origin may somewhat help to restrict to
Re: (Score:2)
There was a fiction novel, Gorky Park [wikipedia.org], in which facial reconstruction was a key element of the novel. Some interesting reading on the technique.
Re: (Score:2)
... can give, from a skull, any hint about the size of the nose and the shape of the ear, both of which are made of just cartilage.
Any hint ?
Derived from what a grumpy math/physics professor looks like. Heck, he probably even wore a ratty old sweater too.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic? (Score:2)
Is it ironic that the scientists of today chose to revolve the DNA evidence around him (his hair), instead of the son (his heir)?
:)
(AFAIK he had no children - jokes don't need to be accurate.)
Why? (Score:2)
Did they expect to find something special about his remains?
Where burial rites of astronomers of his time a mystery?
Was he buried with an antique text that could shed light on his discoveries?
Were gold doubloons involved?
Was this part of a wacky bet or some bizarre clause in an eccentric rich person's will?
Could "I found Copernicus' tomb" be a ne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You left out "Reality TV Show".
To reveal the next clue (Score:2)
It's called a broken chain of evidence ... (Score:2)
[The second option brought to you by the TinFoilHatSociety ].
Man, if Copernicus knew about this... (Score:5, Funny)
Reaches my comfort level (Score:2)
A computer-generated facial reconstruction is said to also bear a resemblance to contemporary portraits of the scientist."
Oh, really? Generated by an actual computer? Well then, that's good enough for me.
if I were sub-editing teh summary (Score:2)
s/bear a resemblance/resemble/
In other scientists-from-the-grave news ... (Score:2)
Einstein has been cloned from a skidmark in a pair of his underpants kept by his family.
A skull-bong found in an MIT dormitary has been DNA identified as belonging to Isaac Newton. The DNA came from fingerprints on the bong, confirming rumors of Newton being a pothead.
A frozen turd found in Craig Venter's kitchen fridge, formally believed to have come from a pygmy marmoset, has been identified and carbon dated as the last movement of Wolfgang Armadeus Mozart.
OK, so I lied. Mozart wasn't a scientist.
Beer? (Score:2)
My own personal Genesis (Score:2, Funny)
2: And the Universe was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the vacuum.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the energy.
5: And God called the light Radiation, and the energy he called Matter.
6: And God said, Let there be galaxies in the midst of the vacuum, and let it divide
Copernicus far from the first (Score:4, Interesting)
Fashion Forward (Score:2)
That's a nice vest. Scientific proof that geek fashion has been in decline for the past several hundred years.
Re:From TFA: (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, Copernicus claimed that the sun, and not the earth, was the center of the universe.
Obviously, in the past 475 years we have figured out that the sun is only the center of the solar system and not the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Copernicus claimed that the sun, and not the earth, was the center of the universe.
I was under the impression that his claim was a smaller - and more nearly correct - one: That the Earth orbited the Sun rather than the other way around, not that the sun was the center of the entire universe.
(Though it does a good job of approximating the center of the collection of readily observable heavenly bodies distinguishable from the "fixed stars".)
Does anyone have a link that would disambiguate his claim between "E
Re: (Score:2)
Actually ... Sun is in the centre of the universe (by current understanding).
It has been mathematically proven.
So are you, btw, and everything else, as amazing as it sounds.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Every time I hide a body, it always turns up in the last place they look. That is, if it turns up.
Perhaps I've said too much.
Re:From TFA: (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm... I expect his body was hidden in the last place they looked. It always seems to work out that way for me.
Not me. I always keep looking after I've found the body. Just in case you know?
The next search is on (Score:3, Funny)
Now the search is on for Copernicus' car keys. They are starting with between the couch cushions.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... I expect his body was hidden in the last place they looked. It always seems to work out that way for me.
Have you tried running your search algorithm in reverse?
I think this applies here... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not me! If you find one, there's bound to be more!! :)
On a more serious note, the phrase "always the last place you look" means that no matter where you start or the order you search in, the item is always in the final place on the list of places to look. It's a corollary of Murphy's Law.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially if they found said body in a graveyard. They may not want to go looking for more though.
Re: (Score:2)
The part where the earth was created before the stars is a bit hard to believe. Maybe it means that the subatomic particles that it's made of?
Or maybe it's a story made up by early tribes in the mid-east not unlike other creation myths by African tribes, Native Americans, and pretty much everywhere else there have ever been humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it refers to the speed of light and that one wouldn't see the creation of the stars until well after they were created. ;)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe you can try and read what is there instead of what you want to read.
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So here we have the original creation. Who knows how long ago. It does not say.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The part "was without form, void" is a bad translation and should say "became without form, and void;". So apparently something happened, and who knows how m
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bad translation ? Ok, I'll believe you mr. A.C.
Since you now see that modern science and religion agree would you be so kind as to remove all the 'equal time' bullshit so we can get on with progress ?
Re:From TFA: (Score:5, Informative)
The part "was without form, void" is a bad translation and should say "became without form, and void;"
That is what we call a "theological translation". You believe that only because somebody told you that. It could just as well mean that in the process of creating the earth, it was, at the particular point in time we are noting, formless and empty.
The verb is hayah. In Gen. 2:1, it's just your basic "be" verb, in the Qal 3rd person form. "At that point in time, it so was". If it was speaking of a future event, it would be "it will be".
The verb has no connotation of some process of becoming, nor does it imply some transitional state that proceeded it. It merely means that at this particular point in time, whatever may have been, it is this way now.
This is Hebrew 101. It's just a "be" verb. This is simple stuff, dude. And that is why any major translation you care to name: KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, NASB, JPS, NJB, the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, Luther's 1545 German, translate it: "the earth was ...". But of course, they must all have been inept translators . . .
Always Jumping to Conclusions (Score:5, Interesting)
The sun is the center of the universe? I though the sun orbited the Milky Way Galaxy's central black hole?
You're right. Copernicus didn't know this at the time (or at least if he did, he didn't tell anyone). He came up with a model that was simply better than the norm. Whether he and he alone did this or not is probably up for debate but he sure stuck his neck out there for it.
I would posit that I am the center of the universe. No matter where I am, I'm here. As I walk, the world moves beneath my feet.
And I would simply posit that you are a unique frame of reference. But that would just begin a pedantic physics discussion (more to come!).
A question for you math geeks: can an object of infinite size even HAVE a center?
I don't think the universe is an object of infinite size. It's constantly expanding, though ... and if you want to get technical, we can look at the red light shift of things moving away all around us and their velocity. Doing this, we can trace their vectors backwards to an intersection point--the point of the event theorized to be the Big Bang. The true center of the universe.
I'm going to have to reread Genesis. I don't recall seeing anywhere where it says the earth is the center of anything, let alone the universe.
Of that whole list you wrote, it sure does concentrate predominately on the earth. If you think about it, there's a whole lot more to talk about than merely the earth ... so in a way, it does give all the attention to the earth. The fact that it was created before the stars just makes it all that much more central. Also, where else would God put beings made in his likeness? If you're going to defend The Bible's creation story, I don't recommend Slashdot.
Re:Always Jumping to Conclusions (Score:5, Interesting)
we can look at the red light shift of things moving away all around us and their velocity. Doing this, we can trace their vectors backwards to an intersection point--the point of the event theorized to be the Big Bang. The true center of the universe.
No you can't actually, because all the the vectors show everything moving away from us at the same velocity. The way it was explained to me way back when: Imagine a loaf of bread with raisins spaced equally throughout. As the bread rises, the raisins get farther apart from one another. From the point of view of any raisin, all the other raisins are moving away from it at the same speed. The same thing happens in the big bang, the universe vastely increased in size.
It's important to remember that the Big Bang "wasn't an explosion in space, it was an explosion of space". You can't trace the origin back to a specific point because when the big bang happened that single point was the entire universe.
Re:Always Jumping to Conclusions (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, a loaf of bread does have a center.
An expanding space embedded in a higher-dimensional space, however, does not. I prefer the following analogy:
Imagine the stars are dots drawn on a surface of a balloon. The universe is the two-dimensional surface. As the three-dimensional balloon expands, all of the points in the "universe" appear to receding from one another. Yet there is no way to agree upon a "center".
Re:Always Jumping to Conclusions (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine the stars are dots drawn on a surface of a balloon. The universe is the two-dimensional surface. As the three-dimensional balloon expands, all of the points in the "universe" appear to receding from one another. Yet there is no way to agree upon a "center".
Sure there is, the nozzle. So all we have to do is find the nozzle of the universe, where all the stuff gets in to make it expand, and that's the center.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I slightly better analogy (same idea, though)--
Imagine an infinite checker board. At the time of the big bang, the size of each square is 0. The size of each square grows with time. So, it can be said to be expanding, infinite and without a center.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I would simply posit that you are a unique frame of reference
I posit that everywhere is the center of the universe, especially the sentient parts of it.
If you're going to defend The Bible's creation story, I don't recommend Slashdot.
Discussion isn't defense. I only said that it doesn't state that the earth is the center of the universe. I doubt the ancient Jews/Muslims (both were the same then, descended from Abraham) even knew there WAS a universe. I'd posit that nobody BC had the slightest idea that t
Re:Always Jumping to Conclusions (Score:4, Insightful)
Of that whole list you wrote, it sure does concentrate predominately on the earth. If you think about it, there's a whole lot more to talk about than merely the earth ... so in a way, it does give all the attention to the earth. The fact that it was created before the stars just makes it all that much more central. Also, where else would God put beings made in his likeness? If you're going to defend The Bible's creation story, I don't recommend Slashdot.
Meh...a lot of conjecture that proves nothing. Of course it mentions the earth a lot it was written for humanity's benefit. If aliens are out there God may very have given them a book that talks mostly about Riegel 7.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Meh...a lot of conjecture that proves nothing. Of course it mentions the earth a lot it was written for humanity's benefit. If aliens are out there God may very have given them a book that talks mostly about Riegel 7.
Meh ... a lot of conjecture that proves nothing. Were they also created in his likeness? What determined where he created you? Why did he tell us we are in his likeness? Why would you choose to leave either side out of either side's primer? I suppose that falls in line with a lot of the rest of The Bible--no logical sense whatsoever.
I hope I'm not living in some alien's Sodom & Gomorrah.
Hey I'm just saying the Bible doesn't say we're the center of the universe. I never claimed to have all the answers. More importantly why would aliens have their orgies in your home town?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I am intriegued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
we can trace their vectors backwards to an intersection point--the point of the event theorized to be the Big Bang. The true center of the universe.
I just pictured someone 100s of generations from now taking their offspring to a really boring tacky gift shop at "The true center of the universe".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The sun is the center of the universe? I though the sun orbited the Milkey Way Galaxy's central black hole?
So Copernicus was not 100% correct. But his theory was still more right than the one it replaced (Ptolemaic geocentrism). Newton wasn't 100% correct either, and I'm sure that Einstein's theories will also be shown to be only approximations. But so what? All these theories have advanced science, even if they are not the final word.
A question for you math geeks: can an object of infinite size even HAVE a center?
Well, you can certainly come up with an infinite space that has a "natural" center. For example, an infinite 3-space curved in higher dimensions might have only one point where the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:From TFA: (Score:4, Interesting)
So sayeth the wise Alaundo.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was something to do with Gods living on Mt. Olympus, and the sun was some kind of chariot.
Before we had a lot of civilization, we followed more of a Food? / Yikes! mode of thought; we didn't have a lot of spare time to look up and wonder, "Hmm, what's it all about..."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1 Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
When dealing with religious issues, it's important to remember that what people actually believe can be quite different from what their scripture says, especially in periods of high illiteracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but mistranslations can lead to beliefs and practices which don't correspond to the original text. Give those beliefs and practices enough time and they'll become so entrenched that the followers won't care that they are basing their ideas on a mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious, how often do you read a piece of poetry and assume that the author was making a scientific statement? In the absence of scientific absence, it is understandable that people might read more into a statement than they should, as has happened, but there is no requirement for poetr
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm curious, how often do you read a piece of poetry and assume that the author was making a scientific statement? In the absence of scientific absence, it is understandable that people might read more into a statement than they should, as has happened, but there is no requirement for poetry to be interpreted literally, so while it might be accurate to say that these statements were taken to mean geocentric thinking was correct, it is not accurate to say that they actually endorse such thinking or even have the subject in mind.
(emphasis added)
I'm sorry if you misunderstood my post, but I wasn't trying to say anything about my beliefs but rather how people in the past attempted to justify the idea that the earth was the center of the universe by citing the bible.
it is not accurate to say that they actually endorse such thinking or even have the subject in mind.
Which was why I ended my original post with:
When dealing with religious issues, it's important to remember that what people actually believe can be quite different from what their scripture says, especially in periods of high illiteracy.
Back in the day when people had questions about the nature of the universe, they turned to the Bible. The Bible was considered the final authority on *all* matters, even ones that weren't particularly related to anything said
Re: (Score:2)
I think we actually agree, but by saying that the OT alludes to geocentrism, it looked like you were saying that the Bible suggests geocentrism as a scientific model, which it doesn't. It can be mistakenly read in that way, but if it's a mistake, then you can't say to allu
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it say *when* he made them?
Center of the universe (Score:4, Insightful)
The sun is the center of the universe? I though the sun orbited the Milkey Way Galaxy's central black hole?
A scientific theory isn't judged on whether it's ``true''; we leave the concept of ``truth'' to theologians, creationists and other amateurs.
A scientific theory is judged on how useful it is. What Copernicus showed is that by using a model in which the referential is attached to the sun, rather than the earth (as in the earlier Ptolemean model), many computations become easier.
Note that all of these models are useful under some circumstances. When you compute the distance from your home to the butcher's, you disregard the rotation of the earth, and hence use the Ptolemean model. When you compute the date of Easter next, you use the Copernican model. But if you need to compute the position of our Galaxy in a few billion years, you'll likely want a different model.
Re:Center of the universe (Score:5, Interesting)
A scientific theory isn't judged on whether it's ``true''; we leave the concept of ``truth'' to theologians, creationists and other amateurs.
A scientific theory is judged on how useful it is.
I love this statement.
Not because it's true
but because it's useful.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now it's Haiku!
The sun is the center of the universe? (Score:2)
Copernicus' realization that the Sun was the center of the universe was revolutionary, even if not mathematically correct by modern standards. The prevailing cosmology, which the church was more than happy to throw people in jail for questioning, was that the Earth was the center of the universe because it was created by God as the divine home for Man. The stars were not known to be like the Sun; they were believed to be lights pinned into the divine firmament.
The history of science is littered with theorie
Re:The sun is the center of the universe? (Score:5, Informative)
Happy to throw people in jail? Really? That's a bit odd when you consider that On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres was prefaced by a Lutheran theologian, dedicated to the Pope and been prompted to be written by the Archbishop of Capua. Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] would make that clear. Why do you think the church was throwing people in jail? over astronomy? A big chunk of astronomers were clerics or funded by the church.
Re: (Score:2)
--The part where the earth was created before the stars is a bit hard to believe.--
What verse does it even say that? I think Heaven meant sky right there.
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=heaven [eliyah.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, Hans, I have been expecting you! (Score:2)
I would posit that I am the center of the universe. No matter where I am, I'm here. As I walk, the world moves beneath my feet.
Yes, Hans, but you don't have much walking room these days.
Re: (Score:2)
I would posit that I am the center of the universe. No matter where I am, I'm here. As I walk, the world moves beneath my feet.
You could construct an accurately moving model of the solar system, have the earth as the center, and still have it be accurate. The moon doesn't orbit the earth, both bodies orbit a spot somewhere beneath the earth's crust.
It's all a matter of how you look at it.
All points in space are the center of the universe. No matter where you are in the universe, you can look around and see
Re: (Score:2)
It's commonly accepted that the universe is of finite size and has a defined shape.
Re: (Score:2)
I would posit that I am the center of the universe. No matter where I am, I'm here. As I walk, the world moves beneath my feet.
Yes, that's known as the "egocentric model", in competition with the "geocentric model" popular before Copernicus, and the "heliocentric" model he championed. This is all covered in this highly informative book [besse.at], which is sadly out of print.
Re: (Score:2)
Hubble's Law says that every point is, indeed, the center of expansion of the universe, since every other point in the universe is retreating at a distance proportional to its distance.
As for Genesis, it said nothing even about the earth even being round, much less being the center of anything. Assorted fruitcakes have been arguing against that notion even hundreds of years after the earth was circumnavigated which (invoking Occam's razor) leads you to the conclusion that the earth is round (never mind the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm going to have to reread Genesis. [virginia.edu] I don't recall seeing anywhere where it says the earth is the center of anything, let alone the universe.
Genesis doesn't. However, there are verses in other books of the Bible that state things like (paraphrased) "God established the Earth such that it cannot move".
Such verses used to be interpreted to mean the Earth did not, in fact, move, which would mean that everything that looked like it was circling the Earth actually was - which logically means the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The sun is the center of the universe? I though the sun orbited the Milkey [sic] Way Galaxy's central black hole?
At the time of Copernicus the ancient Greeks were considered the last word on all things concerning nature and they belived the earth was the center of everything. You can't really blame Copernicus for not being aware of galaxies and black holes, or quantum mechanics or lasers or all that other stuff that was discovered hundreds of years after him.
can an object of infinite size even HAVE a center?
It is believed that the universe has a finite size.
You could construct an accurately moving model of the solar system, have the earth as the center, and still have it be accurate.
Nope, they tried that already [wikipedia.org]. Having the earth at the center of a model of the solar system required having
Re: (Score:2)
A question for you math geeks: can an object of infinite size even HAVE a center?
Well infinite is not the term I'd use here. The potential size of the universe is infinite, but there is a distinct perimeter that is constantly expanding, thank you Edwin Hubble [harvard.edu]. If you measure the directions of expansion from various parts of the galaxy, they have a distinct point of origin, give or take a really bad Star Trek movie.
The basis of the Copernican Principle is that there is no 'preferred' position in the univ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises
Don't meterologists talk of sunrise and sunset? Don't modern day astronomers say things like "wow, what a beautiful sunrise?"
it was good enough to get the Church to believe it
The various churches have believed a whole lot of stuff that isn't supported by the bible. Look at the Baptists' hatred of drunkenness and dancing. There's an old joke that goes "Why won't Baptists have sex standing up? They don't want anyone to think they're d
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you ever talking about sunset or sunrise, or the ? I don't imagine that when you do, you're making a scientific statement. Similarly, poetic and narrative descriptions of the location or procession of the sun should not be taken as scientific descriptions. People back then had no g
Two Centuries? Try 4 years (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The positive identification was made by comparing the DNA from a skeleton's teeth with that from hairs in a book known to have belonged to Copernicus
All this proves is that he bit Copernicus. Get back to work.
-The Management
(just_kidding)
"Copernicus Park" (Score:2)
The positive identification was made by comparing the DNA from a skeleton's teeth with that from hairs in a book known to have belonged to Copernicus
All this proves is that he bit Copernicus. Get back to work.
Aw. To bad.
I was just rejoicing that, with now teeth in addition to hair, we might have enough genetic material, so the Copernicus would be the next resurrected specie after the Wholly Mammoth.
I guess this is too bad for my plan to open a "Copernicus Park" theme park.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not clone the dude?
First, we can't yet clone humans. But mostly it would be futile. A person is more than his genes, he is his upbringing and experience and training. Clone him or Einstein and the slightest misstep in his growth, particularly prebirth, and he might become severely retarded.
My youngest daughter has an IQ of 132. My oldest had complications at birth and has a measured IQ of 65. Take some kid living in the ghetto or prison who has an IQ of 85 and give his zygote two loving, educated, wealt
Re: (Score:2)
Why? So he can tell us again that the Earth revolves around the Sun?
People often posit that famous thinkers of the past, if reconstituted in today's world might lend their genius to contemporary problems. But who's to say that genius is measurable outside of its own context?
Hitting the genetic lottery by itself doesn't lead to greatness.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/10/goodness-gracious-great-balls-of-powerbook-fire/ [tuaw.com]
Re: (Score:2)