Slashdot Mirror
Search For the Tomb of Copernicus Reaches an End
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."
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.
i'll take "indiana jones 4 movies i would actually have liked" for $2000, alex.
ed
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 much time went by, between the first creation and the second "re-creation" of the surface of the earth.
In any case when you read what is actually says there is nothing there that disagrees with what modern science has observed.
Now they can properly burn him at the stake for his heresy.
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.
My work here is dung.
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?
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 curvature is zero. That would be a natural center.
Not that our universe necessarily has that structure.
If the geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is not thick.
Or do they have to wait around for another Bob Dylan track and more surprise skinjob revelations?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.
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.
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.
First they believed that the universe was a like a truck. Then they though it was like a series of tubes. Now its believed to be like a cloud, although with the points able to connect to any other point.
So sayeth the wise Alaundo.
-=Bang Bang=-
... 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 ?
Signature omitted in order to save space. Thanks for your understanding.
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 dancing!"
Why any Christian would think that capital punishment or war can be a good thing is beyond my comprehension.
What _I_ want to know is how the heck did the computer model figure out what his clothes looked like?!
They have paintings of him, that's where the clothes come from. What I want to know is in the posters of the evolution of man you see in all the museums, why do the cave men have long hair and beards while the modern man has no facial hair (lacking a secondary sexual characteristic) and have short hair? Bald I can see, but short? I've never met a human with naturally short, doglike hair like you see on those posters. I mean, my hair's short but I was at the barbershop the other day.
Free Martian Whores!
Hmm... I expect his body was hidden in the last place they looked. It always seems to work out that way for me.
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.
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 great reason to think that heliocentrism was better than geocentrism, but the Bible doesn't come out and endorse any position, or even raise it as a subject.
WHOOOOOOOSH!
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 Earth would be the center of the Universe.
Those verses are now interpreted differently.
Code or be coded.
...his grave would be spinning about him.
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 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.
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.
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?
Now the search is on for Copernicus' car keys. They are starting with between the couch cushions.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
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 in the book, an attitude that is dangerously carried into the present by people declaring that "all the answers" are in the Bible.
So when someone asked "What is the structure of the universe?" they frantically tore through the Bible looking for any clues related to how God created the Universe since Genesis is rather vague on the subject from what I can recall. It was not my intent to say that I agree with this line of reasoning but rather to explain it given the original poster's comment that geocentricity was not mentioned in Genesis.
1: In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Universe.
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 the vacuum from the vacuum.
7: And God made the galaxies, and divided the vacuum which was within the galaxies from the vacuum which was between the galaxies: and it was so.
It bugs me that people say, "the first in the world to do this, or the first ever to do that", when in reality they're merely among the first in Europe. Other cultures (eg Indian & Chinese) didn't have the political blinkers forced on them, and explored these idea hundreds of years before Europeans. http://www.crystalinks.com/indiastronomy.html
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 . . .
Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.