Mapping the Moon Before Galileo

ClockEndGooner writes "The BBC has posted an interesting piece on a British contemporary of Galileo who observed the surface of the moon and drew up a more complete set of lunar maps before the much celebrated Florentine. The first lunar cartographer, Thomas Harriot, who also made an early visit to the Jamestown colony in Virginia, observed the moon with an early telescope and mapped his observations five months before Galileo. Noted British astronomer, Sir Patrick Moore, is quoted in the article: 'I'm sorry Harriot isn't better known over here... after all, we all know Galileo. But Harriot was first... and his map of the Moon is better than Galileo's.' Harriot's achievement may not have been as well known, since he deliberately kept a low profile as two of his friends were imprisoned in the Tower of London for political crimes."

Comments

Huh? Why?

[AltGrendel]

I don't think it's changed all that much.

And...?

[SputnikPanic]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it...

Galileo stuck his neck out for his views and incurred the wrath of the Church. Of course his achievement would be better known than that of someone who was keeping a low profile.

Re:And...?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that you're misreading ignorance into Moore's words. (You do know who he is, right?)

All he says is that he's sorry Harriot isn't better known over here. It's a bit of an english idiom for 'more widely known' but if Moore had meant 'better known than Gallileo', or even 'better known than Gallileo for this particular job' he'd have said it. I'd imagine he's quite aware of Gallileo's other achievements.

Re:And...?

[SputnikPanic]

No question that Moore is well aware of Galileo's other achievements. But I sort of regard this accomplishment of Harriot's in the same way I do the Norse exploration/colonization of North America. Yes, it was quite a feat, and yes (to acknowledge the point of TFA) it deserves to be known, but did it fundamentally change what came after? Not really. History focuses on those who affect other people and the course of later events.

Re:And...?

[shellbeach]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it...

Galileo stuck his neck out for his views and incurred the wrath of the Church. Of course his achievement would be better known than that of someone who was keeping a low profile.

But Galileo's observations of the moon had nothing to do with his (much later) encounter with the inquisition. In fact, after Galileo published his telescopic observations of the moon, Jupiter, Saturn and various stars in 1610, he was feted by the Pope and the Jesuit College as a scientific hero. (The first friction between Galileo and the church occurred six years later, in 1616; but the real trouble -- when he was hauled before the inquisition -- didn't start until 1631.) The issue here is the old scientific game of "who did what first".

That said, this really isn't news; Harriot's 1609 unpublished maps have been known about for years.

Galileo, the moon-mapper

[Schiphol]

Galileo discovered the law of inertia and formulated the equations of uniformly accelerated movement, helped improve the telescope and the microscope, described the orbits of Jupiter's satellites and, apparently, drew a map of the Moon.
On the other hand, Thomas Harriot drew a better, earlier map of the Moon.
In conclusion, and given that we know who Galileo is, it is a historical injustice that we don't know who Thomas Harriot is.

Somehow the conclusion does not seem to follow, does it.

Re:Galileo, the moon-mapper

[tverbeek]

No, the point the article makes is that in addition to everything else he did, Galileo also gets points for mapping the moon, while Harriot - who did it early and better - gets none. They figure it's an accomplishment worth noting. (The comment about Harriot being "known better" isn't in reference to Galileo, but in reference to his actual current status.)

The reason why

[El Lobo]

The reason why Galileo is more known is because he not only observed the moon and draw some maps, but because he:

* Discovered the phases of Venus

* Discovered the rings of Saturn

* Discovered sunspots

* Observed and described the Milky way

* Confirmed in details the heliocentric model

* Discovered the satellites of Jupiter, thus confirming the the Earth was nothing "especial" but only one planet like any other

* And MUCH more...

What makes Galileo a giant was not only the quality of his observations but the enormous quantity as well.

Re:The reason why

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the fact that he was attacked and imprisoned by the church for simply stating the TRUTH. He was not only a great scientist, he was also a great role model for every other scientist who has had to fight off the wackjob creationists and the anti-environmentalist moonbats.

Re:The reason why

[robkill]

Actually, Harriot also discovered sunspots prior to Galileo, and discovered Snell's law prior to Snell. He also was among the first to hypothesize the optimum lattice packing of spheres was the traditional hexagonal-based packing. (The book "Kepler's Conjecture" is a great read on this.) He simply didn't publish any of his work. THAT is why he is unknown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Harriot

Re:The reason why

[FooAtWFU]

Really, Galileo got in trouble with the Church not because they were "wackjob creationists" but rather because of a) violating certain (obsolete) teaching standards at his university - a small tragedy, but you probably would be skeptical if you were the dean and one of your physics profs started going on about the electric universe or cold fusion too - and more importantly b) he wrote a book which poked fun at important people who were wrong and called them stupid by proxy, thereby insulting the honor of important political figures (i.e. the Pope, who really should have been a step or two above typical 17th-century Italian politics but apparently wasn't).

I think there's more of a Science-and-Politics lesson here than a Science-and-Religion one. Of course, neither the anti-religious lobbies nor the Protestant lobby really figure they have much to gain by going into detail and making distinctions beyond calling "Galileo!" (galileo, figaro) whenever it's convenient. People might actually learn something about history if they did that, or even Society. We wouldn't want that to happen, would we now?

What about the other great Moon explorer...

[Anonymous Coward]

We should all give Pink Floyd credit for fully exploring the moon's dark side. If I recall correctly they did it with lasers and a lot of funny smelling smoke.

Ever eaten a potato?

[alcmaeon]

Then, unless you are an American Indian, you can probably thank Thomas Harriot.

Let's see, Galileo worked out some obscure mathematical equations, worked on optics, but didn't invent bifocals, and, apparently, drew a rough map of the Moon. Everyone has heard of him.

On the other hand, Thomas Harriot introduced a plant to Europeans that fed millions or people cheaply and has become the staple food for much of the planet's population. No one knows who he is.

In conclusion, we are to gather that Galileo's contributions were more important and history is just.