What would you like to do?
Galileo proved heliocentricity, the theory that the Earth and the other planets revolve around the Sun as opposed to the Catholic Church's established doctrine of geocentricity, the (incorrect) theory that the Sun and the other planets revolve around the Earth. The Church has since realized that whether the Sun or Earth is the center of the solar system is irrelevant to more serious questions of divinity.
Was this answer useful?
Thanks for the feedback!
He proved mass doesn't affect the velocity of falling objects.
It was when Galileo proved that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. When? It was in the 17th century.
Aristotle thought that when you drop 2 things with different masses that the heavier one would hit the ground first. Galileo proved him wrong by rolling two balls of different… masses down an incline plane and timing them using a water clock. He found that the mass of an object does not affect how quickly it accelerates due to gravity.
The church put Galileo on trial for heresy after he asserted that the Earth orbits round the Sun, and not the other way round as the scriptures said. Galileo publicised the h…eliocentric theory of Copernicus, and this was finally shown to be correct in the 18th century when it was discovered that the Sun is much more massive than the other objects in the solar system. But back in the early 1600s when Galileo was in dispute with the church, scientific knowledge had no conclusive evidence for the heliocentric theory, as Galileo was forced to admit at the trial.
He didn't because the Catholic Church was correct. Most Church leaders, including the pope, agreed with Galileo's hypothesis but asked him to stop teaching it as fact unless h…e had absolute proof that it was correct. He could not provide proof but continued teaching it anyway. He even went so far as to publish insulting remarks about the pope who was, perhaps, his greatest supporter. Copernicus, the scientist who originally developed the theory before Galileo, had no problems with the Church because he did not teach it as scientific fact. Of course, today we know that Galileo was correct in his thinking because of advancements made in science. However, at the time Galileo neglected to use diplomacy and that got him into hot water.
That all the planets revolved around the Sun and not the Earth
Galileo did not prove that Earth was not flat (It had already been agreed that it was round). Galileo invented the telescope and used it to prove that there were objects which… did not orbit the Earth, supporting Copernicus' Heliocentric model for the universe. The Earth was known to be round by the ancient Greeks, but I do not who it found out initially (sorry).
(in the US) That is the beauty of the US Legal System. You do NOT have to prove that you are not guilty, the prosecution must prove that you ARE guilty.
It had been known since ancient times that the world was round. Galileo proved that the universe did not revolve around the earth.
that he was awesome :)
The problem does not specifically lie with beliefs, as much as it does with statements. If you keep your beliefs to yourself, no one need know what they are, and no one will e…ver get angry with you for having different beliefs than they do. Once you express your beliefs, then people may get angry with you, if they have different beliefs than those which you have expressed. In matters of religion there are actually two different kinds of opinions that the church would find offensive. First there is heresy, which means some kind of religious opinion which is different, in some important way, than what the church teaches. Secondly there is blasphemy, which is an opinion that is considered to be an insult either to God or to God's representatives on Earth. (Of course, it is possible to be both heretical and blasphemous at the same time.) During the medieval period, heresy and blasphemy were both considered to be very serious crimes, and the most usual punishment for them was death. The traditional method of execution was to burn people at the stake (which is to say, they would be tied to a stake or pole, and then a wood fire would be built all around them, to burn them to death).
Roman Catholic Answer If by "Roman Church" you are referring to the Christian Church, commonly known as the Catholic Church, there are many names for those who don't agree wit…h them. Schismatic refers to someone who belongs to a Church that has a valid priesthood, and valid Sacraments, but doesn't acknowledge the Roman Pontiff. Heretic is one who was a Catholic and denies the faith completely. Protestant refers to one who objected to Christian truths and decided they would rather follow their own ideas. Pagans are those who have never been Christian or known the truth, etc. Non-Roman Catholic Answer A couple of additions/corrections: a heretic is one who follows a heresy (that is, a view other than the official one; it comes from a word meaning "to choose"); it doesn't necessarily have to be denying the faith completely, and in fact many times they boil down to a single difference of opinion, such as the Monophysite heresy, which basically says that Christ had only one "nature" - either divine or a mixture of divine and human - rather than a dual nature, both divine and human. (Yes, it's somewhat pedantic. Many heresies were.) Someone who was a Catholic (or member of any other belief) and no longer is (whether they deny their former beliefs completely, or only portions of them is an apostate, which comes from a word literally meaning "to stand off". Protestant was used for those who protested (see how that works?) against corruption and false doctrine in the leadership of the Roman Catholic church, and broke off from it in order to pursue what they believed to be the true Christian faith... the original protestants were also apostates, but the term today usually means "someone who follows the tenets of one of the original protestants", or even simply as a catchall for "Christian other than Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox." In any case, I think the word you're looking for is probably "Protestant."
In twenty centuries, there have been way more than four reasons. If you check out the link below, you will find all the great heresies, starting with the The Circumcisers (1st… Century) and Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries) clear up through Protestantism (16th Century) and Jansenism (17th Century). In the early 21st century we are still dealing with Protestantism and Modernism.
What proof does the Catholic Church have to prove that Jesus and Mary Magdalene didn't have a child?
There is no evidence or written document to say they had a child. There is no proof that they did not; it is a matter of faith and reason, just as there is no proof of God, ei…ther, except by faith and reason.
Galileo proved nothing about the Sun being at the centre of the solar system, he only said he had a lot of proofs but the Cardinals of the Catholic Church were too stupid to u…nderstand them. The proof came 100-150 years later after discoveries by Newton and others about the laws of motion and the law of gravity, when it was discovered that the Sun is much more massive than any of the planets.
Because the Church believed the Earth was fixed at the centre of the universe, as it is written in the Bible. Copernicus's idea had the Sun at the centre instead. The Chur…ch was unwilling to change its ideas without adequate proof, but this did not start to come in until the end of the 1600s by which time Copernicus's theory had been replaced by Kepler's.
He was an Italian scientist of the 17th century. He did not prove the heliocentric theory. But everyone accepts the heliocentric principle now, after it was proved right; …but that happened long after Galileo's time, after new scientific discoveries in the latter half of the 1600s.