Hello everybody, I'm a lurker and I don't post very much.

However, I remember reading Kasz216 posting in this topic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=141057&page=4 about Galileo actually being scientifically sloppy at the time.

Honestly, I was quite impressed by that point of view and thought it would be a good idea to spread out that particular story. However, I read that Galileo also had the Venus phase argument on his part, with the argument in this link: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong/ , and the attribution of the argument to Galileo in Wikipedia's Galileo page I believe.

Kasz216, I'm sure you have studied this extensively enough to explain why this argument at that time would not be that severe, but from the logic of it, it seems irrefutable by geocentrism.

I'm just curious about what your position is to that or whether this argument actually made Galileo scientifically pasable, or whether Galileo actually presented this argument as part of his thesis.

Thanks!

If this is directed at Kasz then you probably should've put it on his wall or send him a PM.

No, because now we can all enjoy Professor Kasz's response. So hush.

Of course, if anyone else wants to respond or share their thoughts in this matter, please do so!

I'm sorry Sensei Badgenome. :/

Well it largely has to do with knowing the different kinds of geocentrism.

The Copernican system was superior to the Ptolmec system.

However the Tychonic system was superior to the Copernican.

The phases of Venus didn't contradict it, and it didn't have the same "problems" that existed back then.

Those problems being lack of stellar parallax (because they were too far away to measure) and Galileo's wrongheaded focus on the tides.

Essentially every proof of the Copernican system also fit with the Tychonic and it didn't have any of the issues listed above.

It's only downside compared to the Copernican was it was much more complicated.  Essentially, how the Tychonian system worked was that the Sun and Moon orbited the Earth, and everything else orbited the Sun.

The Tychonic system was a tidy situation which seemed to solve everything... based on how it was observed at that time and seemed to have the most accurate planetary predictions.

Which is why it's a good lesson to know that no matter how tidy and perfect a system seems, and how much it seems to explain everything... you never know what it is we can't yet perceive.

What I feel like reading this

Thanks for answering! I thought about this for a while and then answered myself basically the same thing; the argument of Venus phases holds against the Copernican system but not the Tychonic considering that Venus would still distance itself from Earth sometimes and then come closer as well!