h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Instead of the normal tech-tv-ish feel for this installment, this one might be a bit more like a History Channel installment. In short: you probably already know all of this.

Galileo, possibly more than anyone else I've ever discussed, fits the definition of the mad scientist that I work with. A penchant for "out of the box" thinking, combined with a built-in stubborn attitude: he knows he's right. Blatant, glaring flaws to his logic were pointed out, but he STILL knew he was right (it took folks like Kepler to come down in his favor).

Let's clear up two myths right away, though: first of all, he didn't invent the telescope. We're not exactly sure who can claim that honor, but telescopes existed before Galileo started using them. He did, however, MAKE them, and he was probably the best at his time. He made notable part of his income by selling telescopes to cities as a security system (you could see an invading army approaching by sea a good three hours in advance!) He was also the first to really fine-tune the art of using telescopes to look at stars and planets.

Next myth: it's not as simple as "science vs. religion" when talking about Galileo. Galileo himself was a Cathloic all his life, and his studies were, in fact, supported by a friend of his who was pretty high up in the church (this friend eventually became the next Pope. Sadly, this Pope was placed under so much political pressure that he had to excommunicate his friend). To his dying day, Galileo was okay with his research. We have this big idea that the church was doing everything in its power to stop Galileo when, in fact, historians normally gloss over Galileo's true enemy, the focus of my musings here.

Galileo was silenced by Aristotle.

"But Affy," you may be laughingly saying, "Aristotle was dead!"

To which I reply, "Ah, yes, but this is mad science."

"But that doesn't make se-" you begin.

I rudely interrupt with "MAD. SCIENCE" before continuing.

Galileo, you see, wasn't challenging any major religious points of view. Rather he was challenging scientific philosophy. The debate of "science vs. religion" is probably closer to "new science vs. old science." Galileo, like Coppernicus, was a champion of a heliocentric view of the solar system rather than a geocentric one (Sun centered vs. Earth centered). The problem with this, however, was that the followers of Aristotelian beliefs saw this as an impossibility.

The way the "old" science dictated it was this: everything in the heavens are perfect, and perfection can be viewed in the form of a circle. Things in the sky that move are unchanging and consistant, therefore they will all move in circles at a predictable rate if they move at all.

Mars was something of a problem with this belief as Mars will frequently go Retrograde on you. At times, the red planet will begin moving BACKWARDS in the sky, which made no sense at all to some people. Ptolemy eventually said that Mars was, in fact, going through two circles at a time: It went around a tiny little loop while at the same time this tiny little loop circled around the Earth. The problem here was that it still didn't perfectly account for where Mars was supposed to go.

Folks then went all crazy trying to force Mars to fit into their view of a perfect little Aristotelian philosophy, sometimes adding even more loops for Mars to circle in, etc., etc. What they eventually ended with was this incredibly complex system of being able to determine, in advance, where Mars would be. And it WORKED! It worked so well that the scientists of the time assumed that they had gotten it right. After all this time, they could rest.

Then Copernicus suggested a heliocentric system, and the little house of cards shuddered a little bit.

Now first, let's understand that a scientific theory now is different than a theory then. Back then, a scientific theory was little more than a supposition. "Suppose the world were to work like this, what then?" It was pretty much just an excercise in hypothetical questions and out-of-the-box thinking. Copernicus wasn't really ridiculed for his thoughts as some suggest, so much as he was ignored. Those who read his book thought it was interesting...but for one little problem.

If you took all of Copernicus' suggestions and applied them, they couldn't predict planet placement. Mars' location was way off. So of COURSE they're going to not believe it (what happened, you see, was that this suggestion, while technically more accurate, gave the planets a circular orbit rather than an elliptical one which modern scientists now know to be true. Had he experimented with different orbital possibilities, Copernicus might have rendered Galileo's contributions to science as irrelevant beyond the application of telescopes).

Galileo's telescopes were, in fact, the key. A few observations because of his little gadgets made the heliocentric theory seem not only more plausible, but downright hard to avoid.
-Galileo could see the Moons of other planets. This alone was an astounding discovery. It demonstrated how not everything in the sky was revolving around the Earth.
-Galileo could ALSO see the phases of Venus. The phases of Venus acted in such a way that could only truly be explained through a system where Venus not only orbited around the Sun, but did so at a closer proximity to Earth's orbit.
-Galielo saw that the Moon had craters and that the Sun had spots. This challenged the view that the heavens were perfect. If the Moon was cratered, might it be made of the same imperfect stuff that the Earth is made of? Why is the Sun blemished?

These and other observations (including early inertial experiments) demonstrated, to his mind, that the Earth could not POSSIBLY be at the center of the Universe.

Now, in defense of the scientists of the day who doubted, keep in mind that Galileo was going up against Aristotle. Ari-freakin'-stotle. His ideas were written in stone.

That's not hyperbole, they actually have copies of his ideas WRITTEN IN STONE! Add to this the fact that Copernicus' ideas had been effectively debunked due to the fact that the math DIDN'T WORK and Galileo must've looked like a raving madman who couldn't accept the facts.

This is why I consider Galileo to be the epitome of what a mad scientist should be. When pointing to mad scientists, I normally have to go for mundane, lesser examples. Dr. Robert White and his experiments involving swapping the heads of monkeys are a favorite example of mine, and everyone can see the "mad science" there. I also talk about Ron Popeil a lot...his practice of gadgeteering is world known, as is the fact that he figured out the advertising tricks that'll be most effective to sell his gadgets (can someone say "mild mind control"?) Walt Disney was a mad scientist of the entertainment world, pioneering not only new animation techniques but new presentation concepts (it's fun to note that by the time he eventually finished his "Futureland" part of the Disney World theme park, he was a bit late: most major airports had what he was offering. A visionary who was, unfortunately, recognized in his own time).

But none of these guys truly possess the true Frankensteinianly maddening ego that we can see in Galileo. He's an inspiration to all of us. So the next time I can't actually *prove* that it's best to first guess Door Number One, and then switch to Door Number Three when the game show host opens the second door, I can still shout at the top of my lungs "YOU'LL SEE! I'LL BE BACK! AND WHEN I HAVE THAT TRIP TO HAWAII, THEN WE'LL SEE WHO'S MAD!"