Thomas Harriot: A Telescopic Astronomer Before Galileo

[Galileo]

Thomas Harriot: A Telescopic Astronomer Before Galileo

ScienceDaily (Jan. 14, 2009) — This year the world celebrates the International Year of Astronomy (IYA2009), marking the 400th anniversary of the first drawings of celestial objects through a telescope. This first has long been attributed to Galileo Galilei, the Italian who went on to play a leading role in the 17th century scientific revolution. But astronomers and historians in the UK are keen to promote a lesser-known figure, English polymath Thomas Harriot, who made the first drawing of the Moon through a telescope several months earlier, in July 1609.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
Space & Time
Moon
Space Exploration
Jupiter
NASA
Space Telescopes
Astronomy
Reference
Galileo Galilei
Green Bank Telescope
Radio telescope
Lunar space elevator

In a paper to be published in Astronomy and Geophysics, the journal of the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS), historian Dr Allan Chapman of the University of Oxford explains how Harriot not only preceded Galileo but went on to make maps of the Moon’s surface that would not be bettered for decades.

Harriot lived from 1560 to 1621. He studied at St Mary’s Hall (now part of Oriel College), Oxford, achieving his BA in 1580 before becoming a mathematical teacher and companion to the explorer Sir Walter Raleigh. In the early 1590s Raleigh fell from royal favour and was imprisoned in the Tower of London.

READ THE REST

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090114110948.htm

 

[Perpetual Student]

I find this of minimal significance since, "Despite his innovative work, Harriot remains relatively unknown. Unlike Galileo, he did not publish his drawings."
Perhaps he did not understand the significance of his findings. As far as we know, he did not even bother to look at Jupiter.

 

[Galileo]

I find this of minimal significance since, "Despite his innovative work, Harriot remains relatively unknown. Unlike Galileo, he did not publish his drawings."
Perhaps he did not understand the significance of his findings. As far as we know, he did not even bother to look at Jupiter.

might not seem like much compared to Galileo, but I'm sure Harriot has accomplished more than anyone who posts here at JREF. This posting is just a further example of JREF snobbery and failure to grasp scientific genius.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Phil Plaitt did an entry on him on his blog yesterday. He has this to say about one of Harriot's moon maps:

This map made above is pretty amazing. It was made by Harriot around 1613, around the time he suddenly (and for unknown reasons) stopped observing the sky. I’ve spent my fair share of time eyeballing the Moon, and this is a pretty decent map, certainly way better than I could do, even with the far-superior optics in my own telescope. Harriot independently discovered sunspots, and observed Jupiter’s moons (though after Galileo discovered and announced them; to his credit Harriot timed carefully the motions of the moons, and his observations have been confirmed).

ETA: and also this:

But what you have to understand that one reason we celebrate Galileo’s contributions is because Galileo was very good at self-promotion. He published his drawings, while Harriot did not.

In case you don't know the blog: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/

Gally, you base your conclusion of "JREF snobbery and failure to grasp scientific genius" on one guy's less than enthusiastic post?

What do you make of Plaitt's comments? (Plaitt is the current president of JREF, in case you didn't know. If anyone speaks for JREF, his comments are certainly more "official" than anonymous comments on the forum.)

 

[Galileo]

Phil Plaitt did an entry on him on his blog yesterday. He has this to say about one of Harriot's moon maps:



ETA: and also this:


In case you don't know the blog: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/

Gally, you base your conclusion of "JREF snobbery and failure to grasp scientific genius" on one guy's less than enthusiastic post?

What do you make of Plaitt's comments? (Plaitt is the current president of JREF, in case you didn't know. If anyone speaks for JREF, his comments are certainly more "official" than anonymous comments on the forum.)

Bad Astromony said:

"Of course, Galileo’s self-image is what got him into so much trouble later in life. He went way out of his way to insult the Pope and the Church, and was pretty much a huge jerk about it."

Galileo was not a jerk. He spoke the truth. The real jerks were the people who threw Galileo into the hole.

 

[Perpetual Student]

might not seem like much compared to Galileo, but I'm sure Harriot has accomplished more than anyone who posts here at JREF. This posting is just a further example of JREF snobbery and failure to grasp scientific genius.

Did Harriot engage in the debate over the heliocentric theory? Did he explore the solar system?
Was he a factor in advancing astronomy? If he kept his musings to himself, what exactly did he accomplish?
JREF snobbery? I come here to learn and "listen in" on interesting discussions about things that matter to me -- while expressing my views from time to time. I do not claim to be infallible. Show me where I'm wrong! If he published nothing and contributed nothing to advance knowledge, exactly what did he accomplish -- other than drawing some nice pictures?

 

[Galileo]

Did Harriot engage in the debate over the heliocentric theory? Did he explore the solar system?
Was he a factor in advancing astronomy? If he kept his musings to himself, what exactly did he accomplish?
JREF snobbery? I come here to learn and "listen in" on interesting discussions about things that matter to me -- while expressing my views from time to time. I do not claim to be infallible. Show me where I'm wrong! If he published nothing and contributed nothing to advance knowledge, exactly what did he accomplish -- other than drawing some nice pictures?

If you bothered to read the article, you'd see that a scientific paper is being published on Harriot. You'll just have to wait.

What we do know is that Harriot had a good telescope and was active in scientific circles in England. Just because he didn't publish a book, doesn't mean he kept everything secret. He obviously saved a lot of his work for a reason. We can credit Harriot for helping to foster the new scientific spirit in England, a place where that was more open to scientific change than on the continent.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Galileo was not a jerk. He spoke the truth. The real jerks were the people who threw Galileo into the hole.

I agree.

But what about the "JREF snobbery and failure to grasp scientific genius"?

Perpetual Student, what about Mendel? He didn't publish, yet his contribution to science ended up being quite important and widely celebrated.

I think Harriot's achievements were merely eclipsed.

From what I've read, the biggest difference between Hooke and Newton may have been self-promotion (and possibly outright plagiarism).

 

[Perpetual Student]

If you bothered to read the article, you'd see that a scientific paper is being published on Harriot. You'll just have to wait.

What we do know is that Harriot had a good telescope and was active in scientific circles in England. Just because he didn't publish a book, doesn't mean he kept everything secret. He obviously saved a lot of his work for a reason. We can credit Harriot for helping to foster the new scientific spirit in England, a place where that was more open to scientific change than on the continent.

OK, we will see what he "accomplished" after the paper is published. In the meantime, we know that he did little to advance his findings since no one has known much about his moon drawings until now.
I would certainly like to learn more about how he fostered the "new scientific spirit in England," without anyone knowing about it.
You have absolutely no basis to claim England was more open to scientific change than the continent! Tycho Brahe, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler (since we are talking about astronomy) were all on the continent -- as I understand geography. If you care to discuss other areas of science, I think you will find that the "continent" was quite productive.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Perpetual Student, what about Mendel? He didn't publish, yet his contribution to science ended up being quite important and widely celebrated.

Mendel's work became influential and an important contribution eventually when the significance of his work was realized -- and, it was not eclipsed by anyone else. Regarding Harriot, the parade has passed him by! He is a footnote.

 

[Galileo]

OK, we will see what he "accomplished" after the paper is published. In the meantime, we know that he did little to advance his findings since no one has known much about his moon drawings until now.
I would certainly like to learn more about how he fostered the "new scientific spirit in England," without anyone knowing about it.
You have absolutely no basis to claim England was more open to scientific change than the continent! Tycho Brahe, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler (since we are talking about astronomy) were all on the continent -- as I understand geography. If you care to discuss other areas of science, I think you will find that the "continent" was quite productive.

I heard about Harriot's moon drawings a long time ago.

For empirical data that England was more open to new scientific ideas than the continent, please see:

Galileo: Man of Science.
http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Man-Science-Ernan-McMullin/dp/B000V0JEYW

Check out the chapter by Stillman Drake regarding Galileo's reception in various European countries.

I am not saying that England was more productive (it wasn't until the time of Newton), I am saying that intellectuals had a more positive view of the new sciences being promoted by Galileo and others.

Incidently, Harriot is covered briefly in this book as well.

 

[Galileo]

Mendel's work became influential and an important contribution eventually when the significance of his work was realized -- and, it was not eclipsed by anyone else. Regarding Harriot, the parade has passed him by! He is a footnote.

That's why Harriot is playing third fiddle to Galileo and Kepler in the Year of Astronomy.

 

[technoextreme]

From what I've read, the biggest difference between Hooke and Newton may have been self-promotion (and possibly outright plagiarism).

Yeah science is weird like that. Maxwell may have initially developed his famous equations but he readily admitted they were utterly useless. Heaviside and Gibbs were the people who actually made the equations useful and you never really hear about those two.

That's why Harriot is playing third fiddle to Galileo and Kepler in the Year of Astronomy.

It happens all the time in science. If you aren't a pompous blowhard in some regards you will fail as a scientist.

 

[athon]

Science history is full of examples where somebody did something before the person we give credit today. The thing is, as much as science is an ideology, it's one done by people. So much was accomplished in the Middle east during the centuries after the Dark Ages that we barely give a nod to. Methods and cultures ebbed and flowed across the ages, discoveries made and lost, celebrated and ignored.

I think it's a mistake to only ever put it down to personality, as the surrounding culture has a lot to do with whether an idea spreads or not. A person who studies in one country, in a given century, might come to radical conclusions which aren't revisited for decades, or even centuries.

As humans, however, we like to connect with the individual as much as the discovery, hence celebrate the person as much as what was found. Even if the truth is more complicated.

I don't think getting your knickers in a not over it is going to accomplish much, except have people be disinclined to want to listen. Can't do much about human nature.

Athon

 

[I Ratant]

might not seem like much compared to Galileo, but I'm sure Harriot has accomplished more than anyone who posts here at JREF. This posting is just a further example of JREF snobbery and failure to grasp scientific genius.

.
Yessir.
JREF snobbery was retroactive to the time of the real G.
Obviously we are concealing the fact of time travel.
Listen for black helicopters outside your dwelling tonight!
This evidence WILL be suppressed!

 

[Perpetual Student]

Yeah science is weird like that. Maxwell may have initially developed his famous equations but he readily admitted they were utterly useless. Heaviside and Gibbs were the people who actually made the equations useful and you never really hear about those two.

It happens all the time in science. If you aren't a pompous blowhard in some regards you will fail as a scientist.

I'm not sure who you are referring to as a "pompous blowhard." Galileo looked at the moon and saw "a world" and published his findings. He saw the moons of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn and published his findings. He discovered laws of motion through experiment and published his findings. He saw astronomical evidence for the heliocentric system advocated by Copernicus (originally proposed by Aristarchus of Samos (310-230 B.C.)) and published his views. He has had an enormous impact on humanity because he communicated what he discovered and believed, at a great personal price. A "blowhard"? A "huge jerk"? Yeah right -- let's all give Harriot a big round of applause!

 

[paximperium]

Thomas Harriot made a footnote impact on science and astronomy and henceforth deserves to remain as footnote in history.

 

[technoextreme]

I'm not sure who you are referring to as a "pompous blowhard."

Galileo. Admittedly, it may be too strong but it a sense of importance is a good characteristic of scientist.

 

[MG1962]

It might be worth noting that in Britian they will be celebrating telescope 400 on the date of Harriots observations and not Gallileo. I might just deploy a scope on both days as a nod to two very distinguished gentlemen

 

[Perpetual Student]

It might be worth noting that in Britian they will be celebrating telescope 400 on the date of Harriots observations and not Gallileo. I might just deploy a scope on both days as a nod to two very distinguished gentlemen

It's likely that Bulgaria is celebrating something also.