Jump to content

  •  

* * * * *

The Discoveries of Galileo – Part 2: Sunspots and Their Movements


Discuss this article in our forums

The Discoveries of Galileo – Part 2: Sunspots and Their Movements

 

 

Last month I wrote in Part 1 about Galileo’s discovery that the wandering star, Jupiter, was a planet that had four moons. Recall that my motivation was reading the book Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo published in 1957 by Stillman Drake, a Canadian historian and authority on the complete works on Galileo. This article will cover Galileo’s observations of sunspots which got him into hot water with the Roman Catholic Church in 1616.

Sunspots were known for centuries before the development of the spyglass or telescope. Ancient records from China indicate that spots could be seen on the Sun at sunset with the naked eye. The first drawings of sunspots were made by an English monk named John of Worcester in 1128. Johann Kepler and others used the camera obscura method (pinhole projection) to project images of the Sun onto the floor of a dark room but he thought the spots were transits of Mercury.

Galileo was not the first to use a spyglass to study sunspots. Thomas Harriot of England, Christopher Scheiner of Germany, and Johann Goldsmid of Holland all claim to have made observations in 1610-11. We will meet Scheiner shortly as his and Galileo’s observations of sunspots overlapped significantly.

Galileo started drawing sunspots in early 1611 (figure 1). He used his spyglass to show the spots to many people during the previous 18 months in Rome and Florence and was now ready to study them. Figure 2 shows many illustrations of sunspots drawn by Galileo and his students over consecutive days in 1611. Galileo used a method developed by his pupil, Benedetto Castelli, to prevent eye damage called a helioscope for projecting the Sun’s image through the spyglass in a darkened room onto a large piece of paper. The paper had a circle drawn by a compass of the same size and Galileo would focus the Sun to fit the circle to accurately replicate the spots. Figure 3 is a replica of the helioscope projection method used by Galileo and Castelli.

    

 

Galileo made several observations about the sunspots including they can appear anywhere on the solar disc, can change shape, and move from west to east over a series of days. He noted that when they appear from the west, they get bigger and then appear to shorten as the approach the eastern edge of the sun. You can see the sunspots moving from day-to-day and change shape in figure 4.

 

 

Galileo observed one particularly large group of spots roll off the right side of the Sun and reappear two weeks later in the upper left side. This led Galileo to logically conclude that the sun was a sphere rotating on an axis about every 28 days and that the spots must be on or close to the surface of the Sun. Galileo viewed sunspots as more evidence supporting the Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the Earth and planets orbiting the Sun. If the Sun rotates on an axis and the four Medicean stars orbit around Jupiter, then could it be possible that the Earth might revolve on an axis too and orbit around the Sun?

Galileo received a letter in January 1612 from Mark Welser, a wealthy merchant and amateur of science from Augsburg, to get his opinion on sunspots written by a German astronomer studying the spots. In his first letter on sunspots dated May 4, 1612 and titled “Concerning the Solar Spots,” Galileo wrote,

“…It is also true that the spots do not remain stationary upon the body of the sun, but appear to move in relation to it with regular motions, as your author has noted in the same letter.” (Discoveries, p. 91)

This quote from the letter offers me an opportunity to now segue into how Galileo got into trouble with the Roman Catholic Church. The ‘author’ mentioned in the quote was none other than Father Christopher Scheiner, a Jesuit physicist and astronomer at the University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria, Germany. As mentioned previously, Scheiner had been observing sunspots with a spyglass for some time. He wanted to publish his observations but was forbidden to by his superior over the fear that his findings would be mistaken and bring discredit to his Jesuit order (Discoveries, p. 81).

So why was Scheiner’s superior concerned? Because the Greek teachings of Aristotle and Ptolemy dominated the thinking of the Vatican in the early 17th century. These included that the Earth was the immovable center of the universe and that all celestial objects are perfect spheres. The Church understood this to mean that the Heavens were created by God and so they took Aristotle’s teaching one step further and decreed that all celestial objects were perfect unblemished spheres. Sunspots would mean that the sun wasn’t unblemished. To speak out or write that any celestial object was not perfect would elicit the wrath of the Inquisition.

So Scheiner sent his letters to Mark Welser for publication. Scheiner published under the pseudonym Apelles latens post tabulam or Apelles for short. Apelles beat Galileo in publishing his observations of sunspots and this triggered an ongoing conflict between the two on who first observed sunspots using a spyglass. In the letters written by Apelles, he proposes that sunspots were small orbital bodies or wandering stars that move around the Sun. This allowed Father Scheiner to avoid a controversy about Aristotle’s belief that the Sun was a perfect unblemished sphere.

Galileo did not have direct knowledge of who Apelles was and wouldn’t for several years. He disagreed with Apelles’ observation and printed three letters back to Welser in May, August, and December 1612. Galileo’s Letters on Sunspots were then published in Rome in 1613 as a booklet by the Lincean Academy (figure 5). The first two letters were more of a “Just the facts, ma’am.” response to Apelles’ letters but Galileo’s third letter dated December 1, 1612 was much more confrontational toward Apelles. This was because Galileo thought he clearly explained to Apelles in the first two letters why his observations of the spots were correct.

In the third letter, Galileo takes Apelles to task on the movement and speed of sunspots. Galileo is also unhappy that Apelles claimed in a previous letter that he discovered the “Medicean stars” of Jupiter and that those “stars” regularly appear and disappear (Discoveries, p. 138).  Galileo retorts that

“…the four Medicean planets are true and real stars, as permanent and enduring as the others. They do not become lost or hidden except when in conjunction with one another or Jupiter…They have their regular motions and their definite periods, and if he (Apelles) has been unable to calculate them, perhaps it is because he has not worked so hard as I have.” (emphasis added, Discoveries, p 138).

Galileo is essentially accusing Apelles of being lazy! The confrontational tone toward the Jesuit Apelles in this letter combined with resistance to Galileo’s publication of Discourse on Floating Bodies in 1612 caused some powerful Jesuits and Dominicans to become enemies of Galileo. The battle over the Copernican system had begun: “…by his avowed enemies in the church it seems never to have been understood at all. To their minds he [Galileo] was attacking the church; to his own mind he was protecting it from the commission of a fatal error.” (Discoveries p. 145).

This third letter is the first time that Galileo openly endorses the Copernican heliocentric model of the heavens in print. While commenting on sunspots, Galileo asks in passing,

“And is there not still a controversy over whether the Earth itself remains immobile, or wanders, while [at the same time] we are quite certain of the motions of not a few stars?”

Galileo was reputed to be very arrogant and he would often respond to any criticism of his letters in an aggressive and sarcastic tone. That polemic trait comes out in the third letter when he insinuates Apelles is not only wrong about his conclusions on sunspots but that he is also lazy. This contentious attitude is what leads the Dominicans to accuse Galileo of heresy in 1615-16 and again in 1632. But that story is for another time.

Next month in Part 3 I will write on Galileo’s discoveries of the surface of the Moon: the first observational evidence that heavenly bodies were not perfect unblemished spheres!

Ed LaBelle has been a member of Austin Astronomical Society since 2010. He has worked as an engineer in the semiconductor industry for 30 years and is the founder of the Psalm 19 Astronomy Society based in Austin, Texas USA.

 

 

 

 

 


  • John Huntley, danmdak, Sheol and 20 others like this


16 Comments

Photo
Spaceman Spiff
Jan 24 2021 01:19 PM

Nice article! Very interesting.

    • E-Ray likes this

I'm really enjoying these pieces! Thanks and please keep them coming!

    • E-Ray likes this

thanks for updating!

    • E-Ray likes this
Really good piece. Thanks!
    • E-Ray likes this

Anther nice summary of an important period of scientific discovery and logical push back against the unsupportable dogma of the time.

    • E-Ray likes this

E-Ray,

 

I enjoyed reading Part 2 of your series.  I wasn't aware of the tussle with the Jesuit astronomer Apelle.  I guess the competition over precedence of discoveries hasn't changed over the centuries.

 

As homage to Galileo, I made a set of observations back in 2007 to follow sunspots through half a solar rotation.

 

https://www.cloudyni...-27-feb-9-2007/

    • E-Ray and GeoNole94 like this

E-Ray,

 

I enjoyed reading Part 2 of your series.  I wasn't aware of the tussle with the Jesuit astronomer Apelle.  I guess the competition over precedence of discoveries hasn't changed over the centuries.

 

As homage to Galileo, I made a set of observations back in 2007 to follow sunspots through half a solar rotation.

 

https://www.cloudyni...-27-feb-9-2007/

Very nice work back in 2007! I like your Jupiter, Moon, and Saturn sketches.

Thank you, sir.  smile.gif  

Photo
chaoscosmos
Feb 03 2021 04:09 PM

Good stuff.

    • E-Ray likes this
Photo
iseegeorgesstar
Feb 05 2021 03:42 PM

I'm curious how it was argued the moon is an unblemished object when with your naked eye you could see the dark regions on it. What strikes me is that this visual observation is a lot more easily accessible than say seeing sunspots on a sunset with a naked eye -- which I wasn't even aware was possible.

 

Thanks for writing these posts. Those sunspot drawings of Galileo's are awesome!!!! You're basically looking at real documented history of the sun!!! We have, if you don't count everything on earth, so little history of the universe apart from a meteorite or two. 

    • E-Ray likes this

iseegeorgestar: By unblemished the 17th century natural philosophers meant perfectly smooth and polished surface of a sphere according to Aristotelian thinking for celestial objects which was embraced by the and Roman Catholic Church. The coloration of the Moon was not considered an imperfection and was observed to not change. Sunspots were different because they did appear, change over time, and disappear.

 

Hope this helps! 

 

Ed

I'm curious how it was argued the moon is an unblemished object when with your naked eye you could see the dark regions on it. What strikes me is that this visual observation is a lot more easily accessible than say seeing sunspots on a sunset with a naked eye -- which I wasn't even aware was possible.

 

Thanks for writing these posts. Those sunspot drawings of Galileo's are awesome!!!! You're basically looking at real documented history of the sun!!! We have, if you don't count everything on earth, so little history of the universe apart from a meteorite or two. 

Photo
Chris Westland
Feb 19 2021 07:37 PM

I'm not sure Ed whether you have read "Galileo: And the Science Deniers" by Mario Livio, but it goes into great detail about the politics behind the church's resistance to Galileo's findings.  Galileo was also in poor health in later life, and could be very edgy in his responses to criticism.  Also there was debate about whether the telescope was actually fabricating images of Jupiter's moons and sunspots.

    • E-Ray likes this

I'm not sure Ed whether you have read "Galileo: And the Science Deniers" by Mario Livio, but it goes into great detail about the politics behind the church's resistance to Galileo's findings.  Galileo was also in poor health in later life, and could be very edgy in his responses to criticism.  Also there was debate about whether the telescope was actually fabricating images of Jupiter's moons and sunspots.

Hi Chris, 

Thanks for the recommendation! I'll request the book from my local library's interlibrary loan service. 

 

What got me interested in Galileo was a presentation to our Austin Chapter of Reasons to Believe (a science and faith ministry started by astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross in 1986) in February 2019 by Dr. John Tyler. Dr. Tyler has a Ph. D in Philosophy and a JD in law and is a Professor of Law and Jurisprudence at Houston Baptist University. His background in law was the basis of his talk.

 

This was the first time that I ever heard that Galileo went before the Inquisition twice. The first time was in 1616 where Galileo was censured and instructed to not teach heliocentrism as fact but only as a theory. The second of course is the more famous trial in 1633 after Galileo published "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" in which he presents arguments in the form of a dialogue about geocentricism and heliocentrism. Galileo was accused of violating his censure by promoting that the Earth moves around the Sun in this book.

 

Dr. Tyler researched all of the original legal documents that still exist and learned that Galileo was prosecuted largely because he embarrassed his old friend, Pope Urban VII, by putting the Pope's words into the mouth of Simplicio, the dunce-like character in Dialogue who was defending an unmovable earth. Pope Urban was highly disliked by the Italian and other European elites and was facing ouster as Pope. He used Galileo as a scapegoat and prosecuted him before the Inquisition in bad faith to save his papacy.

 

Probably more info than what you were looking for.

 

Regards, Ed 

Photo
Chris Westland
Feb 21 2021 12:30 AM

Livio actually goes into detail about the discussions in each of these inquisitions.  The Pope had been an admirer of Galileo, but was caught in the intense politics of the Reformation, and was cornered to get serious about the challenge to the Church doctrine.  Galileo really got of lucky, since only a few decades earlier, Giordano Bruno had been burned at the stake for promoting exactly the same ideas that Galileo championed.  

 

Tell us how you like Livio's book.  It's well written, but I have to admit that Vatican politics get a bit tedious after several hundred pages.

Interesting to see this post since I'm now reading, "The Invention of Science, a New History of the Scientific Revolution," by David Wootton. He talks about Galileo at lot, identifying Galileo's discovery of the moons of Jupiter as a pivotal event in the history of science, on the same scale and with the same level of impact as the voyages of discovery by the European navigators: 

 

"In discovering the moons of Jupiter, Galileo had discovered new worlds, just as the navigators had done."  

 

Both of these events shook up the prevailing worldview considerably, and moved the emphasis away from rediscovering/interpreting what ancients like Aristotle said and believed towards what we today call science. And the invention of the printing press also ushered in a new notion--discoveries were increasingly attributed to the first to be published.  

Photo
Nicole Sharp
Mar 26 2021 02:56 AM

Quite interesting.  I've always wondered how Sunspots were discovered before the invention of modern Solar filters.  How many astronomers went blind attempting to observe Sunspots?



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics