Popular Posts

Popular Posts

Pages

Total Pageviews

Friday, February 4, 2011

Nicolas Copernicus..The World is not the center of the universe

Nicolas Copernicus
(1473-1543)

Copernicus is said to be the founder of modern astronomy. He was born in Poland,1 and eventually was sent off to Cracow University, there to study mathematics and optics; at Bologna, canon law. Returning from his studies in Italy, Copernicus, through the influence of his uncle, was appointed as a canon in the cathedral of Frauenburg where he spent a sheltered and academic life for the rest of his days. Because of his clerical position, Copernicus moved in the highest circles of power; but a student he remained. For relaxation Copernicus painted and translated Greek poetry into Latin. His interest in astronomy gradually grew to be one in which he had a primary interest. His investigations were carried on quietly and alone, without help or consultation. He made his celestial observations from a turret situated on the protective wall around the cathedral, observations were made "bare eyeball," so to speak, as a hundred more years were to pass before the invention of the telescope. In 1530, Copernicus completed and gave to the world his great work De Revolutionibus, which asserted that the earth rotated on its axis once daily and traveled around the sun once yearly: a fantastic concept for the times. Up to the time of Copernicus the thinkers of the western world believed in the Ptolemiac theory that the universe was a closed space bounded by a spherical envelope beyond which there was nothing. Claudius Ptolemy, an Egyptian living in Alexandria, at about 150 A.D., gathered and organized the thoughts of the earlier thinkers. (It is to be noted that one of the ancient Greek astronomers, Aristarchus, did have ideas similar to those more fully developed by Copernicus but they were rejected in favour of the geocentric or earth-centered scheme as was espoused by Aristotle.) Ptolemy's findings were that the earth was a fixed, inert, immovable mass, located at the center of the universe, and all celestial bodies, including the sun and the fixed stars, revolved around it. It was a theory that appealed to human nature. It fit with the casual observations that a person might want to make in the field; and second, it fed man's ego.
Copernicus was in no hurry to publish his theory, though parts of his work were circulated among a few of the astronomers that were giving the matter some thought; indeed, Copernicus' work might not have ever reached the printing press if it had not been for a young man who sought out the master in 1539. George Rheticus was a 25 year old German mathematics professor who was attracted to the 66 year old cleric, having read one of his papers. Intending to spend a few weeks with Copernicus, Rheticus ended up staying as a house guest for two years, so fascinated was he with Copernicus and his theories. Now, up to this time, Copernicus was reluctant to publish, -- not so much that he was concerned with what the church might say about his novel theory (De Revolutionibus was placed on the Index in 1616 and only removed in 1835), but rather because he was a perfectionist and he never thought, even after working on it for thirty years, that his complete work was ready, -- there were, as far as Copernicus was concerned, observations to be checked and rechecked.
(Interestingly, Copernicus' original manuscript, lost to the world for 300 years, was located in Prague in the middle of the 19th century; it shows Copernicus' pen was, it would appear, continually in motion with revision after revision; all in Latin as was the vogue for scholarly writings in those days.)
Copernicus died in 1543 and was never to know what a stir his work had caused. It went against the philosophical and religious beliefs that had been held during the medieval times. Man, it was believed (and still believed by some) was made by God in His image, man was the next thing to God, and, as such, superior, especially in his best part, his soul, to all creatures, indeed this part was not even part of the natural world (a philosophy which has proved disastrous to the earth's environment as any casual observer of the 20th century might confirm by simply looking about). Copernicus' theories might well lead men to think that they are simply part of nature and not superior to it and that ran counter to the theories of the politically powerful churchmen of the time.
Two other Italian scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! -- there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days.
The most important aspect of Copernicus' work is that it forever changed the place of man in the cosmos; no longer could man legitimately think his significance greater than his fellow creatures; with Copernicus' work, man could now take his place among that which exists all about him, and not of necessity take that premier position which had been assigned immodestly to him by the theologians.

"Of all discoveries and opinions, none may have exerted a greater effect on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus. The world had scarcely become known as round and complete in itself when it was asked to waive the tremendous privilege of being the center of the universe. Never, perhaps, was a greater demand made on mankind - for by this admission so many things vanished in mist and smoke! What became of our Eden, our world of innocence, piety and poetry; the testimony of the senses; the conviction of a poetic - religious faith? No wonder his contemporaries did not wish to let all this go and offered every possible resistance to a doctrine which in its converts authorized and demanded a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown, indeed not even dreamed of." [Goethe.]

The Origin of some words

Orange

The name of the fruit was NARANJ in Sanskrit. This language was spoken in ancient India. Indians traded with Arabs, so the word passed into Arabic as NARANJAH. The Spaniards were ruled by north African Arabs who passed the fruit and word into Spanish as NARANJA (pronounced as NARANHA). This came into English where the fruit was a NARANJ. Words ending in J are not common in English so the spelling quickly changed to a NARANGE.
The initial N moved to the a because of mis-hearing to give an ARANGE (this is called metanalysis).
Over time, the initial A became an O to give an ORANGE.

Chocolate

When the Spanish arrived in Mexico they came across the Aztecs. The Aztec language is called Nahuatl. The Aztecs had a drink which they made from a bean they called CHOCO (bitter). They would put this bean into water (ATL) to produce CHOCO-ATL (bitter water). The TL sound is common in the Aztec language but not in Spanish. The Spaniards mispronounced the drink CHOCOLATO.
This drink was brought to Europe (with sugar added) where the pronunciation and spelling in English became CHOCOLATE.

Algebra

This is a mathematical term. It comes from Arabic. Mohammad al-Khwarizmi was a mathematician who flourished in Baghdad around the year 800. He wrote a book about the solving of equations. It was called ilm al-jabr wa'l muqabalah (the science of transposition and cancellation).
The term al-jabr from this title gave the English word, ALGEBRA.

Checkmate

This is a term in chess. It is from the Farsi language spoken in Iran and Afghanistan. The original phrase is SHAH-K-MATE (every syllable pronounced) which means "The King is Dead". The word SHAH means a "king" as in the last monarch (or SHAH) of Iran. MATE has the same root as the English "murder" and the Spanish "matador" (killer).
The word came via French (where the SH became a CH) and into English where the MA-TE (two syllables) became MATE (one syllable) to give CHECKMATE

February 4 in history

Important Events on February the 4th:
1600 - Tycho Brahe & Johannes Kepler meet for 1st time outside of Prague
1847 - 1st US Telegraph Company established in Maryland
1865 - Hawaiian Board of Education is formed
1887 - Interstate Commerce Act authorizes federal regulation of railroads
1899 - Revolt against US occupation of Philippines
1932 - 1st Winter Olympics held at Lake Placid - NY
1936 - 1st radioactive substance produced synthetically - radium E
1945 - Roosevelt - Stalin & Churchill meet in Yalta - USSR
1948 - Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) gains independence from Britain (Nat'l Day)
1957 - 1st electric portable typewriter placed on sale - Syracuse NY
1964 - Amendment 24 banning poll tax
1973 - Islanders & Sabres had a penality free game
1973 - Reshef - Israel's missile boat - is unveiled
1974 - Patricia Hearst kidnapped by Symbionese Liberation Army
1984 - Backstage Magic" opens at CommuniCore
1985 - 20 countries (not US) sign UN treaty outlawing torture

Earliest Inventions in recorded history

Historians differ in their opinions of when the Middle Ages began and ended, most sources define the Middle Ages as an historical period from 500 AD to 1450 AD. While there was a suppression of knowledge and learning, the Middle Ages was a period full of discovery and inventing.

1023

First paper money printed in China.

1045

Movable type printing by Bi Sheng in China

Circa 1050

Crossbow invented in France.

1182

Magnetic compass invented.

Circa 1200

Clothing buttons invented.

1202

The Hindu-Arabic numbering system introduced to the west by Italian mathematician, Fibonacci.

1249

Rodger Bacon invented his gunpowder formula.

Circa 1250

Gun invented in China.

Circa 1268 - 1289

Invention of eyeglasses.

Circa 1280

Mechanical clocks invented.

Circa 1285 - 1290

Windmills invented.

1295

Modern glassmaking begins in Italy.

1328

First sawmill.

1326

First mention of a handgun.

1366

Scales for weighing invented.

Opening Address..Nobel Prize in 2010


English
Swedish

Opening Address

Speech by Dr Marcus Storch, Chairman of the Board of the Nobel Foundation, 10 December 2010.
Dr Marcus Storch delivering the opening address
Dr Marcus Storch delivering the opening address during the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony at the Stockholm Concert Hall.

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honoured Laureates, Ladies and Gentlemen,
On behalf of the Nobel Foundation, I would like to welcome you to this year’s Nobel Prize Award Ceremony. I would especially like to welcome the Laureates and their families to this ceremony, whose purpose is to honour the Laureates and their contributions to science and literature. We send our warmest greetings to Professor Robert Edwards, who was unable to come to Stockholm due to his health. At the same time, we are pleased that Mrs Ruth Edwards is with us today.
Earlier today in Oslo the Peace Prize Laureate, Liu Xiaobo, who could not be present, was honoured "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China".
Early in 1897 the leading French newspaper Le Temps, predecessor of today’s Le Monde, published a major article about the new Nobel Prize. The article appeared only a few months after Alfred Nobel’s will had been opened and several years before the intentions of the will begin to be realised, with the awarding of the first prizes in 1901. The plans for this new prize had attracted very great attention internationally, and one can ask what caused this interest. After all, prestigious prizes had existed for a long time: in the United Kingdom, in the form of the Royal Society’s awards; in France, the Académie des Sciences awarded prizes, later followed by the Preussische Akademie in Berlin. Indeed, even in the young United States, there had been a prestigious Benjamin Franklin Medal since the 1820s. What made the new Nobel Prize so interesting, even though it would be awarded in two peripheral, poor small countries at the edge of Europe, was that it was perceived as the first genuinely international prize in the cultural field, in its own way equivalent to the revival of the Olympics in the field of sports. In this spirit, the article in Le Temps already speculated about which Frenchmen might defend the tricolore and become medallists in this intellectual arena.
The basis of the Nobel Prize − the will of Alfred Nobel − reflects both his personal interests and his philosophical value system, shaped by the cultural radicalism of the Enlightenment and by 19th century optimism about technical and scientific progress. One can also say that the Prize acquired special stature because of its specific combination of prize areas, which reinforce each other and symbolically convey the values of the Enlightenment and humanism. But what is completely crucial, and fundamental to the international standing of the Prize even today, is the passage where Alfred Nobel says that "It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not." In this way, he sent a powerful signal in opposition to that era’s increasing, militant and militarised nationalism, a phenomenon that led to the two devastating world wars that came to dominate the 20th century.

It is worth mentioning that Nobel’s will was by no means greeted with unanimous enthusiasm in Sweden. Social Democratic politician Hjalmar Branting, later prime minister, felt that the Prize was a way for a capitalist to soothe his bad conscience, but a quarter century later Branting had no objections when he himself received the Peace Prize. In right-wing nationalist circles, Nobel was accused of a lack of patriotism, since large sums of money would go to foreigners. King Oscar II himself tried to intervene in the dispute that arose about the will, on behalf of the side that wanted it declared invalid. For various reasons, the prize-awarding institutions were hesitant about shouldering their role in the system that Nobel had outlined in his will. But after the Storting − the Norwegian Parliament − had accepted its task of appointing the Peace Prize committee at an early stage, negotiations were concluded step by step and the first prizes were awarded in 1901. Since then, through their work and their far-flung networks, the prize-awarding institutions have consolidated the international standing of the Prize and its internationalist message. 
So much for history.
In the field of science, one recurring question is how much resources should go towards basic research and how much towards applied research and pure development. Obviously all of these areas are of crucial importance. No simple linear model from basic research to applied research to technical development is a viable explanation for much more complex relationships and connections. But the role and ambitions of the public sector have changed. After the Second World War, remnants of the way totalitarian regimes had controlled research caused dismay, and basic research enjoyed great freedom. This co-existed with a gradual increase in needs-based research, initially in the armed forces, but later increasingly in other fields where public sector commitments were growing. In recent decades, however, basic research in a number of countries has been squeezed by the education explosion at universities and by the increasing role of externally controlled resources. In addition, political leaders have deemed themselves capable of assessing the direction in which basic research, too, should be pursued so as to be useful to society, and preferably to yield returns faster. There are two reasons to be somewhat sceptical about such "strategic" investments. The first is that behind such a system is an unspoken assumption that scientists themselves would not be interested in seeing their research lead to useful results. The second is the assumption that politicians possess better knowledge when it comes to "picking the winners". In the first case, obviously scientists are interested in the final results, but the path to genuinely important breakthroughs is longer and more uncertain than can be programmed, and requires more time and resources.     

Regarding the usefulness of basic research, as always, reality is a good gauge. Research-intensive international companies indeed seek out those environments that can offer them proximity to basic research at a high level and close to the frontiers of knowledge.
As for letting the public sector pick the winners, experience does not show that politicians and public officials are superior to scientists when it comes to predicting breakthrough areas. For those politicians who are interested in laying the groundwork for research that will lead to Nobel Prizes, it is worth considering that among the Nobel Prizes in the field of natural sciences over the past twenty years – as stated in the autobiographies of the Nobel Laureates − the "free curiosity-driven research" category is heavily predominant.
Sometimes the prize committees are criticised, even by people who should know better, for awarding prizes for complex basic research without practical importance. This year’s prize to Robert Edwards for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) is viewed as commendable because it is regarded as easier to understand. Worth remembering, however, is that Edwards’ basic research on the maturation process of human egg cells is what enabled him to develop IVF. 
Another example of the sometimes unpredictable benefits of basic research is a 1962 Nobel Prize for esoteric research about a remarkable molecule, seemingly without practical importance. But the Prize to Crick, Watson and Wilkins "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material", today better known as DNA, laid the groundwork for a veritable scientific revolution that has given us many new pharmaceuticals, improved conditions for agriculture, provided entirely new perspectives on the evolutionary history of humanity and placed powerful new tools in the hands of justice.
Why does the vital importance of basic research to humanity receive so little attention, both in the media and from our politicians? Let us not unilaterally accuse the messengers, but instead ask our scientists why they have not been successful in conveying the importance of basic research. The scientific Nobel Prizes may perhaps be viewed as Alfred Nobel’s contribution to explaining the value of research to humanity. This − together with the Prizes in literature and peace − is at the heart of Alfred Nobel’s will.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1909

Emil Theodor Kocher

Emil Theodor Kocher

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1909 was awarded to Theodor Kocher "for his work on the physiology, pathology and surgery of the thyroid gland".