You wrote:
“Still, one cannot suppose, given the RCC’s vehement stand thereafter, that Copernicus was not treated to the RCC view of things at the time.”
1) What exactly was the Catholic view of things? I ask since the Church never had a de fide dogmatic teaching against heliocentrism.
2) You are wrong in any case since the chronolgy of events would make the possibility of Copernicus being “treated” to a view different than his own by the Church logically impossible. When his view was just becoming known, he was on his death bed. There was little or no time for controversy at the time.
“Galileo, a mind easily on par with DaVinci, was another thing altogether- Being obnoxious and irreverent to those who opposed him was quite his natural style, and he stood very firmly upon his findings.”
So what? How does any of that negate what I said?
“For one such as he to not once, but twice (some say four occasions, twice to be sure) recant his findings before an inquisitor certainly makes one wonder what threat was laid upon him.”
None.
“His confinement to house arrest, spent largely at his remote villa, and the suppression of his works, speaks loudly.”
Speaks loudly of what?
“Had he not been so famous and of such high regard, one doubts the final verdict would have been so kind.”
Why? His life was never in danger.
“FWIW, I do reject later rumors that his inquisitor had him blinded (his blindness in his final years was attributed by most to an infection), and any other sort of malady said to have been forced upon him by the Church of Rome, But history is history, after all.”
Looking through a primative telescope for years on end is not good for the eyes.
“The RCC cannot stand on any ground but it’s firm opposition to copernicism, and it’s ill treatment of the one who proved heliocentrism without a shadow of a doubt-Historic evidence on the subject is without dispute.”
Galileo did not prove heliocentrism nor could he. Newton is usually credited with having proven heliocentrism. The math knowledge necessary to prove it did not yet exist in Galileo’s day.
“I do not wish to tarry on this subject. and do not wish to send the thread off on a tangent, but in the face of your accusation, I felt I needed to produce a reply.”
I understand. I appreciate it.
In Ptolemy everything orbits around the earth.
What Copernicus did was attempt to show how a helio-centric hypothesis provided a more elegant (fewer steps) explanation of the appearances. Copernicus's problem arose because he persisted in hypothesizing regular circular motion.
Tycho Brahe had an elegant way to preserve geo-centrism by having the Sun orbit around the earth and everything (except, I'd guess, the Moon) orbit around the Sun.
But all these guys were still committed to the Ptolemaic principle of regular circular motion and that was the real crippler in their accounts.
Kepler did the math (and the math had existed since 2nd century BC — Apollonius of Perga On Conic Sections which is the hardest math I've ever done, but it was pretty cumbersome to work with) to show that hypothesizing elliptical orbits with the Sun at one focus of the ellipse did a better job of "saving the appearances".
Newton developed (I won't say invented) the calculus AND hypothesized the laws of Motion and the law of gravity and thus provided an explanation for WHY planets would move in ellipses. So he pretty much polished up heliocentrism.
God said, "Let Newton be,"
And all was light.