Disparaging Lemaitre

[Total Science]

If objectivity is the standard, yes.

No such thing as objectivity and no such thing as standard in natural philosophy.

Socrates asked the fundamental questions.

Why? If he had considered your answer (he did) why did he need to ask questions?

Reality sets the standard.

What is reality? How do you know reality exists and how do you determine it? How come your reality is different from the reality of others?

No faith needed.

Faith is required in order to make and believe that claim.

[Total Science]

Scientific success always equals scientific truth.

LOL.

What is scientific success? The Nobel Prize?

It just means that that truth is temporary.

Truth can never be temporary.

The opinions of ancients are not to be equated with scientific knowledge.

So you don't believe in atoms or magnetism?

For every correct belief that was ever held by anyone, there existed innumerable, incorrect beliefs that were held, as well.

Sounds like contemporary science.

Are you saying that Ptolemy advanced a theory that he could not prove, that all the information that he had available to him was not sufficient to warrant a belief in Geocentrism? His successful model proved his Geocentric theory. Why would you have belittled his success, and ventured that Geocentrism still hadn't been proven? Sure, Heliocentrism did make some strong arguments, but just not strong enough, apparently.

Why do you think the Earth is the center of the universe?

Examples, please. Thanks.

Flight, meteorites, alchemy, the iron sun, the moons of Mars, etc.

No, very ancient Man never believed that the land under his feet was circling the Sun.

History says otherwise and Philolaus, Aristarchus, Seleucus, and Newton disagree with you. So do I.

He saw the Sun as a disk in the sky, and little more.

History says otherwise.

"He [Anaxagoras] asserted that the sun was a mass of burning iron...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

"Favorinus, in his Univeral History, says that Democritus said of Anaxagoras, that his opinions about the sun and moon were not his own, but were old theories, and that he had stolen them." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

Oh and by the way. It turns the Sun is in fact iron.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

While the gas model has enjoyed popular support over the past 50 years, that has not always been the case. In fact astronomers of 100 years ago believed in a predominantly iron sun, most notably Dr. Kristian Birkeland. ...

The surface crust of the sun is mostly made of iron.

!!!

But, how is ancient truth so obviously true to you, and not to modern scientists?

Because I'm not illiterate and retarded and they are?

Do you have a special test for truth that modern scientists are missing?

Yes. It's a test that only I and the people who agree with me can perform...

But, now, you're contradicting yourself, using the concept of success in establishing truth.

I'm not contradicting myself, rather I am contradicting you!

If you believe that successful predictions determine truth then you are a geocentrist. That's point number one.

Point number two is that you must also be a Pythagorean (in which case you would have to agree with me) and a Velikovskian (in which case you would have to agree with me.)

An EM explanation for gravity is not ancient; it is modern. It was proposed by many modern scientists. Even you have posted quotes by them.

History, Democritus, Lucretius, and Kepler disagree with you and so do I.

[Plasmatic]

No such thing as objectivity and no such thing as standard in natural philosophy.

So how did you determine that truth was "not temporary"? And What is truth ? So Natural philosophy has the standard of no standard then?

[nick c]

Aristarchus of Samos (3rd C BCE) is the earliest known advocate of the heliocentric system, however he had only a few followers and was largely disregarded until Copernicus. Most of the ancients (whose thoughts have been passed on to us) subscribed to some form of a geocentric model. Between Copernicus and then, the heliocentric system was given consideration or discussed, but by and large geocentrism ruled.

The chief objection to Aristarchus' heliocentric view was the result of observation; or rather the lack of the observation of any parallax movement of the fixed stars. If the Earth revolves around the Sun then the fixed stars should shift their position when observed at opposite ends of the Earths orbit. They did not display this parallax movement. (The reason, of course, is that the stars are so far away that the magnification of a telescope is needed to measure any parallax.) Aristarchus, correctly, gave this (enormous distance) as the explanation for the lack of parallax. But, the consensus of learned men found the distance required, and consequently an incredibly large size for the universe, to be unacceptable.

The lesson to be learned here, is that it was an observation (lack of parallax) that "falsified" the heliocentric theory.

As an aside, it must be remembered that the heliocentric system was not correct. It was only less wrong then the geocentric system. The proponents of these systems were trying to explain where the center of the universe was located! So the thinking is a progression.

Nick

[Total Science]

Aristarchus of Samos (3rd C BCE) is the earliest known advocate of the heliocentric system, however he had only a few followers and was largely disregarded until Copernicus. Most of the ancients (whose thoughts have been passed on to us) subscribed to some form of a geocentric model.

Pythagoras, Philolaus, Democritus, and Plato all predate Aristarchus of Samos.

"This [heliocentrism] was the philosophy taught of old by Philolaus, Aristarchus of Samos, Plato in his riper years, the whole sect of Pythagoreans, and that wisest king of the Romans, Numa Pompilius." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1694

"He [Newton] will show that the most ancient philosophy is in agreement with this hypothesis of his as much because the Egyptians and others taught the Copernican system, as he [Newton] shows from their religion and hieroglyphics and images of the Gods...." -- David Gregory, mathematician, July 1694

"This question of measurement is only one example of Newton's faith in the prisca sapientia of Ancient Egypt. He was also convinced that atomic theory, heliocentricity and gravitation had been known there [See McGuire and Rattansi (1966, p. 110)]." -- Martin Bernal, historian, 1987

As an aside, it must be remembered that the heliocentric system was not correct. It was only less wrong then the geocentric system. The proponents of these systems were trying to explain where the center of the universe was located!

Wrong. In the heliocentric model of Pythagoras [and therefore of Egypt] and Philolaus, the center of the universe is "the Central Fire" and the Sun orbits that.

So the thinking is a progression.

Maybe in your world. In my world thinking is a regression.

"... the lamp of history ... destroyeth the darkness of ignorance, the whole mansion of nature is properly and completely illuminated." -- Ugrasrava Sauti, Mahabharata, 8th century B.C.

"There is no teaching, but only recollection." -- Plato, philosopher, Meno, 380 B.C.

[Total Science]

No such thing as objectivity and no such thing as standard in natural philosophy.

So how did you determine that truth was "not temporary"? And What is truth ? So Natural philosophy has the standard of no standard then?

I define truth as Kant did i.e. necessary and universal.

Universal in Kant's sense trancends time. Therefore truth can never be outdated or outmoded.

[Plasmatic]

I'm interested in what Egyptian text in particular you think corresponds to this interpretation you and Newton believe.

I assume you do not accept the Polar configuration interpretation of myth???

[Plasmatic]

I define truth as Kant did i.e. necessary and universal.

Universal in Kant's sense trancends time. Therefore truth can never be outdated or outmoded.

And how could you know this if objectivity was not available to you? Sounds like you just defined a standard.

[nick c]

Total Science:
I have to respectfully disagree. Aristarchus of Samos is the earliest known proponent of the heliocentric system. I don't know if it originated with him, I would not be surprised one bit if there was an earlier source for the idea, I merely stated that he is the earliest known. Those you have cited, proposed a moving Earth but none had a proper heliocentric system. Perhaps Pythagoras was Aristarchus' source for the idea, but his teachings have been clouded by history. Where is the evidence?
You can interpret Philolaus' "central sun" anyway you want:

Philolaus says that there is fire in the middle at the centre ... and again more fire at the highest point and surrounding everything. By nature the middle is first, and around it dance ten divine bodies - the sky, the planets, then the sun, next the moon, next the earth, next the counterearth, and after all of them the fire of the hearth which holds position at the centre. The highest part of the surrounding, where the elements are found in their purity, he calls Olympus; the regions beneath the orbit of Olympus, where are the five planets with the sun and the moon, he calls the world; the part under them, being beneath the moon and around the earth, in which are found generation and change, he calls the sky.
—Stobaeus, i. 22. 1d

I would not call that a heliocentric model!
Compare that description to this, which is plain and simple a heliocentric system:

But Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the 'universe' just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same center as the Sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the Earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the center of the sphere bears to its surface.[1]

Archimedes—The Sand Reckoner

Even if you have some obscure reference, the most you can push it back is to is the 5th century BCE. I have no vested interest in establishing priority for Aristarchus, show me an unambiguous heliocentric theory before Aristarchus. Philolaus doesn't quite make the grade.

Nick

[Total Science]

I'm interested in what Egyptian text in particular you think corresponds to this interpretation you and Newton believe.

It is universally known that Egypt, Pythagoras, Philolaus, and Democritus had a heliocentric model.

See Newton, et al.

http://ls.poly.edu/~jbain/mms/texts/B12 ... of_Pan.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=3ngEug ... q=&f=false

I assume you do not accept the Polar configuration interpretation of myth???

What polar configuration interpretation myth?

If it's a so-called "myth" it's probably true.

"Le myth est ne de la science." -- Charles F. Dupuis, polymath, 1795

"... what is myth to-day is often history to-morrow." -- Lewis Spence, translator, July 1908

I define truth as Kant did i.e. necessary and universal.

Universal in Kant's sense trancends time. Therefore truth can never be outdated or outmoded.

And how could you know this if objectivity was not available to you? Sounds like you just defined a standard.

Well at least you agree that everything I've said is objective and standard...

[Joe]

What is scientific success?

Example: the Ptolemaic system. It was successful in predicting eclipses. And, it was scientific;
there was no invocation of the supernatural. And, therefore, it was accepted as scientific truth.

Truth can never be temporary.

Scientific truth has done nothing but show itself to be temporary.

So you don't believe in atoms or magnetism?

Not if they're opinions of persons who have not applied the Scientific Method. Although, in the case of magnetism, no belief is necessary since it is a sensual phenomenon.

Sounds like contemporary science.

Remember that science is progress. Errors in judgement will be made.

Why do you think the Earth is the center of the universe?

The Earth is not the center of the Universe.

Flight, meteorites, alchemy, the iron sun, the moons of Mars, etc.

So, you believe that the aeronautical engineers of today are making advancements in flight by looking to the ancients? Are the great sums of money that are invested in research just a lying facade? One would think that if the ancients had the knowledge for flight, they would have...oh,I dunno...actually flown!!! Do you have photographs of these ancients actually flying?

So, astronomers today have less knowledge of astral bodies than the ancients had? Great sums spent on observatories and probes are really for naught, then?

I'll give you this, Total Science: The ancients knew more about alchemy than do today's chemists.

History says otherwise and Philolaus, Aristarchus, Seleucus, and Newton disagree with you.

I said,"...very ancient...," in order to show that there exists a general momentum in the acquisition of knowledge that leads from immediate, simple forms to extended, complex ones. It is illogical to believe that primitive Man's first idea of the Sun was as the anchor for his own land's orbit. Rather, he saw it as something that moved, as he and his land stood still.

"He [Anaxagoras] asserted that the sun was a mass of burning iron...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

I said,"...and little more," to allow room for opinion based on speculation. The Scientific Method was never used in the distant past to determine the composition of the Sun. And, as I have already stated, for every hit, there are innumerable misses. You just choose not to mention them. This makes the past look like a land of pristine knowledge.

Because I'm not illiterate and retarded and they are?

So, you believe that modern scientists are illiterate and mentally defective?

If you believe that successful predictions determine truth then you are a geocentrist.

No, I am a not a Geocentrist. But, I am a believer in scientific progress. With today's information, I am a Heliocentrist.

you must also be a Pythagorean (in which case you would have to agree with me) and a Velikovskian (in which case you would have to agree with me.)

Define these 2 terms, please, and tell me the reasons for which I must be associated with these 2 terms. Thanks.

History, Democritus, Lucretius, and Kepler disagree with you

And, I disagree with speculation posing as science.


-Joe

[Total Science]

What is scientific success?

Example: the Ptolemaic system. It was successful in predicting eclipses. And, it was scientific; there was no invocation of the supernatural. And, therefore, it was accepted as scientific truth.

Do you think the Ptolemaic system successfully predicted that the Earth is the center of the Universe? I can see I am dealing with a geocentrist and a Big Banger. Why do you think the Sun revolves around the Earth and the Earth is the center of the universe?

Scientific truth has done nothing but show itself to be temporary.

What you call "scientific truth" I call fairy tales and pipe dreams.

So you don't believe in atoms or magnetism?

Not if they're opinions of persons who have not applied the Scientific Method.

It's irrelevant what method people used to discover atoms and magnetism, they exist regardless. So if someone makes a discovery without using the method of mythology and other fairy tales, it cannot considered to be true? What about the scientific discoveries that were made prior to the so-called "Scientific" Method? How come the mainstream scientists and Big Bangers today reject observation and experiment and don't believe in the scientific method?

Although, in the case of magnetism, no belief is necessary since it is a sensual phenomenon.

Not always. We are held to the Earth by magnetism and we don't really feel it unless we fall to the ground.

"Thus we cognize the existence of a magnetic matter penetrating all bodies from the perception of attracted iron filings, although an immediate perception of this matter is impossible for us given the constitution of our organs." -- Immanuel Kant, natural philosopher, 1781

The Earth is not the center of the Universe.

This contradicts your earlier statement that the Ptolemaic system is a successful scientific model. There is nothing successful about infinite epicycles and grossly inaccurate and false predictions.

So, you believe that the aeronautical engineers of today are making advancements in flight by looking to the ancients?

Yes, e.g. electrogravitics. And also the ancients had celestial weapons which were far more advanced than our childish and ridiculous weapons today.

"When I heard that the just and renowned Arjuna after having been to the celestial regions, had there obtained celestial weapons from Indra himself then, O Sanjaya, I had no hope of success. When I heard that afterwards Arjuna had vanquished the Kalakeyas and the Paulomas proud with the boon they had obtained and which had rendered them invulnerable even to the celestials, then, O Sanjaya, I had no hope of success." -- Dhritarashtra, Mahabharata, 8th century B.C.

"Thou hast heard, O Raja, of the greatly powerful men of vast exertions, spoken of by Vyasa and the wise Narada; men born of great royal families, resplendent with worthy qualities, versed in the science of celestial arms, and in glory emblems of Indra; men who having conquered the world by justice and performed sacrifices with fit offerings (to the Brahmanas), obtained renown in this world and at last succumbed to the sway of time." -- Ugrasrava Sauti, Mahabharata, 8th century B.C.

"Then is narrated the ascent on the hills of Kailasa by Bhimasena, his terrific battle with the mighty Yakshas headed by Hanuman; then the meeting of the Pandavas with Vaisravana (Kuvera), and the meeting with Arjuna after he had obtained for the purpose of Yudhishthira many celestial weapons; then Arjuna's terrible encounter with the Nivatakavachas dwelling in Hiranyaparva, and also with the Paulomas, and the Kalakeyas; their destruction at the hands of Arjuna; the commencement of the display of the celestial weapons by Arjuna before Yudhishthira...." -- Mahabharata, 8th century B.C.

"This weapon [the Pasupata] can slay any being within the three worlds, including Indra and Rudra." -- Mahabharata, 8th century B.C.

"And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." -- II Kings 2:11

"... there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him [Elijah], and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head." -- II Kings 2:23

"And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man." -- Ezekial 1:4-5

"And when I looked, behold the four wheels by the cherubims, one wheel by one cherub, and another wheel by another cherub: and the appearance of the wheels was as the colour of a beryl stone. And as for their appearances, they four had one likeness, as if a wheel had been in the midst of a wheel. When they went, they went upon their four sides; they turned not as they went, but to the place whither the head looked they followed it; they turned not as they went." -- Ezekial 10:9-11

"Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows?" -- Isaiah 60:8

"Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll. And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits." -- Zechariah 5:1-2

"... who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind...." -- Psalm 104:3

"Abaris was called Aethrobates, the walker in air; for he was carried in the air on an arrow of the Hyperborean Apollo, over rivers, seas and inaccessible places. It is believed that this was the method employed by Pythagoras when on the same day he discoursed with his friends at Metapontum and Tauromenium." -- Porphyry, philosopher, 3rd century

And the inventor of your so-called "Scientific" Method had this to say:

"Flying machines as these were of old, and are made even in our day." -- Roger Bacon, natural philospher, 1260

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/1 ... chart.html

Are the great sums of money that are invested in research just a lying facade?

Not a facade. In some cases they are deliberately and openly stealing from you and in some cases they are actual clowns.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gzhqr188

One would think that if the ancients had the knowledge for flight, they would have...oh,I dunno...actually flown!!!

Um...they did...

Do you have photographs of these ancients actually flying?

Do you have photographs of Hitler actually murdering Jews?

"As is well known in all sciences there have been many important events which have not left any trace." -- Hannes O.G. Alfvén, physicist, 1954

I have archaeological and historical evidence.



And the inventor of your so-called "Scientific" Method had this to say:

"Flying machines as these were of old, and are made even in our day." -- Roger Bacon, natural philospher, 1260

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/1 ... chart.html

So, astronomers today have less knowledge of astral bodies than the ancients had?

Correct.

For example the ancients knew the Sun was iron but today most of the outdated 20th century retards think it is made of hydrogen.

The Sun is made of iron as Anaxagoras and Birkeland claimed.

Hydrogen is formed in the Sun's corona as predicted by Hoyle.

Great sums spent on observatories and probes are really for naught, then?

Mostly. The only person I've seen make sense of recent probes is Wal Thornhill.

I'll give you this, Total Science: The ancients knew more about alchemy than do today's chemists.

Correct. Most so-called "scientists" today still think chemistry, alchemy, and atoms are magic.

It is illogical to believe that primitive Man's first idea of the Sun was as the anchor for his own land's orbit. Rather, he saw it as something that moved, as he and his land stood still.

Philolaus said the Sun and Earth both move and orbit the central fire. This is history. No one cares whether you think history is illogical or not.

The Scientific Method was never used in the distant past to determine the composition of the Sun.

You have no evidence of that and even if it were true it would be irrelevant since all discoveries made before you believe the Scientific method was magically invented are still true.

And, as I have already stated, for every hit, there are innumerable misses. You just choose not to mention them. This makes the past look like a land of pristine knowledge.

Knowledge is pristine regardless. Somehow moderns can't seem to get anything right and the Pythagoreans got almost everything right. You call that a miracle and I call it obvious.

So, you believe that modern scientists are illiterate and mentally defective?

Mostly. The vast majority. There are many exceptions but they are customarily ignored or ridiculed and usually both.

With today's information, I am a Heliocentrist.

So am I, only with yesterday's information.

Define these 2 terms, please, and tell me the reasons for which I must be associated with these 2 terms. Thanks.

By Pythagoreans I mean ancient scientists and by Velikovskian I mean EU catastrophists. Both made successful scientific predictions and you still think they are wrong. Likewise with Ptolemy.

And, I disagree with speculation posing as science.

You disagree with your own speculations? That sounds silly.

[Joe]

Do you think the Ptolemaic system successfully predicted that the Earth is the center of the Universe?

It did for 1,500 years.

What you call "scientific truth" I call fairy tales and pipe dreams.

How do you know that a scientific fact is false before it has been disproven?

It's irrelevant what method people used

There is only 1 method that is based on logic, math, and experimentation: the Scientific Method.

What about the scientific discoveries that were made prior to the so-called "Scientific" Method?

Before circa 1000 A.D., there were no discoveries that could properly be termed as scientific. A person would stumble onto a phenomenon, and attempt to control it for fun and practical use. It became, essentially, a mindless technology.

How come the mainstream scientists and Big Bangers today reject observation and experiment and don't believe in the scientific method?

It is part of Man's nature to sometimes fail. Scientists are not exempt from this reality.

We are held to the Earth by magnetism

I dispute this.

and we don't really feel it unless we fall to the ground.

You're contradicting yourself. If ever you could feel it, then it can be known sensually, not just scientifically.

This contradicts your earlier statement that the Ptolemaic system is a successful scientific model.

It is successful within constraints, just like Heliocentrism is successful within constraints.

There is nothing successful about infinite epicycles and grossly inaccurate and false predictions.

Do you have a problem with the concept of infinity?
The predictions were precise and accurate.

Yes, e.g. electrogravitics.

Electrogravitics is not ancient.

And also the ancients had celestial weapons which were far more advanced than our childish and ridiculous weapons today.

Many times, you've bandied about myth. But, this claim is truly myth.

And, when you quote the Bible, quote fully. You always stop before the silly part shows up.

"... who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind...." -- Psalm 104:3

Again, you make it seem like flying-technology by not fully quoting. This psalm is depicting God's majesty.

Oh, and here's a very precious line soon after the one you've quoted:
"You [God] fixed the earth on its foundation, never to be moved." (Psalm 104:5)
Total Science is quoting from a Geocentrist work!!!

And the inventor of your so-called "Scientific" Method had this to say:

No one man invented the Scientific Method. It developed over time.

"Flying machines as these were of old, and are made even in our day." -- Roger Bacon, natural philospher, 1260

This is myth. (I'm assuming that you're quoting correctly. I'm starting to doubt your ability to do that.)

Not a facade. In some cases they are deliberately and openly stealing from you and in some cases they are actual clowns.

That's possible. Life's not perfect.

I have archaeological and historical evidence.

So, you have archaeological evidence of an actual flying machine, then? Please, show it to us. Thanks.

And, please, no depictions in stone of alleged flying machines. The incoherence between high-tech (flying machines) and low-tech (recording events in stone, rather than photographically or electronically) is too much to bear for an intelligent human being.

The Sun is made of iron as Anaxagoras and Birkeland claimed.

The latter may have based his claim on science. But, the former based it on ignorance. For every ignorant hit, there are a million ignorant misses. You just never mention them.

Philolaus said the Sun and Earth both move and orbit the central fire.

High speculation in scientific matters is worthless. One falls into metaphysics, which lies.

"...central fire."???

all discoveries made before you believe the Scientific method was magically invented are still true.

Not all discoveries are scientific in nature.

the Pythagoreans got almost everything right

List 10 things that they got right. Thanks.

So am I, only with yesterday's information.

I base it on scientific truth. You base it on quicksand. I guess it's all the same, then.

By Pythagoreans I mean ancient scientists

There are no ancient scientists, just ancient technologists.

and by Velikovskian I mean EU catastrophists

I have no problem with EU.

You disagree with your own speculations?

My speculations remain in the field of logic, not science.


-Joe

[Total Science]

It did for 1,500 years.

The Earth was not the center of the universe for 1,500 years.

The Earth isn't even at the center of the Milky Way let alone the universe.

And the Sun has never revolved around the Earth.

Before circa 1000 A.D., there were no discoveries that could properly be termed as scientific.

At least now I know you are crazy.

So you think the pyramids were built with magical spells and sorcery?

It became, essentially, a mindless technology.

Is this what you call mindless technology?

Charette, F., Archaeology: High Tech From Ancient Greece, Nature, Volume 444, Pages 551-552, Nov 2006
Freeth, T., Decoding the Ancient Greek Astronomical Calculator Known as the Antikythera Mechanism, Nature, Volume 444, Pages 587-591, Nov 2006
Ball, P., Complex Clock Combines Calendars: Antikythera Mechanism May Have Timetabled Ancient Olympic Games, Nature, Volume 454, Page 561, Jul 2008
Wilford, J.N., Discovering How Greeks Computed In 100 B.C., The New York Times, Jul 2008
Marchant, J., Was Ancient Greek 'Computer' an Astronomical Tool?, New Scientist, Issue 2667, Jul 2008
Marchant, J., Archimedes and the 2000-Year Old Computer, New Scientist, Issue 2696, Dec 2008
Sorrel, C., World's First Computer Rebuilt: Rebooted After 2000 Years, Wired, Dec 2008

"This [Antikythera Mechanism] was tantamount to finding a jet airplane in the tomb of King Tut." -- David H. Childress, author, 2009

No one man invented the Scientific Method. It developed over time.

This contradicts your debunked claim that science didn't exist prior to 1000 A.D. ...

List 10 things that they got right. Thanks.

1. "It was Pythagoras also who carried geometry to perfection [e.g. Euclid Proposition I:47], after Moeris had first found out the principles of the elements of that science, as Aristiclides tells us in the second book of his History of Alexander; and the part of the science to which Pythagoras applied himself above all others was arithmetic." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century
2. "He also discovered the numerical relation of sounds on a single string...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century
3. "He was also the first person who introduced measures and weights among the Greeks; as Aristoxenus the musician informs us." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century
4. "Parmenides, too, assures us, that he was the first person who asserted the identity of Hesperus and Lucifer [Venus]." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century
5. "... [Pythagoras said] the earth ... is also spherical." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century
6. "... and also that there are antipodes, and that what is below, as respects us, is above in respect of them." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century
7. "And that the moon derives its light from the sun." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century
8. "Also, that animals are born from one another by seeds, and that it is impossible for there to be any spontaneous production by the earth." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century
9. "... [And] that deliberation (nous), and reason (phren), reside in the brain...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century
10. "But Eratosthenes says, as Favorinus quotes him, in the eighth book of his Universal History, that this philosopher, of whom we are speaking, was the first man who ever practised boxing in a scientific manner, in the forty-eighth Olympiad...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

And that's just Pythagoras!

I said Pythagoreans!

[Total Science]

Aristarchus of Samos is the earliest known proponent of the heliocentric system. I don't know if it originated with him, I would not be surprised one bit if there was an earlier source for the idea, I merely stated that he is the earliest known. Those you have cited, proposed a moving Earth but none had a proper heliocentric system. Perhaps Pythagoras was Aristarchus' source for the idea, but his teachings have been clouded by history. Where is the evidence?
You can interpret Philolaus' "central sun" anyway you want:

Philolaus says that there is fire in the middle at the centre ... and again more fire at the highest point and surrounding everything. By nature the middle is first, and around it dance ten divine bodies - the sky, the planets, then the sun, next the moon, next the earth, next the counterearth, and after all of them the fire of the hearth which holds position at the centre. The highest part of the surrounding, where the elements are found in their purity, he calls Olympus; the regions beneath the orbit of Olympus, where are the five planets with the sun and the moon, he calls the world; the part under them, being beneath the moon and around the earth, in which are found generation and change, he calls the sky.
—Stobaeus, i. 22. 1d
I would not call that a heliocentric model!

Aristotle would and so would I.

"Most people-all, in fact, who regard the whole heaven as finite-say it [the Earth] lies at the centre. But the Italian philosophers known as Pythagoreans take the contrary view. At the centre, they say, is fire, and the earth is one of the stars, creating night and day by its circular motion about the centre" -- Aristotle, philosopher, On The Heavens, 350 B.C.