I have read stories about some Chinese astronomers/astrologers seeing either
Callisto and Ganymede and stories of Medieval folk being able to see the Galilean
satellites.
But I think since most people in those times did not recognize the planets as
actual worlds, seeing some faint dots around one of them would not have had
the impact that Raoul is implying even if they were generally visible from Earth.
Outside of a few intellectuals, the world was not ready for the idea of a heliocentric
Universe any sooner. Otherwise, Aristarchus of Samos would have made an impact
1,500 years before Copernicus.
"As the skies appear to a man, so is his mind. Some see only clouds there; some,
prodigies and portents; some rarely look up at all; their heads, like the brutes', are
directed toward Earth. Some behold there serenity, purity, beauty ineffable. The world
runs to see the panorama, when there is a panorama in the sky which few go to see."
- Henry David Thoreau, Journal, 17 January 1852 Entry
Space/Science » in reply to Funny,
Too little and too unknown to make a real difference
The whole thread (36 posts)
- What if the Jupiter moons had been visible with the naked eye?
- If: maybe another reason for the Fermi Paradox
- How close would that have to be?
- re: How close would that have to be? - Too true.
- Mar's orbit?
- Tom, Venus' phase IS visible to the naked eye
- Just out of reach