Talk:Geocentric model
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Geocentric model as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language Wikipedia. |
Relatively speaking... can't we put Earth as the center of the universe and calculate all other positoins based on the earth's position? Dont people do that at times? like when observing the sun or the moon? I mean calculating Mar's orbit from the earth's perspective would be hell to figure out... but i think this whole center of the universe thing is relative ^^;;; (isn't universe supposed to be infinately large?) - Highwind
- When we want to calculate Mars' position at our skies than we take the earth as the middle of the universe so that we don't have to calculate our suns position first. 80.127.8.111 09:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] belief
EWW LIKE OMGGGG MYSPACE>!
"At this time, geocentrism is rejected in scientific and popular opinion; and it is believed that the Sun is at the centre of the solar system, but not the universe (see Heliocentrism). "
it's not really a "belief". it's just a frame of reference. everything is relative, and you could imagine earth in the center of everything if you really want to, with everything else spinning about on completely weird trajectories. the heliocentric model is just a convenient frame of reference because it simplifies the planetary orbits into ellipses. - Omegatron 02:14, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
these people tend to be of a religious mindset and sometimes Creationists, because without the concept of God willing to create the Earth at the center of the universe, it would appear mysterious for it to be so.
I don't agree on this, and I think this is an opinion which does not belong in an encyclopedia. The simplest argument for an earth in the middle of the universe is this: the earth is below our feets and the stars are above. So from our relative point of view, the earth is in the middle of the universe. It's evident. Or in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche (Beyond good and evil par. 12): For while Copernicus convinced us to believe, contrary to all our senses, that the earth did not stand still, Boscovich taught us to renounce the belief in the final thing which made the earth "stand firm," the belief in "stuff," in "material," in what was left of the earth, in atomic particles. —It was the greatest triumph over the senses which has ever been achieved on earth so far.
[edit] Engineering Viewpoint
While it is true that all things are relative and it is possible to formulate equations of motion with the earth at the center as a non-rotating inertial reference frame, all of the currently simple equations of orbital mechanics suddenly become extremely intricate relationships between trigonometric functions. Given that engineers (like me) have to integrate and take derivatives from these things, it becomes utterly unfeasible to construct such a system.
Additionally, the law of universal gravitation--after becoming a monster of sines, cosines, and tangents--would still point out that within the now non-radial "sphere" of influence of the Sun, the Sun is the major attracting body and thus all accelerative (force) laws would relate to it. While it would be possible to create equations of motion for the movement of the planets, the forces that Earth imparts to those planets would be insufficient to cause them to move in that manner. The Sun's gravity would still be the dominant force in the Solar System, and thus indicative of--at the very least--heliocentrism.--165.134.186.199 15:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Obsolete or not?
At the moment Geocentric model is in the Category:Obsolete scientific theories while Bohr atom is not. Both are now commonly held to be ontologically deficient but both are still useful for computation and pedagogy. Surely we should be consistent but which way? Cutler 20:39, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Obsolete scientific theories
I think this article should definitely be moved. Satellite launches etc. use fixed earth principles in calulations; including geocentric principles.
[edit] Merge with Ptolemaic system?
For the discussion, please visit Talk:Ptolemaic_system#Merge with Geocentric model?. LambiamTalk 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Since the merge
The article is now a mess: achronological (I don't care if it's not in the dictionary) and riddled with factual errors even beyond what was in the originals. And the changes that were made during merging are obscure. I will try to clean it up in the next few days, but it will require extensive rewriting of much of the article. Maestlin 16:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I saved a lot, but some of it was repetition, some of it was out of order, and some was just plain wrong. I dropped out the section on the Epitome of the Almagest which seems totally irrelevant and is covered in Regiomontanus anyway. I also did some general cleanup, like unlinking planet names that were linked every paragraph. If anyone doesn't like what I did, please have mercy and discuss it before adding back old information. Can anyone explain the reference to Hoyle? I left it in for now. Maestlin 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chinese Geocentrism
Something had been bugging me about the reference to Chinese astronomy, so I went and looked it up in Joseph Needham. First point: NO Chinese astronomer EVER suggested heliocentrism (as the article currently implies). Second point: No Chinese astronomer EVER suggested that the Earth moved (in the way we understand the word 'moved'). A few astronomers suggested an obscure theory in which the Earth bounced about slightly or 'vibrated' (slowly) (there are Chinese words which are hard to translate into English which get across these concepts: apparently this idea does not sound as daft in the original as it does in English). And a few astronomers suggested that the whole concept was meaningless....all the planets and stars were moving around aimlessly in empty space (ironically this view is closest to the modern view). Anyway the sentence discussing Chinese astronomy should, I think, be omitted, as it is really irrelevant to geocentrism (the vast majority of Chinese astronomers believed in geocentrism until the Jesuits introduced them to heliocentrism). User:BScotland 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Needham's generally a safe authority. Please, omit anything that looks like a real problem. A short verified section on geocentrism in China would be even better. I don't know that much about Jesuit activity in China. Did they introduce true heliocentrism? Maestlin 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think, to be honest, that the Chinese bit would be better in the entry on heliocentrism although that article is already getting a bit unwieldy. The key point is that (a few) Chinese astronomiers more or less sorta agreed with the modern view which is that there is no 'centre' of the Universe (insofar as they thought it had a centre they thought it was the pole star). In response to your question, yes the Jesuits introduced heliocentrism, but this caused little or no ructions in Chinese religion or science as Chinese science was (is?) instrumentalist. In other words, the Chinese did (do?) NOT view science as the pursuit of truth, but simply view scientific theories as useful stories or myths to explain empirical observations. All the Jesuits had to do was to show that heliocentrism explained the observations of astronomers better than geocentrism. User:BScotland 11:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Setting aside the question of instrumentalism, I am curious about the Jesuits introducing heliocentrism to China. Wouldn't this be a problem, given the stance of the Catholic Church on astronomy following the trial of Galileo? Maestlin 17:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
To be absolutely honest with you I'm not sure. This article (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/RethinkingSciCiv/etexts/Elman/Chinese_Sciences.html) might help you. As might this (http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/ans/eastm/back/cs11/cs11-4-martzloff.pdf). Some of my family members were Jesuits, and I know that Jesuits have a reputation of being intellectuals and fearsome debaters. It might well be that the Jesuits simply saw pretty quickly what way the wind was blowing and changed their opinions quicker than the rest of the Catholic Church. Also, since Chinese astronomy was geocentric, what better way to demonstrate the superiority of Western ways than to show that they were all wrong and that only Westerners had worked out the truth? But this is only a guess. 86.1.194.43 11:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- The second article was a little helpful. This page [1] was considerably more useful. It turns out the Jesuits did introduce heliocentrism, but the facts don't suggest the Jesuits were the promoters of freethinking science you reconstructed. They taught to the Chinese a thoroughly geocentric, generally Tychonic astronomy until 1757, when De revolutionibus was finally taken off the Index of Forbidden Books. Michael Benoist promptly wrote up a description of heliocentrism in 1760. So even though some Jesuit missionaries may have been closet Copernicans before that point (Sivin thinks the number has been overestimated), they didn't openly defy the Church. As we should expect from an order with a reputation for defending orthodoxy. This actually caused some harm to the reputation of western astronomy when Copernicanism was introduced. You might find the article interesting if you are a Jesuit buff. Maestlin 19:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moon orbit
I understand how the phases of Venus proved it orbited the sun, but how did the Geocentric model explain the phases of our moon? --82.43.150.220 12:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if the Earth circles the Sun or vice versa, as long as the Moon goes around the Earth. The relative positions of the three will be identical. Maestlin 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. --82.43.150.220 17:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Something for consideration...
I would like to submit the following for consideration by the wonderful minds who frequent this page.
If the earth revolves around the sun and rotates on its axis, then how is it that every night we can expect to walk outside and see the same stars during each of the four seasons?
Picture this:
On January 1st it is night time as the earth is turned away from the sun. Let's suppose that we are seeing the stars at zero degrees.
It's three months later on April 1st and we are now 90 degrees around our orbit, it is night time and we're turned away from the sun. We should be seeing the stars at 90 degrees.
At six months, on July 1st, we are now 180 degrees from where we started around the sun in January. When it is night time and we are facing away from the sun, we should be seeing the stars at 180 degrees.
Then at nine months, on October 1st, we are 270 degrees around our orbit of the sun. It is night time and we are facing away from the sun. We should be seeing the body of stars that would be present at 270 degrees.
How is it then that we always see the same stars? Mariners have navigated by the stars since the world was created because they're ALWAYS in the same place. Slight shifts? Sure. But never out of place.
I've just been wondering about this and would sincerely enjoy a discussion on the matter by the more educated community out there. I have tried emailing university astronomy departments and have never received even one reply.
Thank you for your patience in listening to my rough description. It's much easier to draw on paper.
Respectfully, Lalspach 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
