Why do people think geocentricity is bunk?

Question

And why do people think geocentrists are flat-earthers?

Before you answer read the information at these sites CAREFULLY.

http://www.geocentricity.com
http://www.reformation.org/stationary-earth.html
http://www.reformation.org/flat-earth-exposed.html

Answer 1

Let's start with the fact that on January 7th 1610 Galieo Galilei observed the four largest moons of Jupiter (Io Callisto, Europa and Ganymede) and conclusively proved that they rotated around it in regular, observable periodic orbits and this provided the scientific proof that the Copernican heliocentric model of the Solar System needed, that everything did not revolve around the earth.

A Rubicon had been crossed. As of January 8th 1610, therefore, geocentrism was intellectually dead. It just won't lie down and die, that is all.

Further confirmation was provided on March 25th 1655 when the Dutch astronomer Christopher Huygens discovered Saturn's largest moon, Titan.

We now know of 165 moons in our Solar System (63 of these around Jupiter and 56 around Saturn) plus a further 80 or more moons revolving around asteroids and minor planets. The asteroid 47 Sylvia has two moons for example.

We now know of large number of binary stars, including Alpha Centauri and Sirius, two of our nearest neighbours, in which two stars revolve around each other. Famously there is the eclipsing binary Algol, which every 68 hours or so has the dimmer companion star pass in front of Algol in our direct line of sght, causing Algol's magnitude to vary.

We now know of approximately 200 planets revolving around other stars, 19 of these stars are known to have two or more planets, The star Upsilon Andromeda was the first such multi-planet system discovered. The star 55 Cancri A has four such planets.

Scarcely a month goes by without another such planet being discovered as there are now several sophisticated methods of detection being employed.

I find it difficult top believe that anyone can continuie to hold on tenaciously to the tenets of geocentrism in the face of such mounting and overwhelming evidence that the only body in the entire universe consisting of approximately 10^22 stars in 10^11 galaxies that goes around the earth is our own Moon.

Contrary to the way we are taught, the idea of a heliocentric universe was discussed by the Ancient Greeks, and Ptolemy's geocentric model of the Solar System, whilst the predominant idea to have emerged from the Hellenistic era, was not universally accepted in his day.

Thus Copernicus' idea of a heliocentric Solar System was not simply some latterday heresy.

Heliocentrism was also current in other ancient civilisations:

ANCIENT INDIA

The earliest traces of a counter-intuitive idea that it is the Earth that is actually moving and the Sun that is at the centre of the solar system (hence the concept of heliocentrism) is found in several Vedic Sanskrit texts written in ancient India. Yajnavalkya (c. 9th–8th century BC) recognized that the Earth is spherical and believed that the Sun was "the centre of the spheres" as described in the Vedas at the time.

In his astronomical text Shatapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10) he states: "The sun strings these worlds - the earth, the planets, the atmosphere - to himself on a thread." He recognized that the Sun was much larger than the Earth, which would have influenced this early heliocentric concept. He also accurately measured the relative distances of the Sun and the Moon from the Earth as 108 times the diameters of these heavenly bodies, close to the modern measurements of 107.6 for the Sun and 110.6 for the Moon.

The calendar he described in the Shatapatha Brahmana corresponds to an average tropical year of 365.2467 days, which was only 6 minutes longer than the modern value of 365.2422 days.

The Vedic Sanskrit text Aitareya Brahmana (2.7) (c. 9th–8th century BC) also states: "The Sun never sets nor rises. When people think the sun is setting, it is not so; they are mistaken." This indicates that the Sun is stationary (hence the Earth is moving around it), which is elaborated in a later commentary Vishnu Purana (2.8) (c. 1st century), which states: "The sun is stationed for all time, in the middle of the day. [...] Of the sun, which is always in one and the same place, there is neither setting nor rising."

ANCIENT GREECE

The first to propose the heliocentric system was Aristarchus of Samos (c. 270 BC). Unfortunately his writings on the heliocentric system are lost, but we have other authors who give us crucial information about his system (the most important among them is Archimedes, who lived in the third century BC and therefore had direct knowledge of Aristarchus's works).

By the time Aristarchus was writing, the size of the Earth had been calculated accurately by Eratosthenes. Aristarchus also calculated the size of the earth, and measured the size and distance of the Moon and Sun, in a treatise which fortunately survived.

What is important, however, is Aristarchus's scientific approach, and his result that the Sun is much larger than the Earth. Perhaps, as many people have suggested, paying attention to these numbers led Aristarchus to think that it made more sense for the Earth to be moving than for the huge Sun to be moving around it.

Another hellenistic astronomer, Seleucus of Seleucia, adopted the heliocentric system of Aristarchus, and according to Plutarch proved it.

MEDIEVAL INDIA

The Indian astronomer-mathematician Aryabhata (476–550), in his magnum opus Aryabhatiya, propounded a heliocentric model in which the Earth was taken to be spinning on its axis and the periods of the planets were given with respect to a stationary Sun. He was also the first to discover that the light from the Moon and the planets was reflected from the Sun, and that the planets follow an elliptical orbit around the Sun, and thus propounded an eccentric elliptical model of the planets, on which he accurately calculated many astronomical constants, such as the times of the solar and lunar eclipses, and the instantaneous motion of the Moon (expressed as a differential equation).

Bhaskara (1114–1185) expanded on Aryabhata's heliocentric model in his astronomical treatise Siddhanta-Shiromani, where he mentioned the law of gravity, discovered that the planets don't orbit the Sun at a uniform velocity, and accurately calculated many astronomical constants based on this model, such as the solar and lunar eclipses, and the velocities and instantaneous motions of the planets.

Arabic translations of Aryabhata's Aryabhatiya were available from the 8th century, while Latin translations were available from the 13th century, before Copernicus had written De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, so it's quite likely that Aryabhata's work had an influence on Copernicus' ideas.

RENAISSANCE EUROPE

Nicolaus Copernicus, 16th century AD, made great advances on the heliocentric planetary modelIt should be noted that the popular belief that in the West, before Copernicus, the doctrine of heliocentrism was unheard of, or incomprehensible, is simply false.

Not only were Arabic texts increasingly translated into Latin after the 11th century (as a result of the increasing contact with the Arabic/Muslim world brought about by the crusades), but explorers and traders were increasingly venturing out beyond Europe (facilitated by the Pax Mongolica) and introducing the West to the Indian heliocentric traditions as detailed above.

And of course scholars were well aware of the arguments of Aristarchus and Philolaus, as well as the numerous other classical thinkers who had proposed (or were alleged to have proposed) heliocentric or quasi-heliocentric views, such as Hicetas and Heraclides Ponticus (Copernicus certainly was).

Moreover, a few European thinkers also discussed heliocentrism in the so called 'Middle Ages': for example Nicolas Oresme and Nicholas of Cusa

IN CONCLUSION

Geocentrism never did have it all its own way. Heliocentrism has been contesting a battle of ideas with it for aome 2,800 years now. That battle was decisively won on January 7th 1610, nearly 400 years ago and geocentrism is now entirely lacking in scientific credibility,

Answer 2

Because anyone who is geocentrist has no idea of how orbital mechanics work. A heliocentric solar system is the assumption we make when we design spacecraft trajectories... and if all else was orbiting Earth those assumptions would not hold up and our spacecraft would fly errantly and not make it to Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Venus, or wherever else we send them...

Second, you are an idiot if you believe geocentricity. I only reiterate that because I can't believe you actually asked this question. Given what we know about gravity and its effects there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that the Earth has enough gravitational pull to create geocentricity.

Also, every orbit is about the two objects' center of mass. We know for a fact that the mass of the Sun is so immense that the center of mass of our orbit with the Sun is still within the Sun's diameter...

So please, never ask such a ridiculous question again.

Answer 3

Because it is junk! It had been theorized before that the earth is the one that orbits the sun and not the other way around, but it was Galileo Galilei who built a telescope and first observed the truth. He was threatened by the Catholic Church for heresy. Three hundred years later the Catholic Church finally admitted that he was right.
I do not think people think that geocentrists are flat-earthers because they are two entirely different concepts. Of course, flat-earthers are just as wrong as geocentrists. You might want to visit theflatearthsociety.com. And to think we are in the 21st. century!

Answer 4

Geocentricity has 400 years of evidence and theory stacked up against it. The Bible is geocentric because the PEOPLE who wrote it didn't know any better. Now we do.

People lump geocentrists and flat-earthers together because both beliefs are forms of willful ignorance that the average educated person finds inconceivable.

Answer 5

Geocentrism exchange right into a thought that fluctuate into customary incredible with the aid of rising of a greater rational thought.. . The heliocentric one. i'm atheist and that i do no longer see why the geocentric thought should not be studied. You' ignorant in a fashion which you ought to no longer see how beside the point being atheist is to what you have purely referred to. no longer liking the geocentric thought to an quantity wherein one thinks that's "stupid" has no longer something to do with being an atheist. And kudos for the pun "..how the heck are you able to are you go with approximately what..." LOL

Answer 6

Alright the whole geocentric stuff is just crap, but the last link is pretty impressive. There's def. true that ppl knew much earlier about the earth being round. The thing is that very few ppl did. Your average citizen didn't know crap in those days, so it's not fair to categorize them as knowing about the earth being round, or flat, they could care less. However it could def. be argued when somebody actually realized the fact, and if it was just a speculation, or did he have any proof for it?

Answer 7

Wow, what "interesting" web sites. I couldn't stand to read them carefully, because I kept yelling at them! I mean, really, no one thinks the Encyclopedia Britannica is the final authority on anything, let alone science. The second website complains it doesn't offer proof of Earth's rotation or revolution. Of course not! It's just an encyclopedia! I learned back in the sixth grade that you can't use an encyclopedia as your only source about a topic. Sheesh!