Heliocentric theory vs. Geocentric theory?

Question

I am wondering why the heliocentric theory, after several hundred years is still in category of 'theory', does that mean that the geocentric theory still holds water and can not be disproven?

Answer 1

A theory is a description of a phenomenon based on the facts. The facts are those things you can observe, measure and record. A theory is accepted when there is a consensus it is the best description that explains the available facts. In the case of geo vs. heliocentric theories the facts are the apparent motions of the sun, stars, and planets as seen from the earth. Both theories used the same sets of facts. The geocentric theory was formed when we didn't understand the principles of inertia and gravity or the existence of a vacuum so we couldn't understand how we could be moving in space. The heliocentric theory was first proposed out of the same set of observations and understandings as a much simpler way to explain the apparent complex motions of the planets. With the understanding of inertia and gravity and measurements and calculations of the size and mass of the sun and the planets and the distances to the planets and the stars, the heliocentric theory became the only tenable one.

I suppose for the heliocentric theory to become an observable fact one would have to park a spaceship above the plane of the solar system and watch the motions of the sun and planets for a year or two.

The true test of a theory is whether it can be used to predict future unknown behavior. In this case we can see that NASA has used the heliocentric theory to calculate the trajectories of its planetary exploration probes.

Finally theories are never totally proved or disproved. They are not like theorems in geometry where you argue from a set of arbitrary axioms using deductive logic. Rather they are formulated using inductive reasoning from all the facts known at the time. They are always subject to examination and revision as new information becomes available. In the case of the solar system, every new observation or measurement since Copernicus and Galileo has supported the heliocentric view and the geocentric idea is not taken seriously anymore.

Answer 2

It's interesting to see how the creationists have so muddied up the meaning of the term "theory," and just what sort of an effect it can have.

When you're talking about science, the term theory means something far more than the colloquial way we often use it. The most succinct definition I've heard is that a theory is the best explanation for a given set of facts. And by best, I mean that it takes into account all known facts and can be used to make predictions. For instance, with a heliocentric solar system, one can predict the motion of the other planets through the sky with relative ease and high accuracy. The geocentric theory, on the other hand, gave rise to the whole notion of heavenly spheres and how the planets spun around inside these spheres while spinning around the earth. If this doesn't make much sense, don't worry - it never really did. And it was not very accurate at all.

It is sad to see just how tremendous the effects of these silly creationist arguments are. There was a time, many years ago now, when I used to say that evolution was "just a theory." Well, it is just a theory; I just didn't understand what a theory was.

Answer 3

Technically, since there is no empirical evidence, goes against all the laws of physics, and no way to test it, geocentrism cannot be classified as theory.

Theory refers to something that can be tested and observed. In science, nothing can be definitely proven, only strongly supported by empirical evidence, so even gravity is a theory.

Answer 4

Heliocentricity has been proven with utter certainty by satellites and spacecraft. NASA's SOHO observatory is constantly monitoring the sun, along with other craft. Scientists would have noticed by now if the sun did indeed orbit the Earth! Newton and Kepler worked out the heliocentric model mathematically, as well.