Without today's technology, how can you disprove the geocentric model?

Question

How can you prove that the Earth is not the center of the universe?

Answer 1

If, by "geocentric", you mean "the sun and planets revolve about the earth", the answer is easy: Physics tell us that two objects will rotate about their combined centre of mass. In the solar system, the most massive object by far is the sun; hence, the planets' orbits are elliptical and the sun is at the centre. The earth is not the centre of their orbits.

In this case, simple observation is all that is required to disprove it... just examine the motion of the planets in the sky. The sun and moon, which (relatively speaking) travel in circles about us, move in a straight line across the sky from horizon to horizon. The planets, on the other hand, appear to "wander"; from this it can be concluded that their orbits are not centered about the earth.

If, by "geocentric", you mean "the earth does not move", it is impossible to prove. According to relativity, motion is only useful if you have a reference point to base it from; the reference can be wherever you like. You could choose the earth as your reference point, and the physics would still work out just fine.

Answer 2

I'm not sure what counts as today's technology, but if the idea is to take a time machine back to ancient Greece and prove it by pure logic and simple observation, I don't think you can! Planetary movements were a problem for pre-Keplerian astronomers, but epicycles were an acceptable solution given the accuracy of observations at the time. They also explain the varying brightness of the planets. You can't argue that the barycentre of the solar system must be in the sun - you've no way of showing how massive the sun is. Eclipses are no problem at all - the sun's behind the Earth for a lunar eclipse and behind the moon for a solar one.

Answer 3

That depends on what you would consider convincing evidence, and how much technology you're willing to accept. Kepler's Laws of planetary motion and Newton's explanation of that motion using universal gravitation didn't prove a heliocentric system, but did demonstrate that there was a valid physical basis for the theory. The technology required to do this was Tycho Brahe's observatory. Tycho didn't have a telescope, but he did have what were considered sophisticated measuring instruments at the time.

The first direct evidence that the Earth was in motion was Bradley's discovery of the aberration of starlight, but that required a telescope capable of measuring differences in position on the order of one arc-second.

Now, according to the Big Bang theory, wherever you are *is* the center of the universe.

Answer 4

If the photograph voltaic gadget replaced into geocentric, we would have a troublesome time explaining the retrograde action of the planets. returned in the day they got here up with some wacky factors called epicycles to describe this superb action. Having the sunlight on the midsection is a particularly ordinary answer, because of the fact the orbits would in basic terms would desire to elliptical, and retrograde action is barely seen because of the fact we orbit the sunlight alongside with something of the planets.

Answer 5

Just to find an explanation for the eclipses and some "retrograde" movements of the planets.
They broke the heads of many astronomers before the heliocentric model was accepted.

Answer 6

That is impossible. It is only one of the ways to describe the universe.
For you the earth is the center of all.

Th