Was the geocentric view of the universe ever a well established scientific theory?

Question

If so, do you know any of the scientific evidences that were used to support it?

Answer 1

Yes, the geocentric theory was the leading theory of the structure of the universe until Copernicus. Others in this thread have discussed some of the philosophical reasons behind it; however, it was indeed fully scientific because it provided a model that made correct predictions of future observations.

The heliocentric system, of course, makes better predictions of more kinds of observations, but most of these were not available until Galileo. Furthermore, there was strong scientific evidence against heliocentrism. Before the telescope there was only one possible experiment that could discrimiate between geocentrism and heliocentrism: the parallax of the stars, and the results of this experiment always favored the geocentric model. Lack of parallax was a fully scientific falsification of heliocentrism, and until Galileo's observations of the moons of Jupiter and phases of Venus was more than ample scientific justification for not switching over.

Answer 2

The Ptolemaic system was scientific in the sense that it produced testable results and was modified over time in response to observations. It was also supported by the prevailing philosophies of the time.

The support for this position was varied: from the basic fact that we don't feel the earth rotate to th idea that if it did, the winds would be enormous because the air would stay fixed (it actually doesn't, but they thought it would). With the addition of epicycles, it was possible to predict eclipses and the position of the planets to a fair accuracy.

It wasn't until observations became better, first with Tycho Brahe's observations and then through telescopes, that the geocentric theory became untenable. Even Copernicus' system was more complicated than Ptolemy's. Kepler and Galileo were crucial for the development of a new way of understanding motion and how planets orbit the sun.

Answer 3

The ironic thing is that with high-accuracy General Relativity, the geocentric view is back! Or more exactly, the equations of GR are about as complicated no matter what origin you pick. You might as well pick the center of the Earth as the center of the solar system, or the center of the Sun -- you're going to get 1000's of terms no matter which one you pick.

When I say high-precision, I mean calculating the orbits of the planets to within a meter, or tracing the path of a ray of light across the solar system to within a few centimeters. You can't do that with just Special Relativity.

Answer 4

my understanding is that it was mainly the fact that ptolemy propounded a geocentric model, and most western astronomers followed ptolemy until copernicus. there was never any conclusive evidence for the geocentric model, but it did work well and it also satisfied prejudices about the privileged position of man in the universe. some people objected to the 'epicycles' on philosophical grounds, they seemed a bit contrived - but this is not actually evidence against geocentrism. kepler and newton made advances with the heliocentric model, but the geocentric model was perhaps not finally disproved for its diehard followers until stellar aberration was observed, showing that the earth really does move with respect to the sun.

Answer 5

No. The only way a scientific theory could be "disproven" is by formation of an alternative scientific theory that accounts for all the known evidence better than the original theory did. It would take a scientist to understand all the available evidence and to formulate a new theory; and a scientist would understand the original theory as well.

Answer 6

Many scientists went out of their way to find proof for such a theory, as it was the prevailing view for many centuries.

However, most of the "proof" relied on mysticism and appeals to supernatural authority.

You can read about it at Wikipedia.