From the look of the demarcation criteria Does the geocentric theory turn out to be non-scientific versus the heliocentric cosmological theory? Is science no longer a vision surpassed by another?
It depends upon which demarcation criteria one is refering to. If it is Popper's, "falsifiability", then no: Geocentrism can be thought of (a bit uchronically) as a scientific hypothesis whose specific predictions failed the test of confrontation with observations, and was then discarded to the benefit of a theory, Heliocentrism, whose predictions succeded (that is were not falsified by observations).
The geocentric theory requires the Earth to be stationary. But Bradley's discovery of the aberration of starlight proves that the Earth is moving around the Sun at about one ten-thousandth of the speed of light. This is only one of several proofs that the geocentric theory is wrong, but it was the first proof based on actual measurements and remains one of the easiest ways to explain the situation to non-scientists.
The retrograde motion of the planets can indeed be explained by either the geocentric or heliocentric theories of planetary motions. This was clearly shown by Tycho Brahe when he made the mistake of adopting a modified version of the Ptolemaic theory of planetary motions. But stellar parallax can only be explained by requiring the Earth to move. However, it could not be detected until the late 1800's, so it is not considered the most important historical proof of the Earth's movement. Stellar aberration, which is an equally adequate proof of the Earth's motion, was observed by Bradley in the early 1700's; so it holds the honor of being the first observational proof of the Earth's motion around the Sun. Stellar aberration proves that the Earth is always moving more or less perpendicularly to the direction of the Sun, at a more or less constant rate of one ten thousandth of the speed of light (which is the same as the Earth's actual motion of about 30 km/sec around the Sun). And although neither the speed of light nor the distance to the Sun (and the speed required to orbit it in a year) were known in the early 1700's, as measurements of those quantities gradually became feasible, they completely agreed with the results required by stellar aberration.
Retrograde motion can be explained in the geocentric theory by having the planets move along epicycles and deferents, so it can't be used to "prove" either the geocentric or heliocentric theory. But neither stellar parallax nor stellar aberration can be explained by the geocentric theory. That's why retrograde motion is not considered a proof of either the geocentric or heliocentric theory, but stellar parallax and aberration are considered proofs of the heliocentric theory.
I suppose that if you are prepared to assign a motion to every single one of the hundreds of thousands of stars whose parallaxes can be measured that exactly mimics the effect that a single, simple motion of the Earth around the Sun would produce, then you could claim that the geocentric theory could be correct. But you could equally well argue that when you get in a car and drive somewhere you are actually stationary, and the rest of the Universe just moved in the opposite direction, to delude you into thinking that you moved.. Or, for that matter, that the rest of the Universe does not exist and is only a product of your imagination (i.e, solipsism). The question is, at what point do your arguments cease to become rational, and simply become a reason to argue? Most scientists would argue (or agree with the argument) that parallax is a proof of the Earth's motion. But even if you ignore parallax, there is no explanation of stellar aberration that I have heard of that would refute that proof of our movement (though I suppose the next answer to this thread will probably purport to be such a proof).
So there was no real proof of the heliocentric theory in the life of Galileo. How comes he said : "Eppure, si muove"?
Greetings
There is a problem with translation ... sorry
I wanted to say that this idea was prevalent among the ancients
The religious interpretation of the earth confirms this
Using Albert Einstein's ideas, we can say that the concept of the center is relative
I hope the language is clear
To answer the original question: I strongly believe Ptolemaic astronomy was indeed a remarkable scientific enterprise, crowned with significant successes. It was a serious attempt to explain and systematise experimental data using a simple model. They did not have most of the data which we consider to be decisive (Foucault effect, tides occurring twice a day, variation of a pendulum's period with latitude, let alone stellar parallax or aberration) and so they were misled into an incorrect theory. But they had the scientific attitude of attempting to explain all facts fully and not cheating.
The same cannot, of course, be said of those who still now defend geocentrism (they exist, to the lasting shame of the religion they claim to uphold). Their arguments are so contrived that no possible amount of evidence could convince them of their error. These theories are therefore not falsifiable (whereas Ptolemaic astronomy was merely false, but quite falsifiable) and are in no way scientific.
- Badges
- Science topic