Question:
Heliocentric evidence?
collin389
2008-08-20 18:28:51 UTC
I'm wondering what the evidence is for the heliocentric model (sun is the center of the solar system) and evidence why the Geocentric model (the universe revolves around the earth) is wrong.
Twelve answers:
Troasa
2008-08-21 02:20:28 UTC
1- Stellar aberration.

2- Stellar parallax.

3- The Doppler Effect.

4- Retrograde motion of planets.

5- Phases of Venus.



The debate between geocentism and heliocentrism has a long history going back at least to 300BC. The reason for the long debate is because mathematics of the times were unable to completely explain either model.



Most European churches in 200BC were in favor of believing that God had placed Earth in the center of the Universe. In 150AD The Roman Catholic Church chose to adopt the geocentric model because Claudius Ptolemaeus offered the most mathematical support for the geocentric model and it did not conflict with Biblical stories. The Church then chose to condemn anyone who spoke or wrote about heliocentrism unless they spoke of it as a mathematical theory only. The unfortunate problem was that Ptolomy had only the use of Euclidean geometry as the source of his computations which led to many errors and false misconceptions which then lasted for the next 1500 years. And religious denial lasting through 2008AD.



With the advancement of observations and mathematical models, the arguement reached fanatical stages in the 1500s when the Roman Catholic Church felt that heliocentrism was a threat to the Church's power and many supporters of the heliocentric models were imprisoned, tortured, and killed by hanging or by being burned alive in public.



The advent of the telescope in 1609 magnified the problems of geocentrism. The Church decided that one could speak about heliocentrism only as a mathematical exercise and not as a true fact. Books about heliocentrism were not allowed unless the Church had a chance to make 'corrections' and edits before publication.



Johannes Kepler, after analysing Tycho Brahe's observations, constructed his three laws in 1609 and 1619, based on a heliocentric view where the planets moves in elliptical paths. Using these laws, he was the first astronomer to successfully predict a transit of Venus for the year 1631.



In 1687, Isaac Newton devised his law of universal gravitation, which introduced gravitation as the force that both kept the Earth and planets moving through the heavens and also kept the air from flying away, allowing scientists to quickly construct a plausible heliocentric model for the solar system.



In 1725 James Bradley discovered stellar aberration. This is apparent yearly change in positions of all stars in the sky due to Earth's own motion. Aberration arises due to adding up of the speed of light coming from the star and Earth's own speed. This requires complex mathematics.



The Catholic Church lifted the ban on heliocentism books in 1757 because the Church could no longer keep up with imprisoning, torturing, or killing the growing number of persons believing in heliocentrism. It wasn't until 1822 that heliocentrism books could be written in Rome.



Stellar parallax is too small to be detected with the human eye. This fact was the main glue that held the geocentric models together. In 1838 astronomer Friedrich Bessel successfully measured the parallax of star 61 Cygni disproving that parallax did not exist. This also proved that stars were a very great distance away and not held within a circular epicycle which sped around Earth once each day. Parallax made the need for multiple epicycles obsolete.



In the mid 1800s it was proven that our Sun was a star like the others in the sky.



Since 1988, over 300 exoplanets have been discovered orbiting other stars. Never has a star been detected orbiting a planet.



Geocentric models had multiple difficulties explaining orbits. As a last attempt, they had planets going around the Sun but the Sun still went around the Earth.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tychonian_system.svg



Wavelength of the light that we receive from objects moving relative to us becomes a little shorter (bluer) when we approach the source and becomes longer (redder) when we move away from the source. The Doppler Effect. When Earth moves toward a star, the star will appear slightly bluer (only high-tech instruments can measure this) while it will appear redder when Earth is on the other side of the orbit and moves in the opposite direction. This effect proves that Earth has a velocity relative to the stars, similar to aberration.



The Coriolis force proves that the Earth is spinning and moving through space.



Space travel of probes has confirmed beyond any possible doubt the order of the planets and the fact that they all revolve around the central Sun. The mission of space probes depends upon highly advanced mathematical computations to fly past or land upon planets and moons in our Solar System. The order of the Solar System with the Sun in the middle cannot be denied with todays technology.
Stardustspeck
2008-08-20 19:08:06 UTC
This is more complex than you might think.

Galileo's observations of the phases of venus, the rings of saturn (although he didn't know it was rings) and the moon of jupiter all showed that not everything orbited the earth, but didn't actually provide evidence for the earth's motion.



The best and most direct evidence for the earth motion are:

parallax of stars (as already mentioned); stellar aberration (an effect caused my the fact that the light take time to travel to us and causes cyclic shifts in apparent position; and the Doppler effect - as we orbit the sun stars ahead of us are blue shifted and stars behind us are red shifted, but since the orbit is almost circular, different stars are red and blue shifted at different times in our orbit.



There are other observations, such as retrograde motion of the planets that is more simply explained in the heliocentric model - but these motions were accounted for in Ptolemy's geocentric model, so can't be used as evidence.



You didn't specifically ask for it - but there is also evidence for Earth's rotation, which is important in this idea - because the earth is not stationary. These are the Coriolis Effect and Foucault Pendulum



ADDED: to answer your added comments:

1) the Doppler effect only shows a shift if the stars are moving towards or away from us. In the geocentric model they orbit Earth and stay at the same distance. their motion is perpendicular to the line of sight, so there is no Doppler effect. Whereas, as the earth moves around the sun, in January it will be headed more or less towards a certain star and away from another, and the directions are opposite in July.

2) Copernicus didn;t have Galileo's observations. He went back to the work of Aristarchus and Pythagoras who suggested a heliocentric model many centuries early. Copernicus worked out that it made for a simpler, more streamlined model of the solar system. He did not actually have any direct evidence!
2016-12-14 20:00:40 UTC
Heliocentric View
2008-08-20 19:29:46 UTC
The other answers are good. Let's not forget the entire astrophysical theoretical framework we think in nowadays. Heavens, we launch spacecraft into orbit around the sun when we send them to the planets. But go all the way back to the 18th century and Sir Isaac Newton to see that even then, his law of universal gravitation matches the heliocentric model and explains it perfectly, while the geocentric concept is hopelessly unexplainable in Newtonian terms. I hope this makes sense!



Let me use an example of Newtonian physical theory applied here. You can determine the mass of Jupiter by analyzing the orbital period and distance of any of its moons, and you can get the mass of the Earth-Moon system in the same way. Extending this, you can basically determine the mass of the sun - once you know the size of the AU. What room does this leave for the geocentric hypothesis? It simply becomes meaningless except as an historical oddity.
2008-08-20 18:37:19 UTC
I assume you mean besides the hundreds of years of observations by hundreds of astronomers and scientists.



The primary evidence to support the heliocentric model was the detailed analysis of the orbits of the planets in the 1600's that could not be accounted for if the planets orbited the Earth.

In addition, Galileo observed the phases of Venus that could not occur if Venus orbited the Earth.

He also observed the 4 large satellites of Jupiter, proving that there were at least 4 objects that didn't orbit the Earth. That created doubt that all objects orbited the Earth, and like many incorrect theories, a little doubt will topple the theory completely.



You will find a lot more information if you search online (try searching on "heliocentric model").
sogol
2016-10-05 09:03:30 UTC
Heliocentric Solar System
2015-08-12 10:02:50 UTC
This Site Might Help You.



RE:

Heliocentric evidence?

I'm wondering what the evidence is for the heliocentric model (sun is the center of the solar system) and evidence why the Geocentric model (the universe revolves around the earth) is wrong.
campbelp2002
2008-08-20 18:36:02 UTC
Stellar parallax is the most important evidence. That is how stars are seen to shift position slightly as Earth views them from different angles on opposite sides of its orbit around the Sun. It was the proof that was lacking back in Galileo's time that allowed people to question the theory. That is because the parallax is SO small, because the stars are SO far away, that it couldn't be detected with equipment at the time.
2014-02-09 18:53:22 UTC
I couldn't find a single sentence without a lie. Those lies are spread by freemasons who govern modern science. The father of modern sciences is Francis Bacon, who used black magic to enable him to contact angels (today called extra-terrestrials) in order to acquire more knowledge about our material universe. Newton did the same. His theory on gravity (being an attraction between matter) has never been proved. The Cavendish experiment doesn't prove that a motion of the aether couldn't be the cause of the motion if the experiment wasn't a pure lie.



The best answer is made by a freemason or a parrot without any intelligence whatsoever and without any concern about the truth.
Susan
2016-03-14 03:56:12 UTC
Kepler's three laws, for one thing. The fact that the Earth turns is illustrated by the fact that it is daytime on the other side of the planet. Just call somebody in Japan and they'd tell you, right after they said mushi mushi. The Earth's spin establishes why the sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west. If the sun were moving around the Earth as the Earth spins, the sun would be in the same place all the time.
lucille
2017-02-20 03:24:04 UTC
1
2008-08-21 09:33:18 UTC
You have been tricked by very powerful and evil people.

What if just about everything you thought you knew was a lie?



The heliocentric theory is much older than you have been led to believe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...