The main provisions of the geocentric system of the world. Geocentric reference system. Geocentric systems of the world
The first global natural science revolution that transformed astronomy, cosmology and physics was the creation of a consistent the doctrine of the geocentric system of the world. The beginning of this doctrine was laid by the ancient Greek scientist Anaximander, who created in the 6th century. BC. a rather harmonious system of circular world structures. However, a consistent geocentric system was developed in the 4th century BC. BC. the greatest scientist and philosopher of antiquity, Aristotle, and then, in the 1st century. mathematically justified by Ptolemy. The geocentric system of the world is usually called Ptolemaic system , and the natural scientific revolution - Aristotelian. Why do we call this doctrine revolutionary?
The transition from the original egocentrism, and then tribal or ethnic topocentrism to geocentrism was the first step towards its formation as an objective science. Indeed, in this case, the immediate visible hemisphere of the sky, limited by the horizon, was supplemented by a similar celestial hemisphere to a complete celestial sphere. Accordingly, the Earth itself, which occupies a central position in this spherical Universe, began to be considered spherical. Thus, it was necessary to recognize not only the possibility of the existence of antipodes - the inhabitants of diametrically opposite points the globe, but also fundamental equality of all terrestrial observations of the world . The question of observations, observers, is very important from the point of view of the formation of an objective scientific picture peace.
Interestingly, direct confirmation of the conclusions about the sphericity of the Earth came much later - in the era of the first round-the-world travels and great geographical discoveries, i.e. only at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, when the very geocentric teaching of Aristotle - Ptolemy with his canonical system of ideal uniformly rotating homocentric (i.e. with a single center) celestial spheres was already living its last years.
Hipparchus, an Alexandrian scholar who lived in the 2nd century BC. e., and other astronomers of his time paid much attention to observations of the motion of the planets. These movements seemed to them extremely confusing. In fact, the directions of motion of the planets in the sky, as it were, describe loops in the sky. This apparent complexity in the motion of the planets is caused by the motion of the Earth around the Sun - after all, we observe the planets from the Earth, which itself moves. And when the Earth "catches up" with another planet, it seems that the planet seems to stop, and then moves back. But ancient astronomers thought that the planets did make such complex movements around the Earth.
Great astronomer and mathematician Claudius Ptolemy(87 - 165) made a choice in favor of the geocentric model of the World. He completed the mathematical description of the movements of celestial bodies begun by Hipparchus and brilliantly completed Plato's program - "with the help of uniform and regular circular movements to save the phenomena represented by the planets." He tried to explain the structure of the universe, taking into account the apparent complexity of the movement of the planets. Considering the Earth is spherical, and its dimensions are negligible compared to the distance to the planets, and even more so to the stars. Ptolemy, however, following Aristotle, argued that the Earth is the fixed center of the universe.
Ptolemy's world system is based on four postulates:
I. The earth is at the center of the universe.
II. The earth is motionless.
III. All celestial bodies move around the earth.
IV. The movement of celestial bodies occurs in circles at a constant speed, i.e. uniformly.
Since Ptolemy considered the Earth to be the center of the universe, his system of the world was called geocentric . Around the earth, according to Ptolemy, move (in order of distance from the Earth) the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, stars. But if the motion of the Moon, Sun, stars is circular, then the motion of the planets is much more complicated. Each of the planets, according to Ptolemy, does not move around the Earth, but around a certain point. This point, in turn, moves in a circle, in the center of which is the Earth. The circle described by a planet around a moving point, Ptolemy called epicycle , a the circle along which a point moves around the Earth, - deferent . Ptolemy built a geocentric model of the World (in fact, a model of the solar system), which made it possible to explain all the observed features of the motion of the planets, the Sun and the Moon, and, most importantly, became a powerful tool for predicting (precalculating) the positions of these celestial bodies. The main work of Ptolemy - "Great mathematical construction", in Greek "Megale mathematiches syntaxos", - even in ancient times was widely known under the name "Magiste syntaxos" ("Greatest construction"). Hence the distorted Arabic version of the name - "Al Mageste", or "Almagest", by which this 13-volume work is known in modern world. "Almagest" is a genuine encyclopedia of astronomical knowledge of that time, one of the masterpieces of world scientific literature.
5. heliocentric system peace(according to Grushevitskaya and Sadokhin)
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), who placed the Sun at the center of the universe and reduced the Earth to the position of an ordinary planet, is considered the founder of scientific cosmology. solar system. The great astronomer outlined his system of the world in the book "On the rotations of the celestial spheres", published in the year of his death. In his work, he argued that the Earth is not the center of the universe, and that “the Sun, as if sitting on a royal throne, controls the rotating one. around him a family of luminaries. The name of Copernicus is associated with a global natural science revolution (the so-called Copernican revolution), which represented the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism , and from it to polycentrism , i.e. the doctrine of the plurality of stellar worlds. It was a transition from a particular doctrine of a directly observed solar planetary system to a general doctrine of a potentially infinite hierarchical stellar world, with Newton's law of universal gravitation acting in it.
Copernicus himself was far from a correct understanding of the structure of the world. So, in his opinion, beyond the orbits of the five planets known at that time was the sphere of fixed stars. The stars on this sphere were considered equidistant from the Sun, and their nature was unclear. Copernicus did not see in them bodies similar to the Sun, and, being a minister of the church, he was inclined to believe that beyond the sphere of the fixed stars there is an "empyrean", or "dwelling of the blessed" - the abode of supernatural bodies and beings.
Of one thing, Copernicus was firmly convinced that the radius of the sphere of fixed stars must have been very large. Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain why the stars seem to be stationary from the Earth moving around the Sun.
Place your index finger in front of your face and look at it alternately with your right and left eyes - the finger will move against the background of more distant objects, for example, a wall. Such an apparent displacement of an object when the position of the observer changes is called parallactic displacement. The distance between extreme points observation is called a basis. The larger the basis, the larger the parallax shift. The farther the observed object is from us, the smaller the parallactic shift. Move your finger away from your face and you can easily see this.
Although the distance from the Earth to the Sun was not exactly known in the time of Copernicus, many facts indicated that it was very large. It would seem that in this case the stars should describe small circles in the sky - a kind of reflection of the actual revolution of the Earth around the Sun. But such parallactic displacements of the stars were clearly absent, from which Copernicus drew a conclusion about the colossal dimensions of the sphere of fixed stars.
According to Copernicus, the universe is a world in a shell. In this model, it is easy to find many remnants of the medieval worldview. But only a few decades passed, and Giordano Bruno broke the Copernican "shell" of fixed stars.
Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), the famous Italian thinker, considered the stars to be distant suns, warming countless planets of other planetary systems. Bruno considered a fool who could think that the mighty and magnificent world systems, consisting in boundless space, are devoid of living beings. This is how the idea of the spatial infinity of the Universe sounded, infinitely bold for those times. He believed that the universe is infinite, that there are countless worlds similar to the world of the Earth. He believed that the Earth is a luminary, and that the Moon and other luminaries are similar to it, the number of which is infinite, and that all these celestial bodies form an infinity of worlds. He imagined an infinite universe containing an infinite number of worlds.
Bruno's ideas were far ahead of his age. But he could not cite a single fact that would confirm his cosmology - the cosmology of an infinite, eternal and populated universe.
J. Bruno, thus, defended polycentrism, leading, ultimately, to the denial of the center of the universe and the recognition of its infinity.
As you know, J. Bruno died at the stake of the Inquisition, in fact, at the turn of two eras: the Renaissance and the era of the New Age, covering three centuries - the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. A special role in this period was played by the 18th century, marked by the birth modern science and, in particular, classical mechanics. Its origins were such outstanding scientists as G. Galileo (1564-1642), I. Kepler (1571-1630) and I. Newton (1643-1727).
Only a decade has passed since the death of J. Bruno, and Galileo Galilei, in the telescope he invented, saw in the sky what had until now remained hidden to the naked eye. The mountains on the moon clearly proved that the moon really is a world similar to the earth. The satellites of Jupiter, circling around the greatest of the planets, looked like a visual likeness of the solar system. The change of phases of Venus left no doubt that this planet, illuminated by the Sun, really revolves around it. Finally, many stars invisible to the eye, and especially the amazing star scattering that makes up Milky Way, - didn't all this confirm Bruno's teaching about countless suns and lands? On the other hand, the dark spots seen by Galileo on the Sun refuted the teachings of Aristotle and other ancient philosophers about the inviolable purity of heaven. The celestial bodies turned out to be similar to the Earth, and this similarity of the earthly and heavenly bodies forced us to gradually abandon the erroneous idea of the Sun as the center of the entire Universe.
Contemporary and friend of Galileo, Johannes Kepler , clarified the laws of planetary motion, and Isaac Newton proved that all bodies in the universe, regardless of size, chemical composition, structures and other properties mutually gravitate to each other .
This classical model is rather simple and clear. The Universe is considered to be infinite in space and time, in other words, eternal. The basic law governing the movement and development of celestial bodies is the law of universal gravitation. Space is in no way connected with the bodies in it and plays the passive role of a receptacle for these bodies. If all these bodies suddenly disappeared, space and time would remain unchanged. The number of stars, planets and star systems in the universe is infinitely large. Each celestial body goes through a long life path. And to replace the dead, or rather, the extinguished stars, new, young luminaries flare up. Although the details of the rise and fall of celestial bodies remained obscure, for the most part this model seemed coherent and logically consistent. In this form, this classical model dominated science until the beginning of the 20th century.
The infinity of the Universe in space harmoniously corresponded to its eternity in time. Now, a billion years ago, billions of years in the future, it will remain essentially the same. The immutability of the cosmos, as it were, emphasized the frailty, the impermanence of everything earthly.
Differentiation (lat.) - division, dismemberment
Cosmology is a physical doctrine of the Universe as a whole, including the theory of the entire area covered by astronomical observations as part of the Universe.
Geocentric - centered on the Earth
Topocentrism (<гр. topos место) – представление о центре мира, находящемся в месте обитания племени, народа.
According to the geocentric (Greek ge-Earth) system of the world, the Earth is motionless and is the center of the universe; the sun, moon, planets and stars revolve around it. This system, based on religious beliefs, as well as Op. Plato and Aristotle, was completed by ancient Greek. scientist Ptolemy (2nd century). According to the heliocentric (Greek helios - Sun) system of the world. The Earth, rotating on its axis, is one of the planets that revolve around the Sun. Separate statements in favor of this system were made by Aristarchus of Samos, Nicholas of Cusa, and others, but the true creator of this theory is Copernicus, who comprehensively developed it and substantiated it mathematically. Subsequently, the Copernican system was refined: the Sun is not at the center of the entire universe, but only the solar system. A huge role in substantiating this system was played by Galileo, Kepler, Newton. The struggle of advanced science for the victory of the heliocentric system undermined the teaching of the church about the Earth as the center of the world.
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
HELIOCENTRIC AND GEOCENTRIC SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
two opposite doctrines about the structure of the solar system and the movement of its bodies. According to heliocentric system of the world (from the Greek. ????? -Sun), the Earth revolving around its own. axis, is one of the planets and together with them revolves around the Sun. In contrast, geocentric the system of the world (from the Greek. ?? - Earth) is based on the statement about the immobility of the Earth, resting in the center of the Universe; The sun, planets and all heavenly bodies revolve around the Earth. The struggle between these two concepts, which led to the triumph of heliocentrism, fills the history of astronomy and has the character of a collision of two opposite philosophies. directions. Some ideas close to heliocentrism developed already in the Pythagorean school. So, even Philolaus (5th century BC) taught about the movement of the planets, the Earth and the Sun around the central fire. Among the brilliant natural philosophers. conjectures included the teaching of Aristarchus of Samos (late 4th - early 3rd centuries BC) about the rotation of the Earth around the Sun and around its own. axes. This teaching was so contrary to the whole system of antiquity. thinking, antique picture of the world, which was not understood by contemporaries and was criticized even by such a scientist as Archimedes. Aristarchus of Samos was declared an apostate, and his theory was for a long time overshadowed by a very skillful, but also very art. construction of Aristotle. Aristotle and Ptolemy are the creators of the classic. geocentrism in its most consistent and complete form. If Ptolemy created the end. kinematic scheme, then Aristotle laid the physical. foundations of geocentrism. The synthesis of Aristotle's physics and Ptolemy's astronomy gives what is usually called the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian system of the world. The conclusions of Aristotle and Ptolemy were based on the analysis of the visible movements of celestial bodies. This analysis immediately revealed the so-called. "inequalities" in the motion of the planets, which were singled out in ancient times from the general picture of the starry sky. The first inequality is that the speed of the apparent motion of the planets does not remain constant, but changes periodically. The second inequality is the complexity, the looping of the lines described by the planets in the sky. These inequalities were in sharp contradiction with the ideas that had been established since the time of Pythagoras about the harmony of the world, about the uniformly circular motion of celestial bodies. In this regard, Plato clearly formulated the task of astronomy - to explain the apparent movement of the planets using a system of uniformly circular motions. The solution of this problem using the concentric system. spheres was engaged in others. -Greek astronomer Eudoxus of Cnidus (c. 408 - c. 355 BC), and then Aristotle. Aristotle's system of the world is based on the idea of an impassable abyss between the earthly elements (earth, water, air, fire) and the heavenly element (quinta essentia). The imperfection of everything earthly is opposed to the perfection of heaven. One of the expressions of this perfection is the uniformly circular motion of the concentric. spheres, to which the planets and other celestial bodies are attached. The universe is limited. The earth rests in its center. Centre. the position and immobility of the Earth were explained by Aristotle's peculiar "theory of gravitation". The disadvantage of Aristotle's concept (from the point of view of geocentrism) was the lack of quantities. approach, limiting the study of purely qualities. description. Meanwhile, the needs of practice (and partly the demands of astrology) required the ability to calculate for any moment the position of the planets on the celestial sphere. This problem was solved by Ptolemy (2nd century). Having adopted the physics of Aristotle, Ptolemy rejected his doctrine of concentricity. spheres. In the main work of Ptolemy "Almagest" a harmonious and well-thought-out geocentric is given. world system. All planets move uniformly in circular orbits - epicycles. In turn, the centers of the epicycles evenly slide along the circumference of the deferents - large circles, almost in the center of which is the Earth. By placing the Earth not in the center of the deferents, Ptolemy recognized the eccentricity of the latter. Such a complex system was needed in order to explain the apparent uneven and non-circular motion of the planets by adding uniformly circular motions. For almost one and a half thousand years, the Ptolemaic system served as a theoretical. basis for calculating celestial movements. Rotate. and act. the movement of the Earth was rejected on the grounds that at a high speed of such movement, all bodies on the surface of the Earth would break away from it and fly away. Centre. the position of the earth was explained by nature. aspiration of all earthly elements to the center. Only correct ideas about inertia and gravitation could finally break the chain of Ptolemy's proofs. Thus, as a result of the weak development of natures. sciences struggle of heliocentrism and geocentrism in antich. science ended with the victory of geocentrism. Attempts scientists to question the truth of geocentrism met with hostility and were discredited by Aristotle, Ptolemy. Means. geocentrism owes part of its victories to religion. It is wrong to consider geocentrism only as kinematic. scheme of the world; in the classic form it was a natural consequence, astronomical. form of anthropocentrism and teleology. From the idea that man is the crown of creation, the doctrine of the center inevitably followed. the position of the Earth, its exclusivity, the service role of all celestial bodies in relation to the Earth. Geocentrism was a kind of "scientific" justification for religion, and therefore the church zealously fought against heliocentrism. True, geocentrism in materialistic systems of Democritus and his successors was free from religious-idealistic. concepts of anthropocentrism and teleology. The earth was recognized as the center of the world, but only "our" world. The universe is infinite. The number of worlds in it is also infinite. Naturally, such a materialistic interpretation reduced geocentrism to the level of private astronomical. theories. The dividing line between geocentrism and heliocentrism did not always coincide with the boundary separating idealism from materialism. The development of technology required ever greater accuracy of astronomical. computing. This caused the complication of the Ptolemaic system: epicycles were piled on top of epicycles, causing a feeling of bewilderment and anxiety even among orthodox geocentrists. A new era in astronomy was opened by Copernicus. His book On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres (1543) was the beginning of the revolution. revolution in natural science. Copernicus put forward the position that most of the visible celestial movements are only a consequence of the movement of the Earth both around its axis and around the Sun. This destroyed the dogma about the immobility and exclusivity of the Earth. However, Copernicus could not finally break with the physics of Aristotle. Hence the errors in his system. First, by swapping the Earth and the Sun, Copernicus began to consider the Sun as abs. center of the universe. Secondly, Copernicus retained the illusion of uniformly circular motions of the planets, which required the introduction of epicycles to explain the first inequality. Thirdly, to explain the change of seasons, Copernicus introduced the third movement of the Earth - "declination movement". However, these shortcomings of the system do not diminish the merits of Copernicus. The teachings of Copernicus were initially accepted without much enthusiasm. It was rejected by F. Bacon, Tycho Brahe and cursed by M. Luther. J. Bruno (1548-1600) overcame the inconsistency of Copernicus. He showed that the Universe is infinite and has no center, and the Sun is an ordinary star in an infinite number of stars and worlds. Having done a gigantic work of generalization, they will observe. material collected by Tycho Brahe, Kepler (1571-1630) discovered the laws of planetary motion. This broke the Aristotelian idea of their uniformly circular motion; elliptical the shape of the orbits finally explained the first inequality in the motion of the planets. The works of Galileo (1564–1642) destroyed the basis of the Ptolemaic system. The law of inertia made it possible to discard the "movement in declination" and to prove the inconsistency of the arguments of the opponents of heliocentrism. "Dialogue on the two main systems of the world - Ptolemaic and Copernican" (1632) brought the ideas of Copernicus to the relatively broad masses, and put Galileo before the court of the Inquisition. Catholic The leaders at first greeted the book of Copernicus without much anxiety and even with interest. This was facilitated as a purely mathematical. the exposition, and the preface of Osiander, in which he argued that the whole construction of Copernicus does not at all pretend to be an image. world, essentially unknowable, that in the book of Copernicus the motion of the Earth serves only as a hypothesis, only as a formal basis for mathematics. calculations. This version was accepted with approval by Rome. J. Bruno exposed Osiander's falsification. The scientific and propaganda activities of Bruno and Galileo dramatically changed the attitude of the Catholics. churches to the teachings of Copernicus. In 1616 it was condemned, and the book of Copernicus was banned "until correction" (the ban was lifted only in 1822). In the works of Bruno, Kepler, Galileo, the Copernican system was freed from the remnants of Aristotelianism. Newton (1643–1727) took a further step forward. His book Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687, see Russian translation, 1936) gave a physical. justification for the teachings of Copernicus. This finally eliminated the gap between terrestrial and celestial mechanics and created the first human in history. scientific knowledge. picture of the world. The victory of heliocentrism meant the defeat of religion and the triumph of materialism. a science that seeks to know and explain the world from itself. The dispute between Copernicus and Ptolemy is finally settled in favor of Copernicus. However, with the advent of the general theory of relativity in bourgeois. science has widely spread the opinion (expressed in a general form by E. Mach) that the Copernican system and the Ptolemy system are equal and that the struggle between them was meaningless (see A. Einstein and L. Infeld, Evolution of Physics, M., 1956, p. 205–10, M. Born, Einstein's theory of relativity and its physical foundations, M.–L., 1938, pp. 252–54). The position of physicists on this issue was supported by some idealist philosophers. “The doctrine of relativity does not assert,” writes G. Reichenbach, “that Ptolemy's view is correct; rather, it refutes the absolute significance of each of these two views. This new understanding could only arise because historical development has passed through both concepts, due to the fact that the displacement of the Ptolemaic worldview by the Copernican one laid the foundation for a new mechanics, which eventually revealed the one-sidedness of the Copernican worldview itself. The road to truth went here through three dialectical stages, which Hegel considered as necessary stages in any historical development, leading from thesis through antithesis to the highest synthesis "(From Copernicus to Einstein", N. Y., 1942, p. 83). This "highest synthesis" of the ideas of Ptolemy and Copernicus is based on an incorrect interpretation of the general principle of relativity: since acceleration (and not just speed, as in the special theory of relativity) loses its absolute character, since the fields of inertial forces are equivalent to gravity and the general laws of physics are formulated covariantly with respect to any transformations coordinates and time, then all possible frames of reference are equal in rights and the concept of a predominant (privileged) frame of reference loses its meaning. Therefore, a geocentric description of the world has the same right to exist as a heliocentric one. The choice of a frame of reference associated with the Sun is not a question principle, but a matter of convenience.So, under the banner of the further development of science on essentially, the significance of that revolution in science and worldview, which was produced by the works of Copernicus, is denied. This concept is objected to by many scholars. Moreover, the nature of the objections, the method of argumentation are different, reflecting one or another understanding of the essence of the general theory of relativity. Proceeding from the fact that the general theory of relativity is in essence the theory of gravitation, Acad. V. A. Fok in a number of works ("Some applications of Lobachevsky's ideas of non-Euclidean geometry to physics", in the book: A. P. Kotelnikov and V. A. Fok, Some applications of Lobachevsky's ideas in mechanics and physics, M.–L. , 1950; "The system of Copernicus and the system of Ptolemy in the light of the modern theory of gravitation", in Sat. "Nicholas Copernicus", M., 1955) denies the relativity of acceleration as a basic principle. Fock argues that under certain conditions it is possible to single out a privileged coordinate system (the so-called "harmonic coordinates"). The acceleration in such a system is absolute, i.e. it does not depend on the choice of the system, but is due to the physical. reasons. From this follows directly the objective truth of the heliocentric. world systems. But Fock's starting point is by no means universally recognized and is subject to criticism (see, for example, ?. ?. Shirokov, General Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Gravity?, Zh. Issue 1. H. Keres, Some questions of the general theory of relativity, "Proceedings of the Institute of Physics and Astron. Academy of Sciences of Estonian SSR", Tartu, 1957, No 5). In contrast to Fock, ?. ?. Shirokov believes that the recognition of the general principle of relativity is compatible with the recognition of the existence of preferential frames of reference for an isolated accumulation of matter, since the theorem on the center of inertia is valid in any frame of reference with Galilean conditions at infinity (see. ?. ?. Shirokov, On the predominant frames of reference in Newtonian mechanics and the theory of relativity, in: Dialectical materialism and modern natural science, M., 1957). Such a system is characterized by the fact that its center of inertia is at rest or moves uniformly and rectilinearly, and that the laws of conservation of mass, energy, momentum and momentum are satisfied. A non-inertial system cannot be predominant, because it does not meet these conditions. Obviously, for our planetary system, the reference system associated with the Sun as the center of inertia of the considered material formation will be predominant. Thus, in both of these approaches to the general theory of relativity, the recognition of the equivalence of the systems of Copernicus and Ptolemy turns out to be untenable. This conclusion will become even more obvious if we take into account that equality, equivalence of reference systems cannot be reduced to the possibility of transition from one to another. Since we are not talking about formally mathematical. ideas, but about material, objective systems, one must take into account the origin of the system, and the role that various material bodies play in it, and a number of other physical. system characteristics. This is the only correct approach. Compar. consideration of the role and place occupied by the Sun and the Earth in the development of the solar system shows with sufficient clarity that it is the Sun that is natural. the predominant reference body for the entire system. Heliocentric the system of the world is an integral part of the modern. scientific pictures of the world. It has become a familiar fact that has entered even into ordinary consciousness. The simplest experiments with the Foucault pendulum and gyroscopic. compasses visually demonstrate the rotation of the Earth around its axis. The aberration of light and the parallax of fixed stars prove the rotation of the earth around the sun. But behind this simplicity, behind this obviousness, lie two millennia of intense and cruel struggle between the forces of progress and reaction. This struggle once again testifies to the complexity and inconsistency of the process of cognition. Lit.:?erel Yu. G., Development of ideas about the Universe, M., 1958. A. Bovin. Moscow.
Geocentric system of the world
The geocentric system of the world (from ancient Greek Γῆ, Γαῖα - Earth) is an idea of the structure of the universe, according to which the central position in the Universe is occupied by the motionless Earth, around which the Sun, Moon, planets and stars revolve. An alternative to geocentrism is the heliocentric system of the world.
Development of geocentrism
Since ancient times, the Earth has been considered the center of the universe. At the same time, the presence of the central axis of the Universe and the asymmetry "top-bottom" were assumed. The earth was kept from falling by some kind of support, which in early civilizations was thought of as some kind of giant mythical animal or animals (turtles, elephants, whales). The first ancient Greek philosopher Thales of Miletus saw a natural object as this support - the oceans. Anaximander of Miletus suggested that the Universe is centrally symmetrical and does not have any preferred direction. Therefore, the Earth, located in the center of the Cosmos, has no reason to move in any direction, that is, it rests freely in the center of the Universe without support. Anaximander's student Anaximenes did not follow his teacher, believing that the Earth was kept from falling by compressed air. Anaxagoras was of the same opinion. The point of view of Anaximander was shared, however, by the Pythagoreans, Parmenides and Ptolemy. The position of Democritus is not clear: according to various testimonies, he followed Anaximander or Anaximenes.
One of the earliest images of the geocentric system that have come down to us (Macrobius, Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, manuscript of the 9th century)
Anaximander considered the Earth to have the shape of a low cylinder with a height three times less than the diameter of the base. Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Leucippus considered the Earth to be flat, like a table top. A fundamentally new step was taken by Pythagoras, who suggested that the Earth has the shape of a ball. In this he was followed not only by the Pythagoreans, but also by Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle. This is how the canonical form of the geocentric system arose, which was subsequently actively developed by ancient Greek astronomers: the spherical Earth is at the center of the spherical Universe; the visible daily movement of the celestial bodies is a reflection of the rotation of the Cosmos around the world axis.
Medieval depiction of the geocentric system (from the Cosmography of Peter Apian, 1540)
As for the order of the luminaries, Anaximander considered the stars located closest to the Earth, followed by the Moon and the Sun. Anaximenes first suggested that the stars are the objects farthest from the Earth, fixed on the outer shell of the Cosmos. In this, all subsequent scientists followed him (with the exception of Empedocles, who supported Anaximander). An opinion arose (probably for the first time among Anaximenes or the Pythagoreans) that the longer the period of revolution of the luminary in the celestial sphere, the higher it is. Thus, the order of the luminaries turned out to be the following: Moon, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, stars. Mercury and Venus are not included here, because the Greeks had disagreements about them: Aristotle and Plato placed them immediately after the Sun, Ptolemy - between the Moon and the Sun. Aristotle believed that there is nothing above the sphere of fixed stars, not even space, while the Stoics believed that our world is immersed in infinite empty space; atomists, following Democritus, believed that beyond our world (limited by the sphere of fixed stars) there are other worlds. This opinion was supported by the Epicureans, it was vividly stated by Lucretius in the poem "On the Nature of Things."
Figure of Celestial Bodies is an illustration of Ptolemy's geocentric system of the world, made by the Portuguese cartographer Bartolomeu Velho in 1568.
Stored in the National Library of France.
Rationale for geocentrism
Ancient Greek scientists, however, substantiated the central position and immobility of the Earth in different ways. Anaximander, as has already been pointed out, pointed out the spherical symmetry of the Cosmos as the reason. Aristotle did not support him, putting forward a counterargument later attributed to Buridan: in this case, the person in the center of the room in which food is located near the walls must die of hunger (see Buridan's donkey). Aristotle himself substantiated geocentrism as follows: the Earth is a heavy body, and the center of the Universe is a natural place for heavy bodies; as experience shows, all heavy bodies fall vertically, and since they move towards the center of the world, the Earth is in the center. In addition, the orbital motion of the Earth (which the Pythagorean Philolaus assumed) was rejected by Aristotle on the grounds that it should lead to a parallactic displacement of the stars, which is not observed.
Drawing of the geocentric system of the world from an Icelandic manuscript dated circa 1750
A number of authors give other empirical arguments. Pliny the Elder, in his encyclopedia Natural History, justifies the central position of the Earth by the equality of day and night during the equinoxes and by the fact that during the equinox, sunrise and sunset are observed on the same line, and the sunrise on the day of the summer solstice is on the same line. , which is the sunset on the winter solstice. From an astronomical point of view, all these arguments are, of course, a misunderstanding. Slightly better are the arguments given by Cleomedes in the textbook "Lectures on Astronomy", where he substantiates the centrality of the Earth from the contrary. In his opinion, if the Earth were east of the center of the universe, then the shadows at dawn would be shorter than at sunset, the celestial bodies at sunrise would appear larger than at sunset, and the duration from dawn to noon would be less than from noon to sunset. Since all this is not observed, the Earth cannot be displaced to the west of the center of the world. Similarly, it is proved that the Earth cannot be displaced to the west. Further, if the Earth were located north or south of the center, the shadows at sunrise would extend in a north or south direction, respectively. Moreover, at dawn on the equinoxes, the shadows are directed exactly in the direction of the sunset on those days, and at sunrise on the summer solstice, the shadows point to the point of sunset on the winter solstice. It also indicates that the Earth is not offset north or south of center. If the Earth were higher than the center, then less than half of the sky could be observed, including less than six signs of the zodiac; as a consequence, the night would always be longer than the day. Similarly, it is proved that the Earth cannot be located below the center of the world. Thus, it can only be in the center. Approximately the same arguments in favor of the centrality of the Earth are given by Ptolemy in the Almagest, book I. Of course, the arguments of Cleomedes and Ptolemy only prove that the Universe is much larger than the Earth, and therefore also are untenable.
Pages from SACROBOSCO "Tractatus de Sphaera" with the Ptolemaic system - 1550
Ptolemy is also trying to justify the immobility of the Earth (Almagest, book I). First, if the Earth were displaced from the center, then the effects just described would be observed, and if they are not, the Earth is always in the center. Another argument is the verticality of the trajectories of falling bodies. The lack of axial rotation of the Earth Ptolemy justifies as follows: if the Earth rotated, then “... all objects that do not rest on the Earth should seem to make the same movement in the opposite direction; neither clouds nor other flying or hovering objects will ever be seen moving eastward, as the Earth's movement towards the east will always throw them away, so that these objects will appear to be moving westward, in the opposite direction. The inconsistency of this argument became clear only after the discovery of the foundations of mechanics.
Explanation of astronomical phenomena from the standpoint of geocentrism
The greatest difficulty for ancient Greek astronomy was the uneven movement of the celestial bodies (especially the backward movements of the planets), since in the Pythagorean-Platonic tradition (which Aristotle largely followed), they were considered deities who should make only uniform movements. To overcome this difficulty, models were created in which the complex apparent motions of the planets were explained as the result of the addition of several uniform circular motions. The concrete embodiment of this principle was the theory of homocentric spheres of Eudoxus-Callippus, supported by Aristotle, and the theory of epicycles by Apollonius of Perga, Hipparchus and Ptolemy. However, the latter was forced to partially abandon the principle of uniform motions, introducing the equant model.
Rejection of geocentrism
During the scientific revolution of the 17th century, it became clear that geocentrism is incompatible with astronomical facts and contradicts physical theory; the heliocentric system of the world was gradually established. The main events that led to the rejection of the geocentric system were the creation of the heliocentric theory of planetary motions by Copernicus, the telescopic discoveries of Galileo, the discovery of Kepler's laws and, most importantly, the creation of classical mechanics and the discovery of the law of universal gravitation by Newton.
Geocentrism and religion
Already one of the first ideas opposed to geocentrism (the heliocentric hypothesis of Aristarchus of Samos) led to a reaction on the part of representatives of religious philosophy: the Stoic Cleanthes called for Aristarchus to be brought to justice for moving the “Center of the World” from its place, meaning the Earth; it is not known, however, whether the efforts of Cleanthes were crowned with success. In the Middle Ages, since the Christian Church taught that the whole world was created by God for the sake of man (see Anthropocentrism), geocentrism also successfully adapted to Christianity. This was also facilitated by a literal reading of the Bible. The scientific revolution of the 17th century was accompanied by attempts to administratively ban the heliocentric system, which led, in particular, to the trial of the supporter and propagandist of heliocentrism, Galileo Galilei. Currently, geocentrism as a religious belief is found among some conservative Protestant groups in the US.
Bibliography
Source: http://ru.wikipedia.org/
III. GEOCENTRIC PICTURE OF THE WORLD
Let us now turn to that doctrine of the universe, under the influence of which people have been for almost two thousand years. We mean the teachings of Aristotle (384-322 BC), which included the entire body of knowledge of that time. This doctrine had a closed character, broke with the tradition of a naive sensual worldview and did not disagree with the usual religious ideas: anthropomorphism, teleology, etc.
Aristotle was sure that there was already everything necessary and sufficient for solving questions about the Earth, the sky, etc. In general, his teaching about the universe is a rather harmonious, but very superficial generalization of direct sensory experience. According to this doctrine, the world is expediently, reasonably arranged and is a collection of bodies consisting of matter and in a state of continuous movement or change. As for man, for the Stagira philosopher (as Aristotle was called after the city of Stagira, where he was born), he was not a link in the chain of other creatures, but the ultimate goal of all wisely arranged nature. In this regard, he placed the globe motionless in the center of the world, and looked at the rest of the world as a kind of shell of this central body, which, together with the person living on it, is the starting point of all the expediency of nature.
Fig. 7. Aristotle (statue in Rome).
The universe seemed to Aristotle to be spatially limited, closed, unique, having no similarity. He tried to prove with the help of various logical tricks that there is only one sky, which must have a spherical shape, because the sphere is the most "perfect" of the bodies studied in geometry.
But despite the fact that Aristotle saw the sky as spatially limited, he considered the sky to be unlimited in time, that is, eternally existing. In his essay “On the Sky”, the great Stagirite wrote: “The sky is not created and cannot perish, as some philosophers think. It is eternal, without beginning or end; besides, it does not know fatigue, because outside of it there is no force that would force it to move in a direction unusual for it.
Aristotle believed that the world, which has neither beginning nor end in time, is not conceivable without movement. This, however, led Aristotle not to a materialistic idea of motion as a way of being, an attribute of matter, but to a purely priestly conclusion about the “first mover”, which must be motionless. This engine is the mind, thought, and under its influence the universe itself "desires to move", it itself strives for movement or change. In a word, in this first motionless engine, directing things to reasonable goals, Aristotle saw a supernatural being - a deity.
Although Aristotle tried to preserve the foundations of the religious worldview, his idea of the eternity of the world was unacceptable to believers, because it turned God not into the creator and organizer of the world, but only into the first mover. Not without reason, in his declining days, Aristotle was accused of godlessness and was forced to flee from Athens to the island of Euboea, where he soon died.
We have already noted that if the first step in the development of the science of the sky is connected with the emergence of the idea of the sphericity of the sky, then the next step forward is connected with the idea of the spherical shape of the Earth. This idea largely belongs to the philosophical school of Pythagoras, and it arose, like the view of the spherical shape of the firmament, on the basis of observations. Pythagoras allegedly expressed an opinion about the ubiquitous habitability of the globe, that is, about the existence of antipodes, for which the concepts of “top” and “bottom” were overturned (Plato is considered the author of the word “antipode”). At present, it is impossible to establish what kind of considerations were that led Pythagoras to this idea, which is so important for the further development of science, about the sphericity of the Earth. But there is no doubt that this idea should have arisen among the ancient Greeks, because, as a result of the development of navigation among them, they observed phenomena due to the spherical shape of the Earth from day to day.
Aristotle was aware of these facts, and from them he drew the absolutely correct conclusion that the earth is not only spherical, but cannot be very large, and that it is all inhabited. At the same time, he gave such a clear overview of the evidence for the sphericity of the Earth that this philosopher can quite rightly be considered the founder of our entire doctrine of the shape of the Earth.
“That the Earth is a ball,” wrote Aristotle, “also follows from sensory sensation ... For otherwise, during lunar eclipses, we would not have seen such a distinct round dark segment on the Moon. The limit of the shadow (i.e., the invisible part) of the Moon during the month takes on a different shape, sometimes a straight line, sometimes a convex, sometimes a concave arc of a circle - during eclipses, this line is always convex, and since a lunar eclipse occurs from the earth's shadow , then the Earth must also look like a ball. This is also evident from the phenomena represented by the stars above the horizon, which also prove that the globe cannot be too large. So, one has only to move a little towards the south or north, so that the circle of the horizon changes significantly and the stars that were previously above our head move away from their former place. Some (southern) stars visible in Egypt or on the island of Cyprus are not visible in countries lying to the north, and vice versa - the northern stars, with their daily flow, remain constantly above our horizon of the northern countries of the Earth, while in more southern places the same stars, like others, rise and set. Consequently, the Earth is not only spherical, but also small, since otherwise, with such a slight change in place, the above phenomenon would not be noticeable. Therefore, it can be thought that the area around the Pillars of Hercules (Gibraltar) is connected with the Indian country and that in this way there is only one sea. Then mathematicians, who have calculated the circumference of the earth, consider it to be about 400,000 stages, and from this we conclude that the earth is not only spherical, but also that its volume is negligible in comparison with the sky.
Taking a stage equal to 157V2 or 185 meters, we obtain for the circumference of the globe 63,000 or 74,000 kilometers, i.e. numbers of the same order as the true value - 40,000 kilometers.
As we have already noted, Aristotle attributed
3 Systems of the world 33
spherical shape and the vault of heaven. Thus, a contradiction was created between the idea of the sphericity of the Earth and the sky, to which astronomical observations led, and the physical concepts of “up” and “down”, which arose when contemplating the surrounding phenomena. Aristotle resolved this contradiction by teaching about the division of the universe into two parts that are essentially different from each other - elementary and ethereal. And in this regard, Aristotle developed an extremely consistent, strictly geocentric point of view, drawing a sharp line between the sublunar and supralunar world, between the "earthly" and "heavenly".
Here are the main provisions of the astronomical teachings of Aristotle in his own presentation: “The sun and planets revolve around the Earth, which is motionless in the center of the world. Our fire, in relation to its color, has no resemblance to the light of the sun, dazzling whiteness. The sun does not consist of fire, but is a huge accumulation of ether; The heat of the Sun is caused by its action on the ether during its revolution around the Earth. Comets are transient phenomena that are quickly born in the atmosphere and just as quickly disappear. The Milky Way is nothing but evaporation ignited by the rapid rotation of stars around the Earth ... The movements of celestial bodies, generally speaking, occur much more regularly than the movements noticed on Earth; for, since the heavenly bodies are more perfect than all other bodies, the most regular movement, and at the same time the simplest, befits them, and such a movement can only be circular, because in this case the movement is at the same time uniform. The heavenly bodies move freely like the gods, to whom they are closer than to the inhabitants of the Earth; therefore, the luminaries do not need rest in their movement, and the cause of their movement is contained in themselves. The higher regions of the sky, more perfect, containing fixed stars, therefore have the most perfect movement - always to the right (from east to west). As for the part of the sky closest to the Earth, and therefore less perfect, this part serves as the seat of much less perfect luminaries, such as the planets. These latter move not only to the right, but also to the left, and, moreover, in orbits inclined to the orbits of the fixed stars. All heavy bodies tend to the center of the Earth, and since every body tends to the center of the universe, therefore the Earth must also be motionless in this center.
In order to more clearly imagine the ideas put by Aristotle as the basis of his geocentric system of the world, it is necessary to take into account that at the time of this philosopher
the teaching of Empedocles (492-432 BC) about the four "elements" or "elements x" was established. Empedocles allowed the existence of four "primary substances", namely: earth, water, air and fire, and believed that "everything", the whole universe, that is, all the bodies found on Earth and heaven, came from their mixing. Aristotle accepted this idea, but added a fifth, sharply different from them, element to the four elements mentioned. According to Aristotle, in addition to the four elements or basic substances that make up all earthly objects, there is also a special fifth element (in Latin - quinta essentia, hence the expression "quintessence"), ether, which consists of heavenly bodies. At the same time, Aristotle said that the Earth, where the four elements reign, is a perishable world, that is, a world of constant transformations, the eternal cycle of birth and death, growth and decay; on the contrary, the sky, consisting of only one ether, is an imperishable world, serves as the seat of everything perfect. In a word, celestial bodies were declared fundamentally different from earthly, "elementary" bodies.
Everything heavy, from this point of view, tends to the center of the universe, which has a spherical shape, and accumulates around it, forming a spherical mass. Therefore, the Earth, as the heaviest of all elements, is at the center of the universe, and therefore only one geocentric point of view is possible for astronomy.
As for the lighter elements, they are in successive layers one above the other, namely: the globe is surrounded by water, above the water is air, and above the air is fire, which is the lightest of the four elements and occupies the entire space from Earth to Moon. Above the fiery shell are the stars, consisting of pure ether. The stars are the most perfect world bodies, moreover, they are very far from the Earth and are not at all subject to the harmful influence of elementary earthly bodies. The Sun, Moon and planets also consist of ether, but the closer to the Earth, the less “pure”, less perfect, and this affects the nature of the movement of the heavenly bodies, the shape of their paths.
Matter, from this point of view, is located spherically, and all bodies fall towards the center of the Earth, so that the word "down" means - to the center of the universe, the word "up" - to the surrounding celestial sphere. And this sphere, as we have already seen, is spatially limited: there is nothing beyond it ...
Like the division of the entire universe into two strictly distinct parts, movements are also divided by Aristotle into two groups: imperfect and perfect.
All movements of the earthly elements belong to the group of imperfect movement, and they are characterized by straightness. They are made in the direction of the "natural places" of the four elements, straight down or up, depending on whether the body is heavy or light; the body moves until it finds a place where it can remain at rest. All heavy "elementary" bodies tend downward; from this desire they can be kept only temporarily, using some kind of force. The earth, as the heaviest element, is not only located in the center of the universe, but also rests in it, that is, it does not have its own motion at all (the latter could be maintained only temporarily, in order to then stop).
As for the ether, it has a perfect movement, different from the movement of the four elements. Ether, according to Aristotle, does not have its "natural place" and can move along the most perfect path - in a circle and with absolute correctness.
Aristotle was a student of Plato (429-347 BC), who enjoyed great prestige in the ancient world. Trying to create a simple geometric diagram of the movement of celestial bodies, Plato set a task for astronomers - to explain all the movements of celestial bodies as circular and, moreover, uniform movements, that is, occurring at a constant speed. This idea was the beginning of the development of the so-called theory of epicycles, and it had, in general, a rather negative influence on the development of the science of the sky. It contained such a prejudice that penetrated extremely deeply into the minds of Greek philosophers, astronomers, physicists, etc.
The thought of the possibility of deviating from the position of uniformly circular motion did not occur to anyone.
nii of heavenly bodies. This idea did not follow from observations (observations of the Sun, Moon and planets contradict this), but from purely philosophical considerations. It arose from the ideas of the Pythagoreans (the influence of Pythagoreanism on Plato was very significant) about harmony in the cosmos, and the deviation from it after Plato seemed absurd, completely contrary to the reasonable, expedient, divine structure of the world. It was believed that the movements occurring in celestial space are expedient and, therefore, must be perfect and unchanging, and only circular and uniform movements can be such.
In a word, for Greek philosophers and scientists it was an axiom that only uniformly circular motion, knowing neither approaching the center, nor moving away from it, nor acceleration, nor deceleration, can "befit" the unceasing run of the luminaries. As we will see later, it was difficult to abandon this ancient astronomical dogma even for those scientists who resolutely rejected the idea of the Earth as an immovable center of the world.
Aristotle's ideas about the motion of celestial bodies are inextricably linked with this dogma. Aristotle, following Plato, believed that the circle is a perfect figure and the circular motion is uniform. The movements of stars, consisting of pure ether, are eternal and unchanging, and they can only be performed in a circular and uniform manner around the motionless world center - the globe. As for the Sun, Moon and planets, located in those regions of the sky where the ether (due to proximity to fire and other elements) is less pure, these celestial bodies move in circles, but unevenly and not always in the same direction.
Thus, Aristotle taught that all parts of the sky are in perpetual motion. The Earth alone is "apparently at rest", being at the center of the celestial sphere. He said that “a weighty argument for the immobility of the globe is that the earth is in a state of rest and that it is naturally in balance”, that is, that it has no reason to leave its “natural place”. As for the reason for the movement of the luminaries around the Earth, according to Aristotle, the whole point here is only that this movement is very “natural”, for the circle is the most perfect line, and the luminaries themselves are perfect, so that they must describe the circle.
At the same time, Aristotle declared that only one world can exist. After all, if the elements are the same everywhere, then they all tend to one center (to take their “natural place”), i.e., just as there is only one world center, so only one world can exist. Further, Aristotle emphasized that the movement of the world is only possible when there is a point of rest on which this movement is based in some way, and that such a point is the globe. Finally, in confirmation of the incorruptibility of the celestial bodies endowed with circular motion, he cited the following: parts of it." Aristotle concluded that the sky is eternal and perfect, and that for this very reason "all people, both Greeks and barbarians, if they had any idea about the deity, placed here the abodes of the gods they worshiped."
Fig. 8. Aristotelian system of the world. Around the motionless Earth, which forms the center of the world, there are eight contiguous "heavens", which are set in motion by a special sphere - the "first engine".
Thus, Aristotle built a geocentric doctrine of the universe, which had a very complete form and expressed the general opinion of the majority of scientists of antiquity, since it contained the most common ideas of that time. In this teaching, Aristotle destroyed the opposition of top and bottom and at the same time introduced the opposition of earthly and heavenly, imperfect and perfect form, eternity and emergence, mobility and immobility, heaviness and lightness, etc. All these opposites followed from the fact that the entire universe Aristotle sharply divided into two parts: elementary (earthly, imperfect) and ethereal (heavenly, perfect).
Aristotle also based his physics on the opposition between "natural" and "violent" motions. He considered natural movement to be movement corresponding to the nature of things (for example, the movement of a stone downwards), and violent - the opposite movement (movement of a stone upwards). At the same time, he believed that violent movements do not persist and eventually disappear by themselves, giving way to natural movements.
The influence of the great Stagirite lasted about two thousand years, and during a large part of the Middle Ages this philosopher was considered an indisputable authority; so, Dante called him "the teacher of those who are engaged in science." His views penetrated so deeply into the minds of scientists that even Copernicus, who resolutely rejected Aristotelian geocentrism, was unable to free himself from the ideas of his physics.
Aristotle is an encyclopedic mind who gave a very broad, almost comprehensive generalization of Greek science. But he was an inconsistent thinker, oscillating between a materialistic and idealistic worldview (despite the fact that he did a lot to undermine the foundations of idealism). Medieval priesthood took his idealistic ideas and adapted them to the interests of protecting religion, the ideology of the feudal classes. These ideas became the banner of reaction.
According to Lenin's apt description, "priestry killed the living in Aristotle and immortalized the dead." Therefore, when, under the influence of Bruno, Galileo and other great thinkers, a storm broke out against Aristotle, this was a necessary condition for the development of science, which took the path of a materialistic understanding of nature. However, this storm was not so much related to Aristotle himself, but to his medieval followers and commentators (scholastics), who tried to cover up their “soul-saving” fantasies with his authority.
From the book Physics: Paradoxical Mechanics in Questions and Answers author Gulia Nurbey Vladimirovich1. Mechanical models of the world
From the book The Newest Book of Facts. Volume 3 [Physics, chemistry and technology. History and archeology. Miscellaneous] author Kondrashov Anatoly Pavlovich From the book Secrets of Space and Time the author Komarov Viktor From the book Return of the Sorcerer author Keler Vladimir Romanovich From the book What is the theory of relativity author Landau Lev Davidovich From the book Systems of the World (from the ancients to Newton) author Gurev Grigory AbramovichConservation laws and symmetry of the world One of the very interesting questions for physicists of the last two generations has been the question: is there any connection between other general properties of the universe and conservation laws? It turns out that there is, and the most immediate -
From the book The prevalence of life and the uniqueness of the mind? author Mosevitsky Mark Isaakovich"If the Scientists of the World..." This short essay was written and published in July 1962. I knew Lev Davidovich Landau from my student years, I met him many times after the war, and perhaps that is why, as a writer, I had the unfortunate luck of being
From the book Biography of the Atom author Koryakin Yury IvanovichSystems of the world (from the ancients to Newton) “Science is called science because it does not recognize fetishes, is not afraid to raise a hand against the obsolete, old, and sensitively listens to the voice of experience, practice. If things were different, we would not have science at all, we would not have, say,
From the author's book From the author's book1961 Industrial experiment 1961 is the third year of the seven-year plan. Our entire vast country is in the forests of new buildings. The Soviet people, under the leadership of the Party, are building communism. But a communist society is inconceivable without an abundance of energy. "Communism is Soviet power
From the author's book2. A COMPLETE PICTURE OF THE WORLD (May 3, 1994) We constantly hear that the so-called conventional science, with all its visible achievements, seems to be in blinkers, if not in a dead end - and stubbornly does not notice some important phenomena that do not fit in her
From the author's bookChapter 3 Centaurs of the Atomic World Theory at the Crossroads "Winners are not judged!" - says the old saying. However, she has no access to science. How biased they judge! Until every step of the scientist in his battle with nature is justified, the victory does not count. But occasionally it happens
From the author's book14. Imperfections of the World Robert George was born weighing six pounds five ounces at ten o'clock on the evening of Sunday May 28, 1967, at the very moment when the lone yachtsman Francis Chichester entered Plymouth harbor, greeted by a cheering crowd, from his round-the-world
Geocentric system of the world- a system where the origin of coordinates is located on the Earth, which rests freely in the center of the spherical Universe, and the apparent movement of celestial bodies is a reflection of the rotation of the Cosmos around the world axis.
The order of the planets and stars depended on the period of their revolution and was as follows: Moon, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, stars. As for Mercury and Venus, the Greeks had disagreements: Aristotle and Plato placed them immediately after the Sun, Ptolemy - between the Moon and the Sun.
Gif-animation of the movement of planets in geo- and heliocentric systems. Source - Street Astronomy band
There is an opinion that the ancient Babylonians could know about the real movement of the Earth and planets around the Sun, but this information is fragmentary and has not yet been fully confirmed. Separate tablets have been found, which are supposed to depict a picture of the world of the ancient Babylonians, but it is difficult to decipher them.
Egyptian mythology is generally complex and diverse, but according to one version, the Sun was still in the center: the solar god Ra was considered the father of all other gods. He and eight of his descendants formed the so-called ennead of Heliopolis. Is it the solar system?
There is also a "reverse" legend of this: the world originated from eight ancient deities, the so-called Ogdoad. This eight consisted of four pairs of gods and goddesses, symbolizing the elements of creation. Nun and Naunet correspond to the primordial waters, Hu and Howhet to the infinity of space, Kuk and Kauket to eternal darkness. The fourth pair changed several times, but, starting from the New Kingdom, it consists of Amon and Amaunet, personifying invisibility and air. And these deities were the parents of the sun god, who brought light and further creation into the world.
Surprisingly, the mathematics that we learned in school was excellent for describing the movement of the stars across the sky for many thousands of years. At least that's how the ancient Greeks saw it.
The first or one of the first developed assumptions about the heliocentric system of the world that have come down to us was made in the 3rd century BC by the Greek Aristarchus of Samos. Based on his assumption of the Sun at the center of the world and from observations of the stars, he concluded that the distance from the Earth to the Sun is negligible compared to the distance from the Sun to the stars, which is true. In addition, he found that the Earth is many times smaller than the Sun.
With the development of astronomical observations, another justification for the motion of the planets was required.
In the early 1500s, Copernicus, based on the writings of Ptolemy and other ancient philosophers, astronomers and mathematicians, realized that heliocentric system more accurately describes the kinematics of objects, but, due to the established opinion about the Earth as the center of the world, his work was published as a kind of mathematical model, designed to serve to simplify calculations.
In the late 1500s, the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, who could not accept the Copernican system, proposed a compromise geo-heliocentric system. In his opinion, the Sun, Moon and stars revolve around the motionless Earth, and all planets and comets revolve around the Sun. From the point of view of mathematics, this model was no different from the Copernican system, but it did not cause objections from the Inquisition, which was an important advantage.
Geo-heliocentric model of Tycho Brahe
During the next two centuries, the geo-heliocentric system of the world acted as a legal version of the Copernican system. Well, after the discovery by Newton of the laws of dynamics and the law of universal gravitation, geocentrism finally lost its scientific foundations.
It would seem that everyone has long known that the Earth, like all planets, revolves around the Sun. But polls conducted in 2010-2011 in various countries, including Russia and the United States, showed that at least 30% of the population still adhere to a geocentric view of the world.
