Talk:Geocentric model/Archive 1

Relatively speaking...
Relatively speaking... can't we put Earth as the center of the universe and calculate all other positoins based on the earth's position? Dont people do that at times? like when observing the sun or the moon? I mean calculating Mar's orbit from the earth's perspective would be hell to figure out... but i think this whole center of the universe thing is relative ^^;;; (isn't universe supposed to be infinately large?) - Highwind


 * When we want to calculate Mars' position at our skies than we take the earth as the middle of the universe so that we don't have to calculate our suns position first. 80.127.8.111 09:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Belief
All formulations against heliocentrism are bound by religious dogmas. In order to believe in geocentrism, one must at the same time deny physics and the theories of relativity. Any scientific reasoning based upon observational data is easily dismissed with 'god did it' instead of an alternative viable explanation.

Anyone believing in a geocentric model must explain modern space travel of probes to other planets in our Solar System. If the Sun is revolving around the Earth in some magical epicycle, then where is it when a probe is sent out from Earth?

We as a species will always have those who for whatever reason refuse to accept new information. It has no effect on the masses as these persons will always remain in the minority. Free will often travels across the line into mental delusion. But if a person refuses to believe that electric light exists and they will only burn candles for light, let them have their free will. It does not affect the masses who know and understand reality. If a person willingly chooses to delude themselves in any belief and it does no harm to others, be willing to let them go on. Attempting to prove that heliocentrism is true to ALL people - even to those who refuse to believe - is a waste of time and energy.

The Flat Earth Society and The Hollow Earth Society will always have their believers. Let them be. When persons CHOOSE not to believe in truth, it is only themselves that are deceived.


 * Wow. L2relativity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.180.65 (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Engineering Viewpoint
While it is true that all things are relative and it is possible to formulate equations of motion with the earth at the center as a non-rotating inertial reference frame, all of the currently simple equations of orbital mechanics suddenly become extremely intricate relationships between trigonometric functions. Given that engineers (like me) have to integrate and take derivatives from these things, it becomes utterly unfeasible to construct such a system.

Additionally, the law of universal gravitation--after becoming a monster of sines, cosines, and tangents--would still point out that within the now non-radial "sphere" of influence of the Sun, the Sun is the major attracting body and thus all accelerative (force) laws would relate to it. While it would be possible to create equations of motion for the movement of the planets, the forces that Earth imparts to those planets would be insufficient to cause them to move in that manner. The Sun's gravity would still be the dominant force in the Solar System, and thus indicative of--at the very least--heliocentrism.--165.134.186.199 15:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Copernicus thought that the sun was the center of the universe. Get owned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.180.65 (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete or not?
At the moment Geocentric model is in the Category:Obsolete scientific theories while Bohr atom is not. Both are now commonly held to be ontologically deficient but both are still useful for computation and pedagogy. Surely we should be consistent but which way? Cutler 20:39, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

For sure it is not obsolete since it is sometimes still used for the navigation of space crafts, for example. For a discussion that I found on google, see here [] 91.65.220.51 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The geocentric model is obsolete. The things referenced in the link do not rely on a geocentric model. They simply ignore the effects of everything but the Earth, as the Earth is by far the dominant effect near the planet.--RLent (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete scientific theories
I think this article should definitely be moved. Satellite launches etc. use fixed earth principles in calulations; including geocentric principles.

Merge with Ptolemaic system?
For the discussion, please visit Talk:Ptolemaic_system. Lambiam Talk 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the merge
The article is now a mess: achronological (I don't care if it's not in the dictionary) and riddled with factual errors even beyond what was in the originals. And the changes that were made during merging are obscure. I will try to clean it up in the next few days, but it will require extensive rewriting of much of the article. Maestlin 16:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I saved a lot, but some of it was repetition, some of it was out of order, and some was just plain wrong. I dropped out the section on the Epitome of the Almagest which seems totally irrelevant and is covered in Regiomontanus anyway. I also did some general cleanup, like unlinking planet names that were linked every paragraph. If anyone doesn't like what I did, please have mercy and discuss it before adding back old information. Can anyone explain the reference to Hoyle? I left it in for now. Maestlin 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Geocentrism
Something had been bugging me about the reference to Chinese astronomy, so I went and looked it up in Joseph Needham. First point: NO Chinese astronomer EVER suggested heliocentrism (as the article currently implies). Second point: No Chinese astronomer EVER suggested that the Earth moved (in the way we understand the word 'moved'). A few astronomers suggested an obscure theory in which the Earth bounced about slightly or 'vibrated' (slowly) (there are Chinese words which are hard to translate into English which get across these concepts: apparently this idea does not sound as daft in the original as it does in English). And a few astronomers suggested that the whole concept was meaningless....all the planets and stars were moving around aimlessly in empty space (ironically this view is closest to the modern view). Anyway the sentence discussing Chinese astronomy should, I think, be omitted, as it is really irrelevant to geocentrism (the vast majority of Chinese astronomers believed in geocentrism until the Jesuits introduced them to heliocentrism). User:BScotland 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Needham's generally a safe authority. Please, omit anything that looks like a real problem. A short verified section on geocentrism in China would be even better. I don't know that much about Jesuit activity in China. Did they introduce true heliocentrism? Maestlin 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think, to be honest, that the Chinese bit would be better in the entry on heliocentrism although that article is already getting a bit unwieldy. The key point is that (a few) Chinese astronomiers more or less sorta agreed with the modern view which is that there is no 'centre' of the Universe (insofar as they thought it had a centre they thought it was the pole star). In response to your question, yes the Jesuits introduced heliocentrism, but this caused little or no ructions in Chinese religion or science as Chinese science was (is?) instrumentalist. In other words, the Chinese did (do?) NOT view science as the pursuit of truth, but simply view scientific theories as useful stories or myths to explain empirical observations. All the Jesuits had to do was to show that heliocentrism explained the observations of astronomers better than geocentrism. User:BScotland 11:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the question of instrumentalism, I am curious about the Jesuits introducing heliocentrism to China. Wouldn't this be a problem, given the stance of the Catholic Church on astronomy following the trial of Galileo? Maestlin 17:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

To be absolutely honest with you I'm not sure. This article (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/RethinkingSciCiv/etexts/Elman/Chinese_Sciences.html) might help you. As might this (http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/ans/eastm/back/cs11/cs11-4-martzloff.pdf). Some of my family members were Jesuits, and I know that Jesuits have a reputation of being intellectuals and fearsome debaters. It might well be that the Jesuits simply saw pretty quickly what way the wind was blowing and changed their opinions quicker than the rest of the Catholic Church. Also, since Chinese astronomy was geocentric, what better way to demonstrate the superiority of Western ways than to show that they were all wrong and that only Westerners had worked out the truth? But this is only a guess. 86.1.194.43 11:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The second article was a little helpful. This page was considerably more useful. It turns out the Jesuits did introduce heliocentrism, but the facts don't suggest the Jesuits were the promoters of freethinking science you reconstructed. They taught to the Chinese a thoroughly geocentric, generally Tychonic astronomy until 1757, when De revolutionibus was finally taken off the Index of Forbidden Books. Michael Benoist promptly wrote up a description of heliocentrism in 1760. So even though some Jesuit missionaries may have been closet Copernicans before that point (Sivin thinks the number has been overestimated), they didn't openly defy the Church. As we should expect from an order with a reputation for defending orthodoxy. This actually caused some harm to the reputation of western astronomy when Copernicanism was introduced. You might find the article interesting if you are a Jesuit buff. Maestlin 19:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Moon orbit
I understand how the phases of Venus proved it orbited the sun, but how did the Geocentric model explain the phases of our moon? --82.43.150.220 12:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the Earth circles the Sun or vice versa, as long as the Moon goes around the Earth. The relative positions of the three will be identical. Maestlin 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --82.43.150.220 17:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Something for consideration...
I would like to submit the following for consideration by the wonderful minds who frequent this page.

If the earth revolves around the sun and rotates on its axis, then how is it that every night we can expect to walk outside and see the same stars during each of the four seasons?

Picture this:

On January 1st it is night time as the earth is turned away from the sun. Let's suppose that we are seeing the stars at zero degrees.

It's three months later on April 1st and we are now 90 degrees around our orbit, it is night time and we're turned away from the sun. We should be seeing the stars at 90 degrees.

At six months, on July 1st, we are now 180 degrees from where we started around the sun in January. When it is night time and we are facing away from the sun, we should be seeing the stars at 180 degrees.

Then at nine months, on October 1st, we are 270 degrees around our orbit of the sun. It is night time and we are facing away from the sun. We should be seeing the body of stars that would be present at 270 degrees.

How is it then that we always see the same stars? Mariners have navigated by the stars since the world was created because they're ALWAYS in the same place. Slight shifts? Sure. But never out of place.

I've just been wondering about this and would sincerely enjoy a discussion on the matter by the more educated community out there. I have tried emailing university astronomy departments and have never received even one reply.

Thank you for your patience in listening to my rough description. It's much easier to draw on paper.

Respectfully, Lalspach 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Lalspach. Your analysis is right, but your premise that we see the same stars at different seasons is wrong.  Around December we see a group of winter constellations including Orion in the evening sky.  In June we'll see the summer constellations including Scorpio.  Your question suggests that like most of us, you live in a community where we don't have much of a chance to look carefully at the night sky.  --SteveMcCluskey 04:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ptolemaic system
The article currently says "In the Ptolemaic system, each planet is moved by five or more spheres: one sphere is its deferent which is diagnol on the Earth, and the other sphere is the epicycle which is embedded in the deferent."

Is the word diagnol a technical term in the Ptolemaic system? If so perhaps we should explain it. More likely, it is a mistake for diagonal, but if so, I don't understand what is meant - perhaps someone can explain. Rjm at sleepers 06:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)this is some what true but you gotta know it from the bottom of your heart and make sure that your brain tells you that its true and to never give up your thinking even if its wrong because you might be a famous person someday andyour words will be popular for ever so make sure that you dont give up your thinking. please and thank you so much <3

Did Copernicus predict the phases of Venus?
As far as I know, Copernicus did not predict the phases of Venus and I have therefore edited this section. I believe that no one had actualy thought about phases of Venus prior to the invention of the telescope. It was only when Galileo used his telescope to observe the full set of phases that heliocentism was used to explain it. If I'm wrong, no doubt someone will correct the section. Rjm at sleepers

Poll
I think that the use of the poll in the "geocentrism today" section is inappropriate (but I do not think it was intentionally used to mislead). The reason for this is that the figure given is almost certainly not how many Americans polled believe in geocentrism, but is rather how many are unaware that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The poll was designed to see whether people are knowledgeable about science, not whether they support geocentrism. If you want to test for belief in geocentricism when many of those polled are scientifically ignorant, you should not just ask whether the Sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth revolves around the Sun. Without being taught/told to the contrary and unless they put some thought into it, people would naturally think that the Sun revolves around the Earth. The reason for this is that the Earth does not appear to move according to our senses, which is why everyone believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth in the past. In addition, except for the seasons, people do not come across much in their daily lives that can only be a consequence of the Earth revolving around the Sun rather than the other way around, and many people mistakenly believe that the seasons are caused by variations in the distance between the Earth and the Sun. I think that the vast majority of those polled who said that the Sun revolves around the Earth would change their minds after the reasons for believing that the Earth revolves around the Sun were explained to them in simple terms. Modern geocentrists, on the other hand, believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth despite exposure to extensive, well-documented evidence to the contrary. -- Kjkolb 05:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your belief that "the vast majority of those polled who said that the Sun revolves around the Earth would change their minds after the reasons for believing that the Earth revolves around the Sun were explained to them in simple terms", seems to imply that they have gone through the education system without receiving such an explanation. If true, this makes the poll results an interesting commentary on teaching science in schools. Rjm at sleepers 06:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a good chance that they were taught that the Earth revolves around the Sun in school, especially if they went to school in the past several decades, and there is a good chance that they have heard it outside of school. The problem is probably that they do not retain the information into adulthood. Children can answer questions on some topics better than adults because they have studied the topics recently. If the information is seldom or never used, it will be forgotten. Granted, it would be nice if people were not so stupid that they could easily forget something so simple, but what can you do? Other than genetically engineering better people or sterilizing the stupid people, that is.
 * Back to the poll. While the poll may be "an interesting commentary on teaching science in schools," that is not what the article is about. In that way, the poll might be useful in an article about teaching science in schools or the scientific illiteracy of society, but I still do not believe that it belongs here. -- Kjkolb 05:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

it is NOT disproven
The article starts with "...the geocentric model of the universe is the disproven theory that the Earth is at the center...". Though it is true that planetary motions can be described more 'naturally' using a heliocentric model, the geocentric model is, as a physical model to describe planetary movements, neither wrong nor disproven.

Surely, the heliocentric model gives nicer and shorter formulas for the position of planets over time, but they are in no way 'more true' than the formulas that you get in the geocentric model.

My suggestion: remove the word 'disproven' in the first sentence. 91.65.220.51 13:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And why would that be? So you can erode the article with your Biblical-literalist dogmas? :P Seriously now, it's disproven. The earth is not at the center of the universe. It's proven to be rotating around the sun, which is rotating around the galactic center etc etc....

It's disproven. trying to say it isn't is holding onto a belief just for the sake of that belief. --Healyhatman (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The poster you're responding to doesn't seem to believe in geocentrism if you ask me, so all your nonsense about Biblical-literalism is just that--nonsense. Once again, witness the glory of tolerance. Good job!

Anyway, he's right--it's not "disproven"; we've just got a better model. For crying out loud, haven't you read Lewis's Discarded Image? Surely you've gotten that far at least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

yet we find ourselves looking space, watching the Earth orbit the sun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.30.147 (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Mars brightnes explained?
How was the brightnes change of Mars explained by the geocentric model? Mars has the largest change of all planets, from apr. -3 to +2 mag. Thats a change up to nearly 100 times. For the geocentric model Mars should be most bright if near the sun and dim if in opposition. But in reality (heliocentric) its just the opposite. Its hard to ignore this large changes, how was it explained? 2007/10/15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.116.93 (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, because they didn't notice it? Without photography and computers, it's pretty difficult to judge these things over the course of a year, especially when you are judging it against different background stars.  You might as well ask why they couldn't see the parallax of stars either.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.180.65 (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The changes in the brightness of Mars were known by Copernicus and earlier astronomers . Even in the poor conditions of the 21st century they are very easy to see with the naked eye. The geocentric model predicted changes in the distance from the Sun to Mars and from Mars to the Earth. The science of optics was not sufficiently developed to draw detailed conclusions from changes in brightness. In any case, the relative positions of the Sun, the Earth and Mars were broadly similar in both the geocentric and heliocentric models. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the brightness changes in Mars dictate that the major epicycles spin in the same direction as deferents, to produce retrograde motion and brightness increases at the same time (what is and has been observed for a long time).Xanthoptica (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Location of Venus's orbit
A recent edit has replaced the text "Ptolemy placed Venus inside the sphere of the Sun." with "Ptolemy placed Venus in the sphere of the Sun." I much prefer the original wording because it is less ambiguous. In the physical model Ptolemy described in his Planetary Hypotheses the sun was embedded in a spherical shell which carried it around the earth. Venus was embedded in a sphere which carried it around its epicycle, and this was in turn embedded in a spherical shell which carried the epicycle around the earth. This spherical shell lay entirely inside that of the Sun. Saying merely that "Ptolemy placed Venus in the sphere of the Sun." is less precise than saying that he placed it "inside" that sphere, and is open to the misinterpretation that Venus might have been embedded in the same sphere (or spherical shell) as the Sun.

Before the edit is reverted, however, I would like to give the editor responsible an opportunity to explain the rationale behind it. Whatever the concern was that prompted the change, it should be possible to meet it with some compromise form of wording. &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(Slightly) closer to reality
It is not at all clear to me what the point of this section is, or what it's trying to say. Unless this can be stated more clearly, I think the section should be deleted. As best I can make out, it seems to be saying that a geocentric model "can be" based on the common sense perception that the earth is at rest in the centre of the universe (i.e. "based on the observable universe", as the first sentence states), but that evidence against such a model is nevertheless provided by the apparent motion of the stars. If this understanding is correct then the section would appear to be redundant, since these points are made much more clearly elsewhere in the article. &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving Eccentric Hypothesis
Shouldn't this page have at least a short description of the moving eccentric hypothesis that Ptolemy introduces in Book XII of The Almagest? I think that it is important to note that epicycles and such were not the only system used in geocentrism, especially since this model was the basis for Tycho Brahe's semi-Copernican hypothesis and even for Copernicus' model itself. I'll prepare a short summary, but if anyone thinks it is a waste of time, or it exists on another page I can't find, please note that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.180.65 (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The term Geocentric needs a disambiguation page
The search term geocentric redirects to this page, which discusses the astronomical and related cultural useage of that term. There is a need for searchers to be able to find a page related to Earth sciences (geodesy) use of this term. In the geodetics world Geocentric is a kind of 3D coordinate system whose origin is at the center of mass of the Earth. Coordinate systems used in GPS calculations and modern mapping - WGS84 and ETRS, for example - are Geocentric coordinate systems.

Does there have to be some kind of vote or something for me to make a disambiguation page which would include this one? The other "Modern" geocentrism page could also be linked from that page as well. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone replies before doing anything... Jlhollin (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What Revolves around what?
If the Egyptains and others believed that everything revolved around the Earth they would be correct. One would have to apply this concept to all the planets and stars including the sun, to find out the Truth.. we would have to live on each planet in each cycle... or we would just have to be G-d...

Regards

Gavin Ferreira —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.64.126 (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Maragha system
The following sounds like it's been copied from another section on Wikipedia. Faro0485 (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WMAP 2006 data interpretation
I wonder how WMAP 2006 data interpretation would fit into this? Lawrence Krauss said that judging by the data collected (2006), if it wasn't a WMAP hardware error, or incomplete understanding of CMB, then the Earth is located at the centre of the universe.

In the context of our solar system, the sun is the centre of our solar system. But did he mean to say that in the context of the entire universe, we are located at the centre of the whole universe?

His statement seemed pretty unambiguous. What do you guys think about it?

The reason I am asking this is that I am wondering why the WMAP 2006 finding relevant to Geocentric Model isn't included in this article?

--Archestrategos (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Abu Ma'shar al-Balkhi
I have removed the following text from the article because the reference cited does not support it.


 * "Abu Ma'shar al-Balkhi (787-886) developed a planetary model which can be interpreted as a heliocentric model. This is due to his orbital revolutions of the planets being given as heliocentric revolutions rather than geocentric revolutions. His work on planetary theory has not survived, but his astronomical data were later recorded by al-Hashimi and Biruni. "
 * Reference

Nowhere in the cited reference does van der Waerden say or imply that al-Balkhi "developed a planetary model which can be interpreted as heliocentric." What he does is conjecture that the Greek astronomer Seleucus turned Aristarchus's rudimentary heliocentric theory into a fully-fledged predictive system by determining the necessary constants and developing methods of calculating planetary positions. He further argues that Aryabhata's presentation of one of his own theories (which van der Waerden explicitly says was not heliocentric) inherited traces of the originally heliocentric theory through his reliance on astronomical tables or an astronomical treatise which has now been lost, and that similar traces can be found in the system described by al-Biruni and al-Sijzi and attributed by them to al-Balkhi. My feeling is that al-Balkhi is not a sufficiently significant figure to warrant mentioning in the article. David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with your reading of Van der Waerden; he says (p. 535) that "The only known theory in which every planet has only one period of revolution is the heliocentric theory. Therefore I suppose that the astronomical system adopted by Abū Ma'shar was derived from a heliocentric theory" (my emphasis). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

good enough to be used for 1500 years?
I have changed the following - "The predictions of Ptolemy's geocentric model were good enough to be used for navigation, calendars, and astrology for over 1500 years." I'm not aware of the Ptolemaic system being used for navigation. Surely navigation used the fixed stars and the rising or setting of the sun. As to the calendar, AFAIK, the key contribution was determination of a date for the Christian festival of Easter. The Julian calendar was devised before Ptolemy. It was widely known by the early middle ages that this calendar was seriously wrong. The Gregorian calendar was not essentialy Ptolemaic or Coppernican. The issue was the length of the year, and how to correct for errors that had accumulated over time. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ptolemy's etc.
The flat earth theory and geocentric theory were Ptolemaic theories. In a Hellenistic Ptolemaic kingdom, the politics of that time were heavily dominated by the Ptolemaic rulers. Even though round earth theory and early heliocentrism was popular already at Socrates, Plato and Aristotle times. Mentioning the Ptolemaic dynasty or other Hellenistic rulers are no where near a mistake. Of course, I could go deeper into this arcticle and to the subjects, and write a section about how ancient rulers influenced the politics and philosophy. Round/flat and geoc/helioc were under heavy debate in Ancient Greece and Egypt. Of course with more linking how Vatican (meaning right thinking) expanded the flat and geoc into the medieval, withholding information and destroying anything that was not supporting the agenda ancient and medieval rulers set, including the events such as arson of the library of Alexandria. WillBildUnion (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're use of the dynastic sense of Ptolemaic in an article on astronomy/cosmology can only be misleading. In astronomical and cosmological contexts the term "Ptolemaic" is taken as referring to the teachings of the astronomer, geographer, and mathematical scientist Ptolemy of Alexandria.  In that sense, the statement that "The flat earth theory... [was] Ptolemaic" is historically inaccurate and contradicted by any number of reliable sources.


 * Setting aside that issue, your edits in general have not cited appropriate sources for their claims. Please read WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:RS; they will help you avoid getting in time-wasting disputes. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ptolemy the astronomer was not related to the Ptolemaic dynasty. They're about as related as Joseph Smith, Jr. and Will Smith. There's no more of a point in including the Ptolemaic dynasty in the article than there is in including the Achaemenid, Mughal, or Tang dynasties. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * how do you know he was not related to Ptolemaic dynasty? well whatever the importance of this article unrelevant. And I do hear you people, I will do better later on with sourcing, and indeed going to source many of the arcticles i've edited. Must also remind that I haven't brought anything that's new in terms of history.WillBildUnion (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that Claudius Ptolemy was related to the Ptolemaic dynasty. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For specific dates, the Ptolemaic dynasty began with the birth of Ptolemy I around 367 BC and ended with the death of Ptolemy XV at age 17 around 30 BC. The astronomer Claudius Ptolemy was born around 90 AD, more than a century after the end of the Ptolemaic dynasty.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Astrology, etc
I'm not aware of any use for the geocentric model other than astology for most of the 1500 years. How about - "The astronomical predictions of Ptolemy's geocentric model were used to prepare astrological charts for over 1500 years." Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No comments, so I will mke the change. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit late, but, the geocentric model is still used for calculations as it's pretty easy and for a lot of purposes highly accurate calculations aren't necessary, so saying it was only used for astrology isn't correct. (See below: Cause & effect). --Amazeroth (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The geocentric model was (and is) useful for calculation. but apart from astrologers, who calculated the position of the planets? Could they be used for navigation? Possibly, but I'm not aware of any evidence that they were - the "fixed" stars, yes; but not the planets. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Cause & effect
Maybe it would be a good idea to mention that the primary function of a model is to make predictions, and not necessarily to explain reality. That would also make it more clear as to why the geocentric model didn't really put Earth in the middle, but an imaginary point close to Earth (the same for the heliocentric and tychonian model), since the main objective of astronomers back then was to create accurate (not true) models. In terms of calculating, which is what these models are/were mainly used for, it can be mentioned as example for modeling, that it would make sense to develop a "Martian model" or "Lunar model" in the future if there are colonies on these celestial objects, so that it becomes easier for inhabitants of those places to calculate positions of other celestial objects relative to their own – since that is the purpose of a model. Which leads to the second thing I deem inaccurate about this article (and similarly the other model articles): It fails to mention the lack of a cause, i.e. neither the geocentric, heliocentric nor tychonian model had any cause for the celestial objects to move in the portrayed ways, they just modeled their movement. This allows a more proper introduction of the importance of Gravity in the article, because with gravity, for the first time the movement of objects was attributed to a cause, and not simply accepted per se and just modeled. That was important for the history of science, because the transition from mere modeling to a science based on cause and effect was much more important for the development of the (modern) scientific method than the transition from one model to another (which was largely identical to the previous anyway). I'm not an experienced enough wikipedian to understand how to realize this, which is why I ask for help here. This might also help in the struggle you seem to have here with modern geocentrists, as I notice a lot of parallels to the disputes in the 17th century: People trying to argue over 2 models disregarding actual causes; a bit rough: models are not about "right" or "wrong", but about "accurate" or "inaccurate" (in theory one can develop an infinite amount of accurate models). One should not make the mistake of trying to explain anything with a model, that's what causes are for. --Amazeroth (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again: Relativity
What I miss in the article is a clear definition of terms. Do we mean by "geocentrism" the view that the earth occupies an essential, special place in the universe (as an "anchor", or in a metaphysically important way)? Or the use of the earth's position as the origin of our coordinate system?

In the first sense, the geocentric model is obsolete at least for physical science. (The philosophical or religious view that mankind is unique, and therefore the earth is a very special place indeed, has no bearing on this physical discussion.) There is no indication that the physics of the earth is any different than that of other planets.

But in the second sense, the geocentric model is as natural for us, and as practical, as it always has been. Galiean/Lorentzian relativity does not attribute a special role to any coordinate system, and stipulates that laws of physics are indeed the same in coordinates in uniform relative motion. The local surface of the earth is practically an inertial system, and describing the motion of a car relative to this surface (geocentric!) is much more convenient than using the sun, or the center of the galaxy, as point of reference. Relative to the sun, a parked car would travel between 64000 and 70000 mph, depending on the time of day.

What is obsolete, really, is the idea that the motion of planets can be accounted for by circular motion (or a simple extension of that idea) around the earth. Also, Newtonian mechanics does not provide the correct planetary orbits if the earth is assumed to be stationary. (Even so, it would if we allow for "centrifugal" forces to affect the planets and the sun; an idea no stranger than the cosmological constant in general relativity.) The description of the solar system becomes simpler (a nearly perfect inertial system) if everything is described relative to its center of mass, which happens to be a lot closer to the sun than to the earth.

To summarize/conclude: (1) There is nothing invalid or obsolete in describing physical reality relative to the earth, i.e. geocentrically. (2) Religious and philosophical thinking may prefer a certain perspective for non-physical reasons, but since these reasons fall outside the realm of physical science, they cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. (3) Modern astronomy prefers working with a "heliocentric", or really, center-of-mass frame of reference because it simplifies calculations.

I believe the article could benefit from a clear distinction between these aspects of "geocentrism".

Arjenvreugd (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Geocentrism in Catholic Theology
An anonymous editor removed the sentence "The importance of this resistance cannot be over-stressed." Presumably "this resistance" was the resistance of the Italian catholic church authorities. The edit summary characterised the sentence as vague and PoV. Alvesgaspar reverted this deletion asking for justification. Although I did not make the reverted edit, I agree with its sentiment. Quite obviously, the importance could be overstressed - by mentioning it a dozen times for example. There is no reference to support the contention in the whole section that religious objections were the most important factors in delaying acceptance of Copernican heliocentrism. The well referenced objections were that it was not a more accurate model than either Ptolemy's or Tycho Brahe's, but did make a prediction of parallax which could not (at that time) be observed.

There may well be a good section about the extent to which geocentrism was embeded in catholic theology, but the current section is not it. I suggest we remove all the current text in this section and start again. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong feelings about this. The reason why I reverted the edit was because it may be considered sensisitive matter and removing a phrase anonymously is not the best way of dealing with it. Yes, I quite agree that the subject deserves a better approach. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The passage entitled "Reluctance to change" was added by Dpc89 on 17/12/2010. Dpc89 does not mention Protestant opposition to Copernicus from Luther, Melanchthon and Calvin. Dpc89 also passes over in silence extensive opposition to the opinions
 * of Pythagoras and his followers in ancient, pre-Christian times. Dpc89 makes no new points of fact or logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.100.121 (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dpc89 praises meaningless "heliocentrism" and does not mention relativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.100.121 (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

is the centre or at the centre
I have changed "the Earth is at the very center of the universe" to "the Earth is the center of the universe". In part this simply removes the redundant word "very". However it also reverts a change by cgingold. This was changed on the grounds of grammar and usage, but surely there is a subtle but important distinction between being the centre and being at the centre. If the earth is at the centre, in principal it could move away from the centre. But if it is the centre, it reamins so wherever it moves. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Top section: supporting arguments
I don't have sources but I think it would be interesting to amend this bit...

"Two commonly made observations supported the idea that the Earth was the center of the Universe. The first observation was that the stars, sun, and planets appear to revolve around the Earth each day, making the Earth the center of that system. Further, every star was on a 'stellar' or 'celestial' sphere, of which the earth was the center, that rotated each day, using a line through the north and south pole as an axis. The stars closest to the equator appeared to rise and fall the greatest distance, but each star circled back to its rising point each day.[2] The second common notion supporting the geocentric model was that the Earth does not seem to move from the perspective of an Earth bound observer, and that it is solid, stable, and unmoving. In other words, it is completely at rest."

With something I've only ever heard once (just now) here: http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_on_how_brain_science_will_change_computing.html about 9mins in.

Basically the speaker suggests (not even discussing helio/geocentrism) that the motivating factor for dismissing heliocentrism is that intuitively people do not feel like we are on a moving body. Ie. if the planet (we are on) was spinning and whirling about the commonsense notion would be that we would experience perceptible drag and inertia etc due to this. Anyway it struck me as a very sympathetic explanation of why geocentrism might have gone completely unchallenged even by devil advocates of the day. It's not an unreasonable notion after all that if you are on a moving body you would be able to detect it. Thoughts? --184.21.215.174 (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But we are perfectly capable of detecting it (though not with our senses)! Concerning Earth rotation, two effects are obvious: the "centrifugal force", which points outwards, perpendicular to the rotation axis and makes gravity to be deflected; and the "Coriolis effect", making horizontal motion to be deflected to the right (northern hemisphere) or to the left (southern hemisphere). This last effect is the cause for the circular motions in the atmosphere and oceans around the centres of low and high pressure. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The tides are another phenomenon that wouldn't happen without the earth's rotation around its axis (as well as around the centers of the systems earth-moon and earth sun). Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My point is this is a powerful argument for why everyday people would have been warranted to think this way which goes beyond just picking one side or the other of a debate. I was just a little taken back by the fact that I've personally never heard the matter explained this way in all of my years. It's much more sympathetic than the usual, "people were just stupid/ornery and the church made them do it." Again I have no sources but it's an interesting perspective and something I would be impressed by were it part of the article or indeed any discussion on the subject. It's a compelling argument. If you are riding on a horse you feel as if you are in motion. It would be a hard pill to convince people the whole of the earth was always in motion and it is reasonable to reject the notion without a great deal proof from this perspective. Surely someone has written about this under "notable" circumstances; but just to be clear I do not intend to research the matter further. --184.21.215.174 (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Our body should always feel the motion, right? Wrong! Only when there is perceptible acceleration (as when riding a horse) or the wind blows over our hair. In the present case, the motion of the earth is very much constant (no perceptible acceleration, except gravity) and the atmosphere is also rotating with the same angular velocity! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah ok but explain that to a 17th century merchant or peasant or priest for that matter!! Me thinks you miss the point--184.21.215.174 (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Hebrew Cosmology in notes to lead
This recent edit, and subsequent ones by User:Remus Octavian Mocanu, added an extensive discussion of Hebrew cosmology in a series of notes to the lead of the article. Such a substantive discussion does not belong in the lead, or in the notes to it. If it is appropriate to this article, it should be placed in the body of the text for further consideration by other editors.

I would welcome a discussion of the appropriateness of these edits.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Merged content
Pursuant to Articles_for_deletion/Modern_geocentrism, content has been merged here which was verified through independent third-party sources. Content on the previous page which was unreferenced or referenced to primary sources was removed.

Junjunone (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Potentially Vague Language
In the last sentence of the introduction, the phrase "but also from those who saw geocentrism as an accepted consensus that could not be subverted by a new, unknown theory" is not sourced and is also somewhat strange. I am skeptical anyone ever had the thought "widely accepted hypotheses are necessarily correct in all circumstances." Any reason not to delete that sentence? Logo Aesthesis (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

vedic cosmology and earth
Vedic model should be included in this article as it has explained the universe and earth much before the Greek ,and it explain everything in vast and has a unique idea .a very detailed view of it can be found on the YouTube.

Please take this into consideration.

Tnx — Preceding unsigned comment added by THERE IS ONLY GOD (talk • contribs) 19:34, 28 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Numbers
Regarding this edit: Please establish consensus here before restoring the disputed material. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * changes "a small minority" to "some", incorrectly de-emphasizing the tiny minority status of geocentrism in the Orthodox Jewish communities;
 * the explanations of n-body problems and relativity are correctly couched as the inexpert assertions of the named proponent, but essentially codifies an assertion that modern science was prefigured by ancient religion.
 * the due weight policy indicates that we should avoid devoting a disproportionate amount of attention to less important details.
 * significantly changes our treatment of Maimonides without supplying supporting sources.

Hi, in regard to the de-emphasizing, being as I personally have a background in these communities I know first hand what they believe. The real question at hand is the generalization of "Orthodox Jews". Does that mean Ultra Orthodox or Modern Orthodox Jews? All the Chassidic Jews as well as the many of the other Ultra Orthodox Jews would tell you that they hold by the geocentric system. Being so, my understanding is that by using the words "a small minority" is actually incorrect. It would be more realistic to say "some" or even "around half" as there are just as many Ultra Orthodox Jews as there are Modern Orthodox Jews.

In regard to the n-body problem and the assumption that the named proponent was not qualified or/and that Jewish mysticism did not address these topics hundreds of years before modern science did is incorrect, although modern science coined the phrase n-body problem. Firstly the named proponent has studied engineering in two universities and was fully aware and qualified to have his scientific opinion. The Lubavitcher Rebbe was also an expert in all areas of Jewish philosophy as well as Jewish mysticism. There are hundreds of books on Jewish mysticism and with only a select few having been translated to English it would make it very difficult (although I'm working on it) to show you the exact source in which they do address such issues like the n-body problem, years before modern science documented it.

Personally I wish there was more of a balance between the religions and their views, but I'm can only contribute what I know.

I have put a link to the English translation of the book in which Maimonides discusses this topic. The book has several chapters, not everything is on the first page. He brings down these calculations in order for Jews for all future generations to have an easier time in calculating all the Jewish holidays not just "Rosh Chodesh".

Thank You for your concern, --Decrypt Mystic (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing you personal expertise on the topic, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a repository for original research. Assertions such as this need to be backed by reliable sources.
 * The notion that religious revelations prefigure scientific theories is fringe, and policy requires that we treat it as such.
 * Please do not continually re-add your material in violation of the edit warring policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Text in footnotes
We should not be bolding text to emphasise it. A lot of the text is direct quotation but it's unclear how much. Also, should some of this be in the article rather than just in the references? The same problem and material is at Flat Earth. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. The reference section should be split off from notes into separate section. Bolding is not appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixes done. The notes section needs to be looked at, such extensive quoting is not necessary. If a reader is interested in researching the original text of the source the reference points to it. Only when explanation is needed for the context should notes be used. Some of the notes may constitute COPYVIO. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Other cultures
soo did other culture belive in geocentricism or... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.246.245 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

From http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/The_Bible_says_the_earth_is_fixed?oldid=12228
Occam's razor favors the simplest answer. The Old Testament authors simply believed the earth is fixed and wrote what they believed. The simple explanation is plausible because people living in that region at that time didn't know the earth moves.

The Bible
1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." 

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." 

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..." 

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." 

1 Chronicles 16:30: Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

More here

The Bible and science
Believers try to reconcile the immovable earth in the Bible with the moving earth that modern Science shows is real. This involves complex unprovable assumptions. Remember Occam's razor tells us we should prefer simple explanations with few assumptions rather than complex explanations with many assumptions.
 * 1) The Bible doesn't say the earth orbits and rotates in ways impossible for humans to change.
 * 2) The Bible says the earth has firm foundations and isn't moving.

Complex assumptions
Unsurprisingly believers end up with complex explanations for references to a fixed earth These explanations are less plausible.
 * 1) Believers must assume the Bible is divinely inspired while other supposed sacred texts from other religions that contradict the Bible are false Superstition.  There is no reason to treat the Bible differently from other supposed sacred texts.
 * 2) Believers must assume the inspiring Deity chose ambiguous language open to misinterpretation. Especially before Heliocentrism came to be widely known the Bible seemed to show a fixed earth.  Why should a deity go to the trouble of inspiring a sacred text and leave the language unclear?
 * 1) As shown above the Bronze Age and Iron Age people who wrote the Old Testament didn't know the earth moves and the simplest explanation is that they wrote what they mistakenly believed.
 * 2) The simple explanation is plausible because people living in that region at that time didn't know the earth moves.
 * 3) The simplest explanation is that the Bible is mythology similar to other Mythology of the time and that the Bible is untrue.

A different user added the named post below in RationalWiki. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are passages in the Bible that are clearly figurative and everyone accepts that. Biblical inerrants-literalists-inerrants made exceptions for texts which are clearly figurative. One could, I suppose that the places where the Bible says that the Earth is flat is one those exceptions because there is long history of Bible-readers who accepted the Earth being spherical. But that excuse is not possible for geocentrism because nobody, until the rise of modern science, noticed that the geocentric texts were figurative. It impossible to claim that Biblical geocentrism is "clearly" figurative if so many people missed that. The most one can say is that authors misunderstood their audience - everyone for 2000 years! TomS TDotO (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

References and footnotes
I wish I could add this to the article as I'm sure it's logical. Does anyone know a secondary source that says anything similar that I can use as a reference. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Name this article "Geocentrism"
Pretty much like Heliocentrism isn't called Heliocentric model. I know this may have been suggested in the past but still...

Also, when I google geocentrism, this article isn't the first one to show up. Instead, an article from rationalwiki appears featured Tetra quark (don't be shy) 21:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree but for a different reason. "Geocentric model" suggests there is a single model, when this article discusses a variety of different geocentric models.  "Geocentrism" seems to avoid the implication of a single model.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Lutheranism, Missouri Synod
The statement "However, in the 1902 Theological Quarterly, A. L. Graebner claimed that the synod had no doctrinal position on geocentrism, heliocentrism, or any scientific model, unless it were to contradict Scripture. He stated that any possible declarations of geocentrists within the synod did not set the position of the church body as a whole." This is provided with a cite to the relevant issue of Theological Quarterly, which someone had annotated with a "failed verification" tag.

I removed the tag. It's true those exact words do not appear in the cite, but the statement was not marked as a quotation. I just read the article myself and it seems a fair summary. The only reason I'm not giving relevant quotations from the source is that it's rather prolix in an early 20th century kind of way and it's too much typing to reproduce, but the author makes it very clear that 1) Pamphlets advocating geocentrism were published in a private capacity only, regardless of an author's connection to the Synod, and 2) it's outside the Synod's purview to teach anything on scientific topics. 192.91.173.34 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Contemporary Islam
This nut claims to have quite a following on TV: http://www.abounaddara.com/anglais/films/01En.html --Elvey(t•c) 02:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Geocentric model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110411023509/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Geocentric Model vs. Ptolemaic System
Under the "Ptolemaic Model" heading, there's the line "Because of its influence, people sometimes wrongly think the Ptolemaic system is identical with the Geocentric model." This is really confusing, the first line of this article says another name for Geocentric Model is Ptolemaic system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.31.212 (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geocentric model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141109070054/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_30041921_in-praeclara-summorum_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_30041921_in-praeclara-summorum_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Widespread modern acceptance?
The article has the following statement:

"Morris Berman quotes a 2006 survey that show currently some 20% of the U.S. population believe that the sun goes around the Earth (geocentricism) rather than the Earth goes around the sun (heliocentricism), while a further 9% claimed not to know. Polls conducted by Gallup in the 1990s found that 16% of Germans, 18% of Americans and 19% of Britons hold that the Sun revolves around the Earth. A study conducted in 2005 by Jon D. Miller of Northwestern University, an expert in the public understanding of science and technology, found that about 20%, or one in five, of American adults believe that the Sun orbits the Earth. According to 2011 VTSIOM poll, 32% of Russians believe that the Sun orbits the Earth. "

I must repent that I was used to believe such statements about American and to flatter myself by wandering about their "scientific illiteracy". But now I apparently realize the real value of such "surveys". VTSIOM states that every third Russian think that Galileo was wrong. But I live in Moscow and I don't know personally anybody who believes that the Sun goes around the Earth. I know, for example, a creationist or two. But not a single geocentrist. It may be, of course, speculated that it may be otherwise in the countryside. But the real explanation, I believe, lies here: the question in the VTSIOM questionnaire is: .

Not "Why, on Your opinion, nights follows days", neither an alternative present. VTSIOM is known to make it's surveys by asking people right on the streets. I believe, that if I was asked such a question when hurrying to my office in the morning after a tough time in a overcrowded bus, I would be likely to answer: "Yes, of course" without properly evaluating the question. I believe also that the same is true about American and German. I understand that Wikipedia does not conduct her own research but recite what the Reliable Sources claim. But while it would be certainly wrong to represent our original research in an article, would it also be wrong to omit something that is claimed by an apparently reliable source but is, nevertheless, highly dubious. Эйхер (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary Geocentrism as Pseudoscience
I added the statement that Contemporary Geocentrism is considered pseudoscience along with a reference (thanks to user Kleuske). I am trying to achieve consistency across Wikipedia on all articles mentioning geocentrism. The article on the film "The Principle" describes modern geocentrism as pseudoscience, and I think that it is appropriate to add a statement to that effect here as well. Yaltabaoth83 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)