What people get wrong about about galileo and heliocentrism

[Solid Snek]

Any revision of Ptolemaic astronomy would still have to put Venus behind the sun sometimes and in front of it other times, as viewed from the earth. Intersecting geocentric orbits (and their corresponding celestial spheres) would not have been considered an acceptable solution.

There were some attempts at saving geocentrism by putting some or all of the other planets in orbit around the sun, and then the Sun-planets system in orbit around the earth, but obviously that didn't work out.

After Galileo, geocentrism was simply an evolutionary dead end - there's no plausible alternate path where the geocentric system continued to evolve until it became "Newtonian gravity with a change of coordinates".

Again, I put it to you: this is an argument for the inelegance of geocentrism.

This is not an argument that geocentrism is wrong.


Please don't misunderstand me: I am not advocating for a geocentric model. I do not believe that re-adopting a geocentric model of the cosmos, as standard, would be practical or desirable. Heliocentrism's simplicity and ease of calculations, as well as the philosophical attractiveness of enthroning gravity as our central measure of cosmological importance, is all well and good, and I would not take that away from people (not unless our current understanding of gravity can be shown to be incorrect or incomplete).

But there is a cosmic gulf of difference between a mathematical model that is "an evolutionary dead end" because the calculations necessary to account for observed phenomena prove to be absurdly complicated, and a mathematical model that is an evolutionary dead end because it's wrong.

(*) to give you an example: consider elliptical orbits. Copernican heliocentrism did not initially account for observed phenomenon, either - it was incomplete, as amongst other things, it failed to accurately account for observed orbital eccentricities, and it was not until Kepler proposed that planetary orbits were elliptical rather than epicyclic that this problem got smoothed out.​

​

Does the failure of Copernican heliocentrism to account for observed behavior mean that heliocentrism itself is wrong? No, of course not! Heliocentrism is simply a frame of reference from which to build a mathematical model; it cannot be wrong (or right, for that matter) in any meaningful sense. The failure of one particular heliocentric model, and the need for revisions to that model so as to better account for observed phenomenon, is a question of elegance and refinement, not of any particular reference point "being wrong".​

 

[Kosher Dill]

Heliocentrism is simply a frame of reference from which to build a mathematical model; it cannot be wrong (or right, for that matter) in any meaningful sense.

This is where we disagree, I think. Due to a quirk of cosmic circumstances, the heliocentric frame of reference is the only one that could have allowed us to discover elliptical orbits, and from there universal gravitation. As it happens, the earth has only one satellite whose orbital behavior is particularly complicated and mired in tidal interactions (which are impossible to understand without having already developed a theory of gravity), whereas the sun has a wide variety of planets and comets orbiting in ellipses of varying eccentricities. At least for us, and the observations readily available to us, the frame of reference centering the sun really is special.

I could imagine it being the other way around though - suppose there was a planet in another solar system that had many well-behaved moons and few or no other planets. An intelligent observer there might construct a geocentric system that works well for the moons but leaves the sun's apparent motion as a question mark. Then they might examine the eccentricity of the lunar orbits, deduce the law of gravity, and so on. For them, geocentrism might be the right model. It's all about what the most interesting observable center of gravity happens to be in your part of the universe.

 

[HunterHearstHelmsley]

So I knew some of the story of the hand-washing that was ignored for almost a century as women kept dying from the bacteria after giving birth due to the doctors not washing their hands after dissecting corpses.

The irony is that basic hygiene has been practiced for millennia and he had empirical evidence showing that it worked. However, neither he nor his contemporaries could provide a mechanism and so it was dismissed.

Assuming things don't exist if we don't have evidence for it is rational.

The Absence of Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence!

Gin Rummy's intellect shining through...

youtu.be

Say what again

This is where we disagree, I think. Due to a quirk of cosmic circumstances, the heliocentric frame of reference is the only one that could have allowed us to discover elliptical orbits, and from there universal gravitation.

I think you’ve missed their point. They seem to be expressing the sentiment that all models are wrong but some models are useful. Strictly speaking, we no longer even adhere to heliocentrism. Nonetheless, it is a very simple model which accurately represents the movement of earth. It is a waste of time for most purposes to model the orbit of earth based on a more evolved understanding of gravity.

That being said, there’s a difference between mathematical modelling for some the purpose of simulation and modelling for the purpose of understanding. Geocentricism was fine for the former, obviously dismal for the latter

 

[A Very Big Fish]

What a science bitch

 

[Zarael]

Galileo was just a huge sperg. It's kind of weird that he became the posterboy for the "science vs religion" debate when the key issue was Galileo didn't have any empirical evidence to support his assertion, and nobody would until parallax was detected almost 200 years later. Honestly enough people know by now that the whole Galileo story of him being a martyr for science is fake, it's more interesting for the fact it is probably by far the most successful piece of revisionist history for political gain ever attempted.

Anyway I think you're pretty much right OP. Galileo wasn't burned at the stake, in fact the people of his time were remarkably tolerant of his autism considering he didn't have a lick of actual evidence to support any of his assertions.

 

[SeniorFuckFace]

But it's not like the geocentric system was "wrong" - it was just inelegant.

Why is it considered inelegant?

 

[Techpriest]

You’re also completely missing the point too and ignoring the context and times in which Galileo and Copernicus lived. The story itself is complicated and it does in the end come down to the dictates of politics and religion as for why Galileo was punished. It’s a mix of religious doctrine, the mixing of philosophy with science in the early church, and the cut throat politics of Galileo’s time.

To make a long story short, Galileo really pissed off the Pope with his book, by using conversations he had with the pope and having the character of the fool in his book say things that the pope had said to him. Aristole had an outsized influence on the early church as his teachings and ideas meshed well with a lot of the vibes of eary Christianity, and while G-man was writing his books, the Protestant Reformation was in full swing. The nature of god, the Bible, Jesus Christ, sin, salvation, and more were all hotly debated issues and political flash points as the temporal power of the Church was under threat. The Pope and the Jesuits supported a lot of Galileo’s work as a political maneuver as much as to advance science. Patronage of a well known Italian scholar was a feather in their cap, and they didn’t mind his research or publishing it at all, as long as he didn’t attack or appear to attack the church.

G-man’s book had elements in it that could easily be seen as attacking the church (and might have been intentionally meant as a rebuke towards his friends in the church) . That’s what got him put on trial. Saying what he was saying was fine. Saying what he was saying and inserting what amounted to political commentary in it was not. Which was what got him nabbed for heresy.