carolxdanvers: f1rstperson:cutthroatkitteh:redradcomrade:aphuckingbeesechurger: amishsicario:malin
carolxdanvers: f1rstperson:cutthroatkitteh:redradcomrade:aphuckingbeesechurger: amishsicario: malinchristersson: The difference between an easy model and a complicated one. Heliocentrism and geocentrism good example of how the more messy and complicated answers are sometimes the right ones Are you saying the sun and planets orbit the earth? Thousand year old debates still echo in this website geocentrists be like “gee i wonder why the sun’s orbit is the only circular one” There is actually a lot of papers dedicated to noting how defunct science was explained as accurate at the time.I mean they figured out the way the geocentric theory could work. It’s literally not true and not how anything realistically works, but they somehow did work out a pattern and draw all the planets rotations out for it and published that shit. This gif is a good representation of the dumb shit people tried to pull to make the geocentric theory make sense. Actually, it was not “dumb shit” people were pulling to make it make sense. With the limitations of observational technology of the time it made absolutely no sense that the Sun wasn’t orbiting the Earth. There were no working models of the solar system where the Earth orbited the Sun that could predict the motion of the planets in the sky as well as the geocentric model. This model lasted until the 14th century for a reason, and the reason wasn’t “people were dumb and wanted it to work so they ignored the facts that clearly disproved it” The people who created and studied this model, and the people who defended it, were infinitely more educated, understood more about the motion of celestial objects, than anybody on this website. Ptolemy and Aristotle and every astronomer up til Copernicus and Kepler were not idiots. They looked at the way that things moved through the sky and asked how that could be possible and when they came up with a way that it could work they tested it to see if they were able to predict the motions using that model — and they were. The geocentric model WORKED. In fact, a heliocentric model DIDN’T MAKE SENSE because if the earth was moving, then we ought to have been able to see the stars shifting in the background, the way that a tree in the distance seems to move as you drive down a road. A heliocentric model was presented and the entire reason that it was not adopted was because it did nothing that the existing model didn’t already do. Science doesn’t change just because somebody comes up with something else that could possibly work. If you come up with something new then it had better work BETTER than the existing model. The geocentric model was scientific. It was testable and every single time that it was tested it proved to be able to predict the things that it needed to predict. The absolute only reason that that began to change was because some dude named Galileo got a bright idea to look through a telescope at Venus. Which previously could not have been done. And he just so happened to notice that Venus had phases very similar to the Moon, which shouldn’t have been possible if it didn’t orbit the Sun. Over a thousand years of astronomers more intelligent than you and I do not deserve to be disrespected with claims that they were just making up dumb shit and finding a way to make their biases work. -- source link