Timeline for How could the current model of the Solar System have been recognized and accepted earlier?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 6, 2018 at 18:01 | vote | accept | Hankrecords | ||
| Feb 4, 2018 at 13:39 | comment | added | AndyD273 | @Nathaniel Ah, could be. Only place I've heard of it before this is in the Pratchett book Strata, so I wanted to give credit to that source. Unfortunately that link doesn't give much actual info about it. Something I'll have to hunt down when I have more time. | |
| Feb 4, 2018 at 10:26 | comment | added | N. Virgo | @AndyD273 +1 for your comment, but I think the idea was originally due to Asimov rather than Pratchett. | |
| Feb 4, 2018 at 9:04 | comment | added | vero | @Jay well, actually, a heliocentric universe could be a possibility, and serious astronomers could believe in it... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology) (tldr; Cosmic Microwave Background exhibits features that line up with our solar system's orbit plane, suggesting that the sun is the center of the universe. At least two studies have observed this phenomenon.) | |
| Feb 3, 2018 at 21:59 | comment | added | Jay | BTW No serious astronomer today believes in a heliocentric universe. They believe in a heliocentric SOLAR SYSTEM, not universe. | |
| Feb 3, 2018 at 20:22 | comment | added | Hankrecords | @Harper I don't think so. I mean yeah, surely there would be huge improvements in our history, but I doubt it would make the heliocentric model be accepted much sooner | |
| Feb 3, 2018 at 19:04 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | Teach everyone to value the Scientific Method and science. The rest follows. You'd have semiconductors by 1450, Shakespeare would have a mobile, Liza Bennett would have a teleporter. | |
| Feb 3, 2018 at 18:56 | comment | added | vsz | You drastically overestimate the role of religion and "resistance to change" as a cause of not accepting heliocentrism. In that time period, the laws of gravity were not yet discovered, and the most definitive proof of heliocentrism (stellar parallax) was not observable with the instruments of that time. Galilei was rejected not out of stubbornness, but because many of his arguments didn't hold any weight, and because he mad a lot of unfortunate political decisions. Look up Riccioli, who was a geocentrist but compiled a lot of rational arguments for both views. | |
| Feb 3, 2018 at 10:18 | comment | added | Hankrecords | @ToddWilcox Yeah, I was counting that in the "resistance to change" part, but thanks for pointing it out | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 23:30 | answer | added | M. A. Golding | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 20:22 | answer | added | Congenital Optimist | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 20:11 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | I think you're leaving out the fact that a totally naive observer on the surface of the Earth would be initially inclined to interpret what they see and feel as standing on a flat, fairly level surface with a sky above them that changes and whirls around them. The ground doesn't look curved away from them and they don't feel like they are moving at all. I'd say that "first impression" is a bigger factor than religion. Look at modern flat-earthers; there doesn't seem to be any religious aspect to their... viewpoint. | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 18:40 | answer | added | Jay | timeline score: 7 | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 18:38 | answer | added | lightofdeanthomas | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 18:17 | comment | added | Hankrecords | @AndyD273 That's a smart idea! Thanks | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 18:16 | answer | added | AlexP | timeline score: 28 | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 18:15 | comment | added | AndyD273 | Doesn't really answer the question, since it doesn't apply to OUR solar system, but in an alternate universe where Venus has a large moon similar to Luna, which early astronomers would be able to see much easier than the moons of Saturn, they'd know that things orbit other planets than ours, and so heliocentric makes more sense than geocentric. Credit for original idea goes to Terry Pratchett. | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 18:07 | answer | added | LSerni | timeline score: 6 | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 17:22 | answer | added | P Chapman | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 17:15 | comment | added | P Chapman | There is some interesting stuff at the end of section en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… on how the helocentric view prevailed in the 17th century. It might give some clues as to how to proceed. | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 17:10 | answer | added | Loduwijk | timeline score: 13 | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 17:05 | answer | added | wetcircuit | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 15:23 | comment | added | AlexP | The major show stopper was that in the Antiquity and the Middle Ages astronomers were searching for a model using only circular and uniform motions. The major breakthrough in favor of the heliocentric model was Kepler's discovery of the laws of planetary motion, based on Tycho Brahe's lifelong observations. These provided a better predictive power with a much simpler model. Until that time there was no compelling reason to change the model. | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 15:08 | answer | added | John Dallman | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 14:45 | history | asked | Hankrecords | CC BY-SA 3.0 |