The Flat Geocentric Stationary sSystem VS The Spherical Heliocentric Geomotionary system
The relationship between science and the Catholic Church ( the SUN-worshippers) is a widely debated subject. Historically, the Catholic Church has often been a patron of sciences. It has been prolific in the foundation and funding of schools, universities, and hospitals, and many clergy have been active in the sciences.
Catholic scientists, both religious and lay, have led scientific discovery in many fields. During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe’s first universities,
Catholic Church teaches that science and the Christian faith are complementary, as can be seen from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states in regards to faith and science.
Catholic scientists, both religious and lay, have led scientific discovery in many fields. From ancient times, Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals and the Church remains the single largest private provider of medical care and research facilities in the world. Following the Fall of Rome, monasteries and convents remained bastions of scholarship in Western Europe and clergymen were the leading scholars of the age – studying nature, mathematics, and the motion of the stars. During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe’s first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon, and Thomas Aquinas, who helped establish the scientific method.
During this period, the Church was also a great patron of engineering for the construction of elaborate cathedrals. Since the Renaissance, Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of scientific fields: Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) pioneered heliocentrism, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarckism, Friar Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) pioneered genetics, and Fr Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model. The Jesuits have been particularly active, notably in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (a successor to the Accademia dei Lincei of 1603) and Vatican Observatory (a successor to the Gregorian Observatory of 1580).
The heliocentric and geocentric models
The first scientific model of the Solar System was outlined by the Greek philosopher Eudoxas of Cnidus (409-356BC). According to this model, the Sun, the Moon, and the planets all execute uniform circular orbits around the Earth–which is fixed, and non-rotating. The order of the orbits is as follows: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn–with the Moon closest to the Earth. For obvious reasons, Eudoxas’ model became known as the geocentric model of the Solar System. Note that orbits are circular in this model for philosophical reasons. The ancients believed the heavens to be the realm of perfection. Since a circle is the most “perfect” imaginable shape, it follows that heavenly objects must execute circular orbits.
A second Greek philosopher, Aristarchus of Samos (310-230BC), proposed an alternative model in which the Earth and the planets execute uniform circular orbits around the Sun–which is fixed. Moreover, the Moon orbits around the Earth, and the Earth rotates daily about a North-South axis. The order of the planetary orbits is as follows: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn–with Mercury closest to the Sun. This model became known as the heliocentric model of the Solar System.
The heliocentric model was generally rejected by the ancient philosophers for three main reasons:
- If the Earth is rotating about its axis, and orbiting around the Sun, then the Earth must be in motion. However, we cannot “feel” this motion. Nor does this motion give rise to any obvious observational consequences. Hence, the Earth must be stationary.
- If the Earth is executing a circular orbit around the Sun then the positions of the stars should be slightly different when the Earth is on opposite sides of the Sun. This effect is known as parallax. Since no stellar parallax is observable (at least, with the naked eye), the Earth must be stationary.
- The geocentric model is far more philosophically attractive than the heliocentric model, since in the former model the Earth occupies a privileged position in the Universe.
The geocentric model was first converted into a proper scientific theory, capable of accurate predictions, by the Alexandrian philosopher Claudius Ptolemy (85-165AD). The theory that Ptolemy proposed in his famous book, now known as the Almagest, remained the dominant scientific picture of the Solar System for over a millennium. Basically, Ptolemy acquired and extended the extensive set of planetary observations of his predecessor Hipparchus, and then constructed a geocentric model capable of accounting them.
All stars seem to rotate around a common point in the sky. It seems that there is a circular nature to the path of all objects in the sky around us. Based on these observations, Plato developed an entire model of the Universe in which everything moved on circular orbits at a constant speed. This was in line with his theory of pure forms, and seemed like a perfect model of the Universe.
Eudoxus, one of Plato’s pupils, proposed a universe where all objects in the sky sit on moving spheres, with the Earth at the centre. This model is known as a geocentric model – often named Ptolemaic model after its most famous supporter, the Greco-Roman astronomer Ptolemy.
The Roman Catholic Church converted Ptolemy’s model of the Solar System into a minor article of faith, on the basis of references in the Bible which seemed to imply that the Earth is stationary and the Sun is moving (e.g., Joshua 10:12-13, Habakkuk 3:11). Some medieval or renaissance philosophers were though entirely satisfied with Ptolemy’s model. Their dissatisfaction focused, not on the many epicycles but on the displacement of the Earth from the centre of the deferants, and the introduction of the equant as the centre of uniform rotation. Recall, that the only reason planetary orbits are constructed from circles in Ptolemy’s model is to preserve the assumed ideal symmetry of the heavens. This symmetry is severely compromised when the Earth is displaced from the apparent centre of the Universe. This problem so perplexed the priest-astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus that he eventually decided to reject the geocentric model, and revive the heliocentric model of Aristarchus. After many years of mathematical calculations, Copernicus published a book entitled De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the revolutions of the celestial spheres) in 1543 which outlined his new heliocentric theory.
Copernicus accounted for the lack of stellar parallax, due to the Earth’s motion, by postulating that the stars were a lot further away than had previously been supposed, rendering any parallax undetectably small. Unfortunately, Copernicus insisted on retaining uniform circular motion in his model (after all, he was trying to construct a more symmetric model than that of Ptolemy). Consequently, Copernicus also had to resort to epicycles to fit the data. In fact, Copernicus’ model ended up with more epicycles than Ptolemy’s.
Many believe the heliocentric theory was immediately rejected by the Catholic Church. However, the relationship between the Church and Copernicus is much more complex than popular historical narratives suggest.
Legend has it that Nicolaus Copernicus and the church were at odds over his development of the heliocentric theory, a principle that disputed the widely held belief that Earth was the center of the universe.
Unlike Galileo and other controversial astronomers, however, Copernicus had a good relationship with the Catholic Church. It may come as a surprise, considering the Church banned Copernicus’ “Des revolutionibus” for more than 200 years. Copernicus was actually respected as a canon and regarded as a renowned astronomer. Contrary to popular belief, the Church accepted Copernicus’ heliocentric theory before a wave of Protestant opposition led the Church to ban Copernican views in the 17th century.
Copernicus first outlined his ideas about the heliocentric theory in a manuscript titled “Commentariolus.” There he suggested a heliostatic system, where the sun was at the center of the universe and the earth made rotations.
Copernicus’ heliocentric model did receive some criticism from colleagues, but it was in part due to people’s understanding of direction and of Earth’s mass in relation to the universe, Singham writes. “De revolutionibus” was read and at least partially taught at several Catholic universities.
One possible reason for the misconceptions about Copernicus is the execution of Giordano Bruno, a philosopher who was known as a heretic and an advocate of Copernican theory. While he was condemned for other reasons, Bruno became known as “the first martyr of the new science” after he was burned at the stake in 1600.
However, the article also notes that Copernicus gained ridicule from poets and Protestants, who condemned it as heresy. While the Catholic Church initially accepted heliocentricity, Catholics eventually joined the wave of Protestant opposition and banned the book in 1616. The Protestant churches accepted Copernicus’ findings after more evidence emerged to support it. The Catholic Church, however, remained ground in its anti-Copernican beliefs until the 19th century. The ban on Copernicus’s views was lifted in 1822, and the ban on his book until 1835.
It is worth noting, as Stanford University does, that the Catholic Church had no official stance on Copernican teachings. Pope Clement VII, who died about a decade before Copernicus, was said to have been receptive about the astronomer’s theories. While there was no recorded response from Pope Paul III, one of his advisors intended to condemn the book before dying.
Phil Lawler, editor of Catholic World News, also says Copernicus was in good standing with the Church when he died. He notes that while heliocentric theory was controversial during Copernicus’ lifetime his work did not cause him any conflict with the Catholic Church.
“Yes, he delayed because he feared an adverse reaction — not from Church leaders, but from his fellow scholars. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Copernicus was worried about a hostile reaction from the Church.”
Despite the resistance to Copernican views in the future, the astronomer’s life was one immersed in religion. And while it may be forgotten, it is under the auspices of the Catholic Church that Copernicus made his theories known.
“It puts us in the center of everything, an obviously satisfying conclusion”
/Bartolomeu Velho, “Figure of the Heavenly Bodies”, Cosmographia, 1568 (Bibilotèque nationale de France, Paris)
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations.For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations..You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that”
/George Ellis. Astronomer, Professor in theoretical physics who authored books with Stephen Hawking. (Scientific American 273 (4):55, 1995)
“There is no planetary observation by which we can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit.”
/ Bernard Cohen, Professor of the history of science at Harvard University (“Birth of a New Physics”, Norton and Company, 1985, p. 78)
“… for we cannot feel our motion through space; nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the earth actually is in motion.”
/ Lincoln Barnett (“The Universe and Dr. Einstein”) (with a forward by Einstein himself),
Camelot Press, UK, 1949, p. 63)
“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.”
“This is why it is impossible to reject a geocentric universe, concepts accepted in modern science do not allow dismissal of geocentrism”
/Albert Einstein, “The Evolution of Physics” (Simon and Schuster, 1988), p. 212.
“Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless Earth.’ This would mean that we use a system of reference rigidly fixed to the Earth in which all stars are performing a rotational motion with the same angular velocity around the Earth’s axis…one has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency.”
/ Einstein quoted by famous German physicist Max Born, “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity” (1965) p. 344 and in the earlier 1920 edition, p. 277.
“…the motions of the universe are the same whether we adopt the Ptolemaic or the Copernican mode of view. Both views are, indeed, equally correct…”
/ Ernst Mach, Austrian physicist, “The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of its Development”, 1960, p. 232.
“The ancient argument over whether the Earth rotates or the heavens revolve around it (as Aristotle taught) is seen to be no more than an argument over the simplest choice of a frame of reference. Obviously, the most convenient choice is the universe. Nothing except inconvenience prevents us from choosing the Earth as a fixed frame of reference. If we choose to make the Earth our fixed frame of reference, we do not even do violence to everyday speech. We say that the sun rises in the morning, sets in the evening; the Big Dipper revolves around the North Star. Which point of view is ‘correct’? Do the heavens revolve or does the Earth rotate. The question is meaningless.”
/Martin Gardner, mathematician and science writer, “The Relativity Explosion”, (1976), pp. 86-87)
In terms of practical application, in a 1979 New Scientist edition, a Royal Air Force navigation instructor posted the following response to a remark in an earlier edition:
“Andrew Hill (‘Darwin Rules OK?’, 12 July, p 127) says ‘… even in the Spectator, we rarely find serious assertions that the sun goes around the Earth’. One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of that belief are trivial. But when survival depends on belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the Celestial Sphere, which is centered on a fixed Earth and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation”.
“The Sun and Moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence perforce go around the Earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of the confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centered Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest. (Darcy Peddyhoff Royal Air Force College Cranwell, Lincolnshire, England.”) (New Scientist, 16 August 1979, Vol. 83 No. 1168 p. 543)
“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.”
Arthur Eddington, physicist,”The Nature of the Physical World”, 1929, (pp.11, 8.)
“The data [of Michelson‐Morley] were almost unbelievable. There was only one other possible conclusion to be drawn — that the Earth is at rest.”
Bernard Jaffe, physicist, “Michelson and the Speed of Light”, 1960, (p. 76)
“….The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether”
“Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it.”
/ James A. Coleman “Relativity for the Layman” (p. 37)
“The Michelson‐Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernicus theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the EARTH STOOD STILL than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.”
/Lincoln Barnett, “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” (p. 44).