˜ Motivation ˜ Historical Background ˜ All Motion is Relative ˜ Quotations ˜ Absolute Rest & Motion are Fictions ˜ Conclusion Does the Earth go around the Sun,
or does the Sun go around the Earth? Rarely a day goes by without people being reminded of the Helio-GeoCentric controversy. This topic is mentioned in almost every science-versus-faith discussion. There is hardly a book that does not mention it when dealing with science-faith issues. Even Christian authors have succumbed to the myth that Galileo somehow discovered the True motion of planets. We are admonished to submit to the pronouncements of scientists, because the Helio-GeoCentric controversy “proved” that science is a legitimate source of truth.Before we cite quotations, we need some background information: Ptolemy Claudius of Alexandria (85-165 AD) made precise measurements of celestial motions and wrote an influential book called the Almagest. He believed the Earth is a Sphere and Planets move in Epicycles, i.e. Cycles on Cycles. He based his work on the Greek philosopher Hipparchus, (fl. 147-126 B.C.) who rejected Heliocentrism as proposed by Aristarchus of Samos (fl. 270 BC). That the earth is a sphere was known 600 years before Christ, and its circumference was accurately estimated by 300 BC.Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) His book called Of the Rotation of Celestial Bodies was published posthumously. He was a Heliocentrist and believed that Planets move in Circular orbits of uniform motion around the sun, even though he knew that the sun was off-center of the solar system. He discovered the heliocentric concept from the Greeks. 
Tycho Brahe (1541-1601) Danish Astronomer, tried to hold a middle ground between Copernicus & Ptolemy. He believed the Earth is immobile, some planets revolve around the sun and all revolve around the earth. He tried to convert Galileo from Copernicanism. He was an instrument maker, and accurate clocks were invented by his time. He invented the Sextant which he used to make very accurate measurements of stellar positions.Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) A Heliocentrist. He continued the work of Brahe. He was greatly enamored by astrology. He corresponded with Brahe & Galileo and proposed elliptical paths of planets around the sun, which obviated the need for epicycles.Both Copernicus and Kepler were of the opinion that the Solar System virtually exhausted the space of the universe. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Believed in circular planetary orbits. He published a book that brought the ideas to the attention of the Catholic church. Since we do not know of a point in the universe which is absolutely fixed,
it is impossible to determine which celestial object is really in motion. We can choose ANY star or planet as our reference point, assume that it is “fixed,” and then measure the “motion” of other bodies RELATIVE to that arbitrary point. The cosmologies of Copernicus [Heliocentrism] & Ptolemy [Geocentrism] are kinematically equivalent; both of them are descriptions of the same facts, and Ptolemy’s epicycles of the planets are the kinematic equivalents of the circular orbits of Copernicus.Hans Reichenbach; Philosophy of Space and Time; 1958; p210-211  Galileo and the Inquisition are only in error in the single affirmation in which they both agreed, namely that absolute position is a physical fact – the sun for Galileo and the earth for the Inquisition.
Alfred North Whitehead; An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Natural Knowledge; 1919; p31 The commonly held view is that Copernicus’s heliocentric model vanquished the competition, especially the geocentric view of Ptolemy, because it yielded better predictions of the positions of the celestial bodies. In actual fact, the predictions of the Copernican model were a little worse than those obtained via the complicated series of epicycles… the real selling point of the Copernican model was that it was much simpler than the competition yet still gave a reasonably good account of the observational evidence. J. L. Casti & W. DePauli; Gödel; 2000; p166 
Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense. Fred Hoyle; Nicolaus Copernicus; Heinemann Educ. Books Ltd.; 1973; p78 The Copernican conception is indeed simpler, but this does not make it any “truer” since this simplicity is descriptive … One description may be simplest for some phenomena while a different description may be simplest for others; but no simplest description is distinguished from other descriptions with regard to truth. The concept of truth does not apply here, since we are dealing with definitions. Hans Reichenbach; Philosophy of Space and Time; 1958; p219 And hence this affirmation: “the earth turns around” has no meaning, since it cannot be verified by experiment; … such an experiment … cannot even be conceived of without contradiction … Henri Poincaré; Science and Hypothesis; 1952; p117 ... it is meaningless to talk of absolute motion.
Even the Copernican world-view appears to be shaken by this consideration. It makes no sense accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions.
 What has been considered as the greatest discovery of [western] wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth-value … the doctrine of relativity does not assert that Ptolemy’s view is correct, it rather contests the absolute meaning of either view. Hans Reichenbach; From Copernicus to Einstein; 1970; p75, 82There is one more implication that modern science has perceived in the work of Copernicus. The same observational data that Ptolemy organized in his geocentric theory of deferent and epicycle can also be organized under the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. Despite the belief of the latter that the new theory was true, the modern view is that either theory will do and that there is no need to adopt the heliocentric hypothesis except to gain mathematical simplicity. Reality seems far less knowable than Copernicus believed, and today scientific theories are regarded as human inventions.Morris Kline; Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge; 1985; p85… the Ptolemaic theory of the solar system was abandoned in favor of the Copernican not because it failed to “agree” with all the facts, for it explained as much as the Copernican did, but because the latter, as Copernicus himself said, was “simpler,” more elegant mathematically, and a more harmonious addition to the body of science than the former.
… there was no intellectual inconvenience at one time in regarding the earth as the fixed center of the universe, nor was there any particular reason, socially or otherwise, why it should not have been accepted, nor was it inconsistent with the existent body of knowledge. J. H. Randall; Philosophy: An Introduction; 1957; p135, 139  | | 
Two thousand years ago the earth turned; then it remained immobile until recently, when it has again begun to turn. Nicolas Malebranche; (1638-1715);
The Search After Truth; 1997; p371 | | |
All the known celestial movements can be explained on a geocentric theory, if it is sufficiently complex. A. R. Lacey; Dictionary of Philosophy; 1999; p359… in fact simplicity of the mathematical theory was the only argument Copernicus & Kepler could advance in favor of their heliocentric theory as opposed to the older Ptolemaic theory.
Is the path of the earth around the sun an ellipse? No. Only if the earth & sun are regarded as points and only if all other bodies in the universe are ignored. Do the four seasons on earth repeat themselves year after year? Hardly. Only in their grossest aspects, which are about all men can perceive anyway, do they repeat. Morris Kline; Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty; 1982; p344, 350 [Copernicus] was able, in fact, to cite as a distinct advantage only the greater simplicity of his system. … Here lies one of the reasons which led scientists to accept the Copernican system, even though it must be conceded that, from the modern standpoint, practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system. Hans Reichenbach; From Copernicus to Einstein; 1970; p18 The merit of the Copernican hypothesis is not truth, but simplicity; in view of the relativity of motion, no question of truth is involved. Bertrand Russell; A History of Western Philosophy; 1945; p217  … relative to the earth the stars are in motion. We therefore need to know first of all what is meant by ‘real motion’… it turns out that we cannot quite say what is meant by it… the question whether the earth is really moving but not the stars or the other way around does not make any sense…
Hans Hahn (1879-1934); Empiricism, Logic and Mathematics; 1980; p48 Absolute space, that is to say, the mark to which it would be necessary to refer the earth to know whether it really moves, HAS NO OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE … the two propositions: “the earth turns around” and “it’s more convenient to suppose the earth turns around” have the same meaning; there is nothing more in the one than in the other. Henri Poincaré; Science & Hypothesis; 1952; p116-117  We must also mention here as a peculiar and valuable auxiliary idea, the fiction of an absolutely fixed point.
The empirical perception of all change and motion is always connected with empirical points of reference, and it is only when related to these that we can recognize it as motion. In other words all observed motion is relative, relative to us, to an imaginary origin, relative to a fixed background or relative to the apparently stationary earth or sun. These are all mere points of reference which we must assume in succession. Man begins by assuming himself as a point of reference and science constantly postulates other points of reference because those taken first prove to be illusory, since they turn out to be in motion themselves. In order to prove definitely and absolutely the existence of motion, we must have an absolutely fixed point by means of which the speed and direction of the motion can be measured.
Since, however, according to modern views, no such absolutely fixed body can be discovered in the universe, science is faced with a peculiar difficulty. Hans Vaihinger; The Philosophy of “As If”; 1924; p225 
It may be convenient for certain purposes to regard the earth as the centre; but nothing can oblige us to do so. No part of the universe– Earth, Sun, or anything else– has any unique right to be called the ‘centre.’ Observed motions are all relative, and it is a matter of decision what point in the universe is to be selected as the central origin of reference.
So the view that the earth is moving is just as admissible as the view that it is at rest. S. Toulmin & J. Goodfield; The Fabric of the Heavens; 1961; p169 From the point of view of modern science… there is no absolute frame of reference, only frames which are more or less convenient to use for the purpose at hand. A geocentric frame is useful for everyday activities, while a heliocentric frame is [useful] for solar-system mechanics … Wikipedia; Geocentric Model  … it does not appear to me that there can be any motion other than relative; so that to conceive motion there must be at least conceived two bodies, whereof the distance or position in regard to each other is varied. Hence, if there was one only body in being it could not possibly be moved. This seems evident, in that the idea I have of motion does necessarily include relation.
George Berkeley (1685-1753);
The Principles of Human Knowledge; s112  No one is competent to predicate things about absolute space and absolute motion; they are pure things of thought, pure mental constructs, that cannot be produced in experience.
Ernst Mach (1838-1916); The Science of Mechanics; 1902 Motion is change in position; it is clear, however, that it cannot be observed unless it is a change in position relative to a certain body and not relative to an ideal space point. Is it meaningful, under these circumstances, to speak of absolute motion or of motion relative to space, if motion relative to other bodies only can be observed?
According to this principle there exists only a motion of bodies relative to other bodies, and it is impossible to distinguish one of these bodies as being at rest, because rest means nothing but rest relative to another body, i.e.
rest is itself a relative concept. Hans Reichenbach; Philosophy of Space and Time; 1958; p210 That should be enough for any thoughtful person to understand that the Helio-GeoCentric controversy took place because both sides of the controversy insisted upon the fallacies of absolute rest and motion. Men’s longing for absolutes has manifested itself over the ages with presumptions of “absolute” Space, “absolute” Time and “absolute” Motion. None of these “absolutes” could possibly exist, yet to this day, those who should know better, continue to pay homage to these and other figments of their imaginations and urge others to join in their idolatry. Does the Earth go around the Sun,
or does the Sun go around the Earth? Take your pick, whichever is most useful for the purpose at hand. To ask the question expecting an Either/Or answer, or to answer the question as Either/Or is clear evidence that the Nature of Motion has NOT been understood.
^^^ RETURN TO TOP ^^^ | |
