“Ironically, when Aristarchus proposed the heliocentric model, his contemporaries dismissed it, on the grounds that they did not observe any parallax effects...”
“ so the heliocentric model would have implied that the stars were an absurdly large distance away.”
> Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) proposed an experiment that would determine whether or not the earth goes around the sun. Basically, if the Earth orbits the sun, nearby stars should periodically "move" back and forth in their position with respect to more distant stars every 6 months. If the Earth was stationary (at the center of the Universe, this wouldn't occur.
Yes, but historically, scientists ended up accepting the heliocentric model long before the first stellar parallax was measured.
The heliocentric model's parsimony (explaining many different phenomena, such as retrograde motion of the inner planets, with the fewest assumptions) and various supporting observations (such as Venus' phases, which rule out any strictly geocentric model), combined with a physical theory that grounded the model (Newton's laws) rendered any alternative implausible by the late 1600s at the latest. It would be nearly 200 years before parallax was first detected.
I’m not familiar with the Ancient Greek objections here, but I remember Renaissance scientists being hung up on this same thing.
They had measured the visible diameter of stars and without any parallax, would’ve also meant that the stars were absurdly large in addition to far away.
I don’t think they had a problem with the distance, per se, but the implied size.
(You have to treat stars as points - any perceived diameter is an illusion - but nobody knew that at the time.)
Yeah, using basic geometry to calculate the size of a star from it's distance and the size of the dot it makes in your telescope, doesn't give sensible answers when the size of the dot is due to quantum diffraction (an Airy disc). And since that's named after a guy who lived in the 1800's, you can guess how much the ancients knew about it.
If we had to prove which is right without access to prior wisdom, most of us would fail miserably. Our current understanding of the world can't be built in any single person's lifetime.
But it's easier than ever to do your own research in the modern age. Heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is a well established topic. It doesn't take a genius to reach the right information. You can even conduct your own experiment if you want to.
The only thing stopping people from learning besides poverty is their own free will. I think the reputation is well deserved.
> Try to correct people to say, "What a beautiful earth rotation" instead of "sunrise".
That's just figure of speech. I don't see how it's relevant.
> Doing research means believing
The thing about good science is that it's verifiable, no need to believe. In this case, anyone with a cheap telescope can conduct their own experiment. There's just no excuse for believing in geocentrism in 2023.
As I mentioned, this is a well established scientific fact we're talking about here. People believing in geocentrism failed at multiple levels. For starters, they failed to distinguish trustworthy information from outright misinformation. They also failed to comprehend the details of the arguments being made, or haven't even bothered. On top of that, they also failed at critical thinking too.
That's more than enough reason to draw conclusions about one's ability to learn.
> works written by old dead men who held power
People so powerful that they were persecuted for their work by the church.
There are also countless people, currently alive, of various age and gender, independently verifying scientific facts and writing about it. Nobody gets their facts solely from "old dead men."
I agree with the geocentristic mindset being a product of limited vision.
What is verifiable? A well written paper on some particles being smashed together has to be taken on some level of faith unless I have the means and methods to reproduce the event. I do not have the means so I just believe it.
“Ironically, when Aristarchus proposed the heliocentric model, his contemporaries dismissed it, on the grounds that they did not observe any parallax effects...”
“ so the heliocentric model would have implied that the stars were an absurdly large distance away.”
“[Which, of course, they are.]”