4 ms·

Actually, it IS more than that, because it fits the current models better, and the current models have remarkable predictive power. Whereas "the sun and the pl

Actually, it IS more than that, because it fits the current models better, and the current models have remarkable predictive power. Whereas "the sun and the planets all orbit the earth" has astonishingly little predictive power.

dsp1234 11y ago
Whereas "the sun and the planets all orbit the earth" has astonishingly little predictive power. Not a geocentrist myself, but it did have good predictive power. "To summarize, Ptolemy devised a system that was compatible with Aristotelian philosophy and managed to track actual observations and predict future movement mostly to within the limits of the next 1000 years of observations. The observed motions and his mechanisms for explaining them include:"[0] Obviously not as good as current models, but it's a bit of historical rewriting to say that geocentrism wasn't a good model for the time, which is one part of why there was push back for heliocentrism. With the tools of the time, the heliocentric model had similar predictive power. Geocentrism at the time wasn't just about god, it actually had predictive power. "He also argued that his system was more elegant than the traditional geocentric system. However, the predictive power of his model was not substantially better than its competition."[1] [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model [1] - http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast105/Ast105week04.html http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast105/Ast105week04.html
- VikingCoder 11y ago
  Those models predicted the orbits of the planets because they had been fitted precisely to them - and explained only them; but the models did not and could not predict anything else about gravity, or the motions of other bodies. Had Jupiter's moons been visible to them, their motion would have confounded their model entirely. Also, "The change from circular orbits to elliptical planetary paths dramatically improved the accuracy of celestial observations and predictions." Your own link says the predictive power was "dramatically improved."

dsp1234 11y ago

Whereas "the sun and the planets all orbit the earth" has astonishingly little predictive power. Not a geocentrist myself, but it did have good predictive power. "To summarize, Ptolemy devised a system that was compatible with Aristotelian philosophy and managed to track actual observations and predict future movement mostly to within the limits of the next 1000 years of observations. The observed motions and his mechanisms for explaining them include:"[0] Obviously not as good as current models, but it's a bit of historical rewriting to say that geocentrism wasn't a good model for the time, which is one part of why there was push back for heliocentrism. With the tools of the time, the heliocentric model had similar predictive power. Geocentrism at the time wasn't just about god, it actually had predictive power. "He also argued that his system was more elegant than the traditional geocentric system. However, the predictive power of his model was not substantially better than its competition."[1] [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model [1] - http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast105/Ast105week04.html http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast105/Ast105week04.html

VikingCoder 11y ago
Those models predicted the orbits of the planets because they had been fitted precisely to them - and explained only them; but the models did not and could not predict anything else about gravity, or the motions of other bodies. Had Jupiter's moons been visible to them, their motion would have confounded their model entirely. Also, "The change from circular orbits to elliptical planetary paths dramatically improved the accuracy of celestial observations and predictions." Your own link says the predictive power was "dramatically improved."