3 ms·

Yep, this narrative is highly questioned in this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucio_Russo#The_Forgotten_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucio_Ru

Yep, this narrative is highly questioned in this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucio_Russo#The_Forgotten_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucio_Russo#The_Forgotten_Revo... If I'm not mistaken, there is quite a bit of evidence that they knew the correct model was with the Sun in the center and they only used epicycles because it was easier to calculate with the tools they had (compass etc). EDIT: I think the argument is at section "10.12 Seleucus and the Proof of Heliocentrism" of the book.

selimthegrim 4y ago
This book is awesome if only because it made me realize that some of these ancients like Seneca were actually giant pompous twats.
TheBlight 4y ago
Interesting. Thanks for the link I'll check it out.
whatshisface 4y ago
There was no difference between heliocentric and geocentric models (except for philosophical arguments based on false premises) until Newton invented physics and the idea of planets spiraling around through space became clearly impossible due to inertia. Pre-F=ma there could not have been any way to know what was at the "center" because the conceptual tools for privileging a non-rotating frame of reference over rotating ones had not yet been developed. Also, a heliocentric model still requires epicycles if the orbits in the model aren't elliptical.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  I've wondered about that: Why privilege that frame of reference? It seems more intuitive and easier to work with, but do we have a better reason than that?
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    In a rotating frame of reference, forces appear in the equations that are proportional to the distance from the center. They are the forces necessary to make an object which is stationary in a non-rotating frame go in a circle in the rotating frame. Those forces do not correspond to springs, gravitating bodies or any physical phenomenon, and are called "fictitious forces." Non-rotating frames of references make those forces go away, and that is why they're special.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      Thanks!
lmkg 4y ago
That's pretty funny, because a book I read about the Copernican revolution says that the prevailing attitude among astronomers during Copernicus' period was the exact opposite. Namely that Heliocentrism was not generally promoted or accepted as an accurate model of the heavens, but did gain acceptance as having a few computation advantages. In particular, it removed the need for a particular type of epicycle called an Equant. Ironically, the Equant somewhat resembles Kepler's second law, meaning it arguably is a better approximation of reality than Copernicus' circles-only Heliocentric model. I'm not sure I can find the exact book. There's, like, so many books about Copernicus on Amazon. This is my best guess: https://www.amazon.com/Book-Nobody-Read-Revolutions-Copernicus/dp/0802714153/ https://www.amazon.com/Book-Nobody-Read-Revolutions-Copernic...
- leephillips 4y ago
  Could be Thomas Kuhn’s The Copernican Revolution. In any case, it’s a great book.
8bitsrule 4y ago
Russo's book may not be easy to get ahold of (thanks, interlibrary loan!), but it's interesting and solidly-reasoned reading. Ancient Greece did a lot of amazing stuff.

selimthegrim 4y ago

This book is awesome if only because it made me realize that some of these ancients like Seneca were actually giant pompous twats.

TheBlight 4y ago

Interesting. Thanks for the link I'll check it out.

whatshisface 4y ago

There was no difference between heliocentric and geocentric models (except for philosophical arguments based on false premises) until Newton invented physics and the idea of planets spiraling around through space became clearly impossible due to inertia. Pre-F=ma there could not have been any way to know what was at the "center" because the conceptual tools for privileging a non-rotating frame of reference over rotating ones had not yet been developed. Also, a heliocentric model still requires epicycles if the orbits in the model aren't elliptical.

wolverine876 4y ago
I've wondered about that: Why privilege that frame of reference? It seems more intuitive and easier to work with, but do we have a better reason than that?
- whatshisface 4y ago
  In a rotating frame of reference, forces appear in the equations that are proportional to the distance from the center. They are the forces necessary to make an object which is stationary in a non-rotating frame go in a circle in the rotating frame. Those forces do not correspond to springs, gravitating bodies or any physical phenomenon, and are called "fictitious forces." Non-rotating frames of references make those forces go away, and that is why they're special.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    Thanks!

lmkg 4y ago

That's pretty funny, because a book I read about the Copernican revolution says that the prevailing attitude among astronomers during Copernicus' period was the exact opposite. Namely that Heliocentrism was not generally promoted or accepted as an accurate model of the heavens, but did gain acceptance as having a few computation advantages. In particular, it removed the need for a particular type of epicycle called an Equant. Ironically, the Equant somewhat resembles Kepler's second law, meaning it arguably is a better approximation of reality than Copernicus' circles-only Heliocentric model. I'm not sure I can find the exact book. There's, like, so many books about Copernicus on Amazon. This is my best guess: https://www.amazon.com/Book-Nobody-Read-Revolutions-Copernicus/dp/0802714153/ https://www.amazon.com/Book-Nobody-Read-Revolutions-Copernic...

leephillips 4y ago
Could be Thomas Kuhn’s The Copernican Revolution. In any case, it’s a great book.

8bitsrule 4y ago

Russo's book may not be easy to get ahold of (thanks, interlibrary loan!), but it's interesting and solidly-reasoned reading. Ancient Greece did a lot of amazing stuff.