Geocentric vs heliocentric model evidence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Puchinita5
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Evidence Model
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on evaluating various phenomena as evidence for the heliocentric model of the solar system. Participants consider whether the phases of the moon, seasons, analemma of the sun, and eclipses can support the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun, noting that these can also be explained by a geocentric model. The significant mass of the sun compared to Earth and the necessity of accounting for Earth's position in space probes are highlighted as strong arguments for heliocentrism. There is confusion regarding the analemma and its implications in both models, with acknowledgment that geocentric coordinates can complicate understanding. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the importance of observational evidence in supporting the heliocentric model.
Puchinita5
Messages
178
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I wasn't sure where the most appropriate place to post this question is. But anyway.

Which of these, if any, can be used as evidence that the Earth revolves around the sun.
1. The phases of the moon
2. The seasons
3. analemma of the sun
4. solar and lunar eclipses
5. the sun is more massive than the Earth
6. because we have observed it from space with probes

I know there is other evidence, but I'm trying to see if any of these also make sense and I should add them to the list. I think 1-4 can be explained using the geocentric model too. Laws of gravitation I guess would make 5 an okay answer. I'm not sure if we really have "observed" the Earth going around the Sun.

Thoughts?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
5 plus gravity is a very strong argument.
Puchinita5 said:
I'm not sure if we really have "observed" the Earth going around the Sun.
Every space probe far away from Earth has to take the current position of Earth into account to communicate with Earth. And that position is correct in one model only.
Puchinita5 said:
I'm not sure if we really have "observed" the Earth going around the Sun.
Of course we have.
 
okay cool, I guess I was taking the word "observe" too seriously... The first 4 can be explained somehow in a geocentric model right? I figure it must because these were all things observed back then and they seemed content with the geocentric model despite these observations. The analemma one is really confusing me, I just can't visualize in my head if you could get an analemma in a geocentric system?
 
Well, technically you can always choose geocentric coordinates. It just leads to really weird physics once you realize the (other) planets have elliptic orbits around the sun.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top