Is the Old Model of the Universe Still Valid?

  • Thread starter binbots
  • Start date
In summary, the models used to be more accurate, but the Sun in the middle just made the math easier.
  • #1
binbots
170
3
Back when we thought the Earth was in the middle of the universe we came up with a mathematical model that predicted the movements of the planets with great accuracy. Then after we put the sun at the center of our solar system the model changed and became much easier to understand. But more recently we discovered that there are no special places in the universe. No universal time, no universal middles and starting points. So my question is: is that early model of the universe still valid? Both models are right but the sun in the middle just makes the math easier?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
The early model using the Earth at the center was not accurate and did not include have an operating mechanism or the predictive power of current theory.
 
  • Like
Likes yamex5
  • #3
binbots said:
Back when we thought the Earth was in the middle of the universe we came up with a mathematical model that predicted the movements of the planets with great accuracy. Then after we put the sun at the center of our solar system the model changed and became much easier to understand. But more recently we discovered that there are no special places in the universe. No universal time, no universal middles and starting points. So my question is: is that early model of the universe still valid? Both models are right but the sun in the middle just makes the math easier?

I prefer to think of model selection as a matter of convenience rather than validity. I usually sketch atoms using the Dalton model. While atoms are clearly not little balls of uniform composition, it is far easier to work with than one with all the overlapping orbitals drawn in. But the Dalton atom is useless when calculating, say, molecular shapes.

In the case of the geocentric and heliocentric models, I cannot think of many cases in astronomy where the former is more convenient to use. I have heard that the Navy teaches navigation calculations in the geocentric model because they are simpler than those in the heliocentric model and nearly as a accurate. I once read that it was historically hard to differentiate between the two because their predictions of planetary positions were the same within about one percent.
 
  • #4
As we gain more and more information our answers change. When we thought the Earth was the center of everything we tried to base our answers on that, but now that we know we aren't the center we must change our old concepts and knowledge.
 
  • #5
But then we found out that the sun is not in the middle of the universe. In fact there are no middles of anything in the universe, only places with more mass. So now that we know how our solar system works, can’t we pick any spot and make accurate predictions from anywhere?
 
  • #6
binbots said:
But more recently we discovered that there are no special places in the universe. No universal time, no universal middles and starting points. So my question is: is that early model of the universe still valid? Both models are right but the sun in the middle just makes the math easier?

What does the fact that there's no universal time, middle, starting point, etc. have to do with whether the Sun's gravity dominates Earth's? General relativity clearly predicts that the metric tensor is more strongly affected by large masses like the Sun, so Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way round.
 
  • #7
binbots said:
But then we found out that the sun is not in the middle of the universe. In fact there are no middles of anything in the universe, only places with more mass. So now that we know how our solar system works, can’t we pick any spot and make accurate predictions from anywhere?
Sure, but the easiest way to do that is to use General Relativity and a sun-centered reference frame* and then translate the results into another coordinate system.

There is big difference between the usefulness of the three reference frames you listed and the way you do the calculations taking each into account. In each case, you set the little object to be orbiting the big object and if you want to model three objects, you do two sets of calcs, ie Earth moving around the sun, then the sun moving around the center of the galaxy. And both calcs can be accurately made using gravity.

But with epicycles, in order to set the small object as the center, you need highly convoluted calculations that as far as I know have never been successfully accomplished to anywhere close to the accuracy of GR.

Moreover, AFAIK, the concept of epicycles was never put into a predictive model, meaning it was always developed ad-hoc to explain past observations and refined as new observations came in that it didn't fit. Contrast that with a theory of gravity where all you need is a starting position and speed (or two points and a time) and the mass of the larger object and you can accurately predict the entire orbit.

Gravity isn't merely simpler to use than the epicycles model, it's more accurate and more predictive.

*Caveat: for best accuracy, you need to use the center of mass of the system as the reference.
 
  • #8
binbots said:
is that early model of the universe still valid?

That early model had little to nothing to do with that thing that we now mean by the word "universe". They THOUGHT it did, but that was seriously mistaken. It only predicted the movement of the planets which compared to the currently understood size of the universe is essentially nothing.

If you mean does the early model still work to predict the movement of the planets, I don't believe the movement of the planets has changed significantly in the last few hundred years so it should still be as accurate as it ever was. And, yes, when you create a more rational model, the math is WAY easier. Those epicycles were murderously wicked.
 
  • #9
So if we use general relativity and place Earth back in the middle would it still work? I guess I am just stuck on the words that we use to describe our universe. Words like middle. What is right and wrong?
 
  • #10
binbots said:
So if we use general relativity and place Earth back in the middle would it still work? I guess I am just stuck on the words that we use to describe our universe. Words like middle. What is right and wrong?

The epicycle math models PUT us in the center and our being in the center is a requirement for them to work. That was their POINT ... to work under the assumption (strong belief at the time) that we are ARE at the center of the U. Again, taken as an internally consistent system, they work as well as they ever worked (or maybe not quite as well ... I don't know what change there may have been in planetary motions in the last couple hundred years ... I'm assuming not much) but they are just a math construct that works in the solar system, but not as well as the elliptical-orbit model and way more ugly to use.
 
  • #11
binbots said:
So if we use general relativity and place Earth back in the middle would it still work?
It would be convoluted and ugly and reducible to putting the center of gravity in the middle, but it could be made to work.
 

1. What is the old model of the universe?

The old model of the universe, also known as the geocentric model, states that the Earth is at the center of the universe and all celestial bodies revolve around it. This model was widely accepted for centuries until it was replaced by the heliocentric model.

2. Why was the old model of the universe considered valid for so long?

The old model of the universe was considered valid for a long time because it was based on careful observations and calculations made by ancient astronomers. It also aligned with religious beliefs and appeared to make sense based on what could be seen in the sky.

3. Is the old model of the universe still taught in schools?

No, the old model of the universe is no longer taught in schools as the predominant scientific understanding of the universe is now the heliocentric model. However, it may still be briefly mentioned as part of historical context or as a comparison to the current model.

4. What evidence led to the rejection of the old model of the universe?

The discovery of new celestial bodies, such as comets, that did not fit into the geocentric model was one of the main pieces of evidence that led to its rejection. Additionally, advancements in technology, such as the invention of the telescope, allowed for more detailed observations of the movements of celestial bodies and provided evidence for the heliocentric model.

5. Are there any lingering effects of the old model of the universe in modern science?

While the old model of the universe has been largely replaced by the heliocentric model, some aspects of it still remain in modern science. For example, the terms "geocentric" and "heliocentric" are still used to describe the location of objects in relation to the Earth and Sun, respectively. Additionally, some religious beliefs still hold the Earth as the center of the universe, but this is not a widely accepted scientific view.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
5
Views
914
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
870
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
909
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
781
  • Classical Physics
Replies
7
Views
720
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
759
Back
Top