Justification of geocentrism. Milesian school Antiquity: from cylinder to ball

Geocentric system of the world(from other Greek Γῆ, Γαῖα - Earth) - an idea of \u200b\u200bthe structure of the universe, according to which the central position in the Universe is occupied by the motionless Earth, around which the Sun, Moon, planets and stars revolve. An alternative to geocentrism is.

Development of geocentrism

Since ancient times, the Earth has been considered the center of the universe. At the same time, the presence of the central axis of the Universe and the asymmetry "top-bottom" were assumed. The earth was kept from falling by some kind of support, which in early civilizations was thought of as some kind of giant mythical animal or animals (turtles, elephants, whales). The first ancient Greek philosopher Thales of Miletus saw a natural object as this support - the oceans. Anaximander of Miletus suggested that the Universe is centrally symmetrical and does not have any preferred direction. Therefore, the Earth, located in the center of the Cosmos, has no reason to move in any direction, that is, it rests freely in the center of the Universe without support. Anaximander's student Anaximenes did not follow his teacher, believing that the Earth was kept from falling by compressed air. Anaxagoras was of the same opinion. The point of view of Anaximander was shared, however, by the Pythagoreans, Parmenides and Ptolemy. The position of Democritus is not clear: according to various testimonies, he followed Anaximander or Anaximenes.

One of the earliest images of the geocentric system that have come down to us (Macrobius, Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, manuscript of the 9th century)

Anaximander considered the Earth to have the shape of a low cylinder with a height three times less than the diameter of the base. Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Leucippus considered the Earth to be flat, like a tabletop. A fundamentally new step was taken by Pythagoras, who suggested that the Earth has the shape of a ball. In this he was followed not only by the Pythagoreans, but also by Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle. This is how the canonical form of the geocentric system arose, which was subsequently actively developed by ancient Greek astronomers: the spherical Earth is in the center of the spherical Universe; the visible daily movement of the celestial bodies is a reflection of the rotation of the Cosmos around the world axis.

Medieval depiction of the geocentric system (from the Cosmography of Peter Apian, 1540)

As for the order of the luminaries, Anaximander considered the stars located closest to the Earth, followed by the Moon and the Sun. Anaximenes first suggested that the stars are the objects farthest from the Earth, fixed on the outer shell of the Cosmos. In this, all subsequent scientists followed him (with the exception of Empedocles, who supported Anaximander). An opinion arose (probably for the first time among Anaximenes or the Pythagoreans) that the longer the period of revolution of the luminary in the celestial sphere, the higher it is. Thus, the order of the luminaries turned out to be the following: Moon, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, stars. Mercury and Venus are not included here, because the Greeks had disagreements about them: Aristotle and Plato placed them immediately after the Sun, Ptolemy - between the Moon and the Sun. Aristotle believed that there is nothing above the sphere of fixed stars, not even space, while the Stoics believed that our world is immersed in infinite empty space; atomists, following Democritus, believed that beyond our world (limited by the sphere of fixed stars) there are other worlds. This opinion was supported by the Epicureans, it was vividly stated by Lucretius in the poem "On the Nature of Things."

"The figure of heavenly bodies" is an illustration of the Ptolemaic geocentric system of the world, made by the Portuguese cartographer Bartolomeu Velho in 1568.
Stored in the National Library of France.

Rationale for geocentrism

Ancient Greek scientists, however, substantiated the central position and immobility of the Earth in different ways. Anaximander, as has already been pointed out, pointed out the spherical symmetry of the Cosmos as the reason. Aristotle did not support him, putting forward a counterargument later attributed to Buridan: in this case, the person in the center of the room in which food is located near the walls must die of hunger (see Buridan's donkey). Aristotle himself substantiated geocentrism as follows: the Earth is a heavy body, and the center of the Universe is a natural place for heavy bodies; as experience shows, all heavy bodies fall vertically, and since they move towards the center of the world, the Earth is in the center. In addition, the orbital motion of the Earth (which the Pythagorean Philolaus assumed) was rejected by Aristotle on the grounds that it should lead to a parallactic displacement of the stars, which is not observed.

Drawing of the geocentric system of the world from an Icelandic manuscript dated circa 1750

A number of authors give other empirical arguments. Pliny the Elder, in his encyclopedia Natural History, justifies the central position of the Earth by the equality of day and night during the equinoxes and by the fact that during the equinox, sunrise and sunset are observed on the same line, and the sunrise on the day of the summer solstice is on the same line. , which is the sunset on the winter solstice. From an astronomical point of view, all these arguments are, of course, a misunderstanding. Slightly better are the arguments given by Cleomedes in the textbook "Lectures on Astronomy", where he substantiates the centrality of the Earth from the contrary. In his opinion, if the Earth were east of the center of the universe, then the shadows at dawn would be shorter than at sunset, the celestial bodies at sunrise would appear larger than at sunset, and the duration from dawn to noon would be less than from noon to sunset. Since all this is not observed, the Earth cannot be displaced to the west of the center of the world. Similarly, it is proved that the Earth cannot be displaced to the west. Further, if the Earth were located north or south of the center, the shadows at sunrise would extend in a north or south direction, respectively. Moreover, at dawn on the equinoxes, the shadows are directed exactly in the direction of the sunset on those days, and at sunrise on the summer solstice, the shadows point to the point of sunset on the winter solstice. It also indicates that the Earth is not offset north or south of center. If the Earth were higher than the center, then less than half of the sky could be observed, including less than six signs of the zodiac; as a consequence, the night would always be longer than the day. Similarly, it is proved that the Earth cannot be located below the center of the world. Thus, it can only be in the center. Approximately the same arguments in favor of the centrality of the Earth are given by Ptolemy in the Almagest, book I. Of course, the arguments of Cleomedes and Ptolemy only prove that the Universe is much larger than the Earth, and therefore also are untenable.

Pages from SACROBOSCO "Tractatus de Sphaera" with the Ptolemaic system - 1550

Ptolemy is also trying to justify the immobility of the Earth (Almagest, book I). First, if the Earth were displaced from the center, then the effects just described would be observed, and if they are not, the Earth is always in the center. Another argument is the verticality of the trajectories of falling bodies. The lack of axial rotation of the Earth Ptolemy justifies as follows: if the Earth rotated, then “... all objects that do not rest on the Earth should seem to make the same movement in the opposite direction; neither clouds nor other flying or hovering objects will ever be seen moving eastward, as the Earth's movement towards the east will always throw them away, so that these objects will appear to be moving westward, in the opposite direction. The inconsistency of this argument became clear only after the discovery of the foundations of mechanics.

The Harmonia Macrocosmica of Andreas Cellarius - 1660/61

Explanation of astronomical phenomena from the standpoint of geocentrism

The greatest difficulty for ancient Greek astronomy was the uneven movement of the celestial bodies (especially the backward movements of the planets), since in the Pythagorean-Platonic tradition (which Aristotle largely followed), they were considered deities who should make only uniform movements. To overcome this difficulty, models were created in which the complex apparent motions of the planets were explained as the result of the addition of several uniform circular motions. The concrete embodiment of this principle was the theory of homocentric spheres of Eudoxus-Callippus supported by Aristotle and the theory of epicycles of Apollonius of Perga, Hipparchus and Ptolemy. However, the latter was forced to partially abandon the principle of uniform motions, introducing the equant model.

Rejection of geocentrism

During the scientific revolution of the 17th century, it became clear that geocentrism is incompatible with astronomical facts and contradicts physical theory; the heliocentric system of the world was gradually established. The main events that led to the rejection of the geocentric system were the creation of the heliocentric theory of planetary motions by Copernicus, the telescopic discoveries of Galileo, the discovery of Kepler's laws and, most importantly, the creation of classical mechanics and the discovery of the law of universal gravitation by Newton.

Geocentrism and religion

Already one of the first ideas opposed to geocentrism (the heliocentric hypothesis of Aristarchus of Samos) led to a reaction on the part of representatives of religious philosophy: the Stoic Cleanthes called for Aristarchus to be brought to justice for moving the “Center of the World” from its place, meaning the Earth; it is not known, however, whether the efforts of Cleanthes were crowned with success. In the Middle Ages, since the Christian Church taught that the whole world was created by God for the sake of man (see Anthropocentrism), geocentrism also successfully adapted to Christianity. This was also facilitated by a literal reading of the Bible. The scientific revolution of the 17th century was accompanied by attempts to administratively ban the heliocentric system, which led, in particular, to the trial of a supporter and propagandist of heliocentrism, Galileo Galilei. Currently, geocentrism as a religious belief is found among some conservative Protestant groups in the US.

Source: http://ru.wikipedia.org/

The honor of the creator of the first celestial globe, as well as the first geographical map, is also attributed by ancient tradition to Anaximander.
However, the idea of a flat earth was not overcome by him. Anaximander argued that the Earth is in the form of a cylinder, the height of which is three times less than the diameter, that people live on one of its flat surfaces. Despite imperfections and even deviations (Anaximander abandoned Thales's idea that the moon shines by reflected light, and not by its own), Anaximander's system was a huge breakthrough, a real revolution. In order to feel this at least a little, you need to remember that his teacher Thales of Miletus believed that the Earth floats in the waters of the boundless World Ocean like a piece of wood, and Anaximander’s student Anaximenes rejected the idea of a spherical world and returned to the idea of a celestial hemisphere covering a flat, “table-shaped » Earth. Anaximenes, with his characteristic love of analogies, compared the rotation of the celestial hemisphere with turning a cap around his head. He denied that the celestial bodies that go beyond the horizon pass under the Earth, which followed from the concept of Anaximander. Simply, said Anaximenes, in the north the Earth rises, and the luminaries hide behind it, like behind a mountain.
To follow in the footsteps of Anaximander, to surpass him and lead to the final victory the idea of a sphere as a universal form of the universe was destined for his other student - Pythagoras of Samos, the spiritual forefather of the Order of Freemasons. It is to him that the entire ancient tradition unanimously ascribes the assertion that the Earth is a ball.
As a student of Anaximander, Pythagoras was familiar with his theory of spherical heavens and probably saw the first celestial globe. Perhaps he drew attention to the obvious discrepancy between the shapes of the celestial spheres and the Earth-cylinder in the concept of Anaximander. It is also possible that Pythagoras's special interest in geometry led him to the conclusion about the sphericity of the Earth. Even Thales, whom, as they say, Pythagoras found alive, and from whom he also studied, is credited with the phrase: “The most beautiful thing is the cosmos, for it is the creation of God.” The most beautiful and perfect thing must correspond to the most perfect form. Which of the geometric shapes could be called such? The Pythagoreans called the sphere, indicating its exceptional geometric properties, namely: an infinite number of axes of rotation, absolute symmetry and equality of surface points, maximum volume for a given surface size, etc. Thus, the sphere as the most perfect geometric form was postulated as the main form of the Cosmos in general, and the Earth in particular.
It is appropriate to mention here that Pythagoras was also the author of the theory of harmony or the music of the spheres, which combined the astronomical and musical studies of the Pythagoreans. Believing that "everything is a number", Pythagoras obviously concluded that the sizes and movements of the celestial spheres are connected by certain mathematical relationships. The Pythagoreans also discovered that the harmonic sound series is also characterized by certain mathematical relationships. It was argued that each celestial sphere emits a special sound. These sounds, by virtue of the presence between the spheres of the above-mentioned correlations, create music, the harmony of which is perfect. It is said that Pythagoras could hear the music of the spheres.

In any course on the history of philosophy for students, the first thing they say is that philosophy began with Thales, who said that everything comes from water. This is discouraging for the newcomer, who is trying—perhaps not very hard at all—to feel that respect for philosophy that the curriculum seems designed to generate. Nevertheless, Thales gives enough grounds for a feeling of respect, although perhaps more as a man of science than as a philosopher in the modern sense of the word.

Thales was a native of Miletus in Asia Minor, a prosperous trading city. This city had a large slave population; among the free population between the rich and the poor there was a sharp class struggle. “In Miletus, at first, the people who killed the wives and children of aristocrats turned out to be the winner; then the aristocrats began to dominate, who burned their opponents alive, illuminating the city squares with living torches. At the time of Thales, a similar situation developed in most cities of Asia Minor.

During the 7th and 6th centuries BC. Miletus, like other commercial Ionian cities, experienced significant economic and political development. Political power, which was at first in the hands of the landowning aristocracy, gradually passed into the hands of the merchant plutocracy. The latter, in turn, gave way to the rule of a tyrant who (as was usually the case) sought power with the support of the Democratic Party. The Lydian kingdom, lying to the east of the Greek coastal cities, until the fall of Nineveh (612 BC) maintained only friendly relations with them. The fall of Nineveh unleashed the hands of Lydia, and she was now able to turn her attention to the West, but in general Miletus managed to maintain friendly relations with this neighboring state, especially with the last Lydian king Croesus, under whom the Lydian kingdom was conquered by Cyrus in 546 BC . The Greeks also maintained significant ties with Egypt, whose king needed Greek mercenaries and opened some cities to Greek trade. The first Greek settlement in Egypt was a fortress occupied by a Milesian garrison; but in the period 610-560 BC. the most important was the city of Daphne. In this city, Jeremiah and many other Jewish refugees found their refuge, fleeing from Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 43; 5 et seq.); but while Egypt undoubtedly had an influence on the Greeks, there was no such influence on the part of the Jews. We cannot imagine that Jeremiah felt anything but horror towards the skeptical Ionians.

As mentioned above, the best evidence for determining the lifetime of Thales is that this philosopher became famous for predicting a solar eclipse, which, according to astronomers, occurred in 585 BC. Other data, like the above evidence, are quite consistent with the fact that Thales's activity was attributed to approximately this time. The prediction of the eclipse was not evidence of the extraordinary genius of Thales. Miletus was in allied relations with Lydia, who maintained cultural ties with Babylonia. Babylonian astronomers discovered that eclipses recur approximately every 19 years. These astronomers could predict an eclipse of the moon quite successfully, but when it came to a solar eclipse, they were confused by the fact that an eclipse could be visible in one place and invisible in another. Therefore, they could only know that an eclipse could be expected at such and such a time, and that was probably all Thales knew. Neither he nor the Babylonian astronomers understood what caused this cyclical eclipse.

It is said that Thales undertook a trip to Egypt and brought back information on geometry for the Greeks. All knowledge of the Egyptians in the field of geometry consisted mainly in purely empirical techniques. And there is no reason to think that Thales came to deductive proofs, such as, for example, which were discovered by the Greeks later. Thales probably discovered how, based on observations made from two coastal points, to determine the distance to the ship at sea, and also how, knowing the length of the pyramid's shadow, find its height. Many other geometric theorems are attributed to him, but apparently erroneously.

Thales was one of the seven Greek sages. Each of these seven wise men became famous for one or another wise saying. According to tradition, the saying of Thales was that "water is the best."

As Aristotle reports, Thales thought that water is the primary substance, and everything else is formed from it, he also argued that the Earth rests on water. According to Aristotle, Thales said that the magnet has a soul because it attracts iron; further, that all things are full of gods.

The proposition that everything arose from water should be regarded as a scientific hypothesis, and by no means as an absurd hypothesis. Twenty years ago, the view that everything is made up of hydrogen, which makes up two-thirds of water, was the accepted view.

The Greeks were too bold in their hypotheses, but the Milesian school was at least ready to test their hypotheses empirically. Too little is known about Thales to be able to fully reconstruct his teachings, but much more is known about his followers in Miletus, so it is reasonable to assume that something contained in their views passed to them from Thales. Both science and philosophy in Thales were crude, but they were capable of stimulating both thought and observation.

There are many legends about Thales, but I do not think that anything was known about him, apart from the facts that I mentioned. Some of these stories are amazing, such as the one given by Aristotle in his Politics (1259a):

“When Thales was reproached with his poverty, since philosophy does not bring any profit, then, they say, Thales, foreseeing a rich harvest of olives on the basis of astronomical data, even before the end of winter distributed the small amount of money he had accumulated as a deposit to the owners of all the oil mills in Miletus and on Chios; oil mills Thales contracted cheaply, since no one competed with him. When the time came for the harvest of olives, there was a sudden demand from many people at the same time for oil mills. Thales then began to farm out the oil mills contracted by him for the price he wanted. Having collected a lot of money in this way, Thales thus proved that it is not difficult for philosophers to get rich if they want to, but this business is not the subject of their interests.

Anaximander, the second philosopher of the Milesian school, is much more interesting than Thales. The dates of his life are uncertain, but he is said to have been 54 years old in 546 BC. . There are reasons to believe that this is close to the truth. Anaximander claimed that all things came from a single primary substance, but this is not water, as Thales thought, and not any other substance known to us. The primal substance is infinite, eternal, timeless and "encompasses all worlds," for Anaximander considered our world to be only one of many. The primordial substance turns into various substances known to us, and they pass into each other. On this occasion, Anaximander makes an important and significant remark:

“And from which all things arise, into the same they are resolved, according to necessity. For they are punished for their wickedness and receive retribution from one another at the appointed time.

The idea of both cosmic and human justice plays a role in Greek religion and philosophy that is not easy to fully understand for our contemporary. Indeed, our very word "justice" hardly expresses its meaning, but it is difficult to find any other word to which one could give preference. Apparently, Anaximander expresses the following idea: water, fire and earth should be in the world in a certain proportion, but each element (understood as God) is always striving to expand its possessions. But there is some kind of necessity, or natural law, which is constantly restoring the balance. Where there was, for example, fire, remains ashes, that is, earth. This concept of justice - not to overstep the boundaries established by the age - was one of the deepest Greek beliefs. Like people, the gods are subject to justice, but this higher power itself was not a personal power, was not some kind of higher God.

Anaximander based the proof of his position, according to which the primary substance cannot be either water or any other known element, on the following argument: if one of the elements were the main one, then it would absorb all the other elements. Aristotle informs us that Anaximander considered these elements known to him as elements that are in opposition to each other. "Air is cold, water is damp, fire is hot." And therefore, “if one of them [of these elements. - Transl.] was endless, then the rest would have died long ago. Therefore, the primary substance must be neutral in this cosmic struggle.

According to Anaximander, there is perpetual motion; in the course of this movement the formation of the worlds took place. The worlds did not arise as a result of creation, as is believed in Jewish or Christian theology, but as a result of development. And evolution has taken place in the animal kingdom. Living beings originated from the moist element when it was evaporated by the sun. Like all other animals, humans evolved from fish. Man must have been descended from beings of a different kind, because, owing to his now characteristic long period of infancy, he could not possibly have survived at his origin.

Anaximander is an extremely curious figure in scientific terms. It is said that he was the first person to make a map. He argued that the Earth is shaped like a cylinder. Various testimonies have come down to us, according to which he considered the Sun either equal in size to the Earth, or exceeding it in size by twenty-seven or twenty-eight times.

Wherever Anaximander is original, his views are scientific and rationalistic.

Anaximenes, the last of the Milesian triad, is nowhere near as interesting as Anaximander, but he takes an important step forward. The dates of his life are completely uncertain. There is no doubt that he lived after Anaximander, and, apparently, the heyday of his activity preceded 494 BC, since in this year Miletus was destroyed by the Persians during the suppression of the Ionian uprising.

Anaximenes said that the main substance is air. The soul consists of air, fire is rarefied air; condensing, the air becomes first water, then, with further condensation, earth, and finally stone. This theory has the merit that it makes all the differences between different substances quantitative differences, depending solely on the degree of condensation.

He believed that the Earth was shaped like a round table and that air contained everything. “In the same way,” he says, “just as our soul, being air, restrains us, so breath and air surround the whole world.” The world seems to be breathing.

Anaximenes was more admired in antiquity than Anaximander, although almost any modern society would give the opposite assessment. He had a significant influence on Pythagoras, as well as on many subsequent philosophical constructions. The Pythagoreans discovered that the earth was spherical, but the atomists held to the view of Anaximenes, according to which the earth was shaped like a disk.

The Milesian school is important not for its achievements, but for its quest. This school was brought into being by the contact of the Greek spirit with Babylonia and Egypt. Miletus was a rich trading city; thanks to the relations of Miletus with many peoples, primitive prejudices and superstitions in this city were weakened. Before Ionia was at the beginning of the 5th century BC. conquered by Darius, it was culturally the most important part of the Hellenic world. The religious movement associated with Bacchus and Orpheus hardly affected her; her religion was Olympian, but she apparently was not taken seriously. The philosophies of Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes should be regarded as scientific hypotheses, and they are rarely influenced by any undue influence of anthropomorphic aspirations and moral ideas. The questions they posed were worthy of attention, and their courage inspired subsequent researchers.

The next stage in the development of Greek philosophy, connected with the Greek cities in southern Italy, is more religious and, in particular, more Orphic in character. In some respects it is more interesting; its achievements are more remarkable, but in its spirit it is less scientific than the Milesian school.

Mankind has been looking for and continues to look for an answer to the question of its origin and the world around it.

Ancient understanding of the universe

In ancient times, the knowledge of civilization was meager and superficial. Understanding the nature of the surrounding world was based on the opinion that everything was created by a supernatural force or its representatives. All ancient mythology bears the imprint of the intervention of the Gods in the development and life of civilization. Due to the lack of knowledge about the processes in nature, man attributed the creation of all things to God, the Higher Mind, spirits.

Over time, human knowledge "lifted the curtain" of a hidden understanding of the nature around us. Thanks to outstanding scientists and philosophers of different eras, the understanding of everything around became more understandable and less erroneous. For many centuries, religion slowed down and stopped dissent. Everything that did not agree with the understanding of "the creation of the world and man" was eradicated, and philosophers and natural scientists were physically eliminated, as a warning to others.

devices of the world

According to the Catholic Church, the Earth was the center of the world. This is the hypothesis put forward in the second century BC by Aristotle. This system of world organization was called geocentric (from the ancient Greek word Γῆ, Γαῖα - Earth). According to Aristotle, the Earth was a ball at the center of the universe.

There was another opinion, where the Earth was a cone. Anaximander believed that the Earth has the shape of a low cylinder with a height three times less than the diameter of the base. Anaximenes, Anaxagoras considered the Earth to be flat, resembling a table top.

In an earlier period, it was believed that the planet rests on a huge mythical creature, in the likeness of a turtle.

Pythagoras and the spherical shape of the Earth

In the time of Pythagoras, the main opinion was determined that our planet is still a spherical body. But society, in its mass did not support this idea. It was not clear to the person how he is on the ball and does not slip, and does not fall from it. In addition, it was not clear how the Earth was supported in space. A lot of speculation has been put forward. Some believed that the planet was held together by compressed air, others thought that it rested in the ocean. There was a hypothesis that the Earth, being the center of the world, is stationary and does not require any support.

The Renaissance is rich in events

Centuries later, the system of the world at the beginning of the 16th century underwent a serious revision. A large number of philosophers and scientists of that time openly tried to prove the fallacy of people's ideas about their place in the universe and the nature of everything around. Among them were such great minds as: Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonardo da Vinci.

The path of becoming the truth and accepting by society that there is a different system of the world turned out to be difficult and thorny. The 16th century became the starting point in the battle for a new worldview of outstanding minds with a universal understanding of the people of that time. The trouble with such a slow change in the understanding of society lay in the imposition by religion of a unified understanding of the nature of everything around, which was purely divine and supernatural in nature.

The Roman Inquisition immediately eliminated dissent in society.

Copernicus - the founder of the first scientific revolution

Long before the Renaissance, in the third century BC, Aristarchus admitted that there was a different system for organizing the world.

Copernicus in his writings "On the rotation of the celestial spheres" proved that the old understanding that the Earth is the center of the world and the Sun revolves around it is fundamentally wrong.

His book, published in 1543, contained evidence for heliocentrism, which implies the understanding that our Earth revolves around the Sun) of the world. He developed the theory of planetary motion around the Sun at the beginning of the Pythagorean principle of uniform circular motions.

The work of Nicolaus Copernicus was available to philosophers and natural scientists for some time. The Catholic Church realized that the work of a scientist seriously undermines its authority and recognized the work of a scientist as heretical and discrediting the truth. In 1616 his writings were confiscated and burned.

The great genius of his time - Leonardo da Vinci

Forty years before Copernicus, another brilliant mind of the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci, in his spare time from other activities, made sketches, where it was clearly shown that the Earth is not the center of the world.

The world order system of Leonardo da Vinci was reflected in some sketches of drawings that have come down to us. He made notes in the margins of the sketches, from which it follows that the Earth, like the rest of the planets in our solar system, revolves around the Sun. The ingenious philosopher, artist, inventor and scientist understood the deep essence of things, ahead of his time by several centuries.

Leonardo da Vinci, through his work, brought the understanding that there is a different system of the world. The 16th century turned out to be a difficult period of struggle for understanding the universe between great minds and the established opinion of the society of that time.

The struggle of two systems of world order

The system of world organization at the beginning of the 16th century was considered by scientists of that time in two directions. During this period, a confrontation between two types of worldview was formed - geocentric and heliocentric. And only after almost a hundred years, the heliocentric system of the world began to win. Copernicus became the founder of a new understanding in scientific circles.

His work "On the rotation of the celestial spheres" was unclaimed for almost fifty years. Society at that time was not ready to accept its “new” place in the Universe, to lose its position as the center of the world. And only at the end of the 16th century, Bruno's heliocentric system of the world, based on the work of Copernicus, again excited the great minds of society.

Giordano Bruno and the true understanding of the universe

Giordano Bruno opposed the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic system of world order that prevailed in his period, opposing the Copernican system. He expanded it, creating philosophical conclusions, pointed out some facts that are now recognized by science as indisputable. He argued that the stars are distant Suns, and that there are countless cosmic bodies in the Universe similar to our Sun.

In 1592 he was arrested in Venice and handed over to the Roman Inquisition.

Subsequently, after seven years in prison, the Church of Rome demanded that Bruno renounce his "incorrect" beliefs. After the refusal, he was burned at the stake as a heretic. Giordano Bruno paid dearly for his participation in the struggle for the heliocentric system of the world. Future generations appreciated the sacrifice made by the great scientist, in 1889 a monument was erected at the place of execution in Rome.

The future of civilization is determined by its intelligence

For thousands of years, the accumulated experience of mankind suggests that the knowledge gained is as close as possible to the current level of understanding. But there is no guarantee that they will be reliable tomorrow.

As practice shows, the expansion of our understanding of the universe suggests the idea that everything is somewhat different than we previously imagined.

Another key problem that has been going on through the millennia is the process of deliberate distortion of information (like the Church of Rome in its time) to keep humanity in the "right" direction. Let's hope that the true rationality of a human being will win, and will make it possible for civilization to follow the right path of development.

Plan:

1 Development of geocentrism
2 Rationale for geocentrism
3 Explanation of astronomical phenomena from the standpoint of geocentrism
4 Rejection of geocentrism
5 Geocentrism and religion
6 Interesting Facts

Introduction

Geocentric system of the world(from other Greek. Γῆ, Γαῖα - Earth) - an idea of the structure of the universe, according to which the central position in the Universe is occupied by the motionless Earth, around which the Sun, Moon, planets and stars revolve. An alternative to geocentrism is the heliocentric system of the world and many modern cosmological models of the Universe.

"Figure of Celestial Bodies" - an illustration of the geocentric system of the world, made by the Portuguese cartographer Bartolomeu Velho in 1568. Stored in the National Library of France.

1. Development of geocentrism

Since ancient times, the Earth has been considered the center of the universe. At the same time, the presence of the central axis of the Universe and the asymmetry "top-bottom" were assumed. The earth was kept from falling by some kind of support, which in early civilizations was thought of as some kind of giant mythical animal or animals (turtles, elephants, whales). The "father of philosophy" Thales of Miletus saw a natural object as this support - the oceans. Anaximander of Miletus suggested that the Universe is centrally symmetrical and does not have any preferred direction. Therefore, the Earth, located in the center of the Cosmos, has no reason to move in any direction, that is, it rests freely in the center of the Universe without support. Anaximander's student Anaximenes did not follow his teacher, believing that the Earth was kept from falling by compressed air. Anaxagoras was of the same opinion. Anaximander's point of view was shared by the Pythagoreans, Parmenides and Ptolemy. The position of Democritus is not clear: according to various testimonies, he followed Anaximander or Anaximenes.

One of the earliest images of the geocentric system that have come down to us (Macrobius, Commentary on the Son of Scipio, manuscript of the 9th century)

Anaximander considered the Earth to have the shape of a low cylinder with a height three times less than the diameter of the base. Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Leucippus considered the Earth to be flat, like a table top. A fundamentally new step was taken by Pythagoras, who suggested that the Earth has the shape of a ball. In this he was followed not only by the Pythagoreans, but also by Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle. This is how the canonical form of the geocentric system arose, which was subsequently actively developed by ancient Greek astronomers: the spherical Earth is at the center of the spherical Universe; the visible daily movement of the celestial bodies is a reflection of the rotation of the Cosmos around the world axis.

Medieval depiction of the geocentric system (from Cosmography Peter Apian, 1540)

2. Rationale for geocentrism

A number of authors give other empirical arguments. Pliny the Elder, in his encyclopedia Natural History, justifies the central position of the Earth by the equality of day and night during the equinoxes and by the fact that during the equinox, sunrise and sunset are observed on the same line, and the sunrise on the day of the summer solstice is on the same line. , which is the sunset on the winter solstice. From an astronomical point of view, all these arguments are, of course, a misunderstanding. Slightly better are the arguments given by Cleomedes in the textbook "Lectures on Astronomy", where he substantiates the centrality of the Earth from the contrary. In his opinion, if the Earth were east of the center of the universe, then the shadows at dawn would be shorter than at sunset, the celestial bodies at sunrise would appear larger than at sunset, and the duration from dawn to noon would be less than from noon to sunset. Since all this is not observed, the Earth cannot be shifted east of the center of the world. Similarly, it is proved that the Earth cannot be displaced to the west. Further, if the Earth were located north or south of the center, the shadows at sunrise would extend in a north or south direction, respectively. Moreover, at dawn on the equinoxes, the shadows are directed exactly in the direction of the sunset on those days, and at sunrise on the summer solstice, the shadows point to the point of sunset on the winter solstice. It also indicates that the Earth is not offset north or south of center. If the Earth were higher than the center, then less than half of the sky could be observed, including less than six signs of the zodiac; as a consequence, the night would always be longer than the day. Similarly, it is proved that the Earth cannot be located below the center of the world. Thus, it can only be in the center. Approximately the same arguments in favor of the centrality of the Earth are given by Ptolemy in the Almagest, book I. Of course, the arguments of Cleomedes and Ptolemy only prove that the Universe is much larger than the Earth, and therefore also are untenable.

Scheme of the geocentric system of the world (from the book of David Hans "Nehmad Venaim", XVI century). The spheres are signed: air, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, the sphere of fixed stars, the sphere responsible for the anticipation of the equinoxes

3. Explanation of astronomical phenomena from the standpoint of geocentrism

The greatest difficulty for ancient Greek astronomy was the uneven movement of the celestial bodies (especially the backward movements of the planets), since in the Pythagorean-Platonic tradition (which Aristotle largely followed), they were considered deities who should make only uniform movements. To overcome this difficulty, models were created in which the complex apparent motions of the planets were explained as the result of the addition of several uniform circular motions. The concrete embodiment of this principle was the theory of homocentric spheres of Eudoxus-Callippus, supported by Aristotle, and the theory of epicycles by Apollonius of Perga, Hipparchus and Ptolemy. However, the latter was forced to partially abandon the principle of uniform motions, introducing the equant model.