Ancient cultures and a heliocentric universe?

[rfgdxm]

This is something I have always wondered about. Are there any known ancient cultures that believed that the Earth orbited the sun? Commonly the belief of heliocentrism is characterized as taking off with Copernicus, although in ancient Greece Aristarchus proposed the idea, but was largely ignored. Given that many ancient cultures identified the sun as being God, or some manifestation of God, it seems odd to me that none would have thought of Earth going around the sun. After all, isn't it theologically aesthetic to imagine God as the center of the universe, and everything revolves around God? Why should God move around his creation? Plus ancient cultures were well aware of the motion of the planets. Mercury and Venus clearly appear to orbit the sun, and not Earth. And a heliocentric model elegantly explains that odd retrograde motion of the outer planets.

Although, Aristarchus wasn't able to sell his idea, and the ancient Greeks *did* in fact consider the sun to be a manifestation of the most powerful of the gods. Thus the same may have happened in other cultures. That Judaism, Christianity and Islam rejected the idea of heliocentrism until science made it evident is easy to understand. To these faiths, the sun was just some hot thing that God created that kept this world warm. Given that this planet would be seen as God's most important creation, it would make sense they'd think that it was the center of the universe.

(At least the ancient Greek's proof the Earth was a sphere caught on amongst the intelligent rather quick. Heck, one of the ancient Greeks calculated the diameter of the Earth within a few percent. I've always thought it amusing when people claim anyone of significance at the time of Columbus thought he'd sail off the edge of a flat Earth. Competent mariners, and the educated elite, knew better. The question with Columbus was whether he and his ships could survive the long trip to the Orient travelling west to it?)

[W. Fikere Tomba]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

Mercury and Venus clearly appear to orbit the sun, and not Earth.

How do they appear to orbit the sun? The turning of the Earth makes everything in the sky appear to be orbiting us in unison, except for some odd independent motion in planets and the Moon. I think that's why geocentrism was so prevalent. The planets may wander a bit over many successive nights, but they all rise in the east and set in the west every day. That's the dominant motion in the heavens. It takes a lot of observation and study, plus some brilliant minds, before anyone can take seriously the idea that things aren't orbiting the Earth.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by W. Fikere Tomba

How do they appear to orbit the sun? The turning of the Earth makes everything in the sky appear to be orbiting us in unison, except for some odd independent motion in planets and the Moon. I think that's why geocentrism was so prevalent. The planets may wander a bit over many successive nights, but they all rise in the east and set in the west every day. That's the dominant motion in the heavens. It takes a lot of observation and study, plus some brilliant minds, before anyone can take seriously the idea that things aren't orbiting the Earth.

Mercury and Venus always stay close to the sun. While the outer planets appear to orbit the Earth, the inner ones don't. And the ancients did a lot of observation of planetary motion. Aristarchus did notice this.

[t-keela]

I think the retrograde motion of the planets was one of the things which kept throwing off the early models of the solar system. But in fact it is probably one of the most conclusive "proofs" when considering the truth. The lack of advanced optics had a lot to do with it as well. Once man had the technology to measure the heavens with real accuracy it was just a matter of time.
IIRC the Babylon, India and China had some fague proposals regarding a heliocentic "universe" but were more focused on using their astronomy for philosophical speculations and/or practical purposes like farming etc.

However, I think Aristarchus is probably the first that can be reliably cited.

[Kimstu]

t-keela: IIRC the Babylon, India and China had some fague proposals regarding a heliocentic "universe"

I don't think so. You are possibly thinking of the Indian astronomer Aryabhata (ca. 500 CE) whose astronomical system involved a rotating earth to account for the apparent daily rotation of the sky. This hypothesis didn't catch on, though, and Indian astronomy in general assumed a central immobile earth until adopting modern Copernicanism.

The ancient Greek Pythagoreans apparently postulated an invisible "central fire" around which the rest of the universe, including the earth, revolved. Again, this didn't catch on among astronomers.

rfgdxm: Mercury and Venus always stay close to the sun. While the outer planets appear to orbit the Earth, the inner ones don't. And the ancients did a lot of observation of planetary motion. Aristarchus did notice this.

Well, we know very little about Aristarchus's observational practices. It is true that the ancient Greeks, like the Babylonians before them and like all other cultures that took account of planetary motion, did recognize that Mercury and Venus are always close to the sun. But it's only our modern training that inclines us to think that this is a "clear sign" that they're orbiting the sun rather than the earth. It was certainly not obvious to ancient astronomers, who came up with different physical and computational mechanisms to account for it.

[Josh_dePlume]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

Mercury and Venus always stay close to the sun. While the outer planets appear to orbit the Earth, the inner ones don't. And the ancients did a lot of observation of planetary motion. Aristarchus did notice this.

They stay close to the sun, so they appear to orbit the Earth in the same way that the sun appears to orbit the Earth.

[Enje]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

I've always thought it amusing when people claim anyone of significance at the time of Columbus thought he'd sail off the edge of a flat Earth. Competent mariners, and the educated elite, knew better.

Nope, most of 'em didn't.

1) The people in Europe (and everywhere else of course) had very limited access to knowledge, especially to written knowledge.

2) The church has had tremendous, tyrannic power in Europe (they even did psychotic whichcraft-raids), killed or locked about anyone who dare to disagree with them. They saw the idea of a round globe as a threat to them, because they had always preached and believed the 'pancake-model'. In fact a credibility issue, won by the most powerful party (according to Darwin). - Hey... nothing new, eh? ;-) Because of this, a lot of Roman/Greek knowledge was lost, banned, destroyed, or christianized (read: theories and proof altered to a desirable reality). It was only around 1500/1600 that science was possible/not punished and its value rediscovered.

3) Every attempt before Columbus failed, i.e. nothing was ever heard again from the brave people. (so unfortunately, the 'believers' eradicated themselves, to some extent.)

So, people didn't know about these theories, or they had no access to those. The (oppressed) concensus was that the earth was flat. Everyone who did try to prove the earth is a sphere, killed himself in the attempt. And, probably, most people didn't give a damn. For most people, there was no reason to assume that the earth is NOT flat - the world looks flat, from a human perspective.

Manipulation goes a long way - a handful of people managed to keep evident proof about something as basic and harmless as the shape of the earth out of the hands of almost everybody for 600 years, just to save their own ass, and to control the people's perception and reality.

Enje

[Complex Conjugate]

One major flaw with your hypothesis Enje is that Christian church has never believed in a flat Earth.

What Christhopher Columbus set out to prove was on the size of the globe, on tjhat account he was completly wrong. How did his journey prove the earth was round anyway? When he didn't even make it half-way round.

[Kimstu]

CC: [...] Christian church has never believed in a flat Earth.

Although I think several early church fathers, particularly of the Antioch school, did adopt a flat-earth cosmology, traces of which persisted for a long time in popular writings. But you are right that by Columbus's time, there had been no significant influence of the flat-earth model among educated churchmen for centuries.

[Enje]

Originally Posted by Complex Conjugate

One major flaw with your hypothesis Enje is that Christian church has never believed in a flat Earth.

Yes they did, vigourously, based on Jesaja 11:12, 40:22, Ezechiel 7:2, Matthew 4:8, Lucas 4:5, and Revelations 7:1-3.

It even rested on pillars: Job 9:5-10 and 26:11, 1 Samuel 2:8

Of course, it's all about interpretation, but that's the whole issue here. Nowadays we interpret things more in a figurative way, e.g. Genesis. Extremists can't do that, both today and 500 years ago. In those days, the church was very keen on keeping every Biblic text 100% true, real-life true. There even was a crisis one day, when some clergymen suggested that maybe the snake didn't really speak in the human sense of the word in Genesis.

Probably, even the difference between Islam en Christianity is merely an issue of interpretation. But this is my OPINION - don't shoot me.

What Christhopher Columbus set out to prove was on the size of the globe, on tjhat account he was completly wrong. How did his journey prove the earth was round anyway? When he didn't even make it half-way round.

No, he did not prove that the world was round, but he did prove that te world was far bigger than the known world, that it streched far beyond the sight of the human eye, and that there was no edge to it, he didn't fall off. His voyage and the discovery of the americas (opportunity!) made the idea of a globe reasonable to a lot of people, and spawned new voyages and research, and took away the fear of falling off. Very short after Columbus' voyage, the Pacific was discovered, and <30 years later people sailed round the earth.
Columbus DID want to prove the world is a sphere by sailing along the equator, he thought he succeded, and therefore he erroneously called the native americans indians. The distance between africa and america somewhat corresponded with his calculations about the distance between europe and Japan via the East. Indeed, he turned out not te be the greatest scientist :-) Lucky thing he made this mistake, if he'd known the real distance, he would never have tried to reach the West via the East!

[Kimstu]

Enje: Extremists can't do that, both today and 500 years ago. In those days, the church was very keen on keeping every Biblic text 100% true, real-life true.

Can you provide a cite for the claim that official Church doctrine in 1500 subscribed to the hypothesis that the earth was flat? Because that sounds very doubtful to me.

I'm not asking for cites from the Bible suggesting a flat earth, I'm asking for cites from Christian doctrine circa 1500 indicating that leaders of the Church thought themselves required to interpret those Biblical passages literally to conclude that the earth really was flat. I don't think you'll find any.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Enje

Columbus DID want to prove the world is a sphere by sailing along the equator, he thought he succeded, and therefore he erroneously called the native americans indians.

Clumbus wanted to prove you could get to China or India by sailing west. There was general agreement that the world was a sphere. His opponents' main argument was that his trip would be impossible because the distance sailing west would be too great. (They said he'd have to travel at least 15,000 miles, he said he'd have to travel only 5,000 miles.)

There's no easy way by simple observation to deduce that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. That's not true of a spherical earth. The fact that things seem to "fall off the horizon" and that you can see further the higher up you are are enough to suggest to people the existance of a round earth.

[PussyCow]

For thousands of years now, and certainly since the 15th century, to any intelligent person, or even person who cared to think about it, the Earth was pretty obviously not flat. There is and was at the time several lines of evidence that the Earth is spherical (e.g. the round shadow on the Moon/Sun during an eclipse). The only line of evidence that the Earth was flat was the appearance when one looked out over the horizon. It is not a giant leap to notice you get the same effect when looking over a sphere.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Enje: Extremists can't do that, both today and 500 years ago. In those days, the church was very keen on keeping every Biblic text 100% true, real-life true.

Can you provide a cite for the claim that official Church doctrine in 1500 subscribed to the hypothesis that the earth was flat? Because that sounds very doubtful to me.

I'm not asking for cites from the Bible suggesting a flat earth, I'm asking for cites from Christian doctrine circa 1500 indicating that leaders of the Church thought themselves required to interpret those Biblical passages literally to conclude that the earth really was flat. I don't think you'll find any.

You won't find these because the educated Roman Catholic leaders had read the ancient Greek texts. The ancient Greeks proved the Earth was a sphere. The proof is:

#1) Observation makes it clear the moon shines because it is illuminated by the sun.

#2) Lunar eclipses happen when the moon and the sun are 180 degrees apart. Thus quite obviously the eclipse is the moon passing through the Earth's shadow.

#3) No matter where the lunar eclipse is in the sky, the shadow of the Earth is circular.

#4) There is only one object that always casts a circular shadow: a sphere.

This proof is unquestionable. Besides, a geocentric universe is theologically elegant. God just created the universe with the Earth at the center. The Earth is a ball, with the center of that ball the center of the universe. And, the Catholic Church wasn't very keen on keeping every Biblic text 100% true, real-life true. That is a Protestant notion. Catholics were quite happy to let the church leadership interpret the Bible for them. No big deal for the church leadership to declare the Earth was a sphere, and twist the Bible to fit that.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by Enje

Columbus DID want to prove the world is a sphere by sailing along the equator, he thought he succeded, and therefore he erroneously called the native americans indians. The distance between africa and america somewhat corresponded with his calculations about the distance between europe and Japan via the East. Indeed, he turned out not te be the greatest scientist :-) Lucky thing he made this mistake, if he'd known the real distance, he would never have tried to reach the West via the East!

Yep. The irony is the ancient Greeks had calculated the size of the Earth within a few percent of the true total. Eratosthenes using basic geometry by using knowledge of the angles of the shadows an object cast, and knowing the sun was directly overhead a certain well was able to get a ballpark accurate estimate of the size of the Earth.

It is of course possible that Columbus was more of a scientist, and just lied to his financial backers. On this theory, he just wanted to find out what was to the west. Even if he didn't hit Asia, there might be great riches to be found sailing west.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by Enje

Every attempt before Columbus failed, i.e. nothing was ever heard again from the brave people. (so unfortunately, the 'believers' eradicated themselves, to some extent.)

Not exactly. The Vikings found America before that. The Vikings just found America not financially worthwhile, and thus ignored it. The Vikings succeeded in the attempt. Their knowledge just became lost.

[Exapno Mapcase]

No, the irony is that Ptolemy recalculated the size of the earth to be much smaller than the Greeks' understanding. It's Ptolemy's world-view that Columbus was following.

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state....sizeshape.html

(3) The fact that the Earth is spherical was well-known in Columbus' time.
The works of Aristotle, Ptolemy, etc. were discarded by the west during the last days and subsequent fall of the Roman Empire. Influential voices in early Christianity were opposed to the Greek "pagan ideas," including the spherical shape of the Earth. Some of these ideas lived on (even if the original work was lost) if they met with the general approval of theologians. Ptolemy's geocentric universe is the prime example.

Aristotle's demonstration of the spherical Earth was reintroduced to the Christian world around 1300 CE by way of Islamic Spain. By the time Columbus came along, no one doubted that the world was round. The important question was how big it was. Since there was no agreement on the value, Columbus chose the smallest one he could find (Ptolemy's measurrement of 28,800 km) to sell the idea of finding a trade route to the East, since he could carry enough supplies to last only a limited time. Fortunately for him, the Americas were in the way.

Enje, why should we listen to your OPINION when all competent scholars have shown that it is totally false?

[Complex Conjugate]

here's another arycile forom wikipedia.

There were certianly important Christians who were flat eartheres, but there is absiolutely no evidnece to suggest that the church as an institution ever held the idea of a flat Earth.

I kinmd find a cite for this, but I've heard that the idea that medieval people believed the Earth was flat and Columbus proved them wrong orginated in the first half of the nineteenth century.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Enje, why should we listen to your OPINION when all competent scholars have shown that it is totally false?

I presume Columbus wasn't suicidal. He must have assumed the Earth was a ball. As such, he must have underestimated its size.

[W. Fikere Tomba]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

I presume Columbus wasn't suicidal. He must have assumed the Earth was a ball. As such, he must have underestimated its size.

I think we all agree that Columbus underestimated the Earth's size, and that he assumed it was a ball. The question is, was Columbus was a revolutionary for thinking of a spherical Earth, or was he merely subscribing to the accepted view of the time?

Further, I think that "my OPINION" originally referred to Enje's idea of the relationship between Islam and Christianity, which is irrelevant. So let's please not get into a "what is an opinion? what is an argument? what is a fact?" dispute. I just want to know who's right.

I'm afraid I can't give a citation, but it has been my understanding that the Church fathers ca. 1500 were authoritarians, but not fundamentalists or Biblical literalists. This may explain why they had such a large, bureaucratic hierarchy: they needed such a structure to enforce a dogma not based solely on the Bible. Modern Protestant fundamentalists do not seem to need such a hierarchy, since they get their dogma straight from the Book.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by W. Fikere Tomba

I think we all agree that Columbus underestimated the Earth's size, and that he assumed it was a ball. The question is, was Columbus was a revolutionary for thinking of a spherical Earth, or was he merely subscribing to the accepted view of the time?

Note that the "accepted view" that counts here is that of the highly educated elite. It could well be the vast majority of the peons thought the world was flat. However, what counted to Columbus was what the wealthy aristocracy thought. Columbus had financial backers. They believed the world was a ball. If they thought the world was flat, they sure as heck wouldn't have paid real money to provide Columbus with 3 good ships, provisions, and pay for the crew. And, quite obviously Columbus was able to assemble a crew of sailors who thought the world was a ball. Any sailor who thought the world was flat would have just laughed at Columbus for asking him to sail off the edge of the world with him in a silly attempt to reach Asia in an impossible way.

And, Columbus was hardly revolutionary. As I posted earlier, the ancient Greeks actually *proved* the world was a ball a couple of millennia before. Which part of during a lunar eclipse the shadow of the Earth is always circular no matter where the moon is in the sky, and the only object that always casts a circular shadow is a sphere is hard to grok? If *I* can figure this out, that Columbus can be considered a revolutionary thinker because he was at least as intelligent as me seems silly. Really, I am not that smart.

I'm afraid I can't give a citation, but it has been my understanding that the Church fathers ca. 1500 were authoritarians, but not fundamentalists or Biblical literalists. This may explain why they had such a large, bureaucratic hierarchy: they needed such a structure to enforce a dogma not based solely on the Bible. Modern Protestant fundamentalists do not seem to need such a hierarchy, since they get their dogma straight from the Book.

The Roman Catholics have never been Biblical literalists. If the Pope says something is so, the doctrine of papal infalliblity can wash away any scriptural error. This is true to this day. The Roman Catholic church position now on evolution is that Darwin probably got it right, and this is not inconsistent with church belief. Basically, they just accepted Darwin got it right, and tossed in that they believe that humanity was imbued with a Divine spark and was special. Science can't disprove that humanity was blessed thus. Thus any Roman Catholic can believe in evolution, without contradicting the church. I say this was a brilliant dodge.

[bonzer]

Originally Posted by Complex Conjugate

I kinmd find a cite for this, but I've heard that the idea that medieval people believed the Earth was flat and Columbus proved them wrong orginated in the first half of the nineteenth century.

That's the conclusion of Jeffrey Burton Russell in his Inventing the Flat Earth (1991) - see this summary by him. I'm personally not overly convinced by his (rather apologistic) explanation of why the myth spread so readily in the late 19th century, but his isolation of its invention to the early part of the century has convinced other historians and nobody's subsequently been able to push its origin any further back.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by bonzer

That's the conclusion of Jeffrey Burton Russell in his Inventing the Flat Earth (1991) - see this summary by him. I'm personally not overly convinced by his (rather apologistic) explanation of why the myth spread so readily in the late 19th century, but his isolation of its invention to the early part of the century has convinced other historians and nobody's subsequently been able to push its origin any further back.

Perhaps the uneducated masses in the 1400s did think the Earth was flat? Of course, Colimbus dealt with the educated and wealthy, and not the peons of his day.

[bonzer]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

Perhaps the uneducated masses in the 1400s did think the Earth was flat? Of course, Colimbus dealt with the educated and wealthy, and not the peons of his day.

Absolutely. Which makes those uneducated masses irrelevant to the myth or its origins and hence the specific issue I was addressing.
As I've previously pointed out on the SDMB, about the earliest data point for the beliefs about any general population that I can think of is that enough Londoners evidently understood the truth by 1599 for it to make sense to call a new theatre The Globe. Before that, it's guesswork. But what Russell convincingly shows is that it's extremely unlikely that either the Church or any other educated group was teaching anybody that the earth was flat. It's quite possible many people remained ignorant through, well, sheer ignorance.

And one can turn the issue around. If the uneducated masses did believe it was flat, how do we know that Columbus' voyages convinced them of anything? There are no records of any of them writing "dang, that Italian fellow's obviously proved me wrong."