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