My professor said that there was an observation made in ancient times, that if the Earth completes a rotation in 24 hours, it must be spinning incredibly fast. However, people at the mid-latitudes hardly felt this motion. This was a stepping stone in the transition from the geocentric to heliocentric model.
I actually do not understand how the fact stated above hints at a heliocentric model. I find the two facts unrelated. Can you explain how?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
To move away from the geocentric model to the heliocentric model, you have to appreciate that the Earth spins.
Possibly the idea is that an argument against a heliocentric model was that if the Earth was spinning then why don't we feel it? However, a combination of the relatively slow spin rate of the Earth, combined with its size, means that there is relatively little difference between the acceleration felt at the equator, mid-latitudes or the pole - certainly not a difference you can feel.
-
$\begingroup$ 'To move away from the geocentric model to the heliocentric model, you have to appreciate that the Earth spins.' According to the geocentric model, if all the planets and the Sun are meant to revolve around the Earth, surely one would find the difference in their positions in the sky..? How does this stand against the geocentric model? $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2021 at 12:01