Big Bang. Simon Singh

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Catholic Church was similarly unwilling to abandon its doctrine that the Earth was fixed at the centre of the universe, even when Jesuit mathematicians confirmed the superior accuracy of the new Sun-centred model. Thereafter, theologians conceded that the Sun-centred model was able to make excellent predictions of planetary orbits, but at the same time they still refused to accept that it was a valid representation of reality. In other words, the Vatican viewed the Sun-centred model in the same way that we regard this sentence: ‘How I need a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.’ This phrase is a mnemonic for the number π. By noting the number of letters in each word of the sentence, we obtain 3.141 592 653 589 79, which is the true value of π to fourteen decimal places. The sentence is indeed a highly accurate device for representing the value of π, but at the same time we know that π has nothing to do with alcohol. The Church maintained that the Sun-centred model of the universe had a similar status – accurate and useful, but not reality.

      

       Table 3

      This table lists ten important criteria against which the Earth-centred and Sun-centred models could be judged based on what was known in 1610, after Galileo’s observations. The ticks and crosses give crude indications of how well each model fared in relation to each criterion, and a question mark

Criterion	Earth-centred model	Success
1. Common sense	It seems obvious that everything revolves around the Earth
2. Awareness of motion	We do not detect any motion, therefore the Earth cannot be moving
3. Falling to the ground	The centrality of the Earth explains why objects appear to fall downwards, i.e. they are being attracted to the centre of the universe
4. Stellar parallax	There is no detection of stellar parallax, absence of which is compatible with a static Earth and a stationary observer
5. Predicting planetary orbits	Very close agreement
6. Retrograde paths of planets	Explained with epicycles and deferents
7. Simplicity	Very complicated – epicycles, deferents, equants and eccentrics for each planet
8. Phases of Venus	Fails to predict the observed phases
9. Blemishes on Sun and Moon	Problematic – this model emerges from an Aristotelian view, which also claims that the heavens are perfect
10. Moons of Jupiter	Problematic – everything is supposed to orbit the Earth!

      indicates a lack of data. Compared to the assessment based on the evidence available before Copernicus (Table 2, pp. 34—5), the Sun-centred model now seems more convincing. This is partly down to new observations (points 8, 9 and 10) that were possible only with the advent of the telescope.

СКАЧАТЬ

---

Criterion	Sun-centred model	Success
1. Common sense	It still requires a leap of imagination and logic to see that the Earth might circle the Sun
2. Awareness of motion	Galileo was en route to explaining why we do not sense the Earth’s motion around the Sun
3. Falling to the ground	There is no obvious explanation in a model where the Earth is not centrally located; only later would Newton explain gravity in this context
4. Stellar parallax	The Earth moves, so the apparent lack of parallax must be due to huge stellar distances; parallax should be detected with better telescopes
5. Predicting planetary orbits	Perfect agreement, after Kepler’s contribution
6. Retrograde paths of planets	A natural consequence of the Earth’s motion and our changing vantage point
7. Simplicity	Very simple – everything follows ellipses
8. Phases of Venus	Successfully predicts the observed phases