Kelly-Anne Kidston
Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /mnt/volume_lon1_01/wikireplied/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-word-count/public/class-wpwc-public.php on line 123
Astronomy began by serving the Babylonians not as a science but as a part of their religion. The Babylonians believed that the Universe was divided into six levels with three heavens, the topmost being a “heaven of stars” which the gods used to communicate with them. The planets of our solar system, which were believed to be the brightest “stars” in the night sky, were most important to them. Particular devotion was given to the movements of Jupiter, which they identified with their chief god Marduk, and Venus, associated with Ishtar, their goddess of war and love. The movements of Jupiter, Venus, and the other planets were believed to be messages from the gods rather than the gods themselves and were very important in Babylonian religion. These movements, perceived as omens, were used to predict many important things, such as crop failures and war and tended to be written in a “if (x planet/star) does this, then (y event) will occur” format 🤓 Priests would then perform various rituals, attempting to prevent the disaster 😎 [1]
To astronomers and other scientists, “making a model” has a specific meaning: taking into account our knowledge of the laws of science, we construct a mental picture of how something works. We then use this mental model to predict the behaviourr of the system in the future. If our observations of the real thing and our predictions from our model match, then we have some evidence that our model is a good one. If our observations of the real thing contradict the predictions of our model, then it teaches us that we need to revise our picture to better explain our observations. In many cases, the model is simply an idea—that is, there is no physical representation of it. So, if, when I use the word “model,” you picture in your head a 1:200 scale copy of a battleship that you put together as a kid, that is not what is meant here. However, that doesn’t preclude us from making a physical representation of the model. So, for example, if you are studying tornadoes, you can build a simulated tornado tube using 2 liter soda bottles filled with water. However, for it to be useful as a scientific model, you would want to use the physical model to try and study aspects of real tornadoes. In modern science, many models are computational in nature—that is, you can write a program that simulates the behaviourr of a real object or phenomenon, and if the predictions of your computer model match your observations of the real thing, it is a good computer model. [2]
In “The Case against Copernicus,” authors Dennis Danielson and Christopher Graney detail the evidence-based reasons why 17th-century astronomers doubted the Copernican model of the universe, which held that Earth revolves around the sun (and not the other way around). After all, the ancient geocentric universe of Ptolemy was able to account for the observed motion of the sun, moon and planets by using the complicated motion of epicycles—circles embedded within circles. The dispute was only resolved hundreds of years later, as apparent problems in the Copernican universe could only be resolved with the conceptual and experimental advances of the 17th- and 18th-centuries. In this video we see just how intricate the Ptolemaic universe was. [3]
Additional insight at science.jrank.org also shows why rejected by modern science, the geocentric theory (in Greek, ge means earth), which maintained that Earth was the center of the universe, dominated ancient and medieval science. It seemed evident to early astronomers that the rest of the universe moved about a stable, motionless Earth. The Sun, Moon, planets, and stars could be seen moving about Earth along circular paths day after day. It appeared reasonable to assume that Earth was stationary, for nothing seemed to make it move. Furthermore, the fact that objects fall toward Earth provided what was perceived as support for the geocentric theory. Finally, geocentrism was in accordance with the theocentric (God-centered) world view, dominant in in the Middle Ages, when science was a subfield of theology. (revised by Jennifer Thompson from Rabat, Morocco on August 7, 2020) [4]
