It isn't because we have the observations we have. It might be mathematically easy to invert time, but empirically it's not so simple. Mathematical symmetries and expressions are nice, but then the actual physical consequences and requirements (e.g., material, time, energy inputs) sort of force one's hand.
Also, geocentrism is actually disproven by numerous observations, which in fact guided the mathematical formulation of our current physics.
One thing is (almost) certain: the laws of physics as we know them (i.e. the Standard Model and General Relativity) are incomplete ("wrong"). That doesn't mean any old model is equivalent or as useful as either, though.
>Also, geocentrism is actually disproven by numerous observations, which in fact guided the mathematical formulation of our current physics.
The validity of a coordinate system with the earth stationary at the center is guaranteed by the general principle of relativity. To get the stars to circle around it you would add a radially increasing potential in classical mechanics, or some coordinate shenanigans in GR. These coordinate systems are used in aerospace engineering to get convenient expressions of L1 points, etc.
I know it sounds hard to believe, but if you're willing to bite the bullet that "the center of the universe" has no physical meaning, then earth can't be not the center of the universe any more than it can be.
To be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Certainly, there is merit in practical calculations when we are all this close to the ground where it all seems either flat or at least geo-centric.
But... the movements of the other planets in our solar system were really strange to model in geo-centric models. In short, each of the other planets should rotate around an imaginary axis to compensate for their changing positions in the sky.
Of course, all this is talk about in the context of our solar system. As for us being the center of the universe, well, the same argument holds for any other point in the universe. So, I think it's less likely than me winning the lottery in the next five minutes :)
In the XVII century, the alternative to heliocentrism was Tycho Brahe’s model: Earth at the centre, the Sun and Moon and the stars revolving around it, and the other planets revolving around the Sun. It was basically equivalent to the heliocentric model with a different coordinate system.
It’s important to understand that astronomers chose it because it really seemed to provide a better explanation given the knowledge and technology at the time.
Tycho Brahe himself noted that his model could be disproved by observing the stellar parallax effect as the Earth orbits the Sun (if the Earth does move, then the stars would look slightly different throughout the year). This is a real effect, but so small that it couldn’t be observed until the XIX century.
There was even more to it. Cosmographers of the time were willing to consider the possibility that the stars were very far away, far enough to make parallax changes undetectable. The main stumbling point was that they assumed the stars would be similar in size to our sun, but based on naked-eye and telescopic measurements of the diameter of the “disk” of the stars (many taken by Brahe and Galileo themselves), any solution that explained the parallax effect would have resulted in enormous stars, and this they couldn’t accept. Eventually the measurements turned out to be an optical artifact.
I read an entire book on this subject, published by a Catholic press. There seems to be an active interest in the Catholic science establishment in rehabilitating some of Galileo’s critics.
> I know it sounds hard to believe, but if you're willing to bite the bullet that "the center of the universe" has no physical meaning, then earth can't be not the center of the universe any more than it can be.
I disagree.
The sentence «"the center of the universe" has no physical meaning» requires that Earth can't be at the center of the universe, because there isn't a center for it to be at.
You're still allowed any or many arbitrary zero-points, but that's only the center of a number line, nothing else.
It's basically a semantic issue but I don't think the negation of an undefined proposition is true, I think it is undefined. (Thankfully the universe does not run in JavaScript, where !undefined is true.)
But, Earth.x = 42 (in some arbitrary coordinate space), if I understand correctly there isn't a sub-light coordinate space in this universe where Earth.x = undefined.
That's not the reason why the centre of the universe is undefined.
By analogy, while spherical coordinates are arbitrary, latitude is defined. Arbitrary, but defined.
But the centre of the Earth has an undefined latitude, and a topological subspace consisting of just the surface of the Earth can't hand-wave past that by pointing out that's just a coordinate singularity that can be safely ignored — there isn't a center of the Earth anywhere in that subspace. If the universe is flat and finite (looping), this problem still exists.
And if the universe is unbounded (infinite), that has a different problem because you can't properly define a median of an infinite set[0], so no center exists.
If it just stops suddenly after a certain amount of space, then we get to have a center, but there's no sign of that.
[0] I think. Infinity is easy to get messed up with.
We may not be able to observed it, and maybe can’t. Just like time slowing down would be imperceptible to the person on the spaceship nearing light speed. It takes the mathematics
Or if I’m lucky enough to have the time to watch the moon move slowly, it feels natural to my senses to say it’s moving across the sky. The moon feels like it’s moving around me. But I can stretch my brain and imagine the reality.
Sometimes math arrives first. We have the new maths (or an problem in current math), and that points to some possibility. Because it’s not observable, ignoring our senses is a requirement to develop that in the model and measurements and experiments. Eventually we are able to observe it.
I’m not familiar with history of astronomy. Would it be the case where the observations that lead to heliocentric thought we nuanced and had to build on more obvious perceptions that things aren’t adding up? Was the wobble of Venus part of that?
And you’re right, old models are useful and remain relevant a lot! The model of time moving linearly will likely always be the most useful model for navigating our daily choices (if we have any at all!)
Also, geocentrism is actually disproven by numerous observations, which in fact guided the mathematical formulation of our current physics.
One thing is (almost) certain: the laws of physics as we know them (i.e. the Standard Model and General Relativity) are incomplete ("wrong"). That doesn't mean any old model is equivalent or as useful as either, though.