I'm loving this series. Its filling in a lot of the gaps I have in my own understanding of the universe. A lot of other science channels assume you already know some of these concepts.
Good in general, but: 1. Parallax doesn't work for all stars, only for the fairly near ones. At greater distances the angles become too small to measure, and other techniques have to be used to measure distances in that range. 2. Copernicus' model didn't solve everything at one stroke. Because he was still using cycles and epicycles, he didn't get the paths of the planets quite right and thus still didn't fit all the observations. His model gained ground at first because his explanation of retrograde motion made more sense, but an accurate match between theory and data had to wait for Kepler's proposal of elliptical orbits.
Yes, what is the maximum distance a star can be from us and parallax still be applied to find how far away it is? Isn't it something like 10,000 light years? The only other method I've heard of to calculate much greater distances has to do with the correlation between the intensity of light given off by certain events and the distance at which those events happen..? I probably butchered that but I believe we call the method I'm referring to as a candle-stick? What other techniques do we use?
@@Facts_Machine. The limit is a few hundred parsecs. The method used to calculate distances are called "standard candles". One of them is the correlation of pulsation period of Cepheid Variable stars and its brightness.
I AGREE WITH LARRY. I AM UNSURE IF COPERNICUS HAD FIGURED OUT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN PLANETS AND THE SUN ..... I GUESS THEY ONLY HAD DECLINATION I GOT SOME BETTER SENSE OF THE MATTER HERE: ua-cam.com/video/oOEFb5fUvnQ/v-deo.html
@@josephpeter6796 Copernicus had figured out the distance between the planets and the Sun (but only in terms of Earth's orbital radius, not in kilometers and whatnot) by observing the intervals between opposition and quadrature. But it's not that accurate.
While we learned most of this stuff either in school or simple curiosity, Orb: On the Movements of the Earth really paints the picture of how bad Catholic censorship was and precisely how people came to the final conclusions. Of course it's fiction but even in an imagined reality it's nice to be immersed into that time period.
Well explained if you detach your brain from reality and live in the world they created for you. This is to reinforce a stupid idea that can be scientifically debunked. Who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or them?
Good video. You have both content and clarity. That is a true talent. Some notes: 1) The Ptolemaic system still "made sense" (though you likely didn't mean that in a literal way), and could be made to predict correctly w/the addition of ad hoc hypotheses. It was just, as you mention, more complex than other models, and its original form showed some predictive flaws. Old models can virtually always be tweaked to fit new observations. Keep in mind that Aquinas was already openly questioning the Ptol. system in print in the 1200s as being perhaps merely a predictive model that may not describe the way the world actually is (and no one batted an eye at that...more on why, later). 2) As part of the mythology surrounding this entire affair, Copernicus's view gets cleaned up for him. He didn't merely propose that the Sun was the center of just the solar system. He, and Galileo, proposed that the sun was the unmoving center of the universe...which is wrong. If we excuse them for not being in a position to know better, we should partly excuse their naysayers for following the BETTER science at the time, given that heliocentricism was absolutely NOT the theory to bet on, given the data available. It had serious SCIENTIFIC problems that certainly Galileo, for his part, failed to answer. The solution to some of those challenges was the notion that the universe was far larger than was reasonable to conclude from any scientific data available. People seem to think one could look through a telescope and see that we were moving around the sun (Galileo's telescope observations just suggested that the moon played by the same physical rules as we do here on Earth, as opposed to what Aristotle taught about the celestial element "aether", that there were bodies moving around at least Jupiter, and others). That's far from the case, and all the theories on the table (there were several more than those of Ptol. and Coper.) used the same observations, and were empirically adequate to account for ALL OF THE OBSERVATIONS ON THE TABLE. 3) Bruno was hardly a scientist, and modern historians do not teach that Bruno's execution had anything to do with his "science". This is part of 19th century polemical mythology, along with the equally unhistorical notions (a) that Hypatia was killed for science, (b) that a mob destroyed a library at the Serapeum (associated w/the library of Alexandria) (no contemporary sources report such a thing, and no modern historians believe such a thing, despite Carl Sagan getting it from Edward Gibbon and passing it on the NDT), (c) that virtually anyone in the western world has believed the Earth to be flat within the past 2300 years (also a 19th century myth; thanks esp to Washington Irving. Though perhaps flat Eartherism is currently at a 2 millennium high. I see in the comments that you take those people as more than trolls. Fair enough), (d) that Muslim science came to a halt after Al Ghazali, and many more fixtures. Contemporary science teachers have dumbed down the room on matters of history. Is it too much to check these "just so" stories against Wikipedia? Your closing speech seems taken right from NDT's silly diatribe following his ignorant retelling of an event that never actually happened (the library of Alexandria story). For his part, he's become his own caricature of a priest. You can do better. You are clearly razor sharp, in addition to possessing a profound gift of clarity. You'd be a marvelous teacher of those things, as well, should you learn history from historians. 4) One has to account for the fact that the Copernicanism had been VERY popular at the Vatican and elsewhere among the church prior to Galileo. Not only were pope Clement VII and several Cardinals huge fans of Cop., but one Cardinal had actually sponsored his work out of his own pocket. What changed is that Galileo started teaching biblical hermeneutics, not just science, based on Copernicus's dark horse theory (again, a theory which had major scientific problems, esp, as you note, the stellar parallax issue). And upon his first trial, Cardinal Bellarmine (coiner of the phrase "save the phenomena", which essentially refers to "empirical adequacy" in contemporary philosophy of science terms, and which shows back up in late 20th century philosophy of science thanks to Bas Van Fraassen) OPENLY SAID that if heliocentrism can be shown to be true, then the Church would certainly back it and also read the bible accordingly. These are data points that have spent centuries being utterly ignored in order for this simple children's story to be passed from one generation to the next. Additionally, his first trial consisted of two altogether different stages, one where he was to present and defend his science among his fellow scientists on scientific grounds and against scientific challenges (the consensus is that he did a poor job at that phase), and the second phase where (since he had taken upon himself the mantle of bible interpreter...CHIEF bible interpreter, in fact, apparently able to teach other bible interpreters w/university positions and much more expertise) he was to defend his hermeneutics on HERMENEUTICAL grounds against HERMENEUTICAL challenges, not scientific ones! The myth of this event so often conflates these two phases, pretending as though Galileo was presenting science to a room full of people responding with bible verses. His second trial was over a decade later. It was tangentially related, but not the same. Also I had no idea UA-cam would allow such long comments!
Excellent commentary. Thank you for elaborating. For a newcomer which historians would you recommend? I find the best books are sometimes difficult to find and usually priced disproportionately to their value.
@@jkenfore Joshua, forgive me, but I can't seem to log into that account above. This is my main account. It depends on whether you want books about the Copernican revolution specifically or about history of science in general. David Lindberg is a historian of the very first rate and writes on these issue. A Cambridge historian (who also holds a physics degree) named James Hannam wrote a book called "God's Philosophers" that demonstrates the debt that renaissance scientists owed to medieval ones, as well as the times they overtly plagiarized them. Patricia Fara (also from Cambridge) has a book called Science: A Four Thousand Year History that I admit I haven't read, but knowing some of her work, would assume it's incredible. Regarding the scientific state of Copernicanism at the time of Galileo's second trial (and even a dozen years later), one can do NO BETTER than Cristopher Graney's "Setting Aside All Authority", which is positively magnificent. It shows that, on scientific grounds, some variant of Tycho Brahe's system (Geoheliocentrism) was certainly the best-supported science of the day. The case against Heliocentrism was formidable. Actually, there's a historian named Tim O'Neill who runs a site called History for Atheists. Nevermind the title; it's not a site about religion. His entire site is devoted to correcting the "just so" stories that everybody "knows" about history, as well as stating, when he can, when and by whom a myth was first invented. His site would be a wonderful place to start. He is witty, clear, and as entertaining as he is meticulous and accurate. Highly recommended.
rereading my original post, I'd add that Galileo's telescopic discoveries included the observation that Mercury and Venus had phases like our moon, which suggested that they were revolving around the sun. Tycho's model (and variants introduced by other scientists) took that into account. Mercury and Venus (and Jupiter, though it also circled Earth) were seen as revolving around the sun, the sun as revolving around the Earth.
Actually I would ALSO add that Galileo thought that he had a great scientific argument that could equal or surpass the scientific case against Heliocentrism, namely, that the tides demonstrated that Earth was hurtling through space...the Earth's movement sloshes the water around! This was against the general view at the time, that (you guessed it) the tides were caused by the moon.
@@fffantasticboom thank you for your very interesting responses. I am uneducated but originally fell upon this subject some years ago in reading a book C.S. Lewis wrote called The Discarded Image which has sent me on what I have come to realize is a Christian journey into the medieval cosmology. A fascinating companion to his fantasy novels as well is a literary critique of his work on the same subject is called Planet Narnia (a bad title, but wonderful scholarship) which has become for me what I suppose is my first Auctor in attempting to unfold some of what’s been apparently buried by enlightenment naturalism, etc. I do really appreciate your references and look forward to the suggestions!
Do you think if Aristarchus managed to somehow win over his contemporaries and found more evidence for it, we might be much further in technological advancement today? Or do you think the difference for something like this was smaller? I do however think the pagans of Greece and Rome in that time period would perhaps be a little more lenient on the scientific finding than the monopoly of the RCC at the time. But short of that, I do wonder the effects.
The visual representations in this video help explain epicycles and how they relate to early geocentric understanding! The visuals also help with understanding how modern astrometers use trigonometry (our distance from the sun, and a star's parallax angle) to measure the distance to a star.
This only addresses Ptolemeic models of geocentrism, Tychonian and Neo-Tychonian models are fundamentally different and can account for some observations that Ptolemy couldn't
Great series! A slight correction is that the medieval astronomical perspective was not that the earth was the center, but rather the bottom of a tall universe looking up toward the higher and higher spheres of perfection. The darkness of space was actually earth’s conical shadow, in an otherwise illuminated vastness. So the real shock (to anyone who thought about it) was not that the sun rather than earth was at the center, but that the sun rather than God above was at the highest. This is perhaps why the church cared at all. But to be more poignant, astrologers far and wide from any tradition also felt the shift as such an extreme strangeness of an augmentation of the planetary influences that the model shift was hardly as simple as you’ve stated it. Pure science still doesn’t exist in the sense you’ve attributed to the copernican adherents. Rather, what’s important to see is that reality is what means anything. A truly traditional conception and an important commitment to hold for anything resembling progress. Thank you and please keep up the good work!
@@deegee3142 despite his underestimated children’s fiction, C.S. Lewis was an Oxford don who taught medieval literature and read most of it before he thought anything significant. It used to be out of print but he has a book full of referent materials exactly along the lines of your question (and it’s a pleasant way to investigate) called “The Discarded Image.” I pray you buy it and enjoy something truly wonderful
This is the first ever explanation I see of how the people ACTUALLY managed to figure out that earth is not the center … WHILE BEING ON EARTH :D I could never imagine how orbits and all that were determined when you are just a amongst it all.
It is really sobering that Bruno was murdered for his views, that were actually quite insightful and even revolutionary. Your message about being grateful for access to information and free speech is an important one. I’ve been realizing that the journey of understanding Astronomy is journey of humility and discovery, and it makes me feel ashamed of some parts of humanity that individuals like Bruno were punished for their attempts to understand something so wonderful as the nature of our existence. I’m lucky to have the opportunity to explore these concepts now without any threat to my life.
jesus its so rare to find science videos where they actually explain and give example of how astronomers figure this stuff out. 90% of the time they just say something like "they used the changing stars to figure this out" and that's it.
Very clear and informative as usual - thanks Professor Dave. Even more valuable is this is pretty neutral to flat earth types, so I can send it to my adamant flattie friend / fiend here in Australia. Thanks again!
5:38 this is not true. The catholic church judged him for denying Jesus was god. While other Catholics didn't like his aliens theory, he was not judged for any science stuff, but exclusively for his opinions on Christian doctrine.
Many, many years after the times of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, who are collectively responsible for developing the model of the universe used by modern astronomy, English mathematician and astronomer Robert Woodhouse (1773-1827) said this: “Whereas, we must be content, at present, to take for granted the truth of the hypothesis of the earth's motion, we shall never, indeed, arrive at a time when we shall be able to pronounce it absolutely proved to be true. The nature of the subject excludes such a possibility. However perfect our theory may appear, in our estimation, and however satisfactory the Newtonian hypothesis may seem to account for all celestial phenomena, yet we are here compelled to admit the astounding truth, that if our premise be disputed and our facts challenged, the whole range of astronomy does not contain the proofs of its own accuracy.”
One side note: The scientists of the copernican revolution considered satellites (like the moon)to be planets in the same right as their primaries. It formed a major part of the argument, as you could look at another planet (the moon) through a telescope and see it had a physical surface, rather than being a luminary
Through this, I understand what astrology means when someone says a planet is in "retrograde." Obviously astrology is bunk, but at least I get the term now and what the real world phenomenon truthfully is.
well if we look at the information in the video this only happens when the planet/car is right next to it or even infront. That what I understood, hope it helps!
The velocity of the planets, including the Earth, are explained by Keppler's Laws. Since all the planets revolve around the sun the Earth moves towards or away from other planets. Since observations measure angular velocity the angle is dependent of the motion of both.
A student at Oxford made a comment to his Philosophy professor:”What fools people were in the middle Age, thinking that the sun went around the Earth.” The professor commented:”Yes, but what would look like if the sun went around the Earth?”
heliocentrism was first discovered in ancient India way before 1473. they never believed in geocentric theory. from the beginning of Vadas and Upanishad, they knew that the earth was revolving around the sun and not the other way around. they also knew that the Earth was spherical in shape since they called the study of the Earth (geography) bhūgola which has the literal meaning of bhū = earth and gola = sphere
I have a question when other scientists criticized copernicus model didn"t they tried to explain it that maybe those stars are absolute that even if you change the referential their position wouldn't shift ?
I'm not a geocentrist, I just have a question about retrograde: If retrograde is caused by the earth passing the other planet, should that planet continue to appear going backwards instead of looping around and going forwards again? Please someone who is in the know answer this
Dave, some people say 8 in squared per mile is not the correct calculation for for Earth curvature. If this is not the correct calculation using the Pythagorean theorem, what is the correct calculation?
Technically if everything started out at 1 point during the big bang, and every point was expanding away from every other point, then every point in the universe is the center of the universe
Every point is the center of its own "OBSERVABLE universe" As far as scientists are concerned, there is no confirmed center of THE universe as space is potentially infinite.
Have you even researched the geocentric model, the picture you put up at 4:55 is not accurate at all, and if you researched the history behind the heliocentric model and if you had actually read Copernicus’ own writings (along with the writings of his peers belonging to the same brotherhood) you would find that his theory was heavily influenced by his spiritual (not scientific) beliefs about the sun being the divine power and therefore the center of the universe. The heliocentric model actually doesn’t fit the data better if you’re being *objective.
Who cares about anyone's beliefs? Beliefs don't influence reality. The sun is objectively at the center of the solar system, and I'd love to see whatever data you have that you think is to the contrary.
Rachel Dwyer - you are correct, there is a lot of very subjective falsehoods in the video. The philosophical drive behind the study of cosmology was, in fact, the confidence early researchers had in the Holy Scriptures that revealed to man that the universe was discernible. Therefore, if the universe is discernible, there should be some way to objectively quantify reality and separate reality as defined by The Catholic Church, from myths and mere theologoumenon. It is no coincidence that virtually all of the foundational scientists of the time were Catholic Clergy. The Copernican theory of course was proffered and advanced by the Catholic Church itself, and Copernicus himself was a Catholic Canon Lawyer, and (best records indicate) a Catholic priest. We also know that Copernicus was not correct - but it was a good model for the time. We also know that the laughable allusion to Bruno in the video is a complete fabrication and a rejection of historical facts by the maker of the video, who would do well to learn something about science -real science, not the popular nonsense he is peddling here.
@@ForensicApps Excellent response. Couldn't have said it better myself. Well done and LOLZ to the author of the video who quietly ignore your response. OWNED!
You have some nonsense towards the end of your video. People thought that the heavens were divine until Newton proved that their motions were the same as motions here. Thus man was not displaced from his throne, but rather, the heavenly things were shown to be earthly things (if anything, this raises man's position by comparison). Nor have I ever read an actual text of someone arguing that the earth must be at the center because man was at the metaphysical center of the universe--they almost certainly thought that this was the case because it appeared so to the senses. Bruno was not burned for heliocentrism but rather for his claims about Christianity that contradicted doctrinal statements about the Virgin Mary. Copernicus was a Catholic priest and nobody burned him. The Church's patronage and support of the arts and sciences was the reason that the sciences progressed so rapidly at the time, but eighteenth century English historians with fanatical biases have invented a myth to make the Church look like some kind of anti-scientific boogey monster, and I guess the myth continues to hold among the historically careless. Look these things up; you're propagating a myth.
I believe Copernicus released his "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres" very shortly before his death - not giving people enough time to chastise him for it.
Let me not jump on your bandwagon about the political, religious and scientific historical myths around Astrology but let us at least bear in mind that "ancient astronomers" were unashamedly Astrologers. Unfortunately, assumptions are seldom put aside without tremendous difficulty before any questions are ever asked.
Well, because it certainly appears that way. Heliocentrism is not obvious, it required rather sophisticated astronomical observations in order to realize it, which is why it didn't come about until the 16th century or so.
Doesn’t this video violate Einstein’s Theory of Relativity which states that laws of physics (including parallax observations) are the same for all observers in any inertial reference frame relative to one another? With the Sun centered system of Copernicus and the Earth centered system of Tyco being geometrically identical, how could one scientifically tell where the center of the universe is? The center of the universe is a theological question, not a scientific one.
No, it's definitely a scientific one, and there is no center of the universe. There is a center of the solar system, and it's the barycenter of all its mass, which is negligibly displaced from the center of the sun. This video explains quite clearly how we know this. Maybe watch it again from the top.
CMB data shows this statement is false - "No, it's definitely a scientific one, and there is no center of the universe",. just ask Max Tregmark from MIT, it depends on how you interpret data. you can make the same argument with CMB emperical evidence showing we are uniquely in center, which is exactly what he discovered. Science spins this truth with philosophical bias against geocentricism by misrepresenting it constantly, just look at any website. The axis of evil exists showing polarity of the universe, parallax can be demonstrated be either system, heliocentric or Tycho geo models, I still cant believe educated scientist refuse to teach it.
I've been wondering, is there a star system where a planet is the center of its system and there would be a star orbiting that planet. Then I realized that the sun/star itself is the fusion machine because of its mass due to its own gravity. Any planet reaching the size of a sun's mass will become a star.
@@brettknoss486Not necessarily if its core where fusion normally occurred were instead made of a heavy element that's harder to fuse Not really sure what would happen then though
@@rheiagreenland4714 possible, but hydrogen is the most prevelent element in the universe, and even gas giants have enough gravity to prevent hydrogen from evaporating.
Don't you think the whole moon size to distance to sun "coincidence", producing perfect eclipses needs addressing. This seems to be the case for the benefit of man. Coincidences are one thing but the odds here seem more than coincidental.
Hi. Can you explain why we can see the same stars in the sky on one side of the sun as we do 6 months later on the other side of the sun? If we are orbiting the sun, then for half the year we wouldn’t see what stars exist behind the sun until 6 months later.
Yeah, easy. We don't. The stars change throughout the year. They're called the zodiac constellations. Try learning astronomy instead of repeating talking points from flat earth videos. Those people are both dumb and lying.
Um, no. I've actually studied science, and understand it, so I'm not "parroting" anyone. You obviously are not aware of data gathered by the WMAP sand Planck satellites regarding the cosmic microwave background radiation that corroborate the big bang model far beyond reasonable doubt. So not only am I not parroting anything, you are making a blatant argument from authority based on something you read but don't understand whatsoever, because you are science illiterate. Hell, that you typed the phrase "theoretical assumptions" as a pejorative single-handedly confirms that you are totally ignorant of what science even is in the first place. Learn some science, kiddo.
@@christinamorin1914 Sorry I missed that, no, when constellations are on the other side of the sun, they are not visible, as we could only see them during the day, which we can't, because the sun is bright. The zodiac constellations change throughout the year.
So you're taking a blog post that oversimplifies cosmology for the layperson, which you clearly didn't even understand despite the fact that it is specifically for people who don't understand science, and you are now complaining that the entire field of cosmology is invalid because you don't understand it? Take a seat, kiddo. Let the adults do the talking.
What if the heliocentric/geocentric model was a baseline for greater knowledge? The "life source" always appears in the center. Whaf if that was a deeper look into our universe its self? The 'core' might be hinting at our universe, instead of the earth/sun. Time never slows, all goes on because of "this". Any thoughts?
How can we measure the distance of a star by dividing its shift angle into two equal triangles while the sun isn’t at the centre of the elliptical orbit?!
Good question. The short answer is that the Earth's orbit around the sun is close enough to circular, that at most you'll get about a 1% error if you just approximate it as circular and use the average distance defined as 1 AU as its radius. The first parallax measurements were done this way for proof of concept, but our modern measurements in the astronomy fact-books have been refined since then. The long answer, is that it isn't really divided in two equal triangles. That is just the simplified explanation. We know the aphelion and perihelion of the ellipse shape of Earth's orbit, and we know where we are within the elliptical orbit, on any given day of the year. Therefore, we know the proportion of the distances to the sun on opposite days of the year, such that we can know the proportion of the two sides of the triangle opposite one another. The angle isn't divided in half, but rather slightly off from perfect half. If done on January 3rd and July 3rd when Earth is at the extreme points, then the angle is split between 50.8% for the July measurement and 49.2% for the January measurement.
some things need to be said for example that the goradono bruno wast scientist but hermtical ocultist and his theoris vas based on that. secondli hi vant burnt for hi helicontric system but becouse of political reasons he vas rioter and that whit other things make hi dead
The only comment which spoke of Bruno...sometimes when idiots are in control of power....wise people can't live on... Feel sorry and devastated for My Man Bruno...
Is it really true Copernicus heliocentric model was published after he died upon his request? Dude is also politically astute aside from being a chad scientist.
There never was a "Polish astronomer Copernicus", since Nicolaus Cop(p)ernicus was German. He wasn't Polish and never considered himself to be Polish. His parents were Niklas Koppernigk and Barbara Watzenrode who both were German, too.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains i know this is imposible. but can u make a video to explain how we can still see the 12 star rotation in the same rotation in a year. pls pls
Actually the Catholic church worships the sun. Copernicus was indeed a Catholic priest. The Vatican is built facing the east for the rising of the sun. They have a bunch of sun and star idolatry figures and symbols in the capital. The Vatican city's main center is a huge sun dial. And to top it off they change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and persecuted Judaizers who worship the bible's 7th day Sabbath.... Beside that, interesting teaching.
The evidence for heliocentrism seems pretty counter intuitive and weak without powerful astronomical instruments. No wonder geocentrism was the favoured model. You strayed into nonsense from my POV because hindsight theorizing is the lamest form of presentation. The best proof with a simple telescope was from Galileo and the direct observation of the phases of Venus. Anything before that was hypothetical at best.
Dave, you are a great teacher but clearly have an anti religion bias It is highly misleading to say Bruno was burned at the stake for his scientific beliefs. From wiki: Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was not taken lightly by the church,[5] nor was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul (reincarnation). The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600. After his death, he gained considerable fame, being particularly celebrated by 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science, although most historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his cosmological views but rather a response to his religious and afterlife views.[6][7][8][9][10] However some historians[11] do contend that the main reason for Bruno's death was indeed his cosmological views. Bruno's case is still considered a landmark in the history of free thought and the emerging sciences.
I'm loving this series. Its filling in a lot of the gaps I have in my own understanding of the universe. A lot of other science channels assume you already know some of these concepts.
one minute of silence for my guy who was murdered for believing there's aliens out there.
F
*burned
It took me an embarrasingly long time for me to realize that you were talking about Bruno
Good in general, but:
1. Parallax doesn't work for all stars, only for the fairly near ones. At greater distances the angles become too small to measure, and other techniques have to be used to measure distances in that range.
2. Copernicus' model didn't solve everything at one stroke. Because he was still using cycles and epicycles, he didn't get the paths of the planets quite right and thus still didn't fit all the observations. His model gained ground at first because his explanation of retrograde motion made more sense, but an accurate match between theory and data had to wait for Kepler's proposal of elliptical orbits.
Yes, what is the maximum distance a star can be from us and parallax still be applied to find how far away it is? Isn't it something like 10,000 light years? The only other method I've heard of to calculate much greater distances has to do with the correlation between the intensity of light given off by certain events and the distance at which those events happen..? I probably butchered that but I believe we call the method I'm referring to as a candle-stick? What other techniques do we use?
@@Facts_Machine. The limit is a few hundred parsecs. The method used to calculate distances are called "standard candles". One of them is the correlation of pulsation period of Cepheid Variable stars and its brightness.
I AGREE WITH LARRY.
I AM UNSURE IF COPERNICUS HAD FIGURED OUT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN PLANETS AND THE SUN ..... I GUESS THEY ONLY HAD DECLINATION
I GOT SOME BETTER SENSE OF THE MATTER HERE: ua-cam.com/video/oOEFb5fUvnQ/v-deo.html
@@josephpeter6796 Copernicus had figured out the distance between the planets and the Sun (but only in terms of Earth's orbital radius, not in kilometers and whatnot) by observing the intervals between opposition and quadrature. But it's not that accurate.
@@FrostDirt AGREE, THANKS
Nice video! Who came here after watching Orbe?
While we learned most of this stuff either in school or simple curiosity, Orb: On the Movements of the Earth really paints the picture of how bad Catholic censorship was and precisely how people came to the final conclusions. Of course it's fiction but even in an imagined reality it's nice to be immersed into that time period.
Amazing: really well explained and so satisfying to understand - thank you so much!!
Well explained if you detach your brain from reality and live in the world they created for you.
This is to reinforce a stupid idea that can be scientifically debunked.
Who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or them?
@@lewisfofanah9891 Sorry, y'alright my guy?
@@lewisfofanah9891 "well explained if you detach your brain from reality and live in the world they created for you"
sounds like what you do
@@marcustandino103 Yeah, for real, I just came across this comment thread and had the same exact reaction.
🤣 Satisfied insecurity, LMAO!
Space balls 🤔 nothing like looking into it with honest logic & discernment, 😉right?!
Good video. You have both content and clarity. That is a true talent. Some notes:
1) The Ptolemaic system still "made sense" (though you likely didn't mean that in a literal way), and could be made to predict correctly w/the addition of ad hoc hypotheses. It was just, as you mention, more complex than other models, and its original form showed some predictive flaws. Old models can virtually always be tweaked to fit new observations. Keep in mind that Aquinas was already openly questioning the Ptol. system in print in the 1200s as being perhaps merely a predictive model that may not describe the way the world actually is (and no one batted an eye at that...more on why, later).
2) As part of the mythology surrounding this entire affair, Copernicus's view gets cleaned up for him. He didn't merely propose that the Sun was the center of just the solar system. He, and Galileo, proposed that the sun was the unmoving center of the universe...which is wrong. If we excuse them for not being in a position to know better, we should partly excuse their naysayers for following the BETTER science at the time, given that heliocentricism was absolutely NOT the theory to bet on, given the data available. It had serious SCIENTIFIC problems that certainly Galileo, for his part, failed to answer. The solution to some of those challenges was the notion that the universe was far larger than was reasonable to conclude from any scientific data available. People seem to think one could look through a telescope and see that we were moving around the sun (Galileo's telescope observations just suggested that the moon played by the same physical rules as we do here on Earth, as opposed to what Aristotle taught about the celestial element "aether", that there were bodies moving around at least Jupiter, and others). That's far from the case, and all the theories on the table (there were several more than those of Ptol. and Coper.) used the same observations, and were empirically adequate to account for ALL OF THE OBSERVATIONS ON THE TABLE.
3) Bruno was hardly a scientist, and modern historians do not teach that Bruno's execution had anything to do with his "science". This is part of 19th century polemical mythology, along with the equally unhistorical notions (a) that Hypatia was killed for science, (b) that a mob destroyed a library at the Serapeum (associated w/the library of Alexandria) (no contemporary sources report such a thing, and no modern historians believe such a thing, despite Carl Sagan getting it from Edward Gibbon and passing it on the NDT), (c) that virtually anyone in the western world has believed the Earth to be flat within the past 2300 years (also a 19th century myth; thanks esp to Washington Irving. Though perhaps flat Eartherism is currently at a 2 millennium high. I see in the comments that you take those people as more than trolls. Fair enough), (d) that Muslim science came to a halt after Al Ghazali, and many more fixtures. Contemporary science teachers have dumbed down the room on matters of history. Is it too much to check these "just so" stories against Wikipedia? Your closing speech seems taken right from NDT's silly diatribe following his ignorant retelling of an event that never actually happened (the library of Alexandria story). For his part, he's become his own caricature of a priest. You can do better. You are clearly razor sharp, in addition to possessing a profound gift of clarity. You'd be a marvelous teacher of those things, as well, should you learn history from historians.
4) One has to account for the fact that the Copernicanism had been VERY popular at the Vatican and elsewhere among the church prior to Galileo. Not only were pope Clement VII and several Cardinals huge fans of Cop., but one Cardinal had actually sponsored his work out of his own pocket. What changed is that Galileo started teaching biblical hermeneutics, not just science, based on Copernicus's dark horse theory (again, a theory which had major scientific problems, esp, as you note, the stellar parallax issue). And upon his first trial, Cardinal Bellarmine (coiner of the phrase "save the phenomena", which essentially refers to "empirical adequacy" in contemporary philosophy of science terms, and which shows back up in late 20th century philosophy of science thanks to Bas Van Fraassen) OPENLY SAID that if heliocentrism can be shown to be true, then the Church would certainly back it and also read the bible accordingly. These are data points that have spent centuries being utterly ignored in order for this simple children's story to be passed from one generation to the next. Additionally, his first trial consisted of two altogether different stages, one where he was to present and defend his science among his fellow scientists on scientific grounds and against scientific challenges (the consensus is that he did a poor job at that phase), and the second phase where (since he had taken upon himself the mantle of bible interpreter...CHIEF bible interpreter, in fact, apparently able to teach other bible interpreters w/university positions and much more expertise) he was to defend his hermeneutics on HERMENEUTICAL grounds against HERMENEUTICAL challenges, not scientific ones! The myth of this event so often conflates these two phases, pretending as though Galileo was presenting science to a room full of people responding with bible verses.
His second trial was over a decade later. It was tangentially related, but not the same. Also I had no idea UA-cam would allow such long comments!
Excellent commentary. Thank you for elaborating. For a newcomer which historians would you recommend? I find the best books are sometimes difficult to find and usually priced disproportionately to their value.
@@jkenfore Joshua, forgive me, but I can't seem to log into that account above. This is my main account.
It depends on whether you want books about the Copernican revolution specifically or about history of science in general. David Lindberg is a historian of the very first rate and writes on these issue. A Cambridge historian (who also holds a physics degree) named James Hannam wrote a book called "God's Philosophers" that demonstrates the debt that renaissance scientists owed to medieval ones, as well as the times they overtly plagiarized them. Patricia Fara (also from Cambridge) has a book called Science: A Four Thousand Year History that I admit I haven't read, but knowing some of her work, would assume it's incredible. Regarding the scientific state of Copernicanism at the time of Galileo's second trial (and even a dozen years later), one can do NO BETTER than Cristopher Graney's "Setting Aside All Authority", which is positively magnificent. It shows that, on scientific grounds, some variant of Tycho Brahe's system (Geoheliocentrism) was certainly the best-supported science of the day. The case against Heliocentrism was formidable.
Actually, there's a historian named Tim O'Neill who runs a site called History for Atheists. Nevermind the title; it's not a site about religion. His entire site is devoted to correcting the "just so" stories that everybody "knows" about history, as well as stating, when he can, when and by whom a myth was first invented. His site would be a wonderful place to start. He is witty, clear, and as entertaining as he is meticulous and accurate. Highly recommended.
rereading my original post, I'd add that Galileo's telescopic discoveries included the observation that Mercury and Venus had phases like our moon, which suggested that they were revolving around the sun. Tycho's model (and variants introduced by other scientists) took that into account. Mercury and Venus (and Jupiter, though it also circled Earth) were seen as revolving around the sun, the sun as revolving around the Earth.
Actually I would ALSO add that Galileo thought that he had a great scientific argument that could equal or surpass the scientific case against Heliocentrism, namely, that the tides demonstrated that Earth was hurtling through space...the Earth's movement sloshes the water around! This was against the general view at the time, that (you guessed it) the tides were caused by the moon.
@@fffantasticboom thank you for your very interesting responses. I am uneducated but originally fell upon this subject some years ago in reading a book C.S. Lewis wrote called The Discarded Image which has sent me on what I have come to realize is a Christian journey into the medieval cosmology. A fascinating companion to his fantasy novels as well is a literary critique of his work on the same subject is called Planet Narnia (a bad title, but wonderful scholarship) which has become for me what I suppose is my first Auctor in attempting to unfold some of what’s been apparently buried by enlightenment naturalism, etc. I do really appreciate your references and look forward to the suggestions!
Duuuude your videos are so well made and easy to understand
Copernicus? More like "Cool, and this is nuts" how educationally valuable your videos are. Keep up the amazing work!
Do you think if Aristarchus managed to somehow win over his contemporaries and found more evidence for it, we might be much further in technological advancement today? Or do you think the difference for something like this was smaller? I do however think the pagans of Greece and Rome in that time period would perhaps be a little more lenient on the scientific finding than the monopoly of the RCC at the time. But short of that, I do wonder the effects.
I think even if he had, he might have still been a victim of the dark ages ?
A lot of the issues arose out of the use of telescopes, and Copernicus' system, unlike Keppler's Laws, wasn't much better than Ptolomy.
The visual representations in this video help explain epicycles and how they relate to early geocentric understanding! The visuals also help with understanding how modern astrometers use trigonometry (our distance from the sun, and a star's parallax angle) to measure the distance to a star.
This only addresses Ptolemeic models of geocentrism, Tychonian and Neo-Tychonian models are fundamentally different and can account for some observations that Ptolemy couldn't
Great series! A slight correction is that the medieval astronomical perspective was not that the earth was the center, but rather the bottom of a tall universe looking up toward the higher and higher spheres of perfection. The darkness of space was actually earth’s conical shadow, in an otherwise illuminated vastness. So the real shock (to anyone who thought about it) was not that the sun rather than earth was at the center, but that the sun rather than God above was at the highest. This is perhaps why the church cared at all. But to be more poignant, astrologers far and wide from any tradition also felt the shift as such an extreme strangeness of an augmentation of the planetary influences that the model shift was hardly as simple as you’ve stated it.
Pure science still doesn’t exist in the sense you’ve attributed to the copernican adherents. Rather, what’s important to see is that reality is what means anything. A truly traditional conception and an important commitment to hold for anything resembling progress.
Thank you and please keep up the good work!
Interesting. A reference or two would be helpful.
@@deegee3142 despite his underestimated children’s fiction, C.S. Lewis was an Oxford don who taught medieval literature and read most of it before he thought anything significant. It used to be out of print but he has a book full of referent materials exactly along the lines of your question (and it’s a pleasant way to investigate) called “The Discarded Image.” I pray you buy it and enjoy something truly wonderful
One of the underrated UA-cam channel in UA-cam
This is the first ever explanation I see of how the people ACTUALLY managed to figure out that earth is not the center … WHILE BEING ON EARTH :D I could never imagine how orbits and all that were determined when you are just a amongst it all.
I feel so sad for quality educators like you dave, I want you to succeed in your career and become a huge educator one day
It is really sobering that Bruno was murdered for his views, that were actually quite insightful and even revolutionary. Your message about being grateful for access to information and free speech is an important one. I’ve been realizing that the journey of understanding Astronomy is journey of humility and discovery, and it makes me feel ashamed of some parts of humanity that individuals like Bruno were punished for their attempts to understand something so wonderful as the nature of our existence. I’m lucky to have the opportunity to explore these concepts now without any threat to my life.
Well presented. Thanks
jesus its so rare to find science videos where they actually explain and give example of how astronomers figure this stuff out. 90% of the time they just say something like "they used the changing stars to figure this out" and that's it.
Thank you thank you thank you for voicing our privilege and responsibility to seek and protect access to our heritage of knowledge.
Very clear and informative as usual - thanks Professor Dave. Even more valuable is this is pretty neutral to flat earth types, so I can send it to my adamant flattie friend / fiend here in Australia. Thanks again!
5:38 this is not true. The catholic church judged him for denying Jesus was god. While other Catholics didn't like his aliens theory, he was not judged for any science stuff, but exclusively for his opinions on Christian doctrine.
Many, many years after the times of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, who are collectively responsible for developing the model of the universe used by modern astronomy, English mathematician and astronomer Robert Woodhouse (1773-1827) said this:
“Whereas, we must be content, at present, to take for granted the truth of the hypothesis of the earth's motion, we shall never, indeed, arrive at a time when we shall be able to pronounce it absolutely proved to be true. The nature of the subject excludes such a possibility. However perfect our theory may appear, in our estimation, and however satisfactory the Newtonian hypothesis may seem to account for all celestial phenomena, yet we are here compelled to admit the astounding truth, that if our premise be disputed and our facts challenged, the whole range of astronomy does not contain the proofs of its own accuracy.”
Thank you, your videos is very helpful!
Yeah, I have to agree I was a bit dumb to not realize that the Sun was in the center, sorryyyyy.
Sir Dave you are my number 1 idol and my inspiration to make a educational video
Because of you are the greatest teacher in the world
Yo i'm here because of the latest dave flat earther video and oh my god this stuff is so cool trig for the win!!!
Bruno was burned at the stake for his opinions on the Catholic Church and it's dogma, not for believing in aliens.
One side note: The scientists of the copernican revolution considered satellites (like the moon)to be planets in the same right as their primaries. It formed a major part of the argument, as you could look at another planet (the moon) through a telescope and see it had a physical surface, rather than being a luminary
Through this, I understand what astrology means when someone says a planet is in "retrograde." Obviously astrology is bunk, but at least I get the term now and what the real world phenomenon truthfully is.
That is a good point about freedom of thought and expression. Imagine being burned at the stake the heresy of a scientific opinion.
I want to love the video not just like it👌🏿👌🏿 thanks prof
I'm not racist but me too👌
@@generaltheory560
What does racism have to do with this video????
Can you explain regarding calculation of planetary motion according to heliocentric model
2:14 If the earth is faster like that car, wouldnt that planet be moving always backwards? Can someone explain! Thanks!
well if we look at the information in the video this only happens when the planet/car is right next to it or even infront. That what I understood, hope it helps!
No, because the cars are going in a circle.
The velocity of the planets, including the Earth, are explained by Keppler's Laws. Since all the planets revolve around the sun the Earth moves towards or away from other planets. Since observations measure angular velocity the angle is dependent of the motion of both.
A student at Oxford made a comment to his Philosophy professor:”What fools people were in the middle Age, thinking that the sun went around the Earth.” The professor commented:”Yes, but what would look like if the sun went around the Earth?”
He says we have technology that gives us all the information we ever need. Me: searches up why does 0! = 1. Sees the computer figured it out, me: 😱🤯
3:15 George Carlin had called this The Mystery of the Moving Pillow.
heliocentrism was first discovered in ancient India way before 1473. they never believed in geocentric theory. from the beginning of Vadas and Upanishad, they knew that the earth was revolving around the sun and not the other way around. they also knew that the Earth was spherical in shape since they called the study of the Earth (geography) bhūgola which has the literal meaning of bhū = earth and
gola = sphere
Um, no.
Professor dave can you please make a video about calculating moles im having alot of trouble with this in physics
what are you doing with moles in physics? that's chemistry! check my general chemistry playlist i have everything you need.
@Professor dave explains thanks
Brilliant!
Very helpful. And straight forward. Thank you 😄
I have a question when other scientists criticized copernicus model didn"t they tried to explain it that maybe those stars are absolute that even if you change the referential their position wouldn't shift ?
Parallax. Though understood and attempted, in 1838, Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel made the first observation of stellar parallax.
Anyone else from class
Yupp
I'm not a geocentrist, I just have a question about retrograde:
If retrograde is caused by the earth passing the other planet, should that planet continue to appear going backwards instead of looping around and going forwards again?
Please someone who is in the know answer this
Teacher told to watch this
At least the geocentric model used a spherical earth.
Tq Dave
Dave, some people say 8 in squared per mile is not the correct calculation for for Earth curvature. If this is not the correct calculation using the Pythagorean theorem, what is the correct calculation?
You need trig. Check my "10 things that all flat earthers say", I cite the correct formula.
Technically if everything started out at 1 point during the big bang, and every point was expanding away from every other point, then every point in the universe is the center of the universe
Correct! Many people do not understand this.
Every point is the center of its own "OBSERVABLE universe"
As far as scientists are concerned, there is no confirmed center of THE universe as space is potentially infinite.
Very interesting
Have you even researched the geocentric model, the picture you put up at 4:55 is not accurate at all, and if you researched the history behind the heliocentric model and if you had actually read Copernicus’ own writings (along with the writings of his peers belonging to the same brotherhood) you would find that his theory was heavily influenced by his spiritual (not scientific) beliefs about the sun being the divine power and therefore the center of the universe. The heliocentric model actually doesn’t fit the data better if you’re being *objective.
Who cares about anyone's beliefs? Beliefs don't influence reality. The sun is objectively at the center of the solar system, and I'd love to see whatever data you have that you think is to the contrary.
Rachel Dwyer - you are correct, there is a lot of very subjective falsehoods in the video. The philosophical drive behind the study of cosmology was, in fact, the confidence early researchers had in the Holy Scriptures that revealed to man that the universe was discernible. Therefore, if the universe is discernible, there should be some way to objectively quantify reality and separate reality as defined by The Catholic Church, from myths and mere theologoumenon. It is no coincidence that virtually all of the foundational scientists of the time were Catholic Clergy.
The Copernican theory of course was proffered and advanced by the Catholic Church itself, and Copernicus himself was a Catholic Canon Lawyer, and (best records indicate) a Catholic priest. We also know that Copernicus was not correct - but it was a good model for the time. We also know that the laughable allusion to Bruno in the video is a complete fabrication and a rejection of historical facts by the maker of the video, who would do well to learn something about science -real science, not the popular nonsense he is peddling here.
@@ForensicApps Excellent response. Couldn't have said it better myself. Well done and LOLZ to the author of the video who quietly ignore your response. OWNED!
You have some nonsense towards the end of your video. People thought that the heavens were divine until Newton proved that their motions were the same as motions here. Thus man was not displaced from his throne, but rather, the heavenly things were shown to be earthly things (if anything, this raises man's position by comparison). Nor have I ever read an actual text of someone arguing that the earth must be at the center because man was at the metaphysical center of the universe--they almost certainly thought that this was the case because it appeared so to the senses. Bruno was not burned for heliocentrism but rather for his claims about Christianity that contradicted doctrinal statements about the Virgin Mary. Copernicus was a Catholic priest and nobody burned him. The Church's patronage and support of the arts and sciences was the reason that the sciences progressed so rapidly at the time, but eighteenth century English historians with fanatical biases have invented a myth to make the Church look like some kind of anti-scientific boogey monster, and I guess the myth continues to hold among the historically careless. Look these things up; you're propagating a myth.
I believe Copernicus released his "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres" very shortly before his death - not giving people enough time to chastise him for it.
Let me not jump on your bandwagon about the political, religious and scientific historical myths around Astrology but let us at least bear in mind that "ancient astronomers" were unashamedly Astrologers. Unfortunately, assumptions are seldom put aside without tremendous difficulty before any questions are ever asked.
What are the reasons why the Greek philosophers believed that the Earth is the center of the Solar System?
Well, because it certainly appears that way. Heliocentrism is not obvious, it required rather sophisticated astronomical observations in order to realize it, which is why it didn't come about until the 16th century or so.
Ancient indian astronomy knew about heliocentric model long before copernicus。
Catholic Church -"we don't talk about Bruno!"
If it wasnt for religion, we would have been civilization 1.6 by now.
Well thanks to Twitter burning people for "Cultural" heresy we are on our way back to Civilization 0.1.
This is quite well done, nice and well explained.
Now, those Flat Earthers are going to cry more.
Oh well.
ua-cam.com/video/T5N_pSSNMlc/v-deo.html
Who's here after watching/reading "Orb: About the movement of earth"?
👍
giordani bruno: makes a reasonable argument
**angry ancient christian noises**
Giordano Bruno was a mystic, not a scientist. And he didn't provide enough evidentiary support for his 'reasonable arguments'
Doesn’t this video violate Einstein’s Theory of Relativity which states that laws of physics (including parallax observations) are the same for all observers in any inertial reference frame relative to one another? With the Sun centered system of Copernicus and the Earth centered system of Tyco being geometrically identical, how could one scientifically tell where the center of the universe is? The center of the universe is a theological question, not a scientific one.
No, it's definitely a scientific one, and there is no center of the universe. There is a center of the solar system, and it's the barycenter of all its mass, which is negligibly displaced from the center of the sun. This video explains quite clearly how we know this. Maybe watch it again from the top.
CMB data shows this statement is false - "No, it's definitely a scientific one, and there is no center of the universe",. just ask Max Tregmark from MIT, it depends on how you interpret data. you can make the same argument with CMB emperical evidence showing we are uniquely in center, which is exactly what he discovered. Science spins this truth with philosophical bias against geocentricism by misrepresenting it constantly, just look at any website. The axis of evil exists showing polarity of the universe, parallax can be demonstrated be either system, heliocentric or Tycho geo models, I still cant believe educated scientist refuse to teach it.
I've been wondering, is there a star system where a planet is the center of its system and there would be a star orbiting that planet. Then I realized that the sun/star itself is the fusion machine because of its mass due to its own gravity. Any planet reaching the size of a sun's mass will become a star.
Not likely, stars are produced by nuclear fusion, once the mass reaches a certain point. As such a body heavier than a star should also be a star.
@@brettknoss486Not necessarily if its core where fusion normally occurred were instead made of a heavy element that's harder to fuse
Not really sure what would happen then though
@@rheiagreenland4714 possible, but hydrogen is the most prevelent element in the universe, and even gas giants have enough gravity to prevent hydrogen from evaporating.
bingewatching now lol
I don't think Tyco Brahe was wrong. same with Michelson Morley
Simple
The Tychos model is correct
Can you tell me about Ptolemy, I don't think me was really told a lot about in the vid. thx
Don't you think the whole moon size to distance to sun "coincidence", producing perfect eclipses needs addressing. This seems to be the case for the benefit of man. Coincidences are one thing but the odds here seem more than coincidental.
Did you really need to post this twice? It's not exact. It's approximate. It's not that weird.
Also, the similarity in size does not benefit humans in any way whatsoever.
Hi. Can you explain why we can see the same stars in the sky on one side of the sun as we do 6 months later on the other side of the sun? If we are orbiting the sun, then for half the year we wouldn’t see what stars exist behind the sun until 6 months later.
Yeah, easy. We don't. The stars change throughout the year. They're called the zodiac constellations. Try learning astronomy instead of repeating talking points from flat earth videos. Those people are both dumb and lying.
Professor Dave Explains but aren’t the zodiac constellations always visible somewhere in the world regardless if they are in line with the sun or not?
Um, no. I've actually studied science, and understand it, so I'm not "parroting" anyone. You obviously are not aware of data gathered by the WMAP sand Planck satellites regarding the cosmic microwave background radiation that corroborate the big bang model far beyond reasonable doubt. So not only am I not parroting anything, you are making a blatant argument from authority based on something you read but don't understand whatsoever, because you are science illiterate. Hell, that you typed the phrase "theoretical assumptions" as a pejorative single-handedly confirms that you are totally ignorant of what science even is in the first place. Learn some science, kiddo.
@@christinamorin1914 Sorry I missed that, no, when constellations are on the other side of the sun, they are not visible, as we could only see them during the day, which we can't, because the sun is bright. The zodiac constellations change throughout the year.
So you're taking a blog post that oversimplifies cosmology for the layperson, which you clearly didn't even understand despite the fact that it is specifically for people who don't understand science, and you are now complaining that the entire field of cosmology is invalid because you don't understand it? Take a seat, kiddo. Let the adults do the talking.
Can you explain physics and calculus...
i have plenty of tutorials on both subjects, check them out!
What if the heliocentric/geocentric model was a baseline for greater knowledge?
The "life source" always appears in the center. Whaf if that was a deeper look into our universe its self? The 'core' might be hinting at our universe, instead of the earth/sun. Time never slows, all goes on because of "this". Any thoughts?
I’ll have whatever you’re smoking.
How can we measure the distance of a star by dividing its shift angle into two equal triangles while the sun isn’t at the centre of the elliptical orbit?!
Good question. The short answer is that the Earth's orbit around the sun is close enough to circular, that at most you'll get about a 1% error if you just approximate it as circular and use the average distance defined as 1 AU as its radius. The first parallax measurements were done this way for proof of concept, but our modern measurements in the astronomy fact-books have been refined since then.
The long answer, is that it isn't really divided in two equal triangles. That is just the simplified explanation. We know the aphelion and perihelion of the ellipse shape of Earth's orbit, and we know where we are within the elliptical orbit, on any given day of the year. Therefore, we know the proportion of the distances to the sun on opposite days of the year, such that we can know the proportion of the two sides of the triangle opposite one another. The angle isn't divided in half, but rather slightly off from perfect half. If done on January 3rd and July 3rd when Earth is at the extreme points, then the angle is split between 50.8% for the July measurement and 49.2% for the January measurement.
Carl Hansen Ok that makes sense now, thanks 💕
LOOOOL IMAGINE IF THE SUN DID WENT RETROGRADE
it did once
some things need to be said for example that the goradono bruno wast scientist but hermtical ocultist and his theoris vas based on that. secondli hi vant burnt for hi helicontric system but becouse of political reasons he vas rioter and that whit other things make hi dead
Ok si ji
how did Copernicus influence modern astronomy by proposing a new paradigm for describing the displacement of each from the center of the universe?
You should probably watch this and find out.
We don’t talk about Bruno brah 😎
RIP Giordano Bruno. You're on the right side of history; religion is not.
Wouldn't parallax demonstrate that the Earth moves, not that it moves around the Sun? Just trying to be logical here.
while it is true that humans were the pinnacle of creations, catholic church then had misunderstood this scientifically.
We got to jump balls man
With all my deepest admiration for Bruno - he was not an astronomer and he was burned for absolutely different reason
he wasnt a scientist but the reason is true
The only comment which spoke of Bruno...sometimes when idiots are in control of power....wise people can't live on...
Feel sorry and devastated for My Man Bruno...
Yes but how come when I see you you’re upside down, but my eye turned you right side up🤔🤔
Eratosthenes he calculated the perimeter of earth
You forgot him ?
Check Part 1, bud.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains οκ thankyou
5:29 amogus😳
Is it really true Copernicus heliocentric model was published after he died upon his request? Dude is also politically astute aside from being a chad scientist.
There never was a "Polish astronomer Copernicus", since Nicolaus Cop(p)ernicus was German. He wasn't Polish and never considered himself to be Polish. His parents were Niklas Koppernigk and Barbara Watzenrode who both were German, too.
He was a citizen of Kingdom of Poland his whole life. I know they didn't use the term "citizen" back then but you get the picture.
Earth is definitely geocentric
That's a meaningless sentence.
he steel from ibn al shater
When scientist failed to understand geocentric they jumped at heliocentric. 😃😃
Um, nope. This video explains what happened. Maybe you should actually watch it.
Haha shame
Lmao did you even watch the video? heliosentrism much more accurate
ur explanation if the sun never move i can undertsand y we can see the same star. but the sun is moving. can u explain please.
If there is an open line of sight to a star, we can see it.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains i know this is imposible. but can u make a video to explain how we can still see the 12 star rotation in the same rotation in a year. pls pls
@@ProfessorDaveExplains and thanks a lot for reply me :)
I don't know what "12 star rotation" means. We see whatever stars are in the directions away from the sun at all times.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains oh its 12 zodiac. how can we see the same zodiac doing its rotaion? ua-cam.com/video/ElTdCP5wWSU/v-deo.html
Copernicus was German or at least something in between Polish and German
goood
Actually the Catholic church worships the sun. Copernicus was indeed a Catholic priest. The Vatican is built facing the east for the rising of the sun. They have a bunch of sun and star idolatry figures and symbols in the capital. The Vatican city's main center is a huge sun dial. And to top it off they change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and persecuted Judaizers who worship the bible's 7th day Sabbath.... Beside that, interesting teaching.
خرافات
No, this is science, sweetie. You’re projecting.
so sad how close minded religious people are
The evidence for heliocentrism seems pretty counter intuitive and weak without powerful astronomical instruments. No wonder geocentrism was the favoured model. You strayed into nonsense from my POV because hindsight theorizing is the lamest form of presentation. The best proof with a simple telescope was from Galileo and the direct observation of the phases of Venus. Anything before that was hypothetical at best.
Giordano Bruno's heresy wasn't heliocentrism, it was that people should stop worshipping God/Jesus and go back to sun worship.
Heliocentrism is not sun worship.
Dave, you are a great teacher but clearly have an anti religion bias
It is highly misleading to say Bruno was burned at the stake for his scientific beliefs. From wiki:
Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was not taken lightly by the church,[5] nor was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul (reincarnation). The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600. After his death, he gained considerable fame, being particularly celebrated by 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science, although most historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his cosmological views but rather a response to his religious and afterlife views.[6][7][8][9][10] However some historians[11] do contend that the main reason for Bruno's death was indeed his cosmological views. Bruno's case is still considered a landmark in the history of free thought and the emerging sciences.
Are you defending the 1500's catholic church?
BIBLICAL COSMOLOGY (1st book of ENOCH)
This is a science tutorial.
I live in Poland
Copernicus lived in Poland