If you allow indirect evidence, then the rotation of the earth around the sun follows from the seasons which are easy to observe. Or rather from the earthes tilt. Given that you confirmed a) constant (almost) distance to the sun, b) conservation of angular momentum (via observation of spinning tops), c) changing angle of midday sunlight thru the year the only remaining conclusion is that the earth circles the sun.
Almost. you have to exclude that precession of the eath is causing the changing tilt. You’d have to estimate the amount of precession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession#Classical_.28Newtonian.29) which should be possible given some rough estimates of the mass of the earth.
Heliocentrism isn’t the only theory that implies the existence of the seasons:
The motion of the sun eastward along the ecliptic combined with the rotation of the stars westward along the equator to account for seasonal changes in the length of daylight, while moving the circle of the sun’s motion slightly off-center toward Gemini adjusted for the inequality of the seasons. The resulting extremes of apogee and perigee of the sun also explained for writers on the sphere why the arctic regions are too cold, and the southern hemisphere is too hot, to be habitable; the intermediate region of habitation was divided into seven climes according to half-hour differences in the length of the solstitial day. Yet another very slow motion of the celestial sphere about the poles of the ecliptic produced the gradual drift, or precession, of the equinoctial and solstitial points eastward along the zodiac; in some accounts, e.g. Robert Grosseteste’s (ca. 1215-1230), this Ptolemaic device was supplanted by Thâbit b. Qurra’s more intricate mechanism for non-uniform precession, or trepidation.
How is that a response? Gunnar didn’t say “Heliocentrism, hallelujah!” He emphasized conservation of angular momentum. Maybe one should be skeptical about extrapolating that from Earth to Heaven, but just saying “I made an orrery! Look at me!” is not helpful.
If you allow indirect evidence, then the rotation of the earth around the sun follows from the seasons which are easy to observe. Or rather from the earthes tilt. Given that you confirmed a) constant (almost) distance to the sun, b) conservation of angular momentum (via observation of spinning tops), c) changing angle of midday sunlight thru the year the only remaining conclusion is that the earth circles the sun.
Almost. you have to exclude that precession of the eath is causing the changing tilt. You’d have to estimate the amount of precession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession#Classical_.28Newtonian.29) which should be possible given some rough estimates of the mass of the earth.
Heliocentrism isn’t the only theory that implies the existence of the seasons:
-- M. S. Mahoney, Dictionary of the Middle Ages
How is that a response? Gunnar didn’t say “Heliocentrism, hallelujah!” He emphasized conservation of angular momentum. Maybe one should be skeptical about extrapolating that from Earth to Heaven, but just saying “I made an orrery! Look at me!” is not helpful.
Yeah, it looks as if I may have missed the main point. Sorry about that.
I’m just happy to get to use the word “orrery.”