These questions are for discussion during the tutorial on the above topic.
What is the crucial observational test for a
Heliocentric model of the Solar System? Would such an observation have
been easy to make for the ancient Greek astronomers?
While today we recognise that Ptolemy's model with an
Earth-centred Universe is clearly wrong, why do you think it lasted
1,400 years before it was challenged? What effects did this have on
the development of human civilisation?
How did Copernicus manage to explain the retrograde (backwards)
motion of the planets in his heliocentric model for the Solar System?
Was his model really any better at explaining the motions of the
planets than Ptolemy's?
Was Copernicus's model a physical model or a geometrical model for
the Solar System? Is the distinction important?
In what sense are Kepler's three laws for the motion of the
planets 'Laws'? How does this differ from the Copernicun model?
Why do you think Galileo's observation of spots on the Sun
and moons around Jupiter caused so much conflict with the Church?
Why did true understanding of the motions of the planets have
to wait until Newton's law of gravitation?
We now know that Newton's Laws of Gravitation are not correct,
and even that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is incomplete. Does this
mean that both the work of Newton and Einstein is worthless? Why
should we continue to inflict Newton's Law of Motion on unsuspecting
first year physics undergraduates when we are teaching them the wrong
theory?
Back
to home page.