I’m thinking of things like heliocentrism where there was some modern discovery or revelation by science that invalidated a common assumption prior.

My understanding is that flat earth is more a recent phenomena but I’d love to hear some ancient ideas people now miss. Did people think trees weren’t alive? Did people think evaporation was where things simply disappeared?

I’d would love to hear these ideas.

  • fiasco@possumpat.io
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The funny thing about heliocentrism is, that isn’t really the modern view either. The modern view is that there are no privileged reference frames, and heliocentrism and geocentrisms are just questions of reference frame. You can construct consistent physical models from either, and for example, you’ll probably use a geocentric model if you’re gonna launch a satellite.

    But another fun one is the so-called discovery of oxygen, which is really about what’s going on with fire. Before Lavoisier, the dominant belief was that fire is the release of phlogiston. What discredited this was the discovery of materials that get heavier when burned.

    • Kraiden@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not any kind of expert, but this seems wrong to me. My understanding is that heliocentrism vs geocentrism is about the whole solar system, ie: the same frame of reference.

      So if you were launching a satellite, yes, you would use earth as your reference point but that is NOT geocentrism. You would never use a geocentric model. Ever. Not these days anyway.

      Again though, I’m not an expert so maybe don’t take this as law

      • ChemicalRascal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re absolutely right. Heliocentrism and geocentrism aren’t “questions of reference frame”, they’re cosmological models.

        Nobody is using a geocentric model when they launch satellites, as any geocentric model that works with our existing observations of the universe ultimately does not have a functional understanding of gravity. And it will be remarkably difficult to keep a satellite in orbit if you disagree with the universe about how gravity works.