Want this question answered?
The Vatican did not believe in heliocentric theory for a long time.
He was an Italian scientist of the 17th century. He did not prove the heliocentric theory. But everyone accepts the heliocentric principle now, after it was proved right; but that happened long after Galileo's time, after new scientific discoveries in the latter half of the 1600s.
The Heliocentric theory was significant because Copernicus had proved something such a long time ago... the fact that it hasn't been proven wrong, or the fact that no-one else believed him because they didnt have the technology to prove it back then.
The church had been using the geocentric Aristotelian theory for many decades and the heliocentric theory challenged what they believed to be a system that worked in tandem with scripture. Galileo staunchly believed in the heliocentric theory so he struck a deal with Pope Urban VIII. Galileo could discuss heliocentric theory, but only so long at it was a hypothetical discussion. When Galileo wrote Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, not only was it apparent that he was not discussing hypothetically, but he made the Pope look stupid. Galileo was put on trial for his actions, because he recanted what he said and basically apologized, he was put on house arrest for the rest of his life. He was lucky because Giorgio Bruno was burned at the stake for challenging the dominant beliefs of the church.
The sun-centered model of the solar system states that the planetes orbit the sun. In this model, everything in the solar system orbits the sun and so the sun is the center, hence the name. While all scientists accept this model today, there was a long period of time where people believed that everything in the solar system orbited the Earth. This was called the geocentric model of the solar system.
The Vatican did not believe in heliocentric theory for a long time.
No. Not by a long shot.
He was an Italian scientist of the 17th century. He did not prove the heliocentric theory. But everyone accepts the heliocentric principle now, after it was proved right; but that happened long after Galileo's time, after new scientific discoveries in the latter half of the 1600s.
The Heliocentric theory was significant because Copernicus had proved something such a long time ago... the fact that it hasn't been proven wrong, or the fact that no-one else believed him because they didnt have the technology to prove it back then.
Not too long ago, people could be burned at the stake for suggesting we live in a heliocentric world.
The heliocentric theory became widely accepted when it was found that the Sun is by a long way the most massive object in the solar system. That happened in the 18th century.
The heliocentric theory became widely accepted when it was found that the Sun is by a long way the most massive object in the solar system. That happened in the 18th century.
They did not oppose the theory, known as the heliocentric theory, but they told him he could not promote it as the absolute truth. As long as he taught it as a theory that would be OK.But he said he was cleverer than all the cardinals and continued to promote the theory as the truth by publishing a book that portrayed the Pope as a simpleton, so he was tried for heresy. By this time he was old and tired and when it was shown in court that the theory had no proof, he recanted and said he had been wrong all along.At least a century later science had advanced to the point where it was realised that the Sun is at the centre, so the heliocentric theory was right all along. But that does not make Galielo right, because scientific knowledge during his lifetime did not support the theory.
They did not oppose the theory, known as the heliocentric theory, but they told him he could not promote it as the absolute truth. As long as he taught it as a theory that would be OK.But he said he was cleverer than all the cardinals and continued to promote the theory as the truth by publishing a book that portrayed the Pope as a simpleton, so he was tried for heresy. By this time he was old and tired and when it was shown in court that the theory had no proof, he recanted and said he had been wrong all along.At least a century later science had advanced to the point where it was realised that the Sun is at the centre, so the heliocentric theory was right all along. But that does not make Galielo right, because scientific knowledge during his lifetime did not support the theory.
The church had been using the geocentric Aristotelian theory for many decades and the heliocentric theory challenged what they believed to be a system that worked in tandem with scripture. Galileo staunchly believed in the heliocentric theory so he struck a deal with Pope Urban VIII. Galileo could discuss heliocentric theory, but only so long at it was a hypothetical discussion. When Galileo wrote Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, not only was it apparent that he was not discussing hypothetically, but he made the Pope look stupid. Galileo was put on trial for his actions, because he recanted what he said and basically apologized, he was put on house arrest for the rest of his life. He was lucky because Giorgio Bruno was burned at the stake for challenging the dominant beliefs of the church.
The answer lies in the question.It is called "The Heliocentric Theory" for a reason. But don't let yourself be confused by that.There is a common misconception that the good Theories in science grow up to become Laws, when that simply isn't true. In everyday vernacular, "Theory" is described as a postulated guess. In science, it is quite different.A Law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and predicts what will happen as long as those conditions are met.A theory, on the other hand, explains how nature works.Indeed, one only needs to recognize that it is a fact that the earth orbits the sun, then look at what that principle is called (A "theory") to realize that "Theories" have a lot more going for them than people think.
There is only one evolutionary theory; the one based on Darwin's original model of natural selection. There have been previous models further back, like Lamarck's model for evolution through acquired traits, but these have long been falsified.So if one is considering accepting or withholding belief in a theory of evolution, ones choice is confined to the theory of evolution by natural selection, pioneered by Charles Darwin.Reasons for accepting the theory are plentiful: it is now so well backed by observational data that rejecting it would be equivalent to rejecting the heliocentric model of the Solar System.