Traditional medicine

The struggle of worldviews about the structure of the solar system. §10

Two Astronomers happened together at a feast
And they argued quite among themselves in the heat.
One repeated: the earth, spinning, goes around the Sun;
Another is that the Sun takes all the planets with it:
One was Copernicus, the other was known as Ptolemy.
Here the cook settled the dispute with his smile.
The owner asked: “Do you know the course of the stars?”
Tell me, how do you reason about this doubt?”
He gave the following answer: “What is Copernicus right about that?”
I will prove the truth without having been to the Sun.
Who has ever seen such a simpleton among cooks?
Who would turn the hearth around with a circle of roast?”
M. Lomonosov

Lesson 2/8

Subject: Development of ideas about the solar system.

Target: To acquaint students with the formation of humanity’s ideas about the structure of the solar system, geocentric and heliocentric systems. Explanation of the loop-like motion of the planets.

Tasks :
1. Educational: Continue the formation of ideas about the geocentric and heliocentric systems of the world that began in the history course and introduce their concepts.
2. Educating: Using the example of the struggle for the heliocentric worldview, show the incompatibility of science and religion. Use examples of the ascetic destinies of J. Bruno and G. Galileo to form high moral ideas among students. Promoting the aesthetic education of students, emphasize the simplicity and beauty of the heliocentric system of the world.
3. Developmental: show how, from the perspective of heliocentrism, the loop-like motion of the planets was naturally explained and a simple method was obtained for determining the relative distances of the planets from the Sun. To develop students’ thinking and their cognitive interests, it is necessary, firstly, to use a problematic presentation of the material (showing that the improvement of the heliocentric system led it to a very cumbersome scheme, which still made it possible to pre-calculate the conditions of visibility of the planets with a certain degree of accuracy, but needed further complication), and, secondly, to provide an opportunity to study the loop-like motion of the planets.

Know:
1st level (standard)
2nd level- the concept of geocentric and heliocentric system of the structure of the world.
Be able to:
1st level (standard)- find the type of configuration and solve simple problems using the synodic equation.
2nd level- find the type of configuration not only in the drawings, but also using the CD-"Red Shift 5.1", solve problems using the synodic equation.

Equipment: Table “Solar System”, film “Planetary System”, “Astronomy and Worldview”. PKZN. CD - "Red Shift 5.1" (the principle of finding a celestial object at a given point in time). Demonstration and commentary on filmstrips “The Struggle for the Establishment of a Scientific Worldview in Astronomy” (Fragments I and II) and “Development of Ideas about the Universe.” Film "Astronomy" (part 1, fr. 2 "The most ancient science")

Intersubject communication: Ideas about the Earth in the Ancient World and the Middle Ages (history, 5-6 grades). Solar system, its composition; planets, meteors, meteorites (natural history, 5 classes). The struggle of the church against advanced science (history, 6th grade).

Lesson progress:

1. Repetition of material (8-10 min).
A) Questions:

Planetary configuration.
Composition of the Solar System.
Solution to problem No. 8 (p. 35). [ 1/S=1/T - 1/T z, hence T= (T z. S)/(S+T z)= (1. 1.6)/(1.6+1)= 224.7 d ]
Solution to problem No. 9 (p. 35). [ 1/S=1/T z - 1/T, hence S=(1.12)/(12-1)=1.09 years]
"Red Shift 5.1" - find a planet for today and give a description of its visibility, coordinates, distance (several students can indicate a specific planet - preferably in writing, so as not to take up time during the lesson).
"Red Shift 5.1" - when will the next opposition, conjunction of planets: Mars, Jupiter? [opposition: Mars - 12/24/2007, 01/30/2010; Jupiter - 04/14/2008, 07/9/2008, 10/9/2008, conjunction: Mars - 12/5/2008, ; Jupiter - 12/23/2007, 01/24/2009]

B) By cards:

	K-1	1. The period of Saturn’s revolution around the Sun is about 30 years. Find the time interval between its opposition. [ 1/S=1/T z - 1/T, hence S=(1.30)/(30-1)=1.03 years] 2. Indicate the type of configuration in position I, II, VIII. [opposition, inferior conjunction, western elongation] 3. Using "Red Shift 5.1" draw the location of the planets and the Sun at a given time.
	K-2	1. Find the period of revolution of Mars around the Sun, if there is an opposition repeated after 2.1 years. [ 1/S=1/T z - 1/T, hence T= (T z. S)/(S- T z)= (1. 2.1)/(2.1-1)=1.9 years] 2. Indicate the type of configuration in position V, III, VII. [eastern elongation, superior conjunction, eastern quadrature] 3. Using "Red Shift 5.1" determine the angular distance from the North Star of the Ursa Major bucket and draw it to scale in the figure.
	K-3	1. What is the period of Jupiter’s revolution around the Sun if its conjunction repeats after 1.1 years. [ 1/S=1/T z - 1/T, hence T= (T z. S)/(S-T z)= (1. 1.1)/(1.1-1)=11 years] 2. Indicate the type of configuration in position IV, VI, II. [superior conjunction, western quadrature, inferior conjunction] 3. Using "Red Shift 5.1" determine the coordinates of the Sun now and in 12 hours and draw to scale in the figure (using the angular distance from Polar). What constellation is the Sun in now and will it be in 12 hours?
	K-4	1. The period of revolution of Venus around the Sun is 224.7 days. Find the time interval between its conjunctions. [ 1/S=1/T - 1/T z, hence S=(365.25. 224.7)/(365.25-224.7)=583.9 d ] 2. Indicate the type of configuration in position VI, V, III. [western quadrature, eastern elongation, superior conjunction] 3. Using "Red Shift 5.1" determine the coordinates of the Sun now and depict its position in the picture after 6, 12, 18 hours. What will be its coordinates and in what constellations will the Sun be located?

B) The rest:

The synodic period of a certain minor planet is 730.5 days. Find the sidereal period of its revolution around the Sun. (730.5 days or 2 years)
At what intervals do the minute and hour hands meet on a dial? (1 1/11 h)
Draw how the planets will be located in their orbits: Venus - in inferior conjunction, Mars - in opposition, Saturn - western quadrature, Mercury - eastern elongation.
Estimate approximately how long Venus can be observed and when (morning or evening), if it is 45 degrees east of the Sun. (in the evening, about 3 o’clock, because 45 o /15 o = 3)

2. New material (20min)

Primary representation of the surrounding world:
The first star maps carved in stone were created 32-35 thousand years ago. Knowledge of the constellations and positions of some stars provided primitive people with orientation in the area and an approximate determination of time at night. More than 2000 years BC, people noticed that some stars were moving across the sky - the Greeks later called them “wandering” planets. This served as the basis for the creation of the first naive ideas about the world around us (“Astronomy and worldview” or footage of another filmstrip).
Thales of Miletus (624-547 BC) independently developed the theory of solar and lunar eclipses and discovered saros. Ancient Greek astronomers guessed about the true (spherical) shape of the Earth based on observations of the shape of the earth's shadow during lunar eclipses.
Anaximander (610-547 BC) taught about an innumerable number of continuously born and dying worlds in a closed spherical Universe, the center of which is the Earth; he was credited with the invention of the celestial sphere, some other astronomical instruments and the first geographical maps.
Pythagoras (570-500 BC) was the first to call the Universe Cosmos, emphasizing its orderliness, proportionality, harmony, proportionality, and beauty. The earth has the shape of a sphere because the sphere is the most proportional of all bodies. He believed that the Earth is in the Universe without any support, the stellar sphere makes a full revolution during the day and night, and for the first time suggested that the evening and morning stars are the same body (Venus). I believed that stars are closer than planets.
Offers a pyrocentric diagram of the structure of the world = In the center there is a sacred fire, and around there are transparent spheres, included in each other, on which the Earth, Moon and Sun with stars are fixed, then the planets. Spheres, rotating from east to west and obeying certain mathematical relationships. Distances to celestial bodies cannot be arbitrary; they must correspond to a harmonic chord. This "music of the heavenly spheres" can be expressed mathematically. The further the sphere is from the Earth, the greater the speed and the higher the tone emitted.
Anaxagoras (500-428 BC) assumed that the Sun was a piece of red-hot iron; The moon is a cold body that reflects light; denied the existence of celestial spheres; independently gave an explanation for solar and lunar eclipses.
Democritus (460-370 BC) considered matter to consist of the smallest indivisible particles - atoms and empty space in which they move; The Universe - eternal and infinite in space; The Milky Way consisting of many distant stars invisible to the eye; stars - distant suns; The Moon - similar to the Earth, with mountains, seas, valleys... "According to Democritus, there are infinitely many worlds and they are of different sizes. Some have neither the Moon nor the Sun, others have them, but are much larger in size. Moons and suns may be greater than in our world. The distances between the worlds are different, some are larger, others are smaller. At the same time, some worlds arise, while others die, some are already growing, while others have reached their peak and are on the verge of destruction. collide with each other, they are destroyed. Some have no moisture at all, as well as animals and plants. Our world is in its prime" (Hippolytus, "Refutation of All Heresy", 220 AD)
Eudoxus (408-355 BC) - one of the largest mathematicians and geographers of antiquity; developed the theory of planetary motion and the first of the geocentric systems of the world. He selected a combination of several spheres nested one inside the other, and the poles of each of them were sequentially fixed on the previous one. 27 spheres, one of them for the fixed stars, rotate uniformly around different axes and are located one inside the other, to which the fixed celestial bodies are attached.
Archimedes (283-312 BC) first tried to determine the size of the Universe. Considering the Universe to be a sphere bounded by the sphere of fixed stars, and the diameter of the Sun 1000 times smaller, he calculated that the Universe could contain 10 63 grains of sand.
Hipparchus (190-125 BC) “more than anyone proved the kinship of man with the stars... he determined the places and brightness of many stars so that it could be seen whether they disappeared or reappeared , whether they move, whether they change in brightness" (Pliny the Elder). Hipparchus was the creator of spherical geometry; introduced a coordinate grid of meridians and parallels, which made it possible to determine the geographic coordinates of the area; compiled a star catalog that included 850 stars distributed over 48 constellations; divided stars by brightness into 6 categories - stellar magnitudes; discovered precession; studied the movement of the Moon and planets; re-measured the distance to the Moon and the Sun and developed one of the geocentric systems of the world.

Geocentric system of the structure of the world (from Aristotle to Ptolemy).

According to Ptolemy's theory:
1) The earth is motionless and is at the center of the world;
2) planets rotate in strictly circular orbits;
3) the movement of the planets is uniform.

The first scientifically based theory of the structure of the world was developed (384-322) and published in 355 BC in the book “On Heaven,” summarizing all the knowledge of its predecessors and based on conclusions that could not be verified at that time. Having developed the teachings of Plato in more detail, adopting his rotating crystal spheres, calculating the radii of the spheres, introducing the sphere of comets (he considered them just terrestrial evaporation, spontaneously combusting high above the Earth and having nothing to do with celestial bodies), as a sublunar one, taking his name for the planets according to names of the gods: Hermes - Mercury, Aphrodite - Venus, Ares - Mars, Zeus - Jupiter, Kronos - Saturn. Recognizing the sphericity of the Earth, Moon and celestial bodies, he rejected the movement of the Earth and placed it in the center, since he believed that the stars should describe circles and not be in place (which was proven only in the 18th century). The system was called geocentric (Gaia - Earth).
With the development of astronomy and obtaining more accurate knowledge about the movement of the planets, the system was modified by Hipparchus and

finally kinematically developed by 150 AD by the Alexandrian astronomer (87-165) in an essay consisting of 13 books “The Great Mathematical Construction of Astronomy” (Almagest). To explain the movement of the planets, using a system of epicycles and deferents, making them harmonic: a complex loop-like movement was represented by the sum of several harmonic movements, expressed by the formula:

, where where w n - circular frequency, t - time, A n - amplitude, δ n - initial phase.
Ptolemy's epicyclic system was simple, universal, economical and, despite its fundamental incorrectness, made it possible to pre-calculate celestial phenomena with any degree of accuracy; with its help it would be possible to solve some problems of modern astrometry, celestial mechanics and astronautics. Ptolemy himself, possessing the honesty of a true scientist, emphasized the purely applied nature of his work, refusing to consider it as cosmological due to the lack of clear evidence in favor of geo- or heliocentric theories of the world.

Heliocentric system of the structure of the world (Copernicus).

The idea of placing not the Earth but the Sun at the center of the solar system belongs to (310-230), who was the first to determine the distance to the Moon, the Sun and their sizes. But conclusions and evidence that the Sun is larger and planets move around it were clearly not enough. “He believes that the fixed stars and the Sun do not change their places in space, that the Earth moves in a circle around the Sun, located at its center,” wrote Archimedes. In his work “On the Sizes and Mutual Distances of the Sun and the Moon,” Aristarchus of Samos, accepting the hypothesis about the daily rotation of the Earth, knowing the diameter of the Earth (according to Eratosthenes) and considering the Moon to be 3 times smaller than the Earth, based on his own observations, calculated that the Sun is the one closest of the stars - 20 times farther from the Earth than the Moon (in fact, 400 times) and 200-300 times larger than the Earth in volume.
Only during the Renaissance, a Polish scientist (1473-1543) substantiated the heliocentric system of the structure of the world by 1539 in the book “On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres” (1543), explaining the daily movement of the luminaries by the rotation of the Earth and the loop-like movement of the planets by their revolution around the Sun, calculating the distances and periods of revolution planets. However, he left the sphere of fixed stars, moving it 1000 times further than the Sun.

Confirmation of the heliocentric system of the world.

The heliocentric system was proven in the works of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630).
- discovered the change of phases of Venus, proving its rotation around the Sun. He discovered 4 satellites of Jupiter, proving that not only the Earth (Sun) can be the center. He discovered mountains on the Moon and determined their height - which means there is no significant difference between the earthly and the heavenly. He observed spots on the Sun and concluded that it rotates. Having decomposed the Milky Way into stars, he concludes that the distances to the stars differ and that no “sphere of fixed stars” exists.
The execution of Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), the official prohibition by the church of the teachings of Copernicus, and the trial of Galileo could not stop the spread of Copernicanism.
In Austria, Johannes Kepler discovered the movement of planets, in England, Isaac Newton (1643-1727) published the law of universal gravitation, in Russia, Mikhailo Vasilyevich Lomonosov (1711-1765) not only ridiculed the ideas of geocentrism in poetry, but also discovered the atmosphere on Venus, defended the idea of multitude inhabited worlds.

III. Fixing the material (8 min).

Analysis of the problems solved during the lesson by the rest of the students in class (B) and those that caused difficulty.
Solution .

Result:
1) What is the difference between the geocentric and heliocentric system of the structure of the world?
2) Which prominent astronomers do you remember?
3) Grades

Homework:§8; questions and assignments p. 40, p. 52 p.1-5. A story about a scientist - astronomer (any of those listed in the lesson). Those who did not decide to finish s/r No. 4. You can give a presentation about any scientist from this lesson, the discoveries of G. Galileo, about one of the systems of the structure of the world, etc.

The lesson was designed by members of the Internet Technologies circle - Denis Prytkov (10th grade) and Anya Berezutskaya (11th grade)

Changed on October 21, 2009

"Planetarium" 410.05 MB		The resource allows you to install the full version of the innovative educational and methodological complex "Planetarium" on a teacher's or student's computer. "Planetarium" - a selection of thematic articles - are intended for use by teachers and students in physics, astronomy or natural science lessons in grades 10-11. When installing the complex, it is recommended to use only English letters in folder names.
Demo materials 13.08 MB		The resource represents demonstration materials of the innovative educational and methodological complex "Planetarium".
Planetarium 2.67 mb		This resource is an interactive Planetarium model, which allows you to study the starry sky by working with this model. To fully use the resource, you must install the Java Plug-in
Lesson	Lesson topic	Development of lessons in the TsOR collection	Statistical graphics from TsOR
Lesson 8	Development of ideas about the solar system	Topic 15. Evolution of ideas about the world system 670.7 kb	Planets of the Solar System 446.6 kb Copernicus' heliocentric system of the world 138.3 kb Geocentric system of Ptolemy 139 kb Deferent and epicycle 128.2 kb

A correct understanding of observed celestial phenomena has evolved over centuries. You know about the origins of astronomy in Ancient Egypt and China, about the later achievements of ancient Greek scientists, about the observations of priests and about their false ideas about nature, about their use of knowledge for their own benefit. The priests created astrology - a false doctrine about the influence of planets on the character and destinies of people and nations and about the imaginary ability to predict fate by the location of the luminaries.

You are also familiar with the geocentric system of the world, developed in the 2nd century. n. e. ancient Greek scientist Claudius Ptolemy. He “placed” the spherical but motionless Earth at the center of the world, around which all the other luminaries revolved (Fig. 25). Ptolemy explained the apparent loop-like motion of the planets by a combination of two uniform circular motions: the movement of the planet itself in a small circle and the rotation of the center of this circle around the Earth. However, as observational data on the motion of the planets accumulated, Ptolemy's theory required more and more complications, which made it cumbersome and implausible. The obvious artificiality of the increasingly complex system and the lack of sufficient agreement between theory and observations required its replacement. This was done in the 16th century. great Polish scientist Nicolaus Copernicus(1473-1543).

Copernicus discarded the dogmatic position about the immobility of the Earth, which had dominated the minds of people for centuries. Having placed the Earth among the ordinary planets, he pointed out that the Earth, occupying third place from the Sun, moves in space around the Sun along with all the planets and, in addition, rotates around its axis. Copernicus boldly argued that it was the rotation of the Earth and its revolution around the Sun that could correctly explain the then-known celestial phenomena and the visible loop-like motion of the planets (see Fig. 19 and 26). This revolution in astronomy and worldview, made by the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, as F. Engels noted, freed the study of nature from religion.

Rice. 26. When observed from Earth, the projection of the planet onto the sky creates a loop (the drawing is made in a “sideways” projection)

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), one of the first to point a telescope at the sky, correctly interpreted his discoveries as confirmation of Copernicus' theory. Thus, Galileo discovered the phases of Venus. He found that such a change is possible only if Venus revolves around the Sun, and not around the Earth. Galileo discovered mountains on the Moon and measured their height. It turned out that there is no fundamental difference between the Earth and celestial bodies: for example, mountains similar to mountains on Earth existed on the celestial body. And it became easier to believe that the Earth is just one of these bodies.

Galileo discovered four satellites of the planet Jupiter. Their orbit around Jupiter disproved the idea that only the Earth was at the center of rotation. Galileo discovered spots on the Sun and, based on their movement, concluded that the Sun rotates around its axis. The existence of spots on the Sun, which was considered an emblem of “heavenly purity,” also refuted the idea of a supposed fundamental difference between the earthly and the heavenly.

The Milky Way in the telescope's field of view turned out to be a cluster of many faint stars. The Universe appeared before man as something incomparably grander than the small world supposedly circling around the Earth, according to the ideas of Aristotle, Ptolemy and medieval clergy. The Church, as you already know from history and physics courses, dealt with Giordano Bruno(1548-1600) for his philosophical conclusions about the structure of the world and the habitability of celestial bodies. He fought against the clergy for the right to disseminate genuine knowledge about the structure of the Universe. M. V. Lomonosov(1711-1765). Lomonosov ridiculed obscurantists in a witty and attractive poetic and satirical form.

One of the main requirements for any scientific theory is that the theory must convey previously unknown facts and phenomena. The ability of a theory to provide is at the same time a criterion of its truth, its correspondence to the laws of the real world.

In astronomy, theoretical predictions are verified by observations. A brilliant example of scientific advancement in the field of studying the Universe, foresight, which is based on knowledge of the laws of planetary motion and the law of universal attraction, was the discovery of the planet Neptune.

Commenting on this outstanding event in the history of natural history, F. Engels wrote that the Copernican world system for a long time remained a hypothesis, quite over-conclusive, but still a hypothesis. However, after the discovery of Neptune, the validity of this hypothesis can be considered residually proven.

Methodological considerations. In connection with the discovery of Neptune, made through theoretical prediction, students can be given several more examples of amazing scientific predictions. These include extremely accurate forecasts for tens and hundreds of years in advance of the moments of solar and lunar eclipses, pre-calculation of the future positions of the planets, as well as the transfer of the properties of new chemical elements made at one time on the basis of Mendeleev’s periodic system of elements and the numerical predictions of theoretical physicists about the existence of unknown to this elementary particles.

wow planets and astrology. With the visible movements of the planets relative to the constellations, movements that are the result of the rotation of these celestial bodies around the Sun, there is a routine attempt of our ancestors to discover the connection between celestial phenomena and the fate of people. We are talking about astrology, which was based on erroneous mystical ideas about the influence of celestial shined on human life.

Astrologers believed that the future of every inhabitant of the Earth was “written” in the sky by the location of the planets and other celestial bodies at the moment of his birth.

In fact, it is clear that there is and cannot be any real causal connection between the location of the planets and the shares of people. If only because the planets have fallen into flames and cannot have any tangible physical influence on the Earth. Since these celestial bodies do not have any strong electromagnetic vibration, their only influence on the Earth could be gravitational influence.

However, interplanetary distances are so large, and the masses of the planets are so insignificant compared to the solar one, that their gravitational influence on the Earth, as well as its fluctuations associated with the mutual movements of the Earth and planets, practically cannot change the course of terrestrial processes in any significant way. After all, as you know, the force of attraction weakens in proportion to the square of the distance. Therefore, even the small Moon, due to its proximity to the Earth, predetermines tidal phenomena on it, immeasurably more powerful than the giant Jupiter, from whose orbit we are separated by about 600 million km.

THE FIGHT FOR A SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW

Astronomy, more than any other science, is related to ideological issues. This is understandable: after all, it is astronomy that makes the greatest contribution to understanding the place of man and humanity in the Universe, in the study of the relationship “Man - the Universe”.

One of the main provisions of materialistic dialectics is the idea of the deep unity of man and the world (in particular, man and the Universe), although at the same time there is a fundamental qualitative difference between them - natural and social.

And idealism and religion “tear” the world, opposing it to man. From the point of view of objective idealism and religion, the world is “mysterious” and “unknowable”, and man is not a product of natural self-development
matter, and the result is “creation”.

Geocentric system of the world. In the Middle Ages, the dominant position was occupied by the religious picture of the world, based

what was the geocentric system of Aristotle - Ptolemy, sanctified by the church and reduced to the rank of infallible truth.

However, it would be wrong to consider the Aristotle-Ptolemy system itself “anti-scientific.” For its time it was a completely scientific system. From a single point of view, it explained the visible movements of the celestial bodies and made it possible to predict their future visible positions on the celestial sphere with sufficient accuracy for the practical needs of that era.

Another thing is that this system turned out to be wrong, but it was an important step towards the truth. But the middle-new church was not interested in the truth. She was attracted to the picture of the world of Aristotle - Ptolemy by something else: the central location of the Earth in the universe, which fit well with religious ideas. That is why the church transformed the geocentric system of the world into religious dogma.

As we have already noted, the primary material for scientific research comes from observations. At the same time, one of the most important questions in the theory of knowledge is the question of whether observations provide reliable information about the properties of the surrounding world.

This question is not accidental, since in the process we are careful about all kinds of errors and inaccuracies that can give rise to incorrect, illusory ideas about the world that do not correspond to the true state of affairs. These can be random errors, errors associated with the limitations and imperfections of a person’s sensitive organs, the psychological state of the observer, the design features of measuring instruments, and the conditions of observation.

Well known, for example, are various visual illusions that arise as a result of the structural features of our eyes. Situations that give rise to all kinds of optical illusions and that can mislead observers can, in particular, arise during astronomical observations and

surveillance. Due to this, the obtained data may turn out to be unreliable, and in some cases, such that it significantly distorts the real picture of the monitoring phenomena. And incorrect, twisted ideas about reality often become fertile ground for all kinds of religious speculation. The classic astronomical illusion, to which our ancestors fell victim, is well known - the illusion of the daily rotation of all celestial bodies around the Earth. The globe rotates around its axis from setting to the east, and it seems to us that the Sun, Moon, planets and stars are moving in the opposite direction.

Another phenomenon of the cosmic order, which is illusory in nature and which we observe almost every day. It seems to us that the disk of the Sun has the same diameter as the disk of the full Moon. In reality, the dormouse diameter is approximately 400 times larger than the monthly diameter. But the Sun is 400 times farther from the Earth, and for this reason the apparent angular sizes of both luminaries for an earthly observer are almost the same. By the way, it is for this reason that a small Moon can (this occurs during solar eclipses) completely block the huge disk of the daylight.

The “cosmic illusion”, which played a significant role in the development of planetary astronomy, is also connected with the consequences of Mars. As a result of the enormous distance during telescopic observations, individual small details on the surface of this planet merge into continuous lines, which to some astronomers seemed like a system of hydraulic structures built by the smart inhabitants of Mars. When the automatic interplanetary stations that flew to Mars transmitted detailed images of the surface of the planet, the illusory nature of the Martian “channels” became absolutely clear.

Scientific revolution of Copernicus. The end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries were times of profound changes in the history of Eurosurveillance. Due to this, the obtained data may turn out to be unreliable, and in some cases, such that it significantly distorts the real picture of the monitoring phenomena. And incorrect, twisted ideas about reality often become fertile ground for all kinds of religious speculation. The classic astronomical illusion, to which our ancestors fell victim, is well known - the illusion of the daily rotation of all celestial bodies around the Earth. The globe rotates around its axis from setting to the east, and it seems to us that the Sun, Moon, planets and stars are moving in the opposite direction.

The terrestrial position of the observer is also associated with the petal-like movement of planets among the stars. This is also an illusory phenomenon, since the planets actually do not describe any loops, but move around the Sun in elliptical orbits. “Loops” are a poser phenomenon that arises due to the fact that we observe the planets from the moving Earth, that is, in the earth’s reference frame.

By the way, it is for this reason that a small Moon can (this occurs during solar eclipses) completely block the huge disk of the daylight.

An interesting illusion also arises when observing meteor showers. When the Earth encounters a swarm of solid particles, they burst into the atmosphere and collide with air molecules, evaporate and disintegrate into atoms. In turn, the atoms are excited, ionized, and in this case a flux appears. An observer on earth sees a spectacular spectacle - a rain of falling stars. To him

it seems that the trajectories of luminous particles come out from one point in the sky - the radiant, although in reality these trajectories are almost parallel to each other.

The “cosmic illusion”, which played a significant role in the development of planetary astronomy, is also associated with observations of Mars. As a result of the enormous distance during telescopic observations, individual small details on the surface of this planet merge into continuous lines, which to some astronomers seemed like a system of hydraulic structures built by the smart inhabitants of Mars. When the automatic interplanetary stations that flew to Mars transmitted detailed images of the surface of the planet, the illusory nature of the Martian “channels” became absolutely clear.

Methodological considerations. It is useful to draw students’ attention to the fact that in astronomy we encounter discrepancies between the visible and the real especially often. For example, we need to remind you once again that when we look at the sky, all the luminaries seem to us to be located at the same distances from the Earth, as if on the inner surface of a giant bullet - the celestial sphere.

Moreover, the usual patterns of constellations are formed by stars, which in reality are located at different distances from the Earth and from one another and are only projected into the same region of the celestial sphere. In general, finding out which space object is closer and which is further away is not an easy task even for astronomers armed with special equipment. Direct measurements make it possible to determine the distances only for relatively close space objects. For further studies, they will have to spend a lot of effort to find out whether the system of celestial bodies that interests them is really the only physical system of mutual objects or whether its constituent parts are only projected into the same region of the celestial sphere.

Scientific revolution of Copernicus. The end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries were times of profound changes in the history of Euronia.

According to Engels, it was “an era that required titans and which gave birth to titans in terms of strength of thought, passion and character, in terms of versatility and eternity.”

One of these titans was the great Polish scientist G. Copernicus, who developed the heliocentric system of the world and thereby carried out the greatest revolution in the phenomena of the universe, which had a huge impact on all subsequent development of science.

“The revolutionary act by which the study of nature declared its independence...” wrote F. Engels in “Dialectics of Nature”, “was the publication of an immortal work in which Copernicus threw down - albeit timidly and, so to speak, only on his deathbed - a challenge church authority in matters of nature.

This is where the chronology of the liberation of natural science from theology begins, although the clarification of individual mutual claims between them has dragged on until the present day and in some minds is far from being completed even now. But from that time on, the development of sciences also took enormous strides, which, if I may say so, progressed in proportion to the square of the distance (in time) from its exit point” 2.

The significance of the Copernican scientific revolution is not limited, however, by the fact that it reduced our Earth to the status of an ordinary planet in the solar system and thereby dealt an extremely strong blow to the religious picture of the world.

Having revealed the posing, illusory nature of the visible daily movement of the heavenly bodies and the loop-like movements of the planets, Copernicus thereby established an extremely important methodological principle in science: “The world may not be the way we directly perceive it to be.”

It became clear that identifying what was directly perceived with reality without careful comprehensive verification could lead to incorrect, distorted ideas about the world around us.

Methodological considerations. When studying the section of the program dedicated to the struggle for a scientific worldview, it is very important to draw students’ attention to the fact that situations in which the observed phenomena are illusory in nature occur quite often when studying cosmic processes. And therefore, drawing certain conclusions about the properties of the real world directly from the results of observations must be done with great caution. Such actions always contain the potential danger of mistakenly perceiving what is seen as real, and thereby contribute to the culpability of certain mistakes.

From Copernicus to Newton. The teachings of Copernicus became a powerful impetus for the liberation of people's consciousness from churchly religious ideas about the universe. He gained followers who did quite a lot both to promote and disseminate this teaching, and for its further development.

One of them was the Italian thinker Giordano Bruno, a passionate fighter against scholastic philosophy. In many of his statements about the infinity of the universe, the plurality of inhabited worlds, the unity of the laws of nature, Bruno rose to true materialism. Thus, Bruno in many ways went further than Copernicus, whose teaching was associated with the idea of the real estate of the Sun, its central position in the world and the existence of a sphere of fixed stars that limits the Universe.

An invaluable contribution to the development of natural science and its liberation from medieval scholasticism was made by

Galileo Galidei. He was the first to systematically introduce experiment into science, as well as mathematical and geometric modeling of natural phenomena. His telescopic guards and the discoveries made thanks to them became
Let us reconfirm the main provisions of the teachings of Copernicus.

One of Galileo's main achievements was the discovery of the principle of inertia, which laid the foundations of classical mechanics.

Studying the movement of planets around the Sun, Kepler looked for the force that “pushes” these celestial bodies and does not allow them to stop.

After the discovery of the principle of inertia, it became clear that we needed to look for the force that turns the uniform rectilinear motion of the planets into a curvilinear one. The law of action of this force - the force of attraction - was discovered by Isaac Newton.

Church and science. The teachings of Copernicus dealt the first tangible blow to the religious worldview. And it was not just that the religious picture of the world was being destroyed. The ideas that the church declared to be the absolute infallible truth were destroyed. And this could not but raise doubts about infallibility and other religious dogmas. The process of gradual weakening of religious power over the minds of people, freeing the masses from the influence of a religious worldview began.

The subsequent development of science and the various practical applications of scientific knowledge led to the fact that scientific ideas gained more and more authority among a wide circle of people. In the light of scientific data, religious ideas about the world looked less and less grounded and more and more naive.

How did the “relationship” between the church and science develop from the Middle Ages to the present day? As a result of the activities of Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo, the church was already forced in the Middle Ages to reconsider its positions in a certain way. And subsequently, changes in historical conditions more than once forced defenders of religion to adapt to new conditions. This one is especially clear
the process of adaptation can be seen in the example of the Catholic Church.

Two centuries pass, the 19th century begins. The new capitalist formation is gaining leading positions in marriage, and the role of science is growing. The Catholic Church cannot ignore this fact. And at the Vatican Council in 1869-1870. the thesis about the possibility of knowing God by the natural light of the mind through knowledge of the modern world was proclaimed.

But at that time it was not so much an attempt to bring religion and science closer together, but rather the church’s desire to neutralize the atheistic significance of scientific discoveries and prevent their influence on people’s minds. Therefore, it was persistently repeated that one should not place particularly high hopes on the human mind, and it was strongly emphasized that science should not
come into conflict with the truths of faith, but only contribute to their justification.

The 20th century, with its rapid social, scientific and technological progress, again significantly changed the situation in the world. The authority of religion began to decline, its sphere of influence steadily decreased. And this again could not but affect the activities of the church, in particular its attitude towards science and scientific progress.

The successes of natural science in the 20th century forced, for example, the Catholic Church to take new steps towards “rapprochement” with science. The theoretical basis of modern Catholicism is Thomism - the teaching of the 13th century Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas about the harmony between faith and knowledge. Based on this doctrine, which insists that religion and science have a supposedly common source - the divine mind, its modern supporters try to reconcile religious faith with scientific knowledge about the world.

“Modern fideism does not reject science at all,” Feuerbach wrote in his time, “it rejects only the “excessive claims” of science, namely, the claim to objective truth.”

The Catholic Church has created special astronomical observatories in Western European countries, equipped with advanced equipment. The learned monks conducted many hours of observations and made astronomical discoveries. Among them we can find the names of famous astronomers. In most of their statements, these Catholic scientists sought to show that the results of the study of the Universe not only do not explode faith in God, but, in fact, confirm the correctness of religious views.

However, the hopes of the leaders of the Catholic Church were not realized. The achievements of natural science over the last ten years not only did not lead to the idea of God, but, on the contrary, convincingly testified in the interests of the material unity of the world. All attempts to directly interpret certain scientific results in a religious spirit did not and do not withstand any serious criticism. This circumstance, as well as the situation in the world that has changed, prompted the Second Vatican Council, which took place in 1962 - 1965, to take another step towards science.

It was solemnly declared that the church positively assessed scientific progress and from now on would not covet freedom of scientific research and the independence of science.

In November 1979, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, John Paul II, officially admitted for the first time that the great Italian scientist Galileo Galilei had suffered unjustly as a result of persecution by the church. The Pope said that the Inquisition had forced Galileo to renounce the teachings of Copernicus.

This action once again demonstrates that the modern church is ready to make any verbal concessions in order to create the appearance of no contradictions between religion and science and confirm the possibility of their “peaceful coexistence.”

The true meaning of such tactics is quite obvious. If modern religion cannot oppose anything to scientific data in essence, if it is not able to fight science directly and directly, then it should be depicted on the right as if scientific activity was given from God and therefore not only does not contradict religion, but must also necessarily lead to God.

As for the substantiation of religious ideas with the help of scientific data, then, since the direct “scientific evidence” of the existence of God turns out to be of little challenge and is easily refuted from scientific evidence
positions, Catholic theologians began to look for other ways and possibilities.

Yes, neo-Thomists were forced, if not to completely abandon the thesis behind which natural science should establish the existence of God, then at least to significantly improve it.

In a modernized form, it sounds approximately like this: the need for belief in the existence of God should be demonstrated through understanding the gaps in scientific knowledge and putting together various scientific data.

God is beyond the reach of science, some theologians say, for example, he is beyond its borders. Therefore, evidence of its existence should be sought in the “blank spots” of modern natural science, in those problems that science cannot resolve.

Supporters of this point of view, not without reason, respect that it is much more convenient and profitable to interpret in religious terms not what has already been discovered by natural science, but what is still unknown... Although from the position of science this method of naturally “scientific” justification of religion does not stand up, understandable, no criticism. Sooner or later, science successfully solves the problems that face it, and thereby eliminates any “white spots”.

The official theorists of Russian Orthodoxy take a slightly different position regarding science, who generally try, if possible, to bypass the issue, one way or another connected with the relationship between science and religion.

By flirting with science, the modern church at the same time tries to blame scientific and technological progress for all the difficulties that the masses face in the Western world. This is one of the favorite tactics that the church in capitalist countries readily uses to maintain believers and increase their number. At the same time, we are vocal about the fact that science has not yet been able to satisfy the most pressing needs of people - to ensure a person a long life without disease and with enough food. This is how a hostile attitude towards science is formed, distrust in its capabilities, the idea that science is supposedly dealing with problems that it should not deal with.

It is clear that the objection to the enormous positive role that science has played and continues to play in the development of human society, its colossal contribution to the progress of earthly civilization, is not based on anything. If it were not for science, we would probably still live at best at the level of the Middle Ages and would have no airplanes, no cars, no machine tools, no radio, no television, no medical devices, and many other things that determine the face of modern civilization.

As for specific scientific achievements, there is no point in asking questions about whether they are good or bad, useful or harmful. It is impossible to answer such a question “in general.” Everything depends on specific historical conditions.

Any scientific discovery can benefit people. But in certain social conditions, in a class antagonistic society, it can, in principle, be used to the detriment of people, turned towards their destruction. In particular, in the countries of modern imperialism there are certain forces interested in inciting military hysteria, using the latest achievements of physics, chemistry, biology, electronics, and automation to create barbaric weapons of mass destruction.

At the same time, the following question also arises: perhaps religious theorists are still right in some ways, perhaps science really is “from the wrong beginning” and is not exactly doing that? For example, instead of intensively studying the Universe, exploring the world of elementary particles, all scientific efforts and resources should be directed to developing methods for treating diseases and prolonging human life.

Undoubtedly, both of these tasks are of paramount importance, and their solution is given great importance. But this does not mean that all other tasks can be put off for a long time. First of all, because marriage needs “space research, atomic energy, knowledge of the laws of the structure of matter, and much more. But also because development follows a very complex path and the solution of one or another specific task sometimes requires an integrated approach, the use of data from different sciences.

Yes, let’s say, modern medicine widely relies on the achievements of physics, electronics, biology, space medicine, and mathematical research methods. The same close connections exist between physics and biology, biology and chemistry, geology and astronomy, etc. And connections like these are not accidental.

Based on vast experience in understanding the surrounding world, modern science has come to the conclusion that a systematic approach to the study of various natural phenomena is necessary. In other words, any phenomenon must not be studied in isolation, not artificially separated from other phenomena, but considered in its entirety with those natural processes with which it is directly or indirectly connected.

Methodological considerations. We examined the issue of the relationship between science and religion mainly in the context of Catholicism, since of all modern churches it is the Catholic Church (and partly the Orthodox) that pays the most attention to this issue.

When studying this section of the astronomy course, it is especially important to note that at the center of the struggle between science and religion, in essence, there has always been the question of the place and role of man in the universe, about the meaning of human existence.

This is how it was at the time when the scientific and religious pictures of the world opposed each other, and this is how things stand now, when theologians no longer enter into disputes with science on specific issues of the universe. In this regard, the philosophical understanding of the achievements of natural science, the systematic analysis of all the latest scientific discoveries and problems from the positions of atheism and dialectical materialism, regardless of whether theologians have already managed to interpret and falsify these discoveries and problems in religious terms, becomes especially important. Therefore, a student of astronomy and physics must not only carefully follow the development of these sciences, but also be constantly aware of the ideological problems that arise in the process of their development.

The weakness and failure of modern idealistic philosophy manifest themselves in that it contradicts both the development of science and progressive social movements; it causes protest both from spiritually persistent, incorruptible scientists, and from all those for whom the interests of the people and the bright future of humanity are more important than the interests of the owners of capital.

In countries that the apologists of imperialism hypocritically call the “free world,” the ideological struggle between progressive and reactionary worldviews, between supporters of materialism and idealism is increasingly flaring up. It is led by Marxist cadres united in communist organizations. But often people emerge from among the bourgeois intelligentsia themselves who understand the reactionary role of philosophical idealism and oppose it.

Among them is such a progressive philosopher as Barrows Dunham, a courageous fighter against spiritual and political reaction in the United States, a sharp critic of retrograde philosophies and social myths. Exposing the crushing and degradation of philosophy in the writings of pragmatists and positivists, Dunham highly raises the dignity of philosophy, seeing in it an expression of the interests and aspirations of the people. “...For me, the most attractive thing about philosophy is that its origins go back to the people,” he writes in his book “Giant in Chains.” For Dunham, philosophy is not a scholastic "analysis of language"; “philosophy,” he writes, “is the guide of life,” “philosophy is the theory of the liberation of humanity” 18.

The Japanese philosopher Yanagida Kenjuro, having embarked on the path of struggle for peace, for the democratic rights of the Japanese people and for ridding them of foreign dependence, became convinced that idealistic philosophy weakens a person and stupefies his mind with unrealizable illusions. Yanagida Kand-

Zuro found the courage to abandon this deceptive philosophy, subject it to criticism and take the position of a scientific, materialistic worldview. He wrote in My Journey into Truth:

“The place of the collapsed idealistic philosophy has been replaced by a new, Marxist, materialist philosophy, which dominates the minds of our youth. This is understandable, because what more As social contradictions in a country occupied by foreign troops intensify, the truth of dialectical materialism becomes clearer to the broad masses” 19 .

Bzrrose Dunham and Yanagida Kenjuro are not alone. One can name many progressive philosophers and scientists who are fighting against philosophical idealism, defending and promoting dialectical materialism.

In the USA, Howard Selsam, Harry Wells and other Marxists are in the forefront of the fighters for materialism. The famous progressive philosopher John Somerville is actively working to familiarize the American people with the Marxist-Leninist worldview. Roy Wood Sellers, Corliss Lamont and Paul Crosser were close to materialism and did a lot to expose idealistic philosophy. In England, M. Cornforth, J. Lewis, A. Robertson, and major scientists J. Bernal, D. Haldane, who made a significant contribution to the common cause of the struggle for a progressive worldview, enjoy deserved fame. French and Italian Marxists R. Garaudy, J. Canal, M. Spinella, C. Luporini and many others have great merit in the dissemination of advanced philosophical ideas. The works of Eli Gortari (Mexico), X. Theodoridis (Greece) show that in other countries of the world materialist philosophy is conquering the minds of people.

Along with the defense of materialism by people who came to it through active social activities and philosophical reflection, materialism is receiving increasing support from the leading representatives of modern natural science. Many of the most important scientific discoveries of recent decades have become convincing proof of the correctness of Marxist philosophical materialism.

Einstein's theory of relativity proved the inextricable connection of space and time with matter and its movement and confirmed the doctrine of dialectical materialism about space and time as forms of existence of matter. Nuclear physics has revealed the complex structure of the atomic nucleus and discovered many elementary particles of matter, giving new justification for the position of Marxist philosophical materialism about the inexhaustibility of matter, about the infinite variety of its forms. Diagnostics gradually became established in physics.

a lexical view of a microparticle as a unity of matter and field, a unity of corpuscular and wave properties.

Advances in the field of physical sciences were accompanied by serious advances in chemistry, biology, and physiology. The achievements of theoretical natural science contributed to the enormous progress of technology. The three great scientific and technical achievements of our time - the use of atomic energy, electronics and rocketry - began a new era in the history of mankind's productive forces, immeasurably increasing its power over nature. Artificial Earth satellites and space rockets have opened up the real prospect of man going beyond the Earth's atmosphere and exploring the vastness of space.

All these and other discoveries and achievements confirm the truth of dialectical materialism and often force positivist-minded scientists to reconsider their views. It is significant, for example, that in the last period of his life A. Einstein began to increasingly speak out in favor of materialism, and such prominent scientists as L. Infeld and Louis de Broglie, who had previously sided with positivism, eventually went over to the side of materialism.

Some major scientists (N. Bohr, W. Heisenberg), who for decades led the positivist movement in physics, have recently begun to abandon a number of positivist positions and criticize them. Among the scientists and philosophers who join positivism, there are already people who have begun to waver, who sympathize with materialism and are drawn to it.

The enormous significance of the newest discoveries in the field of natural science lies, in particular, in the fact that they undermine the old, metaphysical worldview and bring to the fore a dialectical view of the world. V.I. Lenin, who in his book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” summarized the processes taking place in physics at the beginning of the 20th century, stated with good reason: “Modern physics lies in childbirth. It gives birth to dialectical materialism” 20. These words of Lenin retain all their significance for the physics of our days.

Modern natural science, in the course of its own development, comes to recognize the method of materialist dialectics. This was understood by such outstanding physicists of our time as Paul Langevin, Frederic Joliot-Curie and a number of other scientists. They became conscious supporters of dialectical materialism.

In our time, in order to wage a successful struggle against reactionary philosophy, in order to firmly stand in the positions of the materialist worldview and be able to defend it, it is not enough to consider oneself a materialist; for this you need to be a conscious supporter of dialectical materialism.

A correct understanding of observed celestial phenomena has evolved over centuries. You know about the origins of astronomy in Ancient Egypt and China, about the later achievements of ancient Greek scientists, about the observations of priests and their false ideas about nature, about their use of their knowledge for their own benefit. The priests also created astrology - a false doctrine about the influence of planets on the character and destinies of people and nations and about the imaginary possibility of predicting fate by the location of the stars.

You are also familiar with the geocentric system of the world, developed in the 2nd century. n. e. ancient Greek scientist Claudius Ptolemy. He “placed” the spherical but motionless Earth at the center of the world, around which all the other luminaries revolved (Fig. 29). Ptolemy explained the apparent loop-like motion of the planets by a combination of two uniform circular motions: the movement of the planet itself in a small circle and the rotation of the center of this circle around the Earth. However, as observational data on the motion of the planets accumulated, Ptolemy's theory required more and more complications, which made it cumbersome and implausible. The obvious artificiality of the increasingly complex system and the lack of sufficient agreement between theory and observations required its replacement. This was done in the 16th century. the great Polish scientist Nicolaus Copernicus.

Rice. 29. System of the world according to Ptolemy.

Copernicus discarded the dogmatic position about the immobility of the Earth, which had dominated the minds of people for centuries. Having placed the Earth among the ordinary planets, he pointed out that the Earth, occupying third place from the Sun, along with all the planets, moves in space around the Sun and, in addition, rotates around its axis1 Copernicus boldly argued that it is precisely the rotation of the Earth and its revolution around the Sun it is possible to correctly explain the then known celestial phenomena and the visible loop-like motion of the planets (Fig. 16 and 30). This revolution in astronomy and worldview, made by the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, as F. Engels noted, freed the study of nature from religion.

Rice. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543). Polish astronomer who substantiated the heliocentric system of the world, according to which the Earth, together with other planets, revolves around the Sun

Galileo Galilei, who first pointed a telescope at the sky, correctly interpreted his discoveries as confirmation of Copernicus' theory. Thus, Galileo discovered the phases of Venus. He found that such a change is possible only if Venus revolves around the Sun, and not around the Earth. Galileo discovered mountains on the Moon and measured their height. It turned out that there is no fundamental difference between the Earth and celestial bodies, for example, mountains similar to mountains on Earth existed on the celestial body. And it became easier to believe that the Earth is just one of these bodies.

Galileo discovered four satellites of the planet Jupiter. Their revolution around Jupiter refuted the idea that only the Earth is at the center of rotation. Galileo discovered spots on the Sun and, based on their movement, concluded that the Sun rotates around its axis. The existence of spots on the Sun, which was considered an emblem of “heavenly purity,” also refuted the idea of a supposed fundamental difference between the earthly and the heavenly.

The Milky Way in the field of view of the telescope broke up into many faint stars. The Universe appeared before man as something incomparably grander than the small world supposedly circling around the Earth, according to the ideas of Aristotle, Ptolemy and medieval clergy. The Church, as you already know from history and physics courses, dealt with Giordano Bruno, who made bold philosophical conclusions from the discovery of Copernicus. M. V. Lomonosov (1711-1765) led a brave struggle against the churchmen for the right to disseminate genuine knowledge about the structure of the Universe. Lomonosov ridiculed obscurantists in a witty and attractive poetic and satirical form.

Rice. 30. When observed from Earth, the projection of the planet onto the sky creates a loop (the drawing is made in a “sideways” projection).

The emancipation of human thought, the refusal to blindly follow the limited dogmas of the church, the call for a bold materialistic study of nature - this is the main, universal result of the struggle of Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo for a scientific worldview.