How the Geocentric Model of the Universe Worked [Video]

The ancient cosmology could explain the apparent motion of the planets using just their movements around circles

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In “The Case against Copernicus,” authors Dennis Danielson and Christopher Graney detail the evidence-based reasons why 17th-century astronomers doubted the Copernican model of the universe, which held that Earth revolves around the sun (and not the other way around). After all, the ancient geocentric universe of Ptolemy was able to account for the observed motion of the sun, moon and planets by using the complicated motion of epicycles—circles embedded within circles. The dispute was only resolved hundreds of years later, as apparent problems in the Copernican universe could only be resolved with the conceptual and experimental advances of the 17th- and 18th-centuries. In this video we see just how intricate the Ptolemaic universe was.

Michael Moyer is the editor in charge of physics and space coverage at Scientific American. Previously he spent eight years at Popular Science magazine, where he was the articles editor. He was awarded the 2005 American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award for his article "Journey to the 10th Dimension," and has appeared on CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and the Discovery Channel. He studied physics at the University of California at Berkeley and at Columbia University.

More by Michael Moyer
Scientific American Magazine Vol 310 Issue 1This article was published with the title “How the Geocentric Model of the Universe Worked [Video]” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 310 No. 1 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican012014-1nRHQAVyn5afTUMn2C50ok

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe