Contestation to the Heliocentric Astronomical Model, Its Claims, Incidence of the Sun’s Rays, Eratosthenes Experiment and the Eccentric Orbit of Venus [1]



FERNANDES, Ivete dos Santos [2]

FERNANDES, Ivete dos Santos. Contestation to the Heliocentric Astronomical Model, Its Claims, Incidence of the Sun’s Rays, Eratosthenes Experiment and the Eccentric Orbit of Venus. Revista Científica Multidisciplinar Núcleo do Conhecimento. Year 06, Ed. 06, Vol. 03, pp. 97-121. June 2021. ISSN: 2448-0959, Access link:


We are presented from childhood to the knowledge of the Heliocentric model, but intuitively we can have another perception for astronomical phenomena about how the interaction Sun, Moon and eclipses could be explained. The aim of this article is to bring a reflection on the current astronomical model, contrasting some elucidations of the theory of the seventeenth century, in order to present incongruities through logic, in which its prediction presents errors in relation to reality. To perform these counterpositions, experiments were carried out using the Eratosthenes model, observing the perpendicularity of the Sun and its non-compatibility with the theory that is based on a huge and distant Sun. Observations of models and programs such as Stellarium and its predictions were also used, according to methodologies used by Nicolau Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and others, reviewing the facts and proposing a new methodology to verify the non-eccentricity of Venus’ orbit and its more elliptical orbit after Mercury. Thus, with the experiment of Eratosthenes and the observation of the Stellarium program, a new methodology was proposed for these experiments, aiming at reformulations in today’s accepted astronomy, a discussion of methods and understanding of them for spherical bodies, reformulating concepts and a possible new astronomical model.

Keywords: Astronomy, Cosmological model, Astronomical model contestation, Eratosthenes experiment.


Through the analysis of the entire astronomical model instituted by Nicolaus Copernicus and consolidated by Pope Gregory 13 in the seventeenth century (DOGGETT, 1992), the analysis of experiments and the observance of contradictory concepts, this article drives the questioning that a Sun, emitting rays considered parallel, with a radius of 696,000 km, could not provoke penumbra , and in this condition, lunar eclipses would occur at a longer time and solar eclipses should have a range of the same diameter as the Moon, for rays considered parallel.

Eratosthenes and his experiment, which can and must be validated also to demonstrate the size of the Sun, draws a parallel between its time and the fact of the 24.05º (latitude of Asuã) that today could no longer be perpendicular.

In this context, starting from earth as the reference point, because we are on its surface, we will deal with how the Sun is seen from Earth, the reason for its birth and the visualization we have over the course of hours, through logical explanations for these facts, taking into account that bodies orbit others by their maximum circles , these will also be orbited in the same way. Through a logical view, we understand that these events occur differently when compared to the predictions of the current astronomical model, as in fact they should occur for a huge and distant Sun that diverges and converges and its influences on the Earth.


Eratosthenes lived in Alexandria when he discovered that on June 21, in Asuã, the Sun focused directly on the center of a well. Where, from this observance, he would later calculate the size of the Earth by checking the shadow at noon solar, for a Sun at 90º.

In this way, he did his experiment with the aim of measuring the size of the Earth, the 1/360° of the Earth. He observed that the shadow was zeroed on a 1-meter rod properly pprovided in the city of Asuã, while in Alexandria a shadow equivalent to 7.2º was found (DUANE, 2010; SACROBOSCO, 2006) for 800 km of distance between cities, finding a circumference, now calculated, at 40,075 km to Earth (LASKY, 2000; DUNHAM, 1990).

However, Eratosthenes did not think it would be possible to reverse the experiment, not only to know the size of the Earth, but also to confirm the size of the Sun. In this way, it is evident that a huge sun would have to be perpendicular to an immense radius on Earth. However, with a huge and distant sun as its premise, this does not occur within the 555-meter radius observed (DUANE, 2010; SACROBOSCO, 2006).

The experiment widely repeated for centuries, can have a double purpose, knowing that the Sun is zeroed, that is, perpendicular to 555 meters, which corresponds to 0.01º on Earth, for a Sun of 696,000 km radius (BORGES, 2005; DUTKA, 1993).

For a divergent sun, the experiment can be done any day, since its orbit occurs by its maximum circles.At noon solar, where the Sun is at 89º,50′ (solar elevation, which the shadow will be zeroed, according to forecasts of Stellarium), from 1.11 km, too, will notice a very small shadow, thus confirming that an immense Sun would not be compatible. Emphasizing that light propagates in a straight line (TREVISAN, 1997; KATZ, 1998).

The current astronomical model admits a convergence/divergence of 0.53º. So for the Eratosthenes experiment, the Sun would be perpendicular to a substantially larger radius, but, oddly enough, this is not in a radius of 121.34 km corresponding to 0.01° of the circumference of the Sun. For a divergence of 0.53°, where 121.34 km multiplied by 53 would result in 6,431 km, which should be perpendicular. However, this does not occur, being perpendicular only 1.11 km or a radius of 555 meters, for a curvature of 111 km or 0.01º on Earth (LONGHINI, 2010; CREASE, 2006).

Proving that a radius of 555 meters is actually perpendicular, which is incompatible with an immense sun. 121.34 km to 0.01º of the Sun, would be perpendicular to the Earth, which would obviously represent a much larger radius on Earth than its 0.01º. However, if it does not stay, it is proven that Sun cannot be immense. Remembering that the Sun diverges by 0.53º, in an infinitely larger radius it should cover this perpendicularity, given that light propagates in a straight line. (MOURÃO, 1987; GULBEKIAN, 1987).


The model states that the Sun emits rays considered parallel, so 97% to 99% would be parallel. To justify a Sun of 696,000 km radius, in this case, it would have to emit rays considered parallel that, in strictly scientific and practical terms, could not come from an extensive source, nor could it produce penumbra or angles, nor could they be perpendicular on Earth in a radius of only 555 meters to solstice. It is absurd that a parallel Sun is perpendicular only to this radius that corresponds to 0.01º of the earth’s curvature, according to the experiment of Eratosthenes, known for centuries. Strangely, Nicolaus Copernicus knew this experiment and did not take it into consideration, if he did so he would have observed that his model did not proceed, because an immense Sun would have to be perpendicular to a lightning ray also immense, which reality does not demonstrate. Thus, this proves this error of the model, remembering, that if the model fails at such an important point, it becomes null. The experiment of Eratosthenes was carried out by admitting that the Sun would emit rays parallel to Syene and Alexandria, thus this concept of the Sun emitting parallel rays comes from Aristarchus, who calculated the distance Earth\Sun by the fourth crescent phase of the moon (BOCZKO, 1984).

A ray considered parallel would also have to in the lunar eclipse to cause a shadow the same size as earth. However, in the solar eclipse, the moon’s shadow is 270 km for a Moon of 3,474 km, which a parallel radius would not, noting, that the parallel radius would cause a shadow of the same size as the bulkhead, which in the model does not correspond to what was observed (SAGAN, 1980).

The problem with rays considered parallel is that the sun’s radius can only be considered parallel if it were in fact 100% parallel. Otherwise, it cannot be accepted that 97% to 99% would be considered parallel. That said, we can analyze another problem: parallel rays would not form penumbra, much less would form angles that only convergent and divergent ones would produce. If these were parallel, it would thus cease the Sun to be an extensive source for the optics that would form penumbra. Taking this into consideration, the twilight that we experience every day would be a work of science fiction, but it is real, thus proving that the sun’s rays are not parallel, because a spherical body has to emit convergent and divergent rays in a small band that directly affects. Like its 0.01º, one can admit as apparently parallel those that directly affect the Earth, that is, exactly perpendicular (GASPAR, 2000; AUJAC, 1980).

A spherical body like the Sun could not emit rays considered parallel, but rather convergent/divergent, but considering the size of 109 times the size of the Earth, in this case, they would be parallel. In a transit of Venus and Mercury, the Earth being almost the size of Venus, for the current astronomical model, every day there would be illumination on the sides of the Earth, since the Earth would be a dot in the center of the Sun, which would result in a twilight of 12 hours, which would not become absolute night at any time , since the Earth would orbit the Sun by its maximum circle. Thus, these rays should pass through the sides of the Earth, leaving the entire Earth within this radius, which again does not occur in reality, since the Earth would be 23 hours and 56 minutes orbiting the Sun continuously and eternally, where 2 spherical bodies orbit and are orbited by their respective maximum circles. In this way, the same solar luminosity would be emitted to earth at any time, whether day or night, dusk should occur continuously in the more than 12 hours, if night, and directly sunlight, to an infinitely larger sun beam that would pass through the Earth, but if night would have a twilight of 12 hours. In his article, astrophysicist Ethan Siegel states that the sun’s rays are parallel, so they would not form penumbra. In line, Carl Sagan also recognizes, when talking about the Eratosthenes experiment, that the sun’s rays are parallel.


The reason the rays seem to have a divergent shape is because of the perspective and the fact that these truly parallel rays of light are landing closer to us than their point of origin, right at the bottom of the clouds. The sun’s rays are really parallel, but unless they’re coming perpendicular to you, they won’t seem like that. This is simply what it looks like when you see parallel lines as they move away from you. (ETHAN SIEGEL)

In reality, if the sun’s rays are considered parallel they cannot form penumbra or angles, since for this hypothesis, the Sun would indeed be huge and distant. This contradiction unnoticed to this day, can not affirm antagonistic concepts such as the rays of the Sun be considered parallel and form angles concomitantly.

Comparatively for geometric shapes, being Sun and Earth spherical, their curvature or surface, in the case of the Sun, being immense, would be practically a line, having no curvature. In the presence of a tiny Earth, the Sun would focus parallel and perpendicularly on almost the entire radius of the Earth, however, this does not occur. Exemplifying: in a marble, its surface or curvature is in fact a sharp curve, but compared to the Sun, it would be practically a line, that is, it would cause rays considered parallel, being perpendicular to the Earth, since it also rotates.

The surface or curvature of the Sun, being almost a line, consequently tracing perpendicular lines, would be practically parallel to each other, thus making sense of the statement that the sun emits rays considered parallel, but would not form penumbra or angles, produced in the real world. Mischaracterizing the affirmation of the model for the sun’s rays, which actually converge and diverge. Also remembering that on Earth, it is not possible to visualize its curvature, but knowing, indirectly, that it is spherical. (TIPLER, 2009).

The twilight rays that are observed, could not form to absolutely parallel rays or considered parallel, if so, would be works of science fiction. It cannot exist in the real world, since parallel rays do not form angles or produce penumbra (CREPUSCULAR RAYS, 2012).

A spherical body could only produce convergent and divergent rays, taking into account that its origin is circular and must converge and diverge. There are no bodies of great proportions in the universe that are not spherical. (WALKER, 1990; BERRY, 1961).

Exemplifying a peculiar place in the world: the Eiffel Tower. The Sun would be perpendicular only to a radius of 555 meters, thus demonstrating a small sun. If the model were real, the immense Sun would be not only perpendicular to the tower, but also to an immense radius, which is not consistent with what was observed.

Therefore, we conclude that the Heliocentric model again forgets that a divergent Sun, which has 0.53º of divergence, could not have this scope on Earth. In the Eratosthenes experiment, being perpendicular to a radius of only 555 meters, which would correspond to 0.01º of the earth’s curvature is disproportionate to the same 0.01º of the circumference of the Sun, which are equivalent to 121.34 km. And the divergence, has it been forgotten? The sun diverging to the actual astronomical model, 111 km to 1º on Earth and 0.01º of the Sun, corresponded to 121.34 km to 0.53º, totaling 6,431.02 km. Thus, in the real world, being perpendicular to a radius of 555 meters is totally illogical for the Heliocentric model (BRETONES, 1999).


Assuã, is located at latitude 24.05º North, which demonstrates that the Sun is decreasing its precession, or reducing from 24.05º to 23.5º or 23.27°, that is, there is a reduction of 0.78º in the precession, meaning that in the past, up to latitude 24.05º, the Sun was in fact perpendicular, as evidenced by Eratosthenes.

However, the stellarium program points out that in the year 15020, the polaris star will be at an elevation of 44°, where it can be seen from Porto Alegre / RS. However, we noticed a misconception of Stellarium, since this phenomenon would occur contrary to what was stated, where in the future we would have the Sun practically under the equator and two seasons, spring and autumn, from the point of view of precession, since the Sun will always be approximately 90º with Polaris , to the day of the day. Thus, in the future, the Sun will tend to the equator, with this polaris elevation forecast of 44º totally mistaken.

A smaller, closer Sun orbiting the Earth and tending to the equator, oscillating today at 23.27º, above or below the equator, in the future will oscillate only at the equator, as demonstrated by Eratosthenes 2,200 years ago. These days, this precession is shrinking. However, stellarium points to the year 15020 a precession of 23.5º + 23.5º, that is, 47º, which would result, in the tropics being displaced, melting polar regions, an imminent tragedy in a few years; which also does not correspond to today’s 24.05º (latitude) of Asuã. Thus, it is noted that what was perpendicular in the past is no longer. (ASENSI, 1990; GOLDSTEIN, 2002).

Since the Sun oscillates 23.27º to the tropic of Cancer or the Tropic of Capricorn, the calculation of the Stellarium of elevation of 47º for Polaris for the year 15020 does not proceed. At an elevation of 90º – 23.27º = 66.73º, that is, when it reduces 23.27º, Polaris will be displaced by 23.27º, not 44º as affirmed, whose elevation will pass to 66.73º North. Thus, we proved that stellarium prediction is wrong, because the Sun would also move in equal proportion to the tropics (ZEILIK, 2003).

The Sun, today, in fact, focuses on the tropics at 23.5º or 23.27º above or below the equator. If in 2,200 it was at 24.05º, with a reduction of 0.78º, when compared to the currently existing precession, which is already quite significant, then in 65,633 years, we would have a reduction of 23.27º, contrary to Stellarium’s forecast. This fact is widely documented, thus having approximately 0.78º for 2,200 years, for a recession of 23.27º in 65,633 years, not compatible with what Stellarium predicts. A recession of 47º is incompatible with the 2,000 years of reduction from 24.05º to 23.27º, which will tend to almost zero.

The first measure of the obliqueity of the ecliptic is credited to Eratosthenes by the value of 23º 51′ 20″, which is in almost agreement with the claims of this work, regarding the precession and concomitantly the oblinety of the ecliptic.

At the time of Eratosthenes, at latitude 24.05º, which is the latitude of Asuã, the Sun was perfectly perpendicular, as proven through numerous and repeated experiments carried out by him, always zeroing the shadow, under the justification that the precession at the time was another, reducing today to 23, 27º. However, in the future it is estimated that, with the precession close to zero, we will have practically two seasons: spring and autumn, which would lead to changes in the agricultural scenario of the world, where we will have a greater abundance of foodstuffs in some regions that today are practically unproductive, emerging new fertile areas, because a significant area can turn into a temperate zone during the year due to the change in precession. (ARAUJO, 2003).

Thus, stellarium predicts for the year 15020 a recession of 47º, which does not agree with the evolution of the precession observed. A mathematical prediction for the year 15020 cannot be at odds with 2,200 years of a widely repeated experiment, which proves that the perpendicularity of the Sun reduced its precession from 24.05º to 23.27º, and this fact is widely documented. (LONGHINI, 2010).


Considering how the Sun is seen from an airplane at 12 o’clock and noting that spherical bodies orbit others by their respective maximum circles, so seen from the plane the Sun would have to be seen, being 150 million km, also in the maximum circle of the Earth, since as a reference the Sun would be in the maximum circle of the Earth\Equator, at any time, just that the plane was flying in the day part, being the plane traveling through the equator would have to be seen at any time always on the horizon line during the day, should never be seen at 12 o’clock to 90º with the plane, admitting on a day of equinox, as in fact seen. Since the Sun would be 150 million km away, and it is impossible for the plane to go to 90 degrees with the Sun, it would always be on the horizon, or 150 million km ahead or contrary to the plane, never at 90º since we would be flying over the earth’s orbit, at 11\12 km altitude, the reference of the Sun at 90º would be seen from Earth only , by its rotation, as endorsed by the model. On the plane we don’t have the same earth reference or rotation as a reason to see the sun rising east, at 90 degrees at 12 o’clock and declining west. If the Sun were in the mediations of the Milky Way, the Earth would orbit the Sun also by its maximum circle, so seeing from the Earth the Sun would also have to stay in its maximum circle, it would always be seen on the horizon line, a little below or above if it traveled the tropics; But this does not occur, however the Sun is seen at 90º with the plane at cruising altitude for the time of 12 o’clock, when in the current model the Sun should always be seen on the horizon line at any time, if day, so the model fails again (JOHN, 2005).

If the Sun were seen on the horizon at any time, by day the model would be correct, but we see the 90º with the plane, remembering that the plane is subject to terrestrial gravity, but is exempt from the rotation of it, so the Sun could not be seen as from Earth, and the model states that rotation is responsible for seeing the Sun , but from the plane this would change and the Sun should be in the maximum circle, since we would be closer to the maximum circle of the Earth or 11 km from it (on average for flights). From a plane we skirted the Earth at 40.075 km, at 11\12 km altitude, never at any time could the plane be at 90º with the Sun, so the Sun would always be 150 million km, never at 90º, being seen on the horizon line, either to the left or right of the plane, being the Sun of the dimension that the model claims (LANCIANO, 2014).


The annual Movement of the Sun, in the current astronomical model, is seen as a carousel that rotates due to the movement of translation of the earth over the Sun that, in turn, would be seen in front of the 12 equatorial constellations in its apparent annual movement of day 1. However, it is observed that again it would be incongruous, since in the rotation of the Earth of 23 hours and 56 minutes would also give 1st day in relation to the constellations, which would cancel or add up, giving 2º. However, the model attributes this movement to the translation of the Earth, but what about the 1st of the rotation? If annulled there would be no annual movement in relation to the stars and if added would result in the 2nd, which would also be wrong. Stellarium demonstrates the 1st in relation to constellations, a widely publicized fact that the Sun has a daily movement of 1º in relation to stars/constellations. However, if it is immobile in the center of the galaxy, it could not present this movement, since the Sun is closer than the stars, and if passing the front of these would demonstrate a real movement, as demonstrated in the experiment of Eratosthenes, to a smaller and closer Sun, considering a geocentric model (SANTIAGO, 2021).


The rotation of the Earth corresponds to 23 hours and 56 minutes and is responsible for the birth of the Sun and Moon. However, with 23 hours and 56 minutes, the sun is not yet born, needing 3.94 minutes to be born, so as to have to “borrow” 3.94 minutes every day of the next rotation, totaling approximately 1,440 minutes in 1 year.

However, the Sun rises with approximately 24 hours, so on the first day with 23 hours and 56 minutes we still would not see the Sun. In 1 month, the sun would have a lag of 2 hours at birth, and in 6 months of 12 hours. For the earth’s equator, the Sun would have to rise during the dawn in a period, but this does not occur, because the 3.94 minutes are cumulative every day, so the reason for the birth of the Sun cannot be the rotation of the Earth. Being 24 hours corresponding to the 360º daily rotation of the Earth, the 23 hours and 56 minutes, would be equivalent to approximately 359º, with 3.94 minutes equivalent to 1st degree. Therefore, there is a misstep between the rotation and birth of the Sun. Taking into account the Southeast region, like july, when the Sun rises almost every day with 24 hours, we conclude that its birth would have to have another reason, having to detach itself from the rotation, which would mean that the Sun would have its movement regardless of rotation, while the rotation would be responsible for the apparent movement of the stars at 0.985º every day. The 3.94 minutes daily, in 365 days, result in 24 hours, and in 1 year, they would result in 1 day less in the total calculation (MAXIMUM, 2011; ALBANESE, 1997).

With the Moon something interesting happens, it needs 24 hours and 50 minutes to be born. Therefore, 50 minutes multiplied by 365 days result in 18250 minutes, which divided by 60, and then by 24 hours, results in 12.67 days. In this way, to be born only in surplus the moon would have to “borrow” 12.67 days of a non-existent rotation? To explain this phenomenon, the model has to actually unlink the birth of the Sun and moon from the rotation of the Earth, making sense in relation to the apparent movement of the stars of 0.985º day or approximately 1º, completing the cycle in 365/366 days (SPECK, 1997).

That is, for 365 days, there would be 12.67 days less for the Moon. In a few minutes, for the sun we would have 365 rotations of 23 hours and 56 minutes. With 1st corresponding to the 3.94 minutes multiplied by 365 days we would have one day less for rotation, and for the Moon, the 50 minutes multiplied by 365 days in the total calculation would result in 12.67 days less for rotation, but knowing the movement of 13º diaries, the above reasoning would be taking into account only for the rotation of the Earth (CAMINO , 1985).

Thus, the Sun should rise during the early hours, just as the Moon rises, due to a delay of 3.94 minutes daily, since the rotation of the Earth is 23 hours and 56 minutes in lag the 24 hours (on average) of the birth of the Sun. Having variations during the year, depending on the season.

Therefore, we have to unlink Sun and Moon from rotation, because it only makes 0.985º in apparent motion or approximately 1° in relation to the stars. (MANTECON, 1998).


The lunar eclipse occurring through the earth’s shadow, being caused by parallel rays, should cause a shadow of the same size as its bulkway, to a diameter of 12,756 km. However, science calculates the diameter of the shadow at 9,200 km, and the information is contradictory, since if the sun’s rays can be considered parallel from 97% to 99%, the calculation could not be so diverse. On the other hand, the vertex of the Earth’s shadow cone is 0.53º. However, if we have a night of 180º, that is, 12 hours, taking into account that for 24 hours we would have 360º at the equator whose variation throughout the year is very few minutes, how could an immense sun cause a shadow cone vertex of 0.53º for the night or lunar eclipse, which has the same reason , the shadow of the Earth? Since we do have the figure of a straight cylinder of 180º, a shadow cone of 0.53º would be visible for a clarity or penumbra of 180º – 0.53º = 179.47º.To visualize what the model states we would have to have 179.47° of twilight/penumbra/half light/illumination, however, the model states only the vertex of the shadow cone of 0.53º of umbra or calculated night, however, we do not see this occurring in the sky, what we visualize is 180º of umbra/shadow/night to the equator. Therefore, we visualize one thing and the model states another, completely different from what should be seen. In this case, lunar eclipses should be explained in another way, because taking into account the 0.53º apex of the shadow cone, one night would correspond to only 2.12 minutes. For the model to be correct, it would have to have a night or a lunar eclipse occurring in 2.12 minutes, because both would have the same cause, the shadow of the Earth (DA SILVEIRA, 2017; BACKRUD, 2007).


In addition to having a shadow cone vertex of 0.53°, consequently we would have to have smaller nights at the equator, but we don’t. The difference between days and nights is minimal for the terrestrial equator, but in the model forecast should have a significant difference in the nights and days larger, since the immense Sun would focus on a much larger area when day, but why not have? For ecuador, we do not take into account the tropics, which as the Sun focuses obliquely, there would be some changes (LONGHINI, 2010).

The light that propagates in a straight line would focus and encompass virtually the entire Earth, getting only 0.53º in the shadow\umbra. In the lunar eclipse, occurring within the earth’s shadow that would be visible from the sky at 180º, the vertex of the shadow cone of 0.53º could not be seen, it would be a umbra inside another umbra, which obviously would not be possible to visualize, because then both would cancel and the eclipse would not occur, or should occur for any night , that is, a total eclipse in every night lasting all night, since the night corresponds to 12 hours and not to the vertex of the shadow cone of 0.53º, because night and lunar eclipse has the same reason: the shadow\umbra of the Earth (LIMA, 2013).

Note that for the current astronomical model, the Sun is not represented 109 times greater than the Earth, much less the angle of the vertex of the illustrative drawings of the model corresponds to 0.53º, so the penumbra/twilight/half light/illumination would be 179.47º for reality and this is not what we see at night, that is, there is no 12hs of twilight, since 0.53º would correspond to only 2.12 minutes at night. Making a basic 3 rule: 360º is for 24hs or 1440 minutes, as well as 0.53º would be for 2.12 minutes, which in this case would represent a lunar night/eclipse that has the same motif, the shadow/umbra of the Earth, would be 2.12 minutes for the model to be correct. Recalling that the model argues that due to the distance, the Sun would be seen with its reduced angular size, it is observed that if the light spreads in a straight line, this penumbra would propagate through the sides of the Sun-lit Earth, within a radius of 696,000 km and pass through the earth’s radius of 6,378 km, converging the light at 0.53º, the 179.47º sky would be penumbra/illumination and only the 0.53º would be umbra, which would be visible in the sky. Just as we see the shade during a sunny day, we would also see this umbra, however, we have a night of 180º, that is, 12 hs, to the equator and not from a cone vertex 0.53º of umbra, or 2.12 minutes. When the eclipse occurred at any time of the night, we could not see a umbra at night inside another umbra of 0.53º, thus being necessary to review these concepts, because on a night of approximately 12 hs, it could not be a shadow cone vertex of 0.53º (PRINCE JR, 1970).


In the model, the seasons occur because of the inclination of the Earth’s axis of 23.5º. In a sphere there is only one axis, so in a maximum circle the longitudinal or horizontal axis will always be balanced with its central axis of gravity. If we divide a sphere into 4 parts, this longitudinal division will be the inclined or main axis, while the other smaller circles will be parallel to it, which would be corresponding to the tropics. However, if the Sun is perpendicular to the tropics, it will no longer be perpendicular to this central axis, being 23.5º displaced from the equator, thus moving from Polaris, which in reality does not happen. However, in the model, this should occur, that is, in the equinox, the Sun would be in the tropics at 89.50′ at noon solar, while on the solstice, at 66º. However, in the solstice the Sun should be at 89.50′, and Polaris at 90º (approximately) north, however, the solar elevation will be 66º in relation to Polaris, so its visualization would be blurred twice in the year (QUEIROZ, 2004).

If the axis were tilted, it would not be balanced with gravity, and this is one of the problems of this hypothesis. The other is what would be the reason for the inversion of the direction of the solar slope now favoring the northern hemisphere or by inverting the south? The model does not give a plausible explanation for this inversion (ANTUNES, 1996).

The axis slope is used to explain the seasons, but for the equinox this same axis, it is not inclined. In the statements of the seasons, in the equinox, the axis is no longer inclined, or tilts, the sun above or below, in the equinox directly over the equator, thus forgetting, the inclined axis. This same inclination corresponds to the precession of the equinoxes, which at the time of Eratosthenes was 24.05º (PRECESSION, 2011).

Since the seasons are explained only by the axis of inclination of the Earth, it is observed that in the equinox this axis would not be inclined, the precession would pass not to 25,770 years, but for 12 months, Polaris would have to be at 90º north and now at 44º, taking into account the solar elevation at 12 o’clock, for the year 15020 we realized that this would not occur in reality , which demonstrates another incongruity in the model. In fact, the 0.78º reduction of the precession of Eratosthenes, which is currently at 23.27º, and not 46.54º as stellarium points out, so in 65,633 years the Sun will tend to the equator and the elevation of Polaris will be 66.73º.

The earth’s axis, hypothetically, would be dividing the Earth into 4 parts, vertically and horizontally. This part that divides into 2 halves vertically is the axis of gravity that, coincidentally, imagining an Earth in space and perpendicular to it in another body, this leaning at 23.5º, would leave this axis and the earth would stagger, leaving its natural axis of gravity. Even more rotating inclined, the Sun would have to privilege one hemisphere over another, but what force would make it change its direction? If that were the case all the planets would do the same, orbiting the Sun, but they’re on the same plane as the ecliptic. From the perspective of a huge Sun and a tiny Earth, where the Earth would be a dot relative to it and would be orbiting by its maximum circle, the Sun would have to simultaneously illuminate the 2 poles of the Earth, regardless of the season, as spherical bodies orbit through their maximum circles. Thus, the lighting would be distributed equally at both poles, regardless of whether the shaft was tilted or not. In reality, a pole is illuminated when the Sun is displaced 23.5º above or below the equator, however the opposite pole should also be illuminated, as the Earth would orbit by its maximum circle. Thus, lighting should occur in both poles on the solstices, that is, when the Sun is displaced 23.5º North or South, being in the poles raised to 23.5º, regardless of the axis, however, this fact does not occur again. Thus, we conclude that this hypothesis of the model is null (GONÇALVES, 2011).


A droplet of water, being almost undetectable when clustered forms oceans. Despite their curved shape in the smallest expression, together would become apparently flat in its extension, but which in reality has a slight curvature in the whole. When light is used, it will also reflect diverging (MACHADO, 1986; CLARKE, 1985).


The method of science for calculating the eccentricity of planets is determined by their distances to the Sun, thinking a value close to zero, in which the closer to zero the less elliptical is their orbit. These calculations are made for all planets. Taking mercury as an example, we have to: 69,816,900 -46,001,200 = 23,815,700, now adding, 69,816,900 + 46,001,200 = 115,818,100, making the division: 23,815,700 / 115,818,100 = 0.2056302, coming to the conclusion that Mercury is the most elliptical of the planets. And for Venus: 108,942,000 – 107,476,000 = 1,466,000 now adding 108,942,000 + 107,476,000 = 216,418,000, making division: 1,466,000\216,418,000 = 0.0067739, concluding that, for science, this is the least eccentricity.

By direct observation of the sky, we know that the planets have distinct orbits from their periods and that we can observe them separately, making a comparison with others that also have quite elliptical orbits. Like Venus and Mercury, it is noted that both are very elliptical, by direct observation when passing through the zero degree point, that is, on the horizon line, in a totally irregular period, demonstrating its elliptical orbit. However, for science, Venus would be the closest to zero for eccentricity. A study at Stellarium, for the city of Macapá, Mercury, Venus, Neptune and its elevation to 0º, shows that: always at 18 o’clock, when the planet passes through the horizon line at the elevation of 0º, seen from Earth, then in the order of the most elliptical to the least: always in the elevation 0º in which it points on the horizon or declines , checking the elapsed time periods, which would be analogous to the distance to the Sun, should give the same pattern, however for the period observed at 0º, we reached numbers close to 0.100356 to 04\06\2028 or 0.14625 to 13\01\202, realizing that its orbit is quite elliptical for Venus, as well as mercury’s is also. This was the determining factor for Nicolau Copernicus, when he noticed this same irregularity in the periods when visible planets were seen on the horizon line, thus deducing that their orbits were elliptical. However, the model attributes to Venus an incredible eccentricity that cannot be confirmed in her observation. (LANGHI, 2009)

If the period is so irregular, Venus cannot have the closest eccentricity to zero. Calculating by the distance from Venus to the Sun, it would be as elliptical as Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Thus, we demonstrate that Venus is the second most elliptical by observing stellarium at 0º on the horizon, for the latitude of Macapá. Having said this statement, the data shown below are real and taken from Stellarium, so this same verification can be done in other periods of 8 years, which will repeat the pattern observed below (CANALLE, 2003).

Mercury seen from Macapá at 6:00 p.m. Degrees of elevation – elapsed time; shorter time/longer.

11/12/2020 – 18hs – 0º

12/02/2021 – 18hs – 0º – 63

11/04/2021 – 18hs – 0º – 58 – 63-58=63+58=5/121=0,04132

14/06/2021 – 18hs – 0º – 64 – 58-64=58+64= 6/122=0,04918

10/10/2021 – 18hs – 0º – 118 – 64-118=64+118=54/182=0,29670

23/11/2021 – 18hs – 0º – 44 –

26/01/2022 – 18hs – 0º – 64 – 44-64=44+64=0,18518

23/03/2022 – 18hs – 0º – 56

25/05/2022 – 18hs – 0º – 63 – 56-63=56+63=7/119=0,0588

05/07 /2022 – 18hs – 0º – 41

24/09/2022 – 18hs – 0º – 81 – 41-81=41+81=40/122=0,32786

Venus seen from Macapá at 6 pm. Degrees of elevation – elapsed time; shorter time/longer.

06/02/2020 – 18hs – 0º

12/02/2021 – 18hs – 0º – 251

13/01/2022 – 18hs – 0º – 337 – 251-337=251+337=0,14625

05/10/2022 – 18hs – 0º – 265

16/08/2023 – 18hs – 0º – 315 – 265-315=254+315=50/580=0,08620

14/05/2024 – 18hs – 0º – 271

25/03/2025 – 18hs – 0º – 315 – 271-315=271+315=44/586=0,07508

16/12/2025 – 18hs – 0º – 266

23/10/2026 – 18hs – 0º – 311 – 266-311=266+311=45/577=0,07798

14/07/2027 – 18hs – 0º – 264

04/06/2028 – 18hs – 0º – 325 – 264-325=264+325=61/589=0,100356

Neptune seen from Macapá at 6 pm. Degrees of elevation – elapsed time:
shorter /longer time.

16/09/2020 – 18hs – 0º

20/03/2021 – 18hs – 0º – 185

19/09/2021 – 18hs – 0º – 183 – 185-183=185+183=2/368=0,0054347

22/03/2022 – 18hs – 0º – 184

14/06/2060 – 18hs – 0º –

14/12/2060 – 18hs – 0º – 183 -184-183=184+183=1/367=0,0027247

17/03/2100 – 18hs – 0º –

17/09/2100 – 18hs – 0º – 184 – 184-183=184+183=1/367=0,0027247

02/07/2150 – 18hs – 0º –

03/01/2151 – 18hs – 0º – 185 – 185-184=185+184=1/369=0,00271

Since for science Venus is the most eccentric planet it should follow Neptune’s example with a totally predictable period in systematically symmetric repetitions. However, given the irregular periods indicated at 0º, it appears that Neptune is in fact the most eccentric due to its symmetrical period, followed by Venus and Mercury. However, the model calculates the eccentricity of Venus by its distances, which do not correspond to the period that it is at 0º on the horizon given by Stellarium, noting the discrepancy regarding the time periods and their distances, where the same result would be found for Neptune, but for Venus, it would be antagonistic, as demonstrated (CANTARINO, 2007; DREYER, 1906).

Copernicus, among several attributes was an astronomer who, observing the orbits and their perceptible aspects, realized that Venus, Mars and Neptune were and are the most elliptical planets, easier to observe with the naked eye, thus showing that the perfect epicycles of Ptolemy and his geocentric theory, based on planets that flowed in perfectly circular orbits I was wrong. Thus, this same observation is valid, since Venus cannot present the most eccentric orbit, of 0.006772. Later, this was also observed by Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler, so precisely by this observation the heliocentric model was consolidated (DAMASIO, 2011; MATTHEWS, 1994).

The closer an orbit approaches 0.00…, the more circular or eccentric that orbit will be, and if the eccentricity is 0.10 or 0.20 more elliptical will be that orbit. Thus, it is reasonable to understand that the orbit of Venus, in this observed period, is 0.14625, being the second most elliptical of the Solar System (BELTRAME, 1995).

Thus, noting that Venus is not the most eccentric and that its eccentricity cannot be 0.006772, a fact proven by Stellarium, concomitantly for the second time, the same observation will be the basis for astronomical model change, considering that if there is a flaw in only one observation this becomes null (GROTZINGER, 2013; HAND, 1998).


We observed not only one, but several points of incongruities in the Heliocentric model, being opportune its reformulation based on logic and experimentation, aiming at another perspective, proposing methodologies to confirm or not this new hypothesis, observing the experiment of 2,200 years by verifying the objective, to verify the size of the Sun, another cosmological model to be discussed , which aggregate points of models already many discussed, of relevant observations, but under a new realigned aspect, confronting data, observations and reformulating concepts. Much has been advanced from Ptolymy so far. Through the above, we noticed that Copernicus did not observe the experiment of Eratosthenes, the perpendicularity of the Sun in the solstices and equinoxes. Therefore, the observation of the experiment will determine a new model that, although known, was little understood and applied not to determine the size of the Earth, but to confirm the size of the Sun. Reaffirming that science is an eternal evolution of knowledge that takes into account the vital importance of predecessors in this evolution.


ALBANESE, A. et. al.  Models in science and in education. 1997.

ANTUNES, C. Geografia e Participação – Introdução aos Estudos Geográficos, Vol.1  Ed. Scipione. Livro 6, 1996.

ARAUJO, M. S. T.; ABIB, M. L. V. S. Atividades Experimentais no Ensino de Física, Diferentes Enfoques, Diferentes Finalidade. Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física, junho, 2003.

ASENSI, F. I. (1990). Geometría Descriptiva. Madrid: Editorial Dossat, S.A. p. 597.

BACKRUD, M. Evoluation of the Spede instrumento n Smart-1. 2007.

BELTRAME, Z. V. Geografia Ativa – Investigando o Ambiente do Homem. Vol.1, 45ª Edição, Ed. Ática. Livro 3, 1995.

BERRY, A. A short history of Astronomy. New York: Dover Publications Inc, 1961.

BOCZKO, R. Conceitos de Astronomia. São Paulo: Blucher, 1984.

BORGES, A. T. et. al. Os planos dos estudantes para resolver problemas práticos. In: Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física.  2005.

BRETONES, P. S. Disciplinas introdutórias de Astronomia nos cursos superiores do Brasil. Dissertação (Mestrado), Instituto de Geociências, UNICAMP, 1999.

CAMINO, N. Ideas previas y cambio conceptual en astronomía. Un estudio con maestros de primaria sobre el día y la noche, las estaciones y las fases de la luna. Enseñanza de las ciencias, v.13, n.1.

CANALLE, J. B. G. O Problema do Ensino da Órbita da Terra. Física na Escola. V.4, n.2, 2003.

CANTARINO, C. Profissionais e amadores no universo da astronomia. Com Ciência, 10 de agosto de 2007.

CLARKE, B. Individuals and Points. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 26: 61-75. 1985.

CREASE R. P. The Prism and the Pendulum: the ten Most Beautiful Experiments in Science. 2006.

CREPUSCULAR RAYS. Weather Photography lightning, clouds, atmospheric optics & astronomy. Harald. 2012.

COWLEY. Formation & Perspective. 2012.

DAMASIO, F. O início da revolução científica: questão acerca de Copérnico e os epiciclos, Kepler e órbitas elípticas. Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física v.33, n.3. 3602, 2011.

DOGGETT, LE (1992), “Calendars”, in Seidelmann, P.Kenneth, Explanatory Supplent to the Astronomical Almanac, University Science Books, IBSN O-93502-68-7.

DREYER, J. L. E. History of the Planetary Systems from Thales to Kepler. Cambridge, 1906.

DUANE, W. Roller. Eratosthenes’ Geography. Fragments collected and translated. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010, pp. 18.

DUNHAM, W. Journey Through Genius. New York:  Penguin Books, 1990.

DUTKA, J. Eratosthenes’ Measurement of the Earth Reconsidered. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 46, 1993.

GASPAR, A. Física 2 São Paulo: Ática, 2000.

GÉMINOS. Introduction aux phénomènes by Germaine Aujac; Autolycos de Pitane. La sphère en mouvement, Levers et couchers héliaques, Testimonia. (Collection des Universités de France) by, 1980.

GOLDSTEIN H et. al. Classical Mechanics – 3a. ed., Prentice Hall, 2002. Disponível em:

GONÇALVES FILHO, A. TOSCANO, C. Física e Realidade. v.2. São Paulo: Scipione, 2011.

GROTZINGER, John; JORDAN, Tom. Para Entender a Terra – 6.ed., Bookman Editora, 2013, ISBN 8-565-83782-3.

GULBEKIAN, E. The Origin and Value of the Stadion Unit used by Eratosthenes in the Third Century B.C. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 37, 1987.

HAND, L. N.; FINCH, J. D. Analytical Mechanics. 1a. ed., Cambridge University Press, 1998.

JOHN, A. The Book of Clouds, Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., ISBN 9781402728136, 2005.

KATZ, V. J. A History of Mathematics. 2nd ed. New York:  Addison Wesley Longman, 1998.

LANCIANO, N. Ensino de Astronomia na Escola: Concepções, Ideias e Práticas. editado por LONGHINI, Marcos Daniel (org.). Capítulo 9. Campinas: Átomo, 2014.

LANGHI, R. NARDI, R. Ensino de Astronomia no Brasil: Educação formal, informal, não formal e Divulgação Científica. Revista Brasileira de ensino de Física, 2009.

LASKY K. O Bibliotecário que mediu a Terra. Rio de Janeiro. Salamandra, 2000.

LIMA, L. S. Lei de Lambert–Beer, Rev. Ciência Elem., 2013 V1(1):047. Disponível em: DOI

LONGHINI, M. D. Átomo. Campinas, 2014, p. 169.

LONGHINI, M. D. e MORA, I. M. em: Educação em Astronomia na Escola: Experiências e Contribuições para a Prática Pedagógica, editado por M.D. Longhini. Átomo, Campinas, 2010.

MACHADO, A. Geometria Descritiva. São Paulo: Projeto Editores Associados, 26° ed. p. 306, 1986.

MANTECON, M. C. V. Estudios de Historia Moderna y Contemporánea de México. vol.16, 1998.

MATTHEWS, M. R. Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of Science. Nova York Routledge, 1994.

MÁXIMO, A.; ALVARENGA, B. Curso de Física – Volume 1. Editora Scipione, 1 Edição. São Paulo, 2011, ISBN: 978-85-262-7700-7-AL.

MOURÃO, R. R. F. Dicionário Enciclopédico de Astronomia e Astronáutica. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 1987.

PRECESSÃO. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Consultado em 14 de janeiro de 2011.

PRÍNCIPE Jr. Alfredo dos Reis. Geometria Descritiva. V. 1 e 2, 1970.

QUEIROZ, G. P.; LIMA, M. da C. B.; VASCONCELLOS, M. das M. N. Física E Arte Nas Estações Do Ano. Revista Latino-Americana De Educação Em Astronomia, 2004.

SACROBOSCO, J. de. Tractatus de sphæra / Tratado da esfera [1478]. Editado e traduzido por Roberto de Andrade Martins. [Edition and Portuguese translation of Johannes de Sacrobosco’s Treatise on the sphere]. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 2006.

SAGAN, C. [1980]. Cap.1 – As fronteiras do oceano cósmico. Cosmos. Rio de Janeiro: Francisco Alves, 1982.

SANTIAGO, Basílio. Movimento Anual do Sol. encontrado em:, acesso: Abril, 2021

SILVEIRA, F. L. da.  Sobre a forma da terra. A Física na Escola (Online), 2017.

SPECK, J. H. e PEIXOTO, V. V. Manual Básico de Desenho Técnico. Florianópolis Editora da UFSC, 1997.

TREVISAN, R. H. et al. Assessoria na Avaliação do Conteúdo de Astronomia dos Livros de Ciências do Primeiro Grau. Caderno Catarinense de Ensino de Física. 1987.

TIPLER, P.; MOSCA, G. Física. Volume 1 a 3, 2009.

WALKER, J. O Grande Circo da Física. Lisboa: Gradiva, 1990.

ZEILIK, M. Astronomy: the evolving universe 9 ed. USA: Cambridge University Press, 2003.


The Revista Científica Multidisciplinar Núcleo do Conhecimento, due to its proper character, valuing the impartiality and transparency of the work it carries out, goes public to clarify that its publications, go through peer reviewers, not identified with each other, as well as to the author of the article. All our partners and editors have as a principle respect for science and its constantly changing character. We believe that questioning and contestation are part of the process of growth of science, because nothing is static in this globe.

We value the impartiality in the dissemination of scientific knowledge, therefore, we do not link the acceptance of the article to the academic degree of the researcher, in order to make the scientific academic environment a democratic place and access to all!

With regard to the material entitled: “Contestation to the Heliocentric Astronomical Model, Its Claims, Incidence of the Sun’s Rays, Eratosthenes Experiment and the Eccentric Orbit of Venus“, published by the author: Ivete dos Santos Fernandes, despite presenting some sensitive points, which can be argued through the production of other scientific materials, and its unacademic language, brings considerations and questions that deserve to be thought of , refuted or proven, and still tested by the entire scientific academic community.

We are available to welcome any materials that may contribute to the discussions raised by the author.
We also remind that, regardless of the coherence of the article and its scientific validity or not, in an academic environment mutual respect should prevail and objections should be directed to the arguments brought by the authors. Comments should not be based on mere demonstrations of gratuitous hatred. The possible controversies presented by the work should be answered point by point without attacks on the author.


Chief Reviewer

[2] Degree in Exact Sciences.

Submitted: October 2020.

Approved: February 2021.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here