Heliocentrism: Difference between revisions
→Computational models: renamed to Mathematical astronomy |
|||
(17 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
During the [[Late Middle Ages]], Bishop [[Nicole Oresme]] discussed the possibility that the Earth rotated on its axis, while Cardinal [[Nicholas of Cusa]] in his ''[[De Docta Ignorantia|Learned Ignorance]]'' asked whether there was any reason to assert that the Sun (or any other point) was the center of the universe. In parallel to a mystical definition of God, Cusa wrote that "Thus the fabric of the world (''machina mundi'') will ''quasi'' have its center everywhere and circumference nowhere."<ref>Nicholas of Cusa, ''De docta ignorantia'', 2.12, p. 103, cited in Koyré (1957), p. 17.</ref> |
During the [[Late Middle Ages]], Bishop [[Nicole Oresme]] discussed the possibility that the Earth rotated on its axis, while Cardinal [[Nicholas of Cusa]] in his ''[[De Docta Ignorantia|Learned Ignorance]]'' asked whether there was any reason to assert that the Sun (or any other point) was the center of the universe. In parallel to a mystical definition of God, Cusa wrote that "Thus the fabric of the world (''machina mundi'') will ''quasi'' have its center everywhere and circumference nowhere."<ref>Nicholas of Cusa, ''De docta ignorantia'', 2.12, p. 103, cited in Koyré (1957), p. 17.</ref> |
||
=== |
===Mathematical astronomy=== |
||
In [[Mathematics|mathematical]] astronomy, computational models of heliocentrism involve mathematical computational systems that are tied to a heliocentric model and where positions of the planets can be computed. The first computational system explicitly tied to a heliocentric model was the [[Copernican heliocentrism|Copernican model]] described by [[Copernicus]], but there were earlier computational systems that may have implied some form of heliocentricity, notably [[Aryabhata]]'s model, which has astronomical parameters which some have interpreted to imply a form of heliocentricity. Several [[Islamic astronomy|Muslim astronomers]] also developed computational systems with astronomical parameters compatible with heliocentricity, as stated by [[Abū al-Rayhān al-Bīrūnī|Biruni]], but the concept of heliocentrism was considered a philosophical problem rather than a mathematical problem. Their astronomical parameters, however, were later adapted in the Copernican model in a heliocentric context. |
|||
⚫ | |||
====Medieval India==== |
====Medieval India==== |
||
{{see|Indian astronomy}} |
{{see|Indian astronomy}} |
||
⚫ | |||
It has been suggested that the Indian [[Indian mathematics|mathematician]]-astronomer [[Aryabhata]] ([[476]]–[[550]]), in his magnum opus ''[[Aryabhatiya]]'', propounded a heliocentric model,<ref>The concept of Indian heliocentrism has been advocated by [[Bartel Leendert van der Waerden|B. L. van der Waerden]], ''Das heliozentrische System in der griechischen,persischen und indischen Astronomie,'' Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich, Zürich: Kommissionsverlag Leeman AG, 1970. A detailed rebuttal to this heliocentric interpretation is in a review which describes van der Waerden's book as "show[ing] a complete misunderstanding of Indian planetary theory [that] is flatly contradicted by every word of Āryabhata's description." Noel Swerdlow, "Review: A Lost Monument of Indian Astronomy," ''Isis'', 64 (1973): 239-243.</ref> |
|||
⚫ | |||
[[Aryabhata]] ([[476]]–[[550]]), in his magnum opus ''[[Aryabhatiya]]'', propounded a computational system based on a planetary model in which the Earth was taken to be [[Earth's rotation|spinning on its axis]] and the periods of the planets were given with respect to the Sun. Some have interpreted this to be a heliocentric model,<ref>[[Bartel Leendert van der Waerden|B. L. van der Waerden]] (1970), ''Das heliozentrische System in der griechischen,persischen und indischen Astronomie,'' Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich, Zürich: Kommissionsverlag Leeman AG. ([[cf.]] Noel Swerdlow (June 1973), "Review: A Lost Monument of Indian Astronomy", ''Isis'' '''64''' (2), p. 239-243.) |
|||
<br>[[Bartel Leendert van der Waerden|B. L. van der Waerden]] (1987), "The heliocentric system in greek, persian, and indian astronomy", in "From deferent to equant: a volume of studies in the history of science in the ancient and medieval near east in honor of E. S. Kennedy", ''[[New York Academy of Sciences]]'' '''500''', p. 525-546. ([[cf.]] Dennis Duke (2005), "The Equant in India: The Mathematical Basis of Ancient Indian Planetary Models", ''Archive for History of Exact Sciences'' '''59''', p. 563–576.).</ref><ref>Thurston (1994), p. 188. |
|||
{{quote|"Not only did Aryabhata believe that the earth rotates, but there are glimmerings in his system (and other similar systems) of a possible underlying theory in which the earth (and the planets) orbits the sun, rather than the sun orbiting the earth. The evidence is that the basic planetary periods are relative to the sun."}}</ref><ref>[[Lucio Russo]] (2004), ''The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had To Be Reborn'', [[Springer Science+Business Media|Springer]], Berlin, ISBN 978-3-540-20396-4. ([[cf.]] Dennis Duke (2005), "The Equant in India: The Mathematical Basis of Ancient Indian Planetary Models", ''Archive for History of Exact Sciences'' '''59''', p. 563–576.)</ref> |
|||
but this view has been disputed by others.<ref>Noel Swerdlow (June 1973), "Review: A Lost Monument of Indian Astronomy" [review of [[Bartel Leendert van der Waerden|B. L. van der Waerden]], ''Das heliozentrische System in der griechischen, persischen und indischen Astronomie''], ''Isis'' '''64''' (2), p. 239-243. |
|||
{{quote|"Such an interpretation, however, shows a complete misunderstanding of Indian planetary theory and is flatly contradicted by every word of Aryabhata's description."}}</ref><ref>David Pingree (1973), "The Greek Influence on Early Islamic Mathematical Astronomy", ''Journal of the American Oriental Society'' '''93''' (1), p. 32. |
|||
{{quote|"The reader should note that, in writing this survey, I have disregarded the rather divergent views of [[Bartel Leendert van der Waerden|B. L. van der Waerden]]; these have been most recently expounded in his ''Das heliozentrische System in der griechischen, persischen und indischen Astronomie'', Zürich 1970."}}</ref><ref>Dennis Duke (2005), "The Equant in India: The Mathematical Basis of Ancient Indian Planetary Models", ''Archive for History of Exact Sciences'' '''59''', p. 563–576 [http://people.scs.fsu.edu/~dduke/india8.pdf]. |
|||
{{quote|"Thus for both outer and inner planets, the mean motion given is the heliocentric mean motion of the planet. There is no textual evidence that the Indians knew anything about this, and there is an overwhelming amount of textual evidence confirming their geocentric point of view. Some commentators, most notably van der Waerden, have however argued in favor of an underlying ancient Greek heliocentric basis, of which the Indians were unaware. See, e.g. B. L. van der Waerden, “The heliocentric system in greek, persian, and indian astronomy”, in ''From deferent to equant: a volume of studies in the history of science in the ancient and medieval near east in honor of E. S. Kennedy'', Annals of the new york academy of sciences, 500 (1987), 525-546. More recently this idea is developed in about as much detail as the scant evidence allows in L. Russo, ''The Forgotten Revolution'' (2004)."}}</ref> |
|||
⚫ | He was also the first to discover that the light from the Moon and the planets was reflected from the Sun, and that the planets follow [[ellipse|elliptical]] orbits, on which he accurately calculated many astronomical constants, such as the periods of the planets, times of the [[solar eclipse|solar]] and [[lunar eclipse|lunar]] [[eclipse]]s, and the instantaneous motion of the Moon (expressed as a [[differential equation]]).<ref name=Teresi/><ref name=Joseph/><ref>Thurston (1994).</ref><ref name=Teresietal>Teresi, et al. (2002).</ref> Early followers of Aryabhata's model included [[Varahamihira]], [[Brahmagupta]], and [[Bhaskara II]]. [[Arabic language|Arabic]] translations of Aryabhata's ''Aryabhatiya'' were available from the [[8th century]], while [[Latin]] translations were available from the [[13th century]], before Copernicus had written ''De revolutionibus orbium coelestium'', so it is possible that Aryabhata's work had an influence on Copernicus' ideas. |
||
[[Nilakantha Somayaji]] (1444-1544), in his ''Aryabhatiyabhasya'', a commentary on Aryabhata's ''Aryabhatiya'', developed a computational system for a partially heliocentric planetary model, in which the planets orbit the Sun, which in turn orbits the Earth, similar to the [[Tychonic system]] later proposed by [[Tycho Brahe]] in the late 16th century. Nilakantha's system, however, was mathematically more effient than the Tychonic sytem, due to correctly taking into account the equation of the centre and [[latitude|latitudinal]] motion of Mercury and Venus. Most astronomers of the [[Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics]] who followed him accepted his planetary model.<ref>George G. Joseph (2000), p. 408.</ref><ref>K. Ramasubramanian, M. D. Srinivas, M. S. Sriram (1994). "Modification of the earlier Indian planetary theory by the Kerala astronomers (c. 1500 AD) and the implied heliocentric picture of planetary motion", ''[[Current Science]]'' '''66''', p. 784-790.</ref> |
|||
[[Bhaskara]] ([[1114]]–[[1185]]) expanded on Aryabhata's model in his astronomical treatise ''Siddhanta-Shiromani'', where he mentioned the law of [[gravity]], discovered that the planets don't orbit the Sun at a uniform [[velocity]], and accurately calculated many astronomical constants based on this model, such as the solar and lunar eclipses, and the velocities and instantaneous motions of the planets.<ref name=Joseph/> [[Arabic language|Arabic]] translations of Aryabhata's ''Aryabhatiya'' were available from the [[8th century]], while [[Latin]] translations were available from the [[13th century]], before Copernicus had written ''De revolutionibus orbium coelestium'', so it is possible that Aryabhata's work had an influence on Copernicus' ideas. |
|||
====Middle East==== |
====Middle East==== |
||
Line 82: | Line 88: | ||
[[Image:Mikolaj Kopernik.jpg|thumb|right|[[Nicolaus Copernicus]], 16th century, described the first computational system explicitly tied to a heliocentric model]] |
[[Image:Mikolaj Kopernik.jpg|thumb|right|[[Nicolaus Copernicus]], 16th century, described the first computational system explicitly tied to a heliocentric model]] |
||
In the [[16th century]], [[Nicolaus Copernicus]]'s [[De revolutionibus]] presented a full discussion of a heliocentric model of the universe in much the same way as [[Ptolemy]]'s [[Almagest]] had presented his geocentric model in the [[2nd century]]. Copernicus discussed the philosophical implications of his proposed system, elaborated it in full geometrical detail, used selected astronomical observations to derive the parameters of his model from a series of astronomical observations, and wrote astronomical tables which enabled one to compute the past and future positions of the stars and planets. In doing so, Copernicus moved heliocentrism from philosophical speculation to predictive geometrical astronomy. This theory resolved the issue of planetary retrograde motion by arguing that such motion was only perceived and apparent, rather than [[reality|real]]: it was a [[parallax]] effect, as a car that one is passing seems to move backwards against the horizon. This issue was also resolved in the geocentric [[Tychonic system]]; the latter, however, while eliminating the major [[epicycle]]s, retained as a physical reality the irregular back-and-forth motion of the planets, which Kepler characterized as a "[[pretzel]]." |
In the [[16th century]], [[Nicolaus Copernicus]]'s ''[[De revolutionibus]]'' presented a full discussion of a heliocentric model of the universe in much the same way as [[Ptolemy]]'s ''[[Almagest]]'' had presented his geocentric model in the [[2nd century]]. Copernicus discussed the philosophical implications of his proposed system, elaborated it in full geometrical detail, used selected astronomical observations to derive the parameters of his model from a series of astronomical observations, and wrote astronomical tables which enabled one to compute the past and future positions of the stars and planets. In doing so, Copernicus moved heliocentrism from philosophical speculation to predictive geometrical astronomy. This theory resolved the issue of planetary retrograde motion by arguing that such motion was only perceived and apparent, rather than [[reality|real]]: it was a [[parallax]] effect, as a car that one is passing seems to move backwards against the horizon. This issue was also resolved in the geocentric [[Tychonic system]]; the latter, however, while eliminating the major [[epicycle]]s, retained as a physical reality the irregular back-and-forth motion of the planets, which Kepler characterized as a "[[pretzel]]." |
||
Copernicus cited Aristarchus in an early (unpublished) manuscript of ''De Revolutionibus'' (which still survives) so he was clearly aware of at least one previous proponent of the heliocentric thesis. However, in the published version he restricts himself to noting that in works by [[Cicero]] he had found an account of the theories of [[Hicetas]] and that [[Plutarch]] had provided him with an account of the Pythagoreans [[Heraclides Ponticus]], [[Philolaus]], and [[Ecphantus]]. These authors had proposed a moving earth, which did not, however, revolve around a central sun. |
Copernicus cited Aristarchus in an early (unpublished) manuscript of ''De Revolutionibus'' (which still survives) so he was clearly aware of at least one previous proponent of the heliocentric thesis. However, in the published version he restricts himself to noting that in works by [[Cicero]] he had found an account of the theories of [[Hicetas]] and that [[Plutarch]] had provided him with an account of the Pythagoreans [[Heraclides Ponticus]], [[Philolaus]], and [[Ecphantus]]. These authors had proposed a moving earth, which did not, however, revolve around a central sun. |
||
Line 139: | Line 145: | ||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
* [[Geocentrism]] |
* [[Geocentrism]] |
||
* [[Nicolaus Copernicus]] |
* [[Nicolaus Copernicus]] |
||
* [[Johannes Kepler]] |
* [[Johannes Kepler]] |
||
* [[History of astronomy]] |
|||
==Notes== |
==Notes== |
Revision as of 21:40, 18 June 2007
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Heliocentric.jpg/250px-Heliocentric.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Geoz_wb_en.jpg/250px-Geoz_wb_en.jpg)
In astronomy, heliocentrism is the idea that the sun is at the center of the Universe and/or the Solar System. The word is derived from the Greek (Helios = "Sun" and kentron = "Center"). Historically, heliocentrism is opposed to geocentrism and currently to modern geocentrism, which places the earth at the center. (The distinction between the Solar System and the Universe was not clear until modern times, but extremely important relative to the controversy over cosmology and religion.) Although many early cosmologies speculated about the motion of the Earth around a stationary Sun, it was not until the 16th century that Copernicus presented a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system, which was later elaborated by Kepler and defended by Galileo, becoming the center of a major dispute.
Development of heliocentrism
To anyone who stands and looks at the sky, it seems clear that the earth stays in one place while everything in the sky rises and sets or goes around once every day. Observing over a longer time, one sees more complicated movements. The Sun makes a slower circle over the course of a year; the planets have similar motions, but they sometimes turn around and move in the reverse direction for a while (retrograde motion). As these motions became better understood, they required more and more elaborate descriptions, the most famous of which was the Ptolemaic system, formulated in the 2nd century, which, though considered incorrect today, still manages to calculate the correct positions for the planets to a very useful degree of accuracy. It is interesting to note that Ptolemy, himself, in his Almagest points out that any model for describing the motions of the planets is merely a mathematical device, and, since there is no actual way to know which is True, the simplest model that gets the right numbers should be used.
Philosophical discussions
Philosophical arguments on heliocentrism involve general statements that the Sun is at the center of the universe or that some or all of the planets revolve around the Sun, and arguments supporting these claims. These ideas can be found in a range of Sanskrit, Greek, Arabic and Latin texts. Few of these early sources, however, develop techniques to compute any observational consequences of their proposed heliocentric ideas.
Ancient India
The earliest traces of a counter-intuitive idea that it is the Earth that is actually moving and the Sun that is at the centre of the solar system (hence the concept of heliocentrism) is found in several Vedic Sanskrit texts written in ancient India.[1][2] Yajnavalkya (c. 9th–8th century BC) recognized that the Earth is spherical and believed that the Sun was "the centre of the spheres" as described in the Vedas at the time. In his astronomical text Shatapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10), he states:
"The sun strings these worlds - the earth, the planets, the atmosphere - to himself on a thread."[3]
He recognized that the Sun was much larger than the Earth, which would have influenced this early heliocentric concept.[1] He also accurately measured the relative distances of the Sun and the Moon from the Earth as 108 times the diameters of these heavenly bodies, close to the modern measurements of 107.6 for the Sun and 110.6 for the Moon. He also described an accurate solar calendar in the Shatapatha Brahmana.[4] The Aitareya Brahmana (2.7) (c. 9th–8th century BC) also states:
"The Sun never sets nor rises. When people think the sun is setting, it is not so; they are mistaken. It only changes about after reaching the end of the day and makes night below and day to what is on the other side."[2][5]
Some interpret this to mean that the Sun is stationary, hence the Earth is moving around it,[2] though others are less clear about the meanings of the terms.[5] This would be elaborated in a later commentary Vishnu Purana (2.8) (c. 1st century BC), which states:
"The sun is stationed for all time, in the middle of the day. [...] Of the sun, which is always in one and the same place, there is neither setting nor rising."[6]
Dick Teresi writes in Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science:
"Two hundred years before Pythagoras, philosophers in northern India had understood that gravitation held the solar system together, and that therefore the sun, the most massive object, had to be at its centre."[1]
Ancient Greece
In the 4th century BC, Aristotle wrote that:
"At the center, they [the Pythagoreans] say, is fire, and the earth is one of the stars, creating night and day by its circular motion about the center."
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Aristarchus_working.jpg/220px-Aristarchus_working.jpg)
The reasons for this placement were philosophic based on the classical elements rather than scientific; fire was more precious than earth in the opinion of the Pythagoreans, and for this reason the fire should be central. However, the central fire is not the Sun. The Pythagoreans believed the Sun orbited the central fire along with everything else. Aristotle dismissed this argument and advocated geocentrism.
Heraclides of Pontus (4th century BC) explained the apparent daily motion of the celestial sphere through the rotation of the Earth. The first person to present an argument for a heliocentric system, however, was Aristarchus of Samos (c. 270 BC). Like Eratosthenes, Aristarchus calculated the size of the earth, and measured the size and distance of the Moon and Sun, in a treatise which has survived. From his estimates, he concluded that the Sun was six to seven times larger than the Earth. His writings on the heliocentric system are lost, but some information is known from surviving descriptions and critical commentary by his contemporaries, such as Archimedes. Some have suggested that his calculation of the relative size of the Earth and Sun led Aristarchus to conclude that it made more sense for the Earth to be moving than for the huge Sun to be moving around it. As Aristarchus' original work on heliocentrism has not survived it is uncertain whether these arguments were his own. It should be noted that Plutarch mentions the 'followers of Aristarchus' in passing, so it is likely that there are other astronomers in the Classical period who also espoused heliocentrism whose work is now lost to us.
Middle East
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Ghotb2.jpg/220px-Ghotb2.jpg)
In Seleucid Babylonia, the astronomer Seleucus of Seleucia (b. 190 BC) adopted the heliocentric system of Aristarchus, and according to Plutarch, may have even proved it. His proposed proof may have been related to his observations of the phenomenon of tides. Indeed Seleucus correctly theorized that tides were caused by the Moon, although he believed that the interaction was mediated by the Earth's atmosphere. He noted that the tides varied in time and strength in different parts of the world.
In Roman Numidia, Martianus Capella (5th century) was of the belief that at least some of the planets orbited the Sun. Copernicus mentioned him as an influence on his own work.
In the medieval Islamic civilization, due to the scientific dominance of the Ptolemaic system, very few Muslim astronomers considered the possibility of a heliocentric model. However, several Muslim scholars had discussions on whether the Earth moved and tried to explain how this might be possible,[7] some of whom also considered the possibility of the sun being the center of the solar system and the orbits of the planets being elliptical.[8] Alhacen (c. 1000 AD) wrote a scathing critique of Ptolemy's model, which some interpret to imply he was criticizing Ptolemy's geocentrism,[9] but many agree that he was actually criticizing the details of Ptolemy's model rather than his geocentrism.[10]
In 1030, Biruni discussed the Indian heliocentric theories of Aryabhata, Brahmagupta and Varahamihira in his Indica. Biruni noted that the question of heliocentricity was a philosophical rather than a mathematical problem.[11] Abu Said Sinjari, a contemporary of Biruni, suggested the possible movement of the Earth around the Sun, which Biruni did not reject. Qutb al-Din (b. 1236), in his The Limit of Accomplishment concerning Knowledge of the Heavens, also discussed whether heliocentrism was a possibility.[12]
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Nicholas_of_Cusa.jpg/220px-Nicholas_of_Cusa.jpg)
Medieval Europe
Heliocentric ideas were known in Europe before Copernicus. Explorers and traders were increasingly venturing out beyond Europe and introducing the West to the Indian heliocentric traditions as detailed above (cf. the Silk Road and Muslim commentators). Scholars were also aware of the arguments of Aristarchus and Philolaus, as well as several other thinkers who had proposed (or were alleged to have proposed) heliocentric or quasi-heliocentric views, such as Hicetas, Heraclides Ponticus, Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen) and Abu al-Rayhan al-Biruni.
During the Late Middle Ages, Bishop Nicole Oresme discussed the possibility that the Earth rotated on its axis, while Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in his Learned Ignorance asked whether there was any reason to assert that the Sun (or any other point) was the center of the universe. In parallel to a mystical definition of God, Cusa wrote that "Thus the fabric of the world (machina mundi) will quasi have its center everywhere and circumference nowhere."[13]
Mathematical astronomy
In mathematical astronomy, computational models of heliocentrism involve mathematical computational systems that are tied to a heliocentric model and where positions of the planets can be computed. The first computational system explicitly tied to a heliocentric model was the Copernican model described by Copernicus, but there were earlier computational systems that may have implied some form of heliocentricity, notably Aryabhata's model, which has astronomical parameters which some have interpreted to imply a form of heliocentricity. Several Muslim astronomers also developed computational systems with astronomical parameters compatible with heliocentricity, as stated by Biruni, but the concept of heliocentrism was considered a philosophical problem rather than a mathematical problem. Their astronomical parameters, however, were later adapted in the Copernican model in a heliocentric context.
Medieval India
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/2064_aryabhata-crp.jpg/220px-2064_aryabhata-crp.jpg)
Aryabhata (476–550), in his magnum opus Aryabhatiya, propounded a computational system based on a planetary model in which the Earth was taken to be spinning on its axis and the periods of the planets were given with respect to the Sun. Some have interpreted this to be a heliocentric model,[14][15][16] but this view has been disputed by others.[17][18][19] He was also the first to discover that the light from the Moon and the planets was reflected from the Sun, and that the planets follow elliptical orbits, on which he accurately calculated many astronomical constants, such as the periods of the planets, times of the solar and lunar eclipses, and the instantaneous motion of the Moon (expressed as a differential equation).[1][4][20][7] Early followers of Aryabhata's model included Varahamihira, Brahmagupta, and Bhaskara II. Arabic translations of Aryabhata's Aryabhatiya were available from the 8th century, while Latin translations were available from the 13th century, before Copernicus had written De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, so it is possible that Aryabhata's work had an influence on Copernicus' ideas.
Nilakantha Somayaji (1444-1544), in his Aryabhatiyabhasya, a commentary on Aryabhata's Aryabhatiya, developed a computational system for a partially heliocentric planetary model, in which the planets orbit the Sun, which in turn orbits the Earth, similar to the Tychonic system later proposed by Tycho Brahe in the late 16th century. Nilakantha's system, however, was mathematically more effient than the Tychonic sytem, due to correctly taking into account the equation of the centre and latitudinal motion of Mercury and Venus. Most astronomers of the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics who followed him accepted his planetary model.[21][22]
Middle East
In 1031, in his Canon Mas’udicus, Biruni observed that the planets revolved in elliptical orbits, instead of the circular orbits of the Greeks.[23] Although Biruni suggested the Earth's rotation about its own axis, it is not clear whether he supported a geocentric or heliocentric model. He remarked that if the Earth rotates on its axis and moves around the Sun, it would remain consistent with his astronomical parameters.[24][25]
Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (b. 1201) resolved significant problems in the Ptolemaic system by developing the Tusi-couple as an alternative to the physically problematic equant introduced by Ptolemy,[26] and conceived a plausible model for elliptical orbits.[23] 'Umar al-Katibi al-Qazwini (d. 1277), who also worked at the Maraghah observatory, in his Hikmat al-'Ain, wrote an argument for a heliocentric model, but later abandoned the model.[12] Ibn al-Shatir (b. 1304) eliminated the need for an equant, proposing a system that was only approximately geocentric, rather than exactly so, having demonstrated trigonometrically that the Earth was not the exact center of the universe. His rectification was later used in the Copernican model, along with the earlier Tusi-couple and the Urdi lemma of Mo'ayyeduddin Urdi. Their theorems played an important role in the Copernican model of heliocentrism,[26] which was achieved by reversing the direction of the last vector connecting the Earth to the Sun.[11] In the published version of his masterwork, Copernicus also cites the theories of Albategni, Arzachel and Averroes as influences,[23] while the works of Alhacen and Biruni were also known in Europe at the time.[9]
Renaissance Europe
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Mikolaj_Kopernik.jpg/220px-Mikolaj_Kopernik.jpg)
In the 16th century, Nicolaus Copernicus's De revolutionibus presented a full discussion of a heliocentric model of the universe in much the same way as Ptolemy's Almagest had presented his geocentric model in the 2nd century. Copernicus discussed the philosophical implications of his proposed system, elaborated it in full geometrical detail, used selected astronomical observations to derive the parameters of his model from a series of astronomical observations, and wrote astronomical tables which enabled one to compute the past and future positions of the stars and planets. In doing so, Copernicus moved heliocentrism from philosophical speculation to predictive geometrical astronomy. This theory resolved the issue of planetary retrograde motion by arguing that such motion was only perceived and apparent, rather than real: it was a parallax effect, as a car that one is passing seems to move backwards against the horizon. This issue was also resolved in the geocentric Tychonic system; the latter, however, while eliminating the major epicycles, retained as a physical reality the irregular back-and-forth motion of the planets, which Kepler characterized as a "pretzel."
Copernicus cited Aristarchus in an early (unpublished) manuscript of De Revolutionibus (which still survives) so he was clearly aware of at least one previous proponent of the heliocentric thesis. However, in the published version he restricts himself to noting that in works by Cicero he had found an account of the theories of Hicetas and that Plutarch had provided him with an account of the Pythagoreans Heraclides Ponticus, Philolaus, and Ecphantus. These authors had proposed a moving earth, which did not, however, revolve around a central sun.
Religious disputes over heliocentrism
Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."
Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set. In fact, it is the earth's rotation which gives the impression of the sun in motion across the sky.
As early as the time of Aristarchus, the heliocentric idea was denounced as being against religion in Europe. The issue did not assume any importance, however, for nearly 2,000 years.
Nicolaus Copernicus published the definitive statement of his system in De Revolutionibus in 1543. Copernicus began to write it in 1506 and finished it in 1530, but did not publish it until the year of his death. Although he was in good standing with the Church and had dedicated the book to Pope Paul III, the published form contained an unsigned preface by Osiander stating that the system was a pure mathematical device and was not supposed to represent reality. Possibly because of that preface, the work of Copernicus inspired very little debate on whether it might be heretical during the next 60 years.
There was an early suggestion among Dominicans that the teaching should be banned, but nothing came of it at the time. Some Protestants, however, voiced strong opinions during the 16th century. Martin Luther once said:
"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."
This was reported in the context of dinner-table conversation and not a formal statement of faith. Melanchthon, however, opposed the doctrine over a period of years.
Over time, however, the Catholic Church began to become more adamant about protecting the geocentric view. Pope Urban VIII, who had approved the idea of Galileo's publishing a work on the two theories of the world, became hostile to Galileo. Over time, the Catholic Church became the primary opposition to the Heliocentric view.
The favored system had been that of Ptolemy, in which the Earth was the center of the universe and all celestial bodies orbited it. A geocentric compromise was available in the Tychonic system, in which the Sun orbited the Earth, while the planets orbited the Sun as in the Copernican model. The Jesuit astronomers in Rome were at first unreceptive to Tycho's system; the most prominent, Clavius, commented that Tycho was "confusing all of astronomy, because he wants to have Mars lower than the Sun." (Fantoli, 2003, p. 109) But as the controversy progressed and the Church took a harder line toward Copernican ideas after 1616, the Jesuits moved toward Tycho's teachings; after 1633, the use of this system was almost mandatory. For advancing heliocentric theory Galileo was put under house arrest for the last several years of his life.
Theologian and pastor Thomas Schirrmacher, however, has argued:
"Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticizing the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree."[2]
Catholic scientists also:
"appreciated that the reference to heresy in connection with Galileo or Copernicus had no general or theological significance."
— Heilbron (1999)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Galileo.arp.300pix.jpg/220px-Galileo.arp.300pix.jpg)
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine himself considered that Galileo's model made "excellent good sense" on the ground of mathematical simplicity; that is, as a hypothesis (see above). And he said:
"If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me."
— Koestler (1959), p. 447–448
Therefore, he supported a ban on the teaching of the idea as anything but hypothesis. In 1616 he delivered to Galileo the papal command not to "hold or defend" the heliocentric idea. In the discussions leading to the ban, he was a moderate, as the Dominican party wished to forbid teaching heliocentrism in any way whatever. Galileo's heresy trial in 1633 involved making fine distinctions between "teaching" and "holding and defending as true".
The official opposition of the Church to heliocentrism did not by any means imply opposition to all astronomy; indeed, it needed observational data to maintain its calendar. In support of this effort it allowed the cathedrals themselves to be used as solar observatories called meridiane; i.e., they were turned into "reverse sundials", or gigantic pinhole cameras, where the Sun's image was projected from a hole in a window in the cathedral's lantern onto a meridian line.
In 1664, Pope Alexander VII published his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus which included all previous condemnations of geocentric books. [citation needed] An annotated copy of Principia by Isaac Newton was published in 1742 by Fathers le Seur and Jacquier of the Franciscan Minims, two Catholic mathematicians with a preface stating that the author's work assumed heliocentrism and could not be explained without the theory. Pope Benedict XIV suspended the ban on heliocentric works on April 16, 1757 based on Isaac Newton's work. Pope Pius VII approved a decree in 1822 by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition to allow the printing of heliocentric books in Rome.
The view of modern science
The realization that the heliocentric view was also not true in a strict sense was achieved in steps. That the Sun was not the center of the universe, but one of innumerable stars, was strongly advocated by the mystic Giordano Bruno; Galileo made the same point, but said very little on the matter, perhaps not wishing to incur the church's wrath. Over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries, the status of the Sun as merely one star among many became increasingly obvious. By the 20th century, even before the discovery that there are many galaxies, it was no longer an issue.
Even if the discussion is limited to the solar system, the sun is not at the geometric center of any planet's orbit, but rather at one focus of the elliptical orbit. Furthermore, to the extent that a planet's mass cannot be neglected in comparison to the Sun's mass, the center of gravity of the solar system is displaced slightly away from the center of the Sun. (The masses of the planets, mostly Jupiter, amount to 0.14% of that of the Sun.) Therefore a hypothetical astronomer on an extrasolar planet would observe a "wobble".
Giving up the whole concept of being "at rest" is related to the principle of relativity. While, assuming an unbounded universe, it was clear there is no privileged position in space, until postulation of the special theory of relativity by Albert Einstein, at least the existence of a privileged class of inertial systems absolutely at rest was assumed, in particular in the form of the hypothesis of the luminiferous aether. Some forms of Mach's principle consider the frame at rest with respect to the masses in the universe to have special properties.
Modern use of geocentric and heliocentric
In modern calculations, the origin and orientation of a coordinate system often have to be selected. For practical reasons, systems with their origin in the mass, solar mass or in the center of mass of solar system are frequently selected. The adjectives may be used in this context. However, such selection of coordinates has no philosophical or physical implications.
See also
Notes
- ^ a b c d Teresi (2002).
- ^ a b c Blavatsky (1877), Part One, Chapter I.
- ^ Kak (2000), p. 33.
- ^ a b Joseph (2000).
- ^ a b Haug (1863).
- ^ Kak (2000), p. 31.
- ^ a b Teresi, et al. (2002).
- ^ Ajram (1992)
- ^ a b Qadir (1989), p. 5-10.
- ^ Nicolaus Copernicus, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2004).
- ^ a b Saliba (1999).
- ^ a b A. Baker, L. Chapter (2002).
- ^ Nicholas of Cusa, De docta ignorantia, 2.12, p. 103, cited in Koyré (1957), p. 17.
- ^ B. L. van der Waerden (1970), Das heliozentrische System in der griechischen,persischen und indischen Astronomie, Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich, Zürich: Kommissionsverlag Leeman AG. (cf. Noel Swerdlow (June 1973), "Review: A Lost Monument of Indian Astronomy", Isis 64 (2), p. 239-243.)
B. L. van der Waerden (1987), "The heliocentric system in greek, persian, and indian astronomy", in "From deferent to equant: a volume of studies in the history of science in the ancient and medieval near east in honor of E. S. Kennedy", New York Academy of Sciences 500, p. 525-546. (cf. Dennis Duke (2005), "The Equant in India: The Mathematical Basis of Ancient Indian Planetary Models", Archive for History of Exact Sciences 59, p. 563–576.). - ^ Thurston (1994), p. 188.
"Not only did Aryabhata believe that the earth rotates, but there are glimmerings in his system (and other similar systems) of a possible underlying theory in which the earth (and the planets) orbits the sun, rather than the sun orbiting the earth. The evidence is that the basic planetary periods are relative to the sun."
- ^ Lucio Russo (2004), The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had To Be Reborn, Springer, Berlin, ISBN 978-3-540-20396-4. (cf. Dennis Duke (2005), "The Equant in India: The Mathematical Basis of Ancient Indian Planetary Models", Archive for History of Exact Sciences 59, p. 563–576.)
- ^ Noel Swerdlow (June 1973), "Review: A Lost Monument of Indian Astronomy" [review of B. L. van der Waerden, Das heliozentrische System in der griechischen, persischen und indischen Astronomie], Isis 64 (2), p. 239-243.
"Such an interpretation, however, shows a complete misunderstanding of Indian planetary theory and is flatly contradicted by every word of Aryabhata's description."
- ^ David Pingree (1973), "The Greek Influence on Early Islamic Mathematical Astronomy", Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (1), p. 32.
"The reader should note that, in writing this survey, I have disregarded the rather divergent views of B. L. van der Waerden; these have been most recently expounded in his Das heliozentrische System in der griechischen, persischen und indischen Astronomie, Zürich 1970."
- ^ Dennis Duke (2005), "The Equant in India: The Mathematical Basis of Ancient Indian Planetary Models", Archive for History of Exact Sciences 59, p. 563–576 [1].
"Thus for both outer and inner planets, the mean motion given is the heliocentric mean motion of the planet. There is no textual evidence that the Indians knew anything about this, and there is an overwhelming amount of textual evidence confirming their geocentric point of view. Some commentators, most notably van der Waerden, have however argued in favor of an underlying ancient Greek heliocentric basis, of which the Indians were unaware. See, e.g. B. L. van der Waerden, “The heliocentric system in greek, persian, and indian astronomy”, in From deferent to equant: a volume of studies in the history of science in the ancient and medieval near east in honor of E. S. Kennedy, Annals of the new york academy of sciences, 500 (1987), 525-546. More recently this idea is developed in about as much detail as the scant evidence allows in L. Russo, The Forgotten Revolution (2004)."
- ^ Thurston (1994).
- ^ George G. Joseph (2000), p. 408.
- ^ K. Ramasubramanian, M. D. Srinivas, M. S. Sriram (1994). "Modification of the earlier Indian planetary theory by the Kerala astronomers (c. 1500 AD) and the implied heliocentric picture of planetary motion", Current Science 66, p. 784-790.
- ^ a b c Covington (2007).
- ^ Khwarizm, Foundation for Science Technology and Civilisation.
- ^ G. Wiet, V. Elisseeff, P. Wolff, J. Naudu (1975). History of Mankind, Vol 3: The Great medieval Civilisations, p. 649. George Allen & Unwin Ltd, UNESCO.
- ^ a b M. Gill (2005).
References
- Ajram, K. (1992). Miracle of Islamic Science, Appendix B. Knowledge House Publishers. ISBN 0911119434.
- Baker, A. and Chapter, L. (2002), "Part 4: The Sciences". In M. M. Sharif, "A History of Muslim Philosophy", Philosophia Islamica.
- Blavatsky, Helena P. (1877). Isis Unveiled. Theosophical University Press. ISBN 0-911500-03-0.
- Covington, Richard (May-June 2007). "Rediscovering Arabic science", Saudi Aramco World, p. 2-16.
- Fantoli, Annibale (2003). Galileo—For Copernicanism and the Church, 3rd English edition, tr. George V. Coyne, SJ. Vatican Observatory Publications, Notre Dame, IN. ISBN 88-209-7427-4.
- Gill, M. (2005). Was Muslim Astronomy the Harbinger of Copernicanism?
- Haug, Martin (1863). The Aitareya Brahmanam of the Rigveda, Containing the Earliest Speculations of the Brahmans on the Meaning of the Sacrifical Prayers. ISBN 0-404-57848-9.
- Heath, T.L. (1913). Aristarchus of Samos, the ancient Copernicus: a history of Greek astronomy to Aristarchus, Oxford, Clarendon. ISBN 0-486-24188-2 (1981 Dover reprint).
- Heilbron, J. L. (1999). The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. ISBN 0-674-85433-0.
- Hoyle, Sir Fred (1973). Nicolaus Copernicus. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London. ISBN 0-435-54425-X.
- Joseph, George G. (2000). The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics, 2nd edition. Penguin Books, London. ISBN 0691006598.
- Koyré, Alexandre (1957). From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Pr.
- Kuhn, Thomas S. (1957). The Copernican Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Pr. ISBN 0-674-17103-9
- Kak, Subhash C. (2000). 'Birth and Early Development of Indian Astronomy'. In Selin, Helaine (2000). Astronomy Across Cultures: The History of Non-Western Astronomy (303-340). Boston: Kluwer. ISBN 0-7923-6363-9.
- Koestler, Arthur (1959). The Sleepwalkers: a history of man's changing vision of the universe. Hutchinson, London. ISBN 0-14-020972-7 (1977 Penguin reprint).
- Qadir, Asghar (1989). Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory. World Scientific. ISBN 9971506122.
- Sabra, A. I. (1998). "Configuring the Universe: Aporetic, Problem Solving, and Kinematic Modeling as Themes of Arabic Astronomy," Perspectives on Science 6, p. 288-330.
- Saliba, George (1999). Whose Science is Arabic Science in Renaissance Europe? Columbia University.
- Teresi, Dick (2002). Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science - from the Babylonians to the Maya. Simon & Schuster, New York. ISBN 0-684-83718-8.
- Roger Hart, Jamil Ragep, Dick Teresi (2002). "Ancient Roots of Modern Science", Talk of the Nation (NPR discussion of intercultural scientific contacts; astronomy is discussed in the first fifteen-minute segment).
- Thurston, Hugh (1994). Early Astronomy. Springer-Verlag, New York. ISBN 0-387-94107-X.
- Walker, Christopher, ed. (1996). Astronomy before the telescope. London: British Museum Press. ISBN 0-7141-1746-3