Talk:De revolutionibus orbium coelestium

Needs correction

The current entry has some very incorrect things in them -- especially the initial assertion that Copernicus offered a "drastically simplified" system. His only "simplification" was getting rid of the equant -- other than that, it contains all of the complexity of the Ptolemaic system. There are a number of other errors which sound like they came out of a science textbook rather than a history one. It is fairly clear that the books listed in the bibliography were not actually the sources for this article, for they say nothing of the sort! --Fastfission 04:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think, for the English reader, a German translation of the Latin title is unimportant. Actually it is not easy to translate it properly, and in any case the English version is all which is of interest.--Dagox 16:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Calvin was not anti-Copernican. Rather, he said that he had no interest in the matter and that people could believe what they wanted as long as it did not disrupt the unity of the church. 151.196.17.71 04:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin was clearly anti-Copernican in his comments on Psalm 93.1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.79.38 (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

most expensive book? museum seems to be wrong...

The pl:Muzeum Okręgowe w Toruniu (museum here in Toruń) claims that De revolutionibus is "the most expensive book in the world" (,,najdroższa książka świata"). i was just wondering if anyone had any reliable source for that... The claim is printed in an invitation to see the book at an exhibition tonight and is also online. OK, claim disproved. The claim puts de revolutionibus at 1 million euros - http://www.muzeum.torun.pl/index.php?news_id=1154 while Shakespeare's First Folio was recently sold for about 4 times that (5 million us dollars) - http://most-expensive.net/book-sold-world. Exaggerated claim looks wrong. OK, enough trivia. Boud (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, a copy of the book sold recently for $2.2M, if anyone thinks this is worth mentioning. faithless (^speak) 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Dedication to Pope Paul III should be merged into this article. The Dedication article is very short and has no prospect of significant expansion. The dedication has no existence or history that is independent of the book. Only about one sentence in the Dedication article is actually about the dedication; the rest of the article is about De revolutionibus. Finell (Talk) 07:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that article; there was nothing to merge, so it has been redirected. –Outriggr § 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tycho

Tycho is under the heading "Copernicans", although his system differed considerably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Model

The last paragraph of the History subsection asserts that Copernicus was forced to use the epicycle model. Actually, Copernicus retained the epicycle model because his work was a revision of Ptolemy's model with the motion of the planets centered on the Sun rather than on the Earth. The epicycle model sufficed to approximate the elliptical orbital motion of the planets. The notion of elliptical orbits was unknown until Johannes Kepler figured it out a hundred or so years later.

The preface of the book is correct in its assertion that mathematics, not physics, is the basis for the theory. Both models - Ptolemaic and Copernican - are mathematical fits to observational data. It is because of this that their usefulness as predictive models was limited. The Copernican model is simpler because planetary motion seen from the Sun is simpler than that seen from the Earth.

The physics of planetary motion really did not exist until Sir Isaac Newton devised his Law of Gravitation and developed the Calculus to provide the basis for modern models. Modern Newtonian models are extremely accurate in their predictive ability compared to the epicycle models.

As a side-light, it is interesting to note that an epicycle model is used to compute the position of the Moon in the derivation of the modern Hindu calendar. (Nachum Dershowitz and Edward M. Reingold: Calendrical Calculations, Cambridge University Press, 1997)

Virgil H. Soule (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Virgil! Please feel free to make whatever corrections you believe are needed in the article, provided that you cite reliable sources that support your changes. That is how Wikipedia works. By the way, Kepler came close to figuring out the physics. He wrote that that the sun was responsible for the the planets' orbital motion, which is the first inkling of the notion of force from astronomer. Newton borrowed more from Kepler than he acknowledged, which was not out-of-character for Newton. Finell (Talk) 06:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date

Gingerich is said to have been awarded the Order of Merit in 1981. His book was published in 2004 and is said to have been the reason for the award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.108.96 (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC) It seems that he was actually awarded the Order in 1981, before the publication in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small change to resolve this conflict. In "The Book Nobody Read", Gingerich describes how it was preparing for the quinquecentennial (500th?) of Copernicus' birthday in the early 1970s that started him on his quest, so he'd had over a decade of research done by the time he received the order. I double checked, though, and this site confirms the 1981 date.Quietmarc (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thill's list of Copernicans and anti-Copernicans

In my opinion this list should be deleted. Since the source—Olivier Thill's The Life of Copernicus (1473-1543)—was printed by a vanity press (Xulon Press) it constitutes a self-published work and therefore does not qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia's criteria. More worrisome is that the article's list of "Copernicans" includes such people as:

Tycho Brahe, who does not satisfy the definition of "Copernican" used by any reliable source I am aware of;
Johannes Amos Comenius, whose Synopsis Physicae was, according to Alexandre Koyré, "violently antagonistic to the new astronomy";
Nicholas Mulerius (aka Nicolas Müller) who, according to J.L.E.Dreyer, had written "that he had never yet met with any valid reason for rejecting the old system";
Erasmus Reinhold, who is believed by some Copernican scholars (Edward Rosen, for instance) to have explicitly rejected heliocentrism, despite having praised Copernicus enthusiastically for his mathematical contributions to astronomy; and
Didacus a Stunica, who eventually rejected Copernicus's theory on physical grounds after having initially defended it.

In fact, Thill does not quite say that these people were Copernicans anyway, but that they were "at least not opposed to his system if a proof could be brought to them." This criterion, based as it is on a counterfactual conditional, is so loose as to be practically worthless. If the criterion were to be applied strictly, I don't see why there should be anyone at all in the anti-Copernican column. How does Thill know that any of his supposed "anti-Copernicans" would have remained opposed to heliocentrism even "if a proof could be brought to them"? In view of all this, I don't believe Thill's lists can be trusted to provide much useful information about the attitudes of the people listed towards Copernicus's theory, and should therefore be removed from the article.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, deletion of this helpful list is not acceptable to me. It is clearly marked as Thill's POV anyway, feel free to add another author's POV. Arthur Koestler in 1959 wrote that "De revolutionibus" was "The Book that Nobody Read", a statement explicitly disproven by Owen Gingerich. Do you now propose that Koestler "should therefore be removed" from Wikipedia due to his proven unreliability? Thill's book (which is, vanity published or not, cited by others) mentions many old scholars "who knew Copernicus' theory before 1615", giving examples, as "It is a mistake to believe that Copernicus' theory would not have been known without Galileo". That is uncontroversial and very helpful (I have created, translated or expanded articles on some of the figures mentioned). He simply could have listed the names alphabetically or chronologically, but on his now offline website (I don't think this list appears in the book), he had chosen to divide them into pro and con. That may be oversimplification, as he did not add a third neutral category for those "not opposed to his system if a proof could be brought to them", but at least it gives a general orientation. It is no reason for deletion. Now to the names mentioned above: no matter what people write about Comenius, it is undisputed that he had purchased the manuscript. Mulerius even published a third edition. Reinhold based his Prussian Tables on Copernicus work. How on earth could these three be considered "anti-Copernicans"? Why is it worrisome to you when, tertium non datur, these are called "Copernicans" then? Currently, the article is tagged with Category:Science and technology in Poland. That is something I suggest to delete, as it is vanity. -- Matthead Discuß 18:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated by David Wilson, there are some clearly misleading examples in Olivier Thill's lists. Would it not be better to replace these lists with reliable ones—if such can be devised? Nihil novi (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend on the whole to agree with David Wilson as this list is anything but helpful; it is at best confusing, at least highly misleading and at worst simply wrong. To give one more example, on the basis of Thill's categorisation as described here then Magini must be placed in the pro Copernicus column as he used all of Copernicus' mathematical novelties to produce a new geocentric model making him more of a Copernican than for example Reinhold.

On the comment on Koestler, Gingerich is in fact incorrect in his claims. In the section of his book "The Sleepwalkers" with the heading "The Book Nobody Read" Koestler refers specifically, by name, to those historians of science and philosophy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who claimed that Copernicus' system was simpler then the then current Ptolemaic system as those who had not read De Revolutionibus, it wasn't simpler. As Koestler shows the Copernican system required many more circles than its rival and so was more complex. Gingerich's claim is actually a straw man.Thony C. (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Thill list only those individuals who were discussed by Pierre Gassendi? If Thill adds his own nominees, then that fact should be stated and the individuals that he adds should be identified in some way. Nihil novi (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be useful to replace the existing lists with bullet-pointed lists of indisputably-documented important individuals who declared for or against Copernicus' theory in its original form? Or might there be too few unambiguously identifiable individuals to be worth listing? Nihil novi (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now amended the article so that it represents Thill's position more accurately. As a consequence it at least no longer misleadingly attaches the label "Copernican" to people for whom that characterisation is demonstrably false. I have not changed my opinion that Thill's lists should be deleted, but it may be a few days before I will be able to respond to the comments above.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your ammended version is just as problematic, as at least Melanchthon, Clavius and Magini, and probably several others on the anti-Copernican list, would have had no problems accepting heliocentricity if there had been solid scientific proof for it. Why don't we just stick to historical fact instead of indulging in speculation. It is well know who actually accepted the whole of Copernicus' central thesis, who utilised his work without accepting his central thesis and who rejected it and why. Thony C. (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm certainly not going to complain if someone else decides to remove the lists entirely. However, I would not feel comfortable doing so myself as long as there remains an apparently unresolved dispute over their removal.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of information so far presented, I concur about the necessity of deleting these lists. Nihil novi (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead wrote:

"Sorry, deletion of this helpful list is not acceptable to me."

I can't see how removal of the lists from the article will prevent you from making whatever use of them you may consider "helpful". They will still be available on the internet archive of Thill's web site and in the article's history. If you would like more convenient access, you can copy them or create a link to them in your user space.

With all due respect to Mr Thill, he does not appear to be recognised as an established expert in the the history of science. On the back cover of his book, he describes himself as "a computer engineer and specialist of the European Renaissance", and here he describes himself as a "Computer programmer, amateur historian of Copernicus, Descartes, and Peiresc." Nor does he appear to have had any of his work in the history of science published by reliable third-party publications. His book would therefore appear to fail the criteria required by Wikipedia policy for self-published material to qualify as an acceptable source. And if, as appears to be the case on this issue, his POV is not documentable from reliable sources by established experts in the field, Wikipedia policy prohibits it from being included in the article.

"Arthur Koestler in 1959 wrote that "De revolutionibus" was "The Book that Nobody Read", a statement explicitly disproven by Owen Gingerich. Do you now propose that Koestler "should therefore be removed" from Wikipedia due to his proven unreliability?"

I don't see the relevance of this. Again, with all due respect to Mr Thill, he does not appear to me to enjoy anywhere near the same notoriety as Arthur Koestler. I shouldn't be surprised if there are circumstances where it would be appropriate to cite Koestler's opinion on some matter simply because it was Koestler's opinion. Nevertheless, I do not, in fact, regard Koestler as reliable source on the history of science. So, yes, if Koestler were the only source cited in support of a contentious historical assertion made on Wikipedia, if that assertion were challenged, and if no genuinely reliable source could be found to support it, then I do indeed believe that it should then be removed.

"Thill's book ... mentions many old scholars "who knew Copernicus' theory before 1615", giving examples, as "It is a mistake to believe that Copernicus' theory would not have been known without Galileo". That is uncontroversial ... "

Indeed. So uncontroversial, in fact, that it is easily documentable by any number of genuinely reliable sources without any assistance being needed from Thill's lists.

" ... no matter what people write about Comenius, it is undisputed that he had purchased the manuscript. Mulerius even published a third edition. Reinhold based his Prussian Tables on Copernicus work. How on earth could these three be considered "anti-Copernicans"?"

I'm afraid I don't follow the logic here. Note first, however, that I did not say or imply that any of these people were "anti-Copernicans". My first objection was to the article's labelling these people as Copernicans. Since I have now amended the article so that it no longer does so, the grounds for that objection have now been eliminated.

In the case of Comenius, however, if it is true, as Koyré says, that his Synopsis Physicae was violently antagonistic to the new astronomy (and presuming that he never revised his opinion), then I don't see how he could be classified as anything other than "anti-Copernican". Surely any reasonable definition of "anti-Copernican" would have to include anyone who wrote violently antagonistic diatribes against Copernicanism. And I'm afraid I can't see how anyone's buying a Copernicus manuscript can tell you anything very definite about what their attitude towards his theory was, let alone nullify the obvious implication of their having written violently antagonistic diatribes against it.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil novi wrote:

"Does Thill list only those individuals who were discussed by Pierre Gassendi?"

No. When a similar issue arose some time ago about the Nicolaus Copernicus article, I obtained a photocopy of Gassendi's original article from a facsimile copy of his collected works, and checked it for the names on Thill's lists. Of the 84 people listed by Thill, I could find only 26 in Gassendi's biography. ~~All 26 belonged to Thill's list of alleged "Copernicans".~~^{[withdrawn;see below]} Since my schoolboy Latin is now very rusty, I was unable to tell whether the classification of these people as "Copernicans" was justified by whatever Gassendi said about them. ~~Gassendi didn't mention any of Thill's "anti-Copernicans" at all.~~
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Reinhold based his Prussian Tables on Copernicus work. How on earth could these three be considered "anti-Copernicans"?"

Reinhold based his tables on the mathematics of the De Revolutionibus in the hope that they would then prove more accurate/reliable than the older tables based on Ptolemaeus, this however proved not to be the case. His use of the De Revolutionibus however does not imply approval of the Copernican cosmology to which he was in fact opposed. Only someone who accepts Copernicus' cosmology can justifiably be called a Copernican and as Robert Westman famously records there were only ten Copernicans in the whole world between 1543 and 1600. Thony C. (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add that to the "Copernicus" and De revolutionibus articles, with source? Nihil novi (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do so as sone as I have time to dig out the original articles. Will also add details of his Wittenberg interpretation which details the use of the mathematics of De Revolutionibus without accepting the cosmology by people such as Reinhold.Thony C. (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now posted a request on the reliable sources noticeboard [now archived] for opinions on the acceptability of Thill's web-site and book as sources.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Above, I wrote "All 26 [people mentioned in Gassendi's biography] belonged to Thill's list of alleged "Copernicans". ... Gassendi didn't mention any of Thill's "anti-Copernicans" at all." These statements were based on a misreading of my earlier comments on the Nicolaus Copernicus article talk page. My relevant comments there were referring to shorter extracts from Thill's list that then appeared in the Nicolaus Copernicus article. Since I don't now remember much of the details, all I can conclude from those earlier comments is that Gassendi's biography mentioned only about 26 of the people on Thill's lists, and did not mention any of Comenius, Bruno, Mersenne, Descartes, Melanchthon, Luther, Calvin, Julius Caesar Scaliger or Jean Bodin.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These appear to be lengthy arguments controverting an assertion which is not Koestler's point.

Did Koestler actually assert that Copernicus was unread in the sixteenth century?

If so, that belongs (if anywhere) in the article on his book, with evidence that reliable sources disagree.
If not, why belabor it anywhere? We are not here to burn strawmen.

This list is an indiscriminate collection of people who expressed opinions on Copernicus before 1615, divided into negative and positive-to-neutral. It includes people who never saw Copernicus' book, and selects arbitrarily among them; as such it is incomplete - it omits John Donne (and if Copernicus was discussed by English court poets, it doubtless omits thousands more).

Thill's book is largely unreliable because of the method of publication. If he were the best scholar of Renaissance science now living, his book and website would still have been reviewed only by his own eyes, and he has failed to see bad writing, unclear and misleading exoressions, and outright slips of memory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Berry

Arthur Berry, in about 1898, suggested that the last two words of the title, "orbium coelestium" might have been added by Osiander.