DOCSLIB.ORG

Heliocentric Theory (Edited from Wikipedia)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Heliocentric Theory (Edited from Wikipedia) Heliocentric Theory (Edited from Wikipedia) SUMMARY Heliocentrism, or heliocentricism, is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the center of the Solar System. The word comes from the Greek (helios "sun" and kentron "center"). Historically, Heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the Earth at the center. The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos, but at least in the medieval world, Aristarchus's Heliocentrism attracted little attention. It was not until the 16th century that a geometric mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In the following century, Johannes Kepler elaborated upon and expanded this model to include elliptical orbits, and Galileo Galilei presented supporting observations made using a telescope. HISTORY To anyone who stands and looks up at the sky, it seems that the Earth stays in one place, while everything in the sky rises in the east and sets in the west once a day. However, with more scrutiny one will observe more complicated movements. The positions at which the Sun and moon rise change over the course of a year, some planets and stars do not appear at all for many months, and planets sometimes appear to have moved in the reverse direction for a while, relative to the background stars. As these motions became better understood, more elaborate descriptions were required, the most famous of which was the geocentric Ptolemaic system, which achieved its full expression in the 2nd century. The Ptolemaic system was a sophisticated astronomical system that managed to calculate the positions for the planets to a fair degree of accuracy. 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. However, 1 he rejected the idea of a spinning earth as absurd as he believed it would create huge winds. The non-geocentric model of the Universe was proposed by the Pythagorean philosopher Philolaus (d. 390 BC), who taught that at the center of the Universe was a "central fire", around which the Earth, Sun, Moon and Planets revolved in uniform circular motion. The Pythagorean concept of uniform circular motion remained unchallenged for approximately the next 2000 years, and it was to the Pythagoreans that Copernicus referred to show that the notion of a moving Earth was neither new nor revolutionary. Muslim astronomers generally accepted the Ptolemaic system and the geocentric model, but by the 10th century texts appeared regularly whose subject matter was doubts concerning Ptolemy. Several Muslim scholars questioned the Earth's apparent immobility and centrality within the universe. Some accepted that the Earth rotates around its axis. Copernicus cited some of the Islamic astronomers whose theories and observations he used in De Revolutionibus . In the 16th century, Nicolaus Copernicus's De revolutionibus presented a 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 geometrical detail, used selected astronomical observations to derive the parameters of his model, 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. In reality, Copernicus's system did not predict the planets' positions any better than the Ptolemaic system. 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 an object 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". 2 TYCHO’S RIVAL SYSTEM Prior to the publication of De Revolutionibus , the most widely accepted system had been proposed by Ptolemy, in which the Earth was the center of the universe and all celestial bodies orbited it. Tycho Brahe, arguably the most accomplished astronomer of his time, advocated against Copernicus's heliocentric system and for an alternative to the Ptolemaic geocentric system: a geo-heliocentric system in which the five then known planets orbit the sun, while the sun and the moon orbit the earth. Tycho appreciated the Copernican system, but objected to the idea of a moving Earth on the basis of physics, astronomy, and religion. The Aristotelian physics of the time (modern Newtonian physics was still a century away) offered no physical explanation for the motion of a massive body like Earth, whereas it could easily explain the motion of heavenly bodies by postulating that they were made of a different sort substance called aether [thanks to Aristotle] that moved naturally . So Tycho said that the Copernican system "... expertly and completely circumvents all that is superfluous or discordant in the system of Ptolemy. On no point does it offend the principle of mathematics. Yet it ascribes to the Earth, that hulking, lazy body, unfit for motion, a motion as quick as that of the aethereal torches, and a triple motion at that." Likewise, Tycho took issue with the vast distances to the stars that Aristarchus and Copernicus had assumed in order to explain the lack of any visible parallax. Tycho had measured the apparent sizes of stars (now known to be an illusion), and used geometry to calculate that in order to both have those apparent sizes and be as far away as Heliocentrism required, stars would have to be huge (much larger than the sun; the size of Earth's orbit or larger). Regarding this Tycho wrote, "Deduce these things geometrically if you like, and you will see how many absurdities (not to mention others) accompany this assumption [of the motion of the earth] by inference." He also cited the Copernican system's "opposition to the authority of Sacred Scripture in more than one place" as a reason why one might wish to reject it, and observed that his own geoheliocentric alternative "offended neither the principles of physics nor Holy Scripture". The Jesuit (Roman Catholic) astronomers in Rome were at first unreceptive to Tycho's system. However, after the advent of the telescope showed problems with some geocentric models (by demonstrating that Venus circles the sun, for example), the Tychonic system and variations on that system became very popular among geocentrists. Some Jesuit (Roman Catholic) astronomers would continue Tycho's use 3 of physics, stellar astronomy (now with a telescope), and religion to argue against Heliocentrism and for Tycho's system well into the seventeenth century. RELIGIOUS CONFLICT The first information about the heliocentric views of Nicolaus Copernicus was circulated in manuscript completed some time before May 1, 1514. Although only in manuscript, Copernicus' ideas were well known among astronomers and others. His ideas contradicted the then-prevailing understanding of the Bible. In the King James Bible First Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." Nonetheless, in 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered in Rome a series of lectures outlining Copernicus' theory. The lectures were heard with interest by Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals. On November 1, 1536, Archbishop of Capua Nikolaus von Schönberg wrote a letter to Copernicus from Rome encouraging him to publish a full version of his theory. However, in 1539, Martin Luther 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 a conversation at the dinner table and not a formal statement of faith. 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 of Heliocentrism should be banned, but nothing came of it at the time. 4 THE GALILEO AFFAIR The Galileo affair was a sequence of events, beginning around 1610, culminating with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633 for his support of heliocentrism. Galileo began his telescopic observations in the later part of 1609, and by March 1610 was able to publish a small book, The Starry Messenger, relating some discoveries that had not been dreamed of in the philosophy of the time: 1. mountains on the Moon, 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CURRICULUM VITA of ROBERT HAHN January 2015
    CURRICULUM VITA OF ROBERT HAHN January 2015 I. PERSONAL A. Present University Department: Philosophy. II. EDUCATION Ph.D., Philosophy, Yale University, May 1976. M. Phil., Philosophy, Yale University, May 1976. M.A., Philosophy, Yale University, December 1975. B.A., Philosophy, Union College, Summa cum laude, June 1973. Summer Intensive Workshop in Ancient Greek, The University of California at Berkeley, 1973. Summer Intensive Workshop in Sanskrit, The University of Chicago, 1972. III. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2002-present Professor of Philosophy, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale 1988-2001 Associate Professor of Philosophy, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. 1982-1987 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. 1981-1982 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Denison University. 1978-1981 Assistant Professor of Philosophy and the History of Ideas, Brandeis University. 1979-1981 Assistant Professor, Harvard University, Extension. 1980 (Spring) Visiting Professor, The American College of Greece (Deree College), Athens, Greece. 1980 (Summer) Visiting Professor, The University of Maryland: European Division, Athens, Greece (The United States Air Force #7206 Air Base Group). 1977-1978 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, The University of Texas, Arlington. 1977 (Spring) Lecturer in Philosophy, Yale University. 1976 (Fall) Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Philosophy, The University of California at Berkeley. IV. TEACHING EXPERIENCE A. Teaching Interests and Specialties: History of Philosophy, History/Philosophy
    [Show full text]
  • What Did Shakespeare Know About Copernicanism?
    DOI: 10.2478/v10319-012-0031-x WHAT DID SHAKESPEARE KNOW ABOUT COPERNICANISM? ALAN S. WEBER Weill Cornell Medical College–Qatar Abstract: This contribution examines Shakespeare’s knowledge of the cosmological theories of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) as well as recent claims that Shakespeare possessed specialized knowledge of technical astronomy. Keywords: Shakespeare, William; Copernicus, Nicolaus; renaissance astronomy 1. Introduction Although some of his near contemporaries lamented the coming of “The New Philosophy,” Shakespeare never made unambiguous or direct reference to the heliocentric theories of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) in his drama or poetry. Peter Usher, however, has recently argued in two books Hamlet’s Universe (2006) and Shakespeare and the Dawn of Modern Science (2010) that Hamlet is an elaborate allegory of Copernicanism, which in addition heralds pre-Galilean telescopic observations carried out by Thomas Digges. Although many of Usher’s arguments are excessively elaborate and speculative, he raises several interesting questions. Just why did Shakespeare, for example, choose the names of Rosenskrantz and Guildenstern for Hamlet’s petard-hoisted companions, two historical relatives of Tycho Brahe (the foremost astronomer during Shakespeare’s floruit)? What was Shakespeare’s relationship to the spread of Copernican cosmology in late Elizabethan England? Was he impacted by such Copernican-related currents of cosmological thought as the atomism of Thomas Harriot and Nicholas Hill, the Neoplatonism of Kepler, and
    [Show full text]
  • Thinking Outside the Sphere Views of the Stars from Aristotle to Herschel Thinking Outside the Sphere
    Thinking Outside the Sphere Views of the Stars from Aristotle to Herschel Thinking Outside the Sphere A Constellation of Rare Books from the History of Science Collection The exhibition was made possible by generous support from Mr. & Mrs. James B. Hebenstreit and Mrs. Lathrop M. Gates. CATALOG OF THE EXHIBITION Linda Hall Library Linda Hall Library of Science, Engineering and Technology Cynthia J. Rogers, Curator 5109 Cherry Street Kansas City MO 64110 1 Thinking Outside the Sphere is held in copyright by the Linda Hall Library, 2010, and any reproduction of text or images requires permission. The Linda Hall Library is an independently funded library devoted to science, engineering and technology which is used extensively by The exhibition opened at the Linda Hall Library April 22 and closed companies, academic institutions and individuals throughout the world. September 18, 2010. The Library was established by the wills of Herbert and Linda Hall and opened in 1946. It is located on a 14 acre arboretum in Kansas City, Missouri, the site of the former home of Herbert and Linda Hall. Sources of images on preliminary pages: Page 1, cover left: Peter Apian. Cosmographia, 1550. We invite you to visit the Library or our website at www.lindahlll.org. Page 1, right: Camille Flammarion. L'atmosphère météorologie populaire, 1888. Page 3, Table of contents: Leonhard Euler. Theoria motuum planetarum et cometarum, 1744. 2 Table of Contents Introduction Section1 The Ancient Universe Section2 The Enduring Earth-Centered System Section3 The Sun Takes
    [Show full text]
  • ASTRO190 HOMEWORK #1, DUE Jan 16 Before Class
    ASTRO190 HOMEWORK #1, DUE Jan 16 before class. This homework covers the material of the first day of class. Submit in pdf or text format to [email protected]. Content, conciseness and clarity matter. More difficult questions will be graded with a lighter touch. Contact me (543-7683; [email protected]) if you are stymied. 1. Modern science can trace its history back to some of the earliest Greek philosophers who preceded Socrates and Aristotle, notably Thales of Miletus (624-546 BCE), Anaximander of Miletus (610-546 BCE), Pythagoras* of Saros (570-495 BCE), Democritus of Thrace (460-370 BCE) * Anaximander’s student, known best for his derivation of the relative lengths of lines of triangles Match each of these people with their assertions about the nature of the natural world (Hint: use Wiki). That is, match each name and the letter that identifies their assertion, such as “Pythagoras – (X)”. (One line) a. Deverything can be understood as the result of natural laws b. Trational thinking and the application of hypotheses, not the ancient anthropomorphic gods, is the way to understand the world around us c. Anature is ruled by laws, just like human societies, and anything that disturbs the balance of nature does not last long d. Pthe planets and stars move according to mathematical equations, which correspond to musical notes and thus produce a symphony 2. Science as we know it withered in the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages until the later years of the Renaissance. Nicolas Copernicus (1473-1543), Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), Galileo Galilei of Pisa (1564-1642) re-awakened science and gave it prominence (despite the teachings of powerful theists into the 19th century that only God understands how the world works).
    [Show full text]
  • Nicolaus Copernicus: the Loss of Centrality
    I Nicolaus Copernicus: The Loss of Centrality The mathematician who studies the motions of the stars is surely like a blind man who, with only a staff to guide him, must make a great, endless, hazardous journey that winds through innumerable desolate places. [Rheticus, Narratio Prima (1540), 163] 1 Ptolemy and Copernicus The German playwright Bertold Brecht wrote his play Life of Galileo in exile in 1938–9. It was first performed in Zurich in 1943. In Brecht’s play two worldviews collide. There is the geocentric worldview, which holds that the Earth is at the center of a closed universe. Among its many proponents were Aristotle (384–322 BC), Ptolemy (AD 85–165), and Martin Luther (1483–1546). Opposed to geocentrism is the heliocentric worldview. Heliocentrism teaches that the sun occupies the center of an open universe. Among its many proponents were Copernicus (1473–1543), Kepler (1571–1630), Galileo (1564–1642), and Newton (1643–1727). In Act One the Italian mathematician and physicist Galileo Galilei shows his assistant Andrea a model of the Ptolemaic system. In the middle sits the Earth, sur- rounded by eight rings. The rings represent the crystal spheres, which carry the planets and the fixed stars. Galileo scowls at this model. “Yes, walls and spheres and immobility,” he complains. “For two thousand years people have believed that the sun and all the stars of heaven rotate around mankind.” And everybody believed that “they were sitting motionless inside this crystal sphere.” The Earth was motionless, everything else rotated around it. “But now we are breaking out of it,” Galileo assures his assistant.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Astronomy
    Historical Astronomy (Neolithic record of Moon Phases) Introduction Arguably the history of astronomy IS the history of science. Many cultures carried out astronomical observations. However, very few formed mathematical or physical models based on their observations. It is those that did that we will focus on here, primarily the Babylonians and Greeks. Other Examples At the same time, that focus should not cause us to forget the impressive accomplishments of other cultures. Other Examples ∼ 2300 year old Chankillo Big Horn Medicine Wheel, Observatory, near Lima, Wyoming Peru Other Examples Chinese Star Map - Chinese records go back over 4000 Stonehenge, England years Babylonian Astronomy The story we will follow in more detail begins with the Babylonians / Mesopotamians / Sumerians, the cultures that inhabited the “fertile crescent.” Babylonian Astronomy Their observations and mathematics was instrumental to the development of Greek astronomy and continues to influence science today. They were the first to provide a mathematical description of astronomical events, recognize that astronomical events were periodic, and to devise a theory of the planets. Babylonian Astronomy Some accomplishments: • The accurate prediction of solar and lunar eclipses. • They developed mathematical models to predict the motions of the planets. • Accurate star charts. • Recognized the changing apparent speed of the Sun’s motion. • Developed models to account for the changing speed of the Sun and Moon. • Gave us the idea of 360◦ in a circle, 600 in a degree, 6000 in a minute. Alas, only very fragmentary records of their work survives. Early Greek The conquests of Alexander the Great are oen credited with bringing knowl- edge of the Babylonians science and mathematics to the Greeks.
    [Show full text]
  • Order in the Cosmos: How Babylonians and Greeks Rationalized the Heavens
    Order in the Cosmos: how Babylonians and Greeks rationalized the heavens Lasting Astronomical Influence: • Constellation Names • Zodiac • Degree - unit angle • Sexagesimal number system: circle: 360 degrees degree: 60 minutes place value number system (crucial for Greek science !) • Eclipse Observations & Periods • Synodic, Siderial, Draconic, Anomalistic months • and … Two distinct periods of flowering: • Old Babylonian astronomy: during and after First Babylonian dynasty (Hammurabi) 1830-1531 BCE • New Babylonian/Chaldean astronomy: Neo-Babylonian (Nebuchadnezzar) 626-539 BCE Medo-Persian 539-331 BCE Seleucid 335-141 BCE Parthian 129 BCE-224 AD timeline Babylonian astronomy Evans 1998 Babylonian Astronomers: • most consistent, systematic and thorough astronomical observers of antiquity • First to recognize periodicity astronomical phenomena (e.g. eclipses !), and apply mathematical techniques for predictions • Systematically observed and recorded the heavens: - Records spanning many centuries (> millennium) - Archives of cuneiform tablets - Famous Examples: Enuma Anu Enlil 68-70 tablets Kassite period (1650-1150) tablet 63: Venus tablet of Ammisaduga MUL.APIN 700 BCE oldest copy: 686 BCE • Several types of astronomical texts in Babylonian astronomy. • Four principal types: 1) astronomical diaries 2) goal year texts 3) ephemerides 4) procedure texts • Ephemerides: - listing of positions of planets and their meaning (eg. extreme points retrograde path) - predictive: positions based on calculations (based on scheme) - ephemerides for Moon - ephemerides for planets • Procedure texts: description of procedure(s) to calculate ephemerides Old text, probably Kassite period (1595-1157 BCE) • A major series of 68 or 70 tablets • dealing with Babylonian astrology. • bulk is a substantial collection of omens, estimated to number between 6500 and 7000, • interpreting a wide variety of celestial and atmospheric phenomena in terms relevant to the king and state 2.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Difference Between the Geocentric and Heliocentric Models
    What Is The Difference Between the Geocentric and Heliocentric Models of the Solar System? Article written: 23 Jan , 2015 Updated: 23 Dec , 2015 by Elizabeth Howell (https://www.universetoday.com/author/pars3c/) What does our Solar System really look like? If we were to somehow fly ourselves above the plane where the Sun and the planets are, what would we see in the center of the Solar System? The answer took a while for astronomers to figure out, leading to a debate between what is known as the geocentric (Earth-centered) model and the heliocentric (Sun-centered model). The ancients understood that there were certain bright points that would appear to move among the background stars. While who exactly discovered the “naked-eye” planets (the planets you can see without a telescope) is lost in antiquity, we do know that cultures all over the world spotted them. The ancient Greeks, for example, considered the planets to include Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn — as well as the Moon and the Sun. The Earth was in the center of it all (geocentric), with these planets revolving around it. So important did this become in culture that the days of the week were named after the gods, represented by these seven moving points of light. All the same, not every Greek believed that the Earth was in the middle. Aristarchus of Samos, according to NASA (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm? Category=Planets&IM_ID=18086), was the first known person to say that the Sun was in the center of the universe.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics and Cosmology in Plato's Timaeus
    apeiron 2021; aop Andrew Gregory* Mathematics and Cosmology in Plato’s Timaeus https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron-2020-0034 Published online March 18, 2021 Abstract: Plato used mathematics extensively in his account of the cosmos in the Timaeus, but as he did not use equations, but did use geometry, harmony and according to some, numerology, it has not been clear how or to what effect he used mathematics. This paper argues that the relationship between mathematics and cosmology is not atemporally evident and that Plato’s use of mathematics was an open and rational possibility in his context, though that sort of use of mathematics has subsequently been superseded as science has progressed. I argue that there is a philosophically and historically meaningful space between ‘primitive’ or unre- flective uses of mathematics and the modern conception of how mathematics relates to cosmology. Plato’s use of mathematics in the Timaeus enabled the cosmos to be as good as it could be, allowed the demiurge a rational choice (of which planetary orbits and which atomic shapes to instantiate) and allowed Timaeus to give an account of the cosmos (where if the demiurge did not have such a rational choice he would not have been able to do so). I also argue that within this space it is both meaningful and important to differentiate between Pythagorean and Platonic uses of number and that we need to reject the idea of ‘Pythagorean/ Platonic number mysticism’. Plato’s use of number in the Timaeus was not mystical even though it does not match modern usage.
    [Show full text]
  • A Priori and a Posteriori : Two Approaches to Heliocentrism
    chapter 6 A priori and a posteriori: Two Approaches to Heliocentrism One could consider the earliest reception of De revolutionibus to be concluded with the publication of Mysterium cosmographicum, an ambitious attempt to reaffirm the reality of heliocentrism which signaled its author, the young Kepler, as one of the most promising and original mathematical and philo- sophical minds of his time. He did not embrace the geo-heliocentric “third way” of Ursus and Brahe, and would later reject the infinitist viewpoint of Bruno and his followers. Rather, he reassessed the Copernican system from a completely new perspective. After a period of intense astronomical observa- tions (the approach supported by Landgrave Wilhelm IV and Brahe as well as by Mästlin and Magini), Kepler claimed that it was possible to grasp the design of the heavens from an a priori perspective. His intention was, in fact, to unveil the archetypal reasons for the planetary order rooted in Divine Providence. He called this hidden astronomical truth, in Latin, the mysterium cosmographi- cum, i.e. the cosmic secret. An important aspect of his speculations was the project of unifying mathematical and physical astronomy, which he would especially develop in Astronomia nova (1609) and in Harmonice mundi (1619). On the other hand, Galileo’s telescopic discoveries, first communicated in Sidereus nuncius (1610), strengthened the heliocentric cause by bringing new data that were not reconcilable with either Ptolemaic geocentrism or with the Aristotelian principle that the heavens are unalterable. The Copernican alliance between Kepler and Galileo was in many respects a historical contingency, since they came to support the heliocentric system for different reasons and starting from very different conceptions of science.
    [Show full text]
  • Galileo, Ignoramus: Mathematics Versus Philosophy in the Scientific Revolution
    Galileo, Ignoramus: Mathematics versus Philosophy in the Scientific Revolution Viktor Blåsjö Abstract I offer a revisionist interpretation of Galileo’s role in the history of science. My overarching thesis is that Galileo lacked technical ability in mathematics, and that this can be seen as directly explaining numerous aspects of his life’s work. I suggest that it is precisely because he was bad at mathematics that Galileo was keen on experiment and empiricism, and eagerly adopted the telescope. His reliance on these hands-on modes of research was not a pioneering contribution to scientific method, but a last resort of a mind ill equipped to make a contribution on mathematical grounds. Likewise, it is precisely because he was bad at mathematics that Galileo expounded at length about basic principles of scientific method. “Those who can’t do, teach.” The vision of science articulated by Galileo was less original than is commonly assumed. It had long been taken for granted by mathematicians, who, however, did not stop to pontificate about such things in philosophical prose because they were too busy doing advanced scientific work. Contents 4 Astronomy 38 4.1 Adoption of Copernicanism . 38 1 Introduction 2 4.2 Pre-telescopic heliocentrism . 40 4.3 Tycho Brahe’s system . 42 2 Mathematics 2 4.4 Against Tycho . 45 2.1 Cycloid . .2 4.5 The telescope . 46 2.2 Mathematicians versus philosophers . .4 4.6 Optics . 48 2.3 Professor . .7 4.7 Mountains on the moon . 49 2.4 Sector . .8 4.8 Double-star parallax . 50 2.5 Book of nature .
    [Show full text]
  • The Reception of the Copernican Revolution Among Provençal Humanists of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries*
    The Reception of the Copernican Revolution Among Provençal Humanists of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries* Jean-Pierre Luminet Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille (LAM) CNRS-UMR 7326 & Centre de Physique Théorique de Marseille (CPT) CNRS-UMR 7332 & Observatoire de Paris (LUTH) CNRS-UMR 8102 France E-mail: [email protected] Abstract We discuss the reception of Copernican astronomy by the Provençal humanists of the XVIth- XVIIth centuries, beginning with Michel de Montaigne who was the first to recognize the potential scientific and philosophical revolution represented by heliocentrism. Then we describe how, after Kepler’s Astronomia Nova of 1609 and the first telescopic observations by Galileo, it was in the south of France that the New Astronomy found its main promotors with humanists and « amateurs écairés », Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc and Pierre Gassendi. The professional astronomer Jean-Dominique Cassini, also from Provence, would later elevate the field to new heights in Paris. Introduction In the first book I set forth the entire distribution of the spheres together with the motions which I attribute to the earth, so that this book contains, as it were, the general structure of the universe. —Nicolaus Copernicus, Preface to Pope Paul III, On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres, 1543.1 Written over the course of many years by the Polish Catholic canon Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) and published following his death, De revolutionibus orbium cœlestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) is regarded by historians as the origin of the modern vision of the universe.2 The radical new ideas presented by Copernicus in De revolutionibus * Extended version of the article "The Provençal Humanists and Copernicus" published in Inference, vol.2 issue 4 (2017), on line at http://inference-review.com/.
    [Show full text]