People/Nicolaus Copernicus: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(added See Also) |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
"Yet the widespread [planetary theories], advanced by Ptolemy and most other [astronomers], although consistent with the numerical [data], seemed likewise to present no small difficulty. For these theories were not adequate unless they also conceived certain equalizing circles, which made the planet appear to move at all times with uniform velocity neither on its deferent sphere nor about its own [epicycle's] center…Therefore, having become aware of these [defects], I often considered whether there could perhaps be found a more reasonable arrangement of circles, from which every apparent irregularity would be derived while everything in itself would move uniformly, as is required by the rule of perfect motion" |
"Yet the widespread [planetary theories], advanced by Ptolemy and most other [astronomers], although consistent with the numerical [data], seemed likewise to present no small difficulty. For these theories were not adequate unless they also conceived certain equalizing circles, which made the planet appear to move at all times with uniform velocity neither on its deferent sphere nor about its own [epicycle's] center…Therefore, having become aware of these [defects], I often considered whether there could perhaps be found a more reasonable arrangement of circles, from which every apparent irregularity would be derived while everything in itself would move uniformly, as is required by the rule of perfect motion" |
||
</blockquote> |
</blockquote> |
||
===Copernicus vs Brahe=== |
|||
Brahe said that the Copernican system “expertly and completely circumvents all that is superfluous or discordant in the system of Ptolemy.... Yet it ascribes to the earth, that hulking, lazy body, unfit for motion, a motion as quick as that |
|||
of the aethereal torches.” |
|||
Another thing that bothered Brahe were the stars in the Copernican system. Ptolemy |
|||
said the sphere of the stars is “immeasurably large” because we can detect no diurnal parallax in them—no noticeable alterations in their positions or appearances caused by the changing angles and distances between an Earth-bound observer and those stars as they pass from the horizon, to overhead, to the horizon. |
|||
Copernicus knew, however, that we could not even detect annual parallax—changes |
|||
in the relative positions of stars caused by the movement of Earth in its orbit. If Earth really was revolving around the sun, the absence of annual parallax would imply that the diameter of its orbit (Copernicus called it the orbis magnus) was itself as nothing, “as a point,” compared with stellar distances. The size of the universe then became a whole new—and almost impossible to believe—kind of “immeasurably large.” |
|||
Moreover, as Brahe well knew, the Copernican proposal had big implications not only for the size of the universe but also for the size of individual stars. When we look up at the night sky, individual stars appear to have fixed widths, which both Ptolemy and Brahe measured. We now know that the distant stars are effectively point sources of light, and these apparent widths are an artifact of the passage of light waves through a circular aperture such as a telescope or an iris. |
|||
Yet at the time, astronomers knew nothing of the wave nature of light. Brahe used |
|||
simple geometry to calculate that if the stars were to lie at Copernican distances, then they would have to have a width comparable to that of the orbis magnus. Even the smallest star would utterly dwarf the sun, just as a grapefruit dwarfs the period at the end of this sentence. That, too, was hugely hard to believe—Brahe said such titanic stars were absurd. As historian Albert Van Helden puts it, Brahe’s “logic was impeccable; his measurements above |
|||
reproach. |
|||
A Copernican simply had to accept the results of this argument.”Rather than give up their theory in the face of seemingly incontrovertible physical evidence, Copernicans were forced to appeal to divine omnipotence. “These things that vulgar sorts see as absurd at first glance are not easily charged with absurdity, for in fact divine Sapience and Majesty are far greater than they understand,” |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
Rather than give up their theory in the face of seemingly incontrovertible evidence, Copernicans were forced to appeal to divine omnipotence. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
When Galileo began to view the heavens with his telescope, he made a number of |
|||
findings that directly contradicted Ptolemy’s ancient cosmology. He saw that Jupiter had moons, proving that the universe could harbor more than one center of motion. He also observed the phases of Venus, showing that it circled the sun. These findings were not, however, understood as proof that Earth revolves around the sun because they were fully compatible with the Tychonic system. |
|||
===AP "Heretic to Hero" Story=== |
===AP "Heretic to Hero" Story=== |
||
| Line 101: | Line 126: | ||
The massive bulk of the earth does indeed shrink to insignificance in comparison with the size of the heavens. |
The massive bulk of the earth does indeed shrink to insignificance in comparison with the size of the heavens. |
||
</blockquote> |
</blockquote> |
||
===Further Reading=== |
|||
* [[:File:R2The case against Copernicus.pdf|PDF: The case against Copernicus]] |
|||
===References=== |
===References=== |
||
Latest revision as of 15:10, July 1, 2024
Nicolaus Copernicus
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) was a mathematician and astronomer who proposed that the sun was stationary in the center of the universe and the earth revolved around it.
Disturbed by the "failure" of Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe to follow Aristotle's requirement for the uniform circular motion of all celestial bodies and determined to eliminate Ptolemy's equant, an imaginary point around which the bodies seemed to follow that requirement, Copernicus decided that he could achieve his goal only through a heliocentric model. He thereby created a concept of a universe in which the distances of the planets from the sun bore a direct relationship to the size of their orbits. At the time Copernicus's heliocentric idea was very controversial; nevertheless, it was the start of a change in the way the world was viewed, and Copernicus came to be seen as the initiator of the Scientific Revolution.
Son of Satan?
Tuviah Cohen and his illustrated Hebrew encyclopedia Ma’aseh Tuviah, published in 1708, saw himself an iconoclast, willing to break with some, but not all, traditional Jewish teaching about the natural world, and replace it with the latest knowledge being taught in the universities of his time. His book contains the first illustration of the Copenican model in a Hebrew book, but Cohen himself rejected the model on both scientific and religious grounds, and called Copernicus “the son of Satan.”
Foolish and absurd in philosophy
In 1559, Copernicus's De Revolutionibus was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.
On February 24, 1616 condemnation of the Copernican system, as being “foolish and absurd in philosophy” and “formally heretical”, by a team of consultants for the Roman Inquisition.
The consultants' statement was issued as the Inquisition investigated a complaint that had been filed against Galileo in February of 1615. Galileo had been exonerated, but the Inquisition decided to consult its experts for an opinion on the status of Copernicanism. However, despite the consultants' statement, the Inquisition issued no formal condemnation2 of the Copernican system, and the statement was filed away in the Inquisition archives. [1]
Rejecting Ptolemaic cosmology
Most scholars believe that the reason Copernicus rejected Ptolemaic cosmology was because of Ptolemy's equant (Equant is a mathematical concept developed by Claudius Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD to account for the observed motion of the planets). They assume this because of what Copernicus wrote in the Commentariolus:
"Yet the widespread [planetary theories], advanced by Ptolemy and most other [astronomers], although consistent with the numerical [data], seemed likewise to present no small difficulty. For these theories were not adequate unless they also conceived certain equalizing circles, which made the planet appear to move at all times with uniform velocity neither on its deferent sphere nor about its own [epicycle's] center…Therefore, having become aware of these [defects], I often considered whether there could perhaps be found a more reasonable arrangement of circles, from which every apparent irregularity would be derived while everything in itself would move uniformly, as is required by the rule of perfect motion"
Copernicus vs Brahe
Brahe said that the Copernican system “expertly and completely circumvents all that is superfluous or discordant in the system of Ptolemy.... Yet it ascribes to the earth, that hulking, lazy body, unfit for motion, a motion as quick as that of the aethereal torches.”
Another thing that bothered Brahe were the stars in the Copernican system. Ptolemy said the sphere of the stars is “immeasurably large” because we can detect no diurnal parallax in them—no noticeable alterations in their positions or appearances caused by the changing angles and distances between an Earth-bound observer and those stars as they pass from the horizon, to overhead, to the horizon.
Copernicus knew, however, that we could not even detect annual parallax—changes in the relative positions of stars caused by the movement of Earth in its orbit. If Earth really was revolving around the sun, the absence of annual parallax would imply that the diameter of its orbit (Copernicus called it the orbis magnus) was itself as nothing, “as a point,” compared with stellar distances. The size of the universe then became a whole new—and almost impossible to believe—kind of “immeasurably large.”
Moreover, as Brahe well knew, the Copernican proposal had big implications not only for the size of the universe but also for the size of individual stars. When we look up at the night sky, individual stars appear to have fixed widths, which both Ptolemy and Brahe measured. We now know that the distant stars are effectively point sources of light, and these apparent widths are an artifact of the passage of light waves through a circular aperture such as a telescope or an iris.
Yet at the time, astronomers knew nothing of the wave nature of light. Brahe used simple geometry to calculate that if the stars were to lie at Copernican distances, then they would have to have a width comparable to that of the orbis magnus. Even the smallest star would utterly dwarf the sun, just as a grapefruit dwarfs the period at the end of this sentence. That, too, was hugely hard to believe—Brahe said such titanic stars were absurd. As historian Albert Van Helden puts it, Brahe’s “logic was impeccable; his measurements above reproach.
A Copernican simply had to accept the results of this argument.”Rather than give up their theory in the face of seemingly incontrovertible physical evidence, Copernicans were forced to appeal to divine omnipotence. “These things that vulgar sorts see as absurd at first glance are not easily charged with absurdity, for in fact divine Sapience and Majesty are far greater than they understand,”
Rather than give up their theory in the face of seemingly incontrovertible evidence, Copernicans were forced to appeal to divine omnipotence.
When Galileo began to view the heavens with his telescope, he made a number of findings that directly contradicted Ptolemy’s ancient cosmology. He saw that Jupiter had moons, proving that the universe could harbor more than one center of motion. He also observed the phases of Venus, showing that it circled the sun. These findings were not, however, understood as proof that Earth revolves around the sun because they were fully compatible with the Tychonic system.
AP "Heretic to Hero" Story
According to a story published by AP, Copernicus was condemned by the Church as a "heretic" decades after his death. He had spent years developing his heliocentric notion that the earth revolved around the sun, based on observations of the heavens he made with the naked eye (this was before the telescope).
Recently he was buried as a "hero" at a Mass celebrated by the papal nuncio in the Cathedral where once he once served as a canon and doctor. (His skull and other bones were discovered in an unmarked grave beneath the cathedral floor in 2005.)
"a black granite tombstone now identifies him as the founder of the heliocentric theory, but also a church canon .... The tombstone is decorated with a model of the solar system, a golden sun encircled by six of the planets."
The honors accorded by Copernicus by the Catholic Church come 18 years after Galileo -- the Italian astronomer who developed Copernicus's theory -- was rehabilitated by the Vatican.
Before he died in 1543, Copernicus' ideas were neither well known nor considered dangerous: in fact, they weren't condemned by the Church until 1616, when the Church was battling the ideas of Martin Luther. Copernicus had been suspected at the time of sympathy for Lutheranism. He had also clashed with cathedral authorities over the mistress he kept, whom he was forced to give up. But his Catholic credentials are otherwise pretty impeccable -- down to his doctorate in canon law at Bologna University. [2]
Good standing with the Church?
The above AP story reported that the Catholic Church has finally given due honors to Copernicus. Unfortunately the story may be chock-full of statements that are misleading if not downright wrong.
The implications are that Copernicus was denounced as a heretic before he died, and thus deprived of a proper Christian burial.
According to catholicculture.org, he was never denounced; he died in good standing with the Church. He was buried not in a pauper's grave but in the cathedral in Frombork (a city that is now a part of the Archdiocese of Warmia, Poland).
The heliocentric theory that Copernicus advanced was indeed controversial during his lifetime. So controversial, in fact, that Copernicus delayed for years before publishing his book, "De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium".
Yes, he delayed because he feared an adverse reaction - not from Church leaders, but from his fellow scholars. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Copernicus was worried about a hostile reaction from the Church. "De Revolutionibus" was published under the auspices of a Catholic bishop; it was dedicated to Pope Paul III. [3]
Quotes
Finally we shall place the Sun himself at the center of the Universe. All this is suggested by the system of procession of events and the harmony of the whole Universe, if only we face the facts, as they say, "with eyes wide open."
In the center of all rests the sun. For who would place this lamp of a very beautiful temple in another or better place that this wherefrom it can illuminate everything at the same time? As a matter of fact, not unhappily do some call it the lantern; others, the mind and still others, the pilot of the world. Trismegistus calls it a "visible God"; Sophocles' Electra, "that which gazes upon all things." And so the sun, as if resting on a kingly throne, governs the family of stars which wheel around.
In the midst of all dwells the Sun. For who could set this luminary in another or better place in this most glorious temple, than whence he can at one and the same time brighten the whole.
There may be babblers, wholly ignorant of mathematics, who dare to condemn my hypothesis, upon the authority of some part of the Bible twisted to suit their purpose. I value them not, and scorn their unfounded judgment.
For I am not so enamoured of my own opinions that I disregard what others may think of them.
Nations are not ruined by one act of violence, but gradually and in an almost imperceptible manner by the depreciation of their circulating currency, through its excessive quantity.
At rest, however, in the middle of everything is the sun.
To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.
The massive bulk of the earth does indeed shrink to insignificance in comparison with the size of the heavens.