Template:Short description Template:Redirect-distinguish Template:Use mdy dates
HeliocentrismTemplate:Efn (also known as the heliocentric model) is a superseded astronomical model in which the Earth and planets orbit around the Sun at the center of the universe. 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,<ref>Template:Harvnb; Template:Harvnb. The work of Aristarchus in which he proposed his heliocentric system has not survived. We only know of it now from a brief passage in Archimedes' The Sand Reckoner.</ref> who had been influenced by a concept presented by Philolaus of Croton (c. 470 – 385 BC). In the 5th century BC the Greek philosophers Philolaus and Hicetas had the thought on different occasions that the Earth was spherical and revolving around a "mystical" central fire, and that this fire regulated the universe.<ref>Template:Britannica</ref> In medieval Europe, however, Aristarchus' heliocentrism attracted little attention—possibly because of the loss of scientific works of the Hellenistic period.Template:Efn
It was not until the 16th century that a mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric, Nicolaus Copernicus, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In 1576, Thomas Digges published a modified Copernican system. His modifications are close to modern observations. In the following century, Johannes Kepler introduced elliptical orbits, and Galileo Galilei presented supporting observations made using a telescope.
With the observations of William Herschel, Friedrich Bessel, and other astronomers, it was realized that the Sun, while near the barycenter of the Solar System, was not central in the universe. Modern astronomy does not distinguish any center.
Ancient and medieval astronomyEdit
While the sphericity of the Earth was widely recognized in Greco-Roman astronomy from at least the 4th century BC,<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> the Earth's daily rotation and yearly orbit around the Sun was never universally accepted until the Copernican Revolution.
While a moving Earth was proposed at least from the 4th century BC in Pythagoreanism, and a fully developed heliocentric model was developed by Aristarchus of Samos in the 3rd century BC, these ideas were not successful in replacing the view of a static spherical Earth, and from the 2nd century AD the predominant model, which would be inherited by medieval astronomy, was the geocentric model described in Ptolemy's Almagest.
The Ptolemaic system was a sophisticated astronomical system that managed to calculate the positions for the planets to a fair degree of accuracy.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Ptolemy himself, in his Almagest, says 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.<ref>In Book 1 section 7 he admits that a model in which the Earth revolves with respect to the stars would be simpler but doesn't go as far as considering a heliocentric system.</ref> However, he rejected the idea of a spinning Earth as absurd as he believed it would create huge winds. Within his model the distances of the Moon, Sun, planets and stars could be determined by treating orbits' celestial spheres as contiguous realities, which gave the stars' distance as less than 20 Astronomical Units,<ref>Dennis Duke, Ptolemy's Universe Template:Webarchive</ref> a regression, since Aristarchus of Samos's heliocentric scheme had centuries earlier necessarily placed the stars at least two orders of magnitude more distant.
Problems with Ptolemy's system were well recognized in medieval astronomy, and an increasing effort to criticize and improve it in the late medieval period eventually led to the Copernican heliocentrism developed in Renaissance astronomy.
Classical antiquityEdit
PythagoreansEdit
The first 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. This system postulated the existence of a Counter-Earth collinear with the Earth and central fire, with the same period of revolution around the central fire as the Earth. The Sun revolved around the central fire once a year, and the stars were stationary. The Earth maintained the same hidden face towards the central fire, rendering both it and the "Counter-Earth" invisible from Earth. 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.<ref>Boyer, C. A History of Mathematics. Wiley, p. 54.</ref> Kepler gave an alternative explanation of the Pythagoreans' "central fire" as the Sun, "as most sects purposely hid[e] their teachings".<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
Heraclides of Pontus (4th century BC) said that the rotation of the Earth explained the apparent daily motion of the celestial sphere. It used to be thought that he believed Mercury and Venus to revolve around the Sun, which in turn (along with the other planets) revolves around the Earth.<ref>Template:Citation</ref> Macrobius (AD 395Template:Mdash423) later described this as the "Egyptian System," stating that "it did not escape the skill of the Egyptians," though there is no other evidence it was known in ancient Egypt.<ref>Template:Citation</ref><ref>Template:Citation</ref>
Aristarchus of SamosEdit
The first person known to have proposed a heliocentric system was Aristarchus of Samos Template:Nowrap. Like his contemporary Eratosthenes, Aristarchus calculated the size of the Earth and measured the sizes and distances of the Sun and Moon. From his estimates, he concluded that the Sun was six to seven times wider than the Earth, and thought that the larger object would have the most attractive force.
His writings on the heliocentric system are lost, but some information about them is known from a brief description by his contemporary, Archimedes, and from scattered references by later writers. Archimedes' description of Aristarchus' theory is given in the former's book, The Sand Reckoner. The entire description comprises just three sentences, which Thomas Heath translates as follows:<ref name=HeathSand>Template:Harvtxt. The italics and parenthetical comments are as they appear in Heath's original.</ref>
<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
You [King Gelon] are aware that "universe" is the name given by most astronomers to the sphere, the centre of which is the centre of the earth, while its radius is equal to the straight line between the centre of the sun and the centre of the earth. This is the common account (τά γραφόμενα), as you have heard from astronomers. But Aristarchus brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the "universe" just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the sun remain unmoved, that the earth revolves about the sun on the circumference of a circle, the sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same centre as the sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the centre of the sphere bears to its surface.{{#if:The Sand Reckoner (Arenarius I, 4–7)Template:R|{{#if:|}}
— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries}}
{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}
Aristarchus presumably took the stars to be very far away because he was aware that their parallax<ref>That is, an apparent movement of the stars relative to the celestial poles and equator, and to each other, caused by the Earth's revolution around the Sun.</ref> would otherwise be observed over the course of a year. The stars are in fact so far away that stellar parallax only became detectable when sufficiently powerful telescopes had been developed in the 1830s.
No references to Aristarchus' heliocentrism are known in any other writings from before the common era. The earliest of the handful of other ancient references occur in two passages from the writings of Plutarch. These mention one detail not stated explicitly in Archimedes' account<ref>Although it could obviously be reasonably inferred therefrom.</ref>—namely, that Aristarchus' theory had the Earth rotating on an axis. The first of these reference occurs in Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon:<ref>Template:Harvtxt. Most modern scholars share Heath's opinion that it is Cleanthes in this passage who is being held as having accused Aristarchus of impiety (see Template:Harvnb; Template:Harvnb; Template:Harvnb; Cherniss 1957, p. 55; for example). The manuscripts of Plutarch's Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon that have come down to us are corrupted, however, and the traditional interpretation of the passage has been challenged by Lucio Russo, who insists that it should be interpreted as having Aristarchus rhetorically suggest that Cleanthes was being impious for wanting to shift the Sun from its proper place at the center of the universe (Template:Harvnb; Template:Harvnb).</ref>
<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
Only do not, my good fellow, enter an action against me for impiety in the style of Cleanthes, who thought it was the duty of Greeks to indict Aristarchus of Samos on the charge of impiety for putting in motion the Hearth of the Universe, this being the effect of his attempt to save the phenomena by supposing the heaven to remain at rest and the earth to revolve in an oblique circle, while it rotates, at the same time, about its own axis.{{#if:Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon (De facie in orbe lunae, c. 6, pp. 922 F – 923 A.) |{{#if:|}}
— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries}}
{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}
Only scattered fragments of Cleanthes' writings have survived in quotations by other writers, but in Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, Diogenes Laërtius lists A reply to Aristarchus (Πρὸς Ἀρίσταρχον) as one of Cleanthes' works,<ref>Diogenes Laërtius (1972, Bk 7, ch 5, p. 281)</ref> and some scholarsTemplate:Sfn have suggested that this might have been where Cleanthes had accused Aristarchus of impiety.
The second of the references by Plutarch is in his Platonic Questions:Template:Sfn
<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
Did Plato put the earth in motion, as he did the sun, the moon, and the five planets, which he called the instruments of time on account of their turnings, and was it necessary to conceive that the earth "which is globed about the axis stretched from pole to pole through the whole universe" was not represented as being held together and at rest, but as turning and revolving (στρεφομένην καὶ ἀνειλουμένην), as Aristarchus and Seleucus afterwards maintained that it did, the former stating this as only a hypothesis (ὑποτιθέμενος μόνον), the latter as a definite opinion (καὶ ἀποφαινόμενος)?{{#if: Platonic Questions (Platonicae Quaestiones viii. I, 1006 C)|{{#if:|}}
— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries}}
{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}
The remaining references to Aristarchus' heliocentrism are extremely brief, and provide no more information beyond what can be gleaned from those already cited. Ones which mention Aristarchus explicitly by name occur in Aëtius' Opinions of the Philosophers, Sextus Empiricus' Against the Mathematicians,Template:Sfn and an anonymous scholiast to Aristotle.Template:Sfn Another passage in Aëtius' Opinions of the Philosophers reports that Seleucus the astronomer had affirmed the Earth's motion, but does not mention Aristarchus.Template:Sfn
Seleucus of SeleuciaEdit
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}} Since Plutarch mentions the "followers of Aristarchus" in passing, it is likely that there were other astronomers in the Classical period who also espoused heliocentrism, but whose work was lost.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The only other astronomer from antiquity known by name who is known to have supported Aristarchus' heliocentric model was Seleucus of Seleucia (b. 190 BC), a Hellenistic astronomer who flourished a century after Aristarchus in the Seleucid Empire.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Seleucus was a proponent of the heliocentric system of Aristarchus.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Seleucus may have proved the heliocentric theory by determining the constants of a geometric model for the heliocentric theory and developing methods to compute planetary positions using this model. He may have used early trigonometric methods that were available in his time, as he was a contemporary of Hipparchus.<ref>Template:Citation</ref> A fragment of a work by Seleucus has survived in Arabic translation, which was referred to by Rhazes (b. 865).<ref>Template:Citation</ref>
Alternatively, his explanation may have involved the phenomenon of tides,<ref>Lucio Russo, Flussi e riflussi, Feltrinelli, Milano, 2003, Template:ISBN.</ref> which he supposedly theorized to be caused by the attraction to the Moon and by the revolution of the Earth around the Earth and Moon's center of mass.
Late antiquityEdit
There were occasional speculations about heliocentrism in Europe before Copernicus. In Roman Carthage, the pagan Martianus Capella (5th century AD) expressed the opinion that the planets Venus and Mercury did not go about the Earth but instead circled the Sun.<ref name=":0">William Stahl, trans., Martianus Capella and the Seven Liberal Arts, vol. 2, The Marriage of Philology and Mercury, 854, 857, New York: Columbia Univ. Pr, 1977, pp. 332–333</ref> Capella's model was discussed in the Early Middle Ages by various anonymous 9th-century commentators<ref name=":1">Template:Citation</ref> and Copernicus mentions him as an influence on his own work.<ref name=":2">Template:Citation</ref> Also Macrobius (420 CE) described a heliocentric model.<ref name=":13">Template:Cite journal</ref>
Ancient IndiaEdit
Aryabhata (476–550), in his magnum opus Aryabhatiya (499), propounded 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.Template:Sfn<ref name=":13"/> His immediate commentators, such as Lalla, and other later authors, rejected his innovative view about the turning Earth.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> It has been argued that Aryabhatta's calculations were based on an underlying heliocentric model, in which the planets orbit the Sun,<ref>The concept of Indian heliocentrism has been advocated by B. L. van der Waerden, Das heliozentrische System in der griechischen, persischen und indischen Astronomie. Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich. Zürich:Kommissionsverlag Leeman AG, 1970.</ref><ref>B.L. van der Waerden, "The Heliocentric System in Greek, Persian and Hindu Astronomy", in David A. King and George Saliba, ed., 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 Science, 500 (1987), pp. 529–534.</ref> although this has also been rebutted.<ref>Noel Swerdlow, "Review: A Lost Monument of Indian Astronomy," Isis, 64 (1973): 239–243.</ref> The general consensus is that a synodic anomaly (depending on the position of the Sun) does not imply a physically heliocentric orbit (such corrections being also present in late Babylonian astronomical texts), and that Aryabhata's system was not explicitly heliocentric.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> He also made many astronomical calculations, such as the times of the solar and lunar eclipses, and the instantaneous motion of the Moon.Template:Sfn Early followers of Aryabhata's model included Varahamihira, Brahmagupta, and Bhaskara II.
Medieval Islamic worldEdit
Template:See also For a time, Muslim astronomers accepted the Ptolemaic system and the geocentric model, which were used by Template:Nowrap to show that the distance between the Sun and the Earth varies.Template:Sfn<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> In the 10th century, Template:Nowrap accepted that the Earth rotates around its axis.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name=young /> According to later astronomer al-Biruni, al-Sijzi invented an astrolabe called al-zūraqī based on a belief held by some of his contemporaries that the apparent motion of the stars was due to the Earth's movement, and not that of the firmament.<ref name=young>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Islamic astronomers began to criticize the Ptolemaic model, including Ibn al-Haytham in his Template:Nowrap 'alā Baṭalamiyūs ("Doubts Concerning Ptolemy", c. 1028),<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>Template:Sfn who found contradictions in Ptolemy's model, but al-Haytham remained committed to a geocentric model.<ref>Nicolaus Copernicus, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2004).</ref>
Al-Biruni discussed the possibility of whether the Earth rotated about its own axis and orbited the Sun, but in his Masudic Canon (1031),<ref name="Covington 2007">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> he expressed his faith in a geocentric and stationary Earth.<ref>E. S. Kennedy, "Al-Bīrūnī's Masudic Canon", Al-Abhath, 24 (1971): 59–81; reprinted in David A. King and Mary Helen Kennedy, ed., Studies in the Islamic Exact Sciences, Beirut, 1983, pp. 573–595.</ref> He was aware that if the Earth rotated on its axis, it would be consistent with his astronomical observations,<ref>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.</ref> but considered it a problem of natural philosophy rather than one of mathematics.<ref name=young />Template:Sfn
In the 12th century, non-heliocentric alternatives to the Ptolemaic system were developed by some Islamic astronomers, such as Nur ad-Din al-Bitruji, who considered the Ptolemaic model mathematical, and not physical.<ref>Template:Cite encyclopedia (PDF version)</ref><ref name=DSB /> His system spread throughout most of Europe in the 13th century, with debates and refutations of his ideas continued to the 16th century.<ref name=DSB>Template:Cite encyclopedia</ref>
The Maragha school of astronomy in Ilkhanid-era Persia further developed "non-Ptolemaic" planetary models involving Earth's rotation. Notable astronomers of this school are Al-Urdi (d. 1266) Al-Katibi (d. 1277),<ref>Hikmat al-'Ain, p. 78</ref> and Al-Tusi (d. 1274).
The arguments and evidence used resemble those used by Copernicus to support the Earth's motion.<ref name=Ragep>Template:Citation</ref><ref name=Ragep2>Template:Citation</ref> The criticism of Ptolemy as developed by Averroes and by the Maragha school explicitly address the Earth's rotation but it did not arrive at explicit heliocentrism.<ref name="Huff 1993">Template:Cite book</ref> The observations of the Maragha school were further improved at the Timurid-era Samarkand observatory under Qushji (1403–1474).
Medieval IndiaEdit
In India, Nilakantha Somayaji (1444–1544), in his Aryabhatiyabhasya, a commentary on Aryabhata's Aryabhatiya, developed a computational system for a geo-heliocentric planetary model, in which the planets orbit the Sun, which in turn orbits the Earth, similar to the system later proposed by Tycho Brahe. In the Tantrasamgraha (1501), Somayaji further revised his planetary system, which was mathematically more accurate at predicting the heliocentric orbits of the interior planets than both the Tychonic and Copernican models,Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> but did not propose any specific models of the universe.Template:Sfn Nilakantha's planetary system also incorporated the Earth's rotation on its axis.<ref>Template:Citation</ref> Most astronomers of the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics seem to have accepted his planetary model.Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
Renaissance-era astronomyEdit
Medieval periodEdit
Martianus Capella (5th century CE) expressed the opinion that the planets Venus and Mercury did not go about the Earth but instead circled the Sun.<ref name=":0"/> Capella's model was discussed in the Early Middle Ages by various anonymous 9th-century commentators<ref>Template:Citation</ref> and Copernicus mentions him as an influence on his own work.<ref>Template:Citation</ref> Macrobius (420 CE) described a heliocentric model.<ref name=":13"/> John Scotus Eriugena(815-877 CE) proposed a model reminiscent of that from Tycho Brahe.<ref name=":13" />
In the 14th century, 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,"<ref>Nicholas of Cusa, De docta ignorantia, 2.12, p. 103, cited in Koyré (1957), p. 17.</ref> recalling Hermes Trismegistus.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
Some historians maintain that the thought of the Maragheh observatory, in particular the mathematical devices known as the Urdi lemma and the Tusi couple, influenced Renaissance-era European astronomy, and thus was indirectly received by Renaissance-era European astronomy and thus by Copernicus.Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Citation</ref>Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Citation</ref> Copernicus used such devices in the same planetary models as found in Arabic sources.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The exact replacement of the equant by two epicycles used by Copernicus in the Commentariolus was found in an earlier work by Ibn al-Shatir (d. c. 1375) of Damascus.<ref name=Swerdlow>Template:Cite journal</ref> Copernicus' lunar and Mercury models are also identical to Ibn al-Shatir's.<ref>Template:Cite encyclopedia (PDF version)</ref>
While the influence of the criticism of Ptolemy by Averroes on Renaissance thought is clear and explicit, the claim of direct influence of the Maragha school, postulated by Otto E. Neugebauer in 1957, remains an open question.<ref name="Huff 1993" /><ref>N.K. Singh, M. Zaki Kirmani,Encyclopaedia of Islamic science and scientists[1]</ref><ref>Viktor Blåsjö, "A Critique of the Arguments for Maragha Influence on Copernicus", Journal for the History of Astronomy, 45 (2014), 183–195 ADS</ref>Template:Citation needed Since the Tusi couple was used by Copernicus in his reformulation of mathematical astronomy, there is a growing consensus that he became aware of this idea in some way. One possible route of transmission may have been through Byzantine science, which translated some of al-Tusi's works from Arabic into Byzantine Greek. Several Byzantine Greek manuscripts containing the Tusi couple are still extant in Italy.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The Mathematics Genealogy Project suggests that there is a "genealogy" of Nasir al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī → Shams al‐Dīn al‐Bukhārī → Gregory Chioniades → Manuel Bryennios → Theodore Metochites → Gregory Palamas → Nilos Kabasilas → Demetrios Kydones → Gemistos Plethon → Basilios Bessarion → Johannes Regiomontanus → Domenico Maria Novara da Ferrara → Nicolaus (Mikołaj Kopernik) Copernicus.<ref name="genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) wrote "Il sole non si move." ("The Sun does not move.")<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> and he was a student of a student of Bessarion according to the Mathematics Genealogy Project.<ref name="genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu"/> It has been suggested that the idea of the Tusi couple may have arrived in Europe leaving few manuscript traces, since it could have occurred without the translation of any Arabic text into Latin.<ref>Claudia Kren, "The Rolling Device," p. 497.</ref>Template:Sfn
Other scholars have argued that Copernicus could well have developed these ideas independently of the late Islamic tradition.Template:Sfn<ref name="Huff 2010 p. 263">Template:Cite book</ref>Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Copernicus explicitly references several astronomers of the "Islamic Golden Age" (10th to 12th centuries) in De Revolutionibus: Albategnius (Al-Battani), Averroes (Ibn Rushd), Thebit (Thabit Ibn Qurra), Arzachel (Al-Zarqali), and Alpetragius (Al-Bitruji), but he does not show awareness of the existence of any of the later astronomers of the Maragha school.<ref name=freely>Template:Cite book</ref>
It has been argued that Copernicus could have independently discovered the Tusi couple or took the idea from Proclus's Commentary on the First Book of Euclid,<ref>Template:Citation</ref> which Copernicus cited.<ref>Template:Citation</ref> Another possible source for Copernicus' knowledge of this mathematical device is the Questiones de Spera of Nicole Oresme, who described how a reciprocating linear motion of a celestial body could be produced by a combination of circular motions similar to those proposed by al-Tusi.<ref>Template:Citation</ref>
The state of knowledge on planetary theory received by Copernicus is summarized in Georg von Peuerbach's Theoricae Novae Planetarum (printed in 1472 by Regiomontanus). By 1470, the accuracy of observations by the Vienna school of astronomy, of which Peuerbach and Regiomontanus were members, was high enough to make the eventual development of heliocentrism inevitable, and indeed it is possible that Regiomontanus did arrive at an explicit theory of heliocentrism before his death in 1476, some 30 years before Copernicus.Template:Sfn
Copernican heliocentrismEdit
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
Nicolaus Copernicus in his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium ("On the revolution of heavenly spheres", first printed in 1543 in Nuremberg), presented a discussion of a heliocentric model of the universe in much the same way as Ptolemy in the 2nd century had presented his geocentric model in his Almagest. 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' system did not predict the planets' positions any better than the Ptolemaic system.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> 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".Template:Sfn
Copernicus cited Aristarchus in an early (unpublished) manuscript of De Revolutionibus (which still survives), stating: "Philolaus believed in the mobility of the earth, and some even say that Aristarchus of Samos was of that opinion."<ref>Gingerich, O. "Did Copernicus Owe a Debt to Aristarchus?" Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol.16, No.1/Feb, P. 37, 1985. Philolaus had the Earth moving around a Central Fire which was not the Sun, so Copernicus's reference to Aristarchus's model as possibly geodynamic does not necessarily imply that he thought it was heliocentric.</ref> 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.
Reception in Early Modern EuropeEdit
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
Circulation of Commentariolus (published before 1515)Edit
The first information about the heliocentric views of Nicolaus Copernicus was circulated in manuscript completed some time before May 1, 1514.<ref>A library catalogue of a 16th-century historian, Matthew of Miechow, bears that date and contains a reference to the manuscript, so it must have begun circulating before that date (Template:Harvnb; Template:Harvnb).</ref> 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.Template:Sfn
In 1539, Martin Luther purportedly said:
<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
"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."<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web }}</ref>{{#if:|{{#if:|}}
— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries}}
{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}
This was reported in the context of a conversation at the dinner table and not a formal statement of faith. Melanchthon, however, opposed the doctrine over a period of years.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
Publication of De Revolutionibus (1543)Edit
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 defending the system and arguing that it was useful for computation even if its hypotheses were not necessarily true. 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 of heliocentrism should be banned, but nothing came of it at the time.
Some years after the publication of De Revolutionibus John Calvin preached a sermon in which he denounced those who "pervert the order of nature" by saying that "the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns".Template:SfnTemplate:Efn
Tycho Brahe's geo-heliocentric system (c. 1587)Edit
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
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' heliocentric system and for an alternative to the Ptolemaic geocentric system: a geo-heliocentric system now known as the Tychonic system in which the Sun and Moon orbit the Earth, Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun inside the Sun's orbit of the Earth, and Mars, Jupiter and Saturn orbit the Sun outside the Sun's orbit of 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 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."<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> 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 illusory), 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."<ref>Blair, Ann, "Tycho Brahe's critique of Copernicus and the Copernican system", Journal of the History of Ideas, 51, 1990, 364.</ref> 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 geo-heliocentric alternative "offended neither the principles of physics nor Holy Scripture."<ref>Gingerich, O. & Voelkel, J. R., J. Hist. Astron., Vol. 29, 1998, pp. 1, 24</ref>
The Jesuits 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."Template:Sfn 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 popular among geocentrists, and the Jesuit astronomer Giovanni Battista Riccioli would continue Tycho's use of physics, stellar astronomy (now with a telescope), and religion to argue against heliocentrism and for Tycho's system well into the seventeenth century.
Giordano BrunoEdit
During Giordano Bruno's lifetime, he is the only known person to defend Copernicus' heliocentrism.Template:Sfn In 1584, Bruno published two dialogues (La Cena de le Ceneri and De l'infinito universo et mondi) in which he argued against the planetary spheres (Christoph Rothmann did the same in 1586 as did Tycho Brahe in 1587) and affirmed the Copernican principle.
In particular, to support the Copernican view and oppose the objection according to which the motion of the Earth would be perceived by means of the motion of winds, clouds etc., in La Cena de le Ceneri Bruno anticipates some of the arguments of Galilei on the relativity principle.<ref>Template:Citation</ref> Note that he also uses the example now known as Galileo's ship.<ref>Giordano Bruno, Teofilo, in La Cena de le Ceneri, "Third Dialogue", (1584), ed. and trans. by S.L. Jaki (1975).</ref>
Johannes KeplerEdit
Using measurements made at Tycho's observatory, Johannes Kepler developed his laws of planetary motion between 1609 and 1619.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> In Astronomia nova (1609), Kepler made a diagram of the movement of Mars in relation to Earth if Earth were at the center of its orbit, which shows that Mars' orbit would be completely imperfect and never follow along the same path. To solve the apparent derivation of Mars' orbit from a perfect circle, Kepler derived both a mathematical definition and, independently, a matching ellipse around the Sun to explain the motion of the red planet.Template:Sfn
Between 1617 and 1621, Kepler developed a heliocentric model of the Solar System in Epitome astronomiae Copernicanae, in which all the planets have elliptical orbits. This provided significantly increased accuracy in predicting the position of the planets. Kepler's ideas were not immediately accepted, and Galileo for example ignored them. In 1621, Epitome astronomia Copernicanae was placed on the Catholic Church's index of prohibited books despite Kepler being a Protestant.
Galileo Galilei and 1616 ban against CopernicanismEdit
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}} Template:Multiple image
Galileo was able to look at the night sky with the newly invented telescope. He published his observations that Jupiter is orbited by moons and that the Sun rotates in his Sidereus Nuncius (1610)Template:Sfn and Letters on Sunspots (1613), respectively. Around this time, he also announced that Venus exhibits a full range of phases (satisfying an argument that had been made against Copernicus).Template:Sfn As the Jesuit astronomers confirmed Galileo's observations, the Jesuits moved away from the Ptolemaic model and toward Tycho's teachings.Template:Sfn
In his 1615 "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina", Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to Holy Scripture. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally when the scripture in question is in a Bible 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. In February 1615, prominent Dominicans including Thomaso Caccini and Niccolò Lorini brought Galileo's writings on heliocentrism to the attention of the Inquisition, because they appeared to violate Holy Scripture and the decrees of the Council of Trent.Template:SfnTemplate:SfnTemplate:SfnTemplate:Sfn Cardinal and Inquisitor Robert Bellarmine was called upon to adjudicate, and wrote in April that treating heliocentrism as a real phenomenon would be "a very dangerous thing," irritating philosophers and theologians, and harming "the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture as false."Template:Sfn
In January 1616, Msgr. Francesco Ingoli addressed an essay to Galileo disputing the Copernican system. Galileo later stated that he believed this essay to have been instrumental in the ban against Copernicanism that followed in February.<ref>Template:Harvnb Ingoli's essay was published in English translation for the first time in 2015.</ref> According to Maurice Finocchiaro, Ingoli had probably been commissioned by the Inquisition to write an expert opinion on the controversy, and the essay provided the "chief direct basis" for the ban.Template:Sfn The essay focused on eighteen physical and mathematical arguments against heliocentrism. It borrowed primarily from the arguments of Tycho Brahe, and it notedly mentioned the problem that heliocentrism requires the stars to be much larger than the Sun. Ingoli wrote that the great distance to the stars in the heliocentric theory "clearly proves ... the fixed stars to be of such size, as they may surpass or equal the size of the orbit circle of the Earth itself."Template:Sfn Ingoli included four theological arguments in the essay, but suggested to Galileo that he focus on the physical and mathematical arguments. Galileo did not write a response to Ingoli until 1624.Template:Sfn
In February 1616, the Inquisition assembled a committee of theologians, known as qualifiers, who delivered their unanimous report condemning heliocentrism as "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition also determined that the Earth's motion "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."Template:Sfn<ref>Domínguez (2014) Template:Webarchive; arXiv:1402.6168 Original text of the decision</ref> Bellarmine personally ordered Galileo
<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
...to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.{{#if:Bellarmine and the Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.Template:Sfn|{{#if:|}}
— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries}}
{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}
In March 1616, after the Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, the papal Master of the Sacred Palace, Congregation of the Index, and the Pope banned all books and letters advocating the Copernican system, which they called "the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture."Template:Sfn<ref name=retrying>Template:Cite book</ref> In 1618, the Holy Office recommended that a modified version of Copernicus' De Revolutionibus be allowed for use in calendric calculations, though the original publication remained forbidden until 1758.<ref name=retrying />
Pope Urban VIII encouraged Galileo to publish the pros and cons of heliocentrism. Galileo's response, Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems (1632), clearly advocated heliocentrism, despite his declaration in the preface that,
I will endeavour to show that all experiments that can be made upon the Earth are insufficient means to conclude for its mobility but are indifferently applicable to the Earth, movable or immovable...<ref name="Salusbury">The Systeme of the World: in Four Dialogues (1661) Thomas Salusbury translation of Dialogo sopra i Due Massi Sistemi del Mondo (1632)</ref>
and his straightforward statement,
I might very rationally put it in dispute, whether there be any such centre in nature, or no; being that neither you nor any one else hath ever proved, whether the World be finite and figurate, or else infinite and interminate; yet nevertheless granting you, for the present, that it is finite, and of a terminate Spherical Figure, and that thereupon it hath its centre...<ref name="Salusbury" />
Some ecclesiastics also interpreted the book as characterizing the Pope as a simpleton, since his viewpoint in the dialogue was advocated by the character Simplicio. Urban VIII became hostile to Galileo and he was again summoned to Rome.Template:Sfn Galileo's trial in 1633 involved making fine distinctions between "teaching" and "holding and defending as true". For advancing heliocentric theory Galileo was forced to recant Copernicanism and was put under house arrest for the last few years of his life. According to J. L. Heilbron, informed contemporaries of Galileo's "appreciated that the reference to heresy in connection with Galileo or Copernicus had no general or theological significance."Template:Sfn
In 1664, Pope Alexander VII published his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus (Index of Prohibited Books, published by order of Alexander VII, P.M.) which included all previous condemnations of heliocentric books.<ref>"The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement, and the Ultramontane Defence of Them", Rev. William Roberts, 1885, London</ref>
Age of ReasonEdit
René Descartes' first cosmological treatise, written between 1629 and 1633 and titled The World, included a heliocentric model, but Descartes abandoned it in the light of Galileo's treatment.<ref name=Weintraub>Weintraub, David A. Is Pluto a Planet, p. 66, Princeton University Press, 2007</ref> In his Principles of Philosophy (1644), Descartes introduced a mechanical model in which planets do not move relative to their immediate atmosphere, but are constituted around space-matter vortices in curved space; these rotate due to centrifugal force and the resulting centripetal pressure.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The Galileo affair did little overall to slow the spread of heliocentrism across Europe, as Kepler's Epitome of Copernican Astronomy became increasingly influential in the coming decades.<ref>"Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion: 1609–1666", J. L. Russell, British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, June 1964</ref> By 1686, the model was well enough established that the general public was reading about it in Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds, published in France by Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle and translated into English and other languages in the coming years. It has been called "one of the first great popularizations of science."<ref name=Weintraub />
In 1687, Isaac Newton published Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which provided an explanation for Kepler's laws in terms of universal gravitation and what came to be known as Newton's laws of motion. This placed heliocentrism on a firm theoretical foundation, although Newton's heliocentrism was of a somewhat modern kind. Already in the mid-1680s he recognized the "deviation of the Sun" from the center of gravity of the Solar System.<ref>Curtis Wilson, "The Newtonian achievement in astronomy", pp. 233–274 in R Taton & C Wilson (eds) (1989), The General History of Astronomy, Volume 2A, at p. 233</ref> For Newton it was not precisely the center of the Sun or any other body that could be considered at rest, but "the common centre of gravity of the Earth, the Sun and all the Planets is to be esteem'd the Centre of the World", and this center of gravity "either is at rest or moves uniformly forward in a right line". Newton adopted the "at rest" alternative in view of common consent that the center, wherever it was, was at rest.<ref name=newt-hc>(text quotations from 1729 translation of Newton Principia, Book 3 (1729 vol.2) at pp. 232–233).</ref>
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church remained opposed to heliocentrism as a literal description, but this 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.Template:Sfn
In the mid-18th century the Church's opposition began to fade. An annotated copy of Newton's Principia 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. In 1758 the Catholic Church dropped the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism from the Index of Forbidden Books.<ref>John L.Heilbron, Censorship of Astronomy in Italy after Galileo (in McMullin, Ernan ed., The Church and Galileo, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 2005, p. 307, IN. Template:ISBN)</ref> The Observatory of the Roman College was established by Pope Clement XIV in 1774 (nationalized in 1878, but re-founded by Pope Leo XIII as the Vatican Observatory in 1891). In spite of dropping its active resistance to heliocentrism, the Catholic Church did not lift the prohibition of uncensored versions of Copernicus' De Revolutionibus or Galileo's Dialogue. The affair was revived in 1820, when the Master of the Sacred Palace (the Catholic Church's chief censor), Filippo Anfossi, refused to license a book by a Catholic canon, Giuseppe Settele, because it openly treated heliocentrism as a physical fact.Template:Sfn Settele appealed to pope Pius VII. After the matter had been reconsidered by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office, Anfossi's decision was overturned.Template:Sfn Pius VII approved a decree in 1822 by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition to allow the printing of heliocentric books in Rome. Copernicus' De Revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue were then subsequently omitted from the next edition of the Index when it appeared in 1835.
Three apparent proofs of the heliocentric hypothesis were provided in 1727 by James Bradley, in 1838 by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel, and in 1851 by Léon Foucault. Bradley discovered the stellar aberration, proving the relative motion of the Earth. Bessel proved that the parallax of a star was greater than zero by measuring the parallax of 0.314 arcseconds of a star named 61 Cygni. In the same year Friedrich Georg Wilhelm Struve and Thomas Henderson measured the parallaxes of other stars, Vega and Alpha Centauri. Experiments like those of Foucault were performed by V. Viviani in 1661 in Florence and by Bartolini in 1833 in Rimini.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
Reception in JudaismEdit
Already in the Talmud, Greek philosophy and science under the general name "Greek wisdom" were considered dangerous. They were put under ban then and later for some periods. The first Jewish scholar to describe the Copernican system, albeit without mentioning Copernicus by name, was Maharal of Prague, in his book "Be'er ha-Golah" (1593). Maharal makes an argument of radical skepticism, arguing that no scientific theory can be reliable, which he illustrates by the new-fangled theory of heliocentrism upsetting even the most fundamental views on the cosmos.<ref name="efron">Noah J. Efron. Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Oct., 1997), pp. 719–732</ref>
Copernicus is mentioned in the books of David Gans (1541–1613), who worked with Brahe and Kepler. Gans wrote two books on astronomy in Hebrew: a short one, "Magen David" (1612), and a full one, "Nehmad veNaim" (published only in 1743). He described objectively three systems: those of Ptolemy, Copernicus and Brahe, without taking sides. Joseph Solomon Delmedigo (1591–1655) in his "Elim" (1629) says that the arguments of Copernicus are so strong, that only an imbecile will not accept them.<ref>Sefer Elim, Amsterdam, 1629, стр. 304</ref> Delmedigo studied at Padua and was acquainted with Galileo.Template:Sfn
An actual controversy on the Copernican model within Judaism arises only in the early 18th century. Most authors in this period had accepted Copernican heliocentrism, with opposition from David Nieto and Tobias Cohn, who argued against heliocentrism on the grounds it contradicted scripture. Nieto merely rejected the new system on those grounds without much passion, whereas Cohn went so far as to call Copernicus "a first-born of Satan", though he also acknowledged that he would have found it difficult to proffer one particular objection based on a passage from the Talmud.<ref>In a marginal note in his Massé Touvia (part 2, p. 52b): "Remark of the author: I fear that the incredulous may draw an objection from a text of Midrash Bereshit Rabba (V,8) in which our Teachers, the Rabbis, of blessed memory, explain that if the Earth is called in Hebrew "eretz" it is because it hastens ("ratseta") before the Creator in order to accomplish His will. I acknowledge that the answer to this objection seems difficult for me to find", as translated by Template:Harvtxt.</ref>
In the 19th century, two students of the Hatam Sofer wrote books that were given approbations by himTemplate:Who even though one supported heliocentrism and the other geocentrism. One, a commentary on Genesis titled Yafe’ah le-Ketz<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> written by R. Israel David Schlesinger resisted a heliocentric model and supported geocentrism.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> The other, Mei Menuchot<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> written by R. Eliezer Lipmann Neusatz encouraged acceptance of the heliocentric model and other modern scientific thinking.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
Since the 20th century most Jews have not questioned the science of heliocentrism. Exceptions include Shlomo Benizri<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> and R. M.M. Schneerson of Chabad who argued that the question of heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is obsolete because of the relativity of motion.<ref>"on the basis of the presently accepted scientific view (in accordance with the theory of Relativity) that where two bodies in space are in motion relative to one another, it is impossible scientifically to ascertain which revolves around which, or which is stationary and the other in motion. Therefore, to say that there is, or can be, 'scientific proof' that the earth revolves around the sun is quite an unscientific and uncritical statement."{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }} </ref> Schneerson's followers in Chabad continue to deny the heliocentric model.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
Modern scienceEdit
William Herschel's heliocentrismEdit
In 1783, amateur astronomer William Herschel attempted to determine the shape of the universe by examining stars through his handmade telescopes. Herschel was the first to propose a model of the universe based on observation and measurement.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> At that time, the dominant assumption in cosmology was that the Milky Way was the entire universe, an assumption that has since been proven wrong with observations.<ref name="sciencedirect.com">Template:Cite journal</ref> Herschel concluded that it was in the shape of a disk, but assumed that the Sun was in the center of the disk, making the model heliocentric.<ref name="Kamp"/><ref name="Berendzen">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name="PBS">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
Seeing that the stars belonging to the Milky Way appeared to encircle the Earth, Herschel carefully counted stars of given apparent magnitudes, and after finding the numbers were the same in all directions, concluded Earth must be close to the center of the Milky Way. However, there were two flaws in Herschel's methodology: magnitude is not a reliable index to the distance of stars, and some of the areas that he mistook for empty space were actually dark, obscuring nebulae that blocked his view toward the center of the Milky Way.<ref name="Ferris">Template:Citation</ref>
The Herschel model remained relatively unchallenged for the next hundred years, with minor refinements. Jacobus Kapteyn introduced motion, density, and luminosity to Herschel's star counts, which still implied a near-central location of the Sun.<ref name="Kamp">Template:Citation</ref>
Replacement with galactocentrism and acentrismEdit
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
Already in the early 19th century, Thomas Wright and Immanuel Kant speculated that fuzzy patches of light called nebulae were actually distant "island universes" consisting of many stellar systems.<ref name="Harrison">Template:Citation</ref> The shape of the Milky Way galaxy was expected to resemble such "islands universes."
However, "scientific arguments were marshalled against such a possibility," and this view was rejected by almost all scientists until the early 20th century, with Harlow Shapley's work on globular clusters and Edwin Hubble's measurements in 1924. After Shapley and Hubble showed that the Sun is not the center of the universe, cosmology moved on from heliocentrism to galactocentrism, which states that the Milky Way is the center of the universe.<ref name="sciencedirect.com"/>
Hubble's observations of redshift in light from distant galaxies indicated that the universe was expanding and acentric.<ref name="Berendzen"/> As a result, soon after galactocentrism was formulated, it was abandoned in favor of the Big Bang model of the acentric expanding universe. Further assumptions, such as the Copernican principle, the cosmological principle, dark energy, and dark matter, eventually lead to the current model of cosmology, Lambda-CDM.
Special relativity and the "center"Edit
The concept of an absolute velocity, including being "at rest" as a particular case, is ruled out by the principle of relativity, also eliminating any obvious "center" of the universe as a natural origin of coordinates. 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 approximately 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.<ref name="newt-hc" /> (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 small "wobble" in the Sun's motion.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
Modern use of geocentric and heliocentricEdit
In modern calculations, the terms "geocentric" and "heliocentric" are often used to refer to reference frames.<ref>Shen, J. & Confrey, J. (2010). "Justifying alternative models in learning the solar system: A case study on K-8 science teachers’ understanding of frames of reference". International Journal of Science Education, 32 (1), 1–29.</ref> In such systems the origin in the center of mass of the Earth, of the Earth–Moon system, of the Sun, of the Sun plus the major planets, or of the entire Solar System, can be selected.<ref>See center-of-mass frame</ref> Right ascension and declination are examples of geocentric coordinates, used in Earth-based observations, while the heliocentric latitude and longitude are used for orbital calculations. This leads to such terms as "heliocentric velocity" and "heliocentric angular momentum". In this heliocentric picture, any planet of the Solar System can be used as a source of mechanical energy because it moves relatively to the Sun. A smaller body (either artificial or natural) may gain heliocentric velocity due to gravity assist – this effect can change the body's mechanical energy in heliocentric reference frame (although it will not changed in the planetary one). However, such selection of "geocentric" or "heliocentric" frames is merely a matter of computation. It does not have philosophical implications and does not constitute a distinct physical or scientific model. From the point of view of general relativity, inertial reference frames do not exist at all, and any practical reference frame is only an approximation to the actual space-time, which can have higher or lower precision. Some forms of Mach's principle consider the frame at rest with respect to the distant masses in the universe to have special properties.Template:Citation needed
See alsoEdit
NotesEdit
ReferencesEdit
CitationsEdit
SourcesEdit
- Baker, A. and Chapter, L. (2002), "Part 4: The Sciences". In M. M. Sharif, "A History of Muslim Philosophy", Philosophia Islamica.
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Citation
- Template:Citation
- Template:Citation
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book A searchable online copy is available on the Institute and Museum of the History of Science, Florence, and a brief overview of Le Opere is available at Template:Usurped, and here.
- Template:Citation
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Citation
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book Available from the Template:Plain linkTemplate:Limited access.
- Koyré, Alexandre (1957). From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Pr.
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book. Original edition by Desclee (New York, 1966)
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Citation
- Template:Citation
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Cite journal
- {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web }}
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
External linksEdit
- {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web }}
- The Heliocentric Pantheon: An Interview with Walter Murch
- Template:YouTube - The development of the Heliocentric model with the contributions of Nicolaus Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, Tycho Brahe, Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler
Template:Greek astronomy Template:Portal bar Template:Authority control