NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Copernicus and Ptolemy Nowadays astrology is based on a work of two prolific medieval scientists Ptolemy and Copernicus. These scientists have developed what we call today a space science or astronomy in general. Though the theories were genius from the viewpoint of that time, one could not expect them to be completely accurate and satisfy all the inquiries of modern science. It is well-known today that the sun is the center of the solar system and many people consider this knowledge obvious. However, if we would look from a history perspective the sun-centered (heliocentric) concept was slow to evolve. In the 2 nd century ad, Claudius Ptolemy proposed a model of the universe with the earth at the center (geocentric).
His model depicts the earth as stationary with the planets, moon, and sun moving around it in small, circular orbits called epicycles. (Toomer, p. 187) Ptolemaic system was accepted by astronomers and religious thinkers alike for several hundred years. Ptolemaic earliest and most famous work, originally written in Greek, was translated into Arabic as al-Majisti (Great Work). In Europe, medieval Latin translations reproduced the title as Almagest i, and it has since become known simply as the Almagest. (Toomer, p. p. 190 - 191) In this work, Ptolemy proposed a geometric theory to account mathematically for the apparent motions and positions of the planets, sun, and moon against a background of unmoving stars.
This work did not include any physical descriptions of objects in space. Ptolemy based his theory by accepting the generally held understanding that the earth did not move and was the center of the universe. For philosophical reasons stars and planets were considered to move continuously in perfectly circular orbits. Ptolemy proposed that the planets, sun, and moon moved in small circles around much larger circles, in which the earth was a center. By doing this, he made his theory to fit most of the observations done by astronomers of that time. (North, the Fontana History) Ptolemy used the term epicycle to describe the small circle around which he claimed objects in space move. To make his theory of epicycles appear sound, he had to introduce variations from traditional mathematics.
This departure from traditional assumptions was one reason the Polish astronomer Nicolas Copernicus rejected Ptolemaic system in the 16 th century and developed his own heliocentric theory, which correctly stated that the sun was located at the center of the solar system. Even so, Copernicus retained an elaborate system of epicycles. It was not until the 16 th century that Nicolas Copernicus developed a model for the universe in which the sun was at the center instead of the earth. The new model was rejected by the church, but it gradually gained popular acceptance because it provided better explanations for observed phenomena. (Crowe, 91) Ironically, Copernicus initial measurements were no more accurate than Ptolemaic were, they just made more sense. During Copernicus time, humankind mind was set that all people were the chosen species of God, and this point strongly influenced his work. Ptolemy had already demonstrated that the geo-centric model would require complex mathematical re-interpretation to keep up with astronomical discoveries.
Yet one of the Renaissance ideals was that of harmony in mathematics, and the complexity (and sometimes obvious failure) of Ptolemaic theorem caused doubt in the mind of Copernicus. So, he developed his own model of Universe that eventually became the basis for a Copernican Revolution. (North, The reluctant revolutionaries) One important point in the development of Copernicus' new theory is its basis in philosophy first, rather than science. Copernicus did rely on math and astronomical data to uphold his theory, but the reasoning behind his heliocentric model lie in the school of Neo-Platonism. This philosophical school combined elements from Christianity and Platonism and gave birth to metaphorical concepts of God as manifested in physical objects. To Copernicus, where else was there to look for God in the universe than the closest source of light and warmth?
In this vein, God was to replace Man as the center of all creation, keeping the support of the church firmly behind Copernicus and his theory. (North, The reluctant revolutionaries, p. 131) But, beside religious backing Copernicus had to have a scientific evidence. In an attempt to support his heliocentric model, Copernicus dedicated years to the mathematical proofs for heliocentric orbits. The math turned out to be somewhat less complex than that of Ptolemy, with only 48 circles to contend with instead of 80. However, Copernicus still relied on multi-circular orbit models to describe the motion of the planetary bodies accurately. (Copernicus, On revolutions) How was his theory any truer than that of Ptolemy? The epistemological atmosphere the time had difficulty in upholding Copernicus' heliocentric model. The difference lies in human experience upon Earth.
The Earth did not seem to be moving, and there was no theory that could account for the relatively stable structure of the planet as it revolved around the sun and about an invisible point. Ptolemaic theory seemed logically valid in light of human experience and Copernicus' model was useful for calculations, so both were left as instrumental truths. This semi-pluralism would last until Kepler and Galileo begin to find physical evidence for Copernicus' heliocentric universe model in the early 1600 s. (North, 205) The major points of Copernicus theory are that the earth rotates daily on its axis and revolves yearly around the sun. He argued, furthermore, that the planets also circle the sun, and that the earth precesses on its axis as it rotates. The Copernican theory retained many features of the cosmology it replaced, including the solid, planet-bearing spheres, and the finite outermost sphere bearing the fixed stars. (North, 206) On the other hand, Copernicus's heliocentric theories of planetary motion had the advantage of accounting for the apparent daily and yearly motion of the sun and stars, and it neatly explained the apparent retrograde motion of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn and the fact that Mercury and Venus never move more than a certain distance from the sun. Copernicus theory also stated that the sphere of the fixed stars was stationary.
Polish astronomer Nicolas Copernicus believed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, upsetting the long-accepted Ptolemaic view that Earth was the center of the universe. Fearing his theory would be judged heretical by the Roman Catholic Church, Copernicus delayed its publication until shortly before his death in 1543. Later scientists were punished for similar beliefs, including the Italian astronomer Galileo Galilee, who was forced to renounce his theories in 1633. By the late 1700 s, however, many great thinkers of Europe had adopted the Copernican view, among them English physicist Sir Isaac Newton. The following is a translation of Copernicus theory of how the universe operates. (North, Fontana of History and Astronomy) Another important feature of Copernican theory is that it allowed a new ordering of the planets according to their periods of revolution. In Copernicus universe, unlike Ptolemaic, the greater the radius of a planet's orbit, the greater the time the planet takes to make one circuit around the sun.
However, the price of accepting the concept of a moving earth was too high for most 16 th-century readers who understood Copernicus claims. In addition, Copernicus calculations of astronomical positions were neither decisively simpler nor more accurate than of his predecessors, even though his heliocentric theory made good physical sense, for the first time, of planetary movements. As a result, parts of his theory were adopted, while the radical core was ignored and rejected. According to the facts and descriptions mentioned above one can conclude that both Ptolemaic geocentric and Copernicus heliocentric models have their advantages and disadvantages as well.
Comparing to Copernicus system, Ptolemaic model is not harmonized or unified one. Moreover, the system is too complicated and definitely lacks some accuracy. On the contrary, accurate Copernicus model explains planet order in the solar system and the orbit direction of the planets. It is more harmonious and more likely to be easily understood (Duncan, 87). Both systems are unique in their intentions to understand how our world is organized. Today many old scientific theories may look absurd or just funny, however, one should consider terrific contribution they made to the development of contemporary science.
Bibliography: 1. G. J. Toomer Ptolemy, pp. 186 - 206 in The Dictionary of Scientific Biography, New York 1970 2. J. D.
North, The reluctant revolutionaries. Astronomy after Copernicus, New York 1975, 84 - 169 3. J. D.
North, The Fontana History of Astronomy and Cosmology, London 194. Crowe, Michael J. , Theories of the World from Antiquity to the Copernican Revolution. New York, 1990 5. Copernicus, Nicholas.
De revolutionists orbit coelestium. (On the revolutions of the heavenly spheres), trans. Edward Rosen, Baltimore, 1978 6. A. M. Duncan, tr. , On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (London: David & Charles; New York: Barnes & Noble, 1976 Comments: Our service apologies for disappointing you. All the bibliography and references are authentic.
There was a mistake done in the very first draft, however, it is revised. Good luck with your studies and take care.
Free research essays on topics related to: heliocentric theory, center of the universe, 16 th century, sun and moon, copernican theory
Research essay sample on 16 Th Century Sun And Moon
