In his
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,
Ptolemaic and Copernican of 1632, Galileo attacked the
world system based on the cosmology of Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
and the technical astronomy of Ptolemy (ca. 150 CE).
In his books
On the Heavens, and
Physics, Aristotle put forward his notion of an
ordered universe or cosmos. It was governed by the concept of
place , as opposed to space, and was divided into two distinct
parts, the earthly or sublunary region, and the heavens. The
former was the abode of change and corruption, where things came
into being, grew, matured, decayed, and died; the latter was the
region of perfection, where there was no change. In the
sublunary region, substances were made up of the four elements,
earth, water, air, and fire. Earth was the heaviest, and its
natural place was the center of the cosmos; for that reason the
Earth was situated in the center of the cosmos. The natural
places of water, air, and fire, were concentric spherical shells
around the sphere of earth. Things were not arranged perfectly,
and therefore areas of land protruded above the water. Objects
sought the natural place of the element that predominated in
them. Thus stones, in which earth predominated, move down to the
center of the cosmos, and fire moves straight up. Natural
motions were, then, radial, either down or up. The four elements
differed from each other only in their qualities. Thus, earth
was cold and dry while air was warm and moist. Changing one or
both of its qualities, transmuted one element into another. Such
transmutations were going on constantly, adding to the constant
change in this sublunary region.
The heavens, on the other hand, were made up of an entirely
different substance, the aether
or quintessence (fifth element), an immutable substance.
Heavenly bodies were part of spherical shells of aether. These
spherical shells fit tightly around each other, without any
spaces between them, in the following order: Moon, Mercury,
Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, fixed stars. Each spherical
shell (hereafter, simply, sphere) had its particular rotation,
that accounted for the motion of the heavenly body contained in
it. Outside the sphere of the fixed stars, there was the prime
mover (himself unmoved), who imparted motion from the outside
inward. All motions in the cosmos came ultimately from this
prime mover. The natural motions of heavenly bodies and their
spheres was perfectly circular, that is, circular and neither
speeding up nor slowing down.
It is to be noted about this universe that everything had its
natural place, a privileged location for bodies with a
particular makeup, and that the laws of nature were not the same
in the heavenly and the earthly regions. Further, there were no
empty places or vacua anywhere. Finally, it was finite: beyond
the sphere of the fixed stars and the prime mover, there was
nothing, not even space. The cosmos encompassed all existence.
Now, ingenious as this cosmology was, it turned out to be
unsatisfactory for astronomy. Heavenly bodies did, in fact, not
move with perfect circular motions: they speeded up, slowed
down, and in the cases of the planets even stopped and reversed
their motions. Although Aristotle and his contemporaries tried
to account for these variations by splitting individual
planetary spheres into component spheres, each with a component
of the composite motion, these constructions were very complex
and ultimately doomed to failure. Furthermore, no matter how
complex a system of spheres for an individual planet became,
these spheres were still centered on the Earth. The distance of
a planet from the Earth could therefore not be varied in this
system, but planets vary in brightness, a variation especially
noticeable for Venus, Mars, and Jupiter. Since in an
unchangeable heaven variations in intrinsic brightness were
ruled out, and since spheres did not allow for a variation in
planetary distances from the Earth, variations in brightness
could not be accounted for in this system.
Thus, although Aristotle's spherical cosmology had a very long
life, mathematicians who wished to make geometrical models to
account for the actual motions of heavenly bodies began using
different constructions within a century of Aristotle's
death. These constructions violated Aristotle's physical and
cosmological principles somewhat, but they were ultimately
successful in accounting for the motions of heavenly bodies. It
is in the work of Claudius Ptolemy, who lived in the second
century CE, that we see the culmination of these efforts. In his
great astronomical work, Almagest,
Ptolemy presented a complete system of mathematical
constructions that accounted successfully for the observed
motion of each heavenly body.
Ptolemy used three basic constructions, the eccentric, the
epicycle, and the equant. An eccentric construction is one in
which the Earth is placed outside the center of the geometrical
construction. Here, the Earth, E, is displaced slightly from the
center, C, of the path of the planet. Although this construction
violated the rule that the Earth was the center of the cosmos
and all planetary motions, the displacement was minimal and was
considered a slight bending of the rule rather than a
violation. The eccentric in the figure below is fixed; it could
also be made movable. In this case the center of the large
circle was a point that rotated around the Earth in a small
circle centered on the Earth. In some constructions this little
circle was not centered in the Earth.
The second construction, the epicycle, is geometrically
equivalent to the simple movable eccentric. In this case, the
planet moved on a little circle the center of which rotated on
the circumference of the large circle centered on the on
theEarth. When the directions and speeds of rotation of the
epicycle and large circle were chosen appropriately, the planet,
as seen from the Earth, would stop, reverse its course, and then
move forward again. Thus the annual retrograde motion of the
planets (caused, in heliocentric terms by the addition of the
Earth's annual motion to the motion of the planet) could roughly
be accounted for.
But these two constructions did not quite bring the resulting
planetary motions within close agreement with the observed
motions. Ptolemy therefore added yet a third construction, the
equant. In this case, the center of construction of the large
circle was separated from the center of motion of a point on its
circumference, as shown below, where C is the geometrical center
of the large circle (usually called in these constructions the
excentric circle) but the motion of the center of the epicycle,
P (middle of
Figure 4), is uniform about Q, the
equant point (righthand side of
Figure 4).
Ptolemy combined all three constructions in the models of the
planets, Sun, and Moon. A typical construction might thus be as
in the picture below, where E is the Earth, C the geometric
center of the eccentric circle, Q the equant point, F the center
of the epicycle, and P the planet. As mentioned before, the
eccentric was often not fixed but moved in a circle about the
Earth or another point between the Earth and the equant point.
With such combinations of constructions, Ptolemy was able to
account for the motions of heavenly bodies within the standards
of observational accuracy of his day. The idea was to break down
the complex observed planetary motion into components with
perfect circular motions. In doing so, however, Ptolemy violated
the cosmological and physical rules of Aristotle. The excentric
and epicycle meant that planetary motions were not exactly
centered on the Earth, the center of the cosmos. This was,
however, a "fudge" that few objected to. The equant violated the
stricture of perfect circular motion, and this violation
bothered thinkers a good deal more. Thus, in
De
Revolutionibus (see
Copernican
System), Copernicus tells the reader that it was his aim
to rid the models of heavenly motions of this monstrous
construction.
Aristotelian cosmology and Ptolemaic astronomy entered the West,
in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, as distinct textual
traditions. The former in Aristotle's Physics and On the
Heavens and the many commentaries on these works; the
latter in the Almagest and the technical
astronomical literature that had grown around it, especially the
work of Islamic astronomers working in the Ptolemaic
paradigm. In the world of learning in the Christian West
(settled in the universities founded around 1200 CE),
Aristotle's cosmology figured in all questions concerned with
the nature of the universe and impinged on many philosophical
and theological questions. Ptolemy's astronomy was taught as
part of the undergraduate mathematical curriculum only and
impinged only on technical questions of calendrics, positional
predictions, and astrology.
Copernicus's innovations was therefore not only putting the Sun
in the center of the universe and working out a complete
astronomical system on this basis of this premise, but also
trying to erase the disciplinary boundary between the textual
traditions of physical cosmology and technical astronomy.
References-
Aristotle. (1984). Physics and On the Heavens. In Jonathan Barnes (Ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. [The Aristotelian cosmos is described]. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
-
B. R. Goldstein and A. C. Bowen. (1983). A New View of Early Greek Astronomy. [On the relationship between Greek cosmology and astronomy]. Isis, 74, 330-40.
-
Thomas S. Kuhn. (1957). The Copernican Revolution. [On the relationship between Greek cosmology and astronomy]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
-
tr. G. J. Toomer (Ed.). (London; New York). Ptolemy's Almagest. [The best translation of the Almagest]. 1984: Duckworth; Springer Verlag.
-
Olaf Pedersen. (1974). A Survey of the Almagest. [Good expositions of the technical details of the Ptolemaic System]. Odense: Odense University Press.
-
Michael J. Crowe. (1990). Theories of the World from Antiquity to the Copernican Revolution. [Good expositions of the technical details of the Ptolemaic System]. New York: Dover.
-
Olaf Pedersen and Mogens Pihl. (1974). Early physics and astronomy : a historical introduction. [(2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) Good expositions of the technical details of the Ptolemaic System]. (London; New York: MacDonald and Janes; American Elsevier.
-
Edward Grant. (1984). Cosmology. In David C. Lindberg (Ed.), Science in the Middle Ages. (pp. 265-302). [On Medieval cosmology and astronomy]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Olaf Pedersen. (1984). Astronomy. In David C. Lindberg (Ed.), Science in the Middle Ages. (pp. 303-37). [On Medieval cosmology and astronomy]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
James M. Lattis. (1994). Between Copernicus and Galileo: Christoph Clavius and the Collapse of Ptolemaic Cosmology. [For an account of Aristotelian cosmology and Ptolemaic astronomy in the period leading up to Galileo's discoveries]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.