The idea of heliocentrism belongs to. See what the "Heliocentric system of the world" is in other dictionaries

Nicholas Copernicus- Polish and Prussian astronomer, mathematician, economist, canon of the Renaissance , author of the heliocentric system of the world.

Biography facts

Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Torun into a merchant family in 1473, he lost his parents early. There is no definite opinion about his nationality - some consider him a Pole, others - a German. His hometown became part of Poland a few years before his birth, and before that was part of Prussia. But he was brought up in the German family of his maternal uncle.

He studied at the University of Krakow, where he studied mathematics, medicine and theology, but he was especially attracted to astronomy. Then he left for Italy and entered the University of Bologna, where he prepared mainly for a spiritual career, but also studied astronomy there. He studied medicine at the University of Padua. Upon returning to Krakow, he worked as a doctor, at the same time being a confidant of his uncle, Bishop Lukas.

After the death of his uncle, he lived in the small town of Frombork in Poland, where he served as a canon (priest of the Catholic Church), but did not stop studying astronomy. Here he developed the idea of a new astronomical system. He shared his thoughts with friends, so very soon word spread about the young astronomer and his new system.

Copernicus was one of the first to express the idea of universal gravitation. One of his letters says: “I think that gravity is nothing but a certain desire with which the divine Architect endowed the particles of matter so that they unite in the form of a ball. The Sun, the Moon, and the planets probably have this property; to him these luminaries owe their spherical shape.

He confidently predicted that Venus and Mercury had phases similar to those of the Moon. After the invention of the telescope, Galileo confirmed this prediction.

It is known that talented people are talented in everything. Copernicus also showed himself to be a comprehensively educated person: according to his project, a new monetary system was introduced in Poland; in the city of Frombork, he built a hydraulic machine that supplied water to all houses. As a doctor, he fought the plague in 1519. During the Polish-Teutonic War (1519-1521), he organized the successful defense of the bishopric from the Teutons, and then took part in peace negotiations that culminated in the creation of the first Protestant state - the Duchy of Prussia.

At the age of 58, Copernicus retired from all affairs and began working on his book. "About rotation celestial spheres» , at the same time treated people free of charge.

Nicolaus Copernicus died in 1543 from a stroke.

Heliocentric system of the world of Copernicus

heliocentric system- the idea that the Sun is the central celestial body around which the Earth and other planets revolve. The Earth, in accordance with this system, revolves around the Sun in one sidereal year, and around its axis - in one sidereal day. This view is the opposite geocentric system of the world(the idea of the structure of the universe, according to which the central position in the Universe is occupied by the motionless Earth, around which the Sun, Moon, planets and stars revolve).

The doctrine of the heliocentric system arose even in antiquity, but wide use received from the end of the Renaissance.

The Pythagoreans, Heraclides of Pontus, had conjectures about the movement of the Earth, but a truly heliocentric system was proposed at the beginning of the 3rd century BC. e. Aristarchus of Samos. It is believed that Aristarchus came to heliocentrism based on the fact he established that the Sun is much larger than the Earth in size (the only work of a scientist that has come down to us). It was natural to assume that the smaller body revolves around the larger one, and not vice versa. The geocentric system of the world that existed before was unable to explain the change visible shine planets and the apparent size of the moon, which the Greeks correctly associated with a change in the distance to these celestial bodies. It also allowed to establish the order of the luminaries.

But after the 2nd century A.D. e. in the Hellenistic world, geocentrism was firmly established, based on the philosophy of Aristotle and the planetary theory of Ptolemy.

In the Middle Ages the heliocentric system of the world was practically forgotten. An exception are the astronomers of the Samarkand school founded by Ulugbek in the first half of the 15th century. Some of them rejected the philosophy of Aristotle as the physical foundation of astronomy and considered the rotation of the Earth around its axis as physically possible. There are indications that some of the Samarkand astronomers considered the possibility of not just the axial rotation of the Earth, but the movement of its center, and also developed a theory in which the Sun is considered to revolve around the Earth, but all the planets revolve around the Sun (which can be called the geo-heliocentric system of the world) .

In the era Early Renaissance Nicholas of Cusa wrote about the mobility of the Earth, but his judgment was purely philosophical. There were other suggestions about the movement of the Earth, but the system as such did not exist. And only in the 16th century did heliocentrism finally revive, when the Polish astronomer Nicholas Copernicus developed the theory of planetary motion around the Sun based on the Pythagorean principle of uniform circular motions. The result of his labors was the book "On the rotations of the celestial spheres", published in 1543. He considered the disadvantage of all geocentric theories that they do not allow to determine "the shape of the world and the proportionality of its parts", that is, the scale of the planetary system. Perhaps he proceeded from the heliocentrism of Aristarchus, but this has not been conclusively proven; in the final edition of the book, the reference to Aristarchus has disappeared.

Copernicus believed that the Earth makes three movements:

1. Around its axis with a period of one day, resulting in a daily rotation of the celestial sphere.

2. Around the Sun with a period of a year, resulting in backward motions of the planets.

3. The so-called declination movement, also with a period of approximately one year, leads to the fact that the Earth's axis moves approximately parallel to itself.

Copernicus explained the reasons for the backward motions of the planets, calculated the distances of the planets from the Sun and the periods of their revolutions. Zodiacal inequality in the movement of the planets Copernicus explained by the fact that their movement is a combination of movements in large and small circles.

Heliocentric system of Copernicus can be formulated in the following statements:

orbits and celestial spheres do not have a common center;
the center of the Earth is not the center of the Universe, but only the center of mass and orbit of the Moon;
all the planets move in orbits whose center is the Sun, and therefore the Sun is the center of the world;
the distance between the Earth and the Sun is very small compared to the distance between the Earth and the fixed stars;
the daily movement of the Sun is imaginary, and is caused by the effect of the rotation of the Earth, which rotates once every 24 hours around its axis, which always remains parallel to itself;
The Earth (together with the Moon, like other planets), revolves around the Sun, and therefore the movements that the Sun seems to make (the daily movement, as well as the annual movement when the Sun moves around the Zodiac) are nothing more than the effect of the Earth's movement ;
this motion of the Earth and other planets explains their location and the specific characteristics of the motion of the planets.

These statements completely contradicted the geocentric system that prevailed at that time.

The center of the planetary system for Copernicus was not the Sun, but the center of the earth's orbit;

of all the planets, the Earth was the only one that moved uniformly in its orbit, while the orbital speed of the other planets varied.

Apparently, Copernicus retained a belief in the existence of celestial spheres carrying planets. Thus, the movement of the planets around the Sun was explained by the rotation of these spheres around their axes.

Evaluation of the theory of Copernicus by contemporaries

His closest supporters for the first three decades after the publication of the book « On the rotations of the celestial spheres" was the German astronomer Georg Joachim Retik, who at one time collaborated with Copernicus, who considered himself his student, as well as the astronomer and surveyor Gemma Frisius. A friend of Copernicus, Bishop Tiedemann Giese, was also a supporter of Copernicus. But the majority of contemporaries "pulled out" only the mathematical apparatus for astronomical calculations from the theory of Copernicus and almost complete disregard for his new, heliocentric cosmology. This may have happened because the preface to his book was written by a Lutheran theologian, and the preface said that the motion of the earth was a clever computational trick, but that Copernicus should not be taken literally. Many in the 16th century believed that this was the opinion of Copernicus himself. And only in the 70s - 90s of the XVI century. astronomers began to show interest in the new system of the world. Copernicus had both supporters (including the philosopher Giordano Bruno; the theologian Diego de Zuniga, who uses the concept of the movement of the Earth to interpret some words of the Bible) and opponents (astronomers Tycho Brahe and Christopher Clavius, philosopher Francis Bacon).

Opponents of the Copernican system argued that if the Earth rotated around its axis, then:

The earth would experience colossal centrifugal forces that would inevitably tear it apart.
All light objects on its surface would be scattered in all directions of the Cosmos.
Any thrown object would deviate towards the west, and the clouds would float, along with the Sun, from east to west.
Celestial bodies move because they are made of imponderable thin matter, but what force can make the huge heavy Earth move?

Meaning

The heliocentric system of the world, put forward in the III century BC. uh . Aristarchus and revived in the 16th century Copernicus, made it possible to establish the parameters of the planetary system and discover the laws of planetary motions. The justification of heliocentrism required the creation classical mechanics and led to the discovery of the law gravity. This theory paved the way for stellar astronomy, when it was proved that the stars are distant suns) and the cosmology of the infinite Universe. Further, the heliocentric system of the world was more and more asserted - the main content of the scientific revolution of the 17th century consisted in the establishment of heliocentrism.

Image of the solar system from Andreas Cellarius' book Harmonia Macrocosmica (1708)

Heliocentric system of the world- the idea that the Sun is the central celestial body around which the Earth and other planets revolve. The opposite of the geocentric system of the world. Originated in antiquity, but became widespread from the end of the Renaissance.

In this system, the Earth is assumed to revolve around the Sun in one sidereal year and around its axis in one sidereal day. The consequence of the second movement is the apparent rotation of the celestial sphere, the first - the movement of the Sun among the stars along the ecliptic. The sun is considered stationary relative to the stars.

About concepts

Often even professional astronomers confuse two concepts: the heliocentric system of the world and the heliocentric frame of reference.

Heliocentric frame of reference is simply a frame of reference, where the origin is placed in the Sun. Heliocentric system of the world It is an idea about the structure of the universe. In the narrow sense of the word, it lies in the fact that the Universe is limited, the Sun is located in its center, and the Earth performs two types of motion: translational around the Sun and rotational around the axis; The stars are stationary relative to the Sun. The term "heliocentric system of the world" is often used in a broader sense, when the universe is considered to be unlimited and without a center. Then the meaning of this term is that the stars are, on average, stationary relative to the Sun, that is, the Sun, at least from a kinematic point of view, is one of the stars. The heliocentric system of the world can be considered in any reference system, including the geocentric one, in which the Earth is chosen as the origin. In this frame of reference, the Earth is motionless and the Sun revolves around the Earth, but the world system still remains heliocentric, since the mutual configuration of the Sun and stars remains unchanged. On the contrary, even if we consider the geocentric system of the world in the heliocentric frame of reference, it will still be the geocentric system of the world, since the stars will move in it with a period of one year.

Planetary configurations

Outer and inner planets

The planets of the solar system are divided into two types: internal (Mercury and Venus), observed only at relatively small angular distances from the Sun, and external (all the rest), which can be observed at any distance. In the heliocentric system, this difference is due to the fact that the orbits of Mercury and Venus are always inside the orbit of the Earth (the third planet from the Sun), while the orbits of the other planets are outside the orbit of the Earth.

backward movements

The backward motions of the planets take place for the same reason as the annual parallaxes of the stars, they can be called the annual parallaxes of the planets.

Aberration of starlight

Due to the vector addition of the speed of light and the orbital speed of the Earth, when observing stars, the telescope has to be tilted relative to the Earth-star line. This phenomenon (light aberration) was discovered and correctly explained in 1728 by James Bradley, who was looking for annual parallaxes. The aberration of light turned out to be the first observational confirmation of the motion of the Earth around the Sun and at the same time the second proof of the finiteness of the speed of light (after Römer explained the irregularity in the motion of Jupiter's satellites). Unlike parallax, the angle of aberration is independent of distance from the star and is entirely determined by the Earth's orbital velocity. For all stars, it is equal to the same value: 20.5".

Annual variation of radial velocities of stars

Due to the orbital motion of the Earth, each star located near the plane of the ecliptic moves in and out of the Earth, which can be detected using spectral observations (Doppler effect). A similar effect is observed for the temperature of the background radiation.

For evidence of the rotation of the Earth on its axis, see the article Daily rotation of the Earth.

History of the heliocentric system

Heliocentrism in Ancient Greece

The idea of the Earth's motion originated within the Pythagorean school. The Pythagorean Philolaus of Croton promulgated a system of the world in which the Earth is one of the planets; however, so far we have been talking about its rotation (per day) around the mystical Central Fire, and not the Sun. Aristotle rejected this system, among other things, because it predicted the parallactic displacement of stars.

Less speculative was the hypothesis of Heraclides Pontus, according to which the Earth performs a daily rotation around its axis. In addition, Heraclid, apparently, suggested that Mercury and Venus revolve around the Sun and only with him - around the Earth. Perhaps Archimedes also adhered to this view, believing Mars to revolve around the Sun, whose orbit in this case should have covered the Earth, and not lie between it and the Sun, as in the case of Mercury and Venus. There is reason to believe that Heraclid had a theory according to which the Earth, the Sun and the planets revolve around one point - the center of the planetary system. According to Theophrastus, Plato, in his later years, regretted that he had given the Earth a central place in the universe that was not suitable for her.

A truly heliocentric system was proposed at the beginning of the 3rd century BC. e. Aristarchus of Samos. Scant information about the hypothesis of Aristarchus has come down to us through the writings of Archimedes, Plutarch and other authors. It is usually believed that Aristarchus came to heliocentrism based on the fact he established that the Sun is much larger than the Earth in size (the only work of the scientist that has come down to us is devoted to calculating the relative sizes of the Earth, Moon and Sun). It was natural to assume that the smaller body revolves around the larger one, and not vice versa. It is not known how developed the Aristarchus hypothesis was, but Aristarchus made an important conclusion that, compared with the distances to the stars, the earth's orbit is a point, since otherwise the annual parallaxes of the stars should have been observed (following Aristarchus, Archimedes also accepted such an estimate of the distances to the stars). The philosopher Cleanthes called for Aristarchus to be brought to justice for moving the Earth from its place (“The Hearth of the World”).

Heliocentrism made it possible to solve the main problems that faced ancient Greek astronomy, since they dominated at the beginning of the 3rd century BC. e. geocentric views were clearly in crisis. The most common version of geocentrism at that time, the theory of homocentric spheres of Eudoxus, Callippus and Aristotle, was unable to explain the change in the apparent brightness of the planets and the apparent size of the Moon, which the Greeks correctly associated with a change in the distance to these celestial bodies. The heliocentric system naturally explained the backward motions of the planets. It also allowed to establish the order of the luminaries. The Greeks postulated a relationship between the proximity of a celestial body to the "sphere fixed stars"And the sidereal period of its movement: for example, the most slowly moving Saturn was considered the most distant from us, then (in order of approach to the Earth) were Jupiter and Mars; The moon turned out to be the closest celestial body to the Earth. The difficulties of this scheme were associated with the Sun, Mercury and Venus, since all these bodies had the same sidereal periods (in the sense used in ancient astronomy), equal to one year. This difficulty was easily solved in the heliocentric system, where one year turned out to be equal to the period of the Earth's motion; at the same time, the periods of motion (now - revolutions around the Sun) of Mercury and Venus went in the same order as their distances to the new center of the world, which could be established by the method described above.

Among the immediate supporters of the hypothesis of Aristarchus, only the Babylonian Seleucus (first half of the 2nd century BC) is mentioned. From this it is usually concluded that heliocentrism had no other supporters, that is, it was not accepted by Hellenic science. However, the very mention of Seleucus as a follower of Aristarchus is very significant, since it means the penetration of heliocentrism even on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, which in itself testifies to the wide popularity of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe motion of the Earth. Moreover, Sextus Empiricus mentions the followers of Aristarchus in the plural. A rather favorable review of the Aristarchus hypothesis in Archimedes' Psammit (the main source of our information about this hypothesis) suggests that Archimedes at least did not exclude this hypothesis. A number of authors have argued in favor of the widespread occurrence of heliocentrism in antiquity. It is possible, in particular, that the geocentric theory of planetary motion, set forth in Ptolemy's Almagest, is a revised heliocentric system. The Italian mathematician Lucio Russo (Lucio Russo) gave a number of evidence of the development in the Hellenistic era of the dynamics of the heliocentric system based on general idea on the law of inertia and on the attraction of the planets to the sun.

However, heliocentrism was eventually abandoned by the Greeks. main reason there may be a general crisis of science that began after the 2nd century BC. e. Astrology takes the place of astronomy. Philosophy is dominated by mysticism or overt religious dogmatism: Stoicism, later Neo-Pythagoreanism and Neo-Platonism. On the other hand, those few philosophical schools that generally profess rationalism (Epicureans, skeptics) have one common feature: disbelief in the possibility of knowing nature. Thus, the Epicureans, even after Aristotle and Aristarchus, considered it impossible to determine true reason the phases of the moon and considered the earth to be flat. In such an atmosphere, religious accusations such as those brought against Aristarchus could lead astronomers and physicists, even if they were supporters of heliocentrism, to try to refrain from public promulgation of their views, which could eventually lead to their oblivion.

Geocentric system of the world (page from a 1552 book)

For scientific arguments in favor of the immobility and centrality of the Earth, put forward by ancient Greek astronomers, see the article Geocentric system of the world.

After the 2nd century A.D. e. in the Hellenistic world, geocentrism was firmly established, based on the philosophy of Aristotle and the planetary theory of Ptolemy, in which the looping motion of the planets was explained using a combination of deferents and epicycles. The "physical" foundation of Ptolemy's theory was the Aristotelian theory of crystal celestial spheres that carried the planets. An essential feature of the teachings of Aristotle was the sharp opposition of the "supralunar" and "sublunar" worlds. The supralunar world (where all celestial bodies belonged) was considered an ideal world, not subject to any changes. On the contrary, everything that was in the sublunar region, including the Earth, was considered subject to constant changes, deterioration.

An essential feature of Ptolemy's theory was a partial rejection of the principle of uniformity of cosmic motions: the center of the epicycle moves along the deferent at a variable speed, although the angular velocity when observed from a special eccentrically located point (equant) was considered unchanged.

Middle Ages

The system of the world in which Mercury and Venus revolve around the Sun (image 1573)

Aryabhata considered the Earth to rotate around its axis. In a purely geocentric system, there is no need for this, since the daily rotation of the Earth in no way simplifies the system of the world. On the contrary, in a heliocentric system this rotation is necessary. Passing from heliocentrism to geocentrism, the axial rotation of the Earth can either be preserved or discarded, depending on the personal views of the researcher.
In one of the theories of Aryabhata (the so-called "midnight system"), the parameters of the deferent of Venus exactly coincide with the parameters of the geocentric orbit of the Sun. This is how it should be in a heliocentric system, since both of these curves are in fact a reflection of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
Among the parameters of his planetary theories, Aryabhata cites the heliocentric periods of planetary motion, including Mercury and Venus.

At present, the dominant point of view is that the source of medieval Indian astronomy is Greek pre-Ptolemaic astronomy. According to van der Waerden, the Greeks had a heliocentric theory, developed to the point of being able to predict ephemerides, which was then reworked into a geocentric one, similar to what Tycho Brahe did with the Copernican theory. This revised theory must inevitably be the theory of epicycles, since in the frame of reference associated with the Earth, the movement of the planets objectively occurs according to a combination of movements along the deferent and the epicycle. Further, according to van der Waerden, she penetrated into India. Aryabhata himself and later astronomers may not have been aware of the heliocentric basis of this theory. Subsequently, according to van der Waerden, this theory passed to Muslim astronomers, who compiled the "Shah Tables" - planetary ephemeris used for astrological predictions.

Nicholas Orem

Al-Biruni spoke sympathetically about Ariabhata's assumption about the daily rotation of the Earth. But he himself, apparently, ultimately leaned towards the immobility of the Earth.

A number of astronomers of the Muslim East discussed theories of planetary motion, alternative to the Ptolemaic one. The main object of their criticism, however, was equant, not geocentrism. Some of these scholars (for example, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi) also criticized Ptolemy's empirical arguments for the immobility of the Earth, finding them inadequate. But at the same time, they remained supporters of the immobility of the Earth, since this was consistent with the philosophy of Aristotle.

The exception is the astronomers of the Samarkand school, founded by Ulugbek in the first half of the 15th century. Thus, al-Kushchi rejected the philosophy of Aristotle as the physical foundation of astronomy and considered the Earth's rotation around its axis to be physically possible. There are indications that some of the Samarkand astronomers considered the possibility of not just the axial rotation of the Earth, but the movement of its center, and also developed a theory in which the Sun is considered to revolve around the Earth, but all planets revolve around the Sun (geo-heliocentric system of the world (English) Russian ) .

In Europe, the possibility of the Earth's rotation around its axis has been discussed since the 12th century. In the second half of the 13th century, this hypothesis was mentioned by Thomas Aquinas, along with the idea of the progressive motion of the Earth (without specifying the center of motion). Both hypotheses were rejected for the same reasons as those of Aristotle. The hypothesis of the axial rotation of the Earth received deep discussion among the representatives of the Paris School in the 14th century (Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme). Although in the course of these discussions a number of arguments against the mobility of the Earth were refuted, the final verdict was in favor of its immobility.

Early Renaissance

Copernicus

Nicholas Copernicus

Finally, heliocentrism was revived only in the 16th century, when the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus developed the theory of planetary motion around the Sun based on the Pythagorean principle of uniform circular motions. He published the results of his labors in the book "On the rotations of the celestial spheres", published in 1543. One reason for the return to heliocentrism was Copernicus' disagreement with the Ptolemaic theory of the equant; in addition, he considered the disadvantage of all geocentric theories that they do not allow one to determine the "shape of the world and the proportionality of its parts", that is, the scale of the planetary system. It is not clear what influence Aristarchus had on Copernicus (in the manuscript of his book, Copernicus mentioned Aristarchus' heliocentrism, but this reference disappeared in the final edition of the book).

Copernicus believed that the Earth makes three movements:

Rotation around the axis with a period of one day, resulting in a daily rotation of the celestial sphere;
Movement around the Sun with a period of a year, resulting in backward movements of the planets;
The so-called declinary movement with a period of about one year also leads to the fact that the Earth's axis moves approximately parallel to itself (a slight inequality in the periods of the second and third movements manifests itself in the pre-equinoxes).

Copernicus' theory of the motion of the outer planets. S - Sun, P - planet, U - center of the planet's orbit. The UEDP quadrilateral remained an isosceles trapezoid. The motion of the planet from point E of the equant looks uniform (the angle between the segment EP and the line of apsides SO changes uniformly). Thus, this point plays approximately the same role in the Copernican system as the equant point in the Ptolemaic system.

Copernicus not only explained the reasons for the backward movements of the planets, he calculated the distances of the planets from the Sun and the periods of their revolutions. Copernicus explained the zodiacal inequality in the movement of the planets by the fact that their movement is a combination of movements in large and small circles, similar to how the medieval astronomers of the East explained this inequality - the figures of the Maraga revolution (for example, Copernicus's theory of the movement of the outer planets coincided with the theory of Al- Urdi, the theory of the motion of Mercury - with the theory of Ibn ash-Shatir, but only in the heliocentric frame of reference).

However, the Copernican theory cannot be called heliocentric in full, since the Earth in it partly retained a special status:

the center of the planetary system was not the sun, but the center of the earth's orbit;
of all the planets, the Earth was the only one that moved uniformly in its orbit, while the orbital speed of the other planets varied.

The first printed image of the solar system (a page from the book of Copernicus)

Nevertheless, he was given an impetus for the further development of the heliocentric theory of planetary motion, the accompanying problems of mechanics and cosmology. By declaring the Earth one of the planets, Copernicus created the conditions for eliminating the sharp gap between the "supra-lunar" and "sub-lunar" worlds, characteristic of the philosophy of Aristotle and medieval scholasticism.

The first Copernicans and their opponents

The leading trend in the perception of Copernican theory throughout the 16th century was the use mathematical apparatus his theories for astronomical calculations and the almost total disregard for his new, heliocentric cosmology. The beginning of this trend was laid by the preface to the book of Copernicus, written by its publisher, the Lutheran theologian Andreas Osiander. Osiander writes that the motion of the Earth is a clever computational trick, but Copernicus should not be taken literally. Since Osiander did not include his name in the preface, many in the 16th century believed that this was the opinion of Nicolaus Copernicus himself. The book of Copernicus was studied by astronomers at the University of Wittenberg, the most famous of whom was Erasmus Reingold, who welcomed the author's refusal of the equant by Copernicus and compiled new tables of planetary motion based on his theory (Prussian tables (English) Russian ). But the main thing that Copernicus has - a new cosmological system - neither Reinhold nor other Wittenberg astronomers seem to have noticed.

Almost the only scientists of the first three decades after the publication of the book On the rotations of the celestial spheres who accepted the theory of Copernicus was the German astronomer Georg Joachim Retik, who at one time collaborated with Copernicus, considered himself his student and even published (even before Copernicus, in 1540) a work outlining new system world, as well as the astronomer and surveyor Gemma Frisia (English) Russian . A friend of Copernicus, Bishop Tiedemann Giese, was also a supporter of Copernicus. (English) Russian .

And only in the 70s - 90s of the XVI century. astronomers began to show interest in the new system of the world. It is stated and defended by astronomers Thomas Digges, Christoph Rothmann and Michael Möstlin (English) Russian , physicist Simon Stevin. An outstanding contribution to the development of heliocentrism was made by the philosopher Giordano Bruno, one of the first to abandon the dogma about the existence of solid celestial spheres. Theologian Diego de Zuniga (English) Russian used the idea of the movement of the Earth to interpret some of the words of the Bible. Perhaps the well-known scientists Giambatista Benedetti, William Gilbert, Thomas Harriot were also among the heliocentrists of this period. Some authors, rejecting the translational motion of the Earth, accepted its rotation around its axis: astronomer Nicholas Reimers Baer (English) Russian (Ursus), philosopher Francesco Patrici.

At the same time, the first negative reviews about the theory of Copernicus begin to appear. The most authoritative opponents of heliocentrism in the 16th and early 17th centuries were the astronomers Tycho Brahe and Christopher Clavius, the mathematicians Francois Viet and Francesco Mavrolico, and the philosopher Francis Bacon.

The opponents of the heliocentric theory had two kinds of arguments.

(A) Against the rotation of the Earth on its own axis. Scientists of the 16th century could already estimate the linear speed of rotation: about 500 m / s at the equator.

Rotating, the Earth would experience colossal centrifugal forces that would inevitably tear it apart.
If the Earth rotated, all light objects on its surface would scatter in all directions of the Cosmos.
If the Earth rotated, any thrown object would deviate towards the west, and the clouds would float, along with the Sun, from east to west.
Celestial bodies move because they are made of imponderable thin matter, but what force can make the huge heavy Earth move?

Tycho Brahe's world system.

These arguments were based on the Aristotelian mechanics generally accepted in those years. They lost their power only after the discovery of the laws of correct, Newtonian mechanics. On the other hand, such fundamental concepts of this science as centrifugal force, relativity, inertia appeared to a large extent when these arguments of the geocentrists were refuted.

(B) Against forward movement Earth.

Lack of improvement in the accuracy of the Prussian tables compared to the Alfonsine ones, based on Ptolemaic theory.
The absence of annual parallaxes of stars.

To refute the second argument, the heliocentrists had to assume the enormous distance of the stars. Tycho Brahe objected to this that in this case the stars turn out to be unusually large, larger than the orbit of Saturn. This estimate followed from his definition of the angular sizes of stars: he took the apparent diameter of stars of the first magnitude to be about 2-3 arc minutes.

Tycho Brahe proposed a compromise geo-heliocentric system of the world (English) Russian , in which the motionless Earth is at the center of the world, the Sun, Moon and stars revolve around it, but the planets revolve around the Sun. Since the end of the XVI century. it is this combined system of the world (essentially a modernized form of geocentric theory) that becomes the main competitor of heliocentrism.

Kepler

An outstanding contribution to the development of heliocentric concepts was made by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler. Even from his student years (at the end of the 16th century), he was convinced of the validity of heliocentrism in view of the ability of this doctrine to give a natural explanation for the backward movements of the planets and the ability to calculate the scale of the planetary system on its basis. For several years, Kepler worked with Tycho Brahe, the greatest observational astronomer, and subsequently took possession of his archive of observational data. During the analysis of these data, having shown exceptional physical intuition, Kepler came to the following conclusions:

The orbit of each of the planets is a flat curve, and the planes of all planetary orbits intersect in the Sun. This meant that the Sun was at the geometric center of the planetary system, while Copernicus had the center of the earth's orbit. Among other things, this made it possible for the first time to explain the motion of the planets perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. The very concept of the orbit, apparently, was also first introduced by Kepler, since even Copernicus believed that the planets were transported using solid spheres, like Aristotle.
The earth moves in its orbit unevenly. Thus, for the first time, the Earth was dynamically equalized with all the other planets.
Each planet moves in an ellipse with the Sun at one of its foci (Kepler's Law I).
Kepler discovered the law of areas (Kepler's II law): the segment connecting the planet and the Sun describes equal areas in equal periods of time. Since the distance of the planet from the Sun also changed (according to the first law), this resulted in the variability of the speed of the planet in its orbit. Having established his first two laws, Kepler for the first time abandoned the dogma of the uniform circular motions of the planets, which had dominated the minds of researchers since Pythagorean times. Moreover, unlike the equant model, the speed of the planet varied depending on the distance from the Sun, and not on some incorporeal point. Thus, the Sun turned out to be not only the geometric, but also the dynamic center of the planetary system.
Kepler derived a mathematical law (Kepler's III law), which linked the periods of revolutions of the planets and the sizes of their orbits: the squares of the periods of revolutions of the planets are related as cubes of the semi-major axes of their orbits. For the first time, the regularity of the structure of the planetary system, the existence of which was already suspected by the ancient Greeks, received mathematical formalization.

After Kepler and Galileo

Finding himself in the same Copernican camp as Kepler, Galileo never accepted his laws of planetary motion. This also applies to other heliocentrists of the first third of the 17th century, for example, the Dutch astronomer Philip van Lansberg. However, astronomers of a later time could clearly verify the accuracy of Keplerian's Rudolphin Tables. So, one of Kepler's predictions was the passage of Mercury across the solar disk in 1631, which the French astronomer Pierre Gassendi actually managed to observe. Kepler's tables were further refined by the English astronomer Jeremy Horrocks, who predicted the passage of Venus across the disk of the Sun in 1639, which he also observed together with another English astronomer, William Crabtree.

However, even the phenomenal accuracy of Kepler's theory (substantially refined by Horrocks) did not convince geocentric skeptics, since many problems of the heliocentric theory remained unresolved. First of all, this is the problem of the annual parallaxes of stars, the search for which was carried out throughout the 17th century. Despite a significant increase in the accuracy of measurements (which was achieved through the use of telescopes), these searches remained inconclusive, which indicated that the stars were even further away than Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler suggested. This, in turn, again put on the agenda the problem of the size of stars, noted by Tycho Brahe. Only at the end of the 17th century did scientists realize that what they took for disks of stars was in fact a purely instrumental effect (Airy disk (English) Russian ): stars have such small angular dimensions that their disks cannot be seen even in the most powerful telescopes.

In addition, there were still physical objections to the motion of the Earth, based on Aristotelian mechanics. Galileo's ideas about inertia and relativity convinced not all scientists of the 17th century. Among the opponents of heliocentrism stood out the Jesuit Riccioli, a deservedly famous astronomer of his time. In his fundamental work The New Almagest, he listed and discussed 49 evidence in favor of Copernicus and 77 against (which, however, did not prevent him from naming one of the lunar craters after Copernicus).

However, until the end of the 17th century, many scientists simply refused to choose between these hypotheses, pointing out that, from the point of view of observations, the heliocentric and geo-heliocentric system of the system are equivalent; of course, remaining in such a position, it was impossible to develop the dynamics of the planetary system. Among the supporters of this "positivist" point of view were, for example, Giovanni Domenico Cassini, Ole Römer, Blaise Pascal.

The structure of the universe from the book of Otto von Guericke Experimenta nova (1672)

It must be added that in disputes with the geocentrists, the supporters of Aristarchus and Copernicus were by no means on an equal footing, since the former had such an authority as the Church (especially in Catholic countries) on the side of the former. However, after Isaac Newton deduced Kepler's laws from the law of universal gravitation in 1687, all the disputes about the system of the world, which had not subsided for a century and a half, lost their meaning. The sun firmly occupied the center of the planetary system, being one of the many stars in the vast universe.

Assertion of heliocentrism and classical mechanics

Relativity of motion

The advent of the heliocentric system greatly stimulated the development of physics. First of all, it was necessary to answer the question why the movement of the Earth is not felt by people and is not manifested in terrestrial experiments. It was along this path that the fundamental principles of classical mechanics were formulated: the principle of relativity and the principle of inertia. Nicholas Orem, Ali al-Kushchi, Nicholas of Cusa, Thomas Digges, Giordano Bruno wrote about the impossibility of distinguishing between motion and rest using the hypothesis of the Earth's motion around its axis as an example. An outstanding step in the formulation of the principle of relativity was made by Galileo Galilei.

gravity

The physical basis of geocentric cosmology was the theory of nested spheres, in which the planets are carried in their motion by solid celestial spheres. Firstly, the daily trajectories of the stars are as if they are tied to a single sphere that rotates around the Earth in a sidereal day. Secondly, without drawing on the concept of solid spheres to which the planets are attached, it was practically impossible to give a physical interpretation of the Ptolemaic epicycles.

However, within the framework of heliocentrism, there is no need for celestial spheres. Giordano Bruno was the first to draw attention to this, because if the visible daily movements of the stars are due to the daily rotation of the Earth, then the outer celestial sphere, which carries the stars, is simply unnecessary. However, this sphere is only the outer boundary of the entire system of spheres to which the planets are attached. Thus, if the outer sphere does not exist, then this whole system of celestial spheres turns out to be unnecessary.

Then the question arose of what (if not the spheres) moves the planets. Bruno, like many other scientists (in particular, Tycho Brahe, William Gilbert) believed that the planets are living, intelligent beings driven by their own souls. For some time, Kepler also adhered to this opinion, however, in the process of constructing a theory of the movement of Mars, he came to the conclusion that the movement of the planets is controlled by forces emanating from the Sun. There were three such forces in his theory: one pushes the planet in orbit, acting tangentially to the trajectory (due to this force, the planet moves), the other either attracts or repels the planet from the Sun (due to it, the planet’s orbit is an ellipse) and the third acts across the plane of the ecliptic (due to which the orbit of the planet lies in a plane that does not coincide with the plane of the ecliptic). He considered the first of them (“circular” force) to decrease inversely with the distance from the Sun. Not all scientists agreed with Kepler's opinion. So, Galileo identified the motion of the planets with inertial motion. The leading theoretical astronomer of the mid-17th century, Ismael Bulliald, also rejected the Keplerian theory, according to whom the planets move around the Sun not under the influence of forces emanating from it, but due to internal aspiration. In addition, if a circular force existed, it would decrease back to the second power of the distance, and not to the first, as Kepler believed. However, the search for a dynamical explanation for planetary motions was supported by Jeremy Horrocks and Isaac Beckman. Descartes believed that the planets were transported around the sun by giant whirlwinds.

Isaac Newton

The further development of celestial mechanics is associated with the name of J. A. Borelli. In his opinion, three forces come from the Sun: one moves the planet in orbit, the other attracts the planet to the Sun, the third (centrifugal), on the contrary, repels the planet. The elliptical orbit of the planet is the result of the confrontation between the last two. In 1666, Robert Hooke suggested that the force of attraction to the Sun alone is sufficient to explain the motion of the planets, it is simply necessary to assume that the planetary orbit is the result of a combination (superposition) of falling on the Sun (due to the force of gravity) and movement by inertia (tangentially to the trajectory of the planet). In his opinion, this superposition of movements determines the elliptical shape of the planet's trajectory around the Sun. It was Hooke who first set the task of deriving Kepler's laws, based on the principle of inertia and the assumption of the existence of a force directed towards the Sun. Close views, but in a rather vague form, were also expressed by Christopher Wren. Hooke and Ren guessed that the force of gravity decreases inversely with the square of the distance to the Sun. But the honor of deriving Kepler's laws from the law of universal gravitation belongs to Isaac Newton ("Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", 1687). The law of universal gravitation, finally formulated by Newton, made it possible to give a uniform explanation of the earth's gravity, the motion of the Moon around the Earth and the planets around the Sun (including Kepler's laws, and deviations from them), tides.

Heliocentrism and cosmology

The structure of the universe according to Thomas Digges

One of the objections to heliocentrism in the XVI-XVII centuries. the absence of annual parallaxes of stars was considered. To explain this contradiction, Copernicus (like Aristarchus earlier) assumed that the Earth's orbit is a point compared to the distances to the stars. Copernicus considered the universe to be indefinitely large, but apparently finite; The sun was located in its center. The first who, within the framework of heliocentrism, switched to the view of the infinity of the Universe was the English astronomer Thomas Digges; he believed that outside the solar system, the universe is uniformly filled with stars, the nature of which was not specified. The universe, according to Digges, had a heterogeneous structure, the Sun remained at the center of the world. The space outside the solar system is the non-material world, the "Palace of God". A decisive step from heliocentrism to an infinite universe, evenly filled with stars, was made by the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno. According to Bruno, when viewed from all points, the universe should look roughly the same. Of all the thinkers of the New Age, he was the first to suggest that the stars are distant suns and that the physical laws are the same in all infinite and boundless space. At the end of the 16th century, William Gilbert also defended the infinity of the universe.

Kepler disagreed with these views. He represented the universe as a ball of finite radius with a cavity in the middle, where solar system. Kepler considered the spherical layer outside this cavity to be filled with stars - self-luminous objects, but having a fundamentally different nature than the Sun. One of his arguments is the immediate precursor to the photometric paradox. On the contrary, Galileo, leaving open the question of the infinity of the universe, considered the stars to be distant suns. In the middle - second half of the XVII century, these views were supported by Rene Descartes, Otto von Guericke and Christian Huygens. Huygens owns the first attempt to determine the distance to a star (Sirius) on the assumption that its luminosity is equal to that of the sun. Similar attempts were later made by James Gregory and Isaac Newton.

At the same time, many scientists believed that the totality of stars occupies only a part of space, outside of which is emptiness or ether. However, at the beginning of the 18th century, Isaac Newton and Edmond Halley spoke in favor of the uniform filling of space with stars, since in the case of a finite system of stars, they would inevitably fall on each other under the action of mutual gravitational forces. Thus, the Sun, remaining the center of the planetary system, ceased to be the center of the world, all points of which were in equal conditions.

Heliocentrism and religion

Movement of the Earth in the Light of Holy Scripture

Almost immediately after the heliocentric system was put forward, it was noted that it contradicted some passages from the Holy Scriptures. For example, an excerpt from one of the Psalms

You have set the earth on solid foundations; it will not shake forever and ever.

cited as proof of the immobility of the earth. Several other passages have been cited to support the idea that the Sun, not the Earth, makes the diurnal motion. Among them, for example, one passage from Ecclesiastes:

The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries to its place where it rises.

An excerpt from the book of Joshua was very popular:

Jesus called to the Lord on the day that the Lord delivered the Amorites into the hands of Israel, when he beat them in Gibeon, and they were beaten before the face of the children of Israel, and said before the Israelites: Stop, the sun is over Gibeon, and the moon is over the valley of Avalon. !

Since the command to stop was given to the Sun, and not to the Earth, it was concluded from this that it was the Sun that made the daily movement. Religious arguments attracted not only Catholic and Protestant leaders to reinforce their position, but also professional astronomers (Tycho Brahe, Christopher Clavius, Giovanni Battista Riccioli, and others).

Proponents of the rotation of the Earth defended in two directions. First, they pointed out that the Bible was written in a language understandable ordinary people, and if its authors had given clear formulations from a scientific point of view, it would not have been able to fulfill its main, religious mission. In addition, it was noted that some passages of the Bible should be interpreted allegorically (see the article Biblical allegorism). So, Galileo noted that if Holy Scripture is taken entirely literally, then it turns out that God has hands, he is subject to emotions such as anger, etc. In general, the main idea of the defenders of the doctrine of the movement of the Earth was that science and religion have different goals: science considers the phenomena of the material world, guided by the arguments of reason, the goal of religion is the moral improvement of man, his salvation. Galileo quoted Cardinal Baronio in this connection that the Bible teaches how to ascend to heaven, not how it works.

Catholic Church

Galileo before the court of the Inquisition

The most dramatic was the history of the interaction of the heliocentric system with the Catholic Church. However, at first the Church reacted to the new development of astronomy rather favorably and even with some interest. Back in 1533, a report on the Copernican system was heard in the Vatican, which was delivered by the famous orientalist Johann Albert Widmanstadt; as a token of gratitude, Pope Clement VII, who was present there, presented the speaker with a valuable ancient Greek manuscript. Three years later, Cardinal Nikolai Schomberg wrote an admiring letter to Copernicus, in which he strongly recommended that a book detailing his theory be published as soon as possible. His close friend, Bishop Tiedemann Giese, insistently urged Copernicus to publish the new system of the world.

However, already in the first years after the publication of the book of Copernicus, one of the high-ranking Vatican officials, the manager of the Papal Palace, Bartolomeo Spina, called for a ban on the heliocentric system, but he did not have time to achieve his goal due to serious illness and death. The case was continued by his friend, the theologian Giovanni Maria Tolozani, who asserted the danger of heliocentrism for faith in a specially written essay.

However, over the next few decades, the theory of Copernicus did not attract much attention of Catholic theologians: either because of its low popularity in Italy (the book of Copernicus was published in Germany), or in connection with the need to clarify the movement of the Sun and Moon for the upcoming calendar reforms; it is possible that the vigilance of Catholic theologians was blunted by Osiander's preface. The theologians began to realize the danger of the new world system for the Church only at the end of the 16th century. So, biblical arguments in favor of the immobility of the Earth were heard at the trial against Giordano Bruno, although they probably did not play a decisive role in its tragic denouement.

However, the main wave of religious accusations against heliocentrism rose after (and as a result of) Galileo's telescopic discoveries. Attempts to defend heliocentrism against accusations of contradicting Scripture were made by Galileo himself and the Catholic monk Paolo Foscarini. However, since 1616, when the book of Copernicus was included in the index of banned books “before correction”, subjected to censorship (1620), the Catholic Church began to consider any attempts to declare the heliocentric theory a real reflection of the movement of the planets (and not just a mathematical model) as contrary to the main provisions of the dogma .

In the second half of the 20s of the 17th century, Galileo considered that the situation was gradually being discharged and released his famous work “Dialogues on the two main systems of the world, Ptolemaic and Copernican” (1632). Although censorship allowed the publication of the “Dialogue”, very soon the Pope Urban VIII considered the book to be heretical, and Galileo was put on trial by the Inquisition. In 1633 he was forced to publicly renounce his views.

Protestants

Even during the life of Copernicus, the leaders of the Protestants Luther, Melanchthon and Calvin spoke out against heliocentrism, stating that this doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture. Martin Luther, for example, said of Copernicus in a private conversation:

Johannes Kepler had to answer questions about the compatibility of the heliocentric system with Scripture to the leaders of the Protestant communities.

However, the environment was much more liberal in Protestant countries than in Catholic countries, especially in Britain. A certain role here, perhaps, was played by the opposition to the Catholics, as well as the lack of a unified religious leadership among the Protestants. As a result, it was the Protestant countries (along with France) that became the leaders of the scientific revolution of the 17th century.

Russian Orthodox Church

In Russia, the heliocentric system was first learned in 1657, when the monk Epiphanius Slavinetsky translated into Russian Cosmography Johann Bleu, where both the geocentric system and the Copernican system were expounded. The clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church criticized the heliocentric system of the world until the beginning of the 20th century. Until 1815, with the approval of censorship, a school manual was published Destruction of the Copernican system, in which the author called the heliocentric system a "false philosophical system" and an "outrageous opinion". The Ural Bishop Arseniy, in a letter dated March 21, 1908, advised teachers, when introducing students to the Copernican system, not to give it “unconditional justice”, but to teach it “like some kind of fable”. The latest work, which criticized the heliocentric system, was the book published in 1914 by the priest Job Nemtsev The circle of the earth is motionless, but the sun walks, in which the Copernican system was "refuted" with the help of traditional quotations from the Bible.

Judaism

At a later time, direct attacks on the heliocentric system are practically not observed among the Jews, but doubts are periodically expressed as to how much one can trust science in general and the heliocentric system in particular. In some sources of the 18th and 19th centuries there are doubts whether the Earth is really a sphere in the sense of Aristotle.

Significance of heliocentrism in the history of science

The heliocentric system of the world, put forward in the III century BC. e. Aristarchus and revived in the 16th century by Copernicus, made it possible to establish the parameters of the planetary system and discover the laws of planetary motions. The justification of heliocentrism required the creation of classical mechanics and led to the discovery of the law of universal gravitation. Heliocentrism opened the way for stellar astronomy (stars are distant suns) and cosmology of the infinite Universe. Scientific disputes around the heliocentric system contributed to the demarcation of science and religion, due to which arguments based on the Holy Scriptures were no longer perceived as arguments in scientific discussion.

Notes

Literature

Veselovsky I. N. Aristarchus of Samos - Copernicus of the ancient world // Historical and Astronomical Research, vol. VII. - M., 1961. - S. 17-70.
Veselovsky I. N. Kepler and Galileo // . - M ., 1972. - S. 19-64.
Gurev G. A. The doctrine of Copernicus and religion. - M .: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1961.
Jalalov G.D. Some remarkable statements of astronomers of the Samarkand Observatory // Historical and Astronomical Research, vol. IV. - M., 1958. - S. 381-386.
Eremeeva A. I. Astronomical picture of the world and its creators. - M .: Nauka, 1984.
Eremeeva A. I., Tsitsin F. A. History of astronomy. - M .: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1989.
Zhitomirsky S.V. Ancient Astronomy and Orphism. - M .: Janus-K, 2001.
Idelson N.I. Studies in the history of celestial mechanics. - M .: Nauka, 1975.
Kaufeld A. Defense of Otto von Guericke of the system of Nicolaus Copernicus // Historical and Astronomical Research, vol. XI. - M ., 1972. - S. 221-236.
Kirsanov V. S. Scientific revolution of the 17th century. - M .: Nauka, 1987.
Klimishin I. A. Discovery of the Universe. - M .: Nauka, 1987.
Klimishin I. A. Elementary astronomy. - M .: Nauka, 1991.
Koire A. From a closed world to an infinite universe. - M .: Series: Sigma, 2001.
Kosareva L. M. Pictures of the Universe in European culture of the XVI-XVII centuries // At the Frontiers of Cognition of the Universe (Historical and Astronomical Research, Vol. XXII). - M ., 1990. - S. 74-109.
Kuznetsov B. G. Development of the scientific picture of the world in physics of the 17th-18th centuries. - M .: USSR Academy of Sciences, 1955.
Lanskoy G. Yu. Jean Buridan and Nikolai Orem on the daily rotation of the Earth // Studies in the history of physics and mechanics 1995-1997. - M .: Nauka, 1999. - S. 87-98.
Mikhailov G. K., Filonovich S. R. On the history of the problem of the motion of freely thrown bodies on the rotating Earth // Studies in the history of physics and mechanics 1990. - M .: Nauka, 1990. - S. 93-121.
Nugaev R. M. Copernican Revolution: Intertheoretical Context // Questions of Philosophy. - 2012. - No. 3. - S. 110-120.
Pannekoek A.\ History of astronomy. - M .: Nauka, 1966.
Panchenko D.V. On the failure of Aristarchus and the success of Copernicus // ΜΟΥΣΕΙΟΝ: Prof. A. I. Zaitsev on the day of the 70th anniversary.. - St. Petersburg: publishing house of St. Petersburg State University, 1997. - S. 150-154.
Raikov B. E. Essays on the history of the heliocentric worldview in Russia. - M.-L.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1947.
Rozhansky I.D. History of natural science in the era of Hellenism and the Roman Empire. - M .: Nauka, 1988.
Ryabov Yu. A. Movement of celestial bodies. - M .: Nauka, 1988.
Fantoli A. Galileo: in defense of the teachings of Copernicus and the dignity of the holy church. - M .: MIK, 1999.
Chernyak V. S. The evolution of creative thinking in astronomy of the 16th–17th centuries: Copernicus, Kepler, Borelli // Philosophy of Science. Issue. 9. - M .: IF RAN, 2003. - S. 17-70.
Applebaum W. Keplerian Astronomy after Kepler: Researches and Problems // history of science. - 1996. - Vol. 34. - P. 451-504.
Barker P. Copernicus, the orbs, and the equant // Synthesis. - 1990. - Vol. 83(2). - P. 317-323.
Barker P. Constructing Copernicus // Perspectives on Science. - 2002. - Vol. 10. - P. 208-227.
Bennett J.A. Hooke and Wren and the System of the World: Some Points Towards An Historical Account // The British Journal for the History of Science. - 1975. - P. 32-61.
Christianidis J. et al. Having a Knack for the Non-intuitive: Aristarchus's Heliocentrism through Archimedes's Geocentrism // history of science. - 2002. - Vol. 40. - No. 128. - P. 147-168.
Dreyer J.L.E. History of the planetary systems from Thales to Kepler. - Cambridge University Press, 1906.
Finocchiaro M.A. Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. - Springer, 2010.
Gatty H. Giordano Bruno's Copernican Diagrams // Filozofski Vestnik. - 2004. - Vol. XXV, No. 2. - P. 25-50.
Gingerich O. Did Copernicus owe a debt to Aristarchus? // J. Hist. Astronomer. - 1985. - Vol. 16. - No. 1. - P. 37-42.
Grant E. In Defense of the Earth's Centrality and Immobility: Scholastic Reaction to Copernicanism in the Seventeenth Century // Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Ser. - 1984. - Vol. 74. - No. 4. - P. 1-69.
Grant E. Planets, Stars, and Orbs: The Medieval Cosmos, 1200-1687. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Harrison E. Darkness at night. A riddle of the universe. - Harvard University Press, 1987.
Heath T.L. Aristarchus of Samos, the ancient Copernicus: a history of Greek astronomy to Aristarchus. - Oxford.: Clarendon, 1913 (reprinted New York, Dover, 1981).
Koestler A. The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe. - New York: Penguin Books, 1959.
Koyre A. Galileo and the Scientific Revolution of the Seventeenth Century // The Philosophical Review. - 1943. - Vol. v.52, no. 4. - No. 4. - P. 333-348.
Koyre A. The Astronomical Revolution. - New York: Dover, 1973.
Kuhn T.S. The Copernican Revolution: planetary astronomy in the development of Western thought. - Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957.
Lerner M.-P. The heliocentric "heresy" // in: The Church and Galileo, ed. by E. McMullin. - Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005. - P. 11-37.
McColley G. The theory of diurnal rotation of the Earth // Isis. - 1937. - Vol. 26. - P. 392-402.
McColley G. Humanism and the history of astronomy // in: Toward Modern Science, Volume II, ed. by R.M. Palter. - New York: The Noonday Press, 1961. - Vol. McColley. - P. 132-174.
Nauenberg M. Robert Hook's Seminal Contributions to Orbital Dynamics // Physics in Perspective. - 2005. - Vol. 7. - P. 4-34.
Ragep F.J. Tusi and Copernicus: The Earth's Motion in Context // science in context. - 2001a. - Vol. 14. - P. 145-163.
Ragep F.J. Copernicus and his Islamic Predecessors: Some historical Remarks // history of science. - 2007. - Vol. 45. - P. 65-81.
Ramasubramanian K., Srinivas M. D., Sriram M. S. Modification of the earlier Indian planetary theory by the Kerala astronomers (c. 1500 AD) and the implied heliocentric picture of planetary motion // Current Science. - 1994. - Vol. 66.-P. 784-790.
Rawlins D. // DIO: The International Journal of Scientific History. - 1991. - Vol. 1.3. - P. 159-162.
Rawlins D. Ancient Heliocentrists, Ptolemy, and the equant // American Journal of Physics. - 1987. - Vol. 55.-P. 235-9.
Rosen E. Kepler and the Lutheran attitude towards Copernicanism in the context of the struggle between science and religion // Vistas in Astronomy. - 1975a. - Vol. 18. - P. 317-338.
Rosen E. Was Copernicus" Revolutions Approved by the Pope? // Journal of the History of Ideas. - 1975b. - Vol. 36. - P. 531-542.
Rosen E. Aristarchus of Samos and Copernicus // Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists. - 1978. - Vol. xv. - P. 85-93.
Russell J.L. Catholic Astronomers and the Copernican System after the Condemnation of Galileo // Annals of Science. - 1989. - Vol. 46. - P. 365-386.
Russo L. // Vistas in Astronomy. - 1994. - Vol. 38, Pt 2. - P. 207-248.
Russo L. The forgotten revolution: how science was born in 300 BC and why it had to be reborn . - Berlin.: Springer, 2004.
Shank M.H. // Early Science and Medicine. - 2009. - Vol. 14. - No. 1-3. - P. 290-315(26).
Thurston H. early astronomy. - New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994.
Thurston H. Greek Mathematical Astronomy Reconsidered // Isis. - 2002. - Vol. 93. - P. 58-69.
Toulmin S., Goodfield J. The Fabric of the Heavens: The Development of Astronomy and Dynamics. - New York: Harper & brothers, 1961.
Tredwell K. A., Barker P. Copernicus' First Friends: Physical Copernicanism from 1543 to 1610 // Filozofski Vestnik. - 2004. - Vol. Tredwell. - P. 143–166.
Van der Waerden B.L. On the motion of the planets according to Heraclides of Pontus // Arch. Internat. Hist. sci. - 1978. - Vol. 28(103). - P. 167-182.
Van der Waerden B.L. The heliocentric system in Greek, Persian and Hindu astronomy // In: 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 Sciences, 1987, June. - Vol. 500.-P. 525-545.
Vermij R. The Calvinist Copernicans: The Reception of the New Astronomy in the Dutch Republic, 1575-1750. - Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, 2002.
Westman R.S. The Melanchthon Circle, Rheticus, and the Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory // Isis. - 1975. - Vol. 66, no. 2. - P. 164-193.
Westman R.S. The astronomer's role in the sixteenth century: A preliminary survey // history of science. - 1980. - Vol. 18. - P. 105-147.
Westman R.S. The Copernicans and the Churches // in: God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, ed. by D.C. Lindberg and R.L. numbers. - Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. - P. 76-113.
Westman R.S. The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. - University of California Press, 2011.
Wilson C.A. From Kepler's laws, so-called, to universal gravitation. Empirical Factors // Archive for History of Exact Sciences. - 1970. - Vol. 6. - P. 89-170.
Wilson C. Predictive astronomy in the century after Kepler // In: Planetary Astronomy from the Renaissance to the Rise of Astrophysics. Part A: Tycho Brahe to Newton. The General History of Astronomy. Volume 2, R. Taton and C. Wilson (eds). - 1989. - P. 161-206.

Features of the heliocentric system of the world

Finding some central point of the Universe is possible only if the Universe . It is obliged to such according to the heliocentric system of the world.

Also in this system there was such a thing as external and internal planets. The latter included Mercury and Venus, because their orbits around the Sun must always be inside the Earth's orbit.

The most important feature of heliocentrism is the annual parallaxes of stars. This effect manifests itself in the form of a change in the apparent coordinates of the star. It is associated with a change in the position of observers (astronomers), which arose due to the rotation of the Earth around the Sun.

Heliocentrism in Antiquity and the Middle Ages

The idea that the Earth moves around a certain center of the whole world arose in the minds of the ancient Greeks. So there were assumptions about the rotation of the Earth around its axis, as well as the movement of Mars and Venus around the Sun, which, together with them, revolves around our planet. However, it is believed that for the first time the heliocentric system of the world was outlined in the III century BC. e. Aristarchus of Samos. He made two important conclusions:

Most likely, our planet revolves around the sun. The reason for this is the size of the Sun, which is much larger than the size of the Earth. Data on the relative magnitudes of the Earth, Moon, and Sun were obtained from Aristarchus' own calculations.
Due to the absence of visible annual parallaxes of stars, he suggested that the orbit of our planet is represented by a point relative to the distances to the stars.

However, the ideas of Aristarchus did not become widespread in antiquity. The most famous version of the geocentric system in Ancient Greece was the so-called theory of homocentric spheres, which was developed by the astronomers Eudoxus, Callippus and Aristotle. According to this theory, all celestial bodies revolving around our planet were fixed on rigid spheres, interconnected and having a single center - the Earth.

In connection with such a worldview of the predominant part of society, other adherents of the idea of Aristarchus of Samos did not express their views, as a result of which the Greeks abandoned this idea and fully accepted geocentrism. Any schools that taught rationalism at that time did not support the ideas of Aristarchus, since they considered the nature of the universe beyond understanding and excluded any possibility of describing the dynamics of the planets.

In the Middle Ages, heliocentrism was hardly mentioned in scientific papers, except for some of his ideas, for example, the rotation of the Earth around its axis.

The scientific revolution of Nicolaus Copernicus

In 1543, the Polish astronomer, mechanic and clergyman Nicolaus Copernicus published his scientific work, which was called: "On the rotation of the celestial spheres." In it, the astronomer described the heliocentric theory, confirming it with a number of physical calculations based on the then theoretical mechanics. According to his concept, the change of day and night, as well as the movement of the Sun across the sky, are explained by the rotation of the Earth around its axis. In the same way, with the help of the Earth around the Sun, the movement of our luminary across the sky throughout the year is explained.

Copernicus explained the following phenomena:

As a result of the movement of the Earth, which alternately approaches, then moves away from any of the planets of our system, these planets make the so-called. backward movement. That is, after a certain period of time, they begin to move in the opposite direction from the direction of the Sun.
Prelude to the equinoxes. For 18 centuries, scientists have been looking for the causes of such an effect as the prelude of the equinoxes, according to which every year the spring equinox comes a little earlier. In his writings, Nicolaus Copernicus was able to describe this effect as a consequence of the periodic displacement of the earth's axis.
In the footsteps of Aristarchus of Samos, Copernicus argued and also proved that the sphere of stars is located at a very long distance relative to the distances between the planets, as a result of which scientists do not observe annual parallaxes. And the assumption about the rotation of our planet around its axis was confirmed by the following: if our planet is still motionless, then the rotation of the sky must occur due to the rotation of the stellar sphere itself, and given the calculated distance to it, its rotation speed will be unthinkably high.

In addition, the heliocentric system could explain the change in the brightness and size of the planets of the solar system, as well as give a more accurate estimate of the size of the planets and the distances to them. Nicolaus Copernicus himself was able to approximately determine the size of the Moon and the Sun and indicate as accurately as possible the time during which Mercury completely passes its orbit around the Sun - 88 Earth days.

Despite the complete revolution in the field of astronomy, the Copernican theory had several shortcomings. First, the center of the Earth's orbit, not the Sun, remained the central point of the system he described. Secondly, all the planets of our planetary system moved unevenly in their orbits, and our planet kept its orbital speed. And also, most likely, Copernicus did not reject the idea of rotating celestial spheres, but only moved the center of their rotation.

Followers and Opponents of Copernicus

Subsequently, the Polish astronomer had a large number of followers, including Giordano Bruno, who argued that the firmament is not limited to the celestial spheres, and other luminaries are celestial bodies that are in no way inferior to the Sun. Unfortunately, for his beliefs, Bruno was called a heretic and sentenced to be burned.

The famous Italian scientist supported the theory of Copernicus, based on his own observations. He also claimed that the Earth never occupied a place between Mercury (or Venus) and the Sun, which indicated the rotation of these two planets around the star in orbits that are inside the earth. The converse statement proved the location of the Earth's orbit inside the orbits of the outer planets. Because of his beliefs, in 1633 the 70-year-old Galileo was subjected to an inquisitorial process that placed him under "house arrest" until his death at 78.

Opponents of heliocentrism insisted on several arguments refuting the Copernican theory. If the Earth rotated around its axis, then the monstrous centrifugal force would tear it apart. Moreover, all light objects would fly off its surface, and they would move in the opposite direction to rotation. It was assumed that all celestial objects have no mass, so they can move without applying large forces to them. In the case of the Earth, the question arose of the existence of a colossal force that could rotate our massive planet.

One of the opponents of geocentrism, the outstanding Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe developed the so-called "geo-heliocentric" system of the world, according to which the sphere of stars, the Moon and the Sun move around the Earth, and other space objects around the Sun.

Some time later, Brahe's successor, the German physicist Johannes Kepler, having analyzed the impressive volume of his mentor's observations, made several significant discoveries in favor of heliocentrism:

The planes of the planetary orbits of the solar system intersect at the location of the Sun, which made it the center of their rotation, and not the center of the earth's orbit, as Copernicus suggested.
The orbital speed of our planet changes periodically, as well as other planets.
The orbits of the planets are elliptical, and the speed of the movement of celestial bodies along them directly depended on the distance to the Sun, which made it not only the geometric, but also the dynamic center of the planetary system.

The so-called Kepler laws were formulated, which are detailed and mathematical language describe the laws of motion of the planets in the solar system.

Heliocentrism assertion

As a result of the confirmation of the rotation of the Earth around its axis, any need for the existence of celestial spheres disappeared. For some time it has been assumed that the reason why the planets move is that they are living beings. However, Kepler soon determined that the motion of the planets arises as a result of the influence of the gravitational forces of the Sun on them.

In 1687, the English physicist Isaac Newton, relying on his own, confirmed the calculations of Johannes Kepler

With the further development of science, scientists received more and more arguments in favor of heliocentrism. So in 1728, an astronomer from England, James Bradley, for the first time, by means of observation, confirmed the theory of the motion of the Earth in orbit around the Sun, discovering the so-called aberration of light. The latter means a slight blurring of the image of the star on one side as a result of the movement of the observer. Later, an annual fluctuation in the frequency of pulses emitted by pulsars, as well as for stars, was discovered, which proves the periodic change in the distance of the Earth to these space objects.

And in 1821 and 1837. Russian-German scientist Friedrich Wilhelm Struve for the first time was able to observe the approximate annual parallaxes of stars, finally confirming the idea of a heliocentric system of the world.

The place of the Earth in the system of the universe has worried thinkers since ancient times. The lack of technical means of accurate research and the insignificant experience of astrophysics inherited from previous generations did not allow the scientists of Ancient Greece and the Middle Ages to form a complete and correct opinion about the structure of the Universe. Nevertheless, the authors of the first theories of cosmology laid the foundation on which the foundations of modern knowledge were subsequently formed. And of particular importance in this sense are the geocentric and heliocentric system world, stimulating entire generations of scientists and thinkers of different times to conduct new research.

The concept of geocentrism

This is a system of the universe, in which the central place is given to the Earth. In this case, the Sun rotates around its axis. In accordance with the geocentric coordinate system, the initial reference point is also located on the Earth. It is important to note that the universe, according to this theory, is limited. The answer to the question of who created the geocentric system of the world is known today, although multiple variations of the theory allow us to speak of several authors. Nevertheless, the founder of this concept was Claudius Ptolemy, who gave rise to the idea of the central location of the Earth in the Universe. If we talk about different interpretations of this theory, then Thales of Miletus, for example, considered it necessary to have a support at the globe.

There are also versions that the Earth occupies a constant position and does not even rotate. On the other hand, the geocentric Ptolemy in its classical form assumes the rotation of celestial bodies. In particular, his research began with an analysis of the relationship of the Moon as it moved around the planet. Later, the author of the theory came to the conclusion about the rotation of the planet itself. Parallel to this, various suggestions have been put forward as to how the Earth maintains its permanent position.

in the system of geocentrism

The explanation of the uneven motion of celestial bodies was the greatest difficulty for ancient Greek astronomers. New ideas about the motion of planets along different eccentrics shed light on the relationship between the luminaries, but at the same time they posed difficult problems of a different order. At the same time, the geocentric system of the world of Ptolemy had discrepancies with the Pythagorean-Platonic teachings, according to which the celestial bodies were of divine origin - therefore, they had to make only uniform movements. Adherents of this theory developed special models, where the complex movements of objects were interpreted as the cumulative result of the addition of several uniform rotations around a circle. True, with the advent of the theory of the bisection of eccentricity, such concepts have lost their relevance.

Justification of the geocentric system of the universe

Among the main tasks that the adherents of geocentrism faced were the justification of the central place of the Earth and its immobility. If with regard to the second condition of the universe, even the author of the geocentric system of the world, Claudius Ptolemy, spoke critically, then the idea of the position of the planet remained the basis of the theory. One of the supporters of this concept was Aristotle, who justified the central place of the globe by its heaviness. According to the worldview of the time, natural place for heavy bodies can only be This understanding was reinforced by the fact that a large weight causes objects to fall vertically. Since everyone is directed towards the center of the world, the heavy Earth is more likely to be at this point.

There were other theories explaining the central position of the Earth. For example, Ptolemy supported the idea that a planet could not occupy another place in the universe. This was explained quite simply - by excluding the northern or southern location of the Earth relative to the center. Thinkers estimated how the shadows from the Sun could fall with such a configuration, and came to the only possible, in their opinion, option for placing the planet - in the center. It must be said that the geocentric and heliocentric systems of the world will diverge in the future precisely in understanding this condition for the configuration of the Universe.

Geocentrism in the Renaissance

Beginning with early period In the Middle Ages, astronomers began to actively explore and develop other versions of this configuration. For example, during the Renaissance, European scientists devoted a lot of attention to the theory of homocentric spheres. Along with this, the prerequisites for a model that combined the geocentric and heliocentric systems of the world, at least in some aspects, arose. Supporters of such a combination believed that the Earth is still the center of the world, moreover, it is motionless, and the Moon and the Sun revolve around its axis. At the same time, the rest of the planets, as it was believed, should have revolved around the Sun. Such a hypothesis constituted the main competition for the full-fledged heliocentric theory. It is important to note other directions in which Renaissance scientists developed geocentrism. For example, under the influence of natural philosophy, many astronomers turned to the study of supralunar and sublunar worlds. By the way, even Aristotle believed that the heavens are as changeable as the Earth. Opinions were also expressed that denied the existence of the heavenly spheres.

Rejection of geocentrism

Intensive development of science in the XVII century. allowed to systematize the accumulated knowledge and improve the idea of the Universe. In this context, the geocentric and heliocentric systems of the world could no longer coexist, since the second concept was increasingly being affirmed by prominent thinkers, among whom were Copernicus and Galileo. Among the main scientific events that contributed to the rejection of geocentrism, the creation of the theory of planetary motions stands out in particular. A significant contribution to the advancement of astronomy was made by the telescopic discoveries of Galileo, as well as the discoveries of Kepler's laws.

It is worth noting that geocentrism was also supported by the church for a long time. Religious supporters of this theory believed that the Earth was created by divine power specifically for man, so its central place in the universe is logical and natural. Despite such support, the geocentric system of the world of Copernicus was transformed into a new theory that rejected the centrality of the Earth. More advanced telescopic studies completely rejected classical geocentrism and paved the way for heliocentrism.

The essence of the heliocentric system of the world

Although the peak of the development of this concept fell on the Renaissance, its origins originate in ancient Greece. The fact is that in the time of Ptolemy, the concept of geocentrism was the most attractive, leaving heliocentrism in the shade. Gradually, the situation changed, which allowed the supporters of an alternative point of view to assert their worldview. arose this system in the Pythagorean school. According to the author of the heliocentric system of the world, Philolaus of Croton, the Earth is no different from other planets and moves around a mystical object, but not the Sun. Subsequently, this idea was improved by other thinkers, and by the Renaissance, adherents of the theory came to the conclusion that the Sun is a central body, and the Earth revolves around it. Later, Copernicus developed a system in which the planets made circular uniform movements.

Comparison of the geocentric and heliocentric systems of the world

For a long time, the supporters of the two concepts could not agree on several fundamental aspects. The fact is that both theories had many variations, changed and improved, but the basic principles remained unshakable. The main differences between the geocentric and heliocentric systems of the world were reduced to the place of the Earth in the Universe and its relation to the Sun. Supporters of the first concept believed that the planet occupies a central position. Conversely, geocentrism assumes that the Earth revolves around the Sun, while revolving around its own axis.

Development of heliocentrism by Kepler

The theory had changed significantly since its first formulation by the end of the 16th century. We can say that the creator of the heliocentric system of the world in a form close to the modern understanding is Johannes Kepler, who made a significant contribution to the development of astronomy. Even during his studies, he realized the importance of explaining the complex movements of the planets. In the future, he will develop opportunities for calculating the scale of the planetary system using observational data.

From the scientific knowledge formulated by Kepler, one can note the movement of the planets along an ellipse, the introduction of the concept of an orbit, as well as the justification of new laws that determine the position of the Earth relative to the Sun. Of course, the Pythagorean creator of the heliocentric system of the world, most likely, did not imagine how his concept could be developed. But it was the thinkers of antiquity who made it possible to strengthen the idea of the most accurate world order.

The influence of heliocentrism on the development of physics

The spread of the theory contributed to the development of physics and mechanics. The fact is that for scientists who conducted research in these areas, there was important question- Why is the movement of the globe not felt by people? The answer was the Geocentric and heliocentric systems of the world differently represent the action of gravity. In the first case, the nested spheres act as the basis of this force, and on the basis of heliocentrism, the law of relativity was subsequently formulated, as well as the principle of inertia. Based on this knowledge, scientists developed a general method by which almost all problems of mechanics were solved.

Significance of the heliocentric system of the world

In the process of solving problems that different time put heliocentric concept universe, scientists were able to formulate the principles by which the planetary system is arranged. The basis of these studies were planetary motions, which, in turn, influenced the development of physics. We can say that the adherents of this theory laid the foundation for mechanics in its classical form. But much more interesting is the answer to the question of what is the significance of the heliocentric system of the world from the point of view of astronomy. First of all, the system stimulated research in the field of stellar cosmology, which made it possible to discover new expanses of the Universe. In addition, thanks to the disputes around heliocentrism, a distinction was made scientific knowledge and religion.

Conclusion

Despite the significant advancement of technological means of space exploration, even today disputes about the place of the Earth in the Universe, which affect the geocentric and heliocentric systems of the world, do not subside. The sun, as before, is one of the cornerstones in discussions of this kind. For example, many creation scientists admit that no one can give an absolutely accurate answer to questions about the nuances of the rotation of the globe at this stage of progress. As for the central position in the Universe, not everything is unambiguous here either. The fact is that under conditions of infinity of space, any point can be considered as a center, so there is no need to talk about the complete victory of heliocentrism over geocentrism.

Plan:

1 About concepts
2 Planetary configurations
- 2.1 Outer and inner planets
- 2.2 backward movements
- 2.3 Relationship between synodic and sidereal periods of planetary revolutions; Babylonian periods
- 2.4 Distances to planets
- 2.5 Phases of Mercury and Venus
3 Empirical evidence for the motion of the earth around the sun
- 3.1 Annual parallaxes of stars
- 3.2 Aberration of starlight
- 3.3
4 History of the heliocentric system
- 4.1 Heliocentrism in Ancient Greece
- 4.2 Middle Ages
- 4.3 Early Renaissance
- 4.4 Copernicus
- 4.5 The first Copernicans and their opponents
- 4.6 Kepler
- 4.7 Galileo
- 4.8 After Kepler and Galileo
- 4.9 Heliocentrism and religion
  - 4.9.1 Movement of the Earth in the Light of Holy Scripture
  - 4.9.2 Catholic Church
  - 4.9.3 Protestants
  - 4.9.4 Russian Orthodox Church
  - 4.9.5 Judaism
- 4.10 Heliocentrism and cosmology
- 4.11 Classical mechanics and the assertion of heliocentrism
- 4.12 Significance of heliocentrism in the history of science

Introduction

Image of the solar system from Andreas Cellarius' book Harmonia Macrocosmica (1708)

The idea that the Sun is the central celestial body around which the Earth and other planets revolve. The opposite of the geocentric system of the world. It originated in antiquity, but became widespread from the end of the Renaissance.

1. About concepts

Often even professional astronomers confuse two concepts: the heliocentric system of the world and the heliocentric frame of reference.

Heliocentric frame of reference is simply a frame of reference, where the origin is located in the Sun. Heliocentric system of the world It is an idea about the structure of the universe. In the narrow sense of the word, it lies in the fact that the Universe is limited, the Sun is located in its center, and the Earth performs two types of motion: translational around the Sun and rotational around the axis; The stars are stationary relative to the Sun. The term "heliocentric system of the world" is often used in a broader sense, when the universe is considered to be unlimited and without a center. Then the meaning of this term is that the stars are, on average, stationary relative to the Sun, i.e. The sun, at least from a kinematic point of view, is one of the stars. The heliocentric system of the world can be considered in any reference system, including the geocentric one, in which the Earth is chosen as the origin. In this frame of reference, the Earth is motionless and the Sun revolves around the Earth, but the world system still remains heliocentric, since the mutual configuration of the Sun and stars remains unchanged. On the contrary, even if we consider the geocentric system of the world in the heliocentric frame of reference, it will still be the geocentric system of the world, since the stars will move in it with a period of one year.

2. Planetary configurations

2.1. Outer and inner planets

2.2. backward movements

Retrograde movements of the planets

The backward motions of the planets (especially clearly observed in the outer planets), which have been the main mystery of astronomy since ancient times, in the heliocentric system are explained by the fact that the angular velocities of the planets decrease with increasing distance from the Sun. As a result, when the planet is observed in the same part of the sky as the Sun, it makes an apparent movement relative to the stars in the same (direct) direction as the Sun: from west to east. However, when the Earth passes between the Sun and the planet, it seems to be ahead of the planet, as a result of which the latter moves against the background of the stars in the opposite direction, from east to west. It follows that the planets make retrograde motions near oppositions, when the planets are closest to the Earth and, as a result, are the brightest when observed from the Earth.

2.3. Relationship between synodic and sidereal periods of planetary revolutions; Babylonian periods

In the heliocentric system, the following relationship is established between the synodic S and sidereal T orbital periods of the outer planets:

where Y- the duration of the earth (stellar) year. From here follow the ratios empirically obtained by the astronomers of Ancient Babylon (the so-called target annual periods):

If the outer planet does n full revolutions along the ecliptic (relative to the stars) for m years, then during this time passes k = m − n synodic periods of a given planet ( k , m , n- whole numbers).

For example, for Mars k = 37 , m = 79 , n= 42 , for Jupiter k = 76 , m = 83 , n= 7 , for Saturn k = 57 , m = 59 , n = 2 .

From the point of view of the geocentric system, these relationships are a mystery. But they automatically follow from the above formula obtained in the framework of heliocentrism, since by definition mY = kS (m is such an integer number of Earth years for which the planet makes n whole revolutions along the ecliptic) and the magnitude k , m and n are inversely proportional, respectively, to the values S , Y and T .

2.4. Distances to planets

Determination of distances to the inner planets

In a heliocentric system, using simple geometric reasoning and a few observational data, the average distances from the Sun to the planets (assuming circular concentric orbits) are easily determined, which is impossible in the framework of geocentrism. For an inner planet, it is sufficient to know its maximum angular distance from the Sun θ (greatest elongation). Considering the triangle SPT (angle SPT is a right angle), it is easy to see that

(see figure on the right), where a- astronomical unit (average distance from the Earth to the Sun). For outer planets, it is necessary to determine the synodic period of the planet from observations S and time span t between the opposition of the planet and the moment of quadrature (when the planet is visible from the Earth at a right angle to the Sun). Next, you need to find using the formula S − 1 = Y − 1 + T − 1 , period T rotation of the planet around the sun. Knowing this value, one can find the angles α and β passed by the planet and the Earth in their orbits during the time t :

Determination of distances to outer planets

(corner STP is straight, see figure on the right). The required distance turns out to be

It was with the help of such considerations that Copernicus first calculated the relative distances of the planets from the Sun.

2.5. Phases of Mercury and Venus

Venus phase sequence

Since all planets shine by the reflected light of the Sun, they must experience a phase change. For Mercury and Venus, orbiting the Sun inside the Earth's orbit, the order of phase change should be as follows:

a planet at superior conjunction is seen as an almost complete disk;
the planet in the greatest elongation - in the form of a semicircle, turned by a bulge towards the Sun;
the planet near the lower connection - in the form of a very narrow sickle;
the planet should not be observed directly in the lower conjunction, since its unlit hemisphere is facing the Earth.

It is this order of phase change that takes place in reality, as was first established by Galileo.

3. Empirical evidence for the motion of the Earth around the Sun

Annual parallaxes of stars

All of the above applies not only to the heliocentric system, but also to a combined system (like the system of Tycho Brahe), in which all the planets revolve around the Sun, which, in turn, moves around the Earth. There is, however, evidence for the motion of the Earth around the Sun.

3.1. Annual parallaxes of stars

Even in ancient times, it was known that the translational motion of the Earth should lead to a parallactic displacement of the stars. Due to the remoteness of the stars, parallaxes were first found only in the 19th century (almost simultaneously by V. Ya. Struve, F. Bessel and T. Henderson), which was direct (and long-awaited) evidence of the Earth's motion around the Sun.

The backward motions of the planets take place for the same reason as the annual parallaxes of the stars, they can be called the annual parallaxes of the planets.

3.2. Aberration of starlight

Due to the vector addition of the speed of light and the orbital speed of the Earth, when observing stars, the telescope has to be tilted relative to the Earth-star line. This phenomenon (light aberration) was discovered and correctly explained in 1728 by James Bradley, who was looking for annual parallaxes. The aberration of light turned out to be the first observational confirmation of the motion of the Earth around the Sun and at the same time the second proof of the finiteness of the speed of light (after Römer explained the irregularity in the motion of Jupiter's satellites). Unlike parallax, the angle of aberration does not depend on the distance from the star and is entirely determined by the Earth's orbital velocity. For all stars, it is equal to the same value: 18".

Annual variation of radial velocities of stars

3.3. Annual variation of radial velocities of stars

For evidence of the rotation of the Earth around its axis, see the article Daily rotation of the Earth.

4. History of the heliocentric system

4.1. Heliocentrism in Ancient Greece

The idea of the Earth's motion originated within the framework of the Pythagorean school. The Pythagorean Philolaus of Croton promulgated a system of the world in which the Earth is one of the planets; however, so far we have been talking about its rotation (per day) around the mystical Central Fire, and not the Sun. Aristotle rejected this system, among other things, because it predicted the parallactic displacement of stars.

Less speculative was the hypothesis of Heraclides Pontus, according to which the Earth makes a daily rotation around its axis. In addition, Heraclid, apparently, suggested that Mercury and Venus revolve around the Sun and only with him - around the Earth. Perhaps Archimedes also adhered to this view, believing that Mars also revolves around the Sun, the orbit of which in this case should have covered the Earth, and not lie between it and the Sun, as in the case of Mercury and Venus. There is reason to believe that Heraclid had a theory according to which the Earth, the Sun and the planets revolve around one point - the center of the planetary system. According to Theophrastus, Plato, in his later years, regretted that he had given the Earth a central place in the universe that was not suitable for her.

Heliocentrism made it possible to solve the main problems that faced ancient Greek astronomy, since they dominated at the beginning of the 3rd century BC. e. geocentric views were clearly in crisis. The most common version of geocentrism at that time, the theory of homocentric spheres by Eudoxus, Callippus and Aristotle, was unable to explain the change in the apparent brightness of the planets and the apparent size of the Moon, which the Greeks correctly associated with a change in the distance to these celestial bodies. The heliocentric system naturally explained the backward motions of the planets. It also allowed to establish the order of the luminaries. The Greeks postulated a relationship between the proximity of a celestial body to the “sphere of fixed stars” and the sidereal period of its movement: for example, the most slowly moving Saturn was considered the farthest from us, then (in order of approach to the Earth) Jupiter and Mars went; The moon turned out to be the closest celestial body to the Earth. The difficulties of this scheme were associated with the Sun, Mercury and Venus, since all these bodies had the same sidereal periods (in the sense used in ancient astronomy), equal to one year. This difficulty was easily solved in the heliocentric system, where one year turned out to be equal to the period of the Earth's motion; at the same time, the periods of motion (now - revolutions around the Sun) of Mercury and Venus went in the same order as their distances to the new center of the world, which could be established by the method described above.

Among the immediate supporters of the hypothesis of Aristarchus, only the Babylonian Seleucus (first half of the 2nd century BC) is mentioned. From this it is usually concluded that heliocentrism had no other supporters, that is, it was not accepted by Hellenic science. However, the very mention of Seleucus as a follower of Aristarchus is very significant, since it means the penetration of heliocentrism even on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, which in itself testifies to the wide popularity of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe motion of the Earth. Moreover, Sextus Empiricus mentions the followers of Aristarchus in the plural. A rather sympathetic reference to the Aristarchus hypothesis in Archimedes' Psammitus (the main source of our information about this hypothesis) suggests that Archimedes at least did not rule out this hypothesis. A number of authors have argued in favor of the widespread occurrence of heliocentrism in antiquity. It is possible, in particular, that the geocentric theory of planetary motion, set forth in Ptolemy's Almagest, is a revised heliocentric system. The Italian mathematician Lucio Russo (Lucio Russo) gave a number of evidence of the development in the Hellenistic era of the dynamics of the heliocentric system based on a general idea of the law of inertia and the attraction of planets to the Sun.

However, heliocentrism was eventually abandoned by the Greeks. The main reason may be the general crisis of science that began after the 2nd century BC. e. Astrology takes the place of astronomy. Philosophy is dominated by mysticism or outright religious dogmatism: Stoicism, later Neo-Pythagoreanism and Neo-Platonism. On the other hand, those few philosophical schools that generally profess rationalism (Epicureans, skeptics) have one thing in common: disbelief in the possibility of knowing nature. So, the Epicureans, even after Aristotle and Aristarchus, considered it impossible to determine the true cause of the phases of the moon and considered the Earth to be flat. In such an atmosphere, religious accusations such as those brought against Aristarchus could lead astronomers and physicists, even if they were supporters of heliocentrism, to try to refrain from public promulgation of their views, which could eventually lead to their oblivion.

Geocentric system of the world (page from a 1552 book)

For scientific arguments in favor of the immobility and centrality of the Earth, put forward by ancient Greek astronomers, see the article Geocentric system of the world.

After the 2nd century A.D. e. in the Hellenistic world, geocentrism was firmly established, based on the philosophy of Aristotle and the planetary theory of Ptolemy, in which the loop-like motion of the planets was explained using a combination of deferents and epicycles. The "physical" foundation of Ptolemy's theory was the Aristotelian theory of crystal celestial spheres that carried the planets. An essential feature of the teachings of Aristotle was the sharp opposition of the "supralunar" and "sublunar" worlds. The supralunar world (where all celestial bodies belonged) was considered an ideal world, not subject to any changes. On the contrary, everything that was in the sublunar region, including the Earth, was considered subject to constant changes, deterioration.

4.2. Middle Ages

The system of the world in which Mercury and Venus revolve around the Sun (image 1573)

In the Middle Ages, the heliocentric system of the world was practically forgotten. Some notoriety has gained the notion that Mercury and Venus revolve around the Sun, which in turn revolves around the Earth. Probably, medieval authors learned about this theory from the work of the Latin author of the first half of the 5th century, Marcianus Capella, "The Marriage of Mercury and Philology", which was very popular in the early Middle Ages.

A number of researchers find traces of heliocentrism in some planetary theories of the great Indian astronomer Aryabhata (5th century AD). Thus, the outstanding mathematician and historian of science Bartel van der Waerden notes the following evidence that these theories were based on the heliocentric theory:

Aryabhata considered the Earth to rotate around its axis. In a purely geocentric system, there is no need for this, since the daily rotation of the Earth in no way simplifies the system of the world. On the contrary, in a heliocentric system this rotation is necessary. Passing from heliocentrism to geocentrism, the axial rotation of the Earth can either be preserved or discarded, depending on the personal views of the researcher.
In one of the theories of Aryabhata (the so-called "midnight system"), the parameters of the deferent of Venus exactly coincide with the parameters of the geocentric orbit of the Sun. This is how it should be in a heliocentric system, since both of these curves are in fact a reflection of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
Among the parameters of his planetary theories, Aryabhata cites the heliocentric periods of planetary motion, including Mercury and Venus.

At present, the dominant point of view is that the source of medieval Indian astronomy is Greek pre-Ptolemaic astronomy. According to Van der Waerden, the Greeks had a heliocentric theory, developed to the point of being able to predict ephemerides, which was then reworked into a geocentric one, similar to what Tycho Brahe did with Copernican theory. This revised theory must inevitably be the theory of epicycles, since in the frame of reference associated with the Earth, the movement of the planets objectively occurs according to a combination of movements along the deferent and the epicycle. Further, according to van der Waerden, she penetrated into India. Aryabhata himself and later astronomers may not have been aware of the heliocentric basis of this theory. Subsequently, according to van der Waerden, this theory passed to Muslim astronomers, who compiled the "Shah Tables" - planetary ephemeris used for astrological predictions.

Nicholas Orem

Al-Biruni spoke sympathetically about Ariabhata's assumption about the daily rotation of the Earth. But he himself, apparently, ultimately leaned towards the immobility of the Earth.

4.3. Early Renaissance

At the beginning of the Renaissance, the mobility of the Earth was argued by Nicholas of Cusa, but his discussion was purely philosophical, not related to the explanation of specific astronomical phenomena: most likely, he meant translational movement around a poorly defined and constantly moving center. Leonardo da Vinci spoke rather vaguely on this subject. Both of these thinkers considered the Earth, in principle, identical in nature with the celestial bodies.

In 1450, a Latin translation of Archimedean Psammit appeared, which mentions the heliocentric system of Aristarchus of Samos. Regiomontanus, the leading European astronomer of the Renaissance, was well acquainted with this work, who copied the entire treatise of Archimedes by hand during his stay in Italy. In private correspondence, he noted that "the movement of the stars must undergo tiny changes due to the movement of the Earth"; perhaps he was simply conveying the argument of Aristarchus, whose views he might have known through the Psammit. Sometimes he is also credited with the assumption of the rotation of the Earth around its axis, also expressed in a private letter. However, in his published writings, Regiomontanus remained geocentric.

The motion of the Earth was also mentioned at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries. In 1499, this hypothesis was discussed by the Italian professor Francesco Capuano, and he meant not only the rotational, but also the translational motion of the Earth (without specifying the center of motion). Both hypotheses were rejected for the same reasons as those of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. In 1501, the Italian mathematician Giorgio Valla mentioned the Pythagorean doctrine of the movement of the Earth around the Central Fire and argued that Mercury and Venus revolve around the Sun.

4.4. Copernicus

Nicholas Copernicus

Finally, heliocentrism was revived only in the 16th century, when the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus developed the theory of planetary motion around the Sun based on the Pythagorean principle of uniform circular motions. He published the results of his labors in the book On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres, published in 1543. One of the reasons for the return to heliocentrism was Copernicus' disagreement with the Ptolemaic theory of the equant; in addition, he considered the disadvantage of all geocentric theories that they do not allow one to determine the "shape of the world and the proportionality of its parts", that is, the scale of the planetary system. It is not clear what influence Aristarchus had on Copernicus (in the manuscript of his book, Copernicus mentioned Aristarchus' heliocentrism, but this reference disappeared in the final edition of the book).

Copernicus believed that the Earth makes three movements:

Rotation around the axis with a period of one day, resulting in a daily rotation of the celestial sphere;
Movement around the Sun with a period of a year, resulting in backward movements of the planets;
The so-called declinary movement with a period of about one year also leads to the fact that the Earth's axis moves approximately parallel to itself (a slight inequality in the periods of the second and third movements manifests itself in the pre-equinoxes).

However, the Copernican theory cannot be called heliocentric in full, since the Earth in it partly retained a special status:

the center of the planetary system was not the sun, but the center of the earth's orbit;
of all the planets, the Earth was the only one that moved uniformly in its orbit, while the orbital speed of the other planets varied.

The first printed image of the solar system (a page from the book of Copernicus)

Nevertheless, he was given an impetus for the further development of the heliocentric theory of planetary motion, the accompanying problems of mechanics and cosmology. By declaring the Earth one of the planets, Copernicus eliminated the sharp gap between the "supra-lunar" and "sub-lunar" worlds, characteristic of Aristotle's philosophy.

4.5. The first Copernicans and their opponents

The leading trend in the perception of Copernicus' theory throughout the 16th century was the use of the mathematical apparatus of his theory for astronomical calculations and the almost complete disregard for his new, heliocentric cosmology. The beginning of this trend was laid by the preface to the book of Copernicus, written by its publisher, the Lutheran theologian Andreas Osiander. Osiander writes that the motion of the Earth is a clever computational trick, but Copernicus should not be taken literally. Since Osiander did not include his name in the preface, many in the 16th century believed that this was the opinion of Nicolaus Copernicus himself. The book of Copernicus was studied by the astronomers of the University of Wittenberg, the most famous of which was Erasmus Reinhold, who welcomed the refusal of the author Copernicus from the equant and compiled new tables of planetary motions (Prussian tables) based on his theory. But the main thing that Copernicus has - a new cosmological system - neither Reinhold nor other Wittenberg astronomers seem to have noticed.

Almost the only scientists of the first three decades after the publication of the book On the rotations of the celestial spheres Those who accepted the theory of Copernicus were the German astronomer Georg Joachim Reticus, who at one time collaborated with Copernicus, considered himself his student and even published (even before Copernicus, in 1540) a work outlining the new system of the world, as well as the astronomer and surveyor Gemma Frisius. A friend of Copernicus, Bishop Tiedemann Giese, was also a supporter of Copernicus.

And only in the 70s - 90s of the XVI century. astronomers began to show interest in the new system of the world. It is stated and defended by astronomers Thomas Digges, Christoph Rothmann and Michael Möstlin, physicist Simon Stevin, philosopher Giordano Bruno; theologian Diego de Zuniga uses the idea of the movement of the Earth to interpret some of the words of the Bible. Perhaps the heliocentrists of this period also included the famous scientists Giambatista Benedetti, William Gilbert, Thomas Harriot. Some authors, rejecting the translational motion of the Earth, accepted its rotation around its axis: astronomer Nicholas Reimers Baer, also known as Ursus, philosopher Francesco Patrici.

The opponents of the heliocentric theory had two kinds of arguments.

(A) Against the rotation of the Earth on its own axis. Scientists of the 16th century could already estimate the linear speed of rotation: about 500 m / s at the equator.

Rotating, the Earth would experience colossal centrifugal forces that would inevitably tear it apart.
If the Earth rotated, all light objects on its surface would scatter in all directions of the Cosmos.
If the Earth rotated, any thrown object would deviate towards the west, and the clouds would float, along with the Sun, from east to west.
Celestial bodies move because they are made of imponderable thin matter, but what force can make the huge heavy Earth move?

Tycho Brahe's world system.

(B) Against the forward motion of the Earth.

No improvement in the accuracy of the Prussian tables compared to the Alfonsine tables based on the Ptolemaic theory.
The absence of annual parallaxes of stars.

Tycho Brahe proposed a compromise geo-heliocentric system of the world, in which the stationary Earth is at the center of the world, the Sun, Moon and stars revolve around it, but the planets revolve around the Sun. Since the end of the XVI century. it is this combined system of the world (essentially a modernized form of geocentric theory) that becomes the main competitor of heliocentrism.

4.6. Kepler

Johannes Kepler

The orbit of each of the planets is a flat curve, and the planes of all planetary orbits intersect in the Sun. This meant that the Sun was at the geometric center of the planetary system, while Copernicus had the center of the earth's orbit. Among other things, this made it possible for the first time to explain the motion of the planets perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. The very concept of the orbit, apparently, was also first introduced by Kepler, since even Copernicus believed that the planets were transported with the help of solid spheres, as in Aristotle.
The earth moves in its orbit unevenly. Thus, for the first time, the Earth was dynamically equalized with all the other planets.
Each planet moves in an ellipse with the Sun at one of its foci (Kepler's first law).
Kepler discovered the law of areas (Kepler's II law): the segment connecting the planet and the Sun describes equal areas in equal periods of time. Since the distance of the planet from the Sun also changed (according to the first law), this resulted in the variability of the speed of the planet in its orbit. Having established his first two laws, Kepler for the first time abandoned the dogma of the uniform circular motions of the planets, which had dominated the minds of researchers since Pythagorean times. Moreover, unlike the equant model, the speed of the planet varied depending on the distance from the Sun, and not on some incorporeal point. Thus, the Sun turned out to be not only the geometric, but also the dynamic center of the planetary system.
Kepler derived a mathematical law (Kepler's III law), which linked the periods of revolutions of the planets and the sizes of their orbits: the squares of the periods of revolutions of the planets are related as cubes of the semi-major axes of their orbits. For the first time, the regularity of the structure of the planetary system, the existence of which was already suspected by the ancient Greeks, received mathematical formalization.

On the basis of the laws of planetary motion discovered by him, Kepler compiled tables of planetary motions (Rudolphin tables), which, in terms of accuracy, far left behind all the tables compiled earlier.

4.7. Galileo

Galileo Galilei

At the same time as Kepler, at the other end of Europe, in Italy, Galileo Galilei worked, providing dual support for the heliocentric theory. Firstly, with the help of the telescope he invented, Galileo made a number of discoveries, either indirectly confirming the theory of Copernicus, or knocking the ground out from under the feet of his opponents - supporters of Aristotle:

The surface of the moon is not smooth, as it should be celestial body in the teachings of Aristotle, but has mountains and depressions, like the Earth. In addition, Galileo explained the ashen light of the moon by the reflection of sunlight by the earth. As a result, the Earth became a body similar in all respects to the Moon. The contradiction between earthly and heavenly, postulated by Aristotle, was eliminated.
The four moons of Jupiter (later called the Galilean). Thus, he refuted the assertion that the Earth cannot revolve around the Sun, since the Moon revolves around it (this thesis was often put forward by opponents of Copernicus): Jupiter obviously had to revolve either around the Earth (as in Ptolemy and Aristotle) or around the Sun (as Aristarchus and Copernicus).
A change in the phases of Venus, indicating that Venus revolves around the Sun.
Galileo established that Milky Way consists of a large number of stars, indistinguishable to the naked eye. This discovery did not fit into the cosmology of Aristotle at all, but it was quite compatible with the theory of Copernicus, from which the huge remoteness of the stars followed.
Galileo was one of the first to discover sunspots. Observations on spots led Galileo to the conclusion that the Sun rotates around its axis. The very existence of spots and their constant variability disproved Aristotle's thesis about the "perfection" of the heavens.
Galileo showed that the apparent sizes of the planets in various configurations (for example, in opposition and conjunction with the Sun) change in such a ratio, as follows from the theory of Copernicus.
On the contrary, when observing stars through a telescope, their apparent sizes do not change. This conclusion refuted one of the main arguments of Tycho Brahe, which consisted in the huge size of the stars, which follow from the unobservability of their annual parallaxes. Galileo concluded that when observing stars through a telescope, their apparent size does not change, therefore, Brahe's estimate of the angular sizes of stars is greatly exaggerated.

The second direction of Galileo's activity was the establishment of new laws of dynamics. They discovered inertia and the principle of relativity, which made it possible to eliminate the traditional objections of the opponents of heliocentrism: if the Earth is moving, why don't we notice it?

4.8. After Kepler and Galileo

Heliocentric system of the world (from Selenography by Jan Hevelius, 1647)

Finding himself in the same Copernican camp as Kepler, Galileo never accepted his laws of planetary motion. This also applies to other heliocentrists of the first third of the 17th century, such as the Dutch astronomer Philip van Lansberg. However, astronomers of a later time could clearly verify the accuracy of Keplerian's Rudolphin Tables. So, one of Kepler's predictions was the passage of Mercury across the solar disk in 1631, which the French astronomer Pierre Gassendi actually managed to observe. Kepler's tables were further refined by the English astronomer Jeremy Horrocks, who predicted the passage of Venus across the disk of the Sun in 1639, which he also observed together with another English astronomer, William Crabtree.

However, even the phenomenal accuracy of Kepler's theory (substantially refined by Horrocks) did not convince geocentric skeptics, since many problems of the heliocentric theory remained unresolved. First of all, this is the problem of the annual parallaxes of stars, the search for which was carried out throughout the 17th century. Despite a significant increase in the accuracy of measurements (which was achieved through the use of telescopes), these searches remained inconclusive, which indicated that the stars were even further away than Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler suggested. This, in turn, again put on the agenda the problem of the size of stars, noted by Tycho Brahe. Only at the end of the 17th century, scientists realized that what they took for disks of stars was actually a purely instrumental effect (Airy disk): stars have such small angular dimensions that their disks cannot be seen even with the most powerful telescopes.

The main competitor of the heliocentric theory at that time was no longer the theory of Ptolemy, but the geo-heliocentric system of the world, supplemented by the assumption of elliptical orbits. Although the Copernican system was supported by a number of prominent scientists of the 17th century (including Otto von Guericke, Ismael Bulliald, Christian Huygens, Gilles Roberval, Robert Hooke), the numerical superiority remained on the side of their opponents. Until the end of the 17th century, many scientists simply refused to choose between these hypotheses, pointing out that, from the point of view of observations, the heliocentric and geo-heliocentric system of the system are equivalent; of course, remaining on such a point of view, it was impossible to develop the dynamics of the planetary system. Among the supporters of this "positivist" point of view were, for example, Giovanni Domenico Cassini, Ole Römer, Blaise Pascal.

4.9. Heliocentrism and religion

4.9.1. Movement of the Earth in the Light of Holy Scripture

Almost immediately after the heliocentric system was put forward, it was noted that it contradicted some passages from the Holy Scriptures. For example, an excerpt from one of the Psalms

You have set the earth on solid foundations; it will not shake forever and ever.

The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries to its place where it rises.

An excerpt from the book of Joshua was very popular:

Jesus called to the Lord on the day that the Lord delivered the Amorites into the hands of Israel, when he beat them in Gibeon, and they were beaten before the face of the children of Israel, and said before the Israelites: Stop, the sun is over Gibeon, and the moon is over the valley of Avalon. !

Proponents of the rotation of the Earth defended in two directions. First, they pointed out that the Bible was written in a language understandable to ordinary people, and if its authors gave scientifically clear formulations, it would not be able to fulfill its main, religious mission. In addition, it was noted that some passages of the Bible should be interpreted allegorically (see the article Biblical allegorism). So, Galileo noted that if Holy Scripture is taken entirely literally, then it turns out that God has hands, he is subject to emotions such as anger, etc. In general, the main idea of the defenders of the doctrine of the movement of the Earth was that science and religion have different goals: science considers the phenomena of the material world, guided by the arguments of reason, the goal of religion is the moral improvement of man, his salvation. Galileo in this connection quoted Cardinal Baronio that the Bible teaches how to ascend to heaven, and not how they are arranged.

4.9.2. Catholic Church

Galileo before the court of the Inquisition

In the second half of the 20s of the 17th century, Galileo considered that the situation was gradually being discharged and released his famous work “Dialogues on the two main systems of the world, Ptolemaic and Copernican” (1632). Although censorship allowed the publication of the “Dialogue”, very soon the Pope Urban VIII considered the book heretical, and Galileo was brought before the court of the Inquisition. In 1633 he was forced to publicly renounce his views.

The trial of Galileo had a negative impact both on the development of science and on the authority of the Catholic Church. Rene Descartes was forced to refuse to publish his work on the system of the world, Gilles Roberval and Ismael Bulliald postponed the publication of already finished works. Many scholars refrained from expressing their true opinions for fear of being persecuted by the Inquisition, probably including Giovanni Borelli and Pierre Gassendi. Some other astronomers (mostly Jesuits, including Riccioli) sincerely believed that the ecclesiastical ban on heliocentrism was the decisive argument in favor of geocentrism, outweighing all scientific arguments; it can be assumed that if this prohibition had not existed, they would have made a much greater contribution to the development of theoretical astronomy in the 17th century.

In France, however, the ban on the heliocentric system was not ratified, and it gradually spread among scientists.

4.9.3. Protestants

Even during the life of Copernicus, the leaders of the Protestants Luther, Melanchthon and Calvin spoke out against heliocentrism, declaring that this doctrine contradicts Holy Scripture. Martin Luther, for example, said of Copernicus in a private conversation:

This madman wants to turn the whole of astronomy upside down, but Holy Bible tells us that Joshua ordered the Sun to stop, not the Earth.

Johannes Kepler had to answer questions about the compatibility of the heliocentric system with Scripture to the leaders of the Protestant communities.

4.9.4. Russian Orthodox Church

The clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church criticized the heliocentric system of the world until the beginning of the 20th century. Until 1815, with the approval of censorship, a school manual was published Destruction of the Copernican system, in which the author called the heliocentric system a "false philosophical system" and an "outrageous opinion". The Ural Bishop Arseniy, in a letter dated March 21, 1908, advised teachers, when introducing students to the Copernican system, not to give it “unconditional justice”, but to teach it “like some kind of fable”. The last work in which the heliocentric system was criticized was the book of the priest Job Nemtsev, published in 1914. The circle of the earth is motionless, but the sun walks, in which the Copernican system was "refuted" with the help of traditional quotations from the Bible.

4.9.5. Judaism

The emergence of the Copernican system did not meet with particularly ardent resistance, since among the Jews the system of Ptolemy and the philosophy of Aristotle were never introduced into dogma, but, on the contrary, met with resistance. The first Jewish authors after Copernicus are sympathetic to him: Maharal of Prague, David Hans and Joseph Delmedigo [check the link] Subsequent Jewish literature of the 18th century was generally positive about the heliocentric system: r. Jonathan ben Yosef from Rozhany, Israel Halevi, Baruch ben Yaakov Shik. [check the link]

However, as it was realized that the Copernican system contradicted not only Ptolemy, but also the Talmud and the simple meaning of the Bible, the Copernican system appeared opponents. For example, r. Tuvia Hacohen of Metz calls Copernicus "the first-born of Satan", as he contradicts the verses from Ecclesiastes: "But the earth stands forever" (Ecclesiastes 1:4).

The structure of the universe according to Thomas Digges

4.10. Heliocentrism and cosmology

The Universe of Giordano Bruno (illustration from Kepler's book Summary of Copernican astronomy, 1618). Symbol M marked our world.

Kepler disagreed with these views. He represented the universe as a ball of finite radius with a cavity in the middle, where the solar system was located. Kepler considered the spherical layer outside this cavity to be filled with stars - self-luminous objects, but having a fundamentally different nature than the Sun. One of his arguments is the immediate forerunner of the photometric paradox. On the contrary, Galileo, leaving open the question of the infinity of the universe, considered the stars to be distant suns. In the middle - the second half of the XVII century, these views were supported by Rene Descartes, Otto von Guericke and Christian Huygens. Huygens owns the first attempt to determine the distance to a star (Sirius) on the assumption that its luminosity is equal to that of the sun.

4.11. Classical mechanics and the assertion of heliocentrism

The advent of the heliocentric system greatly stimulated the development of physics. First of all, it was necessary to answer the question why the movement of the Earth is not felt by people and is not manifested in terrestrial experiments. It was on this path that the fundamental provisions of classical mechanics were formulated: the principle of relativity and the principle of inertia; it is not surprising that this topic was originally discussed by the supporters of heliocentrism, including Digges, Bruno and especially Galileo; their predecessors in this matter were Nicholas Orem and Ali al-Kushchi.

Isaac Newton

Further, on the basis of these principles, it was necessary to give a dynamic explanation of planetary movements. It was practically impossible to do this within the framework of geocentrism, since, without resorting to crystal spheres, it was impossible to give a physical interpretation of the Ptolemaic epicycles. On the contrary, in the heliocentric theory, the path to the study of the dynamics of the planetary system was opened immediately after the publication of Kepler's laws. Kepler was the first to suggest that a force acts on the planets from the side of the Sun, decreasing inversely proportional to the distance, but he did not find the correct mechanism of its action. In the next generation, Ismael Bulliald attempted to explain the motion of the planets without invoking this force. However, in 1666, Giovanni Alfonso Borelli again returned to the assumption of the existence of a "solar force". In his opinion, the movement of the planets occurs in an environment of competition between two forces: the force of attraction to the Sun and the centrifugal force.

The task of deriving Kepler's laws, based on the principle of inertia and the assumption of the existence of a force directed towards the Sun, was apparently first posed by Robert Hooke in the 70s of the 17th century. Hooke explained the motion of the planet as a superposition of inertia (tangential to the trajectory) and falling on a gravitating center and guessed that the gravitational force should decrease inversely with the square of the distance. But the honor of deriving Kepler's laws from the law of universal gravitation belongs to Isaac Newton, after the publication of the "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" in 1687, all disputes about the system of the world, which had not subsided for a century and a half, lost their meaning. The sun firmly occupied the center of the planetary system, being one of the many stars in the vast universe.

4.12. Significance of heliocentrism in the history of science

The heliocentric system of the world, put forward in the III century BC. e. Aristarchus and revived in the 16th century by Copernicus, made it possible to establish the parameters of the planetary system and discover the laws of planetary motions. The justification of heliocentrism required the creation of classical mechanics and led to the discovery of the law of universal gravitation. Heliocentrism opened the way for stellar astronomy (stars are distant suns) and cosmology of the infinite Universe. The main content of the scientific revolution of the 17th century was the establishment of heliocentrism.

Notes

Kogut et al., 1993. - arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9312056
Zhitomirsky, 2001.
See Heath 1913, p. 278-279.
Van der Waerden 1978.
Archimedes, Psammit - www.math.ru/lib/book/djvu/klassik/arhimed.djvu
Plutarch, On the face visible on the disk of the Moon (excerpt 6) - naturalhistory.narod.ru/Person/Plytarch/Plytarch_2.htm
Sextus Empiricus, Against the Scientists (excerpt 346) - filosof.historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000664/st010.shtml
Rawlins, 1991.
Christianidis et al. 2002.
Thurston, 2002.
Veselovsky, 1961, p. 63.
Rawlins 1987.
Idelson, 1975, p. 175.
Russo 1994, 2004.
McColley 1961, p. 159; Grant 2009, p. 313.
Van der Waerden 1987.
Biruni, Canon of Mas'ud. Book 1, ch.1 - naturalhistory.narod.ru/Person/Lib/Biruni_1/N_1.htm
Consisting of Ulugbek's madrasah and his observatory.
Ragep 2001, Jalalov 1958, p. 384.
Jalalov 1958, p. 384.
Ibid, p. 383.
Jean Buridan on the diurnal rotation of Earth - www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/HIS-SCI-STUDY-GUIDE/0039_jeanBuridan.html; see also Lanskoy 1999.
Nicole Oresme on the Book of the Heavens and the world of Aristotle - www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/HIS-SCI-STUDY-GUIDE/0040_nicoleOresme.html;
Koire 2001, p. ten.
E. Rosen, Regiomontanus - www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2830903612.html
1 2 McColley 1961, b. 151.
Shank 2009.
McColley 1961, b. 160.
Veselovsky 1961, p. 14. Online - naturalhistory.narod.ru/Person/Antic/Aristarch/Aris_Im/2.jpg
Barker, 1990
There is an assumption that a similar theory of the structure of the Universe was developed by astronomers of the Samarkand Observatory of the 15th century. (Jalalov 1958) and an Indian astronomer of the 15th century. Nilakantha (Ramasubramanian et al. 1994).
Koyre 1943.
Grant 1984.
Psalm 103:5.
Ecclesiastes 1:5.
Bible, Book - www.bible.ru/bible/r/6/10 Joshua, chapter 10.
Rosen 1975b, Fantoli 1999, Lerner 2005.
Fantoli 1999.
Russel 1989.
Fantoli 1999, p. 42.
Rosen 1975a.
Vermij 2002 - www.knaw.nl/publicaties/pdf/991129.pdf.
Raykov, 1947, p. 364
1 2 Raykov, 1947, p. 375
Noah J. Efron. Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe. - www.jstor.org/pss/3653968Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 58, no. 4 (Oct., 1997), pp. 719-732
1 2 Copernicus in the Hebraic Literature from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century - www.jstor.org/stable/27089080 Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 38, no. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1977), pp. 211-226]. (en: André Neher)
The book "Shvut Yaakov" 3:20 (R. J. Reisner from Prague 1710-1789): "therefore, one should not rely on them (pagans), and they also say that the Earth is a ball, against what is said in the Talmud"
Hatam Sofer (1762-1839) "Kovets Tshuvot", 26, finds it difficult to say whether Copernicus is right.
The ultra-Orthodox leader Chazon Ish urged to fully believe the words of the Talmud, but still allowed to believe in the Copernican system. Hebrew אור ישראל ‎14:3 of 5769, Nissan, Chaim Rappaport. Hebrew והארץ לעולם עומדת ‎. Chaim Rappoport. "And the Earth stands forever" in Or Israel, 14:3. According to Maimonides, Spinoza and Us, p. M Angel).

History of astronomy
ancient period	Babylon \| Ancient Egypt \| Ancient China\| India \| Incas \| Maya \| Aztecs \| Australian aborigines \| Ancient Greece
Middle Ages	Islamic East \| Medieval Europe
The formation of theoretical astronomy	Heliocentric system of the world\| Kepler's laws
17th century	Law of gravity \|
18th century	Edmund Halley \| William Herschel
19th century	Discovery of Neptune \|
20th century	Hubble Telescope \|
See also: Portal:Astronomy

Ancient Greek astronomy
Astronomers	Akoray · Aglaonica · Agrippa · Anaximander · Andronicus · Apollonius · Arat of Sol · Aristarch · Aristillus · Attalius of Rhodes · Autolycus · bion · Callippus · Cleomedes · Cleostratus of Tenedos · Conon of Samos · Eratosthenes · Euctemon · Eudoxus of Knidos · Gemin · Heraclid Pontus · Geeket · Hipparchus · Hippocrates of Chios · Hypsicle · Menelaus of Alexandria · Meton of Athens · Oenopides of Chios · Philip Opuntsky · Philolaus · Posidonius · Claudius Ptolemy · Pytheas · Seleucus · Sosigenes of Alexandria · Sosigen (peripatetic) · Strabo · Thales of Miletus · Theodosius · Theon of Alexandria · Theon of Smyrna · Timocharis
Scientific works	Almagest(Ptolemy) · Antikythera mechanism · armillary sphere · Astrolabe · dioptra · equatorial circle · Gnomon · Quadrant · Triquetrum
Scientific concepts	Callippus cycle · Celestial Spheres · Parallel · counter-earth · Epicycle · equant · Geocentric system of the world · Heliocentric system of the world · Hipparchus cycle · Metonic cycle · Octeteris · Solstice · The sphericity of the earth · sublunar sphere · Zodiac
Related topics	Babylonian astronomy · Astronomy ancient egypt · European astronomy · Indian astronomy · Islamic astronomy

The idea of ​​heliocentrism belongs to. See what the "Heliocentric system of the world" is in other dictionaries

Biography facts

Heliocentric system of the world of Copernicus

Evaluation of the theory of Copernicus by contemporaries

Meaning

About concepts

Planetary configurations

Outer and inner planets

backward movements

Aberration of starlight

Annual variation of radial velocities of stars

History of the heliocentric system

Heliocentrism in Ancient Greece

Middle Ages

Early Renaissance

Copernicus

The first Copernicans and their opponents

Kepler

After Kepler and Galileo

Assertion of heliocentrism and classical mechanics

Relativity of motion

gravity

Heliocentrism and cosmology

Heliocentrism and religion

Movement of the Earth in the Light of Holy Scripture

Catholic Church

Protestants

Russian Orthodox Church

Judaism

Significance of heliocentrism in the history of science

Notes

Links

Literature

see also

Features of the heliocentric system of the world

Heliocentrism in Antiquity and the Middle Ages

The scientific revolution of Nicolaus Copernicus

Followers and Opponents of Copernicus

Heliocentrism assertion

The concept of geocentrism

in the system of geocentrism

Justification of the geocentric system of the universe

Geocentrism in the Renaissance

Rejection of geocentrism

The essence of the heliocentric system of the world

Comparison of the geocentric and heliocentric systems of the world

Development of heliocentrism by Kepler

The influence of heliocentrism on the development of physics

Significance of the heliocentric system of the world

Conclusion

Plan:

Introduction

1. About concepts

2. Planetary configurations

2.1. Outer and inner planets

2.2. backward movements

2.3. Relationship between synodic and sidereal periods of planetary revolutions; Babylonian periods

2.4. Distances to planets

2.5. Phases of Mercury and Venus

3. Empirical evidence for the motion of the Earth around the Sun

3.1. Annual parallaxes of stars

3.2. Aberration of starlight

3.3. Annual variation of radial velocities of stars

4. History of the heliocentric system

4.1. Heliocentrism in Ancient Greece

4.2. Middle Ages

4.3. Early Renaissance

4.4. Copernicus

4.5. The first Copernicans and their opponents

4.6. Kepler

4.7. Galileo

4.8. After Kepler and Galileo

4.9. Heliocentrism and religion

4.9.1. Movement of the Earth in the Light of Holy Scripture

4.9.2. Catholic Church

4.9.3. Protestants

4.9.4. Russian Orthodox Church

4.9.5. Judaism

4.10. Heliocentrism and cosmology

4.11. Classical mechanics and the assertion of heliocentrism

The idea of heliocentrism belongs to. See what the "Heliocentric system of the world" is in other dictionaries