Copernican heliocentrism

Copernican heliocentrism is the astronomical model

developed by Nicolaus Copernicus and published in
1543. This model positioned the Sun at the center of
the Universe, motionless, with Earth and the other
planets orbiting around it in circular paths, modified
by epicycles, and at uniform speeds. The Copernican
model displaced the geocentric model of Ptolemy that
had prevailed for centuries, which had placed Earth at
the center of the Universe.

Although he had circulated an outline of his own

heliocentric theory to colleagues sometime before
1514, he did not decide to publish it until he was
urged to do so later by his pupil Rheticus. Heliocentric model from Nicolaus Copernicus' De
Copernicus's challenge was to present a practical revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the
Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres)
alternative to the Ptolemaic model by more elegantly
and accurately determining the length of a solar year
while preserving the metaphysical implications of a mathematically ordered cosmos. Thus, his
heliocentric model retained several of the Ptolemaic elements, causing inaccuracies, such as the planets'
circular orbits, epicycles, and uniform speeds,[1] while at the same time using ideas such as:

The Earth is one of several planets revolving around a stationary sun in a determined order.
The Earth has three motions: daily rotation, annual revolution, and annual tilting of its axis.
Retrograde motion of the planets is explained by the Earth's motion.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is small compared to the distance from the Sun to
the stars.

Background

Antiquity
Philolaus (4th century BCE) was one of the first to hypothesize movement of the Earth, probably inspired
by Pythagoras' theories about a spherical, moving globe. In the 3rd century BCE, Aristarchus of Samos
proposed what was, so far as is known, the first serious model of a heliocentric Solar System, having
developed some of Heraclides Ponticus' theories (speaking of a "revolution of the Earth on its axis" every
24 hours). Though his original text has been lost, a reference in Archimedes' book The Sand Reckoner
(Archimedis Syracusani Arenarius & Dimensio Circuli) describes a work in which Aristarchus advanced
the heliocentric model. Archimedes wrote:
 You [King Gelon] are aware the 'universe' is the name given by most astronomers to the sphere
the center of which is the center of the Earth, while its radius is equal to the straight line
between the center of the Sun and the center of the Earth. This is the common account as you
have heard from astronomers. But Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain
hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is
many times greater than the 'universe' just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars
and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a
circle, the Sun lying in the middle of the Floor, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated
about the same center as the Sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the Earth to
revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the center of the sphere
bears to its surface.[2]

— The Sand Reckoner

It is a common misconception that the heliocentric view was rejected by the contemporaries of
Aristarchus. This is the result of Gilles Ménage's translation of a passage from Plutarch's On the Apparent
Face in the Orb of the Moon. Plutarch reported that Cleanthes (a contemporary of Aristarchus and head of
the Stoics) as a worshiper of the Sun and opponent to the heliocentric model, was jokingly told by
Aristarchus that he should be charged with impiety. Ménage, shortly after the trials of Galileo and
Giordano Bruno, amended an accusative (identifying the object of the verb) with a nominative (the
subject of the sentence), and vice versa, so that the impiety accusation fell over the heliocentric sustainer.
The resulting misconception of an isolated and persecuted Aristarchus is still transmitted today.[3][4]

Ptolemaic system
The prevailing astronomical model of the cosmos in Europe in the
1,400 years leading up to the 16th century was the Ptolemaic
System, a geocentric model created by the Roman citizen Claudius
Ptolemy in his Almagest, dating from about 150 CE. Throughout
the Middle Ages it was spoken of as the authoritative text on
astronomy, although its author remained a little understood figure
frequently mistaken as one of the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt.[5] The
Ptolemaic system drew on many previous theories that viewed
Earth as a stationary center of the universe. Stars were embedded
in a large outer sphere which rotated relatively rapidly, while the
planets dwelt in smaller spheres between—a separate one for each
Line art drawing of Ptolemaic planet. To account for apparent anomalies in this view, such as the
system apparent retrograde motion of the planets, a system of deferents
and epicycles was used. The planet was said to revolve in a small
circle (the epicycle) about a center, which itself revolved in a
larger circle (the deferent) about a center on or near the Earth.[6]

A complementary theory to Ptolemy's employed homocentric spheres: the spheres within which the
planets rotated could themselves rotate somewhat. This theory predated Ptolemy (it was first devised by
Eudoxus of Cnidus; by the time of Copernicus it was associated with Averroes). Also popular with
astronomers were variations such as eccentrics—by which the rotational axis was offset and not
completely at the center. The planets were also made to have exhibit irregular motions that deviated from
a uniform and circular path. The eccentrics of the planets motions were analyzed to have made reverse
motions over periods of observations. This retrograde motion created the foundation for why these
particular pathways became known as epicycles.[7]

Ptolemy's unique contribution to this theory was the equant—a point about which the center of a planet's
epicycle moved with uniform angular velocity, but which was offset from the center of its deferent. This
violated one of the fundamental principles of Aristotelian cosmology—namely, that the motions of the
planets should be explained in terms of uniform circular motion, and was considered a serious defect by
many medieval astronomers.[8]

Aryabhata
In 499 CE, the Indian astronomer and mathematician Aryabhata, influenced by Greek astronomy,[9]
propounded a planetary model that explicitly incorporated Earth's rotation about its axis, which he
explains as the cause of what appears to be an apparent westward motion of the stars. He also believed
that the orbits of planets are elliptical.[10] Aryabhata's followers were particularly strong in South India,
where his principles of the diurnal rotation of Earth, among others, were followed and a number of
secondary works were based on them.[11]

Middle Ages

Islamic astronomers
Several Islamic astronomers questioned the Earth's apparent immobility[12][13] and centrality within the
universe.[14] Some accepted that the Earth rotates around its axis, such as Al-Sijzi,[15][16] who invented an
astrolabe based on a belief held by some of his contemporaries "that the motion we see is due to the
Earth's movement and not to that of the sky".[16][17] That others besides Al-Sijzi held this view is further
confirmed by a reference from an Arabic work in the 13th century which states: "According to the
geometers [or engineers] (muhandisīn), the earth is in constant circular motion, and what appears to be
the motion of the heavens is actually due to the motion of the earth and not the stars".[16]

In the 12th century, Nur ad-Din al-Bitruji proposed a complete alternative to the Ptolemaic system
(although not heliocentric).[18][19] He declared the Ptolemaic system as an imaginary model, successful at
predicting planetary positions but not real or physical. Al-Btiruji's alternative system spread through most
of Europe during the 13th century.[19] Mathematical techniques developed in the 13th to 14th centuries by
the Arab and Persian astronomers Mu'ayyad al-Din al-Urdi, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, and Ibn al-Shatir for
geocentric models of planetary motions closely resemble some of the techniques used later by Copernicus
in his heliocentric models.[20]

European astronomers post-Ptolemy

Martianus Capella (5th century CE) expressed the opinion that the planets Venus and Mercury did not go
about the Earth but instead circled the Sun.[21] Capella's model was discussed in the Early Middle Ages
by various anonymous 9th-century commentators[22] and Copernicus mentions him as an influence on his
own work.[23] Macrobius (420 CE) described a heliocentric model.[9] John Scotus Eriugena (815–877
CE) proposed a model reminiscent of that from Tycho Brahe.[9]
Since the 13th century, European scholars were well aware of problems with Ptolemaic astronomy. The
debate was precipitated by the reception by Averroes' criticism of Ptolemy, and it was again revived by
the recovery of Ptolemy's text and its translation into Latin in the mid-15th century.[24] Otto E.
Neugebauer in 1957 argued that the debate in 15th-century Latin scholarship must also have been
informed by the criticism of Ptolemy produced after Averroes, by the Ilkhanid-era (13th to 14th centuries)
Persian school of astronomy associated with the Maragheh observatory (especially the works of al-Urdi,
al-Tusi and al-Shatir).[25] It has been argued that Copernicus could have independently discovered the
Tusi couple or took the idea from Proclus's Commentary on the First Book of Euclid,[26] which
Copernicus cited.[27] Another possible source for Copernicus' knowledge of this mathematical device is
the Questiones de Spera of Nicole Oresme, who described how a reciprocating linear motion of a
celestial body could be produced by a combination of circular motions similar to those proposed by al-
Tusi.[28]

In Copernicus' day, the most up-to-date version of the Ptolemaic system was that of Georg von Peuerbach
(1423–1461) and his student Regiomontanus (1436–1476). The state of the question as received by
Copernicus is summarized in the Theoricae novae planetarum by Peuerbach, compiled from lecture notes
by Regiomontanus in 1454, but not printed until 1472. Peuerbach attempts to give a new, mathematically
more elegant presentation of Ptolemy's system, but he does not arrive at heliocentrism. Regiomontanus
was the teacher of Domenico Maria Novara da Ferrara, who was in turn the teacher of Copernicus. There
is a possibility that Regiomontanus had already arrived at a theory of heliocentrism before his death in
1476, as he paid particular attention to the heliocentric theory of Aristarchus in a late work and mentions
the "motion of the Earth" in a letter.[29]

The state of knowledge on planetary theory received by Copernicus is summarized in Peuerbach's

Theoricae Novae Planetarum (printed in 1472 by Regiomontanus). By 1470, the accuracy of
observations by the Vienna school of astronomy, of which Peuerbach and Regiomontanus were members,
was high enough to make the eventual development of heliocentrism inevitable, and indeed it is possible
that Regiomontanus did arrive at an explicit theory of heliocentrism before his death in 1476, some 30
years before Copernicus.[29]

Copernican theory
Copernicus' major work, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly
Spheres; first edition 1543 in Nuremberg, second edition 1566 in Basel),[30] was a compendium of six
books published during the year of his death, though he had arrived at his theory several decades earlier.
The work marks the beginning of the shift away from a geocentric (and anthropocentric) universe with
the Earth at its center. Copernicus held that the Earth is another planet revolving around the fixed Sun
once a year and turning on its axis once a day. But while Copernicus put the Sun at the center of the
celestial spheres, he did not put it at the exact center of the universe, but near it. Copernicus' system used
only uniform circular motions, correcting what was seen by many as the chief inelegance in Ptolemy's
system.

The Copernican model replaced Ptolemy's equant circles with more epicycles. 1,500 years of Ptolemy's
model helped to create a more accurate estimate of the planets' motions for Copernicus.[31] That is the
main reason that Copernicus' system had even more epicycles than Ptolemy's. The more epicycles proved
to have more accurate measurements of how the planets were truly positioned, "although not enough to
get excited about".[32] The Copernican system can be summarized in several propositions, as Copernicus
himself did in his early Commentariolus that he handed only to friends, probably in the 1510s. The "little
commentary" was never printed. Its existence was only known indirectly until a copy was discovered in
Stockholm around 1880, and another in Vienna a few years later.[33]

The major features of Copernican theory are:

1. Heavenly motions are uniform, eternal, and circular or compounded of several circles
(epicycles).
2. The center of the universe is near the Sun.
3. Around the Sun, in order, are Mercury, Venus, the Earth and Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,
and the fixed stars.
4. The Earth has three motions: daily rotation, annual revolution, and annual tilting of its axis.
5. Retrograde motion of the planets is explained by the Earth's motion, which in short was also
influenced by planets and other celestial bodies around Earth.
6. The distance from the Earth to the Sun is small compared to the distance to the stars.
Inspiration came to Copernicus not from observation of the planets, but from reading two authors, Cicero
and Plutarch. In Cicero's writings, Copernicus found an account of the theory of Hicetas. Plutarch
provided an account of the Pythagoreans Heraclides Ponticus, Philolaus, and Ecphantes. These authors
had proposed a moving Earth, which did not revolve around a central Sun. Copernicus cited Aristarchus
and Philolaus in an early manuscript of his book which survives, stating: "Philolaus believed in the
mobility of the earth, and some even say that Aristarchus of Samos was of that opinion".[34] For unknown
reasons (although possibly out of reluctance to quote pre-Christian sources), Copernicus did not include
this passage in the publication of his book.

Copernicus used what is now known as the Urdi lemma and the Tusi couple in the same planetary models
as found in Arabic sources.[35] Furthermore, the exact replacement of the equant by two epicycles used by
Copernicus in the Commentariolus was found in an earlier work by al-Shatir.[36] Al-Shatir's lunar and
Mercury models are also identical to those of Copernicus.[37] This has led some scholars to argue that
Copernicus must have had access to some yet to be identified work on the ideas of those earlier
astronomers.[38] However, no likely candidate for this conjectured work has come to light, and other
scholars have argued that Copernicus could well have developed these ideas independently of the late
Islamic tradition.[39] Nevertheless, Copernicus cited some of the Islamic astronomers whose theories and
observations he used in De Revolutionibus, namely al-Battani, Thabit ibn Qurra, al-Zarqali, Averroes, and
al-Bitruji.[40] It has been suggested[41][42] that the idea of the Tusi couple may have arrived in Europe
leaving few manuscript traces, since it could have occurred without the translation of any Arabic text into
Latin. One possible route of transmission may have been through Byzantine science; Gregory Chioniades
translated some of al-Tusi's works from Arabic into Byzantine Greek. Several Byzantine Greek
manuscripts containing the Tusi-couple are still extant in Italy.[43]

De revolutionibus orbium coelestium

When Copernicus' compendium was published, it contained an unauthorized, anonymous preface by a
friend of Copernicus, the Lutheran theologian Andreas Osiander. This cleric stated that Copernicus wrote
his heliocentric account of the Earth's movement as a mathematical hypothesis, not as an account that
contained truth or even probability. Since Copernicus' hypothesis was believed to contradict the Old
Testament account of the Sun's movement around the Earth
(Joshua 10:12-13), this was apparently written to soften any
religious backlash against the book. However, there is no
evidence that Copernicus himself considered the heliocentric
model as merely mathematically convenient, separate from
reality.[44]

Copernicus' actual compendium began with a letter from his

(by then deceased) friend Nikolaus von Schönberg, Cardinal
Archbishop of Capua, urging Copernicus to publish his
theory.[45] Then, in a lengthy introduction, Copernicus
dedicated the book to Pope Paul III, explaining his ostensible
motive in writing the book as relating to the inability of
earlier astronomers to agree on an adequate theory of the
planets, and noting that if his system increased the accuracy
of astronomical predictions it would allow the Church to
develop a more accurate calendar. At that time, a reform of
the Julian Calendar was considered necessary and was one of
the major reasons for the Church's interest in astronomy.

The work itself is divided into six books:[46]

Nicolai Copernicito Torinensis De
1. The first is a general vision of the heliocentric theory, Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, Libri
and a summarized exposition of his idea of the VI (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly
World. Spheres, in six books) (title page of 2nd
2. The second is mainly theoretical, presenting the edition, Basel, 1566)
principles of spherical astronomy and a list of stars
(as a basis for the arguments developed in the
subsequent books).
3. The third is mainly dedicated to the apparent motions of the Sun and to related phenomena.
4. The fourth is a description of the Moon and its orbital motions.
5. The fifth is a concrete exposition of the new system, including planetary longitude.
6. The sixth is further concrete exposition of the new system, including planetary latitude.

Early criticisms
From publication until about 1700, few astronomers were convinced by the Copernican system, though
the work was relatively widely circulated (around 500 copies of the first and second editions have
survived,[47] which is a large number by the scientific standards of the time). Few of Copernicus'
contemporaries were ready to concede that the Earth actually moved. Even forty-five years after the
publication of De Revolutionibus, the astronomer Tycho Brahe went so far as to construct a cosmology
precisely equivalent to that of Copernicus, but with the Earth held fixed in the center of the celestial
sphere instead of the Sun.[48] It was another generation before a community of practicing astronomers
appeared who accepted heliocentric cosmology.

For his contemporaries, the ideas presented by Copernicus were not markedly easier to use than the
geocentric theory and did not produce more accurate predictions of planetary positions. Copernicus was
aware of this and could not present any observational "proof", relying instead on arguments about what
 would be a more complete and elegant system. The Copernican
model appeared to be contrary to common sense and to
contradict the Bible.

Tycho Brahe's arguments against Copernicus are illustrative of

the physical, theological, and even astronomical grounds on
which heliocentric cosmology was rejected. Tycho, arguably the
most accomplished astronomer of his time, appreciated the
elegance of the Copernican system, but objected to the idea of a
moving Earth on the basis of physics, astronomy, and religion.
The Aristotelian physics of the time (modern Newtonian physics
was still a century away) offered no physical explanation for the
motion of a massive body like Earth, but could easily explain the
motion of heavenly bodies by postulating that they were made of
a different sort of substance called aether that moved naturally.
Statue of Copernicus next to Cracow So Tycho said that the Copernican system "... expertly and
University's Collegium Novum completely circumvents all that is superfluous or discordant in
the system of Ptolemy. On no point does it offend the principle
of mathematics. Yet it ascribes to the Earth, that hulking, lazy
body, unfit for motion, a motion as quick as that of the aethereal torches, and a triple motion at that."[49]
Thus many astronomers accepted some aspects of Copernicus's theory at the expense of others.

Copernican Revolution
The Copernican Revolution, a paradigm shift from the
Ptolemaic model of the heavens, which described the
cosmos as having Earth as a stationary body at the center of
the universe, to the heliocentric model with the Sun at the
center of the Solar System, spanned over a century,
beginning with the publication of Copernicus' De
revolutionibus orbium coelestium and ending with the work
of Isaac Newton. While not warmly received by his
contemporaries, his model did have a large influence on
later scientists such as Galileo and Johannes Kepler, who
adopted, championed and (especially in Kepler's case)
sought to improve it. However, in the years following Andreas Cellarius's illustration of the
publication of de Revolutionibus, for leading astronomers Copernican system, from the Harmonia
Macrocosmica (1660)
such as Erasmus Reinhold, the key attraction of
Copernicus's ideas was that they reinstated the idea of
uniform circular motion for the planets.[50]

During the 17th century, several further discoveries eventually led to the wider acceptance of
heliocentrism:

Using detailed observations by Tycho Brahe, Kepler discovered Mars's orbit was an ellipse
with the Sun at one focus, and its speed varied with its distance from the Sun. This
discovery was detailed in his 1609 book Astronomia nova along with the claim that all
 planets had elliptical orbits and non-uniform motion, stating "And finally... the sun itself... will
melt all this Ptolemaic apparatus like butter".[51]
Using the newly invented telescope, in 1610 Galileo observed the four large moons of
Jupiter (evidence that the Solar System contained bodies that did not orbit Earth), the
phases of Venus (more observational evidence not properly explained by the Ptolemaic
theory) and the rotation of the Sun about a fixed axis:[52] as indicated by the apparent
annual variation in the motion of sunspots;
With a telescope, Giovanni Zupi saw the phases of Mercury in 1639;
Isaac Newton in 1687 proposed universal gravity and the inverse-square law of gravitational
attraction to explain Kepler's elliptical planetary orbits.

Modern views

In 1610 Galileo Galilei observed with his telescope that Venus showed phases, despite remaining near the
Sun in Earth's sky (first image). This proved that it orbits the Sun and not Earth, as predicted by Copernicus's
heliocentric model and disproved the then conventional geocentric model (second image).

Substantially correct
From a modern point of view, the Copernican model has a number of advantages. Copernicus gave a
clear account of the cause of the seasons: that the Earth's axis is not perpendicular to the plane of its orbit.
In addition, Copernicus's theory provided a strikingly simple explanation for the apparent retrograde
motions of the planets—namely as parallactic displacements resulting from the Earth's motion around the
Sun—an important consideration in Johannes Kepler's conviction that the theory was substantially
correct.[53] In the heliocentric model the planets' apparent retrograde motions' occurring at opposition to
the Sun are a natural consequence of their heliocentric orbits. In the geocentric model, however, these are
explained by the ad hoc use of epicycles, whose revolutions are mysteriously tied to that of the Sun.[54]

Modern historiography
Whether Copernicus' propositions were "revolutionary" or "conservative" has been a topic of debate in
the historiography of science. In his book The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the
Universe (1959), Arthur Koestler attempted to deconstruct the Copernican "revolution" by portraying
Copernicus as a coward who was reluctant to publish his work due to a crippling fear of ridicule. Thomas
Kuhn argued that Copernicus only transferred "some properties to the Sun's many astronomical functions
previously attributed to the earth."[1] Historians have since argued that Kuhn underestimated what was
"revolutionary" about Copernicus' work, and emphasized the difficulty Copernicus would have had in
putting forward a new astronomical theory relying alone on simplicity in geometry, given that he had no
experimental evidence.[1]

See also

Astronomy portal

Copernican principle

Notes
1. Kuhn (1985)
2. Heath (1913), p. 302 (https://archive.org/stream/aristarchusofsam00heatuoft#page/302/mod
e/2up).
3. Lucio Russo, Silvio M. Medaglia, Sulla presunta accusa di empietà ad Aristarco di Samo, in
Quaderni urbinati di cultura classica, n.s. 53 (82) (1996), pp. 113–121
4. Lucio Russo, The forgotten revolution, Springer (2004)
5. McCluskey (1998), p. 27
6. Koestler (1989), pp. 69–72.
7. "Ptolemaic System" (https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/astronomy-and
-space-exploration/astronomy-general/ptolemaic-system). Encyclopedia. Columbia
University Press. Retrieved 4 December 2019.
8. Gingerich (2004), p. 53
9. Carman, Christián C. (2017-12-23). "The first Copernican was Copernicus: the difference
between Pre-Copernican and Copernican heliocentrism" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00407-
017-0198-3). Archive for History of Exact Sciences. 72 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1007/s00407-017-
0198-3 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00407-017-0198-3). hdl:11336/72174 (https://hdl.handl
e.net/11336%2F72174). ISSN 0003-9519 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0003-9519).
10. "Aryabhata the Elder" (https://web.archive.org/web/20121019181214/http://www-groups.dc
s.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Aryabhata_I.html). University of St Andrews, Scotland.
Archived from the original (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Aryabh
ata_I.html) on 2012-10-19. "Aryabhata... believed that the apparent rotation of the heavens
was due to the axial rotation of the Earth... that the orbits of the planets are ellipses"
11. Sarma, K. V. (1997) "Astronomy in India" in Selin, Helaine (editor) Encyclopaedia of the
History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, ISBN 0-7923-4066-3, p. 116
12. Ragep, F. Jamil (2001a), "Tusi and Copernicus: The Earth's Motion in Context", Science in
Context, vol. 14, no. 1–2, Cambridge University Press, pp. 145–163,
doi:10.1017/s0269889701000060 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs0269889701000060),
S2CID 145372613 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145372613)
13. Ragep, F. Jamil; Al-Qushji, Ali (2001b), "Freeing Astronomy from Philosophy: An Aspect of
Islamic Influence on Science" (http://digitool.Library.McGill.CA:80/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&ob
ject_id=156332), Osiris, 2nd Series, vol. 16, no. Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive
Dimensions, pp. 49–64 & 66–71, Bibcode:2001Osir...16...49R (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.ed
u/abs/2001Osir...16...49R), doi:10.1086/649338 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F649338),
S2CID 142586786 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:142586786)
14. Adi Setia (2004), "Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi on Physics and the Nature of the Physical World: A
Preliminary Survey" (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QYQ/is_2_2/ai_n9532826),
Islam & Science, vol. 2, retrieved 2010-03-02
15. Alessandro Bausani (1973). "Cosmology and Religion in Islam". Scientia/Rivista di Scienza.
108 (67): 762.
16. Young, M. J. L., ed. (2006-11-02). Religion, Learning and Science in the 'Abbasid Period.
Cambridge University Press. p. 413. ISBN 9780521028875.
17. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (1993-01-01). An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrines.
SUNY Press. p. 135. ISBN 9781438414195.
18. Samsó, Julio (2007). "Biṭrūjī: Nūr al-Dīn Abū Isḥāq [Abū Jaʿfar] Ibrāhīm ibn Yūsuf al-Biṭrūjī"
(http://islamsci.mcgill.ca/RASI/BEA/Bitruji_BEA.htm). In Thomas Hockey; et al. (eds.). The
Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers. New York: Springer. pp. 133–134. ISBN 978-0-
387-31022-0. (PDF version (http://islamsci.mcgill.ca/RASI/BEA/Bitruji_BEA.pdf))
19. Samsó, Julio (1970–1980). "Al-Bitruji Al-Ishbili, Abu Ishaq" (http://www.encyclopedia.com/do
c/1G2-2830904829.html). Dictionary of Scientific Biography. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons. ISBN 0-684-10114-9.
20. Esposito (1999), p. 289
21. William Stahl, trans., Martianus Capella and the Seven Liberal Arts, vol. 2, The Marriage of
Philology and Mercury, 854, 857, New York: Columbia Univ. Pr, 1977, pp. 332–333
22. Eastwood, Bruce S. (2007), Ordering the Heavens: Roman Astronomy and Cosmology in
the Carolingian Renaissance, Leiden: Brill, pp. 244–259, ISBN 978-9-0041-6186-3
23. Eastwood, Bruce S. (1982), "Kepler as Historian of Science: Precursors of Copernican
Heliocentrism according to De revolutionibus I, 10", Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, vol. 126, pp. 367–394.
24. "Averroes' criticism of Ptolemaic astronomy precipitated this debate in Europe. [...] The
recovery of Ptolemy's texts and their translation from Greek into Latin in the middle of the
fifteenth century stimulated further consideration of these issues." Osler (2010), p. 42
25. Saliba, George (1979). "The First Non-Ptolemaic Astronomy at the Maraghah School". Isis.
70 (4): 571–576. doi:10.1086/352344 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F352344). JSTOR 230725
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/230725). S2CID 144332379 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Co
rpusID:144332379).
26. Veselovsky (1973).
27. Neugebauer, Otto (1975), A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, vol. 2, Berlin /
Heidelberg / New York: Springer-Verlag, p. 1035, ISBN 978-0-3870-6995-1
28. Kren, Claudia (1971), "The Rolling Device of Naṣir al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī in the De spera of Nicole
Oresme", Isis, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 490–498, doi:10.1086/350791 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F
350791), S2CID 144526697 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144526697).
29. Koestler (1989), p. 212 (https://archive.org/details/sleepwalkershist00koes_0/page/212).
30. Koestler (1989), p. 194.
31. Koestler (1989), pp. 579–580.
32. Gingerich, Owen (1993). The Eye of Heaven. American Inst. of Physics. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-
8831-8863-7.
33. Gingerich (2004), pp. 31–32
34. Gingerich, O. (1985). "Did Copernicus Owe a Debt to Aristarchus". Journal for the History of
Astronomy. 16: 37–42. Bibcode:1985JHA....16...37G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/198
5JHA....16...37G). doi:10.1177/002182868501600102 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0021828
68501600102). S2CID 118851788 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:118851788).
35. Saliba, George (1995-07-01). A History of Arabic Astronomy: Planetary Theories During the
Golden Age of Islam. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-8023-7.
36. Swerdlow, Noel M. (1973-12-31). "The Derivation and First Draft of Copernicus's Planetary
Theory: A Translation of the Commentariolus with Commentary". Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society. 117 (6): 424. Bibcode:1973PAPhS.117..423S (https://ui.ad
sabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PAPhS.117..423S). ISSN 0003-049X (https://search.worldcat.or
g/issn/0003-049X). JSTOR 986461 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/986461).
37. King, David A. (2007). "Ibn al-Shāṭir: ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm" (http://islamsci.mcgill.ca/R
ASI/BEA/Ibn_al-Shatir_BEA.htm). In Thomas Hockey; et al. (eds.). The Biographical
Encyclopedia of Astronomers. New York: Springer. pp. 569–570. ISBN 978-0-3873-1022-0.
(PDF version (http://islamsci.mcgill.ca/RASI/BEA/Ibn_al-Shatir_BEA.pdf))
38. Linton (2004, pp. 124 (https://books.google.com/books?id=aJuwFLGWKF8C&pg=PA12
4),137–138) (https://books.google.com/books?id=aJuwFLGWKF8C&pg=PA137), Saliba
(2009, pp. 160–165).
39. Goddu (2010, pp. 261–269, 476–486), Huff (2010, pp. 263–264) (https://books.google.com/
books?id=xNSPo_Xda_0C&pg=PA263), di Bono (1995), Veselovsky (1973).
40. Freely, John (2015-03-30). Light from the East: How the Science of Medieval Islam Helped
to Shape the Western World. I.B.Tauris. p. 179. ISBN 978-1-7845-3138-6.
41. Claudia Kren, "The Rolling Device," p. 497.
42. George Saliba, "Whose Science is Arabic Science in Renaissance Europe?" [1] (http://www.
columbia.edu/~gas1/project/visions/case1/sci.1.html)
43. George Saliba (April 27, 2006). "Islamic Science and the Making of Renaissance Europe" (h
ttps://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=3883). Library of Congress.
Retrieved 2008-03-01.
44. Gingerich (2004), p. 139
45. Koestler (1989), p. 196.
46. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/)
47. Gingerich (2004), p. 248
48. Kuhn (1985), pp. 200–202
49. Owen Gingerich, The eye of heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, New York: American
Institute of Physics, 1993, 181, ISBN 0-8831-8863-5
50. Gingerich (2004), pp. 23, 55
51. Linton, C. M. (2004). From Eudoxus to Einstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
p. 183. ISBN 978-0-5218-2750-8.
52. fixed, that is, in the Copernican system. In a geostatic system the apparent annual variation
in the motion of sunspots could only be explained as the result of an implausibly
complicated precession of the Sun's axis of rotation (Linton, 2004, p.212; Sharratt, 1994,
p.166; Drake, 1970, pp. 191–196)
53. Linton (2004, pp.138 (https://books.google.com/books?id=aJuwFLGWKF8C&pg=PA138),
169 (https://books.google.com/books?id=aJuwFLGWKF8C&pg=PA169)), Crowe (2001, pp.
90–92 (https://books.google.com/books?id=IGlhN0MI87oC&pg=PA90)), Kuhn (1985),
pp. 165–167
54. Gingerich (2011), pp. 134–135

References
Crowe, Michael J. (2001). Theories of the World from Antiquity to the Copernican Revolution
(https://books.google.com/books?id=IGlhN0MI87oC). Mineola, New York: Dover
Publications, Inc. ISBN 0-486-41444-2.
di Bono, Mario (1995). "Copernicus, Amico, Fracastoro and Ṭūsï's Device: Observations on
the Use and Transmission of a Model". Journal for the History of Astronomy. xxvi (2): 133–
 154. Bibcode:1995JHA....26..133D (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JHA....26..133
D). doi:10.1177/002182869502600203 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002182869502600203).
S2CID 118330488 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:118330488).
Drake, Stillman (1970). Galileo Studies (https://archive.org/details/galileostudiespe0000dra
k). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08283-3.
Esposito, John L. (1999). The Oxford history of Islam (https://archive.org/details/oxfordhistor
yofi00john). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1951-0799-9.
Gingerich, Owen (2004). The Book Nobody Read. London: William Heinemann. ISBN 0-
434-01315-3.
Gingerich, Owen (June 2011), "Galileo, the Impact of the Telescope, and the Birth of
Modern Astronomy" (https://web.archive.org/web/20150319000913/http://www.amphilsoc.or
g/sites/default/files/proceedings/2Gingerich1550202.pdf) (PDF), Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society, vol. 155, no. 2, Philadelphia PA, pp. 134–141, archived
from the original (https://amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/proceedings/2Gingerich1550202.pd
f) (PDF) on 2015-03-19, retrieved 2016-04-13
Goddu, André (2010). Copernicus and the Aristotelian tradition (https://books.google.com/bo
oks?id=iEjk13-1xSYC). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. ISBN 978-9-0041-8107-6.
Huff, Toby E (2010). Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution: A Global Perspective
(https://books.google.com/books?id=xNSPo_Xda_0C). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 978-0-5211-7052-9.
Koestler, Arthur (1989) [1959]. The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the
Universe. Arkana. ISBN 978-0-14-019246-9.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1985). The Copernican Revolution—Planetary Astronomy in the
Development of Western Thought. Cambridge, Mississippi: Harvard University Press.
ISBN 978-0-674-17103-9.
Linton, Christopher M. (2004). From Eudoxus to Einstein—A History of Mathematical
Astronomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-82750-8.
McCluskey, S. C. (1998). Astronomies and Cultures in Early Medieval Europe. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Raju, C. K. (2007). Cultural foundations of mathematics: the nature of mathematical proof
and the transmission of the calculus from India to Europe in the 16th c. CE. Pearson
Education India. ISBN 978-8-1317-0871-2.
Saliba, George (2009), "Islamic reception of Greek astronomy" (https://www.cambridge.org/
core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/4815D5D2879A9719F1DA0DE098900586/
S1743921311002237a.pdf/islamic_reception_of_greek_astronomy.pdf) (PDF), in Valls-
Gabaud & Boskenberg (2009), vol. 260, pp. 149–165, Bibcode:2011IAUS..260..149S (http
s://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011IAUS..260..149S), doi:10.1017/S1743921311002237 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1017%2FS1743921311002237)
Sharratt, Michael (1994). Galileo: Decisive Innovator. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 0-521-56671-1.
Valls-Gabaud, D.; Boskenberg, A., eds. (2009). The Role of Astronomy in Society and
Culture. Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 260.
Veselovsky, I.N. (1973). "Copernicus and Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī". Journal for the History of
Astronomy. iv: 128–130. Bibcode:1973JHA.....4..128V (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/19
73JHA.....4..128V). doi:10.1177/002182867300400205 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0021828
67300400205). S2CID 118453340 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:118453340).

Further reading
Hannam, James (2007). "Deconstructing Copernicus" (http://jameshannam.com/copernicus.
htm). Medieval Science and Philosophy. Retrieved 2007-08-17. Analyses the varieties of
 argument used by Copernicus in De revolutionibus.
Goldstone, Lawrence (2010). The Astronomer: A Novel of Suspense (https://archive.org/det
ails/astronomer00gold). New York: Walker and Company. ISBN 978-0-8027-1986-7.

External links
Heliocentric Pantheon (http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/heliocentric-pantheon-intervie
w-with.html)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copernican_heliocentrism&oldid=1269726553"