1
$\begingroup$

There seems to be a contradiction in the assumptions that Copernicus makes when attempting to explain the motion of the planets:

http://dbanach.com/copernicus-commentarilous.htm

Assumptions 1 and 3 both refer to 'celestial spheres', but 1 seems to say that these spheres are not concentric, while 3 says that they are (with their centre at the Sun).

Is he referring to the same spheres in each assumption?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ His spheres, like Hipparchus's and Ptolemy's, were slightly eccentric (i.e. the center of rotation is shifted away from the center of the Sun, and he also had epicycles, like them. Since this did not preclude them from making the Earth "the center of the universe" it did not preclude him from making the Sun that. $\endgroup$ – Conifold Apr 20 at 0:56
1
$\begingroup$

Assumption 1 seems nothing more than a vague distinction of the centers of the lunar and planetary orbits, clarified in the two following postulates.

Assumption 2 : the center of the lunar sphere (and of gravity) is the center of the earth.

Assumption 3 : all the (planetary ones, included that of the earth) spheres revolve around the sun.

The core doctrine expressed by the above postulates is that the "centre of the universe" (i.e. of the celestial bodies) does not coincide with the "centre of gravity" of terrestial bodies.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ That doesn't really answer the question. $\endgroup$ – 1123581321 Apr 20 at 0:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.