Classics of modern science : $b (Copernicus to Pasteur) — John Shaqi
Classics of modern science : $b (Copernicus to Pasteur)
History
Classics of modern science : $b (Copernicus to Pasteur)
Science; Science -- History
SALV.: Let us begin our discussion with the admission
that whatever sort of motion may be ascribed the earth, we, as its
inhabitants and therefore partakers in the movement, would be
unconscious of it, as if it did not occur, since we can only take into
consideration earthly things. Therefore it is necessary that this
movement should seem to belong to all the other bodies and visible
objects in common which, separated from the earth, have no share in its
movement. The correct method of determining whether movement is to be
attributed to the earth, and what movement, is that one should inquire
and observe whether an apparent movement can be ascribed to the bodies
outside of the earth, which belongs to all of them in the same degree.
So a movement which, for example, can be supposed of the moon, and not
of Venus or Jupiter or other stars, cannot be peculiar to the earth.
Now there is such a general movement governing all other objects,
namely that which the sun, moon, planets, fixed stars, in a word the
whole universe with the single exception of the earth, seems to follow
from east to west within the space of twenty-four hours. This, at least
at first glance, may be just as well attributed to the earth alone, as
to the rest of the entire universe except the earth.
SAGR.: I understand clearly that your suggestion is correct.
An objection, however, forces itself upon me that I cannot solve. That
is, since Copernicus ascribes to the earth a further movement aside
from the daily one, according to the above mentioned principle this
should be apparently un-noticeable on the earth, but should be visible
in the rest of the universe. I come then to the conclusion that either
he plainly erred when he ascribed to the earth a movement to which
no counterpart is apparent in the firmament, or else such a movement
exists, and then Ptolemaus is guilty of a second error in that he did
not refute with arguments this movement as well as that daily rotation.
SALV.: Your objection is very just. If we take up this
other movement, you shall see how much superior in intelligence was
Copernicus to Ptolemaus, in that he saw what this one did not, namely
how wonderfully this second motion is reflected in the rest of the
heavenly bodies. For the present, however, we will leave this aside and
return to our first consideration. Proceeding from the most general
suppositions, I will present the arguments which seem to favor the
motion of the earth, in order then to hear the opposing arguments
of Signore Simplicio. First, then, when we consider the immense
circumference of the stellar sphere in comparison with the smallness
of the earth, which is contained in that several million times, and
therefore regard the velocity of motion which would be necessary for
an entire revolution in the course of a day and night, I am unable to
understand how any one could hold it more reasonable and credible that
it is this whole stellar sphere that moves and that the earth remains
still.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account