The first Copernican was Copernicus: the difference between Pre-Copernican and Copernican heliocentrism

It is well known that heliocentrism was proposed in ancient times, at least by Aristarchus of Samos. Given that ancient astronomers were perfectly capable of understanding the great advantages of heliocentrism over geocentrism—i.e., to offer a non-ad hoc explanation of the retrograde motion of the p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor: Carman, Christian Carlos
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2018
País:Argentina
Institución:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
Repositorio:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/72174
Acceso en línea:http://hdl.handle.net/11336/72174
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Heliocentrism
Copernicanism
Aristarchus
Copernicus
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6
Descripción
Sumario:It is well known that heliocentrism was proposed in ancient times, at least by Aristarchus of Samos. Given that ancient astronomers were perfectly capable of understanding the great advantages of heliocentrism over geocentrism—i.e., to offer a non-ad hoc explanation of the retrograde motion of the planets and to order unequivocally all the planets while even allowing one to know their relative distances—it seems difficult to explain why heliocentrism did not triumph over geocentrism or even compete significantly with it before Copernicus. Usually, scholars refer to explanations of sociological character. In this paper, I offer a different explanation: that the pre-Copernican heliocentrism was essentially different from the Copernican heliocentrism, in such a way that the adduced advantages of heliocentrism can only be attributed to Copernican heliocentrism, but not to pre-Copernican heliocentrism proposals.