Thursday, October 06, 2005
Journal 3
Going back to my first journal entry about the Copernican revolution, I realize I did not know anything about the revolution. In my first journal I said “all I know is he constructed a helio-centered model of the universe”. Now I have a view of the Copernican revolution as opposed to not having one at all. Currently, I believe the Copernican model of the solar system was very revolutionary for the time period. Unlike most of his predecessors, Copernicus put the Sun in the center of the planets and has all of the planets rotating around it, including the earth. However, he still used circular motion for the rotations of the planets. For all of the motions and measurements to add up Copernicus still had to employ epicycles and eccentric circles. Although he did position the Sun at the center, he was still trapped in the mindset of Aristotle’s circular motion. Therefore, when comparing the Copernican model and the Ptolemaic model, both are equally confusing and filled with several different spheres and epicycles.
In spite of all the confusion, I still believe Copernicus took a big step in situating the Sun at the center. Gingerich talks about the major mindset change that needed to occur with this theory. People had always believed the earth was the center and everything they observed on earth supported this belief. The planets seemingly changed their positions according to the earth and the stars were fixed in position around the earth. Also, everything happened on the earth: storms, floods, droughts, and other weather phenomena. Therefore, why shouldn’t the earth be the center? It is a natural thought process to place yourself in the center of your world with everything revolving around you. Koestler talked a great deal about Copernicus’ reservations of publishing his viewpoint because he did not want to be ridiculed by his peers. I understand why he would have felt this way, especially when the majority believed oppositely. Having to face criticism is a hard thing to do and the feeling of rejection is even harder. On the other hand, he was a scientist and scientists are supposed to be able to publish their findings and observations and accept the fact that others may not agree with them. Koestler also points out that Copernicus had a lot of support for his publication and had no reason to be afraid of publishing. In fact, even the Catholic Church supported his findings, which was rare for a scientist.
In earlier class discussions, students brought up the topic of whether or not the Ionians and ancient Greeks should be celebrated because their ideas about cosmology were incorrect. As a class we came to the conclusion that it was not the actual result that mattered, but the fact that people were starting to ask questions and look at the universe in different ways. I think this argument applies to the Copernican revolution as well. While Copernicus may not have gotten the entire model correct, he was the one that took the step in placing the Sun in the center of the planets. With his model he was able to help others following him to contemplate simpler models eventually leading to the model we have today. The Copernican revolution allowed people to think in different ways and consider that the earth may not be the center. I believe this is the main point of the Copernican model, showing others how to question what is in front of them and envision their own theory of how the universe works.
In spite of all the confusion, I still believe Copernicus took a big step in situating the Sun at the center. Gingerich talks about the major mindset change that needed to occur with this theory. People had always believed the earth was the center and everything they observed on earth supported this belief. The planets seemingly changed their positions according to the earth and the stars were fixed in position around the earth. Also, everything happened on the earth: storms, floods, droughts, and other weather phenomena. Therefore, why shouldn’t the earth be the center? It is a natural thought process to place yourself in the center of your world with everything revolving around you. Koestler talked a great deal about Copernicus’ reservations of publishing his viewpoint because he did not want to be ridiculed by his peers. I understand why he would have felt this way, especially when the majority believed oppositely. Having to face criticism is a hard thing to do and the feeling of rejection is even harder. On the other hand, he was a scientist and scientists are supposed to be able to publish their findings and observations and accept the fact that others may not agree with them. Koestler also points out that Copernicus had a lot of support for his publication and had no reason to be afraid of publishing. In fact, even the Catholic Church supported his findings, which was rare for a scientist.
In earlier class discussions, students brought up the topic of whether or not the Ionians and ancient Greeks should be celebrated because their ideas about cosmology were incorrect. As a class we came to the conclusion that it was not the actual result that mattered, but the fact that people were starting to ask questions and look at the universe in different ways. I think this argument applies to the Copernican revolution as well. While Copernicus may not have gotten the entire model correct, he was the one that took the step in placing the Sun in the center of the planets. With his model he was able to help others following him to contemplate simpler models eventually leading to the model we have today. The Copernican revolution allowed people to think in different ways and consider that the earth may not be the center. I believe this is the main point of the Copernican model, showing others how to question what is in front of them and envision their own theory of how the universe works.
