|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home : History & Biography : History Study Guides : European : The Scientific Revolution (1550-1700) : The New Astronomy (1510-1600)
The New Astronomy (1510-1600)
Summary
The Renaissance set the stage for the astronomy
of the sixteenth century by engendering interest in the physical world and its
surroundings. By 1510 Leonardo da Vinci had
developed many theories on the creation of the universe and the functioning of
celestial bodies. In 1528, the French physician Jean Fernal made a calculation
of the size of the Earth correct to one percent.
However, these accomplishments are far overshadowed by those of Nicolas
Copernicus. Copernicus, a highly educated Pole, studied at university until
the age of 30, excelling in classics, medicine, law, theology, and painting, as
well as astronomy. He was not a practical astronomer, and only observed a
handful of eclipses and oppositions of planets. Rather, he was a student of
past observers and a theoretician. He studied the observed motions of heavenly
bodies in relation to the accepted geocentric Aristotelian system, which
placed the earth at the center of the solar system, with the sun and planets in
orbit. Copernicus' observations led him to conclude that there was something
wrong with the geocentric theory. He tested the hypothesis that the earth was
in fact in orbit around the sun against the records of observation and found
that this heliocentric theory was more feasible.
Copernicus' new scheme retained many of the aspects of the ancient theory. It
still assumed that the universe was spherical and finite, ending at the range of
the stars so distance that their movements could not be detected. It still
assumed that the motion of all heavenly bodies was perfectly circular.
Copernicus finished the description of his heliocentric theory in De
Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of Celestial Bodies) in
1530, though it went unpublished until 1543, just months before his death.
The next great astronomer, Tycho Brahe, a Dane, differed from Copernicus in
that he was, foremost, a practical astronomer who spent his time observing the
heavens. For 21 years, from 1576-1597, Tycho worked out of a laboratory
provided to him by the King of Denmark, systematically collecting observational
data, which he used to test and revise astronomical theories. His records were
far more extensive than any of his predecessors. Tycho set up a flawed, but
fairly viable (by his observations), model of the solar system in which the
Earth was central to the orbits of the moon and sun, and the sun was central to
the orbits of the remaining planets. Mathematically, this system worked out
identically to that suggested by Copernicus.
In 1584, Giordano Bruno, a renegade Italian monk, published three books
explaining his philosophy. They are: The Ash-Wednesday Supper, On
Cause, Principle, and Unity, and On the Infinite Universe and its
Worlds. Bruno argued therein that not only does the Earth move, but so does
the sun, and that there is no such thing as a point absolutely at rest in the
universe. He argued further that the stars whose movements could not be
detected were at vast, but varying distances from the solar system, and are the
centers of remote solar systems. He claimed that it was folly to maintain that
our planetary system was the center of the universe.
Bruno's conclusions were incompatible with the teachings of the Church, which
maintained that the universe was finite and therefore separate from its creator.
In 1600, Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic. His work remained obscure
during most of his career, but influenced some disciples, such as William
Gilbert, whose work On the Magnet and Magnetic Bodies and Concerning that
Great Magnet, the Earth, a New Physiology was published in 1600, and
received high praise from future scientists.
Commentary
Three basic conditions had to exist in order for the advancement of astronomy
toward, and then beyond, the heliocentric theory. First, there had to be better
astronomical tools, both physical and mathematical, and more accurate
observations using these tools over a long period of time. Second, there had to
be improved methods of mathematics for the interpretation of this collected
data. Third, there had to be progress in the understanding of physics, and
particularly motion. These conditions were evolving slowly during the sixteenth
century, and as interest rose in astronomy at the opening of the seventeenth
century, scientists concentrated much of their effort on the creation of these
conditions.
Copernicus' teachings had very little immediate influence on contemporary
thought. For nearly a century after the publication of De
Revolutionibus, as it is often referred to, scholarly acknowledgement of
Copernicus' work remained limited. Religion occupied the position of utmost
importance during the period, and, having settled into the comfortable truths of
the ancient thinkers and absorbed them as religious doctrine, by its nature the
Church was hostile to revolutionary scientific advances. Bruno's theories on
the universe heightened the Church's defensiveness, and though Copernicus' works
were not banned, their effects were carefully monitored by the Church.
Both Tycho Brahe and Copernicus attempted to retain some of the major
conventions of the Aristotelian system. Most prominently, both held to the
theory that planetary orbits were perfect circles. Tycho's attempt to model the
universe according to the ideal geometric form of the circle was one of the last
attempts to retain this major stipulation of the Ptolemaic theory
of the universe. Tycho's pupil, Johannes Kepler would continue this
search for an ideal
geometric scheme for the planetary system. However, following Tycho's era,
astronomers began following a new paradigm: they gradually stopped attempting to
fit the observed universe into an ideal structure and rather tried to observe
the direct evidence of the nature of the heavens and glean from that the actual
structure of the universe. Most were prepared to accept that this reality would
not necessarily comply with an ideal form.
Bruno's theories, though not gleaned from any direct observation, were quickly
recognized as antagonistic to the Church. Bruno's infinite universe differed
greatly from the "created universe" that was the accepted truth of the Church.
In an infinite universe, where were heaven and hell to reside? The alleged
Creator of the "created universe" had to be separate from the creation in order
to match up with Christian doctrine. Additionally, the Church maintained that
the universe was centered on Earth and mankind, for it was mankind that had been
granted the Divine Spirit. In this rejection of the teachings of the Church,
Bruno's revolution was far greater than that of Copernicus. Many consider the
publication of his three tracts in 1584 to be the true point of transition from
medieval to modern science. It is important to note that his theories were not
based on experimentation or observation. Rather, Bruno's contribution to
science was a philosophy that opened the scientific mind to the possibility of
new and strikingly different explanations of reality.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | About
©2006 SparkNotes LLC, All Rights Reserved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||