SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1712.05437

Where Did Copernicus Obtain the Tools to Build His Heliocentric Model? Historical Considerations and a Guiding Translation of Valentin Rose's "Ptolemaeus und die Schule von Toledo" (1874)

Abstract

We present a translation of the German text of an 1874 article by Valentin Rose that concerns the possible school of translators that worked in Toledo, Spain, from about 1150 to 1250. Rose's article relies significantly on the first-hand account of the activities in Toledo by the Englishman Daniel of Morley. The most prolific translator in Toledo was Gerard of Cremona, who translated Ptolemy's Almagest from Arabic into Latin with the help of Galib the Mozarab; this translation was significant to Copernicus's work. Georg Peurbach and Regiomontanus based their Epitome of the Almagest (1463) on Gerard's translation, which in turn introduced Greek astronomy to astronomers in Italy and throughout Europe. Copernicus studied in Padua in the first few years of the sixteenth century, where he learned about Ptolemy's Almagest. Copernicus's book De Revolutionibus (1543) also contains two geometrical tools of astronomers from thirteenth century Maragha, and his model of the motion of the Moon is mathematically identical to that of Ibn al-Shatir (fourteenth century Damascus). A Greek language manuscript written prior to 1308, and the residence in Padua of Moses Galeano, a Jewish scholar from Constantinople and Crete, who was familiar with the work of Ibn al-Shatir, provide evidence of the transmission of Arabic astronomical ideas to Copernicus. We have only begun to understand this conduit of transmission.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Kevin Krisciunas, Belen Bistue. 2017-12-14. Where Did Copernicus Obtain the Tools to Build His Heliocentric Model? Historical Considerations and a Guiding Translation of Valentin Rose's "Ptolemaeus und die Schule von Toledo" (1874). https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05437

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Scientific Promise

Scientists constantly face decisions about what lines of research to pursue. This Element introduces the philosophical debate about scientific pursuitworthiness. It explains how it can be rational to pursue a theory even if the theory is less well supported than its rivals, and it discusses existing philosophical frameworks for guiding pursuit decisions. The Element also develops a new perspective. Existing accounts focus predominantly on theories, while experiments are largely neglected. This is an important shortcoming. Theoretical promise depends on experimental promise, and experimental promise raises questions of its own. Drawing on the epistemology of experimentation, the Element advances an account of experimental pursuitworthiness. It is argued that such pursuitworthiness depends on experimental virtues like a clear signal and simplicity of design. Moreover, the kinds of uncertainty that constrain the assessment of scientific pursuits are examined. Finally, the Element highlights open questions in the philosophy of scientific pursuitworthiness.

physics.hist-ph

Is Black Hole Evaporation Prediction Friendly?

Manchak and Weatherall (2018) formulate the black hole information paradox as a failure of predictability in black hole evaporation spacetimes, diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I offer a strategy for resolving this paradox. I argue that failures of predictability in black hole evaporation are not well diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I then consider two weakenings of global hyperbolicity: prediction and retrodiction friendliness, the failure of which could ground a new paradox. However, deidealized black hole evaporation models can be prediction and retrodiction friendly. Therefore, the information paradox cannot be based upon failures of global hyperbolicity, nor either retrodiction or prediction unfriendliness.

physics.hist-ph

The Crab Nebula progenitor: recovering the 1054 AD supernova event as galactic Gamma-ray burst

In 1054 AD a daytime star appeared in the constellation of Taurus, for three weeks, and it was reported in various sources from Europe to China/Japan: it was one of the few documented galactic supernovae of the last two millenia. This paradigm has been established about sixty years ago, as the comprehension of the physics of supernovae progressed with enough observational data. The Gamma-ray bursts were discovered in the same period, but only in the past few years have their observations become daily and their distances have been fully understood as cosmological. After the explosion, the exponential decay of the luminosity in gamma-rays and X-rays has been followed with telescopes onboard dedicated satellites. Also the exponential decay of the afterglow's optical and radio frequencies have been observed with the largest optical and radio telescopes. Within the binary-driven hypernova framework, successful in explaining all the observed phases of the Gamma-ray bursts, the universal exponential decay can be extended to 1000 years after the burst, to account for the present values of Gamma and X-rays as well as optical and radio frequencies of the Crab Nebula. Both the daytime visibility of the burst, and the simultaneous radiation plagues appeared in Constantinople and Cairo is a strong evidence of the presence of Gamma-rays in the lower atmosphere, coming from the same source originating the Crab nebula. The association to the daytime visibility of that star and the following plague meets exactly the etymology of the word dis-aster, bad star.

physics.hist-ph