Subject: Re: [HM] Indian astronomy and mathematics
From: William C Waterhouse (wcw@math.psu.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 14 2000 - 17:46:08 EST
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Dinesh Maheshwari <dsm@cypress.com>
wrote (in part):
...
"Let's first consider the implications of the rotating earth.
If the earth rotates such that the daily movement of the stars
is accounted for by the rotation then the period of the rotation
has to be the approximately same as a day. Therefore, day and night
are also caused by the rotation of the earth and not by the
revolution of the sun around the earth.
"Thus by the Occam's Razor principle, rotating earth and
geocentric, homocentric, topocentric (and also Tycho-Brahic hybrid )
solar systems are not compatible. It is for this reason we see
the notion of rotating earth only in heliocentric models-
Copernicus' as well as Aristarchus', although the rotation
of the earth was proposed by another Greek astronomer (Anaxagoras ? )
before Aristarchus."
The problem with history, of course, is that it often doesn't
develop in a manner so logically pure that reasoning like this
can be used.
The fact is that a rotating earth is discussed by Ptolemy himself
(I.7). It is treated as an alternate approach to the astronomical
facts but is rejected as physically unlikely and incompatible
with the experience that people on the surface have with the
behavior of air.
William C. Waterhouse
Penn State
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 19:29:09 EST