The Nest : 2016

Monday, May 30, 2016

X-Men Apocalypse and the Book of Revelation (Spoilers Ahead)

WARNING: Spoilers ahead. Read at your own risk.

Introduction - Book of Revelation

The Book of Revelation is the last book of the New Testament of the Bible. It is often known as Revelation or The Apocalypse of John. Its title is derived from the first word of the text, written in Koine Greek: apokalypsis, meaning "unveiling" or "revelation." The book spans three literary genres: the epistolary, the apocalyptic, and the prophetic. It begins with John, on the island of Patmos in the Aegean, addressing a letter to the "Seven Churches of Asia"(an interesting side note: Quicksilver's slow motion scene has this song playing in the background: "Sweet Dreams." One part of the song that relates to this and the movie in general are these lyrics: "I travel the world and the seven seas, everybody's looking for something.) He then describes a series of prophetic visions, including figures such as the Whore of Babylon and the Beast, culminating in the Second Coming of Jesus. There are two important stories mentioned in the book of Revelation that I will later compare to X-Men; The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and the False Prophet.

Throughout the New Testament - before the Book of Revelation - there were warnings of false prophets. One example of this is when Jesus predicted the future appearance of false Christs and false prophets, affirming that they can perform great signs and miracles. An example of this is not in Revelation, but in Olivet Discourse also known as "Little Apocalypse:"

"At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. . . . For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect – if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time"

In this Jesus mentions that the false prophet will show miracles and perform great signs (keep this in mind for when I explain why I believe this is referenced in X-Men Apocalypse).

X-Men - The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

In the Revelation, The Four Horsemen are described and symbolized as Conquest, Pestilence, War, Famine and Death. The four horsemen appear when the Lamb (Jesus) opens the first four seals of a scroll with seven seals (which is described in Revelation chapter 6). As each of the first four seals are opened a different coloured horse and its rider is seen by the apostle John as described in Rev 6:1-8. In the movie X-Men Apocalypse, the villain in that movie (who has many names) who is represented as this prophet-like figure (I will go into more details when I talk about his character) always has four riders with him. In the beginning of the film, we see a scene where their current leader or 'god' is brought to a pyramid where another man is lying on a counter top. Someone cuts the man's skin deeply and they all witness the man's body heal itself. At that moment the leader lies on another counter and the 'transfusion' or transference begins:

Figure 1. Transference process

Figure 2. The leader on our right and the man on our left

During this process the leader uses the man's body as a host body for himself. Every body he uses he takes his own powers with him and obtains his victims powers as well. He does this to basically receive more power and to stay immortal. He uses these bodies to keep living. During this specific process, some of his own people end up betraying him and sabotaging this body transfer process. In this scene, other people in the room (who you could assume are his original horsemen), end up being killed. One of his horsemen in particular, protects him as she is dying. Because of her, he survives the impact, but falls into a deep sleep-like stage (date, around 3600 BC - somewhere along those lines). Fast forward to the 1980s and the same leader has awakened and seeks to find his new riders.

White Horse

In Egypt, he witnesses a young girl who uses her mutant powers to steal from a local vendor. The merchants chase her and trap her and tell her that she is going to get her hand cut off. At that moment the leader also known as En Sabah Nur or Apocalypse (I'll be calling him Apocalypse from now on), stops them and saves the young girl from the merchants. He speaks to her and asks her to join him and ends up magnifying her powers and that is when she ultimately becomes Storm. Storm is considered his first rider or horseman. In the bible, the first rider is the white rider or the white horse. There are many interpretations of who or what the white rider could represent. However, one thing that stays the same is this verse in the Book of Revelation.

"Then I saw when the Lamb broke one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with a voice of thunder..." (Revelation 6:1-2)

"With a voice of thunder." One of Storm's powers is that she manipulates weather, she is the 'voice of thunder' she can modify the temperature of the environment, control all forms of precipitation, humidity and moisture (at a molecular level), generate lightning and other electromagnetic atmospheric phenomena, and has demonstrated excellent control over atmospheric pressure. She can incite all forms of meteorological tempests, such as tornadoes, thunderstorms, blizzards, and hurricanes, as well as mist. She can dissipate such weather to form clear skies as well. Another thing to note is that Storm's hair is white, this relates back to the white horse the first horseman rides.

Figure 3. Storm from X-Men Apocalypse

The white rider is known in biblical literature to be a conqueror or a warrior. A crown is placed on the white rider's head and this means that he is the king of all nations or appointed head of state(s). In the movie, Storm is the first to be approached. Apocalypse calls her his goddess (he is considered to be the God) when he enhances her powers. He appoints her to be his goddess, in this case the queen of the nations.

Figure 4. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. First rider is the white rider, followed by the red horse, black horse and pale horse.

In some cases, the white rider is known to be righteous. This isn't the case for the other horsemen. The first horseman has been interpreted by some religious researchers as a guide for the "right path." In the movie, Storm is the only horsemen who chooses to join the X-Men and ultimately changes sides. She decides not to serve Apocalypse, but to go on the 'right path' and train with the X-Men.

Red Horse

The Horse that follows the white horse is the red horse which represents war. The rider of the red horse is usually depicted by holding a sword upwards as though he is ready for war or mass slaughter. In military symbolism swords held upward, especially crossed swords held upward, signify war and entering into battle.

Figure 5. Double crossed swords facing upwards depicts 'ready for a fight'

Apocalypse's next horseman he chooses is Psylocke. He finds her at Caliban's place. In the movie, Caliban is shown to know a lot about mutants and where to find them. Apocalypse states he is looking for the strongest and Caliban asks if he will pay for the information. Apocalypse says no and Caliban mentions that he is closed and not open for business. Psylocke is shown to be hesitant of Apocalypse and Storm and is ready to protect Caliban at all times. When she feels as if Caliban is in threat she unleashes her psychic knife and sword and holds it near Apocalypse and Storm's throats. She asks what he wants and Apocalypse states he want her. He also enhances her powers and it is shown that her psychic knife becomes longer and stronger (resembling a sword now than a knife). One scene in particular where you see her cross her swords is after she pierces through the car to save Storm's life.

Figure 6. Quick crossing of both of her swords. The sword and the crossing of the swords is associated with the rider who is on the red horse. He represents War. In this case, Psylocke is the only horseman in apocalypse equipped with an actual sword and a sword of her own (the psychic sword - Apocalypse enhances her powers, turning her knife into a sword)

In the movie, she uses her martial arts and her sword to fight. She represents the 'soldier' of the four horsemen, the red rider. She is also shown to be wearing a red belt-like object. That could be a representation of the red horse.

Black Horse

Although in the comics Archangel or Angel is portrayed as "Death" the final horseman or the leader of the other horsemen, I believe that Archangel portrays the Black Horse. Before Angel joins Apocalypse, we see him in a cage fighting other mutants in an underground fight club. He is successful and has beaten his opponents thus far. The host (might be one of the people in charge of the whole underground club) introduces Angel's next opponent - The Devil. The Devil is shown to be Nightcrawler and he tries to escape, however, the metal surrounding the cage is connected to a high voltage system and Nightcrawler starts to get electrocuted. Out of pain and desperation, Nightcrawler takes angel and pins him to the cage, causing Angel to lose some parts of his wings (due to the high voltage). After that Nightcrawler escapes with the help of Mystique. Mystique increases the voltage in the cage and that is how Nightcrawler takes Angel down - giving Nightcrawler a chance to escape. Angel is left there injured and without enough feathers to help him fly properly. He ends up in an abandoned building, drinking, frail, not able to fly as well as he did before. Apocalypse arrives to the abandoned building with Storm and Psylocke to recruit Angel. When Psylocke sees what Angel now looks like: lost wings, drunk, fragile, she tells Apocalypse that they should leave. Apocalypse sees potential in Angel and tells him he will give him what he needs. He enhances and even transforms Angel. Instead of having white wings, Angel has black metal wings with black metal armor, this represents the black horse.

Figure 7. Angel before Apocalypse

Figure 8. Angel after Apocalypse

In some cases, "black" could represent famine (physical or spiritual), evil, opposite of goodness, everything that opposes God. An object that the black horse rider is described as carrying is a pair of scales and as the "Lord as a Law-Giver." Noticing that wealth and bread were unfairly distributed, Famine will punish those who had achieved such balance through injustice and excess. Angel comes from a wealthy family, however in the movie we see him in a cage, being exploited for his powers, by people who sit and watch him fight for his life. Because of this, Angel is a character who can be portrayed as someone trying to "balance the scales" between classes. Apocalypse will give him the opportunity to be a symbol of hope but at the same time, someone that could easily take away that which hasn't been rightly earned (especially the machines and objects humans have now claimed as their own and are using to keep the people following them 'blindly.'

Pale Horse

The fourth and final horse is the pale horse. The pale horse represents death and its rider is known as the pale rider or Death. Out of all the riders he is the only one who is given an explicit name. He is also the only rider who is usually depicted without a weapon or any other object. Instead, he is followed by Hades. This fourth horseman is the last of the horseman because he is the one who finishes the job. His job is to destroy the Earth. By the time the fourth horseman completes his ride, a fourth of earth’s inhabitants would experience incredible devastation. The death toll would be unlike any plague or disease in human history. The pale color of the fourth horse is thought to represent fear, sickness, decay, and death. The word used to describe the color of the pale horse is the Greek word chloros, or green. It is meant to convey the sickly green tinge of the deathly ill or recently dead. This represents the last and final horseman Apocalypse chooses: Magneto. Although some may claim that he represents the red horse rider (his costume is red), I believe that Magneto represents the pale rider. Magneto's story throughout this X-Men trilogy (i.e X-Men First Class, Days of Future Past, and Apocalypse), Magneto is surrounded by death. His parents were taken from him when he was young and his mother was shot and killed right in front of him. In Apocalypse his wife and daughter are killed right in front of him (after they die, he looks up and screams 'is this what you want from me? Is this who I am?'). The most important people to him are taken away, by death. Not only has he faced this, but in the last two movies, he is weary and fears what humans will do to the mutants. This is why he decides that he needs to destroy the humankind. Every time he tries to do 'good' or tries to join the 'right side' he is shown why he cannot trust humankind.

Apocalypse finds Magneto in the metal warehouse where Magneto used to work. Magneto says to his coworkers that they must imagine their loved one (wife, daughter, mother - an interesting thing to note is that he only uses the women in his life and not his father or any other male figure. This could represent the amount of pain he dealt with when he saw his mother killed right in front of him as a child. This affected his entire life and he was doing better when he had his wife and daughter. When they were shot and killed right in front of him it brought him back to the time his mother died in front of him. Every time he tries to do 'good' and give humans a chance, he is betrayed by them - this is important because in the movie, Apocalypse states that he has been betrayed by mankind) and think about the fact that their loved one will never see them again. He was planning to kill them because a couple of his coworkers reported seeing him use his power (controlling metal - to save someone's life) at the workplace. Magneto looks back and tells Apocalypse and the other horsemen that they will not be able to stop him from killing them. Apocalypse kills all of Magneto's coworkers and tells him that he is not here to stop Magneto but is here for him. Apocalypse understands Magneto at this moment, since both of them have felt betrayed from mankind and Apocalypse enhances Magneto's powers. He brings Erik/Magneto to Auschwitz where he first used his powers and where he lost his family. Apocalypse encourages him to manipulate the metal in the earth (i.e the Earth's core since the inner core is made of iron-nickel solid, the metal ions in the ocean and so forth), and to use his anger to fuel his energy. Magneto begins to destroy the other buildings around him as Apocalypse vows to build a better world. After that, Magneto and the rest of the horsemen follow Apocalypse to Egypt where he destroys part of Egypt to create his own pyramid. He tells Magneto that he has an important role in this process and has Magneto reverse the Earth's magnetic poles, creating mass destruction which would ultimately lead to death. Magneto starts to destroy the world when the X-men arrive. In the end, after Apocalypse has been destroyed, we get a glimpse of the world. Mostly everything has been destroyed by the nukes, Magneto's magnetic pole reversal and the process of destroying the earth from within.

Apocalypse - The False Prophet/Cult Leader

Apocalypse is one of the most important characters in this movie. Apocalypse is an ancient mutant born with a variety of superhuman abilities who further augments himself after merging with Celestial technology. The character has total control over the molecules of his body. He can control the size of his body (we see this in the scene where Apocalypse and Professor X are fighting). He has been 'reincarnated' many times by a transference process with other mutants. By doing this not only can he live on but he also obtains their power. In the beginning of the movie, we catch a glimpse of a great pyramid with a cloak covering the tip of the pyramid with a symbol of an ankh in a upward facing arrow symbol. This symbol is a part of the Arrow of Ra. In the movie, Apocalypse states that some call him Ra.

Figure 9. Ankh

Figure 10. The upward facing arrow - part of the arrow of Ra

Figure 11. Another image of the arrow on the same painting

Figure 12. Apocalypse's pyramid, ankh connected into the upward facing arrow

Ankh represents life in the future, life after death. Gods, kinks and Isis (almost invariably) are depicted holding the ankh to show that they command the powers of life and death and that they are immortal. The ankh is often set in the same category as the Girdle of Isis, as a symbol of eternity. "This is not because its straight lines may be lengthened in the imagination to infinity, but because they converge upon and meet in a closed loop." This loop symbolizes the essence of the life force identified with Isis, from whom life flows in all its forms. In some cases, the ankh can be further taken to symbolize the power to give and sustain life. This is important in X-Men Apocalypse because Apocalypse is seen as a "god-like figure." He represents the life after death. As he says in the movie, "Everything they've built will fall! And from the ashes of their world, we'll build a better one!" He is referring to the destruction of the world mankind has built with machines and false leaders and to create a new world, life, etc after that. This symbol also represents Apocalypse because of his 'immortality', he is the symbol of eternity, since he has lived for thousands of years.

The upward facing arrow doesn't have a set definition, however there are two that stick out. The arrow can symbolize either a 1) man, spirituality, death or 2) new life/birth. Both connect to Apocalypse, because he is shown as a god-like figure and is responsible for wanting to cause death to humankind, to destroy the world they have built and rebuild a new world and give a new life without false gods/leaders.

Although apocalypse states throughout the film that people have followed false gods and that he is here to save them, does he truly represent a god-like figure? Or can he be compared to a false prophet? In biblical literature, God tells people to watch out for a false prophet. He will show them great miracles and signs, however he is not the true prophet. Although Apocalypse had many powers, he was not entirely immortal. The only way he could stay immortal was to use another body to put himself into. This relates to when Jesus states that the false prophet will come disguised in many forms. Although Apocalypse looks the same in each incarnation, he is using other bodies to achieve this. He is 'disguising' his mortality by transferring himself into another body, taking their power with him. In the beginning of the movie when Apocalypse has awaken and is with Storm, he puts his hand on a television and she asks what he is doing. He tells her that he is learning. If Apocalypse were a god-like figure he would already be aware of what is going on. A good example of this and a god-like figure is Superman. He can hear what is going on around him at all times, he must choose where he goes and who to save. Because Apocalypse must learn what is going on with the world, he may not be a god-like figure. He is also not the 'strongest' as he mentions to be. Not only does he show them how powerful he can be (a false prophet can show miracles and signs), but he mentions in the movie that the strongest will rule (assuming it is himself).

"Together we will cleanse the earth for the strongest."

"Those who are the strongest, this world is ours!"

Apocalypse is also defeated in the movie. Storm and Magneto both turn against him at the end. Angel dies and Psylocke escapes. With their help and the other X-men, Phoenix unleashes her powers and ultimately defeats Apocalypse. Flesh, Muscle, Bone is revealed under his armor. This shows that he is mortal and he is not actually the strongest mutant out there. This leaves us to question who Phoenix may represent ( I will delve deeper into that).

Before I go into who Phoenix is and who she may represent, a hypothesis for who Apocalypse may also represent is a cult leader. In the movie, when he decides to choose his horsemen, he seems to go for the ones who have been betrayed by society, the poor, the weak, the hurt. Storm, before he gets to her, is stealing from a merchant - this may be because she is poor and needs the money. Psylocke is being used for her psychic abilities to locate other mutants, ultimately making Caliban more money. Angel loses his wings and becomes a drunk and lives in an abandoned building. Magneto has lost his family, for the second time, because he tries to fit in 'and do good.' He is lost, in pain, and realizes that he needs to do the same to humans. He states:

"I tried it your way, Charles. I lived with them, as one of them. They took everything from me. Now, we shall take everything from them."

Generally, cult leaders choose supporters who are affected by something so they can convince them that they are their 'savior'. Their miracles and signs look more impressive and hopeful. This is only one example of who Apocalypse may represent. I believe that it is a combination of both examples I have listed.

Phoenix - A Powerful Entity

In the movie, we are introduced to Phoenix. She cannot control her powers and is afraid to unleash everything she has. In X-Men Apocalypse, she has a dream about a world burning and falling to the ground and the last image she sees is Apocalypse. This is not only a dream, but foreshadowing of what will come. She is the only X-men character who can see this. She has a glimpse of something that may happen. In the end of the film, Charles asks Phoenix to unleash her powers. When she does she ultimately ends up defeating Apocalypse. Before he diminishes, he states "All is revealed." The reason why he states that is because he specifically says in the movie that the strongest will survive and win. At that point it is revealed that she is the strongest mutant. She destroys him and his philosophy holds true. He is content that the strongest mutant has survived.

Figure 13. The Phoenix force, she has unleashed her powers and ultimately defeats Apocalypse. It is hard to tell in the picture, but you can see the fiery image of a phoenix behind her

In Greek mythology, the Phoenix is a long-lived bird that is cyclically regenerated or reborn. Associated with the sun, a phoenix obtains new life by arising from the ashes of its predecessor. Earlier in the movie, Apocalypse states this:

"Everything they've built will fall! And from the ashes of their world, we'll build a better one!"

In this case, Phoenix arises from the ashes of the world Apocalypse is destroying, she arises from HIS ashes. In the historical record, the phoenix "could symbolize renewal in general as well as the sun, time, the Empire, metempsychosis, consecration, resurrection, and Christ. She is the one who destroys Apocalypse because he is the false leader, the false god, the false prophet. The phoenix represents the Empire Apocalypse was trying to destroy, the phoenix represents 'Christ,' the true prophet according to the Bible, the one who will lead the people into the right direction." Egyptians told a similar story of a phoenix-like bird. The Bennu, a heron bird that is part of their creation myth. The Bennu lived atop benben-stones or obelisks and was worshiped alongside Osiris and Ra. Bennu was seen as an avatar of Osiris, a living symbol of the deity. The solar bird appears on ancient amulets as a symbol of rebirth and immortality, and it was associated with the period of flooding of the Nile, bringing new wealth and fertility. In Judaism, the phoenix is known as Milcham or Chol (or Hol): The story of the phoenix begins in the Garden of Eden when Eve fell, tempted by the serpent to eat the forbidden fruit. According to the Midrash Rabbah, upset by her situation and jealous of creatures still innocent, Eve tempted all the other creatures of the garden to do the same. Only the Chol (phoenix) resisted. As a reward, the phoenix was given eternal life, which meant that death had no power over the phoenix. The phoenix became a symbol of Christianity in early literature, either from the ancient Hebrew legend or from the incorporation of Greek and Roman culture, or from a combination of both. In any case, the ideology of the phoenix fit perfectly with the story of Christ. The phoenix's resurrection from death as new and pure can be viewed as a metaphor for Christ's resurrection. And as mentioned earlier, only Christ (i.e an almighty figure, an all powerful figure) can defeat a false god, Apocalypse. In X-Men Apocalypse, Phoenix represents the rebirth of the world and true strength.

Note: There are many interpretations on which character represents which horseman and who apocalypse is. These are my views and interpretations supported by mythological and biblical characters and stories.

Conclusion

I believe that the director and writers of X-Men Apocalypse did a great job portraying mythological and religious texts such as the Book of Revelation, what the phoenix represented in different cultures, the arrow of Ra, and other Egyptian mythology in the movie. Through subtle symbolism/references and a recreation of the apocalypse with the four horsemen, X-Men Apocalypse was not only an enjoyable movie, but a movie that could enlighten the audience about ancient mythological characters and religious allegories.

References

Four Horsemen of Apocalypse

1) Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

2) Christian views on Hades

3) Who Are The Four Horsemen of The Apocalypse?

4) The Rider on the Red Horse

5) With the four horsemen what did the color of the horse mean?

6) Horses in Judgment

7) The Horsemen of Revelation

8) Crossed Swords

9) The Rider on the White Horse

10) The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - Public Domain Review

11) Book of Revelation

12) False Prophet

13) Apocalyptic Literature

14) THE FALSE PROPHET AND IMAGE OF THE BEAST OF REVELATION

15) Revelation, Chapter 6

Other Mythology & Language

1) The Meaning Behind the Ankh

2) Indus Script

3) Arrow of Ra

4) The Woman Clothed with the Sun

5) Phoenix (Mythology)

6) Ra

7) Tyet

8) Phoenix (Mythology) Pt. 2

9) Bennu

Storm

1) Storm (Marvel Comics)

Psylocke

1) Psylocke

Angel

1) Angel

Phoenix

1) Phoenix

2) Phoenix Force

Apocalypse

1) Apocalypse

Quotes

1) Part 1

2) Part 2

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Astronomy: Heliocentric System - Did Aristarchus Propose a Heliocentric System 1800 Years Earlier Than Copernicus? Did Copernicus Take the Credit?

Note: These early models are based off of Plato's theory of circular orbits. In 1609, Johannes Kepler was the first to propose that each planet moved about the Sun in an ellipse orbit. He supported his hypothesis with mathematical equations (geometric). He also gathered data from thousands of years ago to prove that the planets had to orbit around the Sun in an ellipse to correctly match where they were in the past and where they would end up (in their orbit) in the future.

Introduction to the Heliocentric Hypothesis/System

The heliocentric system is defined as the system in which the planets orbit around the Sun. The Sun is considered to be in the center of our system and the center of each planet's orbit. I will keep the heliocentric system like this for simplicity's sake (in reality, the Sun and the planets orbit around a common center of mass. The Sun is basically at the center of the Solar System since the Sun makes up about 99.9% of the Solar System. However, the Sun is not directly in the center of each planets' orbit. Because the Earth is very small compared to the Sun, the barycenter - center of mass they orbit around - places the Sun very close to the center. However, with planets that have a larger mass such as Jupiter and Saturn, the barycenter is not as close to the Sun. Therefore, while the large planet is orbiting the Sun, the Sun is revolving around the barycenter, thus creating an illusion that the Sun is moving back and forth, i.e Figure 2. This is visible with spectrometers and NOT to the naked eye. If one was observing the Sun from Jupiter, they would not see the slight wobble from the Sun traveling around its barycenter. The center of mass that a certain planet and the Sun revolve around differ based on distance and mass of the specific planet. From this point on I will refer to the Sun as the center of the Solar System because we are observers from Earth. The Sun is basically at the center for us).

Figure 1. Exaggerated version of a planet and the Sun revolving around their barycenter

Figure 2. Side view (the back and forth illusion due to the revolution around the barycenter. The planet orbits the barycenter faster because of its smaller mass, while the Sun is orbiting around the barycenter at a slower rate due mostly to its weight.

The heliocentric system became somewhat popular when an astronomer/mathematician by the name of Nicolaus Copernicus proposed a geometric mathematical model to explain that the Earth was revolving around the Sun, rather than the Sun revolving around the Earth. The geocentric model was the accepted hypothesis during this time (especially Aristotle's 'universe' which was accepted for many centuries). This model showed the Earth in the center with the Sun and other planets revolving around it. This was a very popular belief during the time of ancient civilizations until up to Copernicus' time. Although the geocentric model of the Solar System seems absurd to us today, this hypothesis was very logical during the time when technology was not as advanced as it is today. Observers on Earth during the era where the geocentric model was thoroughly explained (approximately 611 BC - 140 AD), saw the Sun rise in the east and set in the west. Each of the celestial objects observed seemed a lot smaller than the Earth, and most importantly they always saw the Moon. The stars were accepted to be much larger than Earth. Thus, the sphere they were located on moved slowly around the Earth in a diurnal motion (rise east, set west). These specific reasons alone, convinced people that the Sun and planets were revolving around the Earth. The Earth never 'leaves' the Moon, so if the Earth revolved around the Sun then the Earth would leave the Moon behind. Another belief during that time was that because everything heavy on Earth was impossible to move (such as a boulder), then the massive Earth was too huge and sluggish to be able to revolve around anything. This belief held strong and a well-known philosopher, Aristotle came along and proposed a hypothesis supporting the geocentric model. His model was accepted for centuries.

Background Information: Geocentric Model

Aristotle stated that the Earth was spherical and at rest (note: most people at this time believed the Earth was spherical and not flat). To prove that the Earth was at rest, he noted that if the Earth was truly in motion, the observers would see the stars in the night sky move instead of being in their fixed positions (this excludes rising and setting). An interesting observation that Aristotle stressed was that because the Earth is spherical, lunar eclipses show shadow segments as a curved line instead of a flat line. Also, when one travels north or south, the stars position appear to change. Because of this, he stated that the stars were also on a celestial sphere and this allowed them to retain their positions. Aristotle expanded a hypothesis made by his predecessors (Anaximander, Pythagoras, Plato, Eudoxus). Eudoxus came up with a model that tried to explain the geocentric model. His model contained 27 spheres: the stars had 1 (diurnal motion), the Moon had 3 (diurnal motion, monthly movement with respect to the stars: eastward, and deviation from the ecliptic: 5 degree tilt of orbit), the Sun had 3 (diurnal motion, annual motion east with respect to stars, and one to keep symmetry with the Moon), 4 orbits for each of the 5 planets: Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn (diurnal motion, prograde motion, and 2 for retrograde motion). Aristotle elaborated and modified Eudoxus' model by adding 28 more spheres to have a total of 55 spheres for his model. Aristotle also added that the 4 elements seen in chemistry (earth, water, air, and fire) had their own natural motion toward their natural place in the universe: Earth downward, fire upward, water and air falling in between. He also mentioned that the Earth was not orbiting the Sun because then they would observe a heliocentric parallax. This means that if the Earth was revolving around the Sun, they would have seen the positions of the stars change with the seasons. In other words, there would be an observable parallax of the stars. One cannot see stellar parallax with the naked-eye, so Aristotle concluded that the Earth must be at rest. However, the stars are so far away, that one needs a good telescope to measure stellar parallax. The first measured parallax was in 1838.

Figure 3. Heliocentric parallax (not seen with naked eye). The movement of a nearby star relative to the background of much more distant stars

Aristotle's hypothesis was supported with logic that made sense during his time. For about a century, his hypothesis was widely accepted by scholars and the public. One man skeptical of Aristotle's hypothesis, came along hoping to change everyone's mind.

Aristarchus of Samos and the Heliocentric Hypothesis

Aristarchus was a Greek astronomer/mathematician noted as being the first to propose a model that placed the Sun at the center of the 'universe' and the planets revolving around it. Aristarchus also believed that the stars in the 'universe' were like the Sun; they were just further away. Because of this, there is no observable parallax (to the naked eye). Since the telescope did not exist at the time, this idea was rejected. Note that the first telescope that gained much attention was Galileo's. It is said that he was not the first to invent the telescope, but his telescope gained popularity due to what he observed. His contributions to observational astronomy include the telescopic confirmation of the phases of Venus, the discovery of the four largest satellites of Jupiter (named the Galilean Moons in his honor), and the observation and analysis of sunspots. It is said that Aristarchus explained the heliocentric system through geometric models (before Copernicus). He described a spherical Moon illuminated by the Sun which was closer to the Earth than the Sun. However, his hypothesis may have been rejected due to Aristotle's logical (at the time), popular theory. Did Aristarchus propose and support this hypothesis before Copernicus? Did Copernicus get credit for Aristarchus' work? I plan to answer these questions, but there is something I must note: it is said that Aristarchus' original text was lost/destroyed in Alexandria. Fortunately, some of his work has been retrieved and academics such as Archimedes, an ancient Greek mathematician/physicist/engineer/astronomer referenced Aristarchus' hypotheses.

Aristarchus' Surviving Work

Interestingly enough, Aristarchus' only known surviving work (included in Book VI of the Collection preserved by students of Pappus of Alexandria) is based on a geocentric viewpoint named On The Sizes And Distances Of The Sun And Moon. Why this is the case is unknown, however it might be a possibility that this is his only work regarding the geocentric model, and his later work on the heliocentric model could have been destroyed due its rejection. Because his other work was destroyed, and I don't have access to them, I cannot speculate any further. On Sizes contains geometric mathematical models of the Earth and luminaries. These mathematical models were used to derive sizes and distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon. The text begins with 6 assumptions referred to as 'hypotheses.' There are two groups of hypotheses included in On Sizes. The first group consists of three hypotheses:

That the Moon receives its light from the Sun.
That the Earth has the ratio of a point and a center to the sphere of the Moon.
That, when the Moon appears to us halved, the great circle dividing the dark and the bright portions of the Moon points toward (neÚein e„j) our eye.

These hypotheses are considered to be geometric. This means that they explain the celestial world with mathematics. They do not explain the 'natural' world (the world the people live in). The next set of hypotheses are considered to be computational. This means that they were used as assumptions of the physical or 'natural' world. Numerical variables were used to try to solve these assumptions:

4. That, when the Moon appears to us halved, its distance from the Sun is less than a

quadrant by a thirtieth of a quadrant [87◦].

5. That the breadth of the shadow is two Moons.

6. That the Moon subtends a fifteenth part of a zodiacal sign [2◦].

Hypothesis #5 means that the width of the Earth’s shadow falling on the Moon’s orbit appears to us as twice the angular span of the Moon.

To explain these hypotheses, Aristarchus came up with 3 propositions. 18 propositions follow after containing the demonstrations.

Aristarchus proposed that the distance of the Sun from the Earth is greater than eighteen times, but less than twenty times. The distance of the Moon according to the hypothesis (concerning the dividing in half); is that the diameter of the Sun has the same relationship to the diameter of the Moon; and that the diameter of the Sun has a relationship to the diameter of the Earth greater than that of 19 to 3, but less than that of 43 to 6. He tried to prove these ideas with mathematical models. These models would later be called the Lunar Dichotomy (Figure 4 and 5) method and the Eclipse Diagram.

Figure 4. Lunar Dichotomy:

Figure 5. Aristarchus' Diagram of Lunar Dichotomy. Top picture: from left to right - Sun, Earth, Moon. Bottom Picture: from top to bottom - Moon, Earth, Sun

Aristarchus claimed that at half Moon (1st or 3rd quarter Moon), the angle between the Sun and the Moon was 87 degrees. Using geometry (lengths and angles), Aristarchus proposed that the Sun was 18 times further away (from the Earth) than the Moon. Although he is correct about the fact that the Moon is closer to the Earth compared to the Sun's proximity to Earth, his reference/datum of 87 degrees was inaccurate, skewing his results. The Sun is now shown to be about 400 times away from the Earth compared to the Moon and also about 400 times the size of the Moon. Because these two values can 'cancel out,' the Sun usually looks the same size or a bit larger than the Moon. Knowing this, one can understand why people during Aristotle's time (and other ancient civilizations) thought that the Earth was huge and the Sun and the Moon were small objects that orbit the Earth. There are a number of mathematical formulas (trigonometry and geometry) that Aristarchus used to calculate and prove his hypotheses. I will include all references if anyone is interested in looking at his work.

Aristarchus & The Heliocentric Model/System

Aristarchus' other work supposedly on the heliocentric model, have been lost or destroyed. However, multiple scholars have accredited him for hypothesizing a heliocentric model. Archimedes, who cited Aristarchus with the most detail is known for building off and modifying Aristarchus and other scholars' work. One of Archimedes' surviving work, The Sand Reckoner mentions Aristarchus' hypothesis on the heliocentric model. Archimedes states that Aristarchus proposed a universe much greater than what was thought during their time (c. 287 BC – c. 212 BC). According to Archimedes (this has been translated):

"His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun in the circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same centre as the Sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the Earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the centre of the sphere bears to its surface. Now it is easy to see that this is impossible; for, since the centre of the sphere has no magnitude, we cannot conceive it to bear any ratio whatever to the surface of the sphere. We must however take Aristarchus to mean this: since we conceive the Earth to be, as it were, the centre of the universe, the ratio which the Earth bears to what we describe as the 'universe' is the same as the ratio which the sphere containing the circle in which he supposes the Earth to revolve bears to the sphere of the fixed stars. For he adapts the proofs of his results to a hypothesis of this kind, and in particular he appears to suppose the magnitude of the sphere in which he represents the Earth as moving to be equal to what we call the 'universe.''

Archimedes stated that in Aristarchus' original text, the 2 degree for the angle subtended by the Sun and Moon is actually too large. He clarifies that according to Aristarchus' meticulous calculations and correct use of the evidence of eclipses, it was actually stated to be 1/2 degree. This could have been an error during translation. Archimedes has also cited Aristarchus multiple times in his work. These excerpts are from The Sand Reckoner:

"I say then that, even if a sphere were made up of the sand, as great as Aristarchus supposes the sphere of the fixed stars to be, I shall still prove that, of the numbers named in the Principles*) some exceed in multitude the number of the sand which is equal in magnitude to the sphere referred to, provided that the following assumptions be made." (p.222)

"It is true that, of the earlier astronomers, Eudoxus declared it to be about nine times as great, and Pheidias my father twelve times, while Aristarchus tried to prove that the diameter of the Sun is greater than 18 times but less than 20 times the diameter of the Moon. But I go even further than Aristarchus, in order that the truth of my proposition may be established beyond dispute, and I suppose the diameter of the Sun to be about 30 times that of the Moon and not greater." (p.223)

"I make this assumption because Aristarchus discovered that the Sun appeared to be about 1/720 part of the circle of the zodiac, and I myself tried, by a method which I will now describe, to find experimentally (untranslated text) the angle subtended by the Sun and having its vertex at the eye (untranslated text)." (p.223)

"From this we can prove further that a sphere of the size attributed by Aristarchus to the sphere of the fixed stars would contain a number of grains of sand less than 10,000,000 units of the eighth order of numbers [or 10^56+7 = 10^63]." (p. 232)

Archimedes' Sand Reckoner work is similar to that of On Sizes. It begins with a number of hypotheses, two of which are explicitly based on the preceding work of Aristarchus. From these assumptions, Archimedes proceeds to develop a more accurate measurement (measurements and sizes are a lot larger today) for the size of a greatly expanded cosmos. He then filled this cosmos with sand to exhibit a number. He used a method well known to Greek mathematicians: the ratio of the volumes of two spheres is the third power of the ratio of their diameters. Because he wanted a cosmos that was as large as possible, he introduced a heliocentric hypothesis, which he attributed to Aristarchus. According to Kings Academy abbreviated version of The Sand Reckoner,

"He begins with a poppy seed which, you will recall, was not less than one 40th of a finger-breadth. A sphere of diameter 40 poppy seeds would therefore have a volume no greater than 64,000 poppy seeds. Since each poppy seed contains no more than 10,000 grains of sand, a sphere of one finger-breadth contains at most 640,000,000 grains of sand. The latter number consists of 6 units of the second order plus 40,000,000 units of the first order, a quantity that is not more than 10 units of the second order in Archimedes’ numbering scheme. A sphere of one finger-breadth contains no more than 10 units of the second order of sand grains."

Diameter of Sphere Number of Grains of Sand

100 finger-breadths < 1,000,000 x 10 = 10,000,000 units of the second order

10,000 finger-breadths < 1,000,000 x previous number < 100,000

units of the third order

The Greek measure of larger distances, the stadium, is less than 10,000 finger-breadths, according to Archimedes. Thus,

one stadium < 100,000 units of the third order

100 stadia <1,000,000 x prev. number< 1,000 units of the fourth order

10,000 stadia < 1,000,000 x previous number < 10 units of the fifth order

1,000,000 stadia < 10,000,000 units of the fifth order

100,000,000 stadia < 100,000 units of the sixth order

10,000,000,000 stadia < 100,000 units of the sixth order

A sphere of the size attributed by Aristarchus to the sphere of fixed stars would contain a quantity of sand no greater than 10,000,000 units of the eighth order of numbers. (i.e., 10^63). Archimedes made the working assumption that the distance of the fixed stars was in the same relation to the radius of the Earth's orbit as that orbit was in relation to the Earth itself. Under these conditions, he could demonstrate that stellar parallax would have been beyond then-current observers' ability to detect (with the naked eye since telescopes were not invented at that time). Using Aristarchus' work, Archimedes concluded that these findings would be incredible to anyone who did not study mathematics, however, the ones who had given thought to the question of the distances and sizes of the Earth, the Sun, the Moon and the whole universe, the proof would carry conviction. His ideas were also rejected due to no observable parallax. It is also said that Archimedes was killed by a Roman soldier. There are multiple accounts of how and what he was doing before he died, this is one example (translated from Latin):

"I should say that Archimedes’ diligence also bore fruit if it had not both given him life and taken it away. At the capture of Syracuse Marcellus had been aware that his victory had been held up much and long by Archimedes’ machines. However, pleased with the man’s exceptional skill, he gave out that his life was to be spared, putting almost as much glory in saving Archimedes as in crushing Syracuse. But as Archimedes was drawing diagrams with mind and eyes fixed on the ground, a soldier who had broken into the house in quest of loot with sword drawn over his head asked him who he was. Too much absorbed in tracking down his objective, Archimedes could not give his name but said, protecting the dust with his hands, “I beg you, don’t disturb this,” and was slaughtered as neglectful of the victor’s command; with his blood he confused the lines of his art. So it fell out that he was first granted his life and then stripped of it by reason of the same pursuit."

Archimedes was not the only one who cited Aristarchus' work, other ancient authorities unanimously attribute the heliocentric system to Aristarchus. Plutarch (c. 100 AD), a Greek historian, biographer and essayist gave a similar brief account of Aristarchus' hypothesis, stating specifically that the Earth revolves along the ecliptic and that it is at the same time rotating on its axis. In the first two excerpts from Plutarch's work called On the Apparent Face in the Orb of the Moon, Plutarch cites Aristarchus' work On The Sizes And Distances Of The Sun And Moon, the third one cites Aristarchus' idea that the Earth revolved around the ecliptic path and rotated around its own axis:

"And consider, leaving out of the case the other fixed stars and planets, what Aristarchus points out in his treatise ‘ Upon Magnitudes and Distances,’ that the distance of the Sun is more than eighteen times, but less than twenty times the distance of the Moon, by which she is separated from us: and yet the computation that gives the greatest elevation to the Moon says she is distant from us fifty-six times the space from the center of the Earth [to the circumference]: this length is of forty thousand stadia, according to those who make a moderate calculation of it. And, calculated from this basis, the Sun’s distance from the Moon amounts to over four thousand and thirty myriads of stadia. So far, then, is she separated from the Sun by reason of her weight, and approximated to Earth, that if one must define substances by localities, the constitution and beauty of Earth attracts the Moon, and she is of influence in matters and over persons upon Earth, by reason of her relationship and proximity. And we do not go wrong, I think, when we assign to those bodies above denominated such immense depth and distance, and leave to that which is below a certain circular course and broadway as much as lies between Earth and the Moon: for neither the man who pretends the summit of heaven to be the sole ‘above,’ and denominates all the rest as ‘below,’ is reasonable in his definition; nor yet is he who circumscribes ‘below’ by the limits of Earth, or rather by the Center, to be listened to: but even moveable. . . . inasmuch as the universe allows of the interval required by reason of its own extensiveness."

"But Aristarchus proves that the Moon’s diameter bears a proportion [to that of Earth] which is less than sixty to nineteen, but somewhat greater than one hundred and eight to forty. Consequently Earth entirely takes away the Sun from sight, by reason of her magnitude; for the obstruction she presents is extensive, and endures the space of a night, whereas the Moon, even though she may occasionally hide the Sun, the occultation has no time to last, and no extensiveness, but some light shows itself round his circumference that does not allow the darkness to become deep and unmixed. Aristotle (the ancient one, I mean) gives as one cause, besides some others, of the Moon’s being seen eclipsed more frequently than the Sun, ‘that the Sun is eclipsed by the obstruction of the Moon, whereas the Moon is . . . .’ But Posidonius thus describes the phenomenon: ‘The eclipse is the conjunction of the Sun and the shadow of the Moon, of which the eclipse . . . . for to those people alone is the eclipse visible from whom the Moon’s shadow shall occupy and block out the sight of the Sun.’ And when he agrees that the shadow of the Moon is projected as far as us, I do not know what more he has left himself to say, for of a star there can be no shadow, because that thing which is unillumined is designated shadow—now light does naturally not produce shadow, but destroy it.”

"Thereupon Lucius laughed and said: "Oh sir, just don't bring suit against us for impiety as Cleanthes thought that the Greeks ought to lay an action for impiety against Aristarchus the Samian on the ground that he was disturbing the hEarth of the universe because he sought to save the phenomena by assuming that the heaven is at rest while the Earth is revolving along the ecliptic and at the same time is rotating about its own axis."

The heliocentric model (the one Aristarchus thought to be true), was rejected due to a non-observable parallax. As mentioned previously, Aristarchus hypothesized that the stars were extremely far from Earth and that is why they did not observe a heliocentric parallax. Plutarch mentions in the last excerpt above that Aristarchus assumed that the heaven was at rest, while the Earth was revolving and rotating.

Vitruvius - a Roman author, architect, civil engineer and military engineer during the 1st century BC, known for his multi-volume work entitled De architectura - also cited Aristarchus in his work:

"Those unto whom nature has been so bountiful that they are at once geometricians, astronomers, musicians, and skilled in many other arts, go beyond what is required of the architect, and may be properly called mathematicians, in the extended sense of that word. Men so gifted, discriminate acutely, and are rarely met with. Such, however, was Aristarchus of Samos..." (p.4)

"I shall now subjoin what Aristarchus, the Samian mathematician, learnedly wrote on this subject, though of a different nature. He asserted, that the Moon possesses no light of its own, but is similar to a speculum, which receives its splendour from the Sun’s rays. Of the planets, the Moon makes the smallest circuit, and is nearest to the Earth; whence, on the first day of its monthly course, hiding itself under the Sun, it is invisible; and when thus in conjunction with the Sun, it is called the new Moon. The following day, which is called the second, removing a little from the Sun, it receives a small portion of light on its disc. When it is three days distant from him, it has increased, and become more illuminated; thus daily elongating from him, on the seventh day, being half the heavens distant from the western Sun, one half of it shines, namely, that half which is lighted by the Sun. 4. On the fourteenth day, being diametrically opposite to the Sun, and the whole of the heavens distant from him, it becomes full, and rises as the Sun sets; and its distance being the whole extent of the heavens, it is exactly opposite to, and its whole orb receives, the light of the Sun. On the seventeenth day, when the Sun rises, it inclines towards the west; on the twenty-first day, when the Sun rises, the Moon is about mid-heaven, and the side next the Sun is enlightened, whilst the other is in shadow. Thus advancing every day, about the twenty-eighth day it again returns under the rays of the Sun, and completes its monthly rotation. I will now explain how the Sun, in his passage through a sign every month, causes the days and hours to increase and diminish." (p.109-110)

"The semicircular form, hollowed out of a square block, and cut under to correspond to the polar altitude, is said to have been invented by Berosus the Chaldean; the Scaphe or Hemisphere, by Aristarchus of Samos, as well as the disc on a plane surface;"

In this case, Vitruvius is stating that Aristarchus created two new types of sun-dials, one with a full, concave, hemispherical surface, and another with a fully circular equatorial dial with a nodus. The hemispherical shaped sun-dial was named the hemispherium or scaphe and the fully circular one was called the discus (a disc on a plane surface).

Figure 6. hemispherium or scaphe

Figure 7. Similar to the discus

These inventions of the sundials are important to note because although the sundials do not prove heliocentrism, it does show Aristarchus' desire to look at the Sun's apparent position in the sky. All three of these ancient Greek authorities have cited Aristarchus' work. Not only on his measures of the distances between the Sun, Moon, and Earth but also of Aristarchus' work on the heliocentric model. During this era however, Aristarchus' model and other scholars' work based on Aristarchus' model were rejected due to no observable parallax and how popular the geocentric model was during that time. About 1800 years later Copernicus proposed the heliocentric model and due to his evidence, and the time that he was living, his work about the heliocentric system was more popular with the public (one reason is because he did a lot of underground work). However, his work was disregarded by the Catholic Church because it did not fit Ptolemy's model. Because Ptolemy's model was highly accepted within the Catholic Church, they did not believe that Copernicus' model/work proved much about a heliocentric model. It is when Kepler, Galileo, and Newton's work are combined, that ultimately prove that the Earth really did revolve around the Sun and that the Sun was actually in the center of the solar system. The Catholic Church put Copernicus' final published manuscript of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium on the forbidden list, but his work was popular among curious individuals of the public. Copernicus did cite Aristarchus in a earlier version (unpublished) of De Revolutionibus (which still survives), though he removed the reference from his final published manuscript. Some questions are why did he do that? And although he may have expanded on this model (with his own evidence), was the model similar enough to Aristarchus' that he should have been cited? Other scholars before Copernicus' time cited, or attributed the heliocentric model to Aristarchus and scholars after Copernicus' time cited their predecessors (even though they expanded/modified hypotheses/theories to fit observations).

Copernicus and the Heliocentric Model/System

Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Renaissance mathematician and astronomer who formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at the center of the universe. His work that explained this was in a book he published called De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, translated to On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres. Copernicus first wrote the "Commentariolus" (40-page outline of an early version of his heliocentric theory of the universe) some time before 1514 and circulated copies to his friends and colleagues. In this short manuscript, he mentions his postulates/assumptions, the 'order' of the spheres, the apparent motion of the Sun, how 'Equal motion should be measured not by the equinoxes but by the fixed stars, information regarding the motion of the Moon, the 'superior' planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Mars during his era), Venus and Mercury. These excerpts are from "Commentariolus:"

Copernicus' Postulates

There is no one center of all the celestial circles or spheres.
The center of the Earth is not the center of the universe, but only of gravity and of the Moon's orbit.
All the planets revolve about the Sun as their mid-point, and therefore the Sun is the center of the universe.
The ratio of the Earth's distance from the Sun to the height of the firmament is so much smaller than the ratio of the Earth's radius to its distance from the Sun that the distance from the Earth to the Sun is imperceptible in comparison to the height of the firmament.
Whatever motion appears in the firmament arises not from any motion of the firmament, but from the Earth's motions. The Earth together with its circumjacent elements (Note: Copernicus is referring to the atmosphere and the waters that lie upon the surface of the Earth) performs a complete rotation on its poles in a daily motion, while the unmoved firmament and highest heaven abide unchanged.
What appear to us as motions of the Sun arise not from its motion but from the motion of the Earth and our sphere, with which we revolve about the Sun like any other planet. The Earth has, then, more than one motion.
The apparent retrograde and direct motion of the planets arises not from their motion but from the Earth's. The motion of the Earth alone, therefore, suffices to explain so many apparent inequalities in the heavens.

The Order of the Spheres

"The celestial spheres are arranged in the following order. The highest is the immovable sphere of the fixed stars, which contains and gives position to all things. Beneath it is Saturn, which Jupiter follows, then Mars. Below Mars is the sphere on which we revolve; then Venus; last is Mercury. The lunar sphere revolves about the center of the Earth and moves with the Earth like an epicycle. In the same order also, one planet surpasses another in speed of revolution, according as they trace greater or smaller circles. Thus Saturn completes its revolution in thirty years, Jupiter in twelve, Mars in two and one-half, and the Earth in one year; Venus in nine months, Mercury in three."

I must note that although Copernicus put the Sun in the center, and the planets revolving around the Sun, he still used epicycles to explain for retrograde motion of the planets.

Figure 8. Copernicus' illustrations on a heliocentric model that included epicycles

It isn't until Johannes Kepler comes along and publishes Astronomia nova (1609), Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae (1617-1621), and Harmonices Mundi (1619) where he states that the orbits around the Sun are elliptical and not perfectly circular. This gets rid of epicycles because it explains for retrograde motion of the planets.

The Apparent Motions of the Sun

"The Earth has three motions. First, it revolves annually in a great circle about the Sun in the order of the signs, always describing equal arcs in equal times; the distance from the center of the circle to the center of the Sun is 1/25 of the radius of the circle. The radius is assumed to have a length imperceptible in comparison with the height of the firmament; consequently the Sun appears to revolve with this motion, as if the Earth lay in the center of the universe. However, this appearance is caused by the motion not of the Sun but of the Earth, so that, for example, when the Earth is in the sign of Capricornus, the Sun is seen diametrically opposite in Cancer, and so on. On account of the previously mentioned distance of theSun from the center of the circle, this apparent motion of the Sun is not uniform, the maximum inequality being 2 1/6ø. The line drawn from the Sun through the center of the circle is invariably directed toward a point of the firmament about 10ø west of the more brilliant of the two bright stars in the head of Gemini, therefore when the Earth is opposite this point, and the center of the circle lies between them, the Sun is seen at is greatest distance from the Earth. In this circle, then, the Earth revolves together with whatever else is included within the lunar sphere.

The second motion, which is peculiar to the Earth, is the daily rotation on the poles in the order of the signs, that is, from west to east. On account of this rotation the entire universe appears to revolve with enormous speed. Thus does the Earth rotate together with its circumjacent waters and encircling atmosphere.

The third is the motion in declination. For the axis of the daily rotation is not parallel to the axis of the great circle, but is inclined to it at an angle that intercepts a portion of a circumference, in our time about 23 1/2ø. Therefore, while the center of the Earth always remains in the plane of the ecliptic, that is, in the circumference of the great circle, the poles of the Earth rotate, both of them describing small circles about centers equidistant from the axis of the great circle. The period of this motion is not quite a year and is nearly equal to the annual revolution on the great circle. But the axis of the great circle is invariably directed toward the points of the firmament which are called the poles of the ecliptic. In like manner the motion in declination, combined with the annual motion in their joint effect upon the poles of the daily rotation, would keep these poles constantly fixed at the same points of the heavens, if the periods of both motions were exactly equal. Now with the long passage of time is has become clear that this inclination of the Earth to the firmament changes. Hence it is the common opinion that the firmament has several motions in conformity with a law not yet sufficiently understood. But the motion of the Earth can explain all these changes in a less surprising way. I am not concerned to state what the path of the poles is. I am aware that, in lesser matters, a magnetized iron needle always points in the same direction. It has nevertheless seemed a better view to ascribe the changes to a sphere, whose motion governs the movements of the poles. This sphere must doubtless be sublunar."

Copernicus cited Aristarchus in his manuscript before he published a finalized version called De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. He ended up deleting the citations for the final draft. This deleted material, which was not printed in the first four editions of the Revolutions (1543, 1566, 1617, 1854), was incorporated in those published after the recovery of Copernicus' autograph (1873, 1949, 1972):

"The motion of the Sun and Moon can be demonstrated, I admit, also with an Earth that is stationary. This is, however, lea suitable for the remaining planets . Philolaus believed in the Earth's motion for these and similar reasons. This is plausible because Aristarchus of Samos too held the same view according to some people, who were not motivated by the argumentation put forward by Aristotle and rejected by him [Heavens, II, 13-14). But only a keen mind and persevering study could understand then subjects. They were therefore unfamiliar to most philosophers at that time, and Plato does not conceal the fact that there were then only a few who mastered the theory of the heavenly motions."

In this statement, Copernicus admits that Aristarchus proposed the heliocentric model before him (i.e theory of the heavenly motions), however, philosophers at the time rejected his theory because of Aristotle's popularity. Although Philolaus was an important figure to Copernicus, Philolaus was not as accurate as Aristarchus was when explaining the 'heliocentric' model. Philolaus' ideas showed that the cosmos and everything in it was made up of two basic types of things, limiters and unlimiteds. Unlimiteds were defined as continua untouched by any structure or quantity; they included the traditional material elements such as earth, air, fire and water but also space and time. Limiters set limits in such unlimiteds and included shapes and other structural principles. Limiters and unlimiteds are not combined in a random way but are subject to a “fitting together” or “harmonia.” Philolaus' primary example of such a harmonia of limiters and unlimiteds is a musical scale, in which the continuum of sound is limited according to whole number ratios, so that the octave, fifth, and fourth are defined by the ratios 2 : 1, 3 : 2 and 4 : 3. Since the whole world is structured according to number, we only gain knowledge of the world as we grasp these numbers. The cosmos comes to be when the unlimited fire is fitted together with the center of the cosmic sphere (a limiter) to become the central fire. Philolaus was the precursor of Copernicus in moving the Earth from the center of the cosmos and making it a planet, but in Philolaus' system it does not orbit the Sun but rather the central fire. Aristarchus, however, was the first to propose a serious model of the heliocentric model using mathematical/physical evidence. It is notable that according to Plutarch, a contemporary of Aristarchus accused him of impiety for "putting the Earth in motion." This is important because it is stated that one reason Copernicus may not have cited Aristarchus in his published version of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, was because Copernicus had no desire to inform or remind anybody that the religious head of an influential philosophical school had "thought that the Greeks ought to bring charges of impiety against Aristarchus." In other words, he did not want to take a strong stance on any side of the issue. One other reason Copernicus may have removed the citing of Aristarchus was because of how unpopular he was at the time of his publications.

Aristarchus' work on the geocentric model (On the Sizes) was the only one that remained while his supposed work of the heliocentric model was destroyed or 'lost.' Multiple different scholars cite his heliocentric model/work and because of that we can accredit Aristarchus with the first logical model of the heliocentric system. Aristarchus and Copernicus still included epicycles in their models because they could not explain retrograde (keep in mind that their hypotheses revolved around the idea that the planets orbited in a uniform circular motion). Anyway, should have Copernicus cited Aristarchus (keep his citations in the final draft)? I think that would have been the right thing to do, ethically. Even during their era, scholars cited other scholars' work. Even though their system was not as meticulous as ours today, attributing a hypothesis or a theory to someone was considered a citation. Even though I believe that Copernicus should have cited Aristarchus in his final text for ethical reasons, it is understandable why Copernicus did not cite Aristarchus in the final draft. For one, although his hypotheses revolve around Aristarchus' ideas, Copernicus put in time and effort and modified/built off of Aristarchus' original idea. Copernicus did not reuse the same idea. Also, if Copernicus truly did not include a citation for Aristarchus because he feared that no one would read or take his work seriously, it may have been a better idea for him to remove Aristarchus' name. Even though Copernicus' work was popular among his friends and some people of the public, the Catholic Church banned his work and put it on the forbidden list (a list of books not RECOMMENDED to read). Copernicus published De revolutionibus the same year he died. When Copernicus started receiving positive feedback and popularity, he was already dead. Who knows if he would have stated that Aristarchus was the first to propose a heliocentric model.

Conclusion

To conclude, although Aristarchus was known by others to be the first to propose a heliocentric model, Copernicus extended, modified and included his own evidence to support this new heliocentric hypothesis. Aristarchus' work isn't physically available (except for On the Sizes, which although contains a great amount of detail and measurements on the sizes of the Moon, Sun and Earth, it still describes a geocentric viewpoint). However, Copernicus' work survived and after his death, it was given to his pupil, Rheticus, who for publication had only been given a copy without annotations. Via Heidelberg, it ended up in Prague, where it was rediscovered and studied in the 19th century. Having a physical book is easier to trust than citations from scholars. Because of these reasons, Copernicus is known for the heliocentric model, but, he should be known as the one who revised it to the point where Kepler stated that Copernicus' model was the closest to the truth. Even though Copernicus was not the first to propose a hypothesis on a heliocentric model (many of his hypotheses, although edited came from Aristarchus' original proposition), he was still a great scientist. He worked his whole life using mathematics to find the truth. Inspired by his predecessors, he sought to prove that the sun was truly at the center of our Solar System. Even though he knew that he would probably get heat from the Catholic Church, he published anyway. His book was banned during his era, however when Kepler came along, he used Copernicus' ideas and his own mathematical evidence to prove that we truly live in a heliocentric system. Without scholars such as Aristarchus and Copernicus, Kepler wouldn't have been able to build off of existing hypotheses, Galileo may not have been influenced to observe the night sky, Newton would have never proposed his laws of motion (to answer Kepler's question) and Einstein may have never proposed a theory of general relativity and gravitational waves (to finish Newton's work). This domino effect is what is important in science. One person might not get the credit for a certain discovery because multiple scientists/scholars contribute in a direct/indirect way. Discoveries are still being made, theories are being challenged, and more information is added to existing hypotheses today. Cooperation, open-mindedness, being able to take criticism, skepticism, etc. are all important characteristics that these scholars had and what everyone should want to have and acquire if they want to be successful, especially if you're interested in diving into the fascinating world of science.

References

Aristarchus of Samos:

1) Aristarchus of Samos

2) Aristarchus: The Ancient Copernicus

3) The Ancients: Aristarchus

4) Full Version of Aristarchus: The Ancient Copernicus

5) On the Sizes and Distances (Aristarchus)

6) Treatise On Sizes and Distances

7) Aristarchus of Samos Part 2

8) In the shadow of Aristarchus and the lunar eclipse of February 20th, 2008

9) Aristarchus’s On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and the Moon: Greek and Arabic Texts

10) Aristarchus