tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post7156416214926677755..comments2024-03-23T07:33:30.972+00:00Comments on Quodlibeta: Nicole Oresme and the Moving EarthJameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-46293986175714911102015-04-11T22:19:18.842+01:002015-04-11T22:19:18.842+01:00Buridan did not want to be burned alive. So Burida...Buridan did not want to be burned alive. So Buridan presented all his new physics and cosmology as the point of view of "supporters" of the point of view that "authority does not demonstrate".<br /><br />Buridan believed that the Earth turned on itself each day, and around the sun in a year, that the arrow would fall at the same point, because of his own theory of impetus. Etc.<br /><br />Some details are available at my site, found by Googling "Patrice Ayme". In my essay of April 11, 2015, on the "Flat Universe Versus Twisted Logic".<br /><br />Patrice Aymehttps://patriceayme.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-55766283626419579252010-02-22T10:09:11.160+00:002010-02-22T10:09:11.160+00:00Ah good points.
In book II of De Caelo Aristotle ...Ah good points.<br /><br />In book II of De Caelo Aristotle says that:<br /><br />'It is clear, then, that the earth must be at the centre and immovable, not only for the reasons already given, but also because heavy bodies forcibly thrown quite straight upward return to the point from which they started, even if they are thrown to an infinite distance. From these considerations then it is clear that the earth does not move and does not lie elsewhere than at the centre.'<br /><br />..which is a form of the argument Buridan was eventually persuaded by.Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936974517695558399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-46785046173580870742010-02-03T22:42:22.209+00:002010-02-03T22:42:22.209+00:00Thanks for this excellent post. I'd like to ma...Thanks for this excellent post. I'd like to make two small points, though.<br /><br />(1) You write that the helicentric view "would not come until Copernicus’s <i>De revolutionibus</i>". That's not quite true. At least three decades before his masterwork, Copernicus wrote a short treatise, later known as <i>Commentariolus</i>, in which he espoused a heliocentric theory. The treatise was circulated in a wider circle of his friends and made a name for Copernicus. The date of the treatise is a subject of controversy, but it was certainly written before 1514.<br /><br />(2) You write that "Buridan rejects the idea that the earth is rotating, based on the fact that if you shoot an arrow straight up in the air, it falls back to the ground exactly where you shoot it from." Obviously, in this Buridan is closely following his Aristotle: <i>De Caelo</i> II.14 296b23-25.Pavelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11842086115642593255noreply@blogger.com