(eBook PDF) Weather: A Concise Introduction

download

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-weather-a-concise-
introduction/

Download full version ebook from https://ebooksecure.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebooksecure.com
to discover even more!

(eBook PDF) A Concise Introduction to Ethics

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-a-concise-introduction-
to-ethics/

(Original PDF) Canadian Democracy A Concise

Introduction

http://ebooksecure.com/product/original-pdf-canadian-democracy-a-
concise-introduction/

(eBook PDF) Psychology: A Concise Introduction 5th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-psychology-a-concise-
introduction-5th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Canadian Democracy: A Concise Introduction

2nd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-canadian-democracy-a-
concise-introduction-2nd-edition/
(eBook PDF) A Concise Introduction to Logic 13th
Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-a-concise-introduction-
to-logic-13th-edition/

(eBook PDF) A Concise Introduction to Linguistics 5th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-a-concise-introduction-
to-linguistics-5th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Weather and Climate: An Introduction 2nd

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-weather-and-climate-an-
introduction-2nd-edition/

(eBook PDF) A Concise Introduction to World Religion

3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-a-concise-introduction-
to-world-religion-3rd-edition/

(eBook PDF) A Concise Introduction to World Religions

4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-a-concise-introduction-
to-world-religions-4th-edition/
 Summary

CHAPTER 2 Spatial Representations of Weather Data

2.1 The Station Model

2.2 Surface Maps

2.2.1 Isotherms and Temperature Maps
2.2.2 Temperature Fronts
2.2.3 Isobars and Pressure Maps
2.2.4 Highs, Lows, Ridges, and Troughs

2.3 Upper-Level Maps

2.4 Radar

2.5 Satellites
2.5.1 Visible Satellite Images
2.5.2 Infrared Satellite Images
2.5.3 Water Vapor Images
2.5.4 Geostationary Satellites
2.5.5 Polar-Orbiting Satellites
Summary

Appendix 2.1 Important Satellite Cloud Signatures

Appendix 2.2 Contiguous USA Reference Map

CHAPTER 3 Our Atmosphere: Origin, Composition, and Structure

3.1 Aspect

3.2 Composition

8
3.3 Origin and Evolution

3.4 Future Evolution

3.5 Vertical Structure

Summary

Appendix 3.1 Dynamic Equilibrium

CHAPTER 4 Heat and Energy Transfer

4.1 Conduction

4.2 Convection

4.3 Radiation
4.3.1 The Nature of Electromagnetic Radiation
4.3.2 Temperature and Radiation

4.4 Radiative Interactions

4.4.1 Absorption
4.4.2 Reflection
4.4.3 Scattering
4.4.4 Radiative Equilibrium
4.4.5 Selective Absorbers
4.4.6 A Window to the Sky
4.4.7 The Greenhouse Effect

4.5 Radiation and Weather

4.5.1 Heat Imbalance
4.5.2 Seasonal Variations
4.5.3 Diurnal Variations

9
 4.5.4 The Influence of Clouds
4.5.5 Land–Ocean Contrasts
Summary

CHAPTER 5 Water

5.1 The Water Cycle

5.2 Saturation

5.3 Humidity

5.4 Relative Humidity

5.5 Humidity and Temperature

5.5.1 Relative vs. Absolute Humidity
5.5.2 Condensation

5.6 Dew Point Temperature

5.7 Applications of the Dew point Temperature

5.7.1 Surface Weather Maps
5.7.2 Meteograms
5.7.3 Radiosonde Profiles
5.7.4 Back to Relative Humidity
5.7.5 How to Saturate
Summary

CHAPTER 6 Cloud Formation

6.1 Adiabatic Processes

6.2 Adiabatic Processes in the Atmosphere

10
6.3 Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate

6.4 Relative Humidity

6.5 Moist Adiabatic Lapse Rate

6.6 Orographic Lifting

6.7 Lifting by Convergence

6.8 Frontal Lifting

6.9 Convection
6.9.1 Stable Air
6.9.2 Unstable Air and Thermals
6.9.3 Stable vs. Unstable
6.9.4 Fair-Weather Cumulus Clouds
6.9.5 Conditional Instability and Cumulonimbus
Summary

Appendix 6.1 A Cloud Family Album

CHAPTER 7 Precipitation

7.1 Warm vs. Cold Clouds

7.2 Collision and Coalescence

7.3 Ice-Crystal Growth

7.4 Precipitation Types

Summary

Appendix 7.1 Some Optical Phenomena

11
CHAPTER 8 Wind

8.1 Force and Acceleration

8.2 Pressure Gradient Force

8.3 Sea Breeze and Land Breeze

8.4 Coriolis Force

8.5 Geostrophic Wind

8.6 Gradient Wind

8.7 Surface Winds

8.8 Friction

8.9 Topography
8.9.1 Mountain Breeze and Valley Breeze
8.9.2 Katabatic Winds
Summary

CHAPTER 9 Global Wind Systems

9.1 The Averaged Atmosphere

9.1.1 Surface Temperature
9.1.2 Upper-Level Heights
9.1.3 Surface Pressure
9.1.4 Precipitation

9.2 The Single-Cell Model

9.3 The Three-Cell Model

12
9.4 Some Large-Scale Circulations
9.4.1 West Coast vs. East Coast
9.4.2 Antarctica
9.4.3 The Sahel
9.4.4 The Indian Monsoon
9.4.5 El Niño
Summary

CHAPTER 10 Air Masses, Fronts, and Midlatitude Cyclones

10.1 Air Masses

10.2 Fronts
10.2.1 Stationary Fronts
10.2.2 Cold Fronts
10.2.3 Warm Fronts
10.2.4 Occluded Fronts
10.2.5 Large-Scale Influences on Cyclone Structure, and the
T-bone Model

10.3 Midlatitude Cyclone Development

10.3.1 The Life Cycle of a Midlatitude Cyclone
10.3.2 Vertical Structure of Cyclones
10.3.3 The February 2014 Cyclone
10.3.4 Where do Cyclones Form?
Summary

Appendix 10.1 Southern Hemisphere Midlatitude Cyclones

Appendix 10.2 The Bergen School of Meteorology

CHAPTER 11 Thunderstorms and Tornadoes

13
11.1 Ordinary Thunderstorm

11.2 Severe Thunderstorm

11.3 Lightning and Thunder

11.4 Supercells

11.5 Tornadoes
11.5.1 Description
11.5.2 Tornado Development
11.5.3 Tornado Alley
Summary

CHAPTER 12 Tropical Cyclones

12.1 Facts and Figures

12.2 Tropical Cyclone Structure

12.3 Tropical Cyclone Development

12.3.1 Tropical Easterly Wave
12.3.2 Tropical Depression
12.3.3 Tropical Storm
12.3.4 Tropical Cyclone (Hurricane)
12.3.5 Tropical Cyclone Decay

12.4 Conditions for Tropical Cyclone Development

Summary

CHAPTER 13 Weather Forecasting

13.1 Weather Forecasts and Uncertainty

14
13.2 Prognostic Equations

13.3 Ensemble Forecasting

13.4 Chaos and Weather Prediction

13.5 From Forecast Grids to Reliable Forecast Values

13.6 Making a Forecast

13.6.1 Medium to Long-Range Forecasting
13.6.2 Seasonal Outlook
Summary

CHAPTER 14 Air Pollution

14.1 Pollutants
14.1.1 Gases and Compounds
14.1.2 Particulates
14.1.3 Photochemical Smog

14.2 Wind and Stability

14.3 Large-Scale Patterns

14.4 Topography
Summary

CHAPTER 15 Climate Change and Weather

15.1 Past and Future

15.2 Changing Composition

15.3 A Warmer World

15
15.4 An Altered Water Cycle

15.5 Changing Global Wind Systems

15.6 Midlatitude and Tropical Cyclones in a Warmer World

15.7 Beyond Weather

15.8 The Forecast

Summary

Glossary

References

Credits

Index

16
Preface
Having taught introductory classes on weather many times, we came to see
the need for a textbook on the subject that covers the foundations of
meteorology in a concise, clear, and engaging manner. We set out to create
an informative, cost-effective text that meets the needs of students who
may not have any background in mathematics and science. The result –
Weather: A Concise Introduction – is an introductory meteorology
textbook designed from scratch to provide students with a strong
foundation in the physical, dynamical, and chemical processes taking place
in the atmosphere.
This textbook is unique in that it:

► provides a concise and practical approach to understanding the

atmosphere;
► introduces the basic physical laws early on and then ties them
together with a single case study spanning the book;
► presents weather analysis tools early in the book to allow
instructors to engage in discussions of current weather in tandem
with the basic concepts, thus attracting and retaining student
interest; and
► facilitates students’ learning and understanding of the fundamental
aspects of weather analysis and forecasting, as well as practical
skills, through a careful description of the forecasting process.
Modern methods, such as ensemble forecasting, are central to the
approach.

Features

17
 Case Study: February 2014 Cyclone
The main concepts of the book are illustrated in Chapters 2–13 by a single
case study: a midlatitude cyclone that swept through the eastern half of the
USA between February 19 and 22, 2014. This rich case study serves as a
common thread throughout the book, allowing students to study it from
multiple perspectives. Viewing the storm in the context of different topics
provides a familiar setting for mastering new subjects and for developing
an holistic understanding of midlatitude cyclones.

Boxes on More Advanced Topics

Instructors have the option of including more advanced coverage through
use of boxes that provide insights on various topics. For example, in
Chapter 1, Weather Variables, boxes include an in-depth description of the
four laws of physics that are central to the study of the atmosphere. The
book contains 25 boxes, affording instructors the opportunity to tailor the
level of the material that they present to students in their course.

Appendixes for Additional Coverage

Appendixes at the ends of Chapters 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10 include additional
material on important cloud signatures found in satellite imagery, the
concept of dynamic equilibrium, the cloud classification, some optical
phenomena, southern hemisphere midlatitude cyclones, and the Bergen
School of meteorology.

Summary
18
A summary of key points has been included at the end of each chapter so
that students can, at a glance, confirm that they have understood the
significant take-away facts and ideas.

Figures, Charts, and Maps

Figures have been designed to convey the key concepts in a simple and
self-explanatory way, keeping in mind that clean representations of
information are more helpful to students than complex drawings. Graphs
and maps have been created with real data as much as possible, obtained
from NOAA, NASA, ECMWF, and similar research-quality sources
referenced in the text.

Key Terms and Glossary

The main text contains terms (in bold) that students need to understand and
become familiar with. Many of these terms are listed in the Glossary at the
back of the book. The Glossary allows the reader to look up terms easily
whenever needed and can also be used to review important topics and key
facts.

SI Units
We have consistently used SI units throughout the book, while providing
alternative units whenever possible or relevant.

Organization

19
The first two chapters provide a general overview of key variables and
weather maps used by meteorologists, which facilitates daily weather map
discussions early in the course. We have found that motivating lecture
topics with real-time examples using weather map discussions is a very
effective way to engage students in the lecture material, and it allows
instructors to introduce aspects of weather forecasting at their discretion
well in advance of discussing the material more completely in Chapter 13.
As a result, students are more invested in adding to their knowledge, which
builds systematically toward understanding and predicting weather
systems.
Chapters 3–8 provide foundational material on the composition and
structure of the atmosphere, along with the application of the laws of
classical physics to emphasize and explain the role of energy, water, and
wind in weather systems.
Chapters 9–12 apply the foundational material to understanding the
general circulation of the atmosphere (Chapter 9), midlatitude cyclones
and fronts (Chapter 10), thunderstorms (Chapter 11), and tropical cyclones
(Chapter 12).
Chapters 13–15 build further on the first twelve chapters by applying
the concepts developed to explain processes that affect how weather
forecasts are made (Chapter 13), air pollution (Chapter 14), and climate
change (Chapter 15).

Instructor Resources
A companion website at www.cambridge.org/weather contains PowerPoint
slides of the figures in the text as well as a testbank of questions.

20
 Acknowledgments
We thank: NOAA, NASA, and ECMWF for providing access to data and
images; Reto Knutti, Jan Sedlacek, and Urs Beyerle for providing access
to IPCC data; Rick Kohrs from the University of Wisconsin-Madison for
providing global composite satellite imagery; and Paul Sirvatka from the
College of DuPage for providing radar imagery.
We also thank Ángel Adames, Becky Alexander, Ileana Blade, Peter
Blossey, Michael Diamond, Ralph Foster, Dargan Frierson, Qiang Fu,
Dennis Hartmann, Lynn McMurdie, Paul Markowski, Cliff Mass, Max
Menchaca, Yumin Moon, Scott Powell, Virginia Rux, David Schultz,
Justin Sharp, Brian Smoliak, Mike Warner, Steve Warren, Rachel White,
Darren Wilton, Matt Wyant, and Qi Zhong, as well as 13 anonymous
reviewers, for their help in the preparation of this book.
This project would not have come to life without the support, help,
influence, and constructive criticism from many fellow professors,
teaching assistants, and students. We cannot acknowledge them all here by
name, but we thank them nevertheless for the important role they have
played in shaping the development of this book.

21
Introduction
Why should we study our atmosphere? Why should we learn about the
causes and mechanisms of our weather? Weather affects our daily life: the
clothes we wear (rain coat, shorts, hat, should we take an umbrella or
sunglasses...?), the means of transportation we choose (walk, take a bus,
ride our bike...?), our activities (ski, sail, water our plants, read a book in a
coffee shop...?), and probably more. But beyond our daily concerns,
weather affects society at large. Schools close when snow impedes traffic.
Visitors to ski resorts might be more impatient for snow, while the ski
instructors will be keeping an eye on the possibility of avalanches. Rangers
are concerned with fog, thunderstorms, and flash floods. Fire patrols look
for weather patterns that are conducive to forest fires (dryness, wind).
Electricity providers are concerned by wind storms that can damage the
infrastructure of the electrical grid and, on larger timescales, also need to
plan how weather will affect upcoming energy needs (minimum
temperatures impact heating, while maximum temperatures impact air-
conditioning). Weather averages, such as prevailing winds, the typical
temperature range, and mean precipitation determine how we build our
homes and what locations are sensitive to extreme events, such as
droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. On longer timescales, we can
ask how humans are changing the atmosphere, and what those changes
imply for the weather and climate of the future.
To start answering those questions, we need to understand how the
atmosphere works. We need to identify the basic processes that drive the
atmosphere, and the laws that govern atmospheric processes. By doing so,
we will be able to explain the weather phenomena we experience around
the year and throughout the world. Furthermore, we will also be able to
apply these laws to the current state of the atmosphere, and predict how it
will evolve in the future.

22
 © Caroline Planque
There is a lot of value in becoming a knowledgeable observer of the
atmosphere. After reading this book, you will look at the sky differently,
you will gain an understanding of weather and climate that will make you
more attentive to the world around you. You will have a basic
understanding of weather phenomena, of cyclones, thunderstorms, and
hurricanes, and you will understand the basic aspects of weather
forecasting. You will see beyond the weather forecast you get on your
phone, radio, TV, or the internet, and you will be able to make your own
forecast in many situations.

Weather and Climate

23
Before we continue, let us clarify an important distinction between
weather and climate. Weather is the condition of the atmosphere at a
particular time and location. Weather varies on timescales of minutes to
days. Climate, by contrast, is an average of the weather. It varies on
timescales of decades to centuries and beyond. In this textbook, we will be
mostly concerned with weather – even though many of the concepts have
direct application to climate.

Getting Started
Our exploration of weather will start with a quick overview of important
weather elements that we can observe or measure, and analyze. The choice
of variables to observe is influenced by the laws of physics that govern the
atmosphere. As we will see shortly, the atmosphere is made of matter (air
and water etc.), it contains energy (heat), and it is in motion (wind,
convection). Our understanding of weather is based on the fundamental
notion that matter, energy, and motion obey conservation laws. To apply
these conservation laws to the atmosphere requires observations of
temperature (conservation of energy), pressure (conservation of mass),
wind (conservation of momentum), along with humidity, precipitation, and
clouds. One step at a time, and one building block over another, we will
then investigate the physical processes that underlie the atmosphere at
work. Finally, we will articulate these processes together to build a picture
of weather systems such as midlatitude cyclones, thunderstorms, and
hurricanes. In doing so, we will follow the precepts of René Descartes,
who advocated, as early as 1637, that every difficult problem should be
divided into small parts, and that one should always proceed from the
more simple to the more complex. This cornerstone of the scientific

24
method, still in favor today, will be an important aspect of our exploration
as we elaborate a thorough understanding of the atmosphere from its most
fundamental constituents at the molecular scale to its most complex inner
workings as a system for moving heat at the global scale.

25
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
 73. We are so accustomed to associate the revival of astronomy,
as of other branches of natural science, with increased care in the
collection of observed facts, and to think of Coppernicus as the chief
agent in the revival, that it is worth while here to emphasise the fact
that he was in no sense a great observer. His instruments, which
were mostly of his own construction, were far inferior to those of
Nassir Eddin and of Ulugh Begh (chapter iii., §§ 62, 63), and not
even as good as those which he could have procured if he had
wished from the workshops of Nürnberg; his observations were not
at all numerous (only 27, which occur in his book, and a dozen or
two besides being known), and he appears to have made no serious
attempt to secure great accuracy. His determination of the position
of one star, which was extensively used by him as a standard of
reference and was therefore of special importance, was in error to
the extent of nearly 40′ (more than the apparent breadth of the sun
or moon), an error which Hipparchus would have considered very
serious. His pupil Rheticus (§ 74) reports an interesting discussion
between his master and himself, in which the pupil urged the
importance of making observations with all imaginable accuracy;
Coppernicus answered that minute accuracy was not to be looked
for at that time, and that a rough agreement between theory and
observation was all that he could hope to attain. Coppernicus
moreover points out in more than one place that the high latitude of
Frauenburg and the thickness of the air were so detrimental to good
observation that, for example, though he had occasionally been able
to see the planet Mercury, he had never been able to observe it
properly.
Although he published nothing of importance till towards the end
of his life, his reputation as an astronomer and mathematician
appears to have been established among experts from the date of
his leaving Italy, and to have steadily increased as time went on.
In 1515 he was consulted by a committee appointed by the
Lateran Council to consider the reform of the calendar, which had
now fallen into some confusion (chapter ii., § 22), but he declined to
give any advice on the ground that the motions of the sun and moon
were as yet too imperfectly known for a satisfactory reform to be
possible. A few years later (1524) he wrote an open letter, intended
for publication, to one of his Cracow friends, in reply to a tract on
precession, in which, after the manner of the time, he used strong
language about the errors of his opponent.46
It was meanwhile gradually becoming known that he held the
novel doctrine that the earth was in motion and the sun and stars at
rest, a doctrine which was sufficiently startling to attract notice
outside astronomical circles. About 1531 he had the distinction of
being ridiculed on the stage at some popular performance in the
neighbourhood; and it is interesting to note (especially in view of the
famous persecution of Galilei at Rome a century later) that Luther in
his Table Talk frankly described Coppernicus as a fool for holding
such opinions, which were obviously contrary to the Bible, and that
Melanchthon, perhaps the most learned of the Reformers, added to
a somewhat similar criticism a broad hint that such opinions should
not be tolerated. Coppernicus appears to have taken no notice of
these or similar attacks, and still continued to publish nothing. No
observation made later than 1529 occurs in his great book, which
seems to have been nearly in its final form by that date; and to
about this time belongs an extremely interesting paper, known as
the Commentariolus, which contains a short account of his system of
the world, with some of the evidence for it, but without any
calculations. It was apparently written to be shewn or lent to friends,
and was not published; the manuscript disappeared after the death
of the author and was only rediscovered in 1878. The
Commentariolus was probably the basis of a lecture on the ideas of
Coppernicus given in 1533 by one of the Roman astronomers at the
request of Pope Clement VII. Three years later Cardinal Schomberg
wrote to ask Coppernicus for further information as to his views, the
letter showing that the chief features were already pretty accurately
known.
 74. Similar requests must have been made by others, but his final
decision to publish his ideas seems to have been due to the arrival
at Frauenburg in 1539 of the enthusiastic young astronomer
generally known as Rheticus.47 Born in 1514, he studied astronomy
under Schoner at Nürnberg, and was appointed in 1536 to one of
the chairs of mathematics created by the influence of Melanchthon
at Wittenberg, at that time the chief Protestant University.
Having heard, probably through the Commentariolus, of
Coppernicus and his doctrines, he was so much interested in them
that he decided to visit the great astronomer at Frauenburg.
Coppernicus received him with extreme kindness, and the visit,
which was originally intended to last a few days or weeks, extended
over nearly two years. Rheticus set to work to study Coppernicus’s
manuscript, and wrote within a few weeks of his arrival an extremely
interesting and valuable account of it, known as the First Narrative
(Prima Narratio), in the form of an open letter to his old master
Schoner, a letter which was printed in the following spring and was
the first easily accessible account of the new doctrines.48
When Rheticus returned to Wittenberg, towards the end of 1541,
he took with him a copy of a purely mathematical section of the
great book, and had it printed as a textbook of the subject
(Trigonometry); it had probably been already settled that he was to
superintend the printing of the complete book itself. Coppernicus,
who was now an old man and would naturally feel that his end was
approaching, sent the manuscript to his friend Giese, Bishop of
Kulm, to do what he pleased with. Giese sent it at once to Rheticus,
who made arrangements for having it printed at Nürnberg.
Unfortunately Rheticus was not able to see it all through the press,
and the work had to be entrusted to Osiander, a Lutheran preacher
interested in astronomy. Osiander appears to have been much
alarmed at the thought of the disturbance which the heretical ideas
of Coppernicus would cause, and added a prefatory note of his own
(which he omitted to sign), praising the book in a vulgar way, and
declaring (what was quite contrary to the views of the author) that
the fundamental principles laid down in it were merely abstract
hypotheses convenient for purposes of calculation; he also gave the
book the title De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium (On the
Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), the last two words of which
were probably his own addition. The printing was finished in the
winter 1542-3, and the author received a copy of his book on the
day of his death (May 24th, 1543), when his memory and mental
vigour had already gone.
75. The central idea with which the name of Coppernicus is
associated, and which makes the De Revolutionibus one of the most
important books in all astronomical literature, by the side of which
perhaps only the Almagest and Newton’s Principia (chapter ix.,
§§ 177 seqq.) can be placed, is that the apparent motions of the
celestial bodies are to a great extent not real motions, but are due to
the motion of the earth carrying the observer with it. Coppernicus
tells us that he had long been struck by the unsatisfactory nature of
the current explanations of astronomical observations, and that,
while searching in philosophical writings for some better explanation,
he had found a reference of Cicero to the opinion of Hicetas that the
earth turned round on its axis daily. He found similar views held by
other Pythagoreans, while Philolaus and Aristarchus of Samos had
also held that the earth not only rotates, but moves bodily round the
sun or some other centre (cf. chapter ii., § 24). The opinion that the
earth is not the sole centre of motion, but that Venus and Mercury
revolve round the sun, he found to be an old Egyptian belief,
supported also by Martianus Capella, who wrote a compendium of
science and philosophy in the 5th or 6th century a.d. A more modern
authority, Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), a mystic writer who refers
to a possible motion of the earth, was ignored or not noticed by
Coppernicus. None of the writers here named, with the possible
exception of Aristarchus of Samos, to whom Coppernicus apparently
paid little attention, presented the opinions quoted as more than
vague speculations; none of them gave any substantial reasons for,
much less a proof of, their views; and Coppernicus, though he may
have been glad, after the fashion of the age, to have the support of
recognised authorities, had practically to make a fresh start and
elaborate his own evidence for his opinions.
It has sometimes been said that Coppernicus proved what earlier
writers had guessed at or suggested; it would perhaps be truer to
say that he took up certain floating ideas, which were extremely
vague and had never been worked out scientifically, based on them
certain definite fundamental principles, and from these principles
developed mathematically an astronomical system which he shewed
to be at least as capable of explaining the observed celestial motions
as any existing variety of the traditional Ptolemaic system. The
Coppernican system, as it left the hands of the author, was in fact
decidedly superior to its rivals as an explanation of ordinary
observations, an advantage which it owed quite as much to the
mathematical skill with which it was developed as to its first
principles; it was in many respects very much simpler; and it avoided
certain fundamental difficulties of the older system. It was however
liable to certain serious objections, which were only overcome by
fresh evidence which was subsequently brought to light. For the
predecessors of Coppernicus there was, apart from variations of
minor importance, but one scientific system which made any serious
attempt to account for known facts; for his immediate successors
there were two, the newer of which would to an impartial mind
appear on the whole the more satisfactory, and the further study of
the two systems, with a view to the discovery of fresh arguments or
fresh observations tending to support the one or the other, was
immediately suggested as an inquiry of first-rate importance.
76. The plan of the De Revolutionibus bears a general
resemblance to that of the Almagest. In form at least the book is not
primarily an argument in favour of the motion of the earth, and it is
possible to read much of it without ever noticing the presence of this
doctrine.
Coppernicus, like Ptolemy, begins with certain first principles or
postulates, but on account of their novelty takes a little more trouble
than his predecessor (cf. chapter ii., § 47) to make them at once
appear probable. With these postulates as a basis he proceeds to
develop, by means of elaborate and rather tedious mathematical
reasoning, aided here and there by references to observations,
detailed schemes of the various celestial motions; and it is by the
agreement of these calculations with observations, far more than by
the general reasoning given at the beginning, that the various
postulates are in effect justified.
His first postulate, that the universe is spherical, is supported by
vague and inconclusive reasons similar to those given by Ptolemy
and others; for the spherical form of the earth he gives several of
the usual valid arguments, one of his proofs for its curvature from
east to west being the fact that eclipses visible at one place are not
visible at another. A third postulate, that the motions of the celestial
bodies are uniform circular motions or are compounded of such
motions, is, as might be expected, supported only by reasons of the
most unsatisfactory character. He argues, for example, that any want
of uniformity in motion

“must arise either from irregularity in the moving power,

whether this be within the body or foreign to it, or from some
inequality of the body in revolution.... Both of which things the
intellect shrinks from with horror, it being unworthy to hold such
a view about bodies which are constituted in the most perfect
order.”

77. The discussion of the possibility that the earth may move, and
may even have more than one motion, then follows, and is more
satisfactory though by no means conclusive. Coppernicus has a firm
grasp of the principle, which Aristotle had also enunciated,
sometimes known as that of relative motion, which he states
somewhat as follows:—

“For all change in position which is seen is due to a motion

either of the observer or of the thing looked at, or to changes in
the position of both, provided that these are different. For when
 things are moved equally relatively to the same things, no
motion is perceived, as between the object seen and the
observer.”49

Coppernicus gives no proof of this principle, regarding it probably

as sufficiently obvious, when once stated, to the mathematicians and
astronomers for whom he was writing. It is, however, so
fundamental that it may be worth while to discuss it a little more
fully.

Fig. 37.—Relative motion.

Let, for example, the observer be at a and an object at b, then

whether the object move from b to b′, the observer remaining at
rest, or the observer move an equal distance in the opposite
direction, from a to a′, the object remaining at rest, the effect is to
the eye exactly the same, since in either case the distance between
the observer and object and the direction in which the object is
seen, represented in the first case by a b′ and in the second by a′ b,
are the same.
Thus if in the course of a year either the sun passes successively
through the positions a, b, c, d (fig. 38), the earth remaining at rest
at e, or if the sun is at rest and the earth passes successively
through the positions a, b, c, d, at the corresponding times, the sun
remaining at rest at s, exactly the same effect is produced on the
eye, provided that the lines a s, b s, c s, d s are, as in the figure,
equal in length and parallel in direction to e a, e b, e c, e d
respectively. The same being true of intermediate points, exactly the
same apparent effect is produced whether the sun describe the
circle a b c d, or the earth describe at the same rate the equal circle a
b c d. It will be noticed further that, although the corresponding
motions in the two cases are at the same times in opposite
directions (as at a and a), yet each circle as a whole is described, as
indicated by the arrowheads, in the same direction (contrary to that
of the motion of the hands of a clock, in the figures given). It follows
in the same sort of way that an apparent motion (as of a planet)
may be explained as due partially to the motion of the object,
partially to that of the observer.

Fig. 38.—The relative motion of the sun and moon.

Coppernicus gives the familiar illustration of the passenger in a

boat who sees the land apparently moving away from him, by
quoting and explaining Virgil’s line:—
“Provehimur portu, terræque urbesque recedunt.”
78. The application of the same ideas to an apparent rotation
round the observer, as in the case of the apparent daily motion of
the celestial sphere, is a little more difficult. It must be remembered
that the eye has no means of judging the direction of an object
taken by itself; it can only judge the difference between the direction
 of the object and some other
direction, whether that of
another object or a direction
fixed in some way by the body
of the observer. Thus when after
looking at a star twice at an
interval of time we decide that it
has moved, this means that its
direction has changed relatively
to, say, some tree or house
which we had noticed nearly in
its direction, or that its direction
Fig. 39.—The daily rotation of the earth.
has changed relatively to the
direction in which we are
directing our eyes or holding our bodies. Such a change can
evidently be interpreted as a change of direction, either of the star
or of the line from the eye to the tree which we used as a line of
reference. To apply this to the case of the celestial sphere, let us
suppose that S represents a star on the celestial sphere, which (for
simplicity) is overhead to an observer on the earth at a, this being
determined by comparison with a line a b drawn upright on the
earth. Next, earth and celestial sphere being supposed to have a
common centre at o, let us suppose firstly that the celestial sphere
turns round (in the direction of the hands of a clock) till s comes to
s′, and that the observer now sees the star on his horizon or in a
direction at right angles to the original direction a b, the angle turned
through by the celestial sphere being s o s′; and secondly that, the
celestial sphere being unchanged, the earth turns round in the
opposite direction, till a b comes to a′ b′, and the star is again seen
by the observer on his horizon. Whichever of these motions has
taken place, the observer sees exactly the same apparent motion in
the sky; and the figure shews at once that the angle s o s′ through
which the celestial sphere was supposed to turn in the first case is
equal to the angle a o a′ through which the earth turns in the second
case, but that the two rotations are in opposite directions. A similar
explanation evidently applies to more complicated cases.
 Hence the apparent daily rotation of the celestial sphere about an
axis through the poles would be produced equally well, either by an
actual rotation of this character, or by a rotation of the earth about
an axis also passing through the poles, and at the same rate, but in
the opposite direction, i.e. from west to east. This is the first motion
which Coppernicus assigns to the earth.
79. The apparent annual motion of the sun, in accordance with
which it appears to revolve round the earth in a path which is nearly
a circle, can be equally well explained by supposing the sun to be at
rest, and the earth to describe an exactly equal path round the sun,
the direction of the revolution being the same. This is virtually the
second motion which Coppernicus gives to the earth, though, on
account of a peculiarity in his geometrical method, he resolves this
motion into two others, and combines with one of these a further
small motion which is required for precession.50
80. Coppernicus’s conception then is that the earth revolves round
the sun in the plane of the ecliptic, while rotating daily on an axis
which continually points to the poles of the celestial sphere, and
therefore retains (save for precession) a fixed direction in space.
It should be noticed that the two motions thus assigned to the
earth are perfectly distinct; each requires its own proof, and explains
a different set of appearances. It was quite possible, with perfect
consistency, to believe in one motion without believing in the other,
as in fact a very few of the 16th-century astronomers did (chapter
v., § 105).

In giving his reasons for believing in the motion of the earth

Coppernicus discusses the chief objections which had been urged by
Ptolemy. To the objection that if the earth had a rapid motion of
rotation about its axis, the earth would be in danger of flying to
pieces, and the air, as well as loose objects on the surface, would be
left behind, he replies that if such a motion were dangerous to the
solid earth, it must be much more so to the celestial sphere, which,
on account of its vastly greater size, would have to move
enormously faster than the earth to complete its daily rotation; he
enters also into an obscure discussion of difference between a
“natural” and an “artificial” motion, of which the former might be
expected not to disturb anything on the earth.
Coppernicus shews that the earth is very small compared to the
sphere of the stars, because wherever the observer is on the earth
the horizon appears to divide the celestial sphere into two equal
parts and the observer appears always to be at the centre of the
sphere, so that any distance through which the observer moves on
the earth is imperceptible as compared with the distance of the
stars.
81. He goes on to argue that the chief irregularity in the motion of
the planets, in virtue of which they move backwards at intervals
(chapter i., § 14, and chapter ii., § 51), can readily be explained in
general by the motion of the earth and by a motion of each planet
round the sun, in its own time and at its own distance. From the fact
that Venus and Mercury were never seen very far from the sun, it
could be inferred that their paths were nearer to the sun than that of
the earth. Mercury being the nearer to the sun of the two, because
never seen so far from it in the sky as Venus. The other three
planets, being seen at times in a direction opposite to that of the
sun, must necessarily evolve round the sun in orbits larger than that
of the earth, a view confirmed by the fact that they were brightest
when opposite the sun (in which positions they would be nearest to
us). The order of their respective distances from the sun could be at
once inferred from the disturbing effects produced on their apparent
motions by the motion of the earth; Saturn being least affected must
on the whole be farthest from the earth, Jupiter next, and Mars
next. The earth thus became one of six planets revolving round the
sun, the order of distance—Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter,
Saturn—being also in accordance with the rates of motion round the
sun, Mercury performing its revolution most rapidly (in about 88
days51), Saturn most slowly (in about 30 years). On the Coppernican
system the moon alone still revolved round the earth, being the only
celestial body the status of which was substantially unchanged; and
thus Coppernicus was able to give the accompanying diagram of the
solar system (fig. 40), representing his view of its general
arrangement (though not of the right proportions of the different
parts) and of the various motions.

Fig. 40.—The solar system according to Coppernicus. From the De

Revolutionibus.
 82. The effect of the motion of the earth round the sun on the
length of the day and other seasonal effects is discussed in some
detail, and illustrated by diagrams which are here reproduced.52

Fig. 41.—Coppernican explanation of the seasons. From the De

Revolutionibus.

In fig. 41 a, b, c, d represent the centre of the earth in four

positions, occupied by it about December 23rd, March 21st, June
22nd, and September 22nd respectively (i.e. at the beginnings of the
four seasons, according to astronomical reckoning); the circle f g h i
in each of its positions represents the equator of the earth, i.e. a
great circle on the earth the plane of which is perpendicular to the
axis of the earth and is consequently always parallel to the celestial
equator. This circle is not in the plane of the ecliptic, but tilted up at
an angle of 23-1∕2°, so that f must always be supposed below and h
above the plane of the paper (which represents the ecliptic); the
equator cuts the ecliptic along g i. The diagram (in accordance with
the common custom in astronomical diagrams) represents the
various circles as seen from the north side of the equator and
ecliptic. When the earth is at a, the north pole (as is shewn more
clearly in fig. 42, in which p, p′ denote the north pole and south pole
respectively) is turned away from the sun, e, which is on the lower or
south side of the plane of the equator, and consequently inhabitants
of the northern hemisphere see the sun for less than half the day,
while those on the southern hemisphere see the sun for more than
half the day, and those beyond the line k l (in fig. 42) see the sun
during the whole day. Three months later, when the earth’s centre is
at b (fig. 41), the sun lies in the plane of the equator, the poles of
the earth are turned neither towards nor away from the sun, but
aside, and all over the earth daylight lasts for 12 hours and night for
an equal time. Three months later still, when the earth’s centre is at
c, the sun is above the plane of the equator, and the inhabitants of
the northern hemisphere see the sun for more than half the day,
those on the southern hemisphere for less than half, while those in
parts of the earth farther north than the line m n (in fig. 42) see the
sun for the whole 24 hours. Finally, when, at the autumn equinox,
the earth has reached d (fig. 41), the sun is again in the plane of the
equator, and the day is everywhere equal to the night.

Fig. 42.—Coppernican explanation of the seasons. From the De

Revolutionibus.

83. Coppernicus devotes the first eleven chapters of the first book
to this preliminary sketch of his system; the remainder of this book
he fills with some mathematical propositions and tables, which, as
previously mentioned (§ 74), had already been separately printed by
Rheticus. The second book contains chiefly a number of the usual
results relating to the celestial sphere and its apparent daily motion,
treated much as by earlier writers, but with greater mathematical
skill. Incidentally Coppernicus gives his measurement of the obliquity
of the ecliptic, and infers from a comparison with earlier
observations that the obliquity had decreased, which was in fact the
case, though to a much less extent than his imperfect observations
indicated. The book ends with a catalogue of stars, which is
Ptolemy’s catalogue, occasionally corrected by fresh observations,
and rearranged so as to avoid the effects of precession.53 When, as
frequently happened, the Greek and Latin versions of the Almagest
gave, owing to copyists’ or printers’ errors, different results,
Coppernicus appears to have followed sometimes the Latin and
sometimes the Greek version, without in general attempting to
ascertain by fresh observations which was right.
84. The third book begins with an elaborate discussion of the
precession of the equinoxes (chapter ii., § 42). From a comparison
of results obtained by Timocharis, by later Greek astronomers, and
by Albategnius, Coppernicus infers that the amount of precession
has varied, but that its average value is 50″·2 annually (almost
exactly the true value), and accepts accordingly Tabit ben Korra’s
unhappy suggestion of the trepidation (chapter iii., § 58). An
examination of the data used by Coppernicus shews that the
erroneous or fraudulent observations of Ptolemy (chapter ii., § 50)
are chiefly responsible for the perpetuation of this mistake.
Of much more interest than the detailed discussion of trepidation
and of geometrical schemes for representing it is the interpretation
of precession as the result of a motion of the earth’s axis. Precession
was originally recognised by Hipparchus as a motion of the celestial
equator, in which its inclination to the ecliptic was sensibly
unchanged. Now the ideas of Coppernicus make the celestial
equator dependent on the equator of the earth, and hence on its
axis; it is in fact a great circle of the celestial sphere which is always
perpendicular to the axis about which the earth rotates daily. Hence
precession, on the theory of Coppernicus, arises from a slow motion
of the axis of the earth, which moves so as always to remain inclined
at the same angle to the ecliptic, and to return to its original position
after a period of about 26,000 years (since a motion of 50″·2
annually is equivalent to 360° or a complete circuit in that period); in
other words, the earth’s axis has a slow conical motion, the central
line (or axis) of the cone being at right angles to the plane of the
ecliptic.
85. Precession being dealt with, the greater part of the remainder
of the third book is devoted to a discussion in detail of the apparent
annual motion of the sun round the earth, corresponding to the real
annual motion of the earth round the sun. The geometrical theory of
the Almagest was capable of being immediately applied to the new
system, and Coppernicus, like Ptolemy, uses an eccentric. He makes
the calculations afresh, arrives at a smaller and more accurate value
of the eccentricity (about 1∕31 instead of 1∕24), fixes the position of
the apogee and perigee (chapter ii., § 39), or rather of the
equivalent aphelion and perihelion (i.e. the points in the earth’s
orbit where it is respectively farthest from and nearest to the sun),
and thus verifies Albategnius’s discovery (chapter iii., § 59) of the
motion of the line of apses. The theory of the earth’s motion is
worked out in some detail, and tables are given whereby the
apparent place of the sun at any time can be easily computed.
The fourth book deals with the theory of the moon. As has been
already noticed, the moon was the only celestial body the position of
which in the universe was substantially unchanged by Coppernicus,
and it might hence have been expected that little alteration would
have been required in the traditional theory. Actually, however, there
is scarcely any part of the subject in which Coppernicus did more to
diminish the discrepancies between theory and observation. He
rejects Ptolemy’s equant (chapter ii., § 51), partly on the ground
that it produces an irregular motion unsuitable for the heavenly
bodies, partly on the more substantial ground that, as already
pointed out (chapter ii., § 48), Ptolemy’s theory makes the apparent
size of the moon at times twice as great as at others. By an
arrangement of epicycles Coppernicus succeeded in representing the
chief irregularities in the moon’s motion, including evection, but
without Ptolemy’s prosneusis (chapter ii., § 48) or Abul Wafa’s
inequality (chapter iii., § 60), while he made the changes in the
moon’s distance, and consequently in its apparent size, not very
much greater than those which actually take place, the difference
being imperceptible by the rough methods of observation which he
used.54
In discussing the distances and sizes of the sun and moon
Coppernicus follows Ptolemy closely (chapter ii., § 49; cf. also fig.
20); he arrives at substantially the same estimate of the distance of
the moon, but makes the sun’s distance 1,500 times the earth’s
radius, thus improving to some extent on the traditional estimate,
which was based on Ptolemy’s. He also develops in some detail the
effect of parallax on the apparent place of the moon, and the
variations in the apparent size, owing to the variations in distance:
and the book ends with a discussion of eclipses.
86. The last two books (V. and VI.) deal at length with the motion
of the planets.
In the cases of Mercury and Venus, Ptolemy’s explanation of the
motion could with little difficulty be rearranged so as to fit the ideas
of Coppernicus. We have seen (chapter ii., § 51) that, minor
irregularities being ignored, the motion of either of these planets
could be represented by means of an epicycle moving on a deferent,
the centre of the epicycle being always in the direction of the sun,
the ratio of the sizes of the epicycle and deferent being fixed, but
the actual dimensions being practically arbitrary. Ptolemy preferred
on the whole to regard the epicycles of both these planets as lying
between the earth and the sun. The idea of making the sun a centre
of motion having once been accepted, it was an obvious
simplification to make the centre of the epicycle not merely lie in the
direction of the sun, but actually be the sun. In fact, if the planet in
question revolved round the sun at the proper distance and at the
proper rate, the same appearances would be produced as by
Ptolemy’s epicycle and deferent, the path of the planet round the
sun replacing the epicycle, and the apparent path of the sun round
the earth (or the path of the earth round the sun) replacing the
deferent.

Fig. 43.—The orbits of Venus and of the earth.

 Fig. 44.—The synodic and sidereal periods of Venus.

In discussing the time of revolution of a planet a distinction has to

be made, as in the case of the moon (chapter ii., § 40), between the
synodic and sidereal periods of revolution. Venus, for example, is
seen as an evening star at its greatest angular distance from the sun
(as at v in fig. 43) at intervals of about 584 days. This is therefore
the time which Venus takes to return to the same position relatively
to the sun, as seen from the earth, or relatively to the earth, as seen
from the sun; this time is called the synodic period. But as during
this time the line e s has changed its direction, Venus is no longer in
the same position relatively to the stars, as seen either from the sun
or from the earth. If at first Venus and the earth are at V1, E1;
respectively, after 584 days (or about a year and seven months) the
earth will have performed rather more than a revolution and a half
round the sun and will be at E2; Venus being again at the greatest
distance from the sun will therefore be at V2, but will evidently be
seen in quite a different part of the sky, and will not have performed
an exact revolution round the sun. It is important to know how long
the line S V1 takes to return to the same position, i.e. how long
Venus takes to return to the same position with respect to the stars,
as seen from the sun, an interval of time known as the sidereal
period. This can evidently be calculated by a simple rule-of-three
sum from the data given. For Venus has in 584 days gained a
complete revolution on the earth, or has gone as far as the earth
would have gone in 584 + 365 or 949 days (fractions of days being
omitted for simplicity); hence Venus goes in 584 × 365∕949 days as
far as the earth in 365 days, i.e. Venus completes a revolution in 584
× 365∕949 or 225 days. This is therefore the sidereal period of
Venus. The process used by Coppernicus was different, as he saw
the advantage of using a long period of time, so as to diminish the
error due to minor irregularities, and he therefore obtained two
observations of Venus at a considerable interval of time, in which
Venus occupied very nearly the same position both with respect to
the sun and to the stars, so that the interval of time contained very
nearly an exact number of sidereal periods as well as of synodic
periods. By dividing therefore the observed interval of time by the
number of sidereal periods (which being a whole number could
readily be estimated), the sidereal period was easily obtained. A
similar process shewed that the synodic period of Mercury was about
116 days, and the sidereal period about 88 days.
The comparative sizes of the orbits of Venus and Mercury as
compared with that of the earth could easily be ascertained from
observations of the position of either planet when most distant from
the sun. Venus, for example, appears at its greatest distance from
the sun when at a point V1 (fig. 44) such that V1 E1 touches the
circle in which Venus moves, and the angle E1 V1 S is then (by a
known property of a circle) a right angle. The angle S E1 V1 being
observed, the shape of the triangle S E1 V1 is known, and the ratio
of its sides can be readily calculated. Thus Coppernicus found that
the average distance of Venus from the sun was about 72 and that
of Mercury about 36, the distance of the earth from the sun being
taken to be 100; the corresponding modern figures are 72·3 and
38·7.
87. In the case of the superior
planets. Mars, Jupiter, and
Saturn, it was much more
difficult to recognise that their
motions could be explained by
supposing them to revolve
round the sun, since the centre
of the epicycle did not always lie
in the direction of the sun, but
might be anywhere in the
ecliptic. One peculiarity,
however, in the motion of any of
the superior planets might easily
Fig. 45.—The epicycle of Jupiter.
have suggested their motion
round the sun, and was either
completely overlooked by Ptolemy or not recognised by him as
important. It is possible that it was one of the clues which led
Coppernicus to his system. This peculiarity is that the radius of the
epicycle of the planet, j j, is always parallel to the line e s joining the
earth and sun, and consequently performs a complete revolution in a
year. This connection between the motion of the planet and that of
the sun received no explanation from Ptolemy’s theory. Now if we
draw e j′ parallel to j j and equal to it in length, it is easily seen55
that the line j′ j is equal and parallel to e j, that consequently j
describes a circle round j′ just as j round e. Hence the motion of the
planet can equally well be represented by supposing it to move in an
epicycle (represented by the large dotted circle in the figure) of
which j′ is the centre and j′ j the radius, while the centre of the
epicycle, remaining always in the direction of the sun, describes a
deferent (represented by the small circle round e) of which the earth
is the centre. By this method of representation the motion of the
superior planet is exactly like that of an inferior planet, except that
its epicycle is larger than its deferent; the same reasoning as before
shows that the motion can be represented simply by supposing the
centre j′ of the epicycle to be actually the sun. Ptolemy’s epicycle
and deferent are therefore capable of being replaced, without
affecting the position of the planet in the sky, by a motion of the
planet in a circle round the sun, while the sun moves round the
earth, or, more simply, the earth round the sun.

Fig. 46.—The relative sizes of the orbits of the earth and of a superior
planet.

The synodic period of a superior planet could best be determined

by observing when the planet was in opposition, i.e. when it was
(nearly) opposite the sun, or, more accurately (since a planet does
not move exactly in the ecliptic), when the longitudes of the planet
and sun differed by 180° (or two right angles, chapter ii., § 43). The
sidereal period could then be deduced nearly as in the case of an
inferior planet, with this difference, that the superior planet moves
more slowly than the earth, and therefore loses one complete
revolution in each synodic period; or the sidereal period might be
found as before by observing when oppositions occurred nearly in
the same part of the sky.56 Coppernicus thus obtained very fairly
accurate values for the synodic and sidereal periods, viz. 780 days
and 687 days respectively for Mars, 399 days and about 12 years for
Jupiter, 378 days and 30 years for Saturn (cf. fig. 40).
The calculation of the distance of a superior planet from the sun is
a good deal more complicated than that of Venus or Mercury. If we
ignore various details, the process followed by Coppernicus is to
compute the position of the planet as seen from the sun, and then
to notice when this position differs most from its position as seen
from the earth, i.e. when the earth and sun are farthest apart as
seen from the planet. This is clearly when (fig. 46) the line joining
the planet (p) to the earth (e) touches the circle described by the
earth, so that the angle s p e is then as great as possible. The angle p
e s is a right angle, and the angle s p e is the difference between the
observed place of the planet and its computed place as seen from
the sun; these two angles being thus known, the shape of the
triangle s p e is known, and therefore also the ratio of its sides. In
this way Coppernicus found the average distances of Mars, Jupiter,
and Saturn from the sun to be respectively about 1-1∕2, 5, and 9
times that of the earth; the corresponding modern figures are 1·5,
5·2, 9·5.
88. The explanation of the stationary points of the planets
(chapter i., § 14) is much simplified by the ideas of Coppernicus. If
we take first an inferior planet, say Mercury (fig. 47), then when it
lies between the earth and sun, as at m (or as on Sept. 5 in fig. 7),
both the earth and Mercury are moving in the same direction, but a
comparison of the sizes of the paths of Mercury and the earth, and
of their respective times of performing complete circuits, shews that
Mercury is moving faster than the earth. Consequently to the
observer at e, Mercury appears to be moving from left to right (in
the figure), or from east to west; but this is contrary to the general
direction of motion of the planets, i.e. Mercury appears to be
retrograding. On the other hand, when Mercury appears at the
greatest distance from the sun, as at M1 and M2, its own motion is
directly towards or away from the earth, and is therefore
imperceptible; but the earth is moving towards the observer’s right,
and therefore Mercury appears to be moving towards the left, or
from west to east. Hence between M1 and m its motion has changed
from direct to retrograde, and therefore at some intermediate point,
say m1, (about Aug, 23 in fig. 7), Mercury appears for the moment
to be stationary, and similarly it appears to be stationary again when
at some point m2 between m and M2 (about Sept. 13 in fig. 7).

Fig. 47.—The stationary points of Mercury.

In the case of a superior planet, say Jupiter, the argument is

nearly the same. When in opposition at j (as on Mar. 26 in fig. 6),
Jupiter moves more slowly than the earth, and in the same direction,
and therefore appears to be moving in the opposite direction to the
earth, i.e. as seen from e (fig. 48), from left to right, or from east to
west, that is in the retrograde direction. But when Jupiter is in either
of the positions J1 or j (in which the earth appears to the observer
on Jupiter to be at its greatest distance from the sun), the motion of
the earth itself being directly to or from Jupiter produces no effect
on the apparent motion of Jupiter (since any displacement directly to
or from the observer makes no difference in the object’s place on
the celestial sphere); but Jupiter itself is actually moving towards the
left, and therefore the motion of Jupiter appears to be also from
right to left, or from west to east. Hence, as before, between J1 and
j and between j and J2 there must be points j1, j2 (Jan. 24 and May

27, in fig. 6) at which Jupiter appears for the moment to be

stationary.

Fig. 48.—The stationary points of Jupiter.

The actual discussion of the stationary points given by

Coppernicus is a good deal more elaborate and more technical than
the outline given here, as he not only shews that the stationary
points must exist, but shews how to calculate their exact positions.
89. So far the theory of the planets has only been sketched very
roughly, in order to bring into prominence the essential differences
between the Coppernican and the Ptolemaic explanations of their
motions, and no account has been taken of the minor irregularities
for which Ptolemy devised his system of equants, eccentrics, etc.,
nor of the motion in latitude, i.e. to and from the ecliptic.
Coppernicus, as already mentioned, rejected the equant, as being
productive of an irregularity “unworthy” of the celestial bodies, and
constructed for each planet a fairly complicated system of epicycles.
For the motion in latitude discussed in Book VI. he supposed the
orbit of each planet round the sun to be inclined to the ecliptic at a
small angle, different for each planet, but found it necessary, in
order that his theory should agree with observation, to introduce the
wholly imaginary complication of a regular increase and decrease in
the inclinations of the orbits of the planets to the ecliptic.
The actual details of the epicycles employed are of no great
interest now, but it may be worth while to notice that for the
motions of the moon, earth, and five other planets Coppernicus
required altogether 34 circles, viz. four for the moon, three for the
earth, seven for Mercury (the motion of which is peculiarly irregular),
and five for each of the other planets; this number being a good
deal less than that required in most versions of Ptolemy’s system:
Fracastor (chapter iii., § 69), for example, writing in 1538, required
79 spheres, of which six were required for the fixed stars.
90. The planetary theory of Coppernicus necessarily suffered from
one of the essential defects of the system of epicycles. It is, in fact,
always possible to choose a system of epicycles in such a way as to
make either the direction of any body or its distance vary in any
required manner, but not to satisfy both requirements at once. In
the case of the motion of the moon round the earth, or of the earth
round the sun, cases in which variations in distance could not readily
be observed, epicycles might therefore be expected to give a
satisfactory result, at any rate until methods of observation were
sufficiently improved to measure with some accuracy the apparent
sizes of the sun and moon, and so check the variations in their
distances. But any variation in the distance of the earth from the sun
would affect not merely the distance, but also the direction in which
a planet would be seen; in the figure, for example, when the planet
is at p and the sun at s, the apparent position of the planet, as seen
from the earth, will be different according as the earth is at e or e′.
Hence the epicycles and eccentrics of Coppernicus, which had to be
adjusted in such a way that they necessarily involved incorrect
values of the distances between the sun and earth, gave rise to
corresponding errors in the observed places of the planets. The
observations which Coppernicus used were hardly extensive or
accurate enough to show this discrepancy clearly; but a crucial test
was thus virtually suggested by means of which, when further
observations of the planets had been made, a decision could be
taken between an epicyclic representation of the motion of the
planets and some other geometrical scheme.
91. The merits of Coppernicus are so great, and the part which he
played in the overthrow of the Ptolemaic system is so conspicuous,
that we are sometimes liable to forget that, so far from rejecting the
epicycles and eccentrics of the Greeks, he used no other geometrical
devices, and was even a more orthodox “epicyclist” than Ptolemy
himself, as he rejected the equants of the latter.57 Milton’s famous
description (Par. Lost, VIII. 82-5) of
“The Sphere
With Centric and Eccentric scribbled o’er,
Cycle and Epicycle, Orb in Orb,”
applies therefore just as well to the astronomy of Coppernicus as
to that of his predecessors; and it was Kepler (chapter vii.), writing
more than half a century later, not Coppernicus, to whom the
rejection of the epicycle and eccentric is due.
 92.
One
point
whic
h
was
of
impor
tance
in
later
contr
overs
ies
deser
ves Fig. 49.—The alteration in a planet’s apparent position due to an
speci alteration in the earth’s distance from the sun.
al
mention here. The basis of the Coppernican system was that a
motion of the earth carrying the observer with it produced an
apparent motion of other bodies. The apparent motions of the sun
and planets were thus shewn to be in great part explicable as the
result of the motion of the earth round the sun. Similar reasoning
ought apparently to lead to the conclusion that the fixed stars would
also appear to have an annual motion. There would, in fact, be a
displacement of the apparent position of a star due to the alteration
of the earth’s position in its orbit, closely resembling the alteration in
the apparent position of the moon due to the alteration of the
observer’s position on the earth which had long been studied under
the name of parallax (chapter ii., § 43). As such a displacement had
never been observed, Coppernicus explained the apparent
contradiction by supposing the fixed stars so far off that any motion
due to this cause was too small to be noticed. If, for example, the
earth moves in six months from e to e′, the change in direction of a
star at s′ is the angle e′ s′ e, which is less than that of a nearer star
at s; and by supposing the star s′ sufficiently remote, the angle e′ s′
e can be made as small as may be required. For instance, if the
distance of the star were 300 times the distance e e′, i.e. 600 times
as far from the earth as the sun is, the angle e s′ e′ would be less
than 12′, a quantity which the instruments of the time were barely
capable of detecting.58 But more accurate observations of the fixed
stars might be expected to throw further light on this problem.

Fig. 50.—Stellar parallax.

Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about testbank and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebooksecure.com