From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid   
      
   On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 22:40:20 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D´Oliveiro   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 08:59:05 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:   
   >   
   >> IIRC from my reading it quite a while back, [Copernicus] presented   
   >> it more as a demonstration that a heliocentric system would be   
   >> simpler than Pt[e]lomy.   
   >   
   >The problem is, he still insisted that the planets moved in perfect   
   >circles around the Sun. So it’s hard to see how the calculations could   
   >in fact have been any simpler or more accurate.   
      
   Every planet (other than the Earth, of course) had one fewer circle in   
   Copernicus than in Ptolemy.   
      
   The main circle of the Earth made them unnecessary.   
      
   Movement in perfect circles was Aristotle's idea: only motion in a   
   straight line or a perfect circle could continue forever, and the   
   planets/sun/moon /had/ to continue forever because they were gods,   
   composed of the fifth element and so eternal.   
      
   Or so I have read, here and there.   
   --    
   "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,   
   Who evil spoke of everyone but God,   
   Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)