Harry Veeder wrote: > FYI > Copernicus said the sun is motionless and that it is _near_ the centre > of the universe. > Harry > > from > http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Copernicus.html > > In De revolutionibus Copernicus states several reasons why it is logical > that the sun would be at the centre of the universe: > > At the middle of all things lies the sun. As the location of this > luminary in the cosmos, that most beautiful temple, would there be any > other place or any better place than the centre, from which it can light > up everything at the same time? Hence the sun is not inappropriately > called by some the lamp of the universe, by others its mind, and by > others its ruler. > > Copernicus's cosmology placed a motionless sun not at the centre of the > universe, but close to the centre, and also involved giving several > distinct motions to the Earth. The problem that Copernicus faced was > that he assumed all motion was circular so, like Ptolemy, was forced > into using epicycles (see for example [78]). It was consequently > considered implausible by the most of his contemporaries, and by most > astronomers and natural philosophers until the middle of the seventeenth > century. In the intended Preface of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium > Copernicus showed that he was fully aware of the criticisms that his > work would attract: > > Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of > mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on > mathematical questions and, badly distorting some passages of Scripture > to their purpose, will dare find fault with my undertaking and censure > it. I disregard them even to the extent as despising their criticism as > unfounded. >
Because he was trying to show that the Earth was not the centre. He insisted on his statements that the Sun was near the centre, because he knew that his ideas of a motion of the Earth would be heavily opposed.
