Koestler and Copernicus

There were so many things about Copernicus that I would have never known. The first that intrigued me was seeing that he worked with geography, when I always associate him with astronomy. Back then though, I feel people were much more multidisciplined than today.

Another interesting part was that it is not known whether he actually believed his system was truth. It seems odd that he could be able to write a book, and not whole-heartedly believe in what he wrote. Its also interesting to think that he didn't necessarily believe it was true, but rather it made more sense. That baffles me that you can support something that you don't think is true, but rather that it makes more sense.

Also, Copernicus didn't like observing. What!?!?!?! When you hear his name, you think astronomy, so obviously the logical conclusion would be he has to observe. It almost diminishes his reliability and your confidence in him.

It seems that Copernicus was very sly and secretive. He must have been in order to leave no trace during his ten year stay in Italy. That must have been hard to do, but he was able to do it. Supposedly he gave lectures, but once again no trace of that, so who knows what actually happened. Also, he didn't want to publish his book, but was eventually persuaded to , but after many many years.

"Rheticus wrote the narratio prima under th66e watchful eyes of Copernicus." I can imagine Copernicus sitting in a corner in the dark watching him write. Him being all secretive hiding from view but still watching. It just seems like something he would do.

The scandal. Olala. Copernicus may have thought the same as the preface, but to put it in there is stunning. He obviously didn't want that to be in there, and Koestler thinks that could have been a reason for his death. Reading that shcoked him so much, and it eventually killed him. I mean, pretty much his whole work was just told that it was nothing to be taken seriously.