How long did the people of Ptolemy believe

To home page

back to the textbook analysis

more info believe science

Excerpt from the textbook analysis "When school is about creation, evolution and the big bang ..."

2.2.3 The dispute over the Copernican
worldview Excursus: A conflict is built up

With the struggle for the implementation of the Copernican worldview, the students came into contact a few years earlier, in grade 7, in the subject of history.
Perhaps you read the following in your textbook at the time (it is a fictional collage of several textbooks):

Around 1400, most people in Europe thought the earth was flat ... Sailing the ocean was considered scary. ... Also ... Copernicus ... was convinced that the earth was a flat disk in the center of the universe; all other planets and the sun revolve around them. This is what the Church taught ... His observations and calculations ... clearly showed that the earth and the planets revolve around the sun. The Church's teaching about the earth as the center of the universe had to be wrong. Copernicus kept the results locked in his desk for thirty years. Only shortly before his death did he give permission to print his book, which was entitled: "On the orbits of the heavenly bodies". The book was immediately banned by the Church. ...

The Italian Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was burned at the stake as a heretic by the Roman Inquisition for his commitment to the heliocentric hypothesis. ...

... the authority of the church was challenged. Galileo Galilei felt this when he tried to prove the correctness of the Copernican system. Not wanting to end up at the stake, he pretended to be wrong and got away with lifelong house arrest. His writings were burned. ...

This results in a “mood” picture that has been indelibly impressed on many minds.

The footnotes in the detailed quotations below refer to some of the inconsistencies.

(Source: G3 CORNELSEN / VOLK UND WISSEN; Discover and understand 7, Cornelsen Verlag Berlin, 2005, p.7ff.)
"Around 1400 most people in Europe thought the earth is flatwho swim on the water, the ocean. No one could live “head down” on the other side of the earth. Driving the ocean was considered scary.[1]... Also the Polish priest and astronomer Copernicus ... was convinced that the earth was a flat disk in the center of the universe[2]; all other planets and the sun revolve around them (Fig.2). So taught the Church[3] … His Observations and calculations ... showed very clearly[4]that the earth and the planets revolve around the sun. The Church's teaching about the earth as the center of the universe had to be wrong. Copernicus kept the results locked in his desk for thirty years. Only shortly before his death did he give permission to print his book, which was entitled: "About the orbits of the heavenly bodies[5]. The book was immediately banned by the Church[6].“

(Source: G1 C.C. BUCHNER; Buchner's College History - Edition C, The Formation of Modern Europe; C.C. Buchners Verlag, Bamberg 1995, p.70)

"The Italian Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was recognized for his commitment to the heliocentric hypothesis from the Roman Inquisition burned at the stake as a heretic.“[7]

(Source: G7 Klett, History and Events, 3, Saxony, Secondary Level I, Ernst Klett Schulbuchverlag, Leipzig 2006, p.14, almost word for word G8, p.14)

“This challenged the authority of the church. Galileo Galilei felt this when he tried to prove the correctness of the Copernican system. Not wanting to end up at the stake, he pretended to be wrong and got away with lifelong house arrest. His writings were burned[8]. The geocentric view of the world determined the consciousness of most people for a long time. In the 18th century the heliocentric worldview began to prevail. "

The comments in the footnotes may make it clear how many places are not properly informed here. The abbreviated representation - on the one hand courageous scientists with unmistakable evidence, as their opponent an incapable of learning with ideological blinkers that violently defends its influence - does not match the actual course of the dispute.

(Source:Q58 GEO compact 14, The 100 greatest researchers of all time, 2008

“It is part of the myth of modern science that its early discoveries would have convinced people as a matter of course, simply by the power of their truth. And that only obdurate people from the past like the ecclesiastical inquisitors would have refused to give their evidence.
But it wasn't like that.

More differentiated representations can be found in textbooks for the subject of astronomy, which will be discussed in this chapter:

·        Source: P21 PAETEC; astronomy, Upper secondary school, Paetec, Berlin 2001

·        Source: P23 PAETEC; Dieter B. Herrmann; Fascinating Astronomy; Paetec, Berlin, 2000
(Corresponding quotations from both textbooks are reproduced in excerpts in this chapter below)

as well as in other sources:

·        Source: Q58 GEO compact 14, The 100 greatest researchers of all time, 2008

·        Source: Q70 WIKIPEDIA; on "Copernicus", "Galileo" and "Religion and heliocentric worldview"; read 12/16/08
(Extensive quotations from these two sources are given in excerpts in Volume 4 = Chapter 4.2).

Another good and differentiated presentation of the conflict can also be found in:

·        Source: Q81 Drake, Stillman: Galilei, Herder / Spektrum, Freiburg n.d. (after 1999, ISBN: 3-926642-38-6) The dispute over the Copernican
Representation in textbooks for the subject
PHYSICS for secondary level 1

In the physics and astronomy textbooks of secondary level 1, the topic is consistently presented in a somewhat more differentiated manner, but often contains ambiguities.

First of all, two voices from the "People and Knowledge" house:

(Source: P1 CORNELSEN / VOLK UND WISSEN; Physics plus Gymnasium 10, Saxony, Cornelsen, Berlin, 2006, p.68;
word for word P2 CORNELSEN / PEOPLE AND KNOWLEDGE; Physics Middle School 9/10, Saxony, Cornelsen, Berlin, 2006, p.56)

KOPERNIKUS worked this heliocentric system in detail mathematically out. But his system is not the only one Intuition, but also the Doctrine of the Catholic Church contradicted, he left open whether he would propose his system as a particularly simple calculation method or whether he wanted it to be understood as a model for reality. …
When JOHANNES KEPLER found out that the planetary orbits can be described much more precisely with ellipses than with circles, he destroyed them Imagination that God's work expresses itself in perfect circular movements. [9]

P1 p.69:
(Observations of GALILEO: Jupiter moons, Venus phases)
These observations supported the heliocentric system. But they did not prove that the earth orbits the sun. Claiming that the earth moves however contradicted the Catholic doctrine. GALILEO ...

P2 p.57:
(Observations of GALILEO: Jupiter moons, Venus phases)
These observations supported the heliocentric system. But they did not prove it for the Catholic Church. [10][11]GALILEO ...

Another textbook initially points out that Ptolemy's view of the world was an important intellectual achievement:

(Source: P3 DUDEN / PAETEC; Physik Sek I, Duden Paetec, Berlin, 2005, p.12).

CLAUDIUS PTOLEMEUSE summarized the results. This view of the world was a great achievement of ancient science, because you could calculate the movement of the sun and moon in advance. So this worldview was preserved for many centuries ...

The next textbook knows this too:

(Source: P4 DUDEN / PAETEC; physics, high school 10, Saxony, Duden Paetec, Berlin, 2007)

For almost 1,500 years, most scholars believed the geocentric view of the world to be the correct description of space. It was not until the beginning of the 16th century that NIKOLAUS COPERNICUS considered that the earth could move around the sun. ...
COPERNICUS stopped at the old idea of ​​circular orbits firmly. That's why they were from him calculated positions of the planets are not more accurate than those that had been determined in the geocentric worldview[12]

The mankind It took over 100 years to break away from the geocentric worldview. The supposed center position of the earth was associated with many religious and philosophical ideas that one did not want to part with. …

A textbook for secondary level 2 endeavors to provide an even clearer representation (source P14; see chapter below). The dispute over the Copernican
Representation in textbooks for the subject
PHYSICS for secondary level 2

The textbook P14 performs among other things:

(Source: P14 SCHROEDEL; Dorn / Bader: physics Sec II; Schroedel, Hanover, 2000, p.126)

From myth to science
The basic idea of ​​the Greek cosmology was as follows: The earth rests in the center of the world and from here one ascends to higher and higher spheres until one reaches the fixed star sphere, as the highest and most perfect. These Spheres in spherical shape[13]were seen as ideal figures with perfect symmetry. The task of celestial mechanics was to reduce the movement of the stars to regular circular movements. In order to describe the movement of the sun, the moon, the planets and the fixed stars through movement in circles, EUDOXOS, a student of PLATOS, did, however, need it 27 nested hollow balls. …

The Copernican Turn
NICHOLAS COPERNICUS (1473-1543), canon[14] von Frauenburg in East Prussia, gave in his famous work De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (About the rotation of the celestial circles) the geocentric point of view. But he still left the circular orbits. His heliocentric position was unacceptable to most scholars and theologians. ...
But the objections to KOPERNIKUS were great and seemingly justified. A counter-argument of the exact observer Tycho BRAHE was: When the earth revolves around the sun, we must see the fixed stars shifted from one another at a distance of six months from two distant positions. These parallax However, because of the great distance between the fixed stars, it could only be measured in the 19th century. At the time of KOPERNIKUS, however, no fixed star parallax was found and the heliocentric view of the world was therefore considered refuted.[15]

The clearest descriptions of the conflict over the Copernican view of the world and the actors involved are provided by textbooks on the subject of astronomy (see chapter below). The dispute over the Copernican
Representation in textbooks for the subject

Here is a first example:

(Source: P21 PAETEC; astronomy, Upper secondary school, Paetec, Berlin 2001)

From the darkness of the past to the science of astronomy
Often the celestial knowledge is dressed in strongly symbolic mythological garments and must first be deciphered. From this arises one of the great difficulties of paleoastronomy, especially one considerable scope for interpretation arises, which often leads to scientific controversy about the informative value of the "documents".
Understandably, astronomers or astronomy historians cannot do this research on their own. This requires close interdisciplinary cooperation between astronomers, archaeologists, ethnologists, art and religious scholars and philologists.[16]

The PTOLEMEUS consciously based his theory on the philosophical-religious thesis of the divinity of the stars [17]as he himself writes:
“When we have set ourselves the task of proving for the five wandering stars ... that their apparent anomalies are all due to uniform movements in circles to be expressed, because only these movements correspond to the nature of the divine beingswhile irregularity and irregularity are alien to them ... "
The geocentric world system of PTOLEME was in place in harmony with the appearance, with the recognized philosophical premises of his time and with the physics of ARISTOTLE. ...
The all-round correspondence of the Ptolemaic theory with physics, appearance and “zeitgeist“Secured her high recognition and at the same time provided sound arguments against all her critics. ...[18]

Although COPERNICUS after completing his studies "Full-time" in the service of the Church stood, supported his uncle in his work as Bishop of Warmia and even became one of the canons of Frombork himself, he occupied himself more and more intensively with astronomy in his leisure hours. ...
Indeed COPERNICUS holds fast to the orbit of the heavenly bodies. It is true that he no longer refers to the divinity of the stars, but to the geometric argument that the heavenly bodies are spherical and the orbits that correspond to them are therefore circular. Nevertheless, this postulate has serious consequences: COPERNICUS is forced to continue to use the ancient tools of epicycles and defenders in order to be able to describe the observed movements. ...
So put it The main work of COPERNICUS is a strangely contradicting mixture of elements from ancient astronomy and a truly revolutionary departure from the core idea of ​​the Ptolemaic world system, the central position of the earth, dar.
The hopethat on the basis of the hypothesis of COPERNICUS calculate better tables would lead to a complete correspondence between prognosis and reality, did not come true. The "Prutenic Tables", which ERASMUS REINHOLD (1511-1553) had calculated from the Copernican data, deviated significantly from the actual positions of the planets.
A decisive argument against COPERNICUS emerged from the fact that no fixed star parallaxes to be found were: If the earth actually moves around the sun, this movement should have been reflected in a position of the fixed stars that fluctuated with the annual period. But nothing of that was to be noticed.
As COPERNICUS already claimed, this was a consequence of the small size of the effect, which could not be determined with the measurement methods of the time. After all, it took around 300 years before the first fixed star parallaxes could actually be recorded using measurement technology.[19]

On the path of knowledge from COPERNICUS to NEWTON there was one of the most dramatic conflicts between spirit and power, between science and the church. The conflict exemplifies that how deeply the traditional geocentric conception of the world had become part of a worldview that had been declared binding, an ideological shell of Catholic Christianity - a process that is by no means unique in history. ...
During the lifetime of COPERNICUS there was no conflict between the Catholic Church and the advocates of the heliocentric world system. …
The significant discrepancies between the common Julian calendar and the positions of the sun had created a disorder in the calendar system that was of serious concern to the Church. The cause was the incorrect assumption that the year was 365.25 days long, as the Julian calendar was based on. During the lifetime of COPERNICUS, there was already a gap of approx. 10 days between the calendar beginning of spring and the astronomical beginning of spring. ...
Since the movable celebrations in the church calendar (Easter and Pentecost) are directly connected to the date of the beginning of spring (e.g. Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the beginning of spring), it was no longer possible to know when Easter really was.
Hence, the Church received with great interest any effort to reform astronomy. A fundamental contradiction between church teachings and astronomical theses could not be recognized at that time. But there were also a few Statements from church circles in which the incompatibility of (literally interpreted) Bible passages with the teaching of COPERNICUS was pointed out.

(Source: P21 PAETEC; astronomy, Upper secondary school, Paetec, Berlin 2001)

further out (Source: P21 PAETEC; astronomy, Upper secondary school, Paetec, Berlin 2001)

For example,MARTIN LUTHER (1483-1546) on the book of Joshua in the Old Testament of the Bible (Joshua 10: 12-13), where it says that Joshua made the sun stand still and it set "almost a whole day" later than usual. Joshua could but only order the sun to stand still if it had moved beforehand, argued LUTHER. And COPERNICUS is described by him as a "fool" who wants to "reverse the whole art of astronomy".[20] The interpretation of the Bible in its literal sense But met resistance from well-known naturalists, such as KEPLERS, who expressly emphasized: "In theology the weight of the authorities applies, but in philosophy that of the reasons of reason." denied the earth, holy Augustine, who admitted the spherical shape, but denied antipodes, holy the office of our day, which admits the smallness of the earth but denies its movements. But truth is more holy to me when I, despite all reverence for the church teachers "Prove from philosophy that the earth is round, inhabited all around by antipodes, is very insignificant and small and also rushes through the stars".
A conflict between the Church and the natural sciences was already indicated here, which was to rapidly escalate dramatically and reached a historical climax in the judgment of the Roman Inquisition against GALILEO (1564 to 1642). The real point was less about how to interpret the Bible correctly and what kind of competence science should have, but about that fundamental attack on the Christian-Aristotelian worldview. The position of man in the "world theater" underwent a radical change: In future, man should no longer be in the center of the world (consequently, by the way, the Pope no longer) and the realms of "below" and "above" were in danger. that was the world of the blessed, who lived near God, and below - that was the world of men, further from God, even if exposed to his caring eye and hoping for redemption.
These It was the moral world order of the Church that seemed endangered through the recognition of the heliocentric teaching of COPERNICUS and therefore the conflict flared up. ...
Only in 1992 - the 350th year of GALILEO's death - was the scholar rehabilitated by Pope John Paul II. [21]
Once and for all the Pope declared in this connection that one could not infer the details of the physical world from the Bible, knowledge of which was "entrusted to the experience and reflection of man"
. Rather, there are two areas of knowledge: "One has its source in revelation, but the other can be discovered by reason with its own powers".
The controversy over the heliocentric doctrine had little influence on the progress of science overall, although the main work of COPERNICUS was practically forbidden since 1616 because the opinions expressed there should "not continue to spread to the corruption of the Catholic truth".

(Source: P21 PAETEC; astronomy, Upper secondary school, Paetec, Berlin 2001)

Quotes from another astronomy textbook supplement the above remarks:

(Source: P23 PAETEC; Dieter B. Herrmann; Fascinating Astronomy; Paetec, Berlin, 2000)

The Greek world system emerges ...
The doctrine of had a significant influence on the development of the Greek world system PLATON (427-347 BC). For him the stars and the planets were lights in which the thinking of the “world soul” is expressed. That is why the stars could only move on the most perfect conceivable geometric path, the circle.
For the astronomers, this resulted in the objective of tracing all observed movements back to circular movements. ...
With the geocentric worldview an idea of ​​the structure of the universe was developed that one of the greatest feats of ancient science was. With his help, the To determine the positions of the walking stars in advance. That was also a convincing argument for the correctness of the worldview.
Another advantage of the geocentric worldview was his Correspondence with the most advanced physics at the time, (the) of ARISTOTLE (384-322 BC). According to ARISTOTLE, all bodies have the property of moving to their “natural place”. The “natural place” of the heavy body should be the middle of the world. Since the earth is undoubtedly a heavy body, it had to be in the middle of the world according to the “natural place” theory.

As early as 1502, the important researcher NIKOLAUS KOPERNIKUS began to work out a worldview in which the focus is not on the earth, but on the sun.
Based on this idea, COPERNICUS worked for almost 30 years on to develop the heliocentric worldview mathematically in such a way that it was at least equal to the geocentric system of PTOLEMEUS.[22] He also stuck to the view that all planets move on circular orbits. COPERNICUS summarized his findings in a work that appeared in 1543 under the title “On the revolutions of the heavenly circles” (De revolutionibus orbium coelestium).
COPERNICUS had no evidence for the hypothesis of the central position of the sun.

Dispute over the worldview
A few decades after the death of its author, the work of COPERNICUS led to one stormy debate, which was conducted both with purely technical arguments and increasingly with a view to Christian teaching.
At first it was claimed that the hypothesis of the heliocentric view of the world was in contradiction to the Bible. But soon it was about more than just Bible quotes. The uniqueness of the revelation, the accounts of the fall and redemption did not fit a doctrine whose core was the assertion that the earth was only one planet among others.
GIORDANO BRUNO (1548-1600), based on the teaching of COPERNICUS, took the view that there are innumerable planets in the universe that are just as inhabited by thinking beings as the earth ...
From around 1616 the teaching of COPERNIC became a matter of faith for the Church. The disputes between the Inquisition and the views of GALILEO led to his formal condemnation. The study of the GALILEO case has never ceased since then.
A review of the GALILEO case was initiated under Pope JOHN PAUL II, which in 1992 - the 350th year of the scholar's death - led to his rehabilitation by the Church.
In this context, the Pope declared before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the GALILEO case could provide the Church with a teaching that remains up to date for similar situations His: “Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood, thanks to his ingenious imagination as a physicist and based on various reasons, that only the sun as the center of the world, as it was known at the time, ... came into question. The On the other hand, the theologians of that time erred in clinging to the central position of the earth in the notion that our knowledge of the structures of the physical world was somehow required by the literal meaning of the Holy Scriptures. ... In fact, the Bible is not concerned with the details of the physical world, the knowledge of which is entrusted to human experience and reflection. "

(Source: P23 PAETEC; Dieter B. Herrmann; Fascinating Astronomy; Paetec, Berlin, 2000)

[1] At about the same time Columbus set sail westward to go around the earth to reach India to the east; so he and many of his (educated) contemporaries were firmly convinced of the spherical shape of the earth!
Is the earth flat? ..
Scholars of ancient Greece found out more than two millennia ago that appearances are deceptive. They asked why new, previously unobserved constellations appear to travelers to the south. They knew that the moon moves through the earth's shadow during a lunar eclipse, and asked why this shadow always shows a circular border on the moon. If the earth were a disk, it would usually have to be depicted as an ellipse during lunar eclipses, and even as a line at sunrise and sunset. Even then, the sphere was recognized as the only possible body shape that always casts a circular shadow regardless of the direction of illumination. Hence the earth can only be such. ... Eratosthenes of Cyrene succeeded ... in determining the circumference of the earth ... with a deviation of only 5 percent from today's value.
(Q80 Clausnitzer, Lutz: What Heaven Tells About Earth, Freie Presse Chemnitz March 27, 2009, p. A8)

[3] Within the church there was no unified opinion, and certainly no binding doctrinal opinion that was based on a certain shape of the earth:
"Catholic support for the geocentric system should not be confused with the idea of ​​a flat earth, which the Catholic Church never supported."
(Q70 Wikipedia: Religion and the heliocentric view of the world, December 16, 2008)

[4]Copernicus ... hesitated for a long time with the publication of his astronomical work, possibly because his calculations of the planetary orbits in orbits around the sun, based on Aristotle's assumptions as a circle as an ideally harmonic, perfect mathematical structure, which were ultimately incorrect, could not be supported by observations and therefore rejected the scientific or ecclesiastical establishment was to be feared. Because of the false assumption of the circular orbits, Copernicus was ultimately unable to necessarily refute his critics.
(Q70 Wikipedia, Copernicus, December 16, 2008)

In his work "Astronomia Nova" (1609- more than 60 years after the death of Copernicus) to the proof that the relatively safe positions of the planets can be calculated both according to the venerable geocentric system of Ptolemy and the new heliocentric system of Copernicus. Even if you combine both systems, as Tycho Brahe did, you get reasonable results. All three systems are geometrically and mathematically compatible with one another. The mere observation and description of the phenomena does not lead to a decision about right or wrong.

(Q63 image of science issue 2/2009 p. 54ff.)

[5] The Latin title of the work by Copernicus "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium" means exactly translated: "About the revolutions of the heavenly circles". It refers to the (doubly wrong) notion that Copernicus started from that
a) the moon and the planets were attached to the heavenly spheres and were carried along by them on their movement (these are the "heavenly circles"!), and that
b) it is about (ideal) circular orbits - which made difficult additional assumptions in his theories necessary.

In Volume I, Chapter X of his main work, he writes: “The first and highest of all Spheres is that of the fixed stars, which contains itself and everything else ... "
(Q70 Wikipedia: Copernicus, December 16, 2008)

Only Kepler corrected the circles to the actual elliptical orbits. And even "… Galileo had probably not read Kepler's “Astronomia Nova”, at least he did not mention anything about it. In 1632 he was still writing in his “Dialog”, undeterred by circles and not by ellipses on which the planets revolve around the sun.

(Q63 image of science issue 2/2009 p. 54ff.)

[6] Not until 1616 - seventy years after the death of Copernicus! - were also in a trial against Foscarini “Put some non-theological writings on Copernican astronomy, including a work by Johannes Kepler, on the index. The main work of Copernicus, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, published in 1543, the year of his death, was not forbidden, but "suspended": From then on until 1822 it was only allowed to appear in the sphere of influence of the Roman Inquisition in arrangements that emphasized that the heliocentric system was a mere mathematical model.
(Q70 Wikipedia: Galileo, December 16, 2008;
so also: Q81 Drake, Stillman: Galilei, Herder / Spektrum, Freiburg undated (after 1999, ISBN: 3-926642-38-6), p.110)

[7] Here Giordano Bruno is remembered, who was burned at the stake by the Inquisition. The reason given here for his violent death is not correct:

He proclaimed the infinity of the universe in contrast to the sphere of fixed stars. Since, in his opinion, the stars are relatively regularly distributed in infinite space, their number is also infinite. They are all suns, orbited by planets on which living beings are present like on our earth. The idea of ​​the unlimited abundance of life forms in the infinite universe is the core idea of ​​Bruno's conception of the world, which is founded more philosophically than scientifically. Bruno was not an atheist. He wanted to glorify the infinite God with an infinite creation. He once said that it was unworthy of God to have created only a finite world. ...
Giordano Bruno was condemned not because of his worldview or his advocacy of Copernicus, but because of his denial of the Trinity of God. This denial, however, was a consequence of his infinity hypothesis. ... "

(Q52 student Christian special correspondence course; natural science - a challenge of faith; church congress of the Evangelical Lutheran regional church of Saxony, 1978, letter 2, p.15)

Giordano Bruno had provoked the guardians of the faith with the design of a pantheistically animated universe in which an infinite number of suns form the centers of countless planetary systems. In 1600 he was sentenced to death in flames only because he stubbornly denied the church dogma of the Trinity, the Holy Trinity.
(Q74 Der Spiegel 23/1998 p.90)

[9] The idea that the heavenly bodies had to move on perfect ideal circular orbits does not come from the Bible and does not refer to the Judeo-Christian God, but here it is an idea (specification) from ancient Greek philosophy and cherished there Images of the world and gods. The Greek world of gods was different from that of Judaism. The Greeks believed in the work of an entire "family of gods", while Judaism, as a strictly monotheistic religion, believed in only one god.

[10] The thoughts of Copernicus were not experienced from the beginning as contradicting the doctrinal opinion of the Catholic Church (it was not until 1616 - in the course of the dispute with Galileo - that the book of Copernicus was placed on the index).

[11] Reference should also be made here to the “subtle” difference in the text of the two books cited above, that the observations of Galileo, “not proven” / “not proven for the Catholic Church”, that the earth revolves around the sun. The first statement is more likely to be true because Copernicus was also unable to convince many astronomers and philosophers of his time of the correctness of his ideas.

[12] The new worldview of Copernicus was also partly based on wrong ideas. He not only assumed that the earth, the moon and the planets orbited the sun on ideal orbits, but he also proceeded from the existence of "spheres", spherical shells on which the planets were attached and which coalesce with them moved:

“Neither with Aristotle, nor with Copernicus nor with Kepler, are the planets or other celestial bodies that move; it is rather the spheres that rotate and carry the objects belonging to them with them.“
(Q14 Fischer, E.P .: The other education - what one should know about the natural sciences, Ullstein, 2003, p.110)

And above all, the calculations of the planetary orbits by Copernicus did not provide any more precise results than those based on Ptolemy's model.

[13] The idea of ​​perfect circles on which the heavenly bodies moved did not come from the Bible, but from the cosmology of Greek philosophers.

[15] Copernicus' considerations were not particularly convincing for his fellow scholars. Proofs that could basically be derived from his theory could not be produced because of the accuracy of the measurements which was not possible at the time.

[16] It is interesting (and appropriate) that in order to be able to correctly interpret earlier conceptions of nature and the world, interdisciplinary cooperation, among others, is considered indispensable by astronomers and religious scholars.

[17] The idea that planets and other heavenly bodies must move in perfect circles - by God's will - comes from Ptolemy (or Plato: see below in this chapter at source P23, there on page 12) and not from the Bible.

[18] The geocentric view of the world was so convincing (not only for the church, but also for (natural) philosophers) because the orbit of the sun, moon and stars around the earth corresponded to the appearance in everyday life, "physically approved" by the authority of Aristotle was and corresponded to the philosophical models of thought of his time.

[19] The Copernican model simply lacked the power of persuasion (it did not allow more precise calculations of the planetary orbits; exact proof of the movement of the earth around the sun could not be provided at that time by measurement technology) - see also below Source P24 on p.99f..
The direct evidence for the orbit of the earth around the sun was only possible in 1838, when FRIEDRICH WILHELM BESSEL measured the first fixed star parallax - see below Source P22 on p.53.

[20] A conflict between the new world model and the church did not show up immediately. If Copernicus (and later Galileo) had been prepared to represent the heliocentric model only as a theoretical-mathematical hypothesis - the Catholic Church would have accepted that. Theological resistance to the ideas of Copernicus initially came less from the Catholic Church than from the Protestant side. Martin Luther was a contemporary of Copernicus, and he immediately and vehemently defended himself against the ideas of this "fool" - and he did it with biblical arguments, which he interpreted literally! Protestantism, with its tendency to interpret the Bible true to the letter, was much more sensitive to this question. That Luther was a follower of Ptolemy was shown, for example, by the fact that the first picture in his printed Bible from 1534 depicts his view of the world (Q32 Martin Luther: Biblia that is the whole Holy Scripture in Deudsch (from 1534), volume 1, facsimile print at Reclam Leipzig 1983):

[21] It was recently announced that a sculpture of Galileo will be installed in the Vatican Gardens in 2009! (Q33 the daily newspaper Berlin, 10.3.08 p.2)

[22] As is confirmed here once again, the main reason for Copernicus' reluctance to publish his work was less the fear of the reaction of the Church than the scientific persuasiveness, which he also found unsatisfactory.