Talk:Ibn al-Shatir

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BrownStud.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lolbud0, Díkopos. Peer reviewers: Vera0101, Clayerone.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ptolemy v. Shatir

Since I started editing this page I've preserved the statement that al-Shatir "eliminated entirely the epicycle in the solar model, the eccentrics and equants in the planetary models, and the eccentric, epicycles and equant in the lunar model", but have not confirmed that this is an accurate or adequate summation of the reference cited. It doesn't sound right, particularly the lunar model, which is left by that description as an elementary circle, even though al-Shatir could not possibly explain changes in the Moon's distance/apparent size with a circular orbit, and the literature always compares the difficulties in the lunar model to that of mercury, as particularly troublesome, be it Ptolemy or al-Tusi. Furthermore, Saliba (Islamic Science...p123) clarifies that Ptolemy explicitly allowed that the epicycle and the eccentric were mathematically and observationally equivalent, an observation repeated often in the literature, so one could trade one for the other. In at least hindsight this is also true of the equant. Al-Shatir's model is, in this sense, just the first demonstration of Hanson's famous paper (1960) on the utility of the epicycle. Also, did al-Shatir use the same solution as Ptolemy for the latitudinal motions/axial tilt? What else justifies the statement, left here before me, that al-Shatir's work might be considered a "Scientific Revolution before the Renaissance"? He rectified Aristotelian physics with Ptolemaic cosmology, and that is a very great achievement, but an entirely different one than what followed Copernicus, who had no particularly good reason or observation for his model, AFAIK, until Galileo's observations of Jupiter's moons cast a shadow on Aristotle that hypothetical epicycles never could.

Also, isn't that a cute turn of phrase? "Galileo's observations of Jupiter's moons cast a shadow on Aristotle that hypothetical epicycles never could". With a little polish that might even become pretty damned fantastic. I must be ripping somebody off.

buermann (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

An epicycle is equal to particular equant. The problem with Ptolemy is that he created both epicycles and equant's for each planetary that were unrelated to each other except for fitting his observations, with the intention that the equant be the same for all of the models (since the equant affects the earth, which he was modelling as the center.) Note that there cannot be multiple equants -- otherwise the earth would have to be in two different places at once. For this reason, Ptolemy was not trying to remove the equant since he saw it as since property of the earth. Since ibn Al-Shatir, essentially was able to reject more of Aristotle's cosmology than Ptolemy, he simply replaced the equant with an epicycle for each planet using Urdi's lemma (in modern parlance, we would just consider these as parameterized rotating vectors and it's obvious that an equant and an epicycle are essentially the same from an observational point of view.) This transformation makes the model seem more convoluted, but it is mathematically equivalent. Furthermore, since each planetary model now had its own extra epicycle assigned to it, he could modify them independently to reflect the more accurate observations at Maghreb. It is also obvious from doing this that you can just keep adding modifying epicycles, or any other device, such as the Tusi couple, to just force the model to fit observations by "fixing" whatever perturbations were noticed.

Since he tried to take into account relative distance from the earth he could use the Tusi couple to move the sun or moon back and forth. Remember that at the time no absolute distances to any celestial object was known. But eclipses allowed for the deduction of the *relative* size of the moon to the sun. What this meant was that you could adjust the model for them to account for their relative distance and size -- but you could not know anything to any absolute accuracy. So if he assumed the moon was a circle, then that means he thought the sun moved further away and closer while the moon did not. Its just a matter of perspective. Qed (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

[Ibn Shater departed] from the Ptolemaic system in a way very similar to what Copernicus later also did. Ibn Shater hypothesized that the earth was not the center of the universe and proved it by trigonometric means. Later on, Copernicus restated this theory to the Europeans.

If this is not intended to give the impression that Ibn Shater deserves credit for heliocentrism in place of Copernicus, then it is very badly worded indeed. If it is, it is not supported by any of the works cited.

Ibn al-Shatir did important astronomical work, and his solution for removing equants was also used at one time by Copernicus, though not in his final formulation. There is no sort of evidence that Copernicus knew of the earlier work, and opinions are divided. Nor was al-Shatir's system heliocentric. (See the Gingerich citation.)

Why is it better to make misleading or false assertions than to give al-Shatir the credit he deserves? I'm undertaking to fix this, but we need (as I have said so many times before) someone who knows Islamic science to do it right. The lashings-out of partisans are not useful in Wikipedia, even when they are in behalf of historically neglected areas. --Dandrake 00:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed this statement is incorrect. There is no evidence that ibn al-Shatir ever considered a heliocentric system. As much as I admire the work of Saliba, especially on this issue, his failure to recount Copernicus' history on the subject kind of taints his analysis. Copernicus proposed the heliocentric system before 1514 based on very scant empirical data. In other words, it was just a pure insight -- probably the result of reading Martianus Capella and simply extending his idea. His small circle of friends were intrigued and wanted Copernicus to write up a more formal treatise on the matter. Copernicus, probably realizing he had no supporting analysis or evidence for his theory, then appears to have sought out the very latest in astronomical treatise' and probably obtained a copy of the works of al-Shatir and Tusi. We know it happened in this order because Guillame Postel, presumably Copernicus' source for the Arab works, was only 4 years old in 1514. So he would not have obtained ibn al-Shatir's models until a more realistic date between 1530 and 1540.

Copernicus, without fully understanding the technical details of ibn al-Shatir, probably then discovered to his delight, that indeed all the planetary models could be scaled such that one of their epicycles was very near to the orbit of the sun around the earth. So then he just subtracted that epicycle from everything (including the earth!) and voila! So he then proceeded to document this, by first reproducing ibn al-Shatir's models (slightly incorrectly, because he didn't or couldn't do all the math that ibn al-Shatir did) then showed how his heliocentric model was in observational agreement with his models by doing this sun-orbit-epicycle subtraction. I have not read these materials myself, so I cannot say with any certainty that this was Copernicus' thinking. But such analysis would have been available to him. Qed (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Separation of Astronomy from Natural Philosophy?

Could someone document the claim that Ibn al-Shatir was responsible for the separation of astronomy from natural philosophy? The separation of the two was already clear at the time of the philosopher Aristotle, who clearly differentiated the role of astronomy as providing knowledge of the fact (scientia quia), from that of philosophy which provided knowledge of the cause of the fact (scientia propter quid); and the astronomer Ptolemy, who wrote of mathematical astronomy in his Almagest and Handy Tables, and of physical cosmology and the causes of celestial motions in his Planetary Hypotheses. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC); revised 04:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup5. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.

A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.

• Ibn al-Shatir: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Johnuniq (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to start looking at this (which will likely amount to ripping out the dodgy stuff) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ibn al-Shatir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050106054625/http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~anoop/weblog/archives/000080.html to http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~anoop/weblog/archives/000080.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)