Genesis Flood a catastrophism differing from Grand Canyon and Mount Saint Helens

 

“What MSH [Mount Saint Helens] demonstrates is not that the

fossil forests at places like Yellowstone were deposited by a giant water flood,

but that they were deposited in a volcanic environment like MSH”.

Kevin Nelstead

  

This 2020 article needed to be written:

What does Mt St Helens teach us about Noah’s flood? Almost nothing. – GeoChristian

 

What does Mt St Helens teach us about Noah’s flood? Almost nothing.

 

All I got from Mt St Helens (MSH) in the days following its May 18, 1980 eruption was a few pretty sunsets. I was an undergraduate student in my first year at the University of Utah, and most of the ash cloud passed far north of Salt Lake City. MSH became more significant for me a few years later as a geology graduate student at Washington State University, where my research project involved analysis and correlation of Cascade Range tephra (volcanic ash) layers buried at various levels in the Quaternary Palouse Loess of eastern Washington. Some of these tephra layers correlated to ancient eruptions of MSH, dated around 13,000 and 36,000 years ago.

 

Fortieth Anniversary

 

Due in part to easy accessibility, the 1980 eruptions of MSH have been studied more closely than just about any other explosive volcanic eruption in history. Geologists have learned a great deal about certain types of volcanic deposits from this natural laboratory.

 

Young-Earth creationists (YECs) claim that Mt St Helens has provided many proofs that Noah’s flood could have been responsible for Earth’s sedimentary rock layers, fossil record, landforms, and more. May 18, 2020 marks the fortieth anniversary of the 1980 eruption of MSH, and I would like to look at what some of these YEC claims are, and whether the claims are valid. Three YEC arguments I will look at are:

• Rapid formation of volcanic sediments at MSH show that Earth’s sedimentary rock record could have been deposited during Noah’s flood.
• Rapid canyon formation at MSH establishes that other canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, could have formed during Noah’s flood.
• Logs associated with Spirit Lake demonstrate that fossil forests and coal in the geologic record could have been formed by Noah’s flood.

 

It turns out that each of these arguments is of limited validity. The MSH eruptions had an impact on geological thinking at a time when geologists were becoming more aware of catastrophic events in Earth history, but this does not confirm the claims that YECs make about MSH.

 

MSH and Rapid Sedimentation

 

The May 18, 1980 eruption of MSH did not involve extrusion of fountains or rivers of lava flowing over the landscape. Instead, this was an explosive eruption, ejecting volcanic ash particles high into the atmosphere, as well as ground-hugging pyroclastic flows that blasted northwards from the volcano.

 

Pyroclastic flows consist of fast moving, hot volcanic gases mixed with blobs of molten material, volcanic glass, minerals, and rock fragments. This material may be hotter than 400°C (750°F), flowing across the landscape at hundreds of miles per hour. As the hot cloud of material slows down, grains settle out of the current, forming layers with sedimentary structures such as graded bedding and cross-bedding. This is sort of a hybrid between a volcanic and sedimentary process, producing what are known as volcaniclastic deposits. Another type of deposit from this eruption was volcanic mudflows known as lahars. Lahars form when precipitation or snowmelt mixes with loose volcanic ash to make a thick slurry of material that may flow tens of miles away from the volcano.

 

YECs have used these deposits as evidence that rapid, catastrophic processes can lay down sediments with features that are common in Earth’s sedimentary rock record. If MSH could create layers of rock complete with cross bedding and graded bedding in a short amount of time, why couldn’t the entire sedimentary rock record, many thousands of feet thick in places, have been deposited by a much larger catastrophic event, namely Noah’s flood?

 

The deposits of MSH do indeed show that volcanoes can do a lot of geologic work in a short amount of time. It did not take the 1980 eruptions of MSH to demonstrate this, and no geologists were taken by surprise. Any good volcanologist or sedimentologist will be able to recognize similar volcano-associated rocks in the rock record. Volcaniclastic rocks are common, and are thousands of feet thick in places. Rocks in some of the northern areas of Yellowstone National Park, as well as surrounding areas to the north, east, and southeast, are composed largely of volcanic rocks of the Absaroka Volcanic Supergroup.

 

These rocks are older than and unrelated to the volcanic rocks of the more recent Yellowstone Caldera. The Absaroka rocks include lahars (mudflows), andesite lava flows, pyroclastic flows, and more coarsely crystallized rocks associated with magma chambers. By studying the flows, magma chambers, and associated dikes, geologists have concluded that some of the volcanoes must have been stratovolcanoes the size of the major Cascade Range volcanoes, such as Mt Shasta or Mt Rainier.

 

Studying the products of the 1980 eruption of MSH has helped geologists understand these ancient volcanic rocks better.

 

How much contribution has the study of MSH had to the understanding other types of sedimentary rocks? Just about none. This is because most sedimentary rocks in the geologic record are quite unlike the volcaniclastic rocks produced by catastrophic processes at MSH. Most sandstones and conglomerates are nothing like the deposits of MSH. Yes, many sandstones have sedimentary structures such as cross bedding and graded bedding, but these are known to form in many non-catastrophic settings. Other sedimentary rocks have even less resemblance to anything associated with MSH. Most limestone is formed by biological processes, such as the secretion of calcium carbonate shells and other hard parts by invertebrate organisms. Most shale must have been deposited in quiet environments, as clay does not rapidly settle out from agitated water. Evaporite rocks (rock salt, gypsum, etc.) also have no analogs at MSH.

 

The conclusion is that most rocks in the sedimentary rock record were formed by processes that must have been quite different than what happened at MSH in 1980, and many layers were deposited in settings that have little to do with catastrophism. MSH tells us little about how most sedimentary rocks of the geologic rock record originated.

 

MSH and the Rapid Formation of Canyons

 

In addition to depositing pyroclastic and mudflow deposits, there are erosional features associated with eruptions of MSH. In 1982, rapid snowmelt led to severe flooding at MSH, which carved a 100-foot deep canyon north of the gaping crater in just a few days.

 

This canyon is known informally as Step Canyon, and YECs claim it is a 1/40^th scale version of the Grand Canyon in Arizona. YECs then argue that if snowmelt at MSH could lead to the rapid erosion of Step Canyon, then certainly the much larger Noah’s flood could have carved the Grand Canyon in a short period of time as well.

 

There are multiple problems with this reasoning. It sounds impressive to say that there is a 1/40^th-scale version of the Grand Canyon, but this ratio is misleading. At its deepest point, Step Canyon is a little over 100 feet deep, which is roughly 1/40^th the depth of the Grand Canyon, so perhaps that is where YECs get that ratio. For much of its length, the Grand Canyon ranges from 5 to 10, and up to about 18 miles wide. The canyon at MSH is less than 0.1 miles wide, which is about 1/50^th the width of the narrower sections of the main part of the Grand Canyon. Finally, the Grand Canyon is about 275 miles long, whereas Step Canyon at MSH is about 4 miles long from the crater to its intersection with Engineer’s Canyon. The National Park Service says that the volume of the Grand Canyon is 4.17 trillion cubic meters. I made a rough estimate that Step Canyon at MSH has a volume of about 40 million cubic meters. This means that the volume of the rapidly formed MSH canyon is about 1/100,000^th the volume of the Grand Canyon, which is not quite as impressive to readers as saying it is 1/40^th the size.

 

A second difficulty for the YEC claim is that the Grand Canyon was carved through thousands of feet of solid rock, including crystalline metamorphic and igneous rocks at the bottom of the canyon. Most of the erosion at Step Canyon at MSH, on the other hand, was through unconsolidated sand and gravel. It should be obvious that comparing erosion through sand and gravel to erosion through schist and gneiss is comparing apples and oranges.

 

A final challenge is that Step Canyon at MSH developed on a steep slope, which facilitated rapid erosion. The average gradient of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon is only 8 feet per mile. Step Creek, on the other hand, drops 2300 feet in 4 miles, which is about 575 feet per mile. Erosion on a steep, unconsolidated slope is certainly going to be far more rapid than erosion along a low-gradient streambed in erosion-resistant rocks.

 

While the rapid erosion of canyons at MSH is impressive, it falls far short of providing an effective model for carving the giant canyons of the world in only a few months’ time.

 

MSH and Fossil Forests

 

 

 

The pyroclastic flows associated with the May 18^th eruption downed or burned trees up to 19 miles (31 km) from the volcano. A large number of trees ended up floating in Spirit Lake, where many continue to float on the lake surface forty years later. Some of the trees are floating in a vertical position rather than horizontally. The trees of MSH have provided a good analog for understanding fossilized trees in some ancient volcanic deposits. The Absaroka Volcanic Supergroup mentioned earlier contains abundant petrified trees in some areas, such as at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park. Many of these petrified trees are upright, which used to be interpreted as meaning that the trees were buried where they grew. Now, largely due to studies at MSH, we understand that trees can be ripped out of the ground, transported, and deposited in an upright position at a distance from where they grew.

 

[Creationists] have claimed that this is powerful evidence that a giant catastrophe like Noah’s flood could have deposited the forests at Yellowstone. This is a great overstatement. What MSH demonstrates is not that the fossil forests at places like Yellowstone were deposited by a giant water flood, but that they were deposited in a volcanic environment like MSH. The Absaroka rocks are clearly volcanic in origin, with features I described earlier. These petrified trees were transported and buried by the local catastrophes of eruptions at stratovolcanoes, just as the trees at MSH were transported and buried by the eruption of a volcano.

 

YECs also claim that dead tree material is accumulating at the bottom of Spirit Lake at MSH, and that this will turn into peat, which is a precursor to coal. Perhaps this will form peat, or a peat-like deposit, but there are plenty of other non-catastrophic environments where peat is accumulating faster than at Spirit Lake. The world’s coal deposits as a whole, however, have little in common with the floor of Spirit Lake, which is not a very large lake. Most coal is found in sequences of sandstone, siltstone, and shale that give every appearance of being swampy environments such as river floodplains or deltas. The closest thing to a catastrophe in these environments would be a normal flood or channel migration. No MSH-sized catastrophe is needed.

 

MSH and the Bible

 

As an old-Earth Christian, I accept the Bible as the trustworthy and authoritative Word of God.

 

I not only believe that God created the universe from nothing, I believe that Noah’s flood was a real, historic event. I do not accept the idea that the story of Noah is some sort of inspired myth, but that it really happened.

 

YECs claim that MSH helps “prove” that a global Noah’s flood really occurred, and that the Bible is true. I think this effort is misguided for three general reasons. The first of these is that, like many inerrancy-affirming Old Testament scholars, pastors, and scientists, I am not convinced that Genesis 6-9 even requires a global flood like the YECs envision. Entire books have been written on this subject, but the case for some sort of local (though still large) flood can be summarized as 1. The story is told from the perspective of Noah on Earth’s surface, not in orbit around spheroidal planet (which the Hebrews may have had no concept of), 2. The vocabulary in the flood account is more ambiguous in Hebrew than it is in our English-language translations, and 3. Universal language in the Old Testament is frequently hyperbolic. In other words, “all the earth” seldom literally means “all the earth” in the Old Testament.

 

A second reason why I do not think all these YEC attempts to explain Earth history are valid is that the flood account in Genesis tells us nothing about the geological work of Noah’s flood. The Bible makes no claims about the origin of sedimentary, igneous, or metamorphic rocks. It makes no claims about the origin of the fossil record. It makes no claims about the eruptions of stratovolcanoes, the carving of canyons large or small, or the deposition of fossil forests. The entire YEC flood geology story, exemplified by their claims about MSH or the Grand Canyon, is built on extrapolations from the text of Genesis, rather than on actual exegesis of the text.

 

Finally, YEC flood geology does not provide a credible model for explaining the origin of features of Earth’s crust. I have shown that the eruption of MSH tells us little or nothing about the origin of sedimentary rock layers, canyons, or fossil forests. Most sedimentary rocks are nothing like deposits formed by volcanic eruptions, the canyons at MSH do not demonstrate that Earth’s large canyons could have formed quickly, and MSH provides a model for petrified forests in volcaniclastic rocks, but not much else.

 

What claims does the Bible make about the work of Noah’s flood? None, really. The truthfulness of the Bible does not depend on whether or not MSH provides a model for Noah’s flood. In reality, MSH provides a model for understanding certain ancient volcanic eruptions, but not much else. YEC claims about MSH and the Noah’s flood are based on unwarranted extrapolations from the text of Genesis rather than exegesis of the text of Genesis.

 

Grace and Peace

 

©2020 Kevin Nelstead, GeoChristian.com

 

 

 

 

Claim that Copernicus knew of Aristarchus

 

“… with some reading and piecing together of some related bits of evidence,

and thinking about context, I’m now completely convinced Copernicus

did know of Aristarchus’s hypothesis, and that he deliberately withheld acknowledgement of the fact”.

 cosmiCave.org

  

Taken from: Setting the Record Straight: How Copernicus Concealed His Debt to Aristarchus—and Claimed an Intellectual Priority He Knew Wasn’t His – cosmiCave.org

 

Setting the Record Straight: How Copernicus Concealed His Debt to Aristarchus—and Claimed an Intellectual Priority He Knew Wasn’t His

 

There’s a prevailing myth in the history of science that Copernicus rediscovered heliocentrism independently—and that he had no real connection to Aristarchus, whose own theory was vague, obscure, and uninfluential. This essay dismantles that myth.

 

While researching this previous essay, trying to get all my facts straight with reference to primary sources, I found several interconnected things that are badly misunderstood at the present—things I previously thought were true, but which closer inspection showed to be false.

 

I used to think, as it’s the common consensus, that it was unclear whether Nicolaus Copernicus had known Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric (Sun-centred) model similar to his in the third century BCE—and that he probably didn’t since he never mentioned it. But with some reading and piecing together of some related bits of evidence, and thinking about context, I’m now completely convinced Copernicus did know of Aristarchus’s hypothesis, and that he deliberately withheld acknowledgement of the fact.

 

Another thing I’ve always understood to be true, which is written all over the place, is that one of the main obstacles that stood against Aristarchus’s theory being accepted in his time was the fact that we don’t see any stellar parallax in nearby stars as Earth orbits the Sun. But this, too, turns out to be an anachronistic myth—and one that’s pretty clear to see when all the relevant information is pulled together. It’s also linked to a lot of inaccuracy related to interpreting Copernicus and Aristarchus, and in a way I think it has indirectly influenced the false consensus that Copernicus likely wasn’t aware of Aristarchus’s hypothesis.

 

Consequently, while this essay’s primary purpose is to explain that Copernicus was, without a doubt, aware of Aristarchus’s heliocentric theory—in fact, he was every bit as aware of its details as anyone today is—it will also clarify some other things that people seem to commonly misunderstand, such as the anachronistic parallax myth.

 

I want to be clear: I’m not claiming Copernicus originally got the heliocentric idea directly from Aristarchus. That is too strong a claim, and I don’t think we can ever know one way or the other. Aristarchus likely became known to Copernicus at some influential point during his studies in Italy, but whether that was before or after Copernicus had thought of the basic concept, and realised for himself that e.g. retrograde motion could be explained through parallax rather than by actual backwards motion as the planets looped around a fixed Earth, we cannot know. It is reasonable to think that Copernicus realised the latter on his own, though he did not keep a detailed diary as he worked through his ideas, so we can’t confirm this.

 

So we can’t know precisely when in his early years Copernicus became aware of Aristarchus, nor how influential the Ancient Greek had been in shaping Copernicus’s theory.

 

In fact, very little is even known of the details of Aristarchus’s model, so it really can’t have been too influential. Copernicus must have come to realise much of what makes the concept so compelling on his own.

 

But still, this does not change the fact that Copernicus did Aristarchus dirty.

 

He knew Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric theory in the third century BCE. He knew Aristarchus was a serious astronomer, e.g. the first to estimate the Sun’s distance through careful measurement and detailed geometric reasoning. And Copernicus deliberately withheld that information from both Commentariolus and De revolutionibus orbium coelestium—as he was absolutely aware of his predecessor’s theory already when he wrote his early draft.

 

This much is true. And it is also true that Copernicus made this omission so he could claim priority to the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun.

 

While he did not explicitly say this—how could he, as he omitted his knowledge of Aristarchus entirely?—he did so implicitly, by excluding Aristarchus from the broader group of Ancient geokineticists he listed in support of his proposal that the Earth moves, which he followed by explicitly claiming that he had come to the idea that Earth is orbiting the Sun on his own, “by long and intense study.”

 

Leaving Aristarchus out of that sequence worked well rhetorically, as he could cite precedent for the proposal that the Earth spins daily, or that it moves about a central fire in an abstract, metaphorical sense. And from there, Copernicus could frame himself as taking those ideas to the next level with a novel hypothesis that this moving Earth actually orbits the Sun. 

 

The omission of Aristarchus provided a clean and compelling narrative within the opening argument for his life’s work, and it’s understandable that he did it.

 

The alternative would be to frame the whole theory as something that had basically been thought of and explored in Ancient times, and eventually rejected by those who Copernicus and everyone around him thought of as intellectual authorities, leaving him to argue that while they’d eventually abandoned the idea he nevertheless proposed circling back to.

 

This more honest approach would have placed Copernicus at a much greater disadvantage, making him far more easily dismissed on superficial grounds, which he needed to avoid. “Check out my theory! Someone already thought of it 1800 years ago and the astronomers at the time eventually dismissed it as an abstract peculiarity that’s nevertheless absurd. But for the past several decades I’ve worked through the details anyway and I think I can make it work, never minding the absurdity which you’re likely to find insane.”

 

Copernicus actually acknowledged in De revolutionibus, that the idea that Earth was rapidly spinning and orbiting as he proposed seemed “absurd,” “insane,” and “almost against common sense.” To admit this, and to also say that people had nevertheless already considered the hypothesis and discarded it would have considerably heightened his disadvantage.

 

So, instead, he omitted the detail and framed the idea as novel: 

 

“For a long time, then, I reflected on this confusion in the astronomical traditions concerning the derivation of the motions of the universe’s spheres … having obtained the opportunity from these sources, I too began to consider the mobility of the earth. And even though the idea seemed absurd, nevertheless I knew that others before me had been granted the freedom to imagine any circles whatever for the purpose of explaining the heavenly phenomena.

 

Hence I thought that I too would be readily permitted to ascertain whether explanations sounder than those of my predecessors could be found for the revolution of the celestial spheres on the assumption of some motion of the earth … [and] by long and intense study I finally found that if the motions of the other planets are correlated with the orbiting of the earth …”.

 

So you see: this narrative does not work if Copernicus acknowledges that Aristarchus had actually beaten him to the claim, and that Copernicus was reviving something that had been rejected almost two thousand years ago, by those who had the full original manuscript to work with. Omitting Aristarchus allowed Copernicus to cast himself as the innovator rather than revivalist—to frame heliocentrism as a novel hypothesis rather than a return to an abandoned theory.

 

Copernicus’s source on Aristrarchus’s theory—Archimedes’ Sand-Reckoner—was also not widely known when De revolutionibus was published in 1543. It was first printed (purely coincidentally?) in a Latin edition of Archimedes’ works in 1544. Copernicus was therefore not compelled to cite his source, as his knowledge of the former work was relatively private and not expected.

 

Anyway, the above explains roughly why I think Copernicus cut Aristarchus out.

 

This is my reasoning based on Copernicus’s rhetorical framing of his proposal, and a suspicion that he was not acting purely in bad faith. Not necessarily because he wanted all the glory to himself, though there may have been some of that, but mainly because it would have been a disadvantage to do so.

 

But this essay is not about my own, personal speculative opinion. And I will not go so far as to demonstrate why Copernicus did what he did, nor how large a debt Copernicus owed to Aristarchus nor how much of his realisation about the compelling aspects of heliocentrism was original insight. I don’t think we’ll ever find more direct evidence to help in ascertaining these things.

 

What I will show, as I said above, is that Copernicus clearly, unquestionably did read Archimedes’ Sand-Reckoner sometime before 1514, when he circulated Commentariolus to his friends and colleagues—and that he therefore knew Aristarchus proposed a heliocentric theory before him. That he therefore deliberately withheld the reference in De revolutionibus. And that twentieth century Copernicus historians wrongly concluded he did not.

 

In the process, I’ll also set the record straight on a related point—a common anachronistic reading of the evidence that was held against heliocentrism, both in Ancient times and in Copernicus’s day. The idea that the Ancients cited an apparent asbsence of parallax shift in the nearest stars due to Earth’s hypothesised orbit about the Sun, that they favoured geocentrism in part because of this, and that Copernicus hedged against this criticism, is a complete falsehood that is almost universally accepted at present.

 

This anachronistic parallax argument against heliocentrism was not noted until after Copernicus died—and in fact it was not even applicable to either his theory or Aristarchus’s. The fact that it is commonly thought to have concerned Copernicus and Aristarchus’s contemporaries is unfortunate for several reasons: 

 

• it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of an Ancient worldview that persisted unchallenged until nearly the end of the sixteenth century, which Copernicus never dreamed of questioning; 
• it therefore obscures the debt we all owe to one of the most influential innovations in the history of cosmology, to a person (Thomas Digges) whose name is hardly ever even mentioned in the history books—and certainly not as a key player in the Scientific Revolution—who frankly deserves to be celebrated as the father of modern cosmology, finally given his rightful place alongside Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton;
• it leads to anachronistic misreadings of both Ptolemy and Copernicus, when we fail to realise the notion of a parallax shift in nearby stars relative to those further away never could have crossed their minds; and,
• it obscures a key piece of evidence that renders Copernicus’s obvious plagiarism of Archimedes unmistakable, along with the deliberateness of his omission of Aristarchus as his predecessor.

 

It’s an interesting and deeply illuminating historiographic reset, and I hope you enjoy reading. It’s far more than just a detail about intellectual credit. These false narratives that have been propagating for more than a century warp our entire understanding of cosmological progress, Ancient science’s sophistication, and even modern assumptions about scientific reasoning.

 

Given everything I’ve said above, I’ll work through the actual demonstration of claims as follows. I’m going to start with a recap of previous arguments that incorrectly concluded Copernicus was unaware of Aristarchus’s heliocentric theory, clarifying on their own terms how weak and flawed they are. I’ll then explain the anachronistic parallax argument, clarifying why it is an anachronism. With that context, we can then immediately clarify Archimedes’ reference to Aristarchus in the Sand-Reckoner—both, what his concerns were and what they were not. I’ll then also discuss both Ptolemy’s argument in Almagest Book I, Chapter 6 and Copernicus’s argument in De revolutionibus Book I, Chapter 6 (Copernicus deliberately paralleled the structure of Almagest as a rhetorical device in his work, so these chapters are similar), clearly establishing that neither was aware of the anachronistic parallax idea. Thus, we’ll clarify both, that Ptolemy was not arguing against heliocentrism on that ground—in fact, there is no evidence he entertained the heliocentric hypothesis at all in Almagest, as he never addressed it—and that Copernicus was not hedging against the anachronistic parallax argument in De revolutionibus—and again, there’s no evidence he ever even dreamed it was a problem he’d need to guard against—and in fact when we consider his actual worldview it’s clear the problem should never have crossed his mind. 

 

We’ll then loop back to the Sand-Reckoner, specifically focusing on Archimedes’ application of Aristarchus’s theory, what that application says and what it explicitly does not imply about the Ancient reasons it failed to attract a wider following. In my previous essay, I gave three reasons why Aristarchus’s theory faded into obscurity until it was revived by Copernicus, and this diagnosis clarifies that the anachronistic parallax argument was never one of them—that it was never even dreamed of until after 1576, when Digges proposed his radically different cosmological worldview, which we’ve all come to accept implicitly, and tend to project onto earlier thinkers.

 

Finally, having all these pieces in place, this analysis will close with the evidence that Copernicus lifted his fourth proposition in Commentariolus directly from Archimedes—that there is no other explanation for the specific formulation he chose, as he never would have come to that specific formulation on his own, he did not require it, he never made specific use of it, and in the end, in De revolutionibus he reverted to the less specific, mathematically imprecise argument that paralleled Ptolemy’s reasoning in the Almagest.

 

Previous Accounts by Science Historians

 

Copernicus’s Commentariolus was lost for more than 350 years. While he had shared copies privately with several friends and colleagues in 1514, those languished in private libraries. This first articulation of Copernicus’s heliocentric hypothesis was only rediscovered in 1878, by the historian Maximilian Curtze in Vienna. And it was first translated into English by Edward Rosen in 1939.

 

In 1942, Rudolf von Erhardt and Erika von Erhardt-Siebold published a sprawling article in the History of Science journal Isis, closing with a claim about “the almost certain acquaintance of Copernicus with the Sand-Reckoner.” In the article, this claim was buried at the end, and even there it was not well explained: The section is two paragraphs long, the point is made (without proper context) that Copernicus’s fourth postulate in Commentariolus is conspicuously similar in its construction to a passage from the Sand-Reckoner, and then the authors proceed to speculate—incorrectly!—that with this postulate Copernicus may have been guarding against the non-observability of stellar parallax due to Earth’s orbit. ….

 

 

 

In the context of all of this, and regarding the actual historicity of some of these famous astronomers and scientists, see my (Damien Mackey’s) articles:

 

Did the Greeks derive their Archimedes from Sargon II’s Akhimiti?

 

(8) Did the Greeks derive their Archimedes from Sargon II's Akhimiti?

 

Machiavelli in the name Achitophel, Galileo Galilei in the name Gamaliel

 

(8) Machiavelli in the name Achitophel, Galileo Galilei in the name Gamaliel