document_title: Heliocentrism

question_text: who said the sun revolved around the earth

question_tokens: who said the sun revolved around the earth

text: Heliocentrism

text: Ancient and medieval astronomy[edit]

text: While the sphericity of the Earth was widely recognized in Greco-Roman astronomy from at least the 3rd century BC, the Earth's daily rotation and yearly orbit around the Sun was never universally accepted until the Copernican Revolution.

text: While a moving Earth was proposed at least from the 4th century BC in Pythagoreanism, and a fully developed heliocentric model was developed by Aristarchus of Samos in the 3rd century BC, these ideas were not successful in replacing the view of a static spherical Earth, and from the 2nd century AD the predominant model, which would be inherited by medieval astronomy, was the geocentric model described in Ptolemy's Almagest.

text: The Ptolemaic system was a sophisticated astronomical system that managed to calculate the positions for the planets to a fair degree of accuracy.[4] Ptolemy himself, in his Almagest, points out that any model for describing the motions of the planets is merely a mathematical device, and since there is no actual way to know which is true, the simplest model that gets the right numbers should be used.[5] However, he rejected the idea of a spinning earth as absurd as he believed it would create huge winds. His planetary hypotheses were sufficiently real that the distances of moon, sun, planets and stars could be determined by treating orbits' celestial spheres as contiguous realities. This made the stars' distance less than 20 Astronomical Units,[6] a regression, since Aristarchus of Samos's heliocentric scheme had centuries earlier necessarily placed the stars at least two orders of magnitude more distant.

text: Problems with Ptolemy's system were well recognized in medieval astronomy, and an increasing effort to criticize and improve it in the late medieval period eventually led to the Copernican heliocentrism developed in Renaissance astronomy.

text: Classical Antiquity[edit]

text: Pythagoreans[edit]

text: The non-geocentric model of the Universe was proposed by the Pythagorean philosopher Philolaus (d. 390 BC), who taught that at the center of the Universe was a "central fire", around which the Earth, Sun, Moon and Planets revolved in uniform circular motion. This system postulated the existence of a counter-earth collinear with the Earth and central fire, with the same period of revolution around the central fire as the Earth. The Sun revolved around the central fire once a year, and the stars were stationary. The Earth maintained the same hidden face towards the central fire, rendering both it and the "counter-earth" invisible from Earth. The Pythagorean concept of uniform circular motion remained unchallenged for approximately the next 2000 years, and it was to the Pythagoreans that Copernicus referred to show that the notion of a moving Earth was neither new nor revolutionary.[7] Kepler gave an alternative explanation of the Pythagoreans' "central fire" as the Sun, "as most sects purposely hid[e] their teachings".[8]

text: Heraclides of Pontus (4th century BC) said that the rotation of the Earth explained the apparent daily motion of the celestial sphere. It used to be thought that he believed Mercury and Venus to revolve around the Sun, which in turn (along with the other planets) revolves around the Earth.[9] Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius (AD 395–423) later described this as the "Egyptian System," stating that "it did not escape the skill of the Egyptians," though there is no other evidence it was known in ancient Egypt.[10][11]

text: Aristarchus of Samos[edit]

text: The first person known to have proposed a heliocentric system, however, was Aristarchus of Samos (c. 270 BC). Like Eratosthenes, Aristarchus calculated the size of the Earth, and measured the size and distance of the Moon and Sun, in a treatise which has survived. From his estimates, he concluded that the Sun was six to seven times wider than the Earth and thus hundreds of times more voluminous. His writings on the heliocentric system are lost, but some information is known from surviving descriptions and critical commentary by his contemporaries, such as Archimedes. Some have suggested that his calculation of the relative size of the Earth and Sun led Aristarchus to conclude that it made more sense for the Earth to be moving than for the huge Sun to be moving around it. Though the original text has been lost, a reference in Archimedes' book The Sand Reckoner describes another work by Aristarchus in which he advanced an alternative hypothesis of the heliocentric model. Archimedes wrote:

text: You King Gelon are aware the 'universe' is the name given by most astronomers to the sphere the center of which is the center of the Earth, while its radius is equal to the straight line between the center of the Sun and the center of the Earth. This is the common account as you have heard from astronomers. But Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the 'universe' just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of fixed stars, situated about the same center as the Sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the Earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the center of the sphere bears to its surface.[12]

text: Aristarchus believed the stars to be very far away, and saw this as the reason why there was no visible parallax, that is, an observed movement of the stars relative to each other as the Earth moved around the Sun. The stars are in fact much farther away than the distance that was generally assumed in ancient times, which is why stellar parallax is only detectable with telescopes.

text: Archimedes says that Aristarchus made the stars' distance larger, suggesting that he was answering the natural objection that Heliocentrism requires stellar parallactic oscillations. He apparently agreed to the point but placed the stars so distant as to make the parallactic motion invisibly minuscule. Thus Heliocentrism opened the way for realization that the universe was larger than the geocentrists taught.[13]

text: Heliocentrism had been in conflict with religion before Copernicus: One of the few pieces of information we have about the reception of Aristarchus's heliocentric system comes from a passage in Plutarch's dialogue, Concerning the Face which Appears in the Orb of the Moon. According to one of Plutarch's characters in the dialogue, the philosopher Cleanthes had held that Aristarchus should be charged with impiety for "moving the hearth of the world".[14]

text: Seleucus of Seleucia[edit]

text: Since Plutarch mentions the "followers of Aristarchus" in passing, it is likely that there were other astronomers in the Classical period who also espoused Heliocentrism, but whose work was lost. The only other astronomer from antiquity known by name who is known to have supported Aristarchus' heliocentric model was Seleucus of Seleucia (b. 190 BC), a Hellenistic astronomer who flourished a century after Aristarchus in the Seleucid empire.[15] Seleucus adopted the heliocentric system of Aristarchus and is said to have proved the heliocentric theory.[16] According to Bartel Leendert van der Waerden, Seleucus may have proved the heliocentric theory by determining the constants of a geometric model for the heliocentric theory and by developing methods to compute planetary positions using this model. He may have used early trigonometric methods that were available in his time, as he was a contemporary of Hipparchus.[17] A fragment of a work by Seleucus has survived in Arabic translation, which was referred to by Rhazes (b. 865).[18]

text: Alternatively, his explanation may have involved the phenomenon of tides,[19] which he supposedly theorized to be caused by the attraction to the Moon and by the revolution of the Earth around the Earth-Moon 'center of mass'.

text: Late Antiquity[edit]

text: There were occasional speculations about heliocentrism in Europe before Copernicus. In Roman Carthage, the pagan Martianus Capella (5th century A.D.) expressed the opinion that the planets Venus and Mercury did not go about the Earth but instead circled the Sun.[20] Capella's model was discussed in the Early Middle Ages by various anonymous 9th-century commentators[21] and Copernicus mentions him as an influence on his own work.[22]

text: The Ptolemaic system was also received in Indian astronomy. Aryabhata (476–550), in his magnum opus Aryabhatiya (499), propounded a planetary model in which the Earth was taken to be spinning on its axis and the periods of the planets were given with respect to the Sun. He accurately calculated many astronomical constants, such as the periods of the planets, times of the solar and lunar eclipses, and the instantaneous motion of the Moon.[23][page needed][24][page needed] Early followers of Aryabhata's model included Varahamihira, Brahmagupta, and Bhaskara II.

text: Medieval Islamic world[edit]

text: Muslim astronomers often, but not entirely accepted the Ptolemaic system and the geocentric model.[25]

text: Beginning in the 11th century, a tradition criticizing Ptolemy developed within Islamic astronomy, beginning with Ibn al-Haytham of Basra's Al-Shukūk 'alā Baṭalamiyūs ("Doubts Concerning Ptolemy").[26] Several Muslim scholars questioned the Earth's apparent immobility[27][28] and centrality within the universe.[29]

text: Abu Sa'id al-Sijzi (d. c. 1020) accepted that the Earth rotates around its axis.[30][31]

text: According to Al-Biruni, Sijzi invented an astrolabe called al-zūraqī based on a belief held by some of his contemporaries "That the motion we see is due to the Earth's movement and not to that of the sky."[31][32] The prevalence of this view is further confirmed by a reference from the 13th century which states:

text: According to the Geometers [or engineers] (muhandisīn), the earth is in constant circular motion, and what appears to be the motion of the heavens is actually due to the motion of the earth and not the stars.[31]

text: Early in the 11th century Alhazen wrote a scathing critique of Ptolemy's model in his Doubts on Ptolemy (c. 1028), which some have interpreted to imply he was criticizing Ptolemy's geocentrism,[33] but most agree that he was actually criticizing the details of Ptolemy's model rather than his geocentrism.[34] Abu Rayhan Biruni (b. 973) discussed the possibility of whether the Earth rotated about its own axis and around the Sun, but in his Masudic Canon, he set forth the principles that the Earth is at the center of the universe and that it has no motion of its own.[35] He was aware that if the Earth rotated on its axis, this would be consistent with his astronomical parameters,[36] but he considered it a problem of natural philosophy rather than mathematics.[31][37]

text: In the 12th century, some Islamic astronomers developed complete alternatives to the Ptolemaic system (although not heliocentric), such as Nur ad-Din al-Bitruji, who considered the Ptolemaic model as mathematical, and not physical.[38][39] Al-Bitruji's alternative system spread through most of Europe in the 13th century, with debates and refutations of his ideas continued up to the 16th century.[39]

text: Later medieval period[edit]

text: The Maragha school of astronomy in Ilkhanid-era Persia further developed "non-Ptolemaic" planetary models involving Earth's rotation. Notable astronomers of this school are Al-Urdi (d. 1266) Al-Katibi (d. 1277),[40] and Al-Tusi (d. 1274).

text: The arguments and evidence used resemble those used by Copernicus to support the Earth's motion.[27][28] The criticism of Ptolemy as developed by Averroes and by the Maragha school explicitly address the Earth's rotation but it did not arrive at explicit heliocentrism.[41] The observations of the Maragha school were further improved at the Timurid-era Samarkand observatory under Qushji (1403–1474).

text: European scholarship in the later medieval period actively received astronomical models developed in the Islamic world and by the 13th century was well aware of the problems of the Ptolemaic model. In the 14th century, bishop Nicole Oresme discussed the possibility that the Earth rotated on its axis, while Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in his Learned Ignorance asked whether there was any reason to assert that the Sun (or any other point) was the center of the universe. In parallel to a mystical definition of God, Cusa wrote that "Thus the fabric of the world (machina mundi) will quasi have its center everywhere and circumference nowhere."[42]

text: In India, Nilakantha Somayaji (1444–1544), in his Aryabhatiyabhasya, a commentary on Aryabhata's Aryabhatiya, developed a computational system for a partially heliocentric planetary model, in which the planets orbit the Sun, which in turn orbits the Earth, similar to the Tychonic system later proposed by Tycho Brahe in the late 16th century. In the Tantrasangraha (1500), he further revised his planetary system, which was mathematically more accurate at predicting the heliocentric orbits of the interior planets than both the Tychonic and Copernican models,[23][43] but did not propose any specific models of the universe.[44] Nilakantha's planetary system also incorporated the Earth's rotation on its axis.[45] Most astronomers of the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics seem to have accepted his planetary model.[46][47]

text: Renaissance-era astronomy[edit]

text: European astronomy before Copernicus[edit]

text: Some historians maintain that the thought of the Maragheh observatory, in particular the mathematical devices known as the Urdi lemma and the Tusi couple, influenced Renaissance-era European astronomy, and thus was indirectly received by Renaissance-era European astronomy and thus by Copernicus.[37][48][49][50][51] Copernicus used such devices in the same planetary models as found in Arabic sources.[52] Furthermore, the exact replacement of the equant by two epicycles used by Copernicus in the Commentariolus was found in an earlier work by Ibn al-Shatir (d. c. 1375) of Damascus.[53] Ibn al-Shatir's lunar and Mercury models are also identical to those of Copernicus.[54]

text: The state of knowledge on planetary theory received by Copernicus is summarized in Georg von Peuerbach's Theoricae Novae Planetarum (printed in 1472 by Regiomontanus). By 1470, the accuracy of observations by the Vienna school of astronomy, of which Peuerbach and Regiomontanus were members, was high enough to make the eventual development of heliocentrism inevitable, and indeed it is possible that Regiomontanus did arrive at an explicit theory of heliocentrism before his death in 1476, some 30 years before Copernicus.[55] While the influence of the criticism of Ptolemy by Averroes on Renaissance thought is clear and explicit, the claim of direct influence of the Maragha school, postulated by Otto E. Neugebauer in 1957, remains an open question.[41][56][57] Copernicus explicitly references several astronomers of the "Islamic Golden Age" (10th to 12th centuries) in De Revolutionibus: Albategnius (Al-Battani), Averroes (Ibn Rushd), Thebit (Thabit Ibn Qurra), Arzachel (Al-Zarqali), and Alpetragius (Al-Bitruji), but he does not show awareness of the existence of any of the later astronomers of the Maragha school.[58]

text: It has been argued that Copernicus could have independently discovered the Tusi couple or took the idea from Proclus's Commentary on the First Book of Euclid,[59] which Copernicus cited.[60] Another possible source for Copernicus's knowledge of this mathematical device is the Questiones de Spera of Nicole Oresme, who described how a reciprocating linear motion of a celestial body could be produced by a combination of circular motions similar to those proposed by al-Tusi.[61]

text: Copernican heliocentrism[edit]

text: Nicolaus Copernicus in his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium ("On the revolution of heavenly spheres", first printed in 1543 in Nuremberg), presented a discussion of a heliocentric model of the universe in much the same way as Ptolemy in the 2nd century had presented his geocentric model in his Almagest. Copernicus discussed the philosophical implications of his proposed system, elaborated it in geometrical detail, used selected astronomical observations to derive the parameters of his model, and wrote astronomical tables which enabled one to compute the past and future positions of the stars and planets. In doing so, Copernicus moved Heliocentrism from philosophical speculation to predictive geometrical astronomy. In reality, Copernicus's system did not predict the planets' positions any better than the Ptolemaic system.[63] This theory resolved the issue of planetary retrograde motion by arguing that such motion was only perceived and apparent, rather than real: it was a parallax effect, as an object that one is passing seems to move backwards against the horizon. This issue was also resolved in the geocentric Tychonic system; the latter, however, while eliminating the major epicycles, retained as a physical reality the irregular back-and-forth motion of the planets, which Kepler characterized as a "pretzel".[64]

text: Copernicus cited Aristarchus in an early (unpublished) manuscript of De Revolutionibus (which still survives), stating: "Philolaus believed in the mobility of the earth, and some even say that Aristarchus of Samos was of that opinion."[65] However, in the published version he restricts himself to noting that in works by Cicero he had found an account of the theories of Hicetas and that Plutarch had provided him with an account of the Pythagoreans, Heraclides Ponticus, Philolaus, and Ecphantus. These authors had proposed a moving earth, which did not, however, revolve around a central sun.

text: Reception in Early Modern Europe[edit]

text: Circulation of Commentariolus (before 1515)[edit]

text: The first information about the heliocentric views of Nicolaus Copernicus was circulated in manuscript completed some time before May 1, 1514.[66] Although only in manuscript, Copernicus' ideas were well known among astronomers and others. His ideas contradicted the then-prevailing understanding of the Bible. In the King James Bible (first published in 1611), First Chronicles 16:30 states that "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

text: Nonetheless, in 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered in Rome a series of lectures outlining Copernicus' theory. The lectures were heard with interest by Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals.[67] On November 1, 1536, Archbishop of Capua Nikolaus von Schönberg wrote a letter to Copernicus from Rome encouraging him to publish a full version of his theory.

text: However, in 1539, Martin Luther said:

text: "There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."[68]

text: This was reported in the context of a conversation at the dinner table and not a formal statement of faith. Melanchthon, however, opposed the doctrine over a period of years.[69][70]

text: Publication of de Revolutionibus (1543)[edit]

text: Nicolaus Copernicus published the definitive statement of his system in De Revolutionibus in 1543. Copernicus began to write it in 1506 and finished it in 1530, but did not publish it until the year of his death. Although he was in good standing with the Church and had dedicated the book to Pope Paul III, the published form contained an unsigned preface by Osiander defending the system and arguing that it was useful for computation even if its hypotheses were not necessarily true. Possibly because of that preface, the work of Copernicus inspired very little debate on whether it might be heretical during the next 60 years. There was an early suggestion among Dominicans that the teaching of Heliocentrism should be banned, but nothing came of it at the time.

text: Some years after the publication of De Revolutionibus John Calvin preached a sermon in which he denounced those who "pervert the order of nature" by saying that "the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns".[71]

text: On the other hand, Calvin is not responsible for another famous quotation which has often been misattributed to him: "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" It has long been established that this line cannot be found in any of Calvin's works.[72][73][74] It has been suggested[75] that the quotation was originally sourced from the works of Lutheran theologian Abraham Calovius.

text: Tycho Brahe's geo-heliocentric system c. 1587[edit]

text: Prior to the publication of De Revolutionibus, the most widely accepted system had been proposed by Ptolemy, in which the Earth was the center of the universe and all celestial bodies orbited it. Tycho Brahe, arguably the most accomplished astronomer of his time, advocated against Copernicus's heliocentric system and for an alternative to the Ptolemaic geocentric system: a geo-heliocentric system now known as the Tychonic system in which the five then known planets orbit the sun, while the sun and the moon orbit the earth.

text: Tycho appreciated the Copernican system, but objected to the idea of a moving Earth on the basis of physics, astronomy, and religion. The Aristotelian physics of the time (modern Newtonian physics was still a century away) offered no physical explanation for the motion of a massive body like Earth, whereas it could easily explain the motion of heavenly bodies by postulating that they were made of a different sort substance called aether that moved naturally. So Tycho said that the Copernican system "... expertly and completely circumvents all that is superfluous or discordant in the system of Ptolemy. On no point does it offend the principle of mathematics. Yet it ascribes to the Earth, that hulking, lazy body, unfit for motion, a motion as quick as that of the aethereal torches, and a triple motion at that."[76] Likewise, Tycho took issue with the vast distances to the stars that Aristarchus and Copernicus had assumed in order to explain the lack of any visible parallax. Tycho had measured the apparent sizes of stars (now known to be illusory – see stellar magnitude), and used geometry to calculate that in order to both have those apparent sizes and be as far away as Heliocentrism required, stars would have to be huge (much larger than the sun; the size of Earth's orbit or larger). Regarding this Tycho wrote, "Deduce these things geometrically if you like, and you will see how many absurdities (not to mention others) accompany this assumption [of the motion of the earth] by inference."[77] He also cited the Copernican system's "opposition to the authority of Sacred Scripture in more than one place" as a reason why one might wish to reject it, and observed that his own geoheliocentric alternative "offended neither the principles of physics nor Holy Scripture".[78]

text: The Jesuit astronomers in Rome were at first unreceptive to Tycho's system; the most prominent, Clavius, commented that Tycho was "confusing all of astronomy, because he wants to have Mars lower than the Sun."[79] However, after the advent of the telescope showed problems with some geocentric models (by demonstrating that Venus circles the sun, for example), the Tychonic system and variations on that system became very popular among geocentrists, and the Jesuit astronomer Giovanni Battista Riccioli would continue Tycho's use of physics, stellar astronomy (now with a telescope), and religion to argue against Heliocentrism and for Tycho's system well into the seventeenth century (see Riccioli).

text: Galileo Galilei[edit]

text: Publication of Letters on Sunspots (1613)[edit]

text: Galileo was able to look at the night sky with the newly invented telescope. Then he published his discoveries in Letters on Sunspots that the Sun rotated and that Venus exhibited a full range of phases. These discoveries were not consistent with the Ptolemeic model of the solar system. As the Jesuit astronomers confirmed Galileo's observations, the Jesuits moved toward Tycho's teachings.[80]

text: Publication of Letter to the Grand Duchess (1615)[edit]

text: In a Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, Galileo defended Heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to Scriptures (see Galileo affair). He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally when the scripture in question is in a Bible book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set. In fact, it is the Earth's rotation which gives the impression of the sun in motion across the sky.

text: 1616 ban against Copernicanism[edit]

text: In February 1615, prominent Dominicans including Thomaso Caccini and Niccolò Lorini brought Galileo's writings on Heliocentrism to the attention of the Inquisition, because they appeared to violate Holy Scripture and the decrees of the Council of Trent.[81][82] Cardinal and Inquisitor Robert Bellarmine was called upon to adjudicate, and wrote in April that treating Heliocentrism as a real phenomenon would be "a very dangerous thing," irritating philosophers and theologians, and harming "the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture as false."[83]

text: In January 1616 Msgr. Francesco Ingoli addressed an essay to Galileo disputing the Copernican system. Galileo later stated that he believed this essay to have been instrumental in the ban against Copernicanism that followed in February.[84] According to Maurice Finocchiaro, Ingoli had probably been commissioned by the Inquisition to write an expert opinion on the controversy, and the essay provided the "chief direct basis" for the ban.[85] The essay focused on eighteen physical and mathematical arguments against Heliocentrism. It borrowed primarily from the arguments of Tycho Brahe, and it notedly mentioned the problem that Heliocentrism requires the stars to be much larger than the sun. Ingoli wrote that the great distance to the stars in the heliocentric theory "clearly proves ... the fixed stars to be of such size, as they may surpass or equal the size of the orbit circle of the Earth itself."[86] Ingoli included four theological arguments in the essay, but suggested to Galileo that he focus on the physical and mathematical arguments. Galileo did not write a response to Ingoli until 1624.[87]

text: In February 1616, the Inquisition assembled a committee of theologians, known as qualifiers, who delivered their unanimous report condemning Heliocentrism as "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition also determined that the Earth's motion "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[88] Bellarmine personally ordered Galileo

text: "to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing."

text: In March, after the Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, the papal Master of the Sacred Palace, Congregation of the Index, and Pope banned all books and letters advocating the Copernican system, which they called "the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture."[89][90] In 1618 the Holy Office recommended that a modified version of Copernicus' De Revolutionibus be allowed for use in calendric calculations, though the original publication remained forbidden until 1758.[90]

text: Publication of Epitome astronomia Copernicanae (1617–1621)[edit]

text: In Astronomia nova (1609), Johannes Kepler had used an elliptical orbit to explain the motion of Mars. In Epitome astronomiae Copernicanae he developed a heliocentric model of the solar system in which all the planets have elliptical orbits. This provided significantly increased accuracy in predicting the position of the planets. Kepler's ideas were not immediately accepted. Galileo for example completely ignored Kepler's work. Kepler proposed Heliocentrism as a physical description of the solar system and Epitome astronomia Copernicanae was placed on the index of prohibited books despite Kepler being a Protestant.

text: Publication of Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems[edit]

text: Pope Urban VIII encouraged Galileo to publish the pros and cons of Heliocentrism. Galileo's response, Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems (1632), clearly advocated Heliocentrism, despite his declaration in the preface that,

text: I will endeavour to show that all experiments that can be made upon the Earth are insufficient means to conclude for its mobility but are indifferently applicable to the Earth, movable or immovable...[91]

text: and his straightforward statement,

text: I might very rationally put it in dispute, whether there be any such centre in nature, or no; being that neither you nor any one else hath ever proved, whether the World be finite and figurate, or else infinite and interminate; yet nevertheless granting you, for the present, that it is finite, and of a terminate Spherical Figure, and that thereupon it hath its centre...[91]

text: Some ecclesiastics also interpreted the book as characterizing the Pope as a simpleton, since his viewpoint in the dialogue was advocated by the character Simplicio. Urban VIII became hostile to Galileo and he was again summoned to Rome.[92] Galileo's trial in 1633 involved making fine distinctions between "teaching" and "holding and defending as true". For advancing heliocentric theory Galileo was forced to recant Copernicanism and was put under house arrest for the last few years of his life.

text: According to J. L. Heilbron,[93] informed contemporaries of Galileo's:

text: "appreciated that the reference to heresy in connection with Galileo or Copernicus had no general or theological significance."

text: Age of Reason[edit]

text: René Descartes postponed, and ultimately never finished, his treatise The World, which included a heliocentric model,[94] but the Galileo affair did little to slow the spread of Heliocentrism across Europe, as Kepler's Epitome of Copernican Astronomy became increasingly influential in the coming decades.[95] By 1686 the model was well enough established that the general public was reading about it in Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds, published in France by Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle and translated into English and other languages in the coming years. It has been called "one of the first great popularizations of science."[94]

text: In 1687, Isaac Newton published Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which provided an explanation for Kepler's laws in terms of universal gravitation and what came to be known as Newton's laws of motion. This placed Heliocentrism on a firm theoretical foundation, although Newton's Heliocentrism was of a somewhat modern kind. Already in the mid-1680s he recognized the "deviation of the Sun" from the centre of gravity of the solar system.[96] For Newton it was not precisely the centre of the Sun or any other body that could be considered at rest, but "the common centre of gravity of the Earth, the Sun and all the Planets is to be esteem'd the Centre of the World", and this centre of gravity "either is at rest or moves uniformly forward in a right line". Newton adopted the "at rest" alternative in view of common consent that the centre, wherever it was, was at rest.[97]

text: Meanwhile, the Church remained opposed to Heliocentrism as a literal description, but this did not by any means imply opposition to all astronomy; indeed, it needed observational data to maintain its calendar. In support of this effort it allowed the cathedrals themselves to be used as solar observatories called meridiane; i.e., they were turned into "reverse sundials", or gigantic pinhole cameras, where the Sun's image was projected from a hole in a window in the cathedral's lantern onto a meridian line.

text: In 1664, Pope Alexander VII published his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus (Index of Prohibited Books, published by order of Alexander VII, P.M.) which included all previous condemnations of heliocentric books.[98]

text: In the mid-eighteenth century the Church's opposition began to fade. An annotated copy of Newton's Principia was published in 1742 by Fathers le Seur and Jacquier of the Franciscan Minims, two Catholic mathematicians, with a preface stating that the author's work assumed Heliocentrism and could not be explained without the theory. In 1758 the Catholic Church dropped the general prohibition of books advocating Heliocentrism from the Index of Forbidden Books.[99] The Observatory of the Roman College was established by Pope Clement XIV in 1774 (nationalized in 1878, but re-founded by Pope Leo XIII as the Vatican Observatory in 1891). In spite of dropping its active resistance to Heliocentrism, the Catholic Church did not lift the prohibition of uncensored versions of Copernicus's De Revolutionibus or Galileo's Dialogue. The affair was revived in 1820, when the Master of the Sacred Palace (the Church's chief censor), Filippo Anfossi, refused to license a book by a Catholic canon, Giuseppe Settele, because it openly treated heliocentrism as a physical fact.[100] Settele appealed to pope Pius VII. After the matter had been reconsidered by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office, Anfossi's decision was overturned.[100] Pius VII approved a decree in 1822 by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition to allow the printing of heliocentric books in Rome. Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue were then subsequently omitted from the next edition of the Index when it appeared in 1835.

text: Reception in Judaism[edit]

text: Already in the Talmud, Greek philosophy and science under general name "Greek wisdom" were considered dangerous. They were put under ban then and later for some periods.

text: The first Jewish scholar to describe the Copernican system, albeit without mentioning Copernicus by name, was Maharal of Prague, his book "Be'er ha-Golah" (1593). Maharal makes an argument of radical skepticism, arguing that no scientific theory can be reliable, which he illustrates by the new-fangled theory of heliocentrism upsetting even the most fundamental views on the cosmos.[101]

text: Copernicus is mentioned in the books of David Gans (1541–1613), who worked with Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler. Gans wrote two books on astronomy in Hebrew: a short one "Magen David" (1612) and a full one "Nehmad veNaim" (published only in 1743). He described objectively three systems: Ptolemy, Copernicus and of Tycho Brahe without taking sides. Joseph Solomon Delmedigo (1591–1655) in his "Elim" (1629) says that the arguments of Copernicus are so strong, that only an imbecile will not accept them.[102] Delmedigo studied at Padua and was acquainted with Galileo.[103]

text: An actual controversy on the Copernican model within Judaism arises only in the early 18th century. Most authors in this period accept Copernican heliocentrism, with opposition from David Nieto and Tobias Cohn. Both of these authors argued against heliocentrism on grounds of contradictions to scripture. Nieto merely rejected the new system on those grounds without much passion, whereas Cohn went so far as to call Copernicus "a first-born of Satan", though he also acknowledged[104] that he would have found it difficult to counter one particular objection based on a passage from the Talmud.

text: In the 19th century two students of the Hatam sofer wrote books that were given approbations by him even though one supported heliocentrism and the other geocentrism. The one, a commentary on Genesis Yafe’ah le-Ketz[105] written by R. Israel David Schlesinger resisted a heliocentric model and supported geocentrism.[106] The other, Mei Menuchot[107] written by R. Eliezer Lipmann Neusatz encouraged acceptance of the heliocentric model and other modern scientific thinking.[108]

text: Since the 20th century most Jews have not questioned the science of heliocentrism. Exceptions include Shlomo Benizri[109] and R. M.M. Schneerson of Chabad who argued that the question of heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is obsolete because of the relativity of motion.[110] Schneerson's followers in Chabad continue to deny the heliocentric model.[111]

text: The view of modern science[edit]

text: Kepler's laws of planetary motion were used as arguments[citation needed] in favor of the heliocentric hypothesis. Three apparent proofs of the heliocentric hypothesis were provided in 1727 by James Bradley, in 1838 by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel and in 1851 by Foucault. Bradley discovered the stellar aberration, proving the relative motion of the earth. Bessel proved that the parallax of a star was greater than zero by measuring the parallax of 0.314 arcseconds of a star named 61 Cygni. In the same year Friedrich Georg Wilhelm Struve and Thomas Henderson measured the parallaxes of other stars, Vega and Alpha Centauri.

text: The thinking that the heliocentric view was also not true in a strict sense was achieved in steps. That the Sun was not the center of the universe, but one of innumerable stars, was strongly advocated by the mystic Giordano Bruno. Over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries, the status of the Sun as merely one star among many became increasingly obvious. By the 20th century, even before the discovery that there are many galaxies, it was no longer an issue.

text: The concept of an absolute velocity, including being "at rest" as a particular case, is ruled out by the principle of relativity, also eliminating any obvious "center" of the universe as a natural origin of coordinates. Some forms of Mach's principle consider the frame at rest with respect to the distant masses in the universe to have special properties.

text: Even if the discussion is limited to the solar system, the Sun is not at the geometric center of any planet's orbit, but rather approximately at one focus of the elliptical orbit. Furthermore, to the extent that a planet's mass cannot be neglected in comparison to the Sun's mass, the center of gravity of the solar system is displaced slightly away from the center of the Sun.[97] (The masses of the planets, mostly Jupiter, amount to 0.14% of that of the Sun.) Therefore, a hypothetical astronomer on an extrasolar planet would observe a small "wobble" in the Sun's motion.

text: Modern use of geocentric and heliocentric[edit]

text: In modern calculations the terms "geocentric" and "heliocentric" are often used to refer to reference frames. In such systems the origin in the center of mass of the Earth, of the Earth–Moon system, of the Sun, of the Sun plus the major planets, or of the entire solar system can be selected; see center-of-mass frame. Right Ascension and Declination are examples of geocentric coordinates, used in Earth-based observations, while the heliocentric latitude and longitude are used for orbital calculations. This leads to such terms as "heliocentric velocity" and "heliocentric angular momentum". In this heliocentric picture, any planet of the Solar System can be used as a source of mechanical energy because it moves relatively to the Sun. A smaller body (either artificial or natural) may gain heliocentric velocity due to gravity assist – this effect can change the body's mechanical energy in heliocentric reference frame (although it will not changed in the planetary one). However, such selection of "geocentric" or "heliocentric" frames is merely a matter of computation. It does not have philosophical implications and does not constitute a distinct physical or scientific model. From the point of view of General Relativity, inertial reference frames do not exist at all, and any practical reference frame is only an approximation to the actual space-time, which can have higher or lower precision.


document_title: List of U.S. states and territories by area

question_text: top 10 largest states in the us by size

question_tokens: top 10 largest states in the us by size

root

text: Area by state/territory[edit]

text:
Total area[2]
Land area[2]
Water[2]

State/territory
Rank
sq mi
km²
Rank
sq mi
km²
 % land
Rank
sq mi
km²
 % water

 Alaska
7000100000000000000♠1
665,384.04
1,723,337
7000100000000000000♠1
570,640.95
1,477,953
7001857600000000000♠85.76%
7000100000000000000♠1
94,743.10
245,384
7001142400000000000♠14.24%

 Texas
7000200000000000000♠2
268,596.46
695,662
7000200000000000000♠2
261,231.71
676,587
7001972600000000000♠97.26%
7000800000000000000♠8
7,364.75
19,075
7000274000000000000♠2.74%

 California
7000300000000000000♠3
163,694.74
423,967
7000300000000000000♠3
155,779.22
403,466
7001951600000000000♠95.16%
7000600000000000000♠6
7,915.52
20,501
7000484000000000000♠4.84%

 Montana
7000400000000000000♠4
147,039.71
380,831
7000400000000000000♠4
145,545.80
376,962
7001989800000000000♠98.98%
7001260000000000000♠26
1,493.91
3,869
7000102000000000000♠1.02%

 New Mexico
7000500000000000000♠5
121,590.30
314,917
7000500000000000000♠5
121,298.15
314,161
7001997600000000000♠99.76%
7001490000000000000♠49
292.15
757
6999240000000000000♠0.24%

 Arizona
7000600000000000000♠6
113,990.30
295,234
7000600000000000000♠6
113,594.08
294,207
7001996500000000000♠99.65%
7001480000000000000♠48
396.22
1,026
6999350000000000000♠0.35%

 Nevada
7000700000000000000♠7
110,571.82
286,380
7000700000000000000♠7
109,781.18
284,332
7001992800000000000♠99.28%
7001360000000000000♠36
790.65
2,048
6999720000000000000♠0.72%

 Colorado
7000800000000000000♠8
104,093.67
269,601
7000800000000000000♠8
103,641.89
268,431
7001995700000099999♠99.57%
7001440000000000000♠44
451.78
1,170
6999430000000000000♠0.43%

 Oregon
7000900000000000000♠9
98,378.54
254,799
7001100000000000000♠10
95,988.01
248,608
7001975700000099999♠97.57%
7001200000000000000♠20
2,390.53
6,191
7000243000000000000♠2.43%

 Wyoming
7001100000000000000♠10
97,813.01
253,335
7000900000000000000♠9
97,093.14
251,470
7001992600000000000♠99.26%
7001370000000000000♠37
719.87
1,864
6999740000000000000♠0.74%

 Michigan
7001110000000000000♠11
96,713.51
250,487
7001220000000000000♠22
56,538.90
146,435
7001584600000000000♠58.46%
7000200000000000000♠2
40,174.61
104,052
7001415400000000000♠41.54%

 Minnesota
7001120000000000000♠12
86,935.83
225,163
7001140000000000000♠14
79,626.74
206,232
7001915900000000000♠91.59%
7000900000000000000♠9
7,309.09
18,930
7000841000000000000♠8.41%

 Utah
7001130000000000000♠13
84,896.88
219,882
7001120000000000000♠12
82,169.62
212,818
7001967900000000000♠96.79%
7001170000000000000♠17
2,727.26
7,064
7000321000000000000♠3.21%

 Idaho
7001140000000000000♠14
83,568.95
216,443
7001110000000000000♠11
82,643.12
214,045
7001988900000000000♠98.89%
7001330000000000000♠33
925.83
2,398
7000111000000000000♠1.11%

 Kansas
7001150000000000000♠15
82,278.36
213,100
7001130000000000000♠13
81,758.72
211,754
7001993700000000000♠99.37%
7001420000000000000♠42
519.64
1,346
6999630000000000000♠0.63%

 Nebraska
7001160000000000000♠16
77,347.81
200,330
7001150000000000000♠15
76,824.17
198,974
7001993200000099999♠99.32%
7001410000000000000♠41
523.64
1,356
6999680000000000000♠0.68%

 South Dakota
7001170000000000000♠17
77,115.68
199,729
7001160000000000000♠16
75,811.00
196,350
7001983100000000000♠98.31%
7001290000000000000♠29
1,304.68
3,379
7000169000000000000♠1.69%

 Washington
7001180000000000000♠18
71,297.95
184,661
7001200000000000000♠20
66,455.52
172,119
7001932100000099999♠93.21%
7001110000000000000♠11
4,842.43
12,542
7000679000000000000♠6.79%

  North Dakota
7001190000000000000♠19
70,698.32
183,108
7001170000000000000♠17
69,000.80
178,711
7001976000000000000♠97.60%
7001240000000000000♠24
1,697.52
4,397
7000240000000000000♠2.40%

 Oklahoma
7001200000000000000♠20
69,898.87
181,037
7001190000000000000♠19
68,594.92
177,660
7001981300000000000♠98.13%
7001300000000000000♠30
1,303.95
3,377
7000187000000000000♠1.87%

 Missouri
7001210000000000000♠21
69,706.99
180,540
7001180000000000000♠18
68,741.52
178,040
7001986100000000000♠98.61%
7001320000000000000♠32
965.47
2,501
7000138990000099999♠1.39%

 Florida
7001220000000000000♠22
65,757.70
170,312
7001260000000000000♠26
53,624.76
138,887
7001815500000000000♠81.55%
7000300000000000000♠3
12,132.94
31,424
7001184500000000000♠18.45%

 Wisconsin
7001230000000000000♠23
65,496.38
169,635
7001250000000000000♠25
54,157.80
140,268
7001826900000000000♠82.69%
7000400000000000000♠4
11,338.57
29,367
7001173109999900000♠17.31%

 Georgia
7001240000000000000♠24
59,425.15
153,910
7001210000000000000♠21
57,513.49
148,959
7001967800000000000♠96.78%
7001220000000000000♠22
1,911.66
4,951
7000322000000000000♠3.22%

 Illinois
7001250000000000000♠25
57,913.55
149,995
7001240000000000000♠24
55,518.93
143,793
7001958700000000000♠95.87%
7001190000000000000♠19
2,394.62
6,202
7000413000000000000♠4.13%

 Iowa
7001260000000000000♠26
56,272.81
145,746
7001230000000000000♠23
55,857.13
144,669
7001992600000000000♠99.26%
7001450000000000000♠45
415.68
1,077
6999740000000000000♠0.74%

 New York
7001270000000000000♠27
54,554.98
141,297
7001300000000000000♠30
47,126.40
122,057
7001863800000000000♠86.38%
7000700000000000000♠7
7,428.58
19,240
7001136200000099999♠13.62%

 North Carolina
7001280000000000000♠28
53,819.16
139,391
7001290000000000000♠29
48,617.91
125,920
7001903400000000000♠90.34%
7001100000000000000♠10
5,201.25
13,471
7000966000000000000♠9.66%

 Arkansas
7001290000000000000♠29
53,178.55
137,732
7001270000000000000♠27
52,035.48
134,771
7001978500000000000♠97.85%
7001310000000000000♠31
1,143.07
2,961
7000215000000000000♠2.15%

 Alabama
7001300000000000000♠30
52,420.07
135,767
7001280000000000000♠28
50,645.33
131,171
7001966100000000000♠96.61%
7001230000000000000♠23
1,774.74
4,597
7000339000000000000♠3.39%

 Louisiana
7001310000000000000♠31
52,378.13
135,659
7001330000000000000♠33
43,203.90
111,898
7001824800000000000♠82.48%
7000500000000000000♠5
9,174.23
23,761
7001175200000000000♠17.52%

 Mississippi
7001320000000000000♠32
48,431.78
125,438
7001310000000000000♠31
46,923.27
121,531
7001968900000000000♠96.89%
7001250000000000000♠25
1,508.51
3,907
7000311000000000000♠3.11%

 Pennsylvania
7001330000000000000♠33
46,054.35
119,280
7001320000000000000♠32
44,742.70
115,883
7001971500000000000♠97.15%
7001280000000000000♠28
1,311.64
3,397
7000285000000000000♠2.85%

 Ohio
7001340000000000000♠34
44,825.58
116,098
7001350000000000000♠35
40,860.69
105,829
7001911500000000000♠91.15%
7001140000000000000♠14
3,964.89
10,269
7000885000000000000♠8.85%

 Virginia
7001350000000000000♠35
42,774.93
110,787
7001360000000000000♠36
39,490.09
102,279
7001923200000099999♠92.32%
7001150000000000000♠15
3,284.84
8,508
7000768000000000000♠7.68%

 Tennessee
7001360000000000000♠36
42,144.25
109,153
7001340000000000000♠34
41,234.90
106,798
7001978400000000000♠97.84%
7001350000000000000♠35
909.36
2,355
7000216000000000000♠2.16%

 Kentucky
7001370000000000000♠37
40,407.80
104,656
7001370000000000000♠37
39,486.34
102,269
7001977200000000000♠97.72%
7001340000000000000♠34
921.46
2,387
7000227990000099999♠2.28%

 Indiana
7001380000000000000♠38
36,419.55
94,326
7001380000000000000♠38
35,826.11
92,789
7001983700000000000♠98.37%
7001390000000000000♠39
593.44
1,537
7000162990000000000♠1.63%

 Maine
7001390000000000000♠39
35,379.74
91,633
7001390000000000000♠39
30,842.92
79,883
7001871800000000000♠87.18%
7001120000000000000♠12
4,536.82
11,750
7001128200000000000♠12.82%

 South Carolina
7001400000000000000♠40
32,020.49
82,933
7001400000000000000♠40
30,060.70
77,857
7001938800000000000♠93.88%
7001210000000000000♠21
1,959.79
5,076
7000612000000000000♠6.12%

 West Virginia
7001410000000000000♠41
24,230.04
62,756
7001410000000000000♠41
24,038.21
62,259
7001992100000099999♠99.21%
7001500000000000000♠50
191.83
497
6999790000000000000♠0.79%

 Maryland
7001420000000000000♠42
12,405.93
32,131
7001420000000000000♠42
9,707.24
25,142
7001782500000000000♠78.25%
7001180000000000000♠18
2,698.69
6,990
7001217500000000000♠21.75%

 Hawaii
7001430000000000000♠43
10,931.72
28,313
7001470000000000000♠47
6,422.63
16,635
7001587500000000000♠58.75%
7001130000000000000♠13
4,509.09
11,678
7001412500000000000♠41.25%

 Massachusetts
7001440000000000000♠44
10,554.39
27,336
7001450000000000000♠45
7,800.06
20,202
7001739000000000000♠73.90%
7001160000000000000♠16
2,754.33
7,134
7001261000000000000♠26.10%

 Vermont
7001450000000000000♠45
9,616.36
24,906
7001430000000000000♠43
9,216.66
23,871
7001958400000000000♠95.84%
7001460000000000000♠46
399.71
1,035
7000416000000000000♠4.16%

 New Hampshire
7001460000000000000♠46
9,349.16
24,214
7001440000000000000♠44
8,952.65
23,187
7001957600000000000♠95.76%
7001470000000000000♠47
396.51
1,027
7000424000000000000♠4.24%

 New Jersey
7001470000000000000♠47
8,722.58
22,591
7001460000000000000♠46
7,354.22
19,047
7001843100000000000♠84.31%
7001270000000000000♠27
1,368.36
3,544
7001156900000000000♠15.69%

 Connecticut
7001480000000000000♠48
5,543.41
14,357
7001480000000000000♠48
4,842.36
12,542
7001873500000000000♠87.35%
7001380000000000000♠38
701.06
1,816
7001126500000000000♠12.65%

 Delaware
7001490000000000000♠49
2,488.72
6,446
7001490000000000000♠49
1,948.54
5,047
7001782900000000000♠78.29%
7001400000000000000♠40
540.18
1,399
7001217100000000000♠21.71%

 Rhode Island
7001500000000000000♠50
1,544.89
4,001
7001500000000000000♠50
1,033.81
2,678
7001669200000000000♠66.92%
7001430000000000000♠43
511.07
1,324
7001330800000000000♠33.08%

 District of Columbia
7002100000000000000♠
68.34
177
7002100000000000000♠
61.05
158
7001893300000000000♠89.33%
7002100000000000000♠
7.29
19
7001106700000000000♠10.67%

 Puerto Rico
7002100000000000000♠
5,324.84
13,791
7002100000000000000♠
3,423.78
8,868
7001643000000000000♠64.30%
7002100000000000000♠
1,901.07
4,924
7001357000000000000♠35.70%

 Northern Mariana Islands
7002100000000000000♠
1,975.57
5,117
7002100000000000000♠
182.33
472
7000923000000000000♠9.23%
7002100000000000000♠
1,793.24
4,644
7001907700000000000♠90.77%

 United States Virgin Islands
7002100000000000000♠
732.93
1,898
7002100000000000000♠
134.32
348
7001183309999999999♠18.33%
7002100000000000000♠
598.61
1,550
7001816700000000000♠81.67%

 American Samoa
7002100000000000000♠
581.05
1,505
7002100000000000000♠
76.46
198
7001131600000000000♠13.16%
7002100000000000000♠
504.60
1,307
7001868400000000000♠86.84%

 Guam
7002100000000000000♠
570.62
1,478
7002100000000000000♠
209.80
543
7001367700000000000♠36.77%
7002100000000000000♠
360.82
935
7001632300000000000♠63.23%

 Minor Outlying Islands[3][a]
7002100000000000000♠
16.00
41
7002100000000000000♠
16.00
41
—
7002100000000000000♠
—
—
—

 Contiguous United States
Total
3,120,426.47
8,081,867
7002100000000000000♠
2,954,841.42
7,653,004
7001946900000000000♠94.69%
7002100000000000000♠
165,584.6
428,862
7000530990000099999♠5.31%

 50 states and D.C.
Total
3,796,742.23
9,833,517
7002100000000000000♠
3,531,905.43
9,147,593
7001930200000000000♠93.02%
7002100000000000000♠
264,836.79
685,924
7000698000000000000♠6.98%

 All U.S. territory
Total
3,805,943.26
9,857,348
7002100000000000000♠
3,535,948.12
9,158,064
7001929100000000000♠92.91%
7002100000000000000♠
269,995.13
699,284
7000709000000000000♠7.09%

tag: table

text: Area by division[edit]

text: All divisions presented below are as configured by the United States Census Bureau.

tag: p

text:
Total area[2]
Land area[2]
Water[2]

Division
Rank
sq mi
km²
Rank
sq mi
km²
 % land
Rank
sq mi
km²
 % water

East North Central
7000500000000000000♠5
301,368.57
780,541
7000600000000000000♠6
242,902.44
629,114

7000200000000000000♠2
58,466.13
151,427

East South Central
7000700000000000000♠7
183,403.89
475,014
7000700000000000000♠7
178,289.83
461,769

7000900000000000000♠9
5,114.60
13,247

Middle Atlantic
7000800000000000000♠8
109,331.89
283,168
7000800000000000000♠8
99,223.32
256,987

7000600000000000000♠6
10,108.57
26,181

Mountain
7000200000000000000♠2
863,564.63
2,236,622
7000200000000000000♠2
855,766.98
2,216,426

7000800000000000000♠8
7,797.65
20,196

New England
7000900000000000000♠9
71,987.96
186,448
7000900000000000000♠9
62,668.46
162,311

7000700000000000000♠7
9,299.50
24,086

Pacific
7000100000000000000♠1
1,009,687.00
2,615,077
7000100000000000000♠1
895,286.33
2,318,781

7000100000000000000♠1
114,400.67
296,296

South Atlantic
7000600000000000000♠6
292,990.46
758,842
7000500000000000000♠5
265,061.97
686,507

7000300000000000000♠3
27,928.49
72,334

West North Central
7000300000000000000♠3
520,355.80
1,347,715
7000300000000000000♠3
507,620.08
1,314,730

7000500000000000000♠5
12,735.72
32,985

West South Central
7000400000000000000♠4
444,052.01
1,150,089
7000400000000000000♠4
425,066.01
1,100,916

7000400000000000000♠4
18,986.00
49,174

text: Area by region[edit]

text: All regions presented below are as configured by the United States Census Bureau.

text:
Total area[2]
Land area[2]
Water[2]

Region
Rank
sq mi
km²
Rank
sq mi
km²
 % land
Rank
sq mi
km²
 % water

Midwest
7000300000000000000♠3
821,724.38
2,128,256
7000300000000000000♠3
750,522.52
1,943,844

7000200000000000000♠2
71,201.86
184,412

Northeast
7000400000000000000♠4
181,319.85
469,616
7000400000000000000♠4
161,911.78
419,350

7000400000000000000♠4
19,408.07
50,267

South
7000200000000000000♠2
920,446.37
2,383,945
7000200000000000000♠2
868,417.82
2,249,192

7000300000000000000♠3
52,028.55
134,753

West
7000100000000000000♠1
1,873,251.63
4,851,699
7000100000000000000♠1
1,751,053.31
4,535,207

7000100000000000000♠1
122,198.32
316,492

text:
U.S. states by total area

U.S. states by land area

U.S. states by water area

U.S. states by water percentage

Alaska is the largest state by total area, land area, and water area. It is the 7th largest country subdivision in the world.[citation needed]

The area of Alaska is 7001180000000000000♠18% of the area of the United States and 7001210000000000000♠21% of the area of the contiguous United States

The second largest state, Texas, is only 7001400000000000000♠40% of the total area of the largest state, Alaska

Rhode Island is the smallest state by total area and land area

San Bernardino County is the largest county in the contiguous U.S. and is larger than each of the nine smallest states; it is larger than the four smallest states combined.

Michigan is second (after Alaska) in water area, and first in water percentage

Florida is mostly a peninsula, and has the third largest water area and seventh largest water area percentage

tag: ul


document_title: List of Scottish Cup finals

question_text: who was the first team to win the scottish cup

text: List of Scottish Cup finals

text: History[edit]

text: At the time of the cup's first season Queen's Park were by far the dominant force in Scottish football, and no other team had even managed to score a goal against them until 1875, eight years after their formation.[2] This early dominance meant they were invited into the first FA Cup season and in season 1883–84 they came close to a cup double, winning the Scottish Cup but losing the FA Cup Final to Blackburn Rovers.[3] They again met Blackburn Rovers in the following season's Final but were defeated once again.[4] Other Scottish teams competed in the FA Cup such as Partick Thistle and 3rd Lanark RV and continued to compete until 1887, when the Scottish Football Association banned its members from taking any further part in the "English Cup".[5] By the time the Scottish Football League was founded in the 1890–91 season Queen's Park had been eclipsed by many of the league clubs, they finally agreed to enter the competition in the 1900–01 season, they finished seventh in their first season.[6] Their demise was reflected in their Scottish Cup results, although they reached 4 Finals after the foundation of the league they could only win one and their 1893 success was their last, reaching only one more final in 1900. Dumbarton filled the void left by Queen's Park for a time but like all Scottish football competitions the Scottish Cup would come to be dominated by the Old Firm of Celtic and Rangers.

text: In 1909 the cup was withheld by the SFA after a riot broke out following a replay between Rangers and Celtic. The first match was drawn 2–2 and the second 1–1.[7]

text: The cup was not competed for between 1914 and 1919 due to World War I. World War II prevented competition between 1939 and 1945 although the Scottish War Emergency Cup was held in the 1939–40 season.

text: Results[edit]

text: A draw in the final used to result in the match being replayed at a later date. Since the 1981 final, however, the result has always been decided on the day, with a penalty shootout if required after extra time.

text: Key[edit]

text:
(R)
Replay, or repeat if original match was declared void

(SR)
Second Replay

‡
Match void

*
Match went to extra time

†
Match decided by a penalty shootout after extra time

Italics
Team from outside the top level of Scottish football
(since the formation of The Scottish Football League in 1890)

Bold
Winning team were also Scottish football champions,
winning The Double

text: Results[edit]

text:
Season
Winner
Score
Runner-up
Venue
Attendance
Notes

1873–74
Queen's Park (1)
2–0
Clydesdale
Hampden Park (original)
2,500
[8][9]

1874–75
Queen's Park (2)
3–0
Renton
Hampden Park (original)
7,000
[8][10]

1875–76
Queen's Park (3)
1–1
3rd Lanark RV
Hamilton Crescent
6,000
[8][11]

(R)
2–0
Hampden Park (original)
10,000
[8][12]

1876–77
Vale of Leven (1)
1–1
Rangers
Hamilton Crescent
8,000
[8][13]

(R)
1–1
Hamilton Crescent
15,000
[8][14]

(SR)
3–2
Hampden Park (original)
12,000
[8][15]

1877–78
Vale of Leven (2)
1–0
3rd Lanark RV
Hampden Park (original)
5,000
[8][16]

1878–79
Vale of Leven (3)
1–1
Rangers
Hampden Park (original)
9,000
[8][17]

(R)
walkover[18]
Hampden Park (original)

[8]

1879–80
Queen's Park (4)
3–0
Thornliebank
Hampden Park (original)
4,000
[8][19]

1880–81
Queen's Park (5)
2–1 ‡[20]
Dumbarton
Kinning Park
15,000
[8][21]

(R)
3–1
Kinning Park
10,000
[8][22]

1881–82
Queen's Park (6)
2–2
Dumbarton
Cathkin Park (first)
12,500
[8][23]

(R)
4–1
Cathkin Park (first)
14,000
[8][24]

1882–83
Dumbarton (1)
2–2
Vale of Leven
Hampden Park (original)
15,000
[8][25]

(R)
2–1
Hampden Park (original)
12,000
[8][26]

1883–84
Queen's Park (7)
walkover[27]
Vale of Leven
Cathkin Park (first)

[8]

1884–85
Renton (1)
0–0
Vale of Leven
Hampden Park (second)
3,000
[8][28]

(R)
3–1
Hampden Park (second)
5,500
[8][29]

1885–86
Queen's Park (8)
3–1
Renton
Cathkin Park (first)
7,000
[8][30]

1886–87
Hibernian (1)
2–1
Dumbarton
Hampden Park (second)
15,000
[8][31]

1887–88
Renton (2)
6–1
Cambuslang
Hampden Park (second)
10,000
[8][32]

1888–89
3rd Lanark RV (1)
3–0 ‡[33]
Celtic
Hampden Park (second)
17,000
[8][34]

(R)
2–1
Hampden Park (second)
13,000
[8][35]

1889–90
Queen's Park (9)
1–1
Vale of Leven
Ibrox Park (first)
11,000
[8][36]

(R)
2–1
Ibrox Park (first)
13,000
[8][37]

1890–91
Heart of Midlothian (1)
1–0
Dumbarton
Hampden Park (second)
10,836
[8][38]

1891–92
Celtic (1)
1–0 ‡[39]
Queen's Park
Ibrox Park (first)
40,000
[8][40]

(R)
5–1
Ibrox Park (first)
26,000
[8][41]

1892–93
Queen's Park (10)
0–1 ‡[42]
Celtic
Ibrox Park (first)
18,771
[8][43]

(R)
2–1
Ibrox Park (first)
13,239
[8][44]

1893–94
Rangers (1)
3–1
Celtic
Hampden Park (second)
17,000
[8][45]

1894–95
St Bernard's (1)
2–1
Renton
Ibrox Park (first)
10,000
[8][46]

1895–96
Heart of Midlothian (2)
3–1
Hibernian
New Logie Green
16,034
[8][47]

1896–97
Rangers (2)
5–1
Dumbarton
Hampden Park (second)
14,000
[8][48]

1897–98
Rangers (3)
2–0
Kilmarnock
Hampden Park (second)
13,000
[8][49]

1898–99
Celtic (2)
2–0
Rangers
Hampden Park (second)
25,000
[8][50]

1899–1900
Celtic (3)
4–3
Queen's Park
Ibrox Park
15,000
[8][51]

1900–01
Heart of Midlothian (3)
4–3
Celtic
Ibrox Park
15,000
[8][52]

1901–02
Hibernian (2)
1–0
Celtic
Celtic Park
16,000
[8][53]

1902–03
Rangers (4)
1–1
Heart of Midlothian
Celtic Park
13,000
[8][54]

(R)
0–0
Celtic Park
35,000
[8][55]

(SR)
2–0
Celtic Park
30,000
[8][56]

1903–04
Celtic (4)
3–2
Rangers
Hampden Park
64,472
[8][57]

1904–05
Third Lanark (2)
0–0
Rangers
Hampden Park
54,000
[8][58]

(R)
3–1
Hampden Park
55,000
[8][59]

1905–06
Heart of Midlothian (4)
1–0
Third Lanark
Ibrox Park
30,000
[8][60]

1906–07
Celtic (5)
3–0
Heart of Midlothian
Hampden Park
50,000
[8][61]

1907–08
Celtic (6)
5–1
St Mirren
Hampden Park
58,000
[8][62]

1909–10
Dundee (1)
2–2
Clyde
Ibrox Park
60,000
[8][63]

(R)
0–0 *
Ibrox Park
25,000
[8][64]

(SR)
2–1
Ibrox Park
25,000
[8][65]

1910–11
Celtic (7)
0–0
Hamilton Academical
Ibrox Park
45,000
[8][66]

(R)
2–0
Ibrox Park
25,000
[8][67]

1911–12
Celtic (8)
2–0
Clyde
Ibrox Park
45,000
[8][68]

1912–13
Falkirk (1)
2–0
Raith Rovers
Celtic Park
45,000
[8][69]

1913–14
Celtic (9)
0–0
Hibernian
Ibrox Park
56,000
[8][70]

(R)
4–1
Ibrox Park
40,000
[8][71]

1919–20
Kilmarnock (1)
3–2
Albion Rovers
Hampden Park
95,000
[8][72][73]

1920–21
Partick Thistle (1)
1–0
Rangers
Celtic Park
28,294
[8][74][75]

1921–22
Morton (1)
1–0
Rangers
Hampden Park
70,000
[8][76]

1922–23
Celtic (10)
1–0
Hibernian
Hampden Park
82,000
[8][77]

1923–24
Airdrieonians (1)
2–0
Hibernian
Ibrox Park
65,000
[8][78]

1924–25
Celtic (11)
2–1
Dundee
Hampden Park
75,317
[8][79]

1925–26
St Mirren (1)
2–0
Celtic
Hampden Park
98,000
[8][80]

1926–27
Celtic (12)
3–1
East Fife
Hampden Park
80,070
[8][81]

1927–28
Rangers (5)
4–0
Celtic
Hampden Park
118,115
[8][82]

1928–29
Kilmarnock (2)
2–0
Rangers
Hampden Park
114,780
[8][83]

1929–30
Rangers (6)
0–0
Partick Thistle
Hampden Park
107,475
[8][84]

(R)
2–1
Hampden Park
103,688
[8][85]

1930–31
Celtic (13)
2–2
Motherwell
Hampden Park
104,863
[8][86]

(R)
4–2
Hampden Park
98,509
[8][87]

1931–32
Rangers (7)
1–1
Kilmarnock
Hampden Park
112,000
[8][88]

(R)
3–0
Hampden Park
104,600
[8][89]

1932–33
Celtic (14)
1–0
Motherwell
Hampden Park
102,339
[8][90]

1933–34
Rangers (8)
5–0
St Mirren
Hampden Park
113,430
[8][91]

1934–35
Rangers (9)
2–1
Hamilton Academical
Hampden Park
87,740
[8][92]

1935–36
Rangers (10)
1–0
Third Lanark
Hampden Park
88,859
[8][93]

1936–37
Celtic (15)
2–1
Aberdeen
Hampden Park
147,365
[8][94]

1937–38
East Fife (1)
1–1
Kilmarnock
Hampden Park
80,091
[8][95]

(R)
4–2 *
Hampden Park
92,716
[8][96]

1938–39
Clyde (1)
4–0
Motherwell
Hampden Park
94,000
[8][97]

1946–47
Aberdeen (1)
2–1
Hibernian
Hampden Park
82,140
[8][98]

1947–48
Rangers (11)
1–1 *
Morton
Hampden Park
129,176
[8][99]

(R)
1–0 *
Hampden Park
133,750
[8][100]

1948–49
Rangers (12)
4–1
Clyde
Hampden Park
108,435
[8][101]

1949–50
Rangers (13)
3–0
East Fife
Hampden Park
118,262
[8][102]

1950–51
Celtic (16)
1–0
Motherwell
Hampden Park
131,943
[8][103]

1951–52
Motherwell (1)
4–0
Dundee
Hampden Park
136,274
[8][104]

1952–53
Rangers (14)
1–1
Aberdeen
Hampden Park
129,761
[8][105]

(R)
1–0
Hampden Park
113,700
[8][106]

1953–54
Celtic (17)
2–1
Aberdeen
Hampden Park
130,060
[8][107]

1954–55
Clyde (2)
1–1
Celtic
Hampden Park
106,234
[8][108]

(R)
1–0
Hampden Park
68,831
[8][109]

1955–56
Heart of Midlothian (5)
3–1
Celtic
Hampden Park
132,840
[8][110]

1956–57
Falkirk (2)
1–1
Kilmarnock
Hampden Park
83,000
[8][111]

(R)
2–1 *
Hampden Park
79,785
[8][112]

1957–58
Clyde (3)
1–0
Hibernian
Hampden Park
95,123
[8][113]

1958–59
St Mirren (2)
3–1
Aberdeen
Hampden Park
108,591
[8][114]

1959–60
Rangers (15)
2–0
Kilmarnock
Hampden Park
108,017
[8][115]

1960–61
Dunfermline Athletic (1)
0–0
Celtic
Hampden Park
113,618
[8][116]

(R)
2–0
Hampden Park
87,866
[8][117]

1961–62
Rangers (16)
2–0
St Mirren
Hampden Park
127,940
[8][118]

1962–63
Rangers (17)
1–1
Celtic
Hampden Park
129,643
[8][119]

(R)
3–0
Hampden Park
120,273
[8][120]

1963–64
Rangers (18)
3–1
Dundee
Hampden Park
120,982
[8][121][122]

1964–65
Celtic (18)
3–2
Dunfermline Athletic
Hampden Park
108,800
[8][123]

1965–66
Rangers (19)
0–0
Celtic
Hampden Park
126,552
[8][124]

(R)
1–0
Hampden Park
98,202
[8][125]

1966–67
Celtic (19)
2–0
Aberdeen
Hampden Park
126,102
[8][126]

1967–68
Dunfermline Athletic (2)
3–1
Heart of Midlothian
Hampden Park
56,365
[8][127]

1968–69
Celtic (20)
4–0
Rangers
Hampden Park
132,000
[8][128]

1969–70
Aberdeen (2)
3–1
Celtic
Hampden Park
108,434
[8][129]

1970–71
Celtic (21)
1–1
Rangers
Hampden Park
120,092
[8][130]

(R)
2–1
Hampden Park
103,332
[8][131]

1971–72
Celtic (22)
6–1
Hibernian
Hampden Park
106,102
[8][132]

1972–73
Rangers (20)
3–2
Celtic
Hampden Park
122,714
[8][133]

1973–74
Celtic (23)
3–0
Dundee United
Hampden Park
75,959
[8][134]

1974–75
Celtic (24)
3–1
Airdrieonians
Hampden Park
75,457
[8][135]

1975–76
Rangers (21)
3–1
Heart of Midlothian
Hampden Park
85,354
[8][136]

1976–77
Celtic (25)
1–0
Rangers
Hampden Park
54,252
[8][137]

1977–78
Rangers (22)
2–1
Aberdeen
Hampden Park
61,563
[8][138]

1978–79
Rangers (23)
0–0
Hibernian
Hampden Park
50,610
[8][139]

(R)
0–0 *
Hampden Park
33,504
[8][140]

(SR)
3–2 *
Hampden Park
30,602
[8][141]

1979–80
Celtic (26)
1–0 *
Rangers
Hampden Park
70,303
[8][142]

1980–81
Rangers (24)
0–0 *
Dundee United
Hampden Park
53,000
[8][143]

(R)
4–1
Hampden Park
43,099
[8][144]

1981–82
Aberdeen (3)
4–1 *
Rangers
Hampden Park
53,788
[8][145]

1982–83
Aberdeen (4)
1–0 *
Rangers
Hampden Park
62,979
[8][146]

1983–84
Aberdeen (5)
2–1 *
Celtic
Hampden Park
58,900
[8][147]

1984–85
Celtic (27)
2–1
Dundee United
Hampden Park
60,346
[8][148]

1985–86
Aberdeen (6)
3–0
Heart of Midlothian
Hampden Park
62,841
[8][149]

1986–87
St Mirren (3)
1–0 *
Dundee United
Hampden Park
51,782
[8][150]

1987–88
Celtic (28)
2–1
Dundee United
Hampden Park
74,000
[8][151]

1988–89
Celtic (29)
1–0
Rangers
Hampden Park
72,069
[8][152]

1989–90
Aberdeen (7)
0–0 †
Celtic
Hampden Park
60,493
[8][153]

1990–91
Motherwell (2)
4–3 *
Dundee United
Hampden Park
57,319
[8][154]

1991–92
Rangers (25)
2–1
Airdrieonians
Hampden Park
44,045
[8][155]

1992–93
Rangers (26)
2–1
Aberdeen
Celtic Park
50,715
[8][156]

1993–94
Dundee United (1)
1–0
Rangers
Hampden Park
37,450
[8][157]

1994–95
Celtic (30)
1–0
Airdrieonians
Hampden Park
36,915
[8][158]

1995–96
Rangers (27)
5–1
Heart of Midlothian
Hampden Park
37,730
[8][159]

1996–97
Kilmarnock (3)
1–0
Falkirk
Ibrox Stadium
48,953
[8][160]

1997–98
Heart of Midlothian (6)
2–1
Rangers
Celtic Park
48,946
[8][161]

1998–99
Rangers (28)
1–0
Celtic
Hampden Park
52,670
[8][162]

1999–00
Rangers (29)
4–0
Aberdeen
Hampden Park
50,865
[8][163]

2000–01
Celtic (31)
3–0
Hibernian
Hampden Park
51,824
[8][164]

2001–02
Rangers (30)
3–2
Celtic
Hampden Park
51,138
[8][165]

2002–03
Rangers (31)
1–0
Dundee
Hampden Park
47,136
[8][166]

2003–04
Celtic (32)
3–1
Dunfermline Athletic
Hampden Park
50,846
[8][167]

2004–05
Celtic (33)
1–0
Dundee United
Hampden Park
50,635
[8][168]

2005–06
Heart of Midlothian (7)
1–1 †
Gretna
Hampden Park
51,232
[8][169]

2006–07
Celtic (34)
1–0
Dunfermline Athletic
Hampden Park
49,600
[8][170]

2007–08
Rangers (32)
3–2
Queen of the South
Hampden Park
48,821
[8][171]

2008–09
Rangers (33)
1–0
Falkirk
Hampden Park
50,956
[8][172]

2009–10
Dundee United (2)
3–0
Ross County
Hampden Park
47,122
[8][173]

2010–11
Celtic (35)
3–0
Motherwell
Hampden Park
49,618
[8]

2011–12
Heart of Midlothian (8)
5–1
Hibernian
Hampden Park
51,041
[8]

2012–13
Celtic (36)
3–0
Hibernian
Hampden Park
51,254
[8]

2013–14
St Johnstone (1)
2–0
Dundee United
Celtic Park
47,345
[8][174]

2014–15
Inverness Caledonian Thistle (1)
2–1
Falkirk
Hampden Park
37,149
[175]

2015–16
Hibernian (3)
3–2
Rangers
Hampden Park
50,701
[176]

2016–17
Celtic (37)
2–1
Aberdeen
Hampden Park
48,713
[177]

text: Performance by club[edit]

text:
Club
Wins
Last win
Runners-up
Last final lost

Celtic
37
2017
18
2002

Rangers
33
2009
18
2016

Queen's Park
10
1893
2
1900

Heart of Midlothian
8
2012
6
1996

Aberdeen
7
1990
9
2017

Hibernian
3
2016
11
2013

Kilmarnock
3
1997
5
1960

Vale of Leven
3
1879
4
1890

Clyde
3
1958
3
1949

St Mirren
3
1987
3
1962

Dundee United
2
2010
8
2014

Motherwell
2
1991
5
2011

Third Lanark
2
1905
4
1936

Falkirk
2
1957
3
2015

Dunfermline Athletic
2
1968
3
2007

Renton
2
1888
3
1895

Dumbarton
1
1883
5
1897

Dundee
1
1910
4
2003

Airdrieonians (1878)
1
1924
3
1995

East Fife
1
1938
2
1950

Greenock Morton
1
1922
1
1948

Partick Thistle
1
1921
1
1930

St. Bernard's
1
1895
—
—

Inverness Caledonian Thistle
1
2015
—
—

St Johnstone
1
2014
—
—

Hamilton Academical
—
—
2
1935

Albion Rovers
—
—
1
1920

Cambuslang
—
—
1
1888

Clydesdale
—
—
1
1874

Gretna
—
—
1
2006

Queen of the South
—
—
1
2008

Raith Rovers
—
—
1
1913

Ross County
—
—
1
2010

Thornliebank
—
—
1
1880

text: Note: The 1909 Scottish Cup Final between Rangers and Celtic is not included in this tally.