the discrepancy between the Aristotelian geocentric model, and the heliocentrism purported by Copernicanism. Hermann Bondi, who named the principle after Copernicus in the twentieth century, wrote, 'It is evident that in the post-Copernican era of human history, no well-informed and rational person can imagine that the earth occupies a unique position in the Universe.' The mathematical, epicyclic system envisaged by Ptolemy, although not supported by Aristotelians, stemmed from the same three intrinsic and powerful ideas as Aristotle's geocentric ideal. It was believed that all heavenly motion was homogeneously circular; that heavenly objects consisted of a 'perfect material' with unchangeable inherent properties and that the Earth represented the centre of the Universe. Kasachtoff wrote, 'For Aristotle, the importance of human life was inextricably tied to the importance of planet Earth as nothing less than the physical centre of the cosmos.' Clearly, if geocentricity were the crux of philosophical considerations regarding the significance of the human race, then proposing a contrary view on the physical layout of the universe was not only to challenge Aristotle, but to contradict the ingrained assumption that our race was important. The destruction of the principle of Earth's centrality would lead to uncertainty about the ontological position of humanity.
             In the Middle ages, the ideas of Ptolemy and Aristotle were linked to Medieval theology in the great synthesis of Christianity and Reason. The 'prime mover,' described by Aristotle became the Christian God and the 'outermost sphere,' heaven, as Thomas Aquinas merged the geocentric philosophy and Scripture.. This meant that any challenge to the truth of such ideas, originally developed by non-Christian philosophers, was not merely a scientific issue, but a theological one. This is significant because whilst philosophy...