Editing Albert Brudzewski (section)

=== On Averroes ===
Brudzewski was seen as influential and persuasive astronomer, a fictionalist, and an opponent of Middle Ages [[Al-Andalus|Andalusian]] scholar [[Averroes]] (Ibn Rushd''')'''. Averroes disagreed with the majority of the astronomer [[Ptolemy]]'s work. He believed that Ptolemy's devices and principles disobeyed the fundamental principles and basic consequences of [[Aristotelian physics]]. Averroes worked to replace the Ptolemaic astronomical system with a novel system that was similar to a system created by [[Eudoxus of Cnidus|Eudoxus]]. Albert Brudzewski disagreed and criticized Averroes immediately. The major dispute was the figuring out the number of celestial orbs or spheres that lay in the heavens. Averroes refused to believe that there was a ninth sphere in the heavens. He believed that the creation of all celestial beings had to arise from the stars, but the ninth sphere did not possess any stars, so this could not be true. Albert Brudzewski argued with this and said that the heavens possessed more than ten spheres. He believed that the Sun itself had three spheres and the planets had their own as well.<ref name=":0" />

To make sense and clarify to his followers, Brudzewski said that the terms 'orb' or 'sphere' had three meanings of interpretation. The first meaning could be the whole entire heavens was designated into a single object which was the orb or sphere. This object was not separate from the whole heavens yet it could exist by itself. The second meaning he paralleled it to the sphere or orb from Peurbach's ''Theoricae novae planetarum'' although it was unconventional, it still existed in the heavens. The third meaning or clarification of orb was an orb that was aligned with the Earth. The third meaning was actually a collection of orbs that was crucial to the motion of a planet.<ref name=":0" />

Brudzewski further disputes Averroes by depending on the assumptions of Aristotle. He said that Aristotle demonstrated and verified five claims about the heavens that could disprove Averroes. The first claim was that the heavens was a simple being. The second claim was that because the heavens was a simple being, the motion of the being also had to be simple and uncomplicated. There could only be one motion and it had to follow the laws of nature. The third claim was that any motion that did not follow the laws of nature had to have an addition motion that did follow the laws of nature. The fourth claim was that a single sphere or orb could not be moved by several motions because it was a simple body. The fifth claim was that any superior or greater orb could have an impact on lesser orbs and spheres but the lesser orbs and spheres could not have any leverage on the superior's ones.<ref name=":0" />

To finally disprove Averroes, Brudzewski mentions the three recognizable motions of the sphere of fixed stars. The first motion was that the sphere possessed a daily rotation that occurred from the East to the West. The second motion was movement of the sphere in the opposition direction from West to East. The third motion was a cyclical motion that Brudzewski named [[trepidation]]. Brudzewski gave these three motions to the last three spheres respectively. With the assumptions of Aristotle as well as the motions of the sphere of the fixed stars, Brudzewski is able to prove that Averroes is wrong about the number of celestial spheres in the heavens.<ref name=":0" />