As far as geocentric I certainly believe in it :) In regards to what
Aristotle is saying anyway. The sublunar realm as he meant it, is
indeed, much different than the higher realms.
In regards to the literal meaning of Heliocentrism, they couldn't
have known that the sun was at the center of the solar system, not that
as far as his arguments, would heliocentricism be valid, I wouldn't
think. He was digging into the higher realms not the literal
heliocentric scientific model for his purposes.
Atomism he claimed to reject, of course, at some level. As far as
comets they would have to be a fire. Or any of the other 3 primary
qualities, water, earth, or air. As ice is a mixture of cold and water
in varying degrees, that gives qualities of "hardness".
> or perfect circles for the planets. Does he still reject the atomic
> theory of matter? Are comets still a ball of fire rather than a block of
> ice?
>
> Ed
>
Cheers