This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I will not revert an IP's removal of the {{ fact}} tag from the last section of the article, but I do believe that the last sentence needs to be either cited, or furnished with examples. Regards, Kavadi carrier 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be a new citation stated for this article, as the only source shown is no longer available. I would provide my own, but cannot find any Bluttony ( talk) 02:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
From the article:
The ideas of a flat earth, Counter-Earth, and Central Fire were all eventually superseded by the theory which is currently held by the scientific community, that is, of a spherical earth rotating around its own axis while revolving around the sun.
I'm afraid that my knowledge of astrology is somewhat limited but I was of the impression that the notion of the earth being spherical and rotating on its own axis while orbiting the sun was a universally excepted fact. Was I mistaken? -- 86.171.204.147 ( talk) 18:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You must mean 'astronomy', not 'astrology'. The concepts of a spherical Earth, a spherical Earth rotating on its axis, and a spherical Earth rotating on its axis while also orbiting the Sun were originally hypothetical, then theoretical, before being established as fact by astronomical research. The Flat Earth and Central Fire were falsified by the same means. For the alleged falsifications of the Counter-Earth hypothesis see this article's references. O Murr ( talk) 19:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
In particular, see Reference 18 for the 1968 report by R L Duncombe of the U.S. Naval Academy. O Murr ( talk) 19:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been contemplating whether or not to bring Central Fire into this article, but that would necessitate changing this article's title, and I don't know what to change it to. Serendi pod ous 15:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, since none of the other planets has such a twin it would be extremely improbable if the Earth were the only planet to have one.
This sounds like "Since none of the other planets has a wikipedia, it would be extremely improbable if the Earth were the only planet to have one." It should be rewritten. Earth is quite improbable. -- Error
Back to the article, is it true that the astronomical counter-earth was invented to save the phonomonea that the central fire could not be seen, a central tenet in pythoragean thought. (windsor ppt presentation--I am not a windsor student and do not feel comfortable putting this in--but seems like a definition of counter-earth should dominate this article. -- Sam
Yes, the whole idea of a Counter-Earth was developed by Philolaus to support his new ideas about the non-geocentric cosmos and a Central Fire. You can learn more about this here. Mrwuggs 20:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In the scientific analysis section, is questionable. 91.109.240.131 ( talk) 06:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)anon
According to the article the counter-earth orbit is just feasible. So would somebody please point out what is wrong with this analysis:
I think it is plausible, however it will not be found in our lifetime.
The information about Mela's spherical Counter-Earth is, at least in my opinion, probably better situated in the "Need for a Counter-Earth" section than in the "Scientific Analysis" part. Galanskov 23:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The ideas of a flat earth, Counter-Earth, and Central Fire were all eventually superseded by the hypothesis which is currently held by the scientific community, that is, of a spherical earth rotating around both its own axis and the sun.
Is this idea really just a hypothesis? I would think that all the spacecraft that have left earths orbit, been effected by the Sun's gravity, effected and captured by gravity of other objects, experienced Impairment and loss of Line of site of line-of-site, usually by design or prediction, would be more than sufficient to prove the earth orbits the Sun. In addition, satellites that orient themselves to the position of the Sun, keep cameras pointed at the earth and have located at least one other moving object in space, would confirm the earths orbit of the Sun. and its rotation around it's axis.-- Zerothis 06:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The diagram is currently marked as needing conversion to a vector format. If that's done, it would only make sense to correct any other outstanding issues with the current diagram. However, I'm a bit puzzled by several features:
-- Amble ( talk) 06:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC) I've made a direct translation to SVG, for now. Perhaps a better diagram could be made, but there are too many points in the theory itself that need to be clarified. -- Amble ( talk) 19:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The inline ref to siegel and moser is priceless. +sj + 23:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
...which Greek Mythology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.36.137 ( talk) 03:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to know that, too. I've studied Greek Mythology extensively and I've never heard anything about "Antichton." It's not worth making an account to eliminate one made-up bit of Greek Mythology, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.168.107 ( talk) 22:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Introducing the Counter-Earth and the Central Fire increased the number of objects in the Solar System to 10, which number might have had mystical significance for the Pythagoreans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.110.59 ( talk) 12:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The celestial mechanics of a counter-Earth (anti-Earth) were done numerically by the US Naval Observatory for the Condon Report 1968 Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. The results in Appendix E [1] show a counter-Earth would have been always visible in a short span of time.--aajacksoniv 23:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is a bit confusing in that it starts by saying that in the 5th Century BC everyone accepted that the world was spherical - that Philolaus set out to solve problems arising from this - and that in doing so he proposed that the earth was flat. In postulating a flat earth, didn't he undermine the very problem he was addressing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.199.124 ( talk) 12:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on an article for Pythagorean astronomical system. Seems a bit silly to have an article on one body in this theory (the counter-earth) but not on the overall theory. I am also going to shorten the article on the Central Fire which I restored. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 01:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Here it is! Pythagorean astronomical system (Made Central Fire a re-direct again, redirected to Pythagorean astronomical system.) -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Made
Here is the article about a year ago when I first started editing it. Here it is now. Big improvement I hope you will all agree.
In case anyone is wondering where I found the source for the theory that the true purpose of the Counter-Earth was to "balance" Philolaus's cosmos, it is hard to find googling and I couldn't. I found it later by checking a wikilink to "Central Fire". The link was just a re-direct to this article (not very useful!) but I began to wonder if there had been a Central Fire article that someone had deleted and turned into the re-direct. Checked the article history and found the old article -- pretty much a rehash of an old version of this article. But unlike the old version of Counter-Earth it had a source: ( Burch, George Bosworth. The Counter-Earth. Osirus, vol. 11. Saint Catherines Press, 1954. p. 267-294). And the source - Burch's paper - contained the balance theory for the counter-earth. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Rudolf steiner also mentions the concept of counter earth in his lecture of 2 may 1920 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.193.19 ( talk) 19:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Counter-Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I will not revert an IP's removal of the {{ fact}} tag from the last section of the article, but I do believe that the last sentence needs to be either cited, or furnished with examples. Regards, Kavadi carrier 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be a new citation stated for this article, as the only source shown is no longer available. I would provide my own, but cannot find any Bluttony ( talk) 02:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
From the article:
The ideas of a flat earth, Counter-Earth, and Central Fire were all eventually superseded by the theory which is currently held by the scientific community, that is, of a spherical earth rotating around its own axis while revolving around the sun.
I'm afraid that my knowledge of astrology is somewhat limited but I was of the impression that the notion of the earth being spherical and rotating on its own axis while orbiting the sun was a universally excepted fact. Was I mistaken? -- 86.171.204.147 ( talk) 18:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You must mean 'astronomy', not 'astrology'. The concepts of a spherical Earth, a spherical Earth rotating on its axis, and a spherical Earth rotating on its axis while also orbiting the Sun were originally hypothetical, then theoretical, before being established as fact by astronomical research. The Flat Earth and Central Fire were falsified by the same means. For the alleged falsifications of the Counter-Earth hypothesis see this article's references. O Murr ( talk) 19:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
In particular, see Reference 18 for the 1968 report by R L Duncombe of the U.S. Naval Academy. O Murr ( talk) 19:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been contemplating whether or not to bring Central Fire into this article, but that would necessitate changing this article's title, and I don't know what to change it to. Serendi pod ous 15:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, since none of the other planets has such a twin it would be extremely improbable if the Earth were the only planet to have one.
This sounds like "Since none of the other planets has a wikipedia, it would be extremely improbable if the Earth were the only planet to have one." It should be rewritten. Earth is quite improbable. -- Error
Back to the article, is it true that the astronomical counter-earth was invented to save the phonomonea that the central fire could not be seen, a central tenet in pythoragean thought. (windsor ppt presentation--I am not a windsor student and do not feel comfortable putting this in--but seems like a definition of counter-earth should dominate this article. -- Sam
Yes, the whole idea of a Counter-Earth was developed by Philolaus to support his new ideas about the non-geocentric cosmos and a Central Fire. You can learn more about this here. Mrwuggs 20:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In the scientific analysis section, is questionable. 91.109.240.131 ( talk) 06:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)anon
According to the article the counter-earth orbit is just feasible. So would somebody please point out what is wrong with this analysis:
I think it is plausible, however it will not be found in our lifetime.
The information about Mela's spherical Counter-Earth is, at least in my opinion, probably better situated in the "Need for a Counter-Earth" section than in the "Scientific Analysis" part. Galanskov 23:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The ideas of a flat earth, Counter-Earth, and Central Fire were all eventually superseded by the hypothesis which is currently held by the scientific community, that is, of a spherical earth rotating around both its own axis and the sun.
Is this idea really just a hypothesis? I would think that all the spacecraft that have left earths orbit, been effected by the Sun's gravity, effected and captured by gravity of other objects, experienced Impairment and loss of Line of site of line-of-site, usually by design or prediction, would be more than sufficient to prove the earth orbits the Sun. In addition, satellites that orient themselves to the position of the Sun, keep cameras pointed at the earth and have located at least one other moving object in space, would confirm the earths orbit of the Sun. and its rotation around it's axis.-- Zerothis 06:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The diagram is currently marked as needing conversion to a vector format. If that's done, it would only make sense to correct any other outstanding issues with the current diagram. However, I'm a bit puzzled by several features:
-- Amble ( talk) 06:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC) I've made a direct translation to SVG, for now. Perhaps a better diagram could be made, but there are too many points in the theory itself that need to be clarified. -- Amble ( talk) 19:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The inline ref to siegel and moser is priceless. +sj + 23:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
...which Greek Mythology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.36.137 ( talk) 03:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to know that, too. I've studied Greek Mythology extensively and I've never heard anything about "Antichton." It's not worth making an account to eliminate one made-up bit of Greek Mythology, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.168.107 ( talk) 22:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Introducing the Counter-Earth and the Central Fire increased the number of objects in the Solar System to 10, which number might have had mystical significance for the Pythagoreans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.110.59 ( talk) 12:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The celestial mechanics of a counter-Earth (anti-Earth) were done numerically by the US Naval Observatory for the Condon Report 1968 Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. The results in Appendix E [1] show a counter-Earth would have been always visible in a short span of time.--aajacksoniv 23:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is a bit confusing in that it starts by saying that in the 5th Century BC everyone accepted that the world was spherical - that Philolaus set out to solve problems arising from this - and that in doing so he proposed that the earth was flat. In postulating a flat earth, didn't he undermine the very problem he was addressing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.199.124 ( talk) 12:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on an article for Pythagorean astronomical system. Seems a bit silly to have an article on one body in this theory (the counter-earth) but not on the overall theory. I am also going to shorten the article on the Central Fire which I restored. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 01:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Here it is! Pythagorean astronomical system (Made Central Fire a re-direct again, redirected to Pythagorean astronomical system.) -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Made
Here is the article about a year ago when I first started editing it. Here it is now. Big improvement I hope you will all agree.
In case anyone is wondering where I found the source for the theory that the true purpose of the Counter-Earth was to "balance" Philolaus's cosmos, it is hard to find googling and I couldn't. I found it later by checking a wikilink to "Central Fire". The link was just a re-direct to this article (not very useful!) but I began to wonder if there had been a Central Fire article that someone had deleted and turned into the re-direct. Checked the article history and found the old article -- pretty much a rehash of an old version of this article. But unlike the old version of Counter-Earth it had a source: ( Burch, George Bosworth. The Counter-Earth. Osirus, vol. 11. Saint Catherines Press, 1954. p. 267-294). And the source - Burch's paper - contained the balance theory for the counter-earth. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Rudolf steiner also mentions the concept of counter earth in his lecture of 2 may 1920 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.193.19 ( talk) 19:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Counter-Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)