![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
There's been a bit of edit conflict over the alternative word heliocentricism. Here are a few relevant points:
Google search:
Oxford English Dictionary (online version):
Heliocentricism seems to be an acceptable variant, although current usage (Google) shows heliocentrism as the dominant form. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 03:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC); edited 03:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The lengthy discussion of the Maragha school's geocentric models doesn't seem appropriate to an article on heliocentrism. Although there are well-documented technical similarities between their equantless geometric models and the equantless model of Copernicus, none of the texts showing mathematical influence indicate any connection with Copernicus's advocacy of heliocentricism. Emphasizing that similarity in an article on heliocentism--even with all the disclaimers in the article--leaves the unsupportable suggestion that Copernicus's heliocentrism is in someway related to the work of the Maragha school. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 00:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be made clearer in the introduction that heliocentrism is superseded, much as geocentrism is? I mean, its obvious, that the sun is not "stationary and at the center of the universe." but I don't think this means that this should be mentioned only at the very end of the article. Janfrie1988 ( talk) 19:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The claim that the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity contains a description of a heliocentric cosmological system is flatly contradicted by the foremost academic authority on the subject (see
Talk:Heliocentrism/Archive 1#Brotherhood of purity). The article's current claim that "some verses have been interpreted as implying a heliocentric model" is cited solely to the opinion of a single writer of Theosophical tracts who appears to have no qualifications or reputation as a historian. I am therefore removing this material as a violation of Wikipedia's policies on
neutral point-of-view and
undue weight.
—
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
18:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following text from the article because the reference cited does not support it.
Nowhere in the cited reference does van der Waerden say or imply that al-Balkhi "developed a planetary model which can be interpreted as heliocentric." What he does is conjecture that the Greek astronomer Seleucus turned Aristarchus's rudimentary heliocentric theory into a fully-fledged predictive system by determining the necessary constants and developing methods of calculating planetary positions. He further argues that Aryabhata's presentation of one of his own theories (which van der Waerden explicitly says was not heliocentric) inherited traces of the originally heliocentric theory through his reliance on astronomical tables or an astronomical treatise which has now been lost, and that similar traces can be found in the system described by al-Biruni and al-Sijzi and attributed by them to al-Balkhi.-- Knight1993 ( talk) 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
We believe this because if we were where the sun is and the sun where we are then becausethe sun has more mass the sun would pull us into itself!
Sorry thats the only reason I know. Hope it helps... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.174.50 ( talk) 08:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, nowadays we accept neither heliocentrism, nor geocentrism, for the very question of the center in the infinite universe is meaningless. The only sense in which heliocentrism can be said to be accepted nowadays is that the Sun is the centre of the solar system. Period. But this is not the heliocentrism that Copernicus or Kepler had in mind. In fact, when the Cartesian natural philosophy overthrew that of Aristotle, geocentrism was replaced not by heliocentrism, strictly speaking, but by the conception of heliocentric solar system in an infinite universe. Perhaps this may be mentioned in the article. Jackbars ( talk) 01:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "the following century" gives the impression that Kepler's work was confined to the 17th. century. He was doing some admittedly not very scientific work in the 16th. century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.1.196 ( talk) 08:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The article incorrectly claims Nilakantha´s model had elliptical orbits. This is a misinterpretation (or something worse) of the source, which never claims such a thing. I have no access to it, but I read a review, which clearly states his model didn´t have elliptical orbits. Therefore, the information will be removed immediately.-- Knight1993 ( talk) 21:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
After reading this article several times, I realise it is unfair towards the greek accomplishments, putting them in the "philosophical" category, while the indian and muslim theories, which were farther form the truth because they were not heliocentric, fall into the "mathemarical" category. The theories of Aristarchus and Seleucus and indeed as mathematical as the others, and heliocentric as well. They deserve more notoriety than geocentric theories.-- Knight1993 ( talk) 19:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
How does this fit this category? 75.118.171.224 ( talk) 15:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Until I just now amended it, the article's lead had said
with citations to works by Bartel van der Waerden. This is a blatant misrepresentation of those sources, Nowhere in them does van der Waerden say that any propositions of Aryabhata's could be "interpreted as those of a heliocentric model". Van der Waerden's thesis was that Seleucus of Seleucia had developed Aristarchus's model into a fully-blown predictive system like Copernicus's, and that traces of this sytem—in the form of numerical parameters and some geometrical features—found their way into later Indian and Arabic astronomical systems, including Aryabhata's. But van der Waerden did not claim that these later systems could themselves be interpreted as heliocentric.
I have consequently removed this erroneous claim from the article.
David Wilson (
talk •
cont)
12:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC).
I very much doubt whether Duke thought the models he referred to in his paper were heliocentric. Otherwise he would hardly have written "the astronomy in the texts is, on the whole, considerably less developed than we find in the Almagest", or referred to those texts a little later as "this heap of more primitive astronomy" (I.e. more primitive than the astronomy of the Almagest).
David Wilson (
talk •
cont)
07:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to the Wiki editors on an outstanding summary of an interesting historical issue. That the Earth orbits is one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever, and this article does a great job of summarizing some of the tentative pre-Copernicus steps.
Perhaps Johannes Scotus Eriugena should be mentioned; his De divisione naturae is alleged to postulate that at least four of the planets rotate around the Sun (though I don't see that at Wikipedia). Jamesdowallen ( talk) 12:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's a reference: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2001JHA....32..281E It shows the quote from Eriugena's book, brief, arguably vague, citing Plato. Jamesdowallen ( talk) 16:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments under the popular article, at Croatian language:
89.172.65.204 ( talk) 03:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
As some of you may be aware, following the RFC/U last year, there is now finally a serious Cleanup underway and it is a Herculean task. I know this article has always been attended to by quite a few attentive and knowledgeable users, so I'd like to ask you whether there are still any issues left from Jagged's editing. Below are all of Jagged 85's edits. Please check them and whatever is problematic or might only appear problematic should be removed immediately:
Following is a summary of above. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.
Johnuniq ( talk) 04:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is needed. Besides both paragraphs being entirely unsourced and somewhat OR-ish, the distinction disrupts the flow of the article completely. It seems really odd to have two separate "Greek and Hellenistic world" sections, and a "Western Christendom" section in between them (even that refers to something that took place centuries later). I think it would be best to remove the distinction and just leave everything in chronological order. Athenean ( talk) 06:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I have re-removed the following text from the article, since it would appear to have nothing whatever to do with heliocentrism.
On the face of it, the reference to the the Sun swimming "along in it's own orbit" would appear to be clearly referring to a geocentric system, not a heliocentric one. I can see no justification whatever for including this text anywhere in the article, let alone in its lead.
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
07:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Yajnavalkya's Shathapatha Brahmana or the Aithereya Brahmana? There are quite a few references such as this and this which refer to these texts from 8th-9th century BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.208.39 ( talk) 08:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Several early sources talk about the the Earth moving - but do not say around the sun. The kind of movement is not always described - except for some that are just early sources for rotation of the Earth. The source would have to clearly have the Earth moving in orbit around the Sun for it to be given any prominence in this article. -- JimWae ( talk) 18:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Kepler himself seems to have used his first two laws as arguments in favour of heliocentrism. See his Astronomia nova. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.111.31 ( talk) 14:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It really doesn't seem accurate to call the results of these polls are referring to "beliefs". The article in question is "New Poll Gauges Americans' General Knowledge Levels" not "New Poll Gauges Americans' Beliefs". If the poll in question had been presented as "99.99% percent of the scientists hold that the Earth revolves around the sun. Do you agree or disagree with this?" then you could call it a belief, but the question is presented as a quiz. The people who answered the Sun revolves around the Earth were not stating a crazy belief but making a mistake. As such, I feel this section has no more bearing on this topic than a "Jaywalking" segment has to go with geography or history. Unless there are any objections, I will remove it. Kevin Corbett ( talk) 00:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I have restored the first sentence of the lead to the (correct) version that appeared in
this revision of the page from last December 4th. "Heliocentricism" is a perfectly correct term, recorded in both the OED and the SOED. While reverting some vandalism on December 13th,
this edit mistakenly replaced "heliocentricism" with "heliocentric", which had remained until it was
removed yesterday (quite correctly) as ungrammatical. Unfortunately, this last edit also restored the incorrect title of the National Academy of Sciences' book Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, which had been truncated by
an earlier act of vandalism or carelessness.
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
11:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I am wondering about the word "relatively" in the opening sentence. What does it mean? That the Sun is nearly stationary? That the Sun is stationary relative to the Earth? Or to the distant stars? Or to the frame of reference in use? The term is not explained anywhere, so I suggest that it be dropped. Roger ( talk) 17:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Under "Heliocentrism and Judaism", "13-5" seems to be a mistake. Possibly 1305, 1315, 1325 or the like might be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 ( talk) 11:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
"The possibility that Copernicus independently developed the Tusi couple remains open, since no researcher has yet proven that he knew about Tusi's work or the Maragha school" I think there is a contention built up against that notion. 1 2 3 Faro0485 ( talk) 11:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Copernicus' basic intent was to eliminate the epicycles that were an important element of Ptolemy's empirical mathematical model. Copernicus' empirical model would have worked if the planetary orbits had been circular as assumed. Copernicus ran up against a new bug-a-boo, however: Elliptic orbits, which required as many if not more epicycles to get the curve fits right. In that respect Copernicus' efforts were a failure. Heliocentrism was the germ of an idea, however, that ultimately panned out. Tycho's model was an also-ran. Ptolemy's model worked just fine and can still be used today to compute rough estimates of planetary positions. To send probes to the planets, however, you need Newtonian physics with a tinge of Einstein to be really accurate. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 16:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The section on the Copernican Revolution seems larger than the separate article on the Copernican Revolution. It should be made briefer, and any relevant information that is here that is not already in the separate article should be integrated into the separate article. DanielDemaret ( talk) 11:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The reference to Melanchthon is quoted from Bruce T. Moran, The Universe of Philip Melanchthon: Criticism and Use of the Copernican Theory, Comitatus 4, 1973: 1-23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.199.137 ( talk) 12:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I
recently reverted a replacement of
this link in a citation in the article with
this one. When I first checked the article pointed to by the second link I did not take sufficient care to ensure that I had properly understood the small part of the article's introduction that I quickly glanced over. I consequently obtained the mistaken notion that the linked article was a rebuttal of the one cited, rather than a reprint of it. My apologies for the error, particlarly to the editor from IP address
143.52.60.254, who was responsible for the perfectly correct updating of the link. Thanks to another editor,
Noren, who has now corrected my mistake.
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
08:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
There is scant mention of the navigational and timekeeping advantages of the heliocentric system. The article might benefit from a short section on this subject. 31.69.1.10 ( talk) 10:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
every article here on eng wiki starts with greece. i am afraid you got it wrong this time. the earliest notion that the sun is a center of this system is found in babylonian astronomy. oh wait, is babylon greek too? 89.205.2.27 ( talk) 15:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
86.177.160.31, I can produce proof that the Babylonians used a heliocentric system before that of Aristarchus. I think that statements of the following sources would add some useful missing information. Firstly, Babylonian heliocentric ideas predate Aristarchus (authored by the cosmologist who graduated Harvard) and secondly, geocentrism lasted until the 17th century. Although the title "We've Never Been Alone: A History of Extraterrestrial Intervention" is a little irrelevant the quote is from the passage "Who Invented Mathematics and the Sciences".
Ward, Paul Von (2011).
We've Never Been Alone: A History of Extraterrestrial Intervention. Hampton Roads Publishing. p. 174.
ISBN
161283177X, 9781612831770. A little later, Aristarchus, credited with first proposing the heliocentric theory of the universe, was only restating ideas long lost in Mesopotamia.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); External link in
(
help)
|last=
Arp, Robert;
Caplan Arthur (2013).
1001 Ideas That Changed the Way We Think. McGraw Hill Professional. p. 206.
ISBN
1476705720, 9781476705729. Thanks to Cladius Ptolemy in the second cneutry CE, geocentrism became the dominant worldview until well into the 17th century.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
167.160.36.45 (
talk •
contribs) 08:19, December 11, 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of the following text to the article:
because the expression "the entire orbit of the whole Earth" is a very poor translation of Adomnan's original Latin words "totum totius terrae orbem", which have nothing whatever to do with heliocentrism. A literal translation of "terrae orbis" would be "circle of land", but like the similar Latin expressions "orbis terrarum" and "gyrus terrae", it was a common expression used from classical times to refer either to the oikumene—i.e. the inhabited lands known to the ancients—or to the entire Earth. It cannot be reasonably interpreted as meaning the same thing as what "orbit of the Earth" would mean to a well-educated modern English speaker. In a translation of 1874, the words "totum totius terrae orbem" are rendered as "the whole compass of the world", and the meaning of this English version is undoubtedly very much closer to Adomnan's original. David Wilson ( talk · cont) 08:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This website indicates in its terms of use that "Our websites includes a combination of content that we create, that our partners create, and that our users create." Such websites of non-attributed user created content are not suitable WP:RS. -- Noren ( talk) 20:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Heliocentrism. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The article contains a lot of valuable information, but it loses its way completely in some parts, especially the "medieval" section. It is important to trace the intellectual developments which led to the Copernican revolution, but it is not necessary to go into every detail of medieval non-heliocentric theories in the article called "Heliocentrism". All the details on theories of a rotating Earth should be discussed under " Earth's rotation". Similarly, the details of the "Copernican Revolution" should be treated in WP:SS style, because there is not one but two sub-articles, at Copernican heliocentrism and Copernican Revolution.
I will probably try to improve the situation over the next few days, so I am leaving this here as a rationale for any removal of off topic content. -- dab (𒁳) 07:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Heliocentrism. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Heliocentrism. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Heliocentrism. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
This part of the introduction "It was not until the 16th century that a mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In the following century, Johannes Kepler introduced elliptical orbits, and Galileo Galilei presented supporting observations made using a telescope" requires improvement. Copernicus did not introduce a "heliocentric" theory. It was Johannes Kepler who did it in 1609 (Astronomia Nova). Just look at the recent talk to the article "Nicolaus Copernicus". Ed Dellian, Berlin, Germany 2003:D2:9724:2832:41CA:CAB5:87F9:858F ( talk) 14:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
See https://biologos.org/articles/john-calvin-on-nicolaus-copernicus-and-heliocentrism/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.193.36 ( talk) 14:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This nonsense was
recently readded to the article with citations to one secondary and one tertiary source. Both citations are bogus, however, since there is nothing whatever on the cited pages of the sources given (nor anywhere else in them, as far as I can see) to support anything in the preceding paragraphs. In any case, the second citation is to
Dick Teresi's Lost Discoveries, a far from
reliable source. I will therefore be reverting this addition.
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
21:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
There's been a bit of edit conflict over the alternative word heliocentricism. Here are a few relevant points:
Google search:
Oxford English Dictionary (online version):
Heliocentricism seems to be an acceptable variant, although current usage (Google) shows heliocentrism as the dominant form. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 03:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC); edited 03:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The lengthy discussion of the Maragha school's geocentric models doesn't seem appropriate to an article on heliocentrism. Although there are well-documented technical similarities between their equantless geometric models and the equantless model of Copernicus, none of the texts showing mathematical influence indicate any connection with Copernicus's advocacy of heliocentricism. Emphasizing that similarity in an article on heliocentism--even with all the disclaimers in the article--leaves the unsupportable suggestion that Copernicus's heliocentrism is in someway related to the work of the Maragha school. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 00:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be made clearer in the introduction that heliocentrism is superseded, much as geocentrism is? I mean, its obvious, that the sun is not "stationary and at the center of the universe." but I don't think this means that this should be mentioned only at the very end of the article. Janfrie1988 ( talk) 19:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The claim that the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity contains a description of a heliocentric cosmological system is flatly contradicted by the foremost academic authority on the subject (see
Talk:Heliocentrism/Archive 1#Brotherhood of purity). The article's current claim that "some verses have been interpreted as implying a heliocentric model" is cited solely to the opinion of a single writer of Theosophical tracts who appears to have no qualifications or reputation as a historian. I am therefore removing this material as a violation of Wikipedia's policies on
neutral point-of-view and
undue weight.
—
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
18:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following text from the article because the reference cited does not support it.
Nowhere in the cited reference does van der Waerden say or imply that al-Balkhi "developed a planetary model which can be interpreted as heliocentric." What he does is conjecture that the Greek astronomer Seleucus turned Aristarchus's rudimentary heliocentric theory into a fully-fledged predictive system by determining the necessary constants and developing methods of calculating planetary positions. He further argues that Aryabhata's presentation of one of his own theories (which van der Waerden explicitly says was not heliocentric) inherited traces of the originally heliocentric theory through his reliance on astronomical tables or an astronomical treatise which has now been lost, and that similar traces can be found in the system described by al-Biruni and al-Sijzi and attributed by them to al-Balkhi.-- Knight1993 ( talk) 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
We believe this because if we were where the sun is and the sun where we are then becausethe sun has more mass the sun would pull us into itself!
Sorry thats the only reason I know. Hope it helps... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.174.50 ( talk) 08:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, nowadays we accept neither heliocentrism, nor geocentrism, for the very question of the center in the infinite universe is meaningless. The only sense in which heliocentrism can be said to be accepted nowadays is that the Sun is the centre of the solar system. Period. But this is not the heliocentrism that Copernicus or Kepler had in mind. In fact, when the Cartesian natural philosophy overthrew that of Aristotle, geocentrism was replaced not by heliocentrism, strictly speaking, but by the conception of heliocentric solar system in an infinite universe. Perhaps this may be mentioned in the article. Jackbars ( talk) 01:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "the following century" gives the impression that Kepler's work was confined to the 17th. century. He was doing some admittedly not very scientific work in the 16th. century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.1.196 ( talk) 08:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The article incorrectly claims Nilakantha´s model had elliptical orbits. This is a misinterpretation (or something worse) of the source, which never claims such a thing. I have no access to it, but I read a review, which clearly states his model didn´t have elliptical orbits. Therefore, the information will be removed immediately.-- Knight1993 ( talk) 21:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
After reading this article several times, I realise it is unfair towards the greek accomplishments, putting them in the "philosophical" category, while the indian and muslim theories, which were farther form the truth because they were not heliocentric, fall into the "mathemarical" category. The theories of Aristarchus and Seleucus and indeed as mathematical as the others, and heliocentric as well. They deserve more notoriety than geocentric theories.-- Knight1993 ( talk) 19:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
How does this fit this category? 75.118.171.224 ( talk) 15:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Until I just now amended it, the article's lead had said
with citations to works by Bartel van der Waerden. This is a blatant misrepresentation of those sources, Nowhere in them does van der Waerden say that any propositions of Aryabhata's could be "interpreted as those of a heliocentric model". Van der Waerden's thesis was that Seleucus of Seleucia had developed Aristarchus's model into a fully-blown predictive system like Copernicus's, and that traces of this sytem—in the form of numerical parameters and some geometrical features—found their way into later Indian and Arabic astronomical systems, including Aryabhata's. But van der Waerden did not claim that these later systems could themselves be interpreted as heliocentric.
I have consequently removed this erroneous claim from the article.
David Wilson (
talk •
cont)
12:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC).
I very much doubt whether Duke thought the models he referred to in his paper were heliocentric. Otherwise he would hardly have written "the astronomy in the texts is, on the whole, considerably less developed than we find in the Almagest", or referred to those texts a little later as "this heap of more primitive astronomy" (I.e. more primitive than the astronomy of the Almagest).
David Wilson (
talk •
cont)
07:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to the Wiki editors on an outstanding summary of an interesting historical issue. That the Earth orbits is one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever, and this article does a great job of summarizing some of the tentative pre-Copernicus steps.
Perhaps Johannes Scotus Eriugena should be mentioned; his De divisione naturae is alleged to postulate that at least four of the planets rotate around the Sun (though I don't see that at Wikipedia). Jamesdowallen ( talk) 12:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's a reference: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2001JHA....32..281E It shows the quote from Eriugena's book, brief, arguably vague, citing Plato. Jamesdowallen ( talk) 16:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments under the popular article, at Croatian language:
89.172.65.204 ( talk) 03:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
As some of you may be aware, following the RFC/U last year, there is now finally a serious Cleanup underway and it is a Herculean task. I know this article has always been attended to by quite a few attentive and knowledgeable users, so I'd like to ask you whether there are still any issues left from Jagged's editing. Below are all of Jagged 85's edits. Please check them and whatever is problematic or might only appear problematic should be removed immediately:
Following is a summary of above. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.
Johnuniq ( talk) 04:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is needed. Besides both paragraphs being entirely unsourced and somewhat OR-ish, the distinction disrupts the flow of the article completely. It seems really odd to have two separate "Greek and Hellenistic world" sections, and a "Western Christendom" section in between them (even that refers to something that took place centuries later). I think it would be best to remove the distinction and just leave everything in chronological order. Athenean ( talk) 06:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I have re-removed the following text from the article, since it would appear to have nothing whatever to do with heliocentrism.
On the face of it, the reference to the the Sun swimming "along in it's own orbit" would appear to be clearly referring to a geocentric system, not a heliocentric one. I can see no justification whatever for including this text anywhere in the article, let alone in its lead.
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
07:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Yajnavalkya's Shathapatha Brahmana or the Aithereya Brahmana? There are quite a few references such as this and this which refer to these texts from 8th-9th century BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.208.39 ( talk) 08:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Several early sources talk about the the Earth moving - but do not say around the sun. The kind of movement is not always described - except for some that are just early sources for rotation of the Earth. The source would have to clearly have the Earth moving in orbit around the Sun for it to be given any prominence in this article. -- JimWae ( talk) 18:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Kepler himself seems to have used his first two laws as arguments in favour of heliocentrism. See his Astronomia nova. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.111.31 ( talk) 14:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It really doesn't seem accurate to call the results of these polls are referring to "beliefs". The article in question is "New Poll Gauges Americans' General Knowledge Levels" not "New Poll Gauges Americans' Beliefs". If the poll in question had been presented as "99.99% percent of the scientists hold that the Earth revolves around the sun. Do you agree or disagree with this?" then you could call it a belief, but the question is presented as a quiz. The people who answered the Sun revolves around the Earth were not stating a crazy belief but making a mistake. As such, I feel this section has no more bearing on this topic than a "Jaywalking" segment has to go with geography or history. Unless there are any objections, I will remove it. Kevin Corbett ( talk) 00:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I have restored the first sentence of the lead to the (correct) version that appeared in
this revision of the page from last December 4th. "Heliocentricism" is a perfectly correct term, recorded in both the OED and the SOED. While reverting some vandalism on December 13th,
this edit mistakenly replaced "heliocentricism" with "heliocentric", which had remained until it was
removed yesterday (quite correctly) as ungrammatical. Unfortunately, this last edit also restored the incorrect title of the National Academy of Sciences' book Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, which had been truncated by
an earlier act of vandalism or carelessness.
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
11:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I am wondering about the word "relatively" in the opening sentence. What does it mean? That the Sun is nearly stationary? That the Sun is stationary relative to the Earth? Or to the distant stars? Or to the frame of reference in use? The term is not explained anywhere, so I suggest that it be dropped. Roger ( talk) 17:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Under "Heliocentrism and Judaism", "13-5" seems to be a mistake. Possibly 1305, 1315, 1325 or the like might be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 ( talk) 11:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
"The possibility that Copernicus independently developed the Tusi couple remains open, since no researcher has yet proven that he knew about Tusi's work or the Maragha school" I think there is a contention built up against that notion. 1 2 3 Faro0485 ( talk) 11:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Copernicus' basic intent was to eliminate the epicycles that were an important element of Ptolemy's empirical mathematical model. Copernicus' empirical model would have worked if the planetary orbits had been circular as assumed. Copernicus ran up against a new bug-a-boo, however: Elliptic orbits, which required as many if not more epicycles to get the curve fits right. In that respect Copernicus' efforts were a failure. Heliocentrism was the germ of an idea, however, that ultimately panned out. Tycho's model was an also-ran. Ptolemy's model worked just fine and can still be used today to compute rough estimates of planetary positions. To send probes to the planets, however, you need Newtonian physics with a tinge of Einstein to be really accurate. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 16:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The section on the Copernican Revolution seems larger than the separate article on the Copernican Revolution. It should be made briefer, and any relevant information that is here that is not already in the separate article should be integrated into the separate article. DanielDemaret ( talk) 11:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The reference to Melanchthon is quoted from Bruce T. Moran, The Universe of Philip Melanchthon: Criticism and Use of the Copernican Theory, Comitatus 4, 1973: 1-23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.199.137 ( talk) 12:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I
recently reverted a replacement of
this link in a citation in the article with
this one. When I first checked the article pointed to by the second link I did not take sufficient care to ensure that I had properly understood the small part of the article's introduction that I quickly glanced over. I consequently obtained the mistaken notion that the linked article was a rebuttal of the one cited, rather than a reprint of it. My apologies for the error, particlarly to the editor from IP address
143.52.60.254, who was responsible for the perfectly correct updating of the link. Thanks to another editor,
Noren, who has now corrected my mistake.
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
08:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
There is scant mention of the navigational and timekeeping advantages of the heliocentric system. The article might benefit from a short section on this subject. 31.69.1.10 ( talk) 10:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
every article here on eng wiki starts with greece. i am afraid you got it wrong this time. the earliest notion that the sun is a center of this system is found in babylonian astronomy. oh wait, is babylon greek too? 89.205.2.27 ( talk) 15:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
86.177.160.31, I can produce proof that the Babylonians used a heliocentric system before that of Aristarchus. I think that statements of the following sources would add some useful missing information. Firstly, Babylonian heliocentric ideas predate Aristarchus (authored by the cosmologist who graduated Harvard) and secondly, geocentrism lasted until the 17th century. Although the title "We've Never Been Alone: A History of Extraterrestrial Intervention" is a little irrelevant the quote is from the passage "Who Invented Mathematics and the Sciences".
Ward, Paul Von (2011).
We've Never Been Alone: A History of Extraterrestrial Intervention. Hampton Roads Publishing. p. 174.
ISBN
161283177X, 9781612831770. A little later, Aristarchus, credited with first proposing the heliocentric theory of the universe, was only restating ideas long lost in Mesopotamia.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); External link in
(
help)
|last=
Arp, Robert;
Caplan Arthur (2013).
1001 Ideas That Changed the Way We Think. McGraw Hill Professional. p. 206.
ISBN
1476705720, 9781476705729. Thanks to Cladius Ptolemy in the second cneutry CE, geocentrism became the dominant worldview until well into the 17th century.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
167.160.36.45 (
talk •
contribs) 08:19, December 11, 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of the following text to the article:
because the expression "the entire orbit of the whole Earth" is a very poor translation of Adomnan's original Latin words "totum totius terrae orbem", which have nothing whatever to do with heliocentrism. A literal translation of "terrae orbis" would be "circle of land", but like the similar Latin expressions "orbis terrarum" and "gyrus terrae", it was a common expression used from classical times to refer either to the oikumene—i.e. the inhabited lands known to the ancients—or to the entire Earth. It cannot be reasonably interpreted as meaning the same thing as what "orbit of the Earth" would mean to a well-educated modern English speaker. In a translation of 1874, the words "totum totius terrae orbem" are rendered as "the whole compass of the world", and the meaning of this English version is undoubtedly very much closer to Adomnan's original. David Wilson ( talk · cont) 08:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This website indicates in its terms of use that "Our websites includes a combination of content that we create, that our partners create, and that our users create." Such websites of non-attributed user created content are not suitable WP:RS. -- Noren ( talk) 20:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Heliocentrism. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The article contains a lot of valuable information, but it loses its way completely in some parts, especially the "medieval" section. It is important to trace the intellectual developments which led to the Copernican revolution, but it is not necessary to go into every detail of medieval non-heliocentric theories in the article called "Heliocentrism". All the details on theories of a rotating Earth should be discussed under " Earth's rotation". Similarly, the details of the "Copernican Revolution" should be treated in WP:SS style, because there is not one but two sub-articles, at Copernican heliocentrism and Copernican Revolution.
I will probably try to improve the situation over the next few days, so I am leaving this here as a rationale for any removal of off topic content. -- dab (𒁳) 07:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Heliocentrism. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Heliocentrism. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Heliocentrism. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
This part of the introduction "It was not until the 16th century that a mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In the following century, Johannes Kepler introduced elliptical orbits, and Galileo Galilei presented supporting observations made using a telescope" requires improvement. Copernicus did not introduce a "heliocentric" theory. It was Johannes Kepler who did it in 1609 (Astronomia Nova). Just look at the recent talk to the article "Nicolaus Copernicus". Ed Dellian, Berlin, Germany 2003:D2:9724:2832:41CA:CAB5:87F9:858F ( talk) 14:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
See https://biologos.org/articles/john-calvin-on-nicolaus-copernicus-and-heliocentrism/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.193.36 ( talk) 14:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This nonsense was
recently readded to the article with citations to one secondary and one tertiary source. Both citations are bogus, however, since there is nothing whatever on the cited pages of the sources given (nor anywhere else in them, as far as I can see) to support anything in the preceding paragraphs. In any case, the second citation is to
Dick Teresi's Lost Discoveries, a far from
reliable source. I will therefore be reverting this addition.
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
21:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)