This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
More background could be used behind Kepler's Third Law. How did Kepler discover this "third Law"? Ka4gb ( talk) 16:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Can somebody make a chapter about the reception of the book? What happened when the church read it? StarTrek8472 ( talk) 12:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Can I second this request? It's very difficult to find any source on this topic.
The Astronomia Nova is besides De Revolutionibus the starting point for our idea of the Cosmos, (which was then, the Solar System with the stars as a faraway sphere around it). So, we really need a good description for Wikipedia. Who is carrying it further and better? Edybevk 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
John Nevard, please have a look at WP:LINKSTOAVOID, policy on external links. It says to avoid "unverifiable research," which applies to the case of the anonymous website "Kepler's discovery," and also says to avoid links to "personal web pages," which may also apply to "Kepler's discovery." The LYM site which you removed [1] is not anonymous, and was in fact plagiarized in parody form by the "Kepler's discovery" website. -- Polly Hedra ( talk) 06:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"e=c/a" appears in the article, with all three letters undefined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.246.75 ( talk) 09:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC) "e" is probably the eccentricity. "a" is probably the semi-major axis of the ellipse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 ( talk) 09:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC) "c" is probably the linear eccentricity of the ellipse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.200.136 ( talk) 08:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
"Part III of Kepler's work contains his discussion of gravitation,"
Where does this come from? I have found no track of this statement in the given online sources. As far as I know, Isaac Newton developed the gravitational theory, using Kepler's and Galileo's work, but on his own. Kepler supposed some physical reason, but that was not gravitation. Bináris ( talk) 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
How can merely quoting the book itself be original research? The last thing you deleted contained only 1 introductory sentence where I tried not to express any thought on the matter. Why are you so determined to keep Kepler's very interesting quote on gravity from being in Wikipedia? I don't disagree with the interpretations you've cited above. But nor do they go against the comments I made above. Also, Kepler probably was like Copernicus and thought gravity also existed on the other planets, but not necessarily between planets or the sun as you say. Ywaz ( talk) 18:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Since your words above do not apply to what you're deleting, the best can do is try to read your mind as to why you're refusing to allow Kepler to have any comment on gravity. There was nothing in my edits that implied gravity was between planets or the sun, yet you seem to think they did. So I have added your quote to prevent people from having the same misunderstanding you seem to be having. This is my 4th attempt to try to discover why you're deleting my edits and stating reasons that do not apply to the text. If you do not give an explanation that makes sense, I can't correct my edits to satisfy your needs. Ywaz ( talk) 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I just dropped by the article again and was surprised by the addition of a large number of blockquotes from the Astronomia Nova concerning attraction, without any reflection of the accepted scholarly interpretation of these texts. Besides its problems with misuse of primary sources, the discussion of Kepler and gravity exceeds the discussion of Kepler's laws and Kepler's third law, which raises serious problems of undue weight.
I plan to edit the section to restore some balance to the article:
In the paragraph entitled "Kepler's Knowledge of Gravity", inverted commas are opened before "better" but never closed.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Astronomia nova. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Astronomia nova. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 10:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I've looked into the source for Reference 9 ( here), and it says that the secant of the largest angle between one of the foci and the center of the orbit is equal to the difference betweeen the major and minor axes of the ellipse. So I recreated it in GeoGebra:
The difference between the axes (the text at the top of the circle) is a little larger than the one said in the book (0.00429). But the highest angle I was able to get was 0.98°, not 5°18', and you can see the point is almost directly above the circle center.
So either i did something wrong in Geogebra or the book is not a credible source. I have also not been able to find this on any site as a "condition defining an ellipse".
If the source is incorrect, it should be removed from the page. If it is correct, it should probably be added to the
Ellipses article, as it isn't even there.
--
Scientia Potentia Est.(
talk) 15:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
More background could be used behind Kepler's Third Law. How did Kepler discover this "third Law"? Ka4gb ( talk) 16:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Can somebody make a chapter about the reception of the book? What happened when the church read it? StarTrek8472 ( talk) 12:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Can I second this request? It's very difficult to find any source on this topic.
The Astronomia Nova is besides De Revolutionibus the starting point for our idea of the Cosmos, (which was then, the Solar System with the stars as a faraway sphere around it). So, we really need a good description for Wikipedia. Who is carrying it further and better? Edybevk 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
John Nevard, please have a look at WP:LINKSTOAVOID, policy on external links. It says to avoid "unverifiable research," which applies to the case of the anonymous website "Kepler's discovery," and also says to avoid links to "personal web pages," which may also apply to "Kepler's discovery." The LYM site which you removed [1] is not anonymous, and was in fact plagiarized in parody form by the "Kepler's discovery" website. -- Polly Hedra ( talk) 06:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"e=c/a" appears in the article, with all three letters undefined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.246.75 ( talk) 09:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC) "e" is probably the eccentricity. "a" is probably the semi-major axis of the ellipse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 ( talk) 09:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC) "c" is probably the linear eccentricity of the ellipse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.200.136 ( talk) 08:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
"Part III of Kepler's work contains his discussion of gravitation,"
Where does this come from? I have found no track of this statement in the given online sources. As far as I know, Isaac Newton developed the gravitational theory, using Kepler's and Galileo's work, but on his own. Kepler supposed some physical reason, but that was not gravitation. Bináris ( talk) 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
How can merely quoting the book itself be original research? The last thing you deleted contained only 1 introductory sentence where I tried not to express any thought on the matter. Why are you so determined to keep Kepler's very interesting quote on gravity from being in Wikipedia? I don't disagree with the interpretations you've cited above. But nor do they go against the comments I made above. Also, Kepler probably was like Copernicus and thought gravity also existed on the other planets, but not necessarily between planets or the sun as you say. Ywaz ( talk) 18:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Since your words above do not apply to what you're deleting, the best can do is try to read your mind as to why you're refusing to allow Kepler to have any comment on gravity. There was nothing in my edits that implied gravity was between planets or the sun, yet you seem to think they did. So I have added your quote to prevent people from having the same misunderstanding you seem to be having. This is my 4th attempt to try to discover why you're deleting my edits and stating reasons that do not apply to the text. If you do not give an explanation that makes sense, I can't correct my edits to satisfy your needs. Ywaz ( talk) 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I just dropped by the article again and was surprised by the addition of a large number of blockquotes from the Astronomia Nova concerning attraction, without any reflection of the accepted scholarly interpretation of these texts. Besides its problems with misuse of primary sources, the discussion of Kepler and gravity exceeds the discussion of Kepler's laws and Kepler's third law, which raises serious problems of undue weight.
I plan to edit the section to restore some balance to the article:
In the paragraph entitled "Kepler's Knowledge of Gravity", inverted commas are opened before "better" but never closed.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Astronomia nova. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Astronomia nova. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 10:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I've looked into the source for Reference 9 ( here), and it says that the secant of the largest angle between one of the foci and the center of the orbit is equal to the difference betweeen the major and minor axes of the ellipse. So I recreated it in GeoGebra:
The difference between the axes (the text at the top of the circle) is a little larger than the one said in the book (0.00429). But the highest angle I was able to get was 0.98°, not 5°18', and you can see the point is almost directly above the circle center.
So either i did something wrong in Geogebra or the book is not a credible source. I have also not been able to find this on any site as a "condition defining an ellipse".
If the source is incorrect, it should be removed from the page. If it is correct, it should probably be added to the
Ellipses article, as it isn't even there.
--
Scientia Potentia Est.(
talk) 15:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)