Talk:Geocentric model

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Geocentric model. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015162256/http://library.thinkquest.org/29033/history/ptolemy.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/29033/history/ptolemy.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The reference from John William Draper says,"This approximate determination of the size of the earth tended to depose her from her dominating position, and gave rise to very serious theological results. In this the ancient investigations of Aristarchus of Samos, one of the Alexandrian school, 280 B.C., powerfully aided. In his treatise on the magnitudes and distances of the sun and moon, he explains the ingenious though imperfect method to which he had resorted for the solution of that problem. Many ages previously a speculation had been brought from India to Europe by Pythagoras. It presented the sun as the centre of the system. Around him the planets revolved in circular orbits, their order of position being Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, each of them being supposed to rotate on its axis as it revolved round the sun. According to Cicero, Nicetas suggested that, if it were admitted that the earth revolves on her axis, the difficulty presented by the inconceivable velocity of the heavens would be avoided." 
So the correct ordering of the planets is attributed to "speculations from India", brought to Greece by Pythagoras and adopted by Aristarchus. Is this a currently accepted view, or an eccentric interpretation of what little is available of the original writings of Aristarchus? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Offhand, I'd take Draper's historical account with a grain of salt. A lot of historical work on the relations among Indian, Greek, and Babylonian astronomy has been done since Draper wrote in the mid-19th century. Although it's less relevant to this point, his book is widely seen as tendentious and not even reflecting the state of historical research at the time that he wrote. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspected that might be the case. Is there a more reliable source that says Aristarchus gave the correct ordering of the known planets? Should the statement that he did be removed from the article? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristarchus, Pythagoras and "speculations from India" 

message: "Because of its influence, people sometimes wrongly think the Ptolemaic system is identical with the geocentric model."
What does this mean? Isn't the Ptolemaic model a geocentric model? Is it not a subset of possible geocentric models? If so, how can a single model be or not be equivalent to a set of models? It is not clear at all what this sentence is supposed to mean. 
Betaneptune (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing statement about Ptolemaic being geocentric