Talk:Astronomia nova

message: 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)
thread_title: Kepler's "Third Law"

message: 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)
thread_title: Reception

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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 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)
replies: text: Nothing there applies to the better website that doesn't to the LaRouche website. The better website isn't written in the same kind of bizarre pseudointellectual style that characterizes LaRouche material, and it isn't designed as part of a LaRouche organization recruiting tool, as the current LaRouche focus on Kepler's philosophy apparently is. Despite a typically long LaRouchian diatribe, I can't see any accusations of actual plagiarism in the article you've previously cited as evidence. Just because you think LaRouche, And His, Annointed Ones, are the only barrier, in the way of, the Dark Ages, doesn't mean that anyone who provides a proper, concise, well-formatted explanation of a historical piece of geometry is plagiarising the troof. John Nevard (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should your personal preferences carry more weight than Wikipedia's rules? BTW for anyone who is actually interested, the documentation on the plagiarism charges re: "Kepler's discovery" is found here. --Polly Hedra (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That daft article is a particularly good example of a link to avoid. Anyone who isn't trying to use policy in an obstructionist way would realize that the proper, concise, and bizarre and LaRouchian websites the article originally pointed to don't have anything to do with the policies you claimed to draw upon. John Nevard (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: argh... (not) bizarre and LaRouchian. John Nevard (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment doesn't make any sense. Also,the rules are as they are for good reason. --Polly Hedra (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: John, the site you have been repeatedly adding is far superior in the sources it cites and its content to the fanciful materials on the site you have been struggling to delete.  Keep up the good work.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External link to "Kepler's discovery" website

message: 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:
*First by moving the discussion of gravity to a subordinate place in the article, after the discussions of Kepler's laws.
*Second, by cutting many of the block quotations.
:::--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:SteveMcCluskey might be worried by all this, but I am not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.174.203 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight and misuse of primary sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Astronomia nova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080908091737/http://kepler.nasa.gov//johannes/iya.html to http://kepler.nasa.gov/johannes/iya.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512144006/http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/education/bios/kepler.3.html to http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/education/bios/kepler.3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060920211226/http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/libraries/rare/modernity/kepler4.html to http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/libraries/rare/modernity/kepler4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060920211226/http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/libraries/rare/modernity/kepler4.html to http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/libraries/rare/modernity/kepler4.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ellipses and secants