Talk:History of gravitational theory

message: "If such were the case, stones would and trees would fall from the earth."
    —Al-Biruni (1030), Ta'rikh al-Hind (Indica)
I assume the quote is supposed to contain "stones would fly" or the like. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Biruni 

message: I have removed the references to Aryabhata's supposedly heliocentric system from the article because every reliable source I have seen on the subject says unequivocally that it was geocentric.  See Aryabhatta's "heliocentric" system on the Heliocentrism talk page and Abu Ma'shar al-Balkhi on the Geocentric model talk page for further details.  As indicated in the second of those discussions, the mathematician and historian Bartel Leendert van der Waerden, who is apparently the source from which all such claims of heliocentrism have been derived, explicitly says, in the paper there cited, that Aryabhata's system was not heliocentric, but merely that it might have been "based on" a heliocentric system previously developed by Seleucus and possibly some of his followers.  In that paper van der Waerden does not even make it clear whether he thought Aryabhata had derived his own system directly from a heliocentric one which he had access to, or whether he thought the traces of heliocentrism which it supposedly contained could have been inherited indirectly via transmission through other non-heliocentic descendents of Seleucus's.
Also, the source cited in the article, Alberuni's India. An account of the religion, philosophy, literature, geography, chronology, astronomy, customs, laws and astrology of India about A.D. 1030, says on page 266:
:"...  according to them [i.e. Hindu astronomers] the earth is in the centre of the universe, and everything heavy gravitates towards it."
and it is clear from the subsequent pages that both Brahmagupta and Aryabhata are among the "Hindu astronomers" which Al-Biruni was referring to in this passage.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aryabhata's "heliocentrism" 

message: A  has asked for a translation of the fragment of text "...inter centrum gravitatis terrae, & centrum magnitudis..." quoted from Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium.  The fragment comes from Chapter 3 of Book I.  A translation by Charles Glenn Wallis is indicated by the italicised text in the following passage taken from Volume 16 of Great Books of the Western World:
:"It can be gathered that there is no difference between the centres of magnitude and of gravity of the Earth from the fact that the convexity of the land spreading out from the oceans does not swell continuously, ..."
Since I can't see how this has any relevance to the history of gravitational theory, I am simply going to remove it from the article.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation from ''De revolutionibus orbium coelestium'' 

message: The supposed quotation of Bhaskaracharya added to the article by  recent edit is bogus.   Also, since Bhaskaracharya lived in the 12th century, he cannot have been responsible for anything that appeared in the Surya Siddhanta in 400-500 AD.
In Chapter 3, paragraph 6  of his Siddhanta Shiromani Bhaskaracharya did write:
:"The property of attraction is inherent in the Earth. By this property the Earth attracts any heavy unsupported thing towards it: The thing appears to be falling [but it is in a state of being drawn towards the Earth]."
But there's nothing here, or anywhere else in his writings about "the earth, planets, constellations, moon, and sun" being "held in orbit due to this force."   In fact, in the very same work, Bhaskaracharya states unequivocally that the Earth remains stationary in the heavens and is encompassed by the orbits of the Moon, Sun, planets and stars, so he cannot have even believed that the Earth itself had any orbit to be held in.
A previous discussion of this issue has already been held  on the talk page of the article Gravity.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus quotation of Bhaskaracharya 

message: It has been said by Gillispie that Galileo "admired" Kepler's ellipses. It will be interesting to see Gillispie's grounds for saying this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:F5B7:3823:63E2:4414 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See page 51 of Gillispie's book, of 1960.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:F5B7:3823:63E2:4414 (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. As far as I can tell, Gillispie was referring to Galileo's regard of Kepler's work in general. It seems that the communication between the two was mostly one-sided from Kepler. Galileo regarded Kepler's work as too open-minded, which is likely what was being referred to here. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: The article that you uploaded has been already debunked since it has nothing to do with gravity.see David Wilson talk page of bogus claim of bhasaracharya to learn more. Obiwana (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bhaskarcharya 

message: The property of attraction is inherent in the Earth. By this property the Earth attracts any heavy unsupported thing towards it: The thing appears to be falling [but it is in a state of being drawn towards the Earth]."
But there's nothing here, or anywhere else in his writings about "the earth, planets, constellations, moon, and sun" being "held in orbit due to this force." In fact, in the very same work, Bhaskaracharya states unequivocally that the Earth remains stationary in the heavens and is encompassed by the orbits of the Moon, Sun, planets and stars, so he cannot have even believed that the Earth itself had any orbit to be held in.
Credit to David Wilson see his talk page and if you still love doing so then we are going to remove you for the charge of vandalism Obiwana (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus claim of bhasaracharya 

message: There is a error on your link since Surya siddhanta was written in 505CE and bhaskaracharya was born in 11l2th century it has nothing to do with him. Obiwana (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bhaskarcharya and Surya siddhanta 

message: In the section of Indian subcontinent most of the quotation of acharya bhasaracharya had been labelled in an neutrality dispute as his statement has nothing to do with gravity. Obiwana (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly did, however you don't seem to have understood what anyone is actually saying here on this page. There is no neutrality dispute, just translation problems. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutality dispute 

message: I had merged various topics of antiquity to enlightenment into a single topic called as pre Newton ideas on Gravity it is because a lot of them are confused about who really discovered the theory of gravity and it will lead to the mass misinformation, like many of them believe that Aristotle had discovered theory of gravity not Newton,some people say that brahmagupta discovered theory of gravity because of this ongoing confusion it is better to spilt Newton's theory of gravity to rest of the others list. Obiwana (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They have been unmerged. I don't think that you quite understood what you were doing, and there seem to be some difficulties with translation here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging the quotation