Talk:Aristarchus of Samos

message: It is said here that Aristarchos learned from Erathostenes about the circumference of the earth. Erathosthenes lived later than Aristarchos. Aristarchos never tried to give absolute measures, only relativ distances and sizes of the discs of moom and sun.
 To make things clear you need images, geometrical drawings.  
Edybevk 14:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *Support. This will clear the page, since there are at least 4 meanings for Aristarchus. I believe that Aristarchus should be a disambiguation page. --FocalPoint 17:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: There should definitely be a dab page, with a header from the astronomer to the dab. (There should also be a link to Aristarchus of Samothrace to remind readers that these are two different people.) 
The question is whether they should be 
*Aristarchus and Aristarchus of Samos or 
*Aristarchus (disambiguation) and Aristarchus. 
This is whether Aristarchus of Samos is, or should be, the primary meaning of Aristarchus. He is clearly primary to the crater and the asteroid; and the present article on the grammarian is a stub. The grammarian deserves much more than a stub; but, until he gets it, I think having the astronomer at this page is best. Also, an overwhleming majority of the links to Aristarchus mean to the astronomer, and likely always will. Better to disambiguate a few than all.  Septentrionalis 21:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the change to a disambiguation page, however this will not save us work as point 2 seems to suggest. Per policy, the links to this dab must be fixed by re-pointing them to the correct page. We'll just have to bite that bullet! Awolf002 21:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Point 2 indicated "even if we do not do any changes". This does not suggest we should not. In fact Awolf002's remark is 100% right. I have started biting that bullet Awolf002. Taste is OK so far.--FocalPoint 07:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not conviced by any of FocalPoint's three arguments, and have said so in their places. Septentrionalis 21:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This edit by an anon appears to be relying on two extremely doubtful paragraphs from Heliocentrism. I shall revert unless a reliable source outside WP can be found. We should not propagate our errors. Septentrionalis 04:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One of the first?

message: The article now has: "His astronomical ideas ... were successfully revived and developed by Copernicus...."  This makes it sounds as if Copernicus was conscious of the fact that Aristarchus had already proposed such views and that his own views originated from Aristarchus.  In fact, Copernicus was inspired by what he had learnt about the Pythagorean view that all the heavenly bodies revolved around a central fire.  I don't think that Copernicus even knew of Aristarchus.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  Otherwise I think the article should be edited.  Isokrates 14:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong :o).--MWAK 17:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Copernicus wrote a section for his book (De Revolutionibus) which makes it clear he was aware of both Aristarchus' and the previous Pythagorean theories.  For some reason, he crossed this out, and did not include it in the actual printing of his book, however (my suspicion is that he wanted to take credit for the heliocentrism idea, and not reveal that it came from Aristarchus, but I have no additional evidence of this).  BTW, his version of heliocentrism matches Aristarchus' model, not the Pythagorean model. Qed (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: His Views "Revived" by Copernicus

message: The user with the IP 128.220.212.135 has added extensive text that strike me as POV-laden and with some OR mixed in, as well. Can someone more knowledgable than me clean this article from these things? Or should we wholesale revert to an older version? Awolf002 11:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV changes by 128.220.212.135 

message: In the main article, it is said that Aristarchus was opposed to the Inquisition. Nothing is said about the fact that
Protestants such as Luther attacked Copernicus, whose opinions were similar to those of Aristarchus. See the Galileo Talk page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquisition 

message: The word "suppressive" is used in the main article, but it is not clear who or what
is being suppressed. Geostatic ideas are and were found the world over, starting with
the Sumerians in 3500 B.C.
128.220.205.89, 128.220.212.149 and 128.220.212.135, all in the same place in America, are behind the talk about sinister
suppression.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppressive 

message: In the paragraph entitled "Heliocentrism", there is much irrelevant philosophical chatter about
Lakatos and others. Also, the passage sounds as though it has been translated from some other language.
Heliocentrism is actually meaningless, according to the theory of relativity.
Heliostaticism is also meaningless, by the same.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.94.122 (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy 

message: The web-site http://www.dioi.org occurs a large number of times in a short article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.242.167 (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site 

message: 128.220.212.174 has failed to mention the later notorious Luther saga.
Many Egyptians were geostaticists long before Greek legislation came in.
Your history is bad.
There is a lot of POV-pushing in the Aristarchus article, probably because the Galileo article is semi-protected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The phrase " awkwardly complex" occurs in the text. These words are meaningless
when applied to a geocentric model of the solar system or any other model of the same.
It is not possible to measure in numbers the degree of awkwardness of any system,
geocentric or heliocentric. The same applies to the degree of complexity of the same.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless 

message: Someone undid the edits by me to this article that had added new facts that Aristarchus had theorized: (1) day and night produced by the spinning Earth, (2) the annual seasons produced by the Earth's tilted spin axis, and (3) that Aristarchus had defined the "solar system" as a physical entity -- ie, separate from the stars (an infinite distance away) and the Sun stood at its center. This article contains nothing about day and night, the annual seasons, or the fact that the "solar system" did not exist as an idea separate from the "universe" until Aristachus.  It seems rather significant that Aristarchus discovered, or at least first theorized, the existence of the solar system. Thus, someone should add these new points of facts to this article.  It can be me, or it can be someone else. DFurlani (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding new points of fact 

message: This stated that Aristarch was an alternative spelling (presumably in English). Where? It's conventional in German; it can be used as an abbreviation, like Hom. or Aristot. or Pl., but where is it in modern English running text, neither quoting nor citing German? (Aristarch Belopolsky is a different man.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Aristarch?

message: There are five calls for clarification in the article, some not answered for months.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.42.37 (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, the article as written is full of inaccuracies.  I am not a professional historian, but I've read enough to fix quite a lot.  Unfortunately in many cases, the right way to fix it, is to simply delete sentences and abandon sources, because they are just wrong.  Perhaps I will try to do something in my sandbox and see what people think -- this article needs serious work. Qed (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 calls for clarity 

message: An article by Alberto Gomez Gomez has appeared in the "Further Reading". If Gomez wants to tell us about "vicious persecution",
"life-wiping natural catastrophes" and the like, he can do so elsewhere. See pages 8 and 39.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gomez says that his paper "omits touchy questions" and promptly includes them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gomez says "Instead, we are several thousand years behind schedule."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.158.35 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Alberto Gomez Gomez speaks of the "survival of the species".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.201.70 (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gomez must think that he is very important. He speaks in terms of millennia and the species, apparently of mankind.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.134.251 (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was submitted for publication on 5/5/2011. It is not clear if it was ever published.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.19.112.240 (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that AuthorHouse is what is often called a vanity publisher.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.200.153 (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alberto Gomez Gomez 

message: The comment in the article that Aristarchus was correct that there is no stellar parallax is wrong.   Parallax was first measured in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel.  Until then, telescopes were not strong enough to measure the very small displacement at such distances.  Aristotle had remarked that stellar parallax, if it existed, would prove the the geocentric theory was false.  When Galileo was brought before the Catholic Church and asked to either renounce or prove the Copernican theory, he was unable to prove it, first because his telescope was inadequate to measure parallax, and second, because he clung too closely to Copernicus's theory which was based on circular orbits of the sun, while he ignored Kepler's correct model of elliptical orbits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FAMiniter (talk • contribs) 20:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the present tense with the past. This improves the article and includes your objection.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.171.200 (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

text: 1. Galileo was NOT asked to "prove" Copernican theory. 2. Nevertheless, Galileo thought he HAD proven it using an argument about the tides (his argument was incorrect, but he didn't know that); this argument is included in the book that caused Galileo to be summoned before the inquisition in the first place.  3. In the trial transcript there is no mention of Galileo's theory of the tides by either side -- so it would be ridiculous for the court to have asked for proof and Galileo to not have mentioned the tides.  The church made their own decision about geocentrism and simply told Galileo to admit he held a geocentric position then renounce it, or face "vigorous interrogation" (which was a euphemism for torture).  Neither Galileo, nor the church had the mathematical ability or data to reproduce Kepler's model (which had already been published by Kepler by this point, BTW), and also lacked the ability to see the problem with Copernicus' model from the circles versus ellipse issue. Qed (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stellar Parallax 

message: This is probably a brilliant observation by Aristarchus or it wouldn't be here. I fail to see it. "Aristarchus pointed out that the Moon and Sun have nearly equal apparent angular sizes and therefore their diameters must be in proportion to their distances from Earth, so that that the diameter of the Sun was between 18 and 20 times larger than the diameter of the Moon."
How about "Betelguese is the same apparent angular size as Phoebus therefore their diameters must be in proportion to their distances from Earth." This might be true (and yes, well beyond the observational capabilities of the Ancients). But my point is, how does stating this help the problem? What if it were 1/2 or twice? Why does this statement help measure diameters? I guess it is obvious to everyone else. I must be missing the point here. Student7 (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Aristarchus' reasoning for why the Sun is between 18 and 20 times further away than the moon, is more involved and required some observational work and some basic trigonometry (which the ancient Greeks accomplished with something called "chord geometry").  Specifically he used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus%27_inequality Qed (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Brilliant observation by Aristarchus?

message: There are very few references in this article, only 9 for an article of this length with quite a bit of technical data.  The year lengths given in the precession section don't make sense, I suspect there should be a quarter added to each. Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  multiple issues 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Of Samos Aristarchus. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Of Samos Aristarchus" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: fine his information 64.226.59.178 (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: what the meaning of 64.226.59.178 64.226.59.178 (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristarchus bornn