Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 1

message: I removed the following about Aristarchus:
: His theory was mainly focused on the principle that, being the Sun so much greater than the Earth, thus much heavier, it would have been very unlikely that it could revolve around our Globe.
: But, in practice, Aristarchus' theory had little mechanical and geometric development, and it was mostly based on an intuition (some said it was a sort of pre-newtonian intuition, rather than a pre-copernican one, having in nuce guessed that it is the proportion among masses that rules the planets' movements); so it could not sustain a comparison with the dominant geocentric theory, at the time already better developed and provided with more scientific arguments.
None of these statements is based on fact, they are speculations -- we don't have Aristarchus' main work about heliocentrism, and we can only speculate that his conclusions about the mass of the sun may have led him to put it at the center, but such speculations are weak at best -- for all we know, Aristarchus' may have developed the entire Copernican theory. See Aristarchus for what we know and what we don't know. 
Oh, and whether Aristarchus ever was in Alexandria is disputed, so I removed that, too. --Eloquence
----
The text of de rev is great--the graphics don't come out on my screen.. could someone add something about the order of the planets and the concentric spheres of copernicus?
I can't read the graphic this morning ;-)
-Smkatz 15:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Information about Aristarchus removed) 

message: Having nothing to do with nationality... The "equant" link under Copernican Theory points to an 
unrelated corporate stub. Article and disambig needed here. Does anyone remember exactly what an 
equant is anyway? I think it's an off-center circular orbit but I'm not sure. Stay tuned. Mashford 18:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ptolemaic theory needed 

message: Hello, I recently made my first contribution to Wikipedia, by adding links to two digitized facsimiles of De revolutionibus here. I did this after noticing that links to translated text from the work and a scan of the title page were included in the list of the links.  I knew these digitized full versions existed, so I added them.  However, one of them was produced by my institution (hence my awareness) and I am now concerned whether this link would be appropriate or seen as promotional in nature.  I added similar links to the De revolutionibus and Brahe articles. Could someone inform me of the proper etiquette?  I have looked at the policy and etiquette pages, which only made me further conflicted and unsure about the matter. I feel these links would make helpful additions to these articles, but do not want to break any policies or accepted practices. Thanks much for the help.
:Hi, welcome.. I think that this is not a problem. Chiefly, this material is practically the definition of public domain by longevity; and the sources appear to present them for general use. I agree that these are useful additions, and not an etiquette issue. (ipso facto, it is not considered promotional to properly cite sources.) Because I'm partial to Copernicus, I might consider including the image in the page anyway. Mashford 06:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about appropriate external links 

message: I removed the lengthy, duplicate "Discussion" section from the article. If it is important it should be folded into the main text. I also tried to clarify exactly what Copernicus's theory did and did not do. I'm not an expert on Copernicus thought I've read some of the major historical debates about his work; so I apologize in advance. --Fastfission 14:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes 

message: nature.com links to this article, see http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051107/full/051107-3.html pretty fun isnt it? :) just wanted to let you know.. Foant 14:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't there used to be a Template for posting a self-congratulatory flag on the talk page of an article that was referenced in the media?  I could swear I'd seen it around, and now I can find neither the templat, nor the page on which I thought I'd seen. --Kgf0 18:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  scientifical journal 

message: Although the present article mentions that two indian astronomers predated copernicus by a 1000 years, enough detail is not provided. Moreover, the article credits copernicus with presenting his theory in a 'scientifically useful way'. On further examination, i have found that Aryabhata and Bhaskara not only were pioneers in proposing a heliocentric concept, but also several other astronomical and geometric ideas. Even the 11th century arab traveler to India, Al-Beruni, writes about this concept in his book, which means that it had survived scrutiny and was accepted as common knowledge in India for about 700 Years. This makes copernicus' re-discovery very trivial and annoys me no end that He is credited with figuring this out. I highly dispute the veracity of this article and further that little if any serious acknowledgement has been made that Copernicus may have directly borrowed from the knowledge of Aryabhata and Bhaskara I. I am presently trying to dig up more to help restore credit where it truly belongs.
*If you had read the article, you would have seen that it clear says that he developed the theory "in a form detailed enough to make it scientifically useful." It does not say "Copernicus was the first one to come up with Heliocentric theory." Even Copernicus never said he wasn't the first one with the idea, if you read the preface/dedication to his famous book, where he credits a number of Ancient philosophers for having first provided the idea as far as he knew. Our article itself contains an extensive section on earlier heliocentric theories. Copernicus's formulation, though, is not trivial: it was the theory which became the point of scientific departure for thinking about heliocentrism, and was the motivating force behind the later developments of the theory. --Fastfission 23:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copernicus not the first to come up with Heliocentric theory 

message: I think its irrelevant-especially as the city wasn't active it seems past 1403 within the alliance anyway.
--Molobo 01:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's why it's not here. That's what interlinks are for. If someone wants to know more about history of Kraków, one clicks it and goes there.--SylwiaS | talk 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But "Polish" or "Poland" need to be added as often as possible (and even impossible) to keep NPOV? --Matthead 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Hanza needed