Talk:De revolutionibus orbium coelestium

message: The current entry has some very incorrect things in them -- especially the initial assertion that Copernicus offered a "drastically simplified" system. His only "simplification" was getting rid of the equant -- other than that, it contains all of the complexity of the Ptolemaic system. There are a number of other errors which sound like they came out of a science textbook rather than a history one. It is fairly clear that the books listed in the bibliography were not actually the sources for this article, for they say nothing of the sort! --Fastfission 04:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jean Calvin was not anti-Copernican. Rather, he said that he had no interest in the matter and that people could believe what they wanted as long as it did not disrupt the unity of the church. 151.196.17.71 04:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calvin was clearly anti-Copernican in his comments on Psalm 93.1.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.79.38 (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs correction 

message: The :pl:Muzeum Okręgowe w Toruniu (museum here in Toruń) claims that De revolutionibus is "the most expensive book in the world" (,,najdroższa książka świata"). i was just wondering if anyone had any reliable source for that... The claim is printed in an invitation to see the book at an exhibition tonight and is also online. OK, claim disproved. The claim puts de revolutionibus at 1 million euros - http://www.muzeum.torun.pl/index.php?news_id=1154 while Shakespeare's First Folio was recently sold for about 4 times that (5 million us dollars) - http://most-expensive.net/book-sold-world. Exaggerated claim looks wrong. OK, enough trivia. Boud (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related note, a copy of the book sold recently for $2.2M, if anyone thinks this is worth mentioning. faithless (speak) 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most expensive book? museum seems to be wrong... 

message: Dedication to Pope Paul III should be merged into this article. The Dedication article is very short and has no prospect of significant expansion. The dedication has no existence or history that is independent of the book. Only about one sentence in the Dedication article is actually about the dedication; the rest of the article is about De revolutionibus. Finell (Talk) 07:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at that article; there was nothing to merge, so it has been redirected. –Outriggr § 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Tycho is under the heading "Copernicans", although his system differed considerably.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tycho 

message: The last paragraph of the History subsection asserts that Copernicus was forced to use the epicycle model. Actually, Copernicus retained the epicycle model because his work was a revision of Ptolemy's model with the motion of the planets centered on the Sun rather than on the Earth. The epicycle model sufficed to approximate the elliptical orbital motion of the planets. The notion of elliptical orbits was unknown until Johannes Kepler figured it out a hundred or so years later.
The preface of the book is correct in its assertion that mathematics, not physics, is the basis for the theory. Both models - Ptolemaic and Copernican - are mathematical fits to observational data. It is because of this that their usefulness as predictive models was limited. The Copernican model is simpler because planetary motion seen from the Sun is simpler than that seen from the Earth.
The physics of planetary motion really did not exist until Sir Isaac Newton devised his Law of Gravitation and developed the Calculus to provide the basis for modern models. Modern Newtonian models are extremely accurate in their predictive ability compared to the epicycle models.
As a side-light, it is interesting to note that an epicycle model is used to compute the position of the Moon in the derivation of the modern Hindu calendar. (Nachum Dershowitz and Edward M. Reingold: Calendrical Calculations, Cambridge University Press, 1997) 
Virgil H. Soule (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome, Virgil! Please feel free to make whatever corrections you believe are needed in the article, provided that you cite reliable sources that support your changes. That is how Wikipedia works. By the way, Kepler came close to figuring out the physics. He wrote that that the sun was responsible for the the planets' orbital motion, which is the first inkling of the notion of force from astronomer. Newton borrowed more from Kepler than he acknowledged, which was not out-of-character for Newton. Finell (Talk) 06:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Model 

message: Gingerich is said to have been awarded the Order of Merit in 1981. His book was published in 2004 and is said to have been the reason for the award.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.108.96 (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a small change to resolve this conflict. In "The Book Nobody Read", Gingerich describes how it was preparing for the quinquecentennial (500th?) of Copernicus' birthday in the early 1970s that started him on his quest, so he'd had over a decade of research done by the time he received the order. I double checked, though, and this site confirms the 1981 date.Quietmarc (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: Arthur Berry, in about 1898, suggested that the last two words of the title,
"orbium coelestium" might have been added by Osiander.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.138 (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's title should remain as is, because this is the most widely recognized title. Any material added to the article about the title must cite reliable sources and represent mainstream scholarship, not fringe viewpoints.  Finell (Talk) 19:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berry 

message: Heyitspeter, your change for 'flow' turned Osiander into a mathemtician and/or astronomer, as he was neither I have undone your change. If you still wish to improve the sentence you will have to do it in a different way.Thony C. (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! Thank you for correcting my mistake. For future reference, my talkpage is the appropriate venue for this remark.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow 

message: Is there conclusive evidence that Martin Luther read or heard about the Commentariolus before he wrote the 95 theses? This would be noteworthy. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther connection

message: Pico's attack on astrology is all very well, but it has only the faintest connection with Copernicus's book or Osiander's unsigned preface.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of silly speculation has been put in the article recently by Wowaconia, who has obviously been reading the silly speculation of Wrightsman.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are going to have a lot of speculation as to why someone was not put in the book, we might as well speculate as to why millions were not put in the book.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Rheticus was not mentioned but then neither were millions of others. Many of the millions not mentioned by Copernicus were Protestants.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We are told that it was "possible" that Protestant Nurnberg could fall to the forces of the Holy Roman Emperor. It was and is possible that it could fall to the Mongols. Perhaps Copernicus was worried about this possible Mongol military victory and excluded millions of names to avoid offending Mongol invaders.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pico and speculation 

message: "Book I is a general vision of the heliocentric theory, and a summarized exposition of his cosmology".
I would say this statement is a bit vague. Book 1 very specifically lays down the trigonometric framework deployed in the various calculations throughout the entire work.
Neil Parker (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book 1 

message: I have removed the citation to p.23 of Owen Gingerich's The Book Nobody Read  which had been given in the article as support for the following statement:
because it very clearly does not support it.  What Gingerich says in the cited source is that a motto, later identified as having been wriitten  not by Copernicus but by Erasmus Reinhold, had been written across the title page of a first edition of De revolutionibus held by the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh.  The motto is "Axioma Astronomicum: Motis coelestis aequalis est & circulans vel ex aequalibus & circularibus compositur", but since it wasn't  written by Copernicus it tells us nothing about his beliefs or why he held them.
I have also removed the assertion that Copernicus subscribed to a belief in "unobserved crystalline spheres".   While some historians of science—Noel Swerdlow I believe was one—have argued that this was the case, this has been contested by others—very forcefully, in the case of Edward Rosen.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: {{anchor|citation removal}}Removal of citation to Gingerich's ''The Book Nobody Read'' 

message: It is not clear if Reimers' translation into German of 1587 was printed or not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.7.189 (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  1587 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. 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/20130424101945/http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/exhibns/month/apr2008.html to http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/exhibns/month/apr2008.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#indexdecree
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) 02:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. 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/20091119182243/http://www.scribd.com/doc/20142387/Galileo-in-Rome-W-R-Shea-M-Artigas to https://www.scribd.com/doc/20142387/Galileo-in-Rome-W-R-Shea-M-Artigas
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) 22:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dear Thony,
I updated this page stating that Copernicus' masterpiece was part of Polish Renaissance.
Your abrupt reversion remark "please don't start with this again!" indicates some frustration from the past, which might generate bias and lack of objectivity I urge you to restrain. I did not "start" anything on this topic nor page before and I can only guess what you are referring to, which is not exactly the proper way to come up with a careful judgement.
I infer you might argue Copernicus' mixed ethnicity. Indeed there is evidence for his linguistic and familial ethnicity being both partially Polish and partially German. Let's leave it at that and be content with shared heritage.
Nevertheless, this is not the same point as rejecting him as being part of Polish Renaissance. His father came from the Polish capital city, Copernicus was born and died on Polish territory under the sovereignty of Polish Crown. He was a loyal subject of the Polish king for whom he served and fought as his whole region and city for years. He was part of the Catholic Church administratively under Polish Crown's protection. He was educated at the Polish Jagiellonian University in Kraków (then Polish capital) by Polish professors.
Denying these facts would unequivocally show anti-Polish prejudice.
I updated the edit to clearly indicate that this is about Copernicus' opus magnum being part of Polish Renaissance and not about ethnicity.
Sincerely
Pawel777 (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Copernicus wrote De revolutionibus in Warmia, which was an autonomous self-governing prince bishopric ruled by the Bishop of Frombork and the chapter of the Cathedral. It owed feudal allegiance to the Polish Crown and stood under its protection but is was not part of Poland. Thony C. (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copernicus being part of Polish Reneissance 

message: I just noticed the article says “One of the copies now resides at the Archives of the University of Santo Tomas in the Miguel de Benavides Library.”
How is this relevant? Why mention this copy and not the others (or at least one other)?
CielProfond (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance?