This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for History of astronomy:
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of astronomy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
On what currency note was the satellite Aryabhata Printed?
See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/galileomyth.html . Sagan said that Galileo was in a dungeon.
How about a reference? Jyg (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Article seems to think geocentric models are evil, which is silly, and seems to blame Ptolemy for inventing them, which is false, and seems to misunderstand the history of astronomy, and then blames unnamed historians for these ahistorical statements. All to dismiss arguably the most important astronomer for thousands of years.
Regarding the geocentric model, unless you believe the ancient Greeks were launching spacecraft to explore other planets, it was 100% irrelevant if the "center of the universe" was the Earth or Sun. (...both of which are wrong, BTW, as the sun orbits the center of the galaxy. Though, in a way, every point is the center of the universe, so geocentrism was also right). They are simply different frames of reference for the same thing, and the math works out exactly the same. There was no way to test which one was "right" until millennia later. Thus, with exactly zero input on the subject by science, and exactly zero real-world importance, it came down to a guess based on philosophy.
To say Ptolemy corrupted all astronomy because he didn't make a non-scientific guess on an irrelevant subject the right way seems absurd. It seems like saying Newton was "the acme of corruption of physics" because he guessed wrong about how many angles could dance on the head of a pin.
Anyway, if you want to trash Ptolemy, talk about his plagiarism of data he claimed to record... hundreds of years before he was born. Or problems and solutions he copied... poorly. Skintigh (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand this revert. It is merely placing the context in which the study of astronomy first started, and it is referenced even if most of the things pointed are quite obvious (after all, Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue). Which is the "opinion"? Cambalachero (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)