Talk:Heliocentrism

Heliocentrism was a model of the Universe, not of the "Solar System"

In the first phrase, I reverted, for the second time, "Solar System" to "Universe". I detail here, open for the discussion, what I hinted in the two previous changes' comments.

What contemplated Heliocentrism is immediately evident to anyone who looks at the initial image on the page. It contains the Sun, the planets, the zodiac, and the stars' sphere ("sphera stellarum"). The model contains everything, all the known Universe.

The Solar System is a recent concept. The Sun and the planets (what we know today as the “Solar System”) were not a separated entity in the heliocentric models. In Heliocentrism, the Sun was the center of everything (as implied by the name), similarly to Geocentrism, which put the Earth at the center.

The introductory section is a short overview of Heliocentrism's history. Talking about "Universe" and not "Solar System" in the first phrase makes the section consistent. The summary starts with the Heliocentrism's origin as a model of the Universe in ancient astronomy, while the final sentence ("With the observations of William Herschel, Friedrich Bessel, and other astronomers, it was realized that the Sun, while near the barycenter of the Solar System, was not at any center of the Universe") marks the end of Heliocentrism as a model of the Universe. At the same time, the final sentence introduces the Solar System as a new entity with its own identity, separated from the rest of the Universe.

--Bg69 (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's right. It would be interesting if anyone found where Copernicus or another early advocate of heliocentrism, said that the Sun was orbiting around the Milky Way, or that other stars has planetary systems, or anything like that. I think they just said the Sun was the center, or near the center, of everything. Maybe it should say that heliocentrism sometimes means near the center of the universe. Roger (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Per Archimedes as quoted in the article, Aristarchus explicitly put the Sun at the center of the Universe. "His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the sun remain unmoved, that the earth revolves about the sun on the circumference of a circle, the sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same centre as the sun..." --Noren (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

​​​ I put a note to clarify between Universe and Solar system heliocentrism.207.96.32.81 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The note adds only confusion. The “Solar system heliocentrism” is an obviousness, a Lapalissade, and elaborating on the center of mass or anything else about the Solar System in the context of Heliocentrism is a misleading sophistication.

In other words, talking of a “heliocentric solar system” is tautological, as talking about a “geocentric solar system” is contradictory. Nobody, in fact, has ever proposed this last model.

In the history of astronomy, the Solar System was intrinsically conceived as “heliocentric.” Its name attests to that, and, again, there is no need to attribute to the Solar System the adjective “heliocentric” since its name implies it. Heliocentrism died at the very moment when the Solar System was understood to be a separate entity of the Universe. In the last proposition at the beginning of this article, the Solar System is introduced according to that historical fact:

“With the observations of William Herschel, Friedrich Bessel, and other astronomers, it was realized that the Sun, while near the barycenter of the Solar System, was not at any center of the Universe.”

For these reasons, the note should be deleted. Bg69 (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I deleted the note mentioned above.

Continuing on the same topic, I made some further adjustments, changed the caption of the first image, and moved it to a better context. The caption before presented the image as: "A hypothetical geocentric model of the Solar System (upper panel) in comparison to the heliocentric model (lower panel)."

As I tried to explain before, a "geocentric model of the Solar System" is an absurdity that no one has ever proposed.

Another point here is to show the nonsense better: If one puts the Earth at the center, and the Sun, like the Moon and the other planets, orbits around the Earth, then the Sun occupies no particular position. So, why should one call all those celestial bodies "Solar System"? Shouldn't "Earth's System" be more appropriate as their name? Bg69 (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Vedic heliocentrism again?

can anyone explain about the alleged Vedic heliocentrism which was readded in the subsection of ancient India

Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres

and the reference provided isn't reliable as the reference is based on the work Discovery that changed the world by a person named Rodney castleden who isn't even a historian nor a physicist nor his work isn't even an scientific journal.

It was already removed back in 2018 but was been added again??.If the Vedas did talk about heliocentrism then we need to change the entire astronomy article to add this information. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am about to remove these lines and it's citations from the article as they directly falls under WP:NOR category

The Aitareya Brahmana (dated to c. 800–500 BC) states that "The sun does never set nor rise. When people think the sun is setting (it is not so)."

The Tamil classical literary work Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai from Sangam period by Nattattaṉār uses "sun surrounded by planets, in the shining, bright sky" as an analogy for food served by a king in golden plates surrounded by sides.

See, the provided citations are links to English translations of respective scriptures.

Removing the below line also as it lacks any reliable sources as citation

However he also stated the sun has motion.

The reliability of sources provided for lines regarding Yajnavalkya is questionable. I am going to start a separate section here to discuss on the same.

അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

References

the source titled Antiquities of India: An Account of the History and Culture of Ancient Hindustan is a book regarding the culture of Hindustan not a reliable book on scientific matters like heliocentrism. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The idea of these alleged Vedic heliocentrism come from this article Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism which was created on november 2023 which already consist of questionable and unreliable sources. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated that page for deletion. You can follow the deletion discussion by clicking on the same from the said page. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of sources cited for Yajnavalkya

Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres".

References

Information available from Google Books on Rodney Casdeden: a geographer and geomorphologist by training and has been actively involved in research on landscape processes and prehistory for the last twenty years. He has written books such as Inventions that changed the World, discoveries that changed the World, People that changed the World etc. Should scientific matters such as Heliocentrism be used from author of such books as he isn't clearly a subject expert on the matter, also Vedic-heliocetrism relation is a disputed issue and not widely published in any reliable scientific materials(Indians sources regarding the matter is subject to further reliability check as plethora of works produced from India are heavy embellishments of the actual fact). The second source clearly states it is a paper done for the completion of MSc degree by an individual sans peer review. So it is explicit that citation is unreliable അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

According to reliable sources it is highly unlikely that Yajnavalkya talks about anything related to heliocentrism.

According to Greek ethnographer Megasthenes, (300 BC)has been interpreted as stating that

contemporary Brahmans believed in a spherical Earth as the center of the universe.

Every ancient Indian astronomers during classical period such as aryabhatta, brahmagupta,Varāhamihira and lalla all believed in geocentric model of the universe.There was a speculation of aryabhatta theory being heliocentric throught it was been rebutted and his model was also geocentric.

So most of the early sources talked about geocentric earth not anything related to heliocentrism. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism

There is now a deletion discussion here 1 going on about the article Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism that may be of interest to readers of this page. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

It takes DuncanHill 26 minutes to object to a "dishonest" charge of conflict of interest and show that he has the same with his interest in diabolist and occultist Crowley. See Duncan's edits on 24/9/2024. Nova444Scotia (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)— Nova444Scotia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Nova444Scotia: Please be clear as to what you are alleging. DuncanHill (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)