This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
I have restored the first sentence of the lead to the (correct) version that appeared in this revision of the page from last December 4th. "Heliocentricism" is a perfectly correct term, recorded in both the OED and the SOED. While reverting some vandalism on December 13th, this edit mistakenly replaced "heliocentricism" with "heliocentric", which had remained until it was removed yesterday (quite correctly) as ungrammatical. Unfortunately, this last edit also restored the incorrect title of the National Academy of Sciences' book Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, which had been truncated by an earlier act of vandalism or carelessness. David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I am wondering about the word "relatively" in the opening sentence. What does it mean? That the Sun is nearly stationary? That the Sun is stationary relative to the Earth? Or to the distant stars? Or to the frame of reference in use? The term is not explained anywhere, so I suggest that it be dropped. Roger (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Under "Heliocentrism and Judaism", "13-5" seems to be a mistake. Possibly 1305, 1315, 1325 or the like might be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
"The possibility that Copernicus independently developed the Tusi couple remains open, since no researcher has yet proven that he knew about Tusi's work or the Maragha school" I think there is a contention built up against that notion. 123Faro0485 (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
First, the three texts you cite above merely assert a technical commonality between Copernicus's mathematical device and the Tusi couple, they do not provide any evidence that Copernicus had access to the texts of the Maragha school or that of al-Tusi. Interestingly, Neugebauer, HAMA, p. 1035, a text cited by Saliba in your first source, appears to attribute the Tusi couple and the Copernicus device to Proclus: "Copernicus quotes Proclus for his theorem in the original version, but he uses it (in the theory of Mercury) in the expanded form ... which is also found in Ṭūsī."
Second, the entire discussion of the Tusi couple and the possible knowledge of it by Copernicus is really irrelevant to a discussion of heliocentrism, which is the topic of this article. It may be significant that much of this marginal discussion was added  to this article by the problematic blocked editor, Jagged 85, noted for his misuse of sources. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Copernicus' basic intent was to eliminate the epicycles that were an important element of Ptolemy's empirical mathematical model. Copernicus' empirical model would have worked if the planetary orbits had been circular as assumed. Copernicus ran up against a new bug-a-boo, however: Elliptic orbits, which required as many if not more epicycles to get the curve fits right. In that respect Copernicus' efforts were a failure. Heliocentrism was the germ of an idea, however, that ultimately panned out. Tycho's model was an also-ran. Ptolemy's model worked just fine and can still be used today to compute rough estimates of planetary positions. To send probes to the planets, however, you need Newtonian physics with a tinge of Einstein to be really accurate. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The section on the Copernican Revolution should be made briefer for better overview
The section on the Copernican Revolution seems larger than the separate article on the Copernican Revolution. It should be made briefer, and any relevant information that is here that is not already in the separate article should be integrated into the separate article. DanielDemaret (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The reference to Melanchthon is quoted from Bruce T. Moran, The Universe of Philip Melanchthon: Criticism and Use of the Copernican Theory, Comitatus 4, 1973: 1-23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)