h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Nicholas Copernicus - A68827774
Author: Shagbark - U170775

A biography of an astronomical pioneer.

Hi Shagbark,
First off, his name is not spelt Nicholas, it's Nicolaus http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/copernicus.shtml
according to the BBC. Wiki also gives his name as Nicolaus, as does the Roman Catholic Church: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm
A quick google brings up:
Nicolaus Copernicus = 297,000 results; Nicholas Copernicus = 390,000 results but then asked me if I mean Nicolaus
If this were my entry I'd call him Nicolaus


<>

1836 should be 1536 I believe



<>
You need to clarify that it is Riccioli's opposition, ergo:

Some have speculated that *Riccioli* placed it squarely in the Ocean of Storms (Oceanus Procellarum) because of his *own* opposition to the heliocentric theory.


You don't mention that Copernicus was a map-maker.
In my entry on the History of the Transit of Venus A9913908 I mention:
<>
Feel free to use any of that information in your own article

Well done on your attempt to fill a gaping gap in the EG, Shagbark
Here's a BBC news link for you: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4405958.stm

GB

I think it might be worth mentioning that Copernicus's theory was not very accurate, because he assumed that the planets travelled in 'perfect' circles around the sun. This made the theory worse at predicting the positions of the planets in our sky than the accepted geocentric (Earth at the centre) theory. Copernicus's theory was therefore a conceptual rather than a practical theory.

It was only when Kepler came up with the theory of elliptical orbits that the heliocentric theory became better at explaining the observed positions of the planets than the ancient geocentric theory.

It also might be worth mentioning that the ancient Greek Aristarchos came up with the heliocentric theory in the 3rd Century BC, but that no copies of his work survived, so we don't know to what level of detail he pursued the idea. All we have is a paragraph describing Aristarchos's theory.

I try not to point out too many typos when an Entry has just entered Peer Review, but this one might not be spotted:

Bologne --> Bologna

Hi Shagbark,

If I may offer an opinion, looking at this it does seem to be a bit light on this man’s life. Only five or six paragraphs to encompass his life’s work. Basically, there isn’t very much here except the main thing for which he is remembered. But if, as you might expect from the title, this piece is to provide a overview of his life, I think that it’s going to take a bit more.

While I don’t expect the level of boring detail of a ‘Wonky’ entry, I think there should be more in this to get to grips with the person. Clearly he was a complex person, but except for the briefest of mentions, we learn here next to nothing about his abilities as a mathematician, physician, polyglot, classical scholar, artist, cleric, governor, military leader, diplomat or economist.

I realise that it would take a book to get to grips with a historical figure of this stature, which is why I sometimes wonder about the value of EG entries on historical figures, which can‘t really hope to encompass that amount of detail. But I think this does need more detail on the other aspects of his life to provide a more rounded synopsis of his life.

Deke

the line' physician, polyglot, classical scholar, artist, cleric, governor, military leader, diplomat or economist. ' sounds like something straight out of wikipedia.
anyway I have attempted to put in some other parts of his life.

Good article, I think that it is coming along nicely.
A couple of typos:
"...at his uncles..." should be "...at his uncle's..."
"...calculated the motion of the planets and by 1830..." should, I think, be 1530, and leads me to the suspicion that you have a full alpha-numeric keyboard

When you talk about previous heliocentric theories, and then state that it is Ptolemy's terra-centric theory that had been accepted for over a thousand years, it might be interesting to talk about why the heliocentric theory was refused. Specifically, placing the sun at the center of the galaxy challenges the literal interpretation of creation given in Genesis, as well as logically challenges the idea that God is the Master of the Universe, and we his most prized creation, if he placed his most prized creation not at the center, but as one of many planets revolving around the center.

Cheers mate
Mark

done

Very nice addition!

One sentence reads a bit wonky:
"This seeming proof seemed obvious to a world that could not begin to fathom how far away the stars really were..."
Seeming and seemed so close together is a bit hard to read.

I love the article so far.

Cheers mate
Mark

Hi Shagbark

<>
there's a word missing there, either
which had for more than a millennia been the accepted view.
or
which for more than a millennia had been the accepted view.
I will leave the choice up to you

Could you add a title tag to the BBC news link?


@ MarkInVa
<>
do you mean at the centre of the Solar System?

At that time, the moon, sun, planets, and stars were all thought to revolve around the Earth, making it the center of the galaxy.

I believe that before the invention of the telescope galaxies were unknown.

anything else?

would someone suggest an alternate text for:
<>
What I am trying to say is that the world accepted what Aristotle said because it seemed obvious.
Second it seemed obvious only because if the Sphere on which the stars were mounted was as close as they thought his logic would have been valid.

Why not use something close to the form of words you've written in your post 15?

<>

Actually, this is a misconception. Before the heliocentric idea was accepted, there was no concept of a solar system. There was simply Earth, the sun, the moon, the planets (wanderers) and the stars of our galaxy. Galaxy actually derives from the ancient Greek word for milk, and refers to the way the galaxy in which we live makes a denser, whitish band across the dark night sky (this was easier to see before modern light pollution became so prevalent). Anyway, terra-centric theories held that the sun, moon, and stars of the galaxy made daily orbits, while the planets wandered among the heavens. Incidentally, Geoffrey Chaucer is given credit for naming our galaxy in the 14th century, 300 years before the advent of the telescope.

Cheers mate
Mark

I stand corrected about the galaxy.
However Neither Ptolemy nor Aristotle believed the planets just wandered ( despite being called wanderers)
See the following link http://galileo.rice.edu/images/things/ptolematic_universe.gif
Adherents to the Earth as the centre system even invented epicycles to explain their motion.