85
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 69:
Line 69: + + + +
no edit summary
: Also, a question: why so much prominence for Galileo, with no reference to Kepler? Wasn't Kepler way ahead of Galileo?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 11 November 2009 (EST)
: Also, a question: why so much prominence for Galileo, with no reference to Kepler? Wasn't Kepler way ahead of Galileo?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::Thank you for the feedback about dumbing things down. I'm glad you made the point, because I think there's a difference between dumbing things down and presenting the whole story in an accessible way. That's what I ''intended'' to do, but of course I'm not perfect!
::It's a fair question about Kepler. I left him out because, as I remember, he really didn't have much to say about ''gravitation,'' but rather about planetary motion. Of course we know that those are two sides of the same coin, so that might be a distinction without a difference. Kepler's third law described orbital periods as a function of radius, and so it was Kepler's third law that allowed Newton and others to reject the constant-gravitational-acceleration model of Galileo, but Kepler's third law itself has nothing to say about gravitation. That's why I left him out. That's just an explanation, though, not a defense. By all means, anyone should of course feel free to add content.--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:25, 11 November 2009 (EST)