Difference between revisions of "Talk:Heliocentrism"
(heliocentrism is pretty obsolete) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I have reluctantly left in the word "generally" that someone else inserted. With the 20th century discoveries of relativity, orbit in the Milky Way, Big Bang, etc, heliocentrism is pretty obsolete. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | I have reluctantly left in the word "generally" that someone else inserted. With the 20th century discoveries of relativity, orbit in the Milky Way, Big Bang, etc, heliocentrism is pretty obsolete. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | You can't be serious about heliocentrism being obsolete. There's no other way to explain retrograde motion of the planets, unless you bring up epicycles, which have never once been observed by any spacecraft, satellite, or telescope. This page needs a great deal of work, and i would recommend you just scrap what you have and start over. I'd be willing to do it, but something tells me you dont agree with me that the sun is the center of the solar system... | ||
Revision as of 21:57, January 31, 2008
Sorry, my bad. I was confusing "center of the solar system" with "center of the universe". --Ed Poor 15:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I have reluctantly left in the word "generally" that someone else inserted. With the 20th century discoveries of relativity, orbit in the Milky Way, Big Bang, etc, heliocentrism is pretty obsolete. RSchlafly 15:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
You can't be serious about heliocentrism being obsolete. There's no other way to explain retrograde motion of the planets, unless you bring up epicycles, which have never once been observed by any spacecraft, satellite, or telescope. This page needs a great deal of work, and i would recommend you just scrap what you have and start over. I'd be willing to do it, but something tells me you dont agree with me that the sun is the center of the solar system...