400:
279:
258:
174:
632:
616:
289:
390:
164:
363:
143:
687:
660:
21:
112:
1235:
759:
697:
518:
487:
791:
528:
884:
One of the central problems with this article is its formulation of ancient and medieval discussions of dynamics in terms of mathematical equations. Such relationships were not used by any of the authors under discussion and to present their discussions in this form falsely leads the reader into the
1099:
I am reverting once again; after rereading the former version of this article (largely by
Logicus) I find that it cites no evidence for the existence of a mathematical force/resistance model in either Averroës, Aquinas, or Paul of Venice. Grant's quotation explicitly speaks of "scholastic thinkers"
1060:
Oh, and please note that your procedural advice is anyway inapplicable to this case since the reference in question is not properly cited, but rather a failed verification. For as I pointed out if you care to read what I said, Grant says there was only one exception, namely Oresme, rather than a few
915:
I spent some time looking over this article with an intent to edit it and it soon became clear that mere editing won't suffice; a complete rewrite is called for. The central problems of the old version concern lack of balance; as it stood it failed to give the reader the broad overview of the topic
1050:
deleting another editor's efforts without consultation or valid reason. (I shall demonstrate the invalidity of your objections to the previous article asap.) Finally I propose this whole article then be restored to where it properly belongs, namely to the 'Middle Ages' section in the article on the
1045:
Please identify the
Knowledge policy that specifies this is the appropriate procedure. Or is this just yet another McCluskey invented procedure ? If so, please kindly apply it yourself and hence restore the previous version of this article in the first instance, with whatever qualifications you may
999:
This seems to be an especially powerful illustration of the crucial unreliability of some of Grant's conclusions about medieval physics, in this case stemming not from illogical and confused conceptual analysis, but apparently from simply ignoring or overlooking some of the most crucial contents of
1460:
This article is worthless, the celestial spheres are not material but immaterial, spiritual. May I recommend some basic education before writing about it. For example study some
Steiner .. to get started, the lecture of April 8, 1912 (GA136). Regarding dynamics .. see his cycles on the spiritual
1127:, including the Aristotelian commentaries of Averroës, Aquinas, and Paul of Venice. The fact that Grant did not find the Force/Resistance model that Logicus insists is there suggests that Logicus is reading something into the sources (which he does not bother to cite) that is not there. --
992:
should know, this is crucially false. For at least medieval scientists such as
Averroes, Aquinas, Oresme, Paul of Venice, Kepler and Newton, amongst others, applied force-resistance models for average speed to celestial motions. References to and quotations from these medieval scientists'
838:
The extensive notes included with the sources and the tone of the article lead me to believe that this contains significant amounts of OR. I may try to clean up the tone myself, but the content needs help from an expert who might be able to determine which is attributable and which is
1408:
In On the
Heavens, Aristotle was content with the view of eternal circular motion as moving itself, in the manner of Plato's world-soul, which lent support to three principles of celestial motion: an internal soul, an external unmoved mover, and the celestial material
933:
The article failed to give what the reader of an encyclopedia expects: a presentation of the variety of views of
Celestial Dynamics during the period from antiquity to the renaissance when the celestial spheres were the dominant framework for understanding celestial
1078:
BTW, your contributions are most welcome, once corrected of their errors, and most especially since they also belie the ludicrous claim by some academic historians of science that there was no celestial physics before Kepler (-:
205:
1026:
The appropriate procedure in a case where you disagree with the findings of a properly cited reference is not to delete it, but to provide a qualification in the article from an appropriately cited reference.
1240:
1174:
You said "Grant's quotation explicitly speaks of "scholastic thinkers" and neither Kepler nor Newton would be considered medieval scholastics." But at least except of course by Grant, whose title is
1142:
You perhaps need to re-read the former version. To give you just one of its examples of the application of the force-resistance model in scholastic celestial dynamics, consider the case of
Averroes.--
1437:
These are all minor issues, however. All in all, the article is great! It is comprehensive without being excessively detailed and understandable without seeming oversimplified. I am happy to
1427:: The lead is quite short and could be expanded to be more representative of the article, perhaps with brief explanations of the Platonic and Aristotelian views and how they were later modified.
939:
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the article ignored an extensive body of recent secondary literature that investigates the causes of celestial motion, and selected its materials from
1635:
976:"According to Grant, with only a few exceptions such as Oresme, scholastic thinkers considered the force-resistance model to be inapplicable to the motion of celestial bodies."
1615:
1570:
1245:
768:
670:
982:"With the exception of Oresme, the force-resistance model for representing the velocity of terrestrial motions was judged inapplicable to the heavens by scholastic thinkers."
1600:
1530:
240:
230:
749:
1620:
1535:
549:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
1605:
1273:
1610:
943:, from secondary literature dealing with general questions of Aristotelian dynamics (e.g., Maier, Moody, Sorabji), and from older literature (e.g., Duhem, Koyré).
885:
assumption that the logical conclusions one can readily draw from the mathematical formulations could be drawn from the ancient and medieval verbal expressions.
1595:
1525:
456:
200:
1545:
1263:
468:
373:
345:
335:
1590:
586:
576:
1630:
1575:
1555:
1291:
739:
90:
928:
to the views of a few persons (especially John
Philoponus and John Buridan) and viewed all other actors through their role in resolving this "anomaly".
639:
501:
1565:
1100:
and neither Kepler nor Newton would be considered medieval scholastics. Before restoring
Logicus should cite sources from the historical evidence.
1051:
celestial spheres, but from where Leadwind arrogantly and invalidly removed it without consultation. Please see my comments on Leadwind's Talk page.
623:
497:
446:
196:
187:
148:
32:
1520:
1011:
I therefore propose to delete the misleading claim that only a few medieval scientists applied force-resistance analysis to celestial physics. --
888:
Furthermore, an article about ancient and medieval dynamics should be stated in terms of ancient and medieval concepts. The modern term "force",
1540:
311:
399:
1585:
551:
1640:
1625:
50:
1560:
1550:
1468:
422:
1580:
302:
263:
1515:
1312:
541:
492:
892:
in the article, was not clearly defined and generally accepted until sometime after Newton's articulation of the concept in his
1268:
710:
665:
38:
1433:: It would be great to have more images here, of the thinkers themselves if no representations of the ideas are available.
413:
368:
278:
257:
1008:
traced the medieval origins of the two key concepts of inertia and impetus in Newton's Aristotelian celestial dynamics.
920:
The article focused on what the principal editor sees as "a major anomaly for Aristotelian dynamics," which the article
123:
1046:
wish to add. I suggest you may then add your own subsequent contributions to it as appropriate, rather than arrogantly
195:
content on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
192:
951:. Other editors may wish to mine it for appropriate material, while retaining the article's encyclopedic balance.
179:
1341:
1132:
1032:
959:
901:
1472:
1287:
852:
816:
1488:
129:
20:
947:
There may still be some things of value in the prior version of the article, which is available in the
1419:
This is interpreted as an application of the concept of impetus to the motion of the celestial spheres
1496:
1464:
1446:
1326:
1306:
979:
But the Grant source given, p541 of his 1994, is a failed verification, for what Grant says there is
1337:
1128:
1028:
955:
897:
824:
1186:
1161:
1143:
1080:
1012:
1004:
that Grant himself acknowledges as the very founding work of the history of medieval science. For
985:
Thus Grant did not say there were a few exceptions, but rather only one exception, namely Oresme.
421:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
310:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1210:
869:
294:
1500:
1476:
1450:
1345:
1330:
1316:
1214:
1194:
1169:
1151:
1136:
1088:
1036:
1020:
963:
905:
873:
858:
1190:
1165:
1147:
1084:
1061:
exceptions as the article claims. Hence this is a case where the literature disagrees with an
1016:
940:
844:
823:
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
533:
42:
1124:
925:
803:
702:
1492:
1442:
1411:
How does the idea that the spheres move themselves support the notion of an unmoved mover?
1322:
1302:
840:
307:
288:
1103:
Grant examined most of the extant scholastic questions and commentaries on Aristotle's
921:
896:; attributing that concept to Aristotle and his followers is profoundly misleading. --
405:
631:
615:
163:
142:
1509:
1441:
this as a GA, with the above comments as a basis for future work. Excellent job! --
1206:
865:
1484:
389:
362:
692:
546:
523:
395:
284:
169:
1065:
cited reference, rather than a case of my disagreeing with the findings of a
864:
Don't be afraid to cut stuff that's fishy. There's too much bad stuff on WP.
1120:
715:
686:
659:
1294:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
1156:
For Averroes' application see its footnote 10 reference to Sorabji's 1988
811:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
545:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
418:
758:
1383:: Did Aristotle think the spheres were made of aether? Maybe change
517:
486:
785:
105:
815:] The anchor (#Ancient Greece to Medieval Europe) has been
757:
630:
614:
1491:. He wrote "cult pseudoscience", as Dan Dugan has put it.
199:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
1356:
All right, sorry it has taken me so long to get to this!
1367:
from the section on material, it doesn't seem necessary.
993:
force-resistance celestial dynamics are provided in the
969:
Celestial force-resistance analysis in medieval physics.
994:
948:
83:
1398:
depending on which of the two contemporary models...
417:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
306:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1365:
In considering the physics of the celestial spheres
597:
1389:For Aristotle, however, the spheres themselves...
1377:? I am not sure what is being personified here.
1373:: What does it mean that aether took its name
988:But of course as anybody who has read Duhem's
48:If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
1636:GA-Class Astronomy articles of Mid-importance
206:History of Science Collaboration of the Month
8:
714:, which collaborates on articles related to
1616:Low-importance Medieval philosophy articles
1571:GA-Class physics articles of Low-importance
1321:Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --
1601:Low-importance Ancient philosophy articles
1531:Mid-importance history of science articles
1487:Rudolf Steiner by and large did not write
1462:
1292:Talk:Dynamics of the celestial spheres/GA1
1223:
1119:; as well as questions on Peter Lombard's
654:
594:
481:
357:
252:
137:
62:
15:
1400:What are the two models referred to here?
924:. Through this narrow focus, it granted
191:, an attempt to improve and organize the
215:Knowledge:WikiProject History of Science
1621:Medieval philosophy task force articles
1536:WikiProject History of Science articles
1254:
1226:
656:
483:
359:
254:
218:Template:WikiProject History of Science
139:
1606:Ancient philosophy task force articles
555:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
1611:GA-Class Medieval philosophy articles
1375:from the personification in mythology
922:takes as the center of its discussion
7:
1596:GA-Class Ancient philosophy articles
1526:GA-Class history of science articles
1336:Look forward to working with you. --
708:This article is within the scope of
539:This article is within the scope of
411:This article is within the scope of
300:This article is within the scope of
111:
109:
1546:Mid-importance Middle Ages articles
1385:However, the spheres themselves....
128:It is of interest to the following
1591:Low-importance Philosophy articles
14:
1631:Mid-importance Astronomy articles
1576:GA-Class physics history articles
1556:All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
995:previous version of this article.
320:Knowledge:WikiProject Middle Ages
41:. If you can improve it further,
27:Dynamics of the celestial spheres
789:
695:
685:
658:
561:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
526:
516:
485:
398:
388:
361:
323:Template:WikiProject Middle Ages
287:
277:
256:
172:
162:
141:
110:
19:
1566:Low-importance physics articles
1363:: Consider removing the phrase
834:Synthesis of published material
744:This article has been rated as
724:Knowledge:WikiProject Astronomy
581:This article has been rated as
564:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
451:This article has been rated as
340:This article has been rated as
235:This article has been rated as
1521:Natural sciences good articles
1089:17:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
1037:17:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
1021:11:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
973:The article currently claims:
964:16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
727:Template:WikiProject Astronomy
203:. You can also help with the
188:History of Science WikiProject
33:Natural sciences good articles
29:has been listed as one of the
1:
1541:GA-Class Middle Ages articles
1501:07:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
1477:19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
1421:. Who interprets it this way?
1176:Planets, Stars and Orbs: The
916:expected in an encyclopedia.
766:This article is supported by
466:This article is supported by
431:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
425:and see a list of open tasks.
314:and see a list of open tasks.
1586:GA-Class Philosophy articles
1215:17:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
434:Template:WikiProject Physics
185:This article is part of the
1641:GA-Class Cosmology articles
1626:GA-Class Astronomy articles
1195:18:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
1170:18:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
1152:18:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
1137:21:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
906:22:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
880:Anachronisms in the article
221:history of science articles
1657:
1205:Very interesting article.
750:project's importance scale
587:project's importance scale
457:project's importance scale
346:project's importance scale
241:project's importance scale
1561:GA-Class physics articles
1551:GA-Class history articles
765:
743:
680:
638:
622:
593:
580:
511:
465:
450:
383:
339:
272:
234:
180:History of science portal
157:
136:
65:
61:
1581:Physics history articles
1451:11:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
1346:21:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
1331:21:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
1317:21:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
1158:Matter, Space and Motion
1516:Knowledge good articles
874:22:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
859:04:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
598:Associated task forces:
303:WikiProject Middle Ages
817:deleted by other users
762:
635:
619:
542:WikiProject Philosophy
118:This article is rated
761:
711:WikiProject Astronomy
634:
618:
39:good article criteria
769:Cosmology task force
326:Middle Ages articles
91:Good article nominee
640:Medieval philosophy
567:Philosophy articles
414:WikiProject Physics
763:
730:Astronomy articles
636:
624:Ancient philosophy
620:
552:general discussion
295:Middle Ages portal
212:History of Science
193:history of science
149:History of Science
124:content assessment
66:Article milestones
1479:
1467:comment added by
1282:
1281:
1123:and Sacrobosco's
949:article's history
831:
830:
806:in most browsers.
784:
783:
780:
779:
776:
775:
653:
652:
649:
648:
645:
644:
534:Philosophy portal
480:
479:
476:
475:
469:History Taskforce
356:
355:
352:
351:
251:
250:
247:
246:
104:
103:
100:
99:
57:
1648:
1404:Causes of motion
1394:Causes of motion
1236:Copyvio detector
1224:
1069:cited reference.
926:excessive weight
855:
848:
825:Reporting errors
793:
792:
786:
732:
731:
728:
725:
722:
705:
703:Astronomy portal
700:
699:
698:
689:
682:
681:
676:
673:
662:
655:
605:
595:
569:
568:
565:
562:
559:
536:
531:
530:
529:
520:
513:
512:
507:
504:
489:
482:
439:
438:
437:physics articles
435:
432:
429:
408:
403:
402:
392:
385:
384:
379:
376:
365:
358:
328:
327:
324:
321:
318:
297:
292:
291:
281:
274:
273:
268:
260:
253:
223:
222:
219:
216:
213:
182:
177:
176:
175:
166:
159:
158:
153:
145:
138:
121:
115:
114:
113:
106:
86:
63:
46:
23:
16:
1656:
1655:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1506:
1505:
1458:
1354:
1286:This review is
1278:
1250:
1222:
1203:
971:
941:primary sources
913:
882:
857:
853:
846:
836:
827:
809:
808:
807:
790:
729:
726:
723:
720:
719:
701:
696:
694:
674:
668:
603:
566:
563:
560:
557:
556:
532:
527:
525:
505:
495:
436:
433:
430:
427:
426:
404:
397:
377:
371:
325:
322:
319:
316:
315:
308:the Middle Ages
293:
286:
266:
220:
217:
214:
211:
210:
178:
173:
171:
151:
122:on Knowledge's
119:
82:
12:
11:
5:
1654:
1652:
1644:
1643:
1638:
1633:
1628:
1623:
1618:
1613:
1608:
1603:
1598:
1593:
1588:
1583:
1578:
1573:
1568:
1563:
1558:
1553:
1548:
1543:
1538:
1533:
1528:
1523:
1518:
1508:
1507:
1504:
1503:
1489:WP:SCHOLARSHIP
1461:hierarchies.
1457:
1454:
1435:
1434:
1428:
1422:
1412:
1401:
1391:
1378:
1368:
1353:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1338:SteveMcCluskey
1297:
1296:
1280:
1279:
1277:
1276:
1271:
1266:
1260:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1251:
1249:
1248:
1246:External links
1243:
1238:
1232:
1229:
1228:
1221:
1218:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1172:
1154:
1129:SteveMcCluskey
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1040:
1039:
1029:SteveMcCluskey
970:
967:
956:SteveMcCluskey
945:
944:
936:
935:
930:
929:
912:
909:
898:SteveMcCluskey
881:
878:
877:
876:
851:
835:
832:
829:
828:
822:
821:
820:
804:case-sensitive
798:
797:
796:
794:
782:
781:
778:
777:
774:
773:
764:
754:
753:
746:Mid-importance
742:
736:
735:
733:
707:
706:
690:
678:
677:
675:Mid‑importance
663:
651:
650:
647:
646:
643:
642:
637:
627:
626:
621:
611:
610:
608:
606:
600:
599:
591:
590:
583:Low-importance
579:
573:
572:
570:
538:
537:
521:
509:
508:
506:Low‑importance
490:
478:
477:
474:
473:
464:
461:
460:
453:Low-importance
449:
443:
442:
440:
423:the discussion
410:
409:
406:Physics portal
393:
381:
380:
378:Low‑importance
366:
354:
353:
350:
349:
342:Mid-importance
338:
332:
331:
329:
312:the discussion
299:
298:
282:
270:
269:
267:Mid‑importance
261:
249:
248:
245:
244:
237:Mid-importance
233:
227:
226:
224:
184:
183:
167:
155:
154:
152:Mid‑importance
146:
134:
133:
127:
116:
102:
101:
98:
97:
94:
87:
79:
78:
75:
72:
68:
67:
59:
58:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1653:
1642:
1639:
1637:
1634:
1632:
1629:
1627:
1624:
1622:
1619:
1617:
1614:
1612:
1609:
1607:
1604:
1602:
1599:
1597:
1594:
1592:
1589:
1587:
1584:
1582:
1579:
1577:
1574:
1572:
1569:
1567:
1564:
1562:
1559:
1557:
1554:
1552:
1549:
1547:
1544:
1542:
1539:
1537:
1534:
1532:
1529:
1527:
1524:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1514:
1513:
1511:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1483:Sorry buddy,
1482:
1481:
1480:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1455:
1453:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1432:
1429:
1426:
1423:
1420:
1416:
1413:
1410:
1405:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1379:
1376:
1372:
1369:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1311:
1308:
1304:
1301:
1295:
1293:
1289:
1284:
1283:
1275:
1272:
1270:
1267:
1265:
1262:
1261:
1259:
1258:
1253:
1247:
1244:
1242:
1239:
1237:
1234:
1233:
1231:
1230:
1225:
1219:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1201:Great article
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1180:Cosmos, 1200-
1179:
1173:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1101:
1097:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1068:
1064:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1049:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1009:
1007:
1003:
997:
996:
991:
986:
983:
980:
977:
974:
968:
966:
965:
961:
957:
952:
950:
942:
938:
937:
932:
931:
927:
923:
919:
918:
917:
911:Major rewrite
910:
908:
907:
903:
899:
895:
891:
886:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
862:
861:
860:
856:
850:
849:
842:
833:
826:
818:
814:
813:
812:
805:
801:
795:
788:
787:
771:
770:
760:
756:
755:
751:
747:
741:
738:
737:
734:
718:on Knowledge.
717:
713:
712:
704:
693:
691:
688:
684:
683:
679:
672:
667:
664:
661:
657:
641:
633:
629:
628:
625:
617:
613:
612:
609:
607:
602:
601:
596:
592:
588:
584:
578:
575:
574:
571:
554:
553:
548:
544:
543:
535:
524:
522:
519:
515:
514:
510:
503:
499:
494:
491:
488:
484:
471:
470:
463:
462:
458:
454:
448:
445:
444:
441:
424:
420:
416:
415:
407:
401:
396:
394:
391:
387:
386:
382:
375:
370:
367:
364:
360:
347:
343:
337:
334:
333:
330:
313:
309:
305:
304:
296:
290:
285:
283:
280:
276:
275:
271:
265:
262:
259:
255:
242:
238:
232:
229:
228:
225:
208:
207:
202:
198:
194:
190:
189:
181:
170:
168:
165:
161:
160:
156:
150:
147:
144:
140:
135:
131:
125:
117:
108:
107:
95:
93:
92:
88:
85:
81:
80:
76:
73:
70:
69:
64:
60:
55:
53:
52:
44:
40:
36:
35:
34:
28:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1469:91.178.54.84
1463:— Preceding
1459:
1438:
1436:
1430:
1424:
1418:
1414:
1407:
1403:
1397:
1393:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1374:
1370:
1364:
1360:
1355:
1320:
1309:
1299:
1298:
1285:
1274:Instructions
1204:
1181:
1177:
1175:
1157:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1066:
1062:
1047:
1010:
1005:
1001:
998:
989:
987:
984:
981:
978:
975:
972:
953:
946:
914:
893:
889:
887:
883:
847:Graymornings
845:
837:
810:
802:Anchors are
799:
767:
745:
709:
582:
550:
540:
467:
452:
412:
341:
301:
236:
204:
197:project page
186:
130:WikiProjects
89:
84:May 20, 2012
49:
47:
43:please do so
31:
30:
26:
1485:by our book
1288:transcluded
1185:Geddit ? --
1117:Meteorology
1113:Metaphysics
317:Middle Ages
264:Middle Ages
1510:Categories
1493:tgeorgescu
1443:Cerebellum
1415:Philoponus
1323:Cerebellum
1303:Cerebellum
1241:Authorship
1227:GA toolbox
1063:improperly
558:Philosophy
547:philosophy
493:Philosophy
201:discussion
37:under the
1300:Reviewer:
1264:Templates
1255:Reviewing
1220:GA Review
1121:Sentences
894:Principia
721:Astronomy
716:Astronomy
671:Cosmology
666:Astronomy
1465:unsigned
1409:(aether)
1352:Comments
1313:contribs
1269:Criteria
1207:Mugginsx
1178:Medieval
1105:De caelo
1096:Undent.
1067:properly
1000:Duhem's
934:motions.
866:Leadwind
841:WP:SYNTH
502:Medieval
120:GA-class
51:reassess
1187:Logicus
1162:Logicus
1160:p284 --
1144:Logicus
1109:Physics
1081:Logicus
1013:Logicus
1006:Systeme
1002:Systeme
990:Systeme
819:before.
748:on the
585:on the
498:Ancient
455:on the
428:Physics
419:Physics
374:History
369:Physics
344:on the
239:on the
74:Process
1431:Images
1381:Aether
1371:Aether
1125:Sphere
1115:, and
1048:wholly
854:(talk)
126:scale.
96:Listed
77:Result
1361:Prose
1290:from
1497:talk
1473:talk
1447:talk
1439:pass
1425:Lead
1342:talk
1327:talk
1307:talk
1211:talk
1191:talk
1182:1687
1166:talk
1148:talk
1133:talk
1085:talk
1033:talk
1017:talk
960:talk
902:talk
870:talk
800:Tip:
71:Date
1499:)
1387:to
740:Mid
577:Low
447:Low
336:Mid
231:Mid
1512::
1475:)
1456:Aw
1449:)
1417::
1406::
1396::
1344:)
1329:)
1315:)
1213:)
1193:)
1168:)
1150:)
1135:)
1111:,
1107:,
1087:)
1079:--
1035:)
1027:--
1019:)
962:)
954:--
904:)
872:)
843:.
669::
604:/
500:/
496::
372::
54:it
45:.
1495:(
1471:(
1445:(
1340:(
1325:(
1310:·
1305:(
1209:(
1189:(
1164:(
1146:(
1131:(
1083:(
1031:(
1015:(
958:(
900:(
890:F
868:(
772:.
752:.
589:.
472:.
459:.
348:.
243:.
209:.
132::
56:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
