User:Natalie.Lynne/sandbox

=Natalie Smallwood's Wikipedia's Astronomy article for ENGL1101.62=

Analysis of Article

 * 1) It is written in a way that not many people would understand if you didn't know anything about Astronomy.

Reading List
A numbered list of all your readings go here. Use the following format:
 * Author’s name. (Date). Short title.
 * abyss.uoregon.edu, History of Astronomy
 * J.B. Sidgwick. Amateur Astronomer's Handbook.
 * Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin. (1954). Introduction To Astronomy
 * Philippe de La Cotardière. (1987). Astronomy.

Original
Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences. The early civilizations in recorded history, such as the Babylonians, Greeks, Indians, Egyptians, Nubians, Iranians, Chinese, and Maya performed methodical observations of the night sky. However, the invention of the telescope was required before astronomy was able to develop into a modern science. Historically, astronomy has included disciplines as diverse as astrometry, celestial navigation, observational astronomy and the making of calendars, but professional astronomy is nowadays often considered to be synonymous with astrophysics.[2]

Revised
Astronomy, one of the oldest sciences in the world, was first documented in 1600 B.C. by the Babylonians. There are many more cultures that contributed to this science such as the Greek, the Egyptians, and various more. Astronomy couldn't become a modern science until they invented the telescope. Astronomy has historically has included the making of calendars, observing the stars, and various things along those subjects. Professional astronomy is often considered to be synonymous with Astrophysics.

Original Contribution
However, notwithstanding realizing that such prevailing fashions exist, which subjects today are authentic science and which are deadlocks? Space science's beginnings can be considered to backpedal similarly as mankind has gazed toward the sky in amazement. While today we know this model is wrong, this pattern endured almost 1400 years.

In any case, as perceptions enhanced, it became obvious that Aristotle's geocentric model was defective. Along these lines, they supported the geocentric model and utilized power to stifle whatever other thought. It wasn't until the sixteenth century this model was ever given a decent test. Around the season of Hipparchus, another space expert named Aristarchus had proposed a model in which the sun was at the middle with the planets circling around it (Monson). Once the new model was permitted, stargazing and science all in all started to thrive. Sir Isaac Newton utilized this model to bolster his concept of all-inclusive attraction which is one of the establishments of material science right up until today. A few stargazers then thought of the radical new thought that the winding molded nebulae were "island universes", or systems in their own particular right, isolated from our own by incomprehensible separations.

A Dutch conceived American stargazer named Adriaan vanMaanen looked for the proof to vindicate the old hypothesis (Saulson). By 1921, vanMaanen had discovered comparative pivots for a few other winding nebulae (Saulson). It appeared that the island universe hypothesis was dead. VanMaanen had been conclusively demonstrated wrong and became dim of the space science spotlight, once in a while to try and be specified in stargazing reading material today. This went against the models of the universe that were endless and perpetual.

So all through the historical backdrop of cosmology, it has every now and again happened that space experts have offered into the crazes of the time.