摘要
许可协议
我,本作品著作权人,特此采用以下许可协议发表本作品:
- 您可以自由地:
- 共享 – 复制、发行并传播本作品
- 修改 – 改编作品
- 惟须遵守下列条件:
- 署名 – 您必须对作品进行署名,提供授权条款的链接,并说明是否对原始内容进行了更改。您可以用任何合理的方式来署名,但不得以任何方式表明许可人认可您或您的使用。
- 相同方式共享 – 如果您再混合、转换或者基于本作品进行创作,您必须以与原先许可协议相同或相兼容的许可协议分发您贡献的作品。
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0CC BY-SA 3.0 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 truetrue
|
已授权您依据自由软件基金会发行的无固定段落及封面封底文字(Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, and Back-Cover Texts)的GNU自由文件许可协议1.2版或任意后续版本的条款,复制、传播和/或修改本文件。该协议的副本请见“GNU Free Documentation License”。http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.htmlGFDLGNU Free Documentation Licensetruetrue
|
|
本图像的分类需要调整。 马上检查!
- 在本分类中移除本图像并把它放在最合适的分类下
- 移除本模板
|
I’m not an expert (I came here to see what “ecliptic” meant), but based upon the article (e.g., “The ecliptic is the apparent path of the Sun on the celestial sphere” and “The ecliptic is the path the Sun appears to trace through the stars”), it appears to me that the error in this picture is that they’re showing a small depiction of the “earth revolves around the sun” viewpoint within the “sun revolves around the earth” viewpoint. The former should be removed and the sun should be shown to be on the “great circle,” the circle on which (per the “sun revolves around the earth” viewpoint) the Sun appears to move as it “orbits the Earth.” Trying to illustrate two conflicting ideas in a drawing presented as representing one of those two ideas is counter-productive to the use of a drawing to help clarify the point.
I would add that it’s not clear to say that “The ecliptic is the apparent path of the Sun on the celestial sphere.” That’s only the apparent path if your presumption is that the earth and stars are stationary and the sun is revolving around the earth. It’s been quite a while since that was the first thought that entered one’s mind as the explanation for the sun’s movement across the sky, so that isn’t a description that quickly conveys the desired idea to the modern reader. Given that I'm not an expert on the subject and might be missing something, however, I hesitate to just jump in and edit someone else's article. I'm just adding comments that may help others figure this out in less time.