Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Ordering the universe with naked-eye observations

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Alan B. Whiting

Popular Physics · Submitted 6 Apr 2023

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim However, if one's theory were good enough to allow conclusions from {\it not} seeing changes, one could find that Mars is probably lower than Jupiter and Saturn, and possibly that the overall order is Venus-Mars-Jupiter-Saturn-Mercury.

how it is stated · hedged possibility 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2305.06150 (version 1)
Pith ID2LC6IQUZ, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationAlan B. Whiting. "Ordering the universe with naked-eye observations." arXiv:2305.06150 (2023). https://pith.science/paper/2LC6IQUZ
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,935 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.25 · human participants 0.03 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.07 · compares with prior results 0.28 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

The geocentric universe, in its most developed form as set out by Ptolemy, was a remarkably successful and coherent theory. It did not, however, specify the order of the planets, that is, which was closer to Earth and which farther away. One would naively think that seeing one planet pass in front of another would settle the matter. In practice such mutual phenomena happen too rarely for them to have been useful. Even in principle, it turns out that most naked-eye observations of a central event would show nothing conclusive, with the exception of some occultations by Venus that would demonstrate it to be the lowest (nearest) planet. However, if one's theory were good enough to allow conclusions from {\it not} seeing changes, one could find that Mars is probably lower than Jupiter and Saturn, and possibly that the overall order is Venus-Mars-Jupiter-Saturn-Mercury.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 The geocentric universe, in its most developed form as set out by Ptolemy, was a remarkably successful and coherent theory. background 1.00 0.03 0.04 asserted 1.00
s1 It did not, however, specify the order of the planets, that is, which was closer to Earth and which farther away. gap 0.83 0.04 0.05 asserted 1.00
s2 One would naively think that seeing one planet pass in front of another would settle the matter. background 0.83 0.05 0.03 hedged possibility 0.44
s3 In practice such mutual phenomena happen too rarely for them to have been useful. background 0.63 0.08 0.03 asserted 1.00
s4 Even in principle, it turns out that most naked-eye observations of a central event would show nothing conclusive, with the exception of some occultations by Venus that would demonstrate it to be the lowest (nearest) planet. result 0.57 0.17 0.15 asserted 0.89
s5 However, if one's theory were good enough to allow conclusions from {\it not} seeing changes, one could find that Mars is probably lower than Jupiter and Saturn, and possibly that the overall order is Venus-Mars-Jupiter-Saturn-Mercury. result 0.78 0.23 0.62 hedged possibility 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.56 · evidence from argument 0.98.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

The geocentric universe, in its most developed form as set out by Ptolemy, was a remarkably successful and coherent theory. It did not, however, specify the order of the planets, that is, which was closer to Earth and which farther away. One would naively think that seeing one planet pass in front of another would settle the matter. In practice such mutual phenomena happen too rarely for them to have been useful. Even in principle, it turns out that most naked-eye observations of a central event would show nothing conclusive, with the exception of some occultations by Venus that would demonstrate it to be the lowest (nearest) planet. However, if one's theory were good enough to allow conclusions from {\it not} seeing changes, one could find that Mars is probably lower than Jupiter and Saturn, and possibly that the overall order is Venus-Mars-Jupiter-Saturn-Mercury.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.