DOCSLIB.ORG

Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences 1 Editors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences 1 Editors Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences 1 Editors M.J. Klein G.J. Toomer 0. Neugebauer A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy In Three Parts with 9 Plates and 619 Figures Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg GmbH 1975 Otto Neugebauer Brown University, Providence, Rhode lsland 02912, USA ISBN 978-3-642-61912-0 ISBN 978-3-642-61910-6 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-61910-6 Additional material to this book can be downloaded from http://extras.springer.com Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data. Neugebauer. Otto. 1g99-. A history of ancient mathematical astronomy. (Studies in the history of mathematics and physical sciences; v. 1). lncludes bibliographies and indexes. Contents: pt. 1. The Almagest and its direct predecessors. Babylonian astronomy. - pt. 2. Egypt. Early Greek astronomy. Astronomy during the Roman Imperial period aod late antiquity. - pl. 3. Appendices and indices. 1. Astronomy, Ancient - History. 2. Astronomy - Mathematics - History. 1. Title. Il. Series. QB16.N46. 520'.93. 75-8778. springeronline.com This work is subject to copyright. Ali rights are reserved, whether the who1e or part of the material is concerned, spocifically those of translation. reprinting, re~use of illustrations, broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machine or similar means, and storage in data banks. Under § 54 of the German Copyright Law where copies are made for other than private use, a fee is payab1e to the publisher, the amount of the fee to be determined by agreement with .the publisher. © by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1975. Originally published by Springer-Verlag New York Heidelberg Berlin in 1975 Softcover reprint of the hardcover lst edition 1975 SPIN: 11016977-41/3111 To the Owl and the rabbit The opposite of an Introduction is a Contradiction Owl (The House at Pooh Corner) Pendant quej'etudie l'astronomie,je ne pense ni d Balkis, ni d quoi que ce soit au monde. Les sciences sont bienfaisantes: elles empechent les hommes de penser. A. France, Balthasar (<Euvres IV, p.l4l) Preface This work could properly go under the title which Petrarch, in 1367, gave to one of his latest writings: "De sui ipsius et multorum ignorantia." By ignorantia I do not mean the obvious fact that only a small fraction of ancient astronomical theory can be restored from the scattered fragments that have survived. What I mean is the ignorantia auctoris in comparison with the scholarship of the 18th and 19th centuries and the ignorantia multorum to whom such a work might be addressed. In many years of study I have tried to become familiar with the ancient methods of mathematical astronomy, to realize their problems, and to understand their interconnections and development. Perhaps I may say that my approach is nearest to Delambre's in his Histoire de l'astronomie (ancienne: 1817, Moyen age: 1819, modeme: 1821) though I fully realize that I do not have by far the professional competence ofDelambre. Yet I have tried to come as close as possible to the astronomical problems themselves without hiding my ignorantia behind the smoke-screen of sociological, biographical and bibliographical irrelevancies. The general plan of the following is simple enough. I begin with the discussion of the Almagest since it is fully preserved and constitutes the keystone to the understanding of all ancient and mediaeval astronomy. Then we go back somewhat in time to the investigation of earlier periods, in particular to Babylonian astronomy, for which we have a fair amount of contemporary original sources. Next comes the most fragmentary and most complex section: the investigation of early Greek astronomy and its relation to Babylonian methods. Finally Book V brings us back to safer ground, i.e. to material for which original sources are again extant: Hellenistic astronomy as known from papyri, Ptolemy's minor works and the "Handy Tables". The appendices (Book VI) contain details concerning technical terminology and descriptions of chronological, astronomical, and mathematical tools. The present work covers only about the first half of a much more ambitious plan (laid out in the early 1950s). I had hoped to be able to carry the discussion down to the latest aspects of "ancient" astronomy. i.e. the astronomy of Coper­ nicus, Brahe, and Kepler. I did not feel it was necessary to eliminate all traces of this overly optimistic plan. As for all books on a complex scientific subject there exists only one ideal reader, namely the author. Topics are selected, viewpoints taken, and answers formulated as they appeal to his taste and prejudices. In the course of more than twenty years, students, friends and collaborators have been exposed to my way of looking at the history of astronomy, and in tum they have influenced my views while adopting and developing some of mine in their own work. This gives me some hope that also in the future sympathetic readers might exist who are willing to penetrate the jungle of technical details and become fascinated by the kaleido­ scopic picture which I have tried to unfold here of the history of the first and oldest natural science. VIII Preface It is with feelings of sincere gratitude that I acknowledge my indebtedness to the generous support of my work that I have enjoyed for many years from Brown University and from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. At the Insti­ tute I also had the help of Mrs. E. S. Gorman and of Miss Betty Horton whose patience and accuracy greatly facilitated the preparation of the manuscript. My thanks are due in no small measure to the Springer Verlag whose initiative made the publication of this work possible, just as it did that of my first book, fifty years ago, and repeatedly thereafter. Finally I want to acknowledge with gratitude the work of my good friends and associates Janet Sachs and Gerald Toomer for their persistent efforts to improve my English usage and to modify untenable positions in some topics. What remains uncorrected is entirely my responsibility. By deciding to put this manuscript into print, the moment has come when these pages themselves tum into a part of the past. I can only ask for the indulgence of my younger colleagues and friends, and of their pupils, when they see that I have overlooked or misinterpreted what a new generation now can see more clearly in this never-ending process. Kai oirwx; a:TtBPX.OJI.IXI ... Wt; wtlJ8 &p~rXJI.BVor;. 1 Providence, June 1975 O.N. 1 'Appa.~; flaJJPfJJ (Migne, PG 65,369 r(). Table of Contents Part One Introduction § I. Limitations. 1 § 2. The Major Historical Periods, An Outline 2 A. The Hellenistic Period 3 B. The Roman Period . 5 C. Indian Astronomy . 6 D. The Islamic Period . 7 E. Epilogue .... 14 § 3. General Bibliography 15 A. Source Material . 15 B. Modern Literature 16 C. Sectional Bibliographies . 17 Book I The Almagest and its Direct Predecessors A. Spherical Astronomy . 21 § I. Plane Trigonometry . 21 I. Chords . 21 2. The Table of Chords 22 3. Examples . 24 4. Summary ..... 25 § 2. Spherical Trigonometry 26 I. The Menelaos Theorem . 26 2. Supplementary Remarks 29 § 3. Equatorial and Ecliptic Coordinates 30 I. Solar Declinations . 30 2. Right Ascensions. 31 3. Transformation from Ecliptic to Equatorial Coordinates . 32 § 4. Geographical Latitude; Length of Daylight . 34 I. Oblique Ascensions. 34 2. Symmetries . 35 3. Ascensional Differences . 36 4. Ortive Amplitude . 37 5. Paranatellonta . 39 6. Length of Daylight; Seasonal Hours 40 7. Geographical Latitude; Shadow Table 43 § 5. Ecliptic and Horizon Coordinates . 45 l. Introductory Remarks . 45 2. Angles between Ecliptic and Horizon 46 3. Ecliptic and Meridian . 47 X Table of Contents 4. Ecliptic and Circles of Altitude . 48 S. The Tables (Aim. II, 13) . so B. Lunar Theory . 53 § 1. Solar Theory . 53 1. The Length of the Year . 54 2. Mean Motion . 55 3. Anomaly ...... 55 A. Eccenter and Epicycles . 56 B. Determination of Eccentricity and Apogee 57 C. The Table for the Solar Anomaly and its Use 58 § 2. Equation ofTime . 61 1. The Formulation in the Almagest (III, 9). 61 2. Examples . 62 3. Proof of Ptolemy's Rule . 65 4. The Equation of Time as Function of the Solar Longitude 66 § 3. Theory of the Moon. First Inequality; Latitude 68 1. Introduction. 68 2. Mean Motions . 69 3. Period of the Lunar Anomaly . 71 4. Radius and Apogee of the Epicycle . 73 A. Summary of the Method . 73 B. Numerical Data and Results .. 76 C. Check ofthe Mean Anomaly; Epoch Values 78 S. The Tables for the First Inequality . 80 6. Latitude . 80 A. Mean Motion of the Argument of Latitude 80 B. Epoch Value for the Argument of Latitude 81 C. The Lunar Latitude; Example. 83 § 4. Theory of the Moon. Second Inequality . 84 1. Empirical Data and Ptolemy's Model . 84 2. Determination of the Parameters . 86 A. Maximum Equation; Eccentricity 86 B. "Inclination" . 88 C. Critical Remarks . 91 3. Computation of the Second Inequality; Tables 93 4. Syzygies . 98 § S. Parallax . 100 1. Introduction. 100 2. The Distance of the Moon . 101 3. Apparent Diameter of the Moon and of the Sun 103 A. Ptolemy's Procedure . 104 B. Criticism . 106 4. Size and Distance of the Sun . 109 A. Hipparchus' Procedure .. 109 B. Historical Consequences . lll S. The Table for Solar and Lunar Parallax (Aim. V, 18) 112 6. The Components of the Parallax . 115 § 6. Theory of Eclipses . 118 1. Determination of the Mean Syzygies 118 2. Determination of the True Syzygies . 122 3. Eclipse Limits . 125 4. Intervals between Eclipses . 129 S. Tables (VI, 8) . 134 6. Area-Eclipse-Magnitudes 140 7. Angles oflnclination . 141 Table of Contents XI C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Basic Principles of Celestial Navigation James A
    Basic principles of celestial navigation James A. Van Allena) Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242 ͑Received 16 January 2004; accepted 10 June 2004͒ Celestial navigation is a technique for determining one’s geographic position by the observation of identified stars, identified planets, the Sun, and the Moon. This subject has a multitude of refinements which, although valuable to a professional navigator, tend to obscure the basic principles. I describe these principles, give an analytical solution of the classical two-star-sight problem without any dependence on prior knowledge of position, and include several examples. Some approximations and simplifications are made in the interest of clarity. © 2004 American Association of Physics Teachers. ͓DOI: 10.1119/1.1778391͔ I. INTRODUCTION longitude ⌳ is between 0° and 360°, although often it is convenient to take the longitude westward of the prime me- Celestial navigation is a technique for determining one’s ridian to be between 0° and Ϫ180°. The longitude of P also geographic position by the observation of identified stars, can be specified by the plane angle in the equatorial plane identified planets, the Sun, and the Moon. Its basic principles whose vertex is at O with one radial line through the point at are a combination of rudimentary astronomical knowledge 1–3 which the meridian through P intersects the equatorial plane and spherical trigonometry. and the other radial line through the point G at which the Anyone who has been on a ship that is remote from any prime meridian intersects the equatorial plane ͑see Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Discourse in Philosophical Authors: Examples from Theon of Smyrna and Cleomedes on Mathematical Astronomy
    Mathematical discourse in philosophical authors: Examples from Theon of Smyrna and Cleomedes on mathematical astronomy Nathan Sidoli Introduction Ancient philosophers and other intellectuals often mention the work of mathematicians, al- though the latter rarely return the favor.1 The most obvious reason for this stems from the im- personal nature of mathematical discourse, which tends to eschew any discussion of personal, or lived, experience. There seems to be more at stake than this, however, because when math- ematicians do mention names they almost always belong to the small group of people who are known to us as mathematicians, or who are known to us through their mathematical works.2 In order to be accepted as a member of the group of mathematicians, one must not only have mastered various technical concepts and methods, but must also have learned how to express oneself in a stylized form of Greek prose that has often struck the uninitiated as peculiar.3 Be- cause of the specialized nature of this type of intellectual activity, in order to gain real mastery it was probably necessary to have studied it from youth, or to have had the time to apply oneself uninterruptedly.4 Hence, the private nature of ancient education meant that there were many educated individuals who had not mastered, or perhaps even been much exposed to, aspects of ancient mathematical thought and practice that we would regard as rather elementary (Cribiore 2001; Sidoli 2015). Starting from at least the late Hellenistic period, and especially during the Imperial and Late- Ancient periods, some authors sought to address this situation in a variety of different ways— such as discussing technical topics in more elementary modes, rewriting mathematical argu- ments so as to be intelligible to a broader audience, or incorporating mathematical material di- rectly into philosophical curricula.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Jones Calendrica I: New Callippic Dates
    ALEXANDER JONES CALENDRICA I: NEW CALLIPPIC DATES aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 129 (2000) 141–158 © Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 141 CALENDRICA I: NEW CALLIPPIC DATES 1. Introduction. Callippic dates are familiar to students of Greek chronology, even though up to the present they have been known to occur only in a single source, Ptolemy’s Almagest (c. A.D. 150).1 Ptolemy’s Callippic dates appear in the context of discussions of astronomical observations ranging from the early third century B.C. to the third quarter of the second century B.C. In the present article I will present new attestations of Callippic dates which extend the period of the known use of this system by almost two centuries, into the middle of the first century A.D. I also take the opportunity to attempt a fresh examination of what we can deduce about the Callippic calendar and its history, a topic that has lately been the subject of quite divergent treatments. The distinguishing mark of a Callippic date is the specification of the year by a numbered “period according to Callippus” and a year number within that period. Each Callippic period comprised 76 years, and year 1 of Callippic Period 1 began about midsummer of 330 B.C. It is an obvious, and very reasonable, supposition that this convention for counting years was instituted by Callippus, the fourth- century astronomer whose revisions of Eudoxus’ planetary theory are mentioned by Aristotle in Metaphysics Λ 1073b32–38, and who also is prominent among the authorities cited in astronomical weather calendars (parapegmata).2 The point of the cycles is that 76 years contain exactly four so-called Metonic cycles of 19 years.
    [Show full text]
  • BABYLONIAN ASTRONOMY* by W.M. O'neil Though the Modern Western
    o BABYLONIAN ASTRONOMY* By W.M. O'Neil Though the modern western world had heard of the Chaldaeans in the Old Testament as soothsayers and astrologers and students of Hellenistic astronomy knew of references to Babylonian observations of eclipses and the like, it is only during the last three quarters of a century but especially during the last half century that modern scholars, following the decipherment of the cuneiform writing on clay tablets, have begun to reveal the richness of Babylonian astronomy. They have, however, a long way yet to go. First, only a fraction of the materials scattered throughout the western world have been studied and interpreted. Fragments of the one tablet are sometimes in different museums; this adds to the difficulty. Second, the materials are usually fragmentary: a few pages torn from a book as it were or even only a few parts of pages (See Plate 1). Otto Neugebauer, perhaps the greatest scholar recently working on Babylonian astronomy, says that it is impossible yet to write an adequate history of Babylonian astronomy and suggests that it may never be possible. How many of the needed basic texts have crumbled into dust after acquisition by small museums unable to give them the needed care? , how many are lying unstudied in the multitudinous collections in the Middle East, in Europe and in North America? or are still lying in the ground?, are questions to which the answers are unknown. Nevertheless, through the work of Neugebauer, his predecessors and younger scholars taking over from him, some outlines of the history and the methods of Babylonian astronomy are becoming clearer.
    [Show full text]
  • Astronomy and Its Instruments Before and After Galileo
    INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMICAL UNION INAF ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORY OF PADOVA, ITALY ASTRONOMY AND ITS INSTRUMENTS BEFORE AND AFTER GALILEO Proceedings of the Joint Symposium held in Venice, San Servolo Island, Italy 28 September - 2 October 2009 Edited by LUISA PIGATTO and VALERIA ZANINI CONTENTS Preface xm OPENING CEREMONY WELCOME ADDRESSES KAREL A. VAN DER HUCHT, Opening address on behalf of the International Astronomical Union 3 ENRICO CAPPELLARO, INAF Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy, welcome address 5 SESSION 1 GALILEO AND HIS TIME THE VENETIAN CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT Chair: Il-Seong Nha GINO BENZONI, Culture and Science in Venice and Padova between the end of 16th and the beginning of 17th century (in Italian) 9 MICHELA DAL BORGO, The Arsenal of Venice at Galileo's time 29 LUISA PIGATTO, Galileo and Father Paolo. The improvement of the telescope 37 MAURO D'ONOFRIO AND CARLO BURIGANA, Questions of modern cosmology: a book to celebrate Galileo 51 SESSION 2 ASTRONOMY AND WORLD HERITAGE INITIATIVE Chair: Gudrun Wolfichmidt CLIVE RUGGLES, Implementing the Astronomy and World Heritage Initiative 65 KAREL A. VAN DER HUCHT, Memorandum of Understanding between the International Astronomical Union and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on Astronomy and World Heritage 69 VIII CONTENTS ILEANA CHINNICI, Archives and Astronomical Heritage 77 LUISA PIGATTO, Astronomical Instruments and World Heritage 81 GUDRUN WOLFSCHMIDT, Acknowledging the cultural and scientific values of properties connected with astronomy - observatories from the Renaissance to the 20th century 85 SESSION 3 ASTRONOMICAL STRUCTURES THROUGH THE AGES FROM STONE MONUMENTS TO MODERN OBSERVATORIES Chair: Clive Ruggles GEORG ZOTTI, Astronomical orientation of neolithic circular ditch systems (Kreisgrabenanlagen) 91 YONG BOK LEE, The alignment of dolmens and cup-marks on capstone as star map at Haman area in Korea 101 IL-SEONG NHA AND SARAH L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Geodetic Sciences in Byzantium
    The geodetic sciences in Byzantium Dimitrios A. Rossikopoulos Department of Geodesy and Surveying, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki [email protected] Abstract: Many historians of science consider that geodeasia, a term used by Aristotle meaning "surveying", was not particularly flourishing in Byzantium. However, like “lo- gistiki” (practical arithmetic), it has never ceased to be taught, not only at public universi- ties and ecclesiastical schools, as well as by private tutors. Besides that these two fields had to do with problems of daily life, Byzantines considered them necessary prerequisite for someone who wished to study philosophy. So, they did not only confine themselves to copying and saving the ancient texts, but they also wrote new ones, where they were ana- lyzing their empirical discoveries and their technological achievements. This is the subject of this paper, a retrospect of the numerous manuscripts of the Byzantine period that refer to the development of geodesy both in teaching and practices of surveying, as well as to mat- ters relating to the views about the shape of the earth, the cartography, the positioning in travels and generally the sciences of mapping. Keywords: Geodesy, geodesy in Byzantium, history of geodesy, history of surveying, history of mathematics. Περίληψη: Πολλοί ιστορικοί των επιστημών θεωρούν ότι η γεωδαισία, όρος που χρησι- μοποίησε ο Αριστοτέλης για να ορίσει την πρακτική γεωμετρία, την τοπογραφία, δεν είχε ιδιαίτερη άνθιση στο Βυζάντιο. Ωστόσο, όπως και η “λογιστική”, δεν έπαψε ποτέ να διδά- σκεται όχι μόνο στα κοσμικά πανεπιστήμια, αλλά και στις εκκλησιαστικές σχολές, καθώς επίσης και από ιδιώτες δασκάλους. Πέρα από το ότι οι δύο αυτοί κλάδοι είχαν να κάνουν με προβλήματα της καθημερινής ζωής των ανθρώπων, οι βυζαντινοί θεωρούσαν την διδα- σκαλία τους απαραίτητη προϋπόθεση ώστε να μπορεί κανείς να παρακολουθήσει μαθήμα- τα φιλοσοφίας.
    [Show full text]
  • Babylonian Astral Science in the Hellenistic World: Reception and Transmission
    CAS® e SERIES Nummer 4 / 2010 Francesca Rochberg (Berkeley) Babylonian Astral Science in the Hellenistic World: Reception and Transmission Herausgegeben von Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Center for Advanced Studies®, Seestr. 13, 80802 München www.cas.lmu.de/publikationen/eseries Nummer 4 / 2010 Babylonian Astral Science in the Hellenistic World: Reception and Transmission Francesca Rochberg (Berkeley) In his astrological work the Tetrabiblos, the astronomer such as in Strabo’s Geography, as well as in an astrono- Ptolemy describes the effects of geography on ethnic mical text from Oxyrhynchus in the second century of character, claiming, for example, that due to their specific our era roughly contemporary with Ptolemy [P.Oxy. geographical location „The ...Chaldeans and Orchinians 4139:8; see Jones 1999, I 97-99 and II 22-23]. This have familiarity with Leo and the sun, so that they are astronomical papyrus fragment refers to the Orchenoi, simpler, kindly, addicted to astrology.” [Tetr. 2.3] or Urukeans, in direct connection with a lunar parameter Ptolemy was correct in putting the Chaldeans and identifiable as a Babylonian period for lunar anomaly Orchinians together geographically, as the Chaldeans, or preserved on cuneiform tablets from Uruk. The Kaldayu, were once West Semitic tribal groups located Babylonian, or Chaldean, literati, including those from in the parts of southern and western Babylonia known Uruk were rightly famed for astronomy and astrology, as Kaldu, and the Orchinians, or Urukayu, were the „addicted,” as Ptolemy put it, and eventually, in Greco- inhabitants of the southern Babylonian city of Uruk. He Roman works, the term Chaldean came to be interchan- was also correct in that he was transmitting a tradition geable with „astrologer.” from the Babylonians themselves, which, according to a Hellenistic Greek writers seeking to claim an authorita- Hellenistic tablet from Uruk [VAT 7847 obv.
    [Show full text]
  • 94 Erkka Maula
    ORGANON 15 PROBLÊMES GENERAUX Erkka Maula (Finland) FROM TIME TO PLACE: THE PARADIGM CASE The world-order in philosophical cosmology can be founded upon time as well as .space. Perhaps the most fundamental question pertaining to any articulated world- view concerns, accordingly, their ontological and epistemological priority. Is the basic layer of notions characterized by temporal or by spatial concepts? Does a world-view in its development show tendencies toward the predominance of one set of concepts rather than the other? At the stage of its relative maturity, when the qualitative and comparative phases have paved the way for the formation of quantitative concepts: Which are considered more fundamental, measurements of time or measurements of space? In the comparative phase: Is the geometry of the world a geometry of motion or a geometry of timeless order? In the history of our own scientific world-view, there seems to be discernible an oscillation between time-oriented and space-oriented concept formation.1 In the dawn, when the first mathematical systems of astronomy and geography appear, shortly before Euclid's synthesis of the axiomatic thought, there were attempts at a geometry of motion. They are due to Archytas of Tarentum and Eudoxus of Cnidus, foreshadowed by Hippias of Elis and the Pythagoreans, who tend to intro- duce temporal concepts into geometry. Their most eloquent adversary is Plato, and after him the two alternative streams are often called the Heraclitean and the Parmenidean world-views. But also such later and far more articulated distinctions as those between the statical and dynamic cosmologies, or between the formalist and intuitionist philosophies of mathematics, can be traced down to the original Greek dichotomy, although additional concepts entangle the picture.
    [Show full text]
  • Geminos and Babylonian Astronomy
    Geminos and Babylonian astronomy J. M. Steele Introduction Geminos’ Introduction to the Phenomena is one of several introductions to astronomy written by Greek and Latin authors during the last couple of centuries bc and the first few centuries ad.1 Geminos’ work is unusual, however, in including some fairly detailed—and accurate—technical information about Babylonian astronomy, some of which is explicitly attributed to the “Chal- deans.” Indeed, before the rediscovery of cuneiform sources in the nineteenth century, Gem- inos provided the most detailed information on Babylonian astronomy available, aside from the reports of several eclipse and planetary observations quoted by Ptolemy in the Almagest. Early-modern histories of astronomy, those that did not simply quote fantastical accounts of pre-Greek astronomy based upon the Bible and Josephus, relied heavily upon Geminos for their discussion of Babylonian (or “Chaldean”) astronomy.2 What can be learnt of Babylonian astron- omy from Geminos is, of course, extremely limited and restricted to those topics which have a place in an introduction to astronomy as this discipline was understood in the Greek world. Thus, aspects of Babylonian astronomy which relate to the celestial sphere (e.g. the zodiac and the ris- ing times of the ecliptic), the luni-solar calendar (e.g. intercalation and the 19-year (“Metonic”) cycle), and lunar motion, are included, but Geminos tells us nothing about Babylonian planetary theory (the planets are only touched upon briefly by Geminos), predictive astronomy that uses planetary and lunar periods, observational astronomy, or the problem of lunar visibility, which formed major parts of Babylonian astronomical practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Kytherian Newsletter November 2011
    Page 888 The KYTHERIAN, NOVEMBER 2011 ANCIENT GREEK TECHNOLOGY: THE ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM Dr Amelia R Brown looks at ancient technology, and how it's affected modern technology The last two decades are generally described as an era of technology, characterised by the rapid development and global distribution of new technologies, especially in relation to transportation, by land or by sea. The ancient Greeks, however, are often described as overly traditional when it comes to technology, as they did not achieve modern levels of industrialisation. However the Antikythera Mechanism has been influential in changing opinions about ancient technology, as it is the most sophisticated geared machine to survive from Antiquity: a veritable primitive computer. Before its discovery on a shipwreck off the island of Antikythera in 1900, the existence of devices like it was hardly dreamed of, and in recent years it has been subjected to a battery of modern tests, though it is surely hiding secrets still (see Marchant's Decoding the Heavens. Three things seem clear, however, about ancient Greek technology, and about the Antikythera Mechanism. First, the Greeks knew how to work in bronze to a very high level of sophistication. Second, the Antikythera Mechanism derives from a context related to the city of Corinth, the origin for the names of the months on its dials, and the Greek city most famous for its bronze work. Finally, the mechanism was created to fulfil a perceived need in Greek society of its time, surely through incremental developments in technology, and NOT necessarily to fulfil the 'needs' which we perceive in our society today and which can be fulfilled by our technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Mathematical Proof?
    Why Mathematical Proof? Dana S. Scott, FBA, FNAS University Professor Emeritus Carnegie Mellon University Visiting Scholar University of California, Berkeley NOTICE! The author has plagiarized text and graphics from innumerable publications and sites, and he has failed to record attributions! But, as this lecture is intended as an entertainment and is not intended for publication, he regards such copying, therefore, as “fair use”. Keep this quiet, and do please forgive him. A Timeline for Geometry Some Greek Geometers Thales of Miletus (ca. 624 – 548 BC). Pythagoras of Samos (ca. 580 – 500 BC). Plato (428 – 347 BC). Archytas (428 – 347 BC). Theaetetus (ca. 417 – 369 BC). Eudoxus of Cnidus (ca. 408 – 347 BC). Aristotle (384 – 322 BC). Euclid (ca. 325 – ca. 265 BC). Archimedes of Syracuse (ca. 287 – ca. 212 BC). Apollonius of Perga (ca. 262 – ca. 190 BC). Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy)(ca. 90 AD – ca. 168 AD). Diophantus of Alexandria (ca. 200 – 298 AD). Pappus of Alexandria (ca. 290 – ca. 350 AD). Proclus Lycaeus (412 – 485 AD). There is no Royal Road to Geometry Euclid of Alexandria ca. 325 — ca. 265 BC Euclid taught at Alexandria in the time of Ptolemy I Soter, who reigned over Egypt from 323 to 285 BC. He authored the most successful textbook ever produced — and put his sources into obscurity! Moreover, he made us struggle with proofs ever since. Why Has Euclidean Geometry Been So Successful? • Our naive feeling for space is Euclidean. • Its methods have been very useful. • Euclid also shows us a mysterious connection between (visual) intuition and proof. The Pythagorean Theorem Euclid's Elements: Proposition 47 of Book 1 The Pythagorean Theorem Generalized If it holds for one Three triple, Similar it holds Figures for all.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation a Representation B FRONT DIALS
    AGAMEMNON TSELIKAS The Anticythera Mechanism. Research Facilities and Heritage Dynamics between Humanities and Technologies NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY EXPLORING MARITIME HERITAGE DYNAMICS 18 – 20 November 2015 Greece, Southern Aegean Sea HISTORICAL DATA * Probably was constructed in Rhodes island in the astronomical school of Poseidonius mid-2nd BC century. * It was one item of a cargo of many valuable artistic objects (bronze and marble statues) on a ship which probably departed from Rhodes in direction to Italy between the years 80 and 60 BC and wrecked south of Antikythera island. The route of the ancient ship from Rhodes to Italy. HISTORICAL DATA * It was found in 1900 a few days before Easter, by sponge divers originated from the greek island Symi in Dodekanessos near Rhodes island. The route of the sponge ship from Symi island in direction probably to Lybia. Sponge divers in their island Symi. The island of Antikythera The islands of Rhodes and Symi Sponge divers, officials, and crew of the war ship "Mykali" during the hauling of antiquities from the wreck in Antikythera. Winter 1900-1901. It consists of 82 fragments. HISTORICAL DATA * Scientists who studied the the unknown object: 1902-1910 Staes, Svoronos, Rados, Albert Rem. 1930-1940 Admiral John Theofanides, Tsiner, Gynder, Chartner. 1950-1970 Derek de Solla Price (1922-1983, “Gears from the Greeks”) and Karakalos 1980-1990 Bromley and Michael Wright 1990 - Today Michael Wright and team of the Study of mechanism. Albert Rem Admiral John Theofanides The grandson of admiral Theophanidis holding the first effort of the reconstruction of the mechanism. Derek de Solla Price Michael Wright The new team of study the Antikythe ra mecha- nism Costas Xenakis, Pandelis Feleris, Rogger Hadland, David Beit, Gerasimos Makris, Michael Edmounds, Tony Freeth, Giannis Siradakis, Xenophon Mussas, Giannis Bitsakis, Agamemnon Tselikas, Mary Zafiropoulou, Helen Mangou, Bil Ambrisco, Tom Baltsbenter, Dan Gelmb, Rogger Hadland.
    [Show full text]