tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post2242337305881354805..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: How the Greeks Lost Their GrooveTheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-61373235944755203272010-01-23T16:16:59.946-05:002010-01-23T16:16:59.946-05:00A google alert! Oh, my.
In the Sand Reckoner, ...A google alert! Oh, my. <br /><br />In the <i>Sand Reckoner,</i> 1:4-6, Archimedes wrote: <br /><br /><i>But Aristarchus of Samos produced writings of certain hypotheses in which it follows from the suppositions that the world [kosmos] is many times what is now claimed. For he supposes that the fixed stars and the sun remain motionless, while <b>the earth revolves about the sun</b> on the circumference of a circle which is placed on the middle road, but that the sphere of the fixed stars, which is placed about the same center as the sun, is so large in magnitude that the circle on which he supposes the earth to revolve has the sort of proportion to the distance of the fixed stars that the center of the sphere has to the surface. This is trivially impossible, since the center of the sphere has no magnitude.</i><br /><br />And that is all we know about Aristarchus' model: that <b>the earth revolves about a stationary sun</b>. Archimedes is silent on whether Aristarchus believed the other planets did. Maybe he did, but we have <i>no empirical evidence of that.</i> There was at the time no rationale [like Universal Gravitation] for supposing that if the earth went round the sun, the other planets must also. <br /><br />(We also know from a reference in Plutarch that Cleanthes the Stoic proposed that Aristarchus be indicted for impiety for claiming that the earth possesses a dual motion. The only work we have ascribed to Aristarchus himself is one estimating the sizes and distances of the moon and sun, where the math is inherently geocentric. And that is it. For those of us who favor empirical evidence, it is slim pickings, Aristarchus-wise.) <br /><br />The Pythagoreans believed in a central fire around which everything else revolved (including the sun). The fire was in the center because fire was nobler than earth and the center nobler than the borders. Ergo. Whatever else this might be, it was not "science." However, while Aristarchus's teacher was supposed to be a Pythagorean, he seems to have modified the theology to eliminate the central fire. <br /><br /><i>the Greeks before Aristarchus knew that Mercury and Venus revolve around the Sun by the simple fact that they stay in their orbits close to the Sun and maximum east and west elongations are about equal!</i> <br /><br />Which means they had evidence that Mercury and Venus tracked the Sun very closely. To <i>us,</i> this implies that they circle the sun; but we are looking at things with a very different world-picture. Aristotle and Ptolemy also knew about Venus and Mercury, Ptolemy's calculations handled it nicely enough. (Keep in mind that, except for Pythagorean number-mystics, no one prior to Copernicus supposed that a mathematical calculation required the physical universe to conform. Astronomy was a branch of mathematics, not a branch of physics.) If you have evidence to the contrary, cite the primary source, not a modern reading modern assumptions into things. <br /><br /><i>I was taken aback by the pile of crap you publish!</i> <br /><br />Though not enough to point any of it out, save the <i>Sand Reckoner</i> bit, which see above. <br /><br /><i>If you yourself admit that you are an amateur why don't you take the time to read some books of the great scholars before you make so many outrageous statements!</i> <br /><br />But I did. I've read Huff, Grant, Lindberg, White, Gies, Gimpel, Sivan, etc. I've also read bits ftom Aristotle, ibn Rushd, Buridan, Oresme, et al. (Those are tougher going due to the different categories of thought they employed vis a vis the moderns and post-moderns.)<br /><br /><i>You do not only lack the knowledge but even<br />resort to outright lies!!</i> <br /><br />This is where we Empiricists part company from you True Believers. Evidence, and the Ladder of Inference! There is no way you can infer from the empirical text that I am "resorting to outright lies." At most, you can say I am mistaken -- although the only mistake you essay -- the <i>Sand Reckoner,</i> backs me up.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-28795602432275649382010-01-23T14:51:02.141-05:002010-01-23T14:51:02.141-05:00I was brought to your site by a Google alert on Ar...I was brought to your site by a Google alert on Archimedes palimpsest!<br /><br />I was taken aback by the pile of crap you publish!<br />If you yourself admit that you are an amateur why don't you take the time to read some books of the great scholars before you make so many outrageous statements! <br />You do not only lack the knowledge but even <br /> resort to outright lies!!<br /><br />You have not read the Archimedes Arenarius (Sand Reckoner) otherwise you woundn't wonder whether Aristarchus knew about the other planets going around the Sun! <br /><br />What stands explicitly in Sand Reckoner is that the Stars and the Sun are immovable and the planets revolve around the Sun. <br /><br />Moreover the Greeks before Aristarchus knew that Mercury and Venus revolve around the Sun by the simple fact that they stay in their orbits close to the Sun and maximum east and west elongations are about equal! <br /><br />So except for a few names you have not read any serious History of Astronomy and yet you have the audacity to present thoughts about the origin and nature of Science. <br /><br />If you want to understand a few things about the Nature of Science, please read a little book by Lewis Wolpert "The Unnatural Nature of Science". <br />For a History that will shake your believes about the "insights" in the History of Science read Lucio Russo's "The Forgotten Revolution".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com