495

[Guest guest]

Dear Therese and Ed,

The modern archaeological research Fagan referred to is

primarily Epping's work, Astronomisches Aus Babylon (1889) and

the articles he wrote for Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie with Johann

Strassmaier between 1890 and 1893, all seminal works. Not less

important were the many works of F.X. Kugler primarily

Babylonische Mondrechnung (1900), Sternkunde Und Sterdienst in

Babel (1907 through 1935) completed by Joseph Schaumberger

S.J.after Kugler's death.

With regard to the Babylonians having " no concept of the plane

of the ecliptic, " it's important to note that they were EXCLUSIVELY

ecliptic oriented having no concept of equatorial coordinates as did

the Chinese, for example. It's not fair to lean on the Babylonians

for being ignorant of solar system geometry. After all, there was

intense opposition to heliocentrism as recently as the 17th

century. Don't forget that Galileo was hauled before the Inquisition

and pope Urban VIII in 1633 and threatened with having his tongue

impaled with steel pincers and cut out of his mouth on the spot,

unless he recanted heliocentrism. Galileo was playing for time (he

was 69 years old when this happened) for the same reason that

Copernicus waited until he was 70 to publish De Revolutionibus

Orbium Coelestium: the Inquisition was barred from torturing a

septuagenarian. But Urbam VIII was wise to him. It's not until

Newton, who was born in the year that Galileo died (1642), that

heliocentrism was on firm footing and it was safe to espouse it.

When Newton proclaimed that if he saw farther than other men that

it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants, he was

referring to Copernicus, Kepler (perhaps most of all Kepler) and

Galileo. I think the Babylonians can be forgiven if they were

unaware of the heliocentric hypothesis, but their orientation in

space was altogether ecliptic oriented, and to claim that it was

something else is quite wrong; moreover it's misleading to contend

that they should be remiss for not picking up on the true facts of

solar system geometry. At least they didn't formulate an

hypothesis that is false like the Greeks did: the geocentric system.

Their staggering achievement still goes unrecognized except to

historians of science; namely, the Babylonians developed with

good records recorded over many centuries the first mathematical

model that was predictive and not merely descriptive like the Greek

model. The Greeks adopted wholesale Babylonian astronomical

parameters. Without them Hipparchus could not have discovered

precession. Somebody said recently that the Babylonians were

aware of precession but there's no eveidence for that; in addition

Kugler says in Sternkunde und Sterdienst that while the matter is

not known for sure he thought that they probably had not been

aware of it. Kugler was a lot closer to the data than any of us. And

why should they have known about precession? The equinox

wasn't good for much in the ancient world except intercalating the

calendar and inferring terrestrial latitude. A knowledge of

precession suggests an awareness of some vaguely parallel form

of reckoning, unknown to date, to which there is no purpose known

to date, except to satisfy the fanciful imaginings of those who are

looking for some way to justify the tropical zodiac in antiquity well

before it showed up. This is the sort of thing that has happened in

India where it is claimed that they have knowledge and records

(which somehow are never produced) of things

astronomical/astrological that are older than dirt. When somebody

is a latecomer to the game, in order not to appear backward,

lacking or somehow less than one's fellows, all sorts of convoluted

flim flam is perpetrated to demonstrate how in fact, " we knew it all

the time and in fact well before the rest of you. " That's what's

happened with the equinox and tropical zodiac reckoning. It's a

recent addition to a level of (sidereal) sophistication that is much

older. Tropicalists not wanting to admit sidereal priority are always

looking for some way to insert the equinox into the equation as

though it must always have been there. Well, it ain't so.

Best wishes,

Ken Bowser

It should also be remembered that it is not true that the

sidereal is some artifact, side issue or corollary of the tropical

zodiac. Read Aratus, Geminus and the ancient authors. It's the

other way around. The vernal point is described and located in

relation to stars. Things started to change with Hipparchus who

measured the equinox itself but without access to Babylonian

records and his inherent genius, Hipparchus would have been up a

creek. Even Ptolemy, 300 years after Hipparchus, acknowledged

that the oldest records available to him (Ptolemy) were Babylonian

eclipse records from the era of Nabonasser (747 B.C.).

Best wishes,

Ken Bowser

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Jack S. Contreras "

<sidereal@c...> wrote:

 

///////////////

> With regard to the Babylonians having " no concept of the plane

> of the ecliptic, " it's important to note that they were EXCLUSIVELY

> ecliptic oriented having no concept of equatorial coordinates as

did

> the Chinese, for example.

 

Hrm. A rather dubious assumption, considering that the MUL.APIN

series is based exclusively on the equatorial reference of fixed star

observations. This next section is not germane to the discussion,

and I am at a loss why you would include it:

 

 

> It's not fair to lean on the Babylonians

> for being ignorant of solar system geometry. After all, there was

> intense opposition to heliocentrism as recently as the 17th

> century. Don't forget that Galileo was hauled before the

Inquisition

> and pope Urban VIII in 1633 and threatened with having his tongue

> impaled with steel pincers and cut out of his mouth on the spot,

> unless he recanted heliocentrism. Galileo was playing for time (he

> was 69 years old when this happened) for the same reason that

> Copernicus waited until he was 70 to publish De Revolutionibus

> Orbium Coelestium: the Inquisition was barred from torturing a

> septuagenarian. But Urbam VIII was wise to him. It's not until

> Newton, who was born in the year that Galileo died (1642), that

> heliocentrism was on firm footing and it was safe to espouse it.

> When Newton proclaimed that if he saw farther than other men that

> it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants, he was

> referring to Copernicus, Kepler (perhaps most of all Kepler) and

> Galileo.

 

 

 

 

> I think the Babylonians can be forgiven if they were

> unaware of the heliocentric hypothesis, but their orientation in

> space was altogether ecliptic oriented, and to claim that it was

> something else is quite wrong; moreover it's misleading to contend

> that they should be remiss for not picking up on the true facts of

> solar system geometry.

 

Again, you are simply wrong. See above. Bringing up the Greeks is

also a bit of a red herring, don't you think? It gets us no further

on the discussion at hand, but it is interesting info.

 

 

 

> At least they didn't formulate an

> hypothesis that is false like the Greeks did: the geocentric system.

> Their staggering achievement still goes unrecognized except to

> historians of science; namely, the Babylonians developed with

> good records recorded over many centuries the first mathematical

> model that was predictive and not merely descriptive like the Greek

> model. The Greeks adopted wholesale Babylonian astronomical

> parameters. Without them Hipparchus could not have discovered

> precession.

> Somebody said recently that the Babylonians were

> aware of precession but there's no eveidence for that; in addition

> Kugler says in Sternkunde und Sterdienst that while the matter is

> not known for sure he thought that they probably had not been

> aware of it. Kugler was a lot closer to the data than any of us.

 

There is some evidence that the Babs were aware of precession, but

unable to determine the exact rate:

 

http://www.robhand.com/tropzo.htm

 

 

 

> And

> why should they have known about precession? The equinox

> wasn't good for much in the ancient world except intercalating the

> calendar and inferring terrestrial latitude. A knowledge of

> precession suggests an awareness of some vaguely parallel form

> of reckoning, unknown to date, to which there is no purpose known

> to date, except to satisfy the fanciful imaginings of those who are

> looking for some way to justify the tropical zodiac in antiquity

well

> before it showed up. This is the sort of thing that has happened

in

> India where it is claimed that they have knowledge and records

> (which somehow are never produced) of things

> astronomical/astrological that are older than dirt. When somebody

> is a latecomer to the game, in order not to appear backward,

> lacking or somehow less than one's fellows, all sorts of convoluted

> flim flam is perpetrated to demonstrate how in fact, " we knew it

all

> the time and in fact well before the rest of you. " That's what's

> happened with the equinox and tropical zodiac reckoning.

 

Thus, I gather, your point:

 

 

 

> It's a

> recent addition to a level of (sidereal) sophistication that is

much

> older. Tropicalists not wanting to admit sidereal priority are

always

> looking for some way to insert the equinox into the equation as

> though it must always have been there. Well, it ain't so.

 

That was never my contention, nor will it ever be; the whole point

you are arguing is simply irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which

is whether the tropical zodiac is a better system for an astrologer

in the year 2003, and whether or not the fiducial point in

the " sidereal zodiac " you use in 2003 is not simply defined as

a " delta " (which means mathematical difference) of the tropical

zodiac. So far, only Juan has provided any convincing argument to

suggest that this notion is wrong at the premise level. I no of no

astrologer who consults Hipparchus!

 

Very best,

Ed K

 

 

 

 

> Best wishes,

> Ken Bowser

> It should also be remembered that it is not true that the

> sidereal is some artifact, side issue or corollary of the tropical

> zodiac. Read Aratus, Geminus and the ancient authors. It's the

> other way around. The vernal point is described and located in

> relation to stars. Things started to change with Hipparchus who

> measured the equinox itself but without access to Babylonian

> records and his inherent genius, Hipparchus would have been up a

> creek. Even Ptolemy, 300 years after Hipparchus, acknowledged

> that the oldest records available to him (Ptolemy) were Babylonian

> eclipse records from the era of Nabonasser (747 B.C.).

> Best wishes,

> Ken

Bowser

>

>

>