[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Kepler & the VMS
> > Well, the first four letters of the second ring on f57v could be read
> > "1582".
> ... or 1234, 1473, 3196, 5431, etc. . .
Not by the number correspondences.
> Don't forget the sequence of
> 17 characters repeat 4 times around the circle with only slight variations
> of some characters. Why would you write 1582 four times around the circle? It
> seems more logical to me to be a sequence that is repeated.. 12345678... or
What has logic got to do with the VMs? : )
> although I can't guess at what these wheels would be used for. I don't think
> you could make them out to be an accurate measurement tool for 90 degree stellar
> views or anything,
I don't have a guess either.
> nor do I think you can just select any instance of four characters
> and make dates out of them,
The number correspondences are written in the VMs. I didn't make
them up. If all you have to work with are numbers, isn't it reasonable
to look for a date on a folio that appears to depict an astronomical
Not all folios have "dates" on them. For instance, I've examined
f67r1 carefully, and found nothing. I still think it depicts a solar
eclipse, and would love to have found a date because that would
give us an idea when and where the Author was when it happened.
> then look for something that might meet an interpretation
> of the diagram and say it's proof that the date is right.
I never said it was "proof" of anything, John, that's your word. I said
it works and is consistant so far. Proof (or disproof) will probably have
to wait until we can read the thing.
> Finding some kind of sequencing in the numerals would be a lot more
> convincing then these stabs in the dark.
Somebody has to take a stab at something, if progress is to be made.
> There are a number of labels in the zodiac that allude
> to an underlying pattern... but just that. (a series that includes a few
> oeeo type patterns comes to mind).
I've not made a study of the zodiac lables.
> There are lots of interpretations of diagrams, some I support as possible
> but only to keep an eye on for more solid evidence. I think the four seasons
> are depicted in f68r3 - but am not completely convinced this is a correct
It's not. If you care to contact me offlist, I can send you a .jpg of the night
sky on 29 December 1615 that shows the diagram.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: