VMs: Re: Traditional Astrology and the Flat Earth

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Pamela wrote:

> Hi, Glenn!
>
> I am afraid we have a basic disagreement.  I don't
> know of any traditional astrologers (I'm not a
> "modern" one either, in terms of technique, which is
> how I define the term) who were not aware of the
> roundness of the Earth.  Can you quote me an early
> (pre-1492, by your dates) practicing traditional
> astrologer who indicated that he believed the earth
> was flat?
>
> How would the flatness of the Earth have affected the
> calculation of sunset in another country, a thing that
> pre-1492 astrologers were quite prepared to address?

Sorry for the delay in response.  A quick stop on Jupiter turned into a
nightmare - storm interfered with my connecting flight and internet
connections were impossible, so I had to sit in the airport bar for 3 whole
days with nothing but a copy of Terrence McKenna's lecture on the Voynich.
And the increased security after Hale-Bopp, just don't get me started!  Was
it all a nightmare?  Most of it.  The true part is the McKenna article.
I've done a lot of computer transcription for cash and personal interest,
and oddly enough, I was the guy who got paid $50 to transcribe Terrence
McKenna's lecture, which was originally a transcription of a radio interview
if I remember correctly, though he's built upon it since.  It's a very small
world when you think about it, and some things never change, like Terrence's
ability to present lavish gifts of dog-doodoo in neatly wrapped packages.

As to Sacro Bosco versus Ptolemy, I don't think you grasped the cusp of my
argument, especially as it pertains to western thought and the control of
the church.

It's reasonable that *any* seaman would notice on a calm day how the horizon
gradually curves, or that a ship sinks "hull first" on the horizon, as Dan
Gibson so carefully and comprehensively relates.  Dan did a very good job of
covering what is known about Ptolemy in modern times.  The question is not
what we know now, but what *they* knew then.  The *they* I speak of is the
western mind, not the ancient Arabic mind.

Take the 'Almagest' as a case study.  Most of Ptolemy's works were
available, but this particular book was only translated into Greek, not
Latin, and the first Latin translation appears only in 1481 to my best
judgment.  The Greek translations of this book were done for Popes and quite
controlled as a document.  I would suppose it was because that it was
contradictory to the church stance on the shape of the earth, but that would
be speculation.  I've read several commentaries on the reasons for the
control of the 'Almagest', but as with anything, I'd investigate the matter
and formulate my own opinion.  You and I have available to us the entirety
of the existing books by Ptolemy, but was this the case for the average
astronomer in medieval times?

> If the Earth were flat, everyone on the Earth would
> all experience sunset simultaneously.  If you
> suggested this to an astrologer, he would be rolling
> on the floor.  But if he was polite he would thank you
> for a good laugh.
>
> Why are astrolabes (developed c. 300 BC and used up
> until the demise of astrology) dependent upon
> spherical trigonometry, for calculations of the
> ascendant as well as the heavens?
> This is to say nothing of the multiple repeated
> historic references to the Earth as a globe in art.

I for one would like to see any reference of the 'Earth as a globe' in
western pre-Columbian art, with the exception of certain technical
depictions found only in astronomical manuscripts.  I state specifically,
Western art, as this would have been in contradiction to teachings of the
Catholic church.  Perhaps I'll learn something I don't know.

For the next address, I need to take from one of your other e-mails.

> Isn't it amazing how much ancient people knew?
> Obviously, there was room for improvement.
> Geocentrism predominated for as long as it did not
> because of deficiencies of astronomy, but pretty much
> because the known laws of physics at that time could
> not account for how, if the earth was moving, an
> object could be dropped and land directly beneath the
> spot where it had been dropped.

I don't think this is right.  I think that if there were any sign of
rotational motion of any other body in the heavens, rotation of the earth
would have been considered and taken into account.  The moon however, always
faces us with the same 'man in the moon', and demonstrates no rotation.  As
the only closely viewable body beyond the sun, no earth rotation could be
considered by example, so the idea of 'static earth' was as engrained in
medieval times as was the idea of 'static universe' in the early mind of
Albert Einstein. Your gravitational argument worked in the interest of the
church.  Only the telescope suggested that planets can rotate, and only the
telescope suggested that we were simply a planet and not the center of the
universe, and that's well beyond the Voynich time-frame.

What differentiates Sacro-Bosco from Ptolemy is not content per se, rather
mathematics, not that he was so much different from Ptolemy, but that he
couched his meaning in calculations, made no directly confrontational
statements, and was therefore passed by church censure and became available
very early.  As with Ptolemy, the calculations of 'sun spirals' are
relatively close, and neither takes into account an earth that is in motion
relative to other solar bodies or the heavens.  Sacro-Bosco got the billing
post 1492 primarily because he was one of few authors whose works were
generally released by the church, not because they were more innovative or
insightful than those of the ancient Greek authors.

We see by Sacro-Bosco's math that the differences in times for sunsets could
be calculated from a 'static earth' by figuring the curvature of the earth
as a static body, and since this x-factor is a relative constant, there was
very little reason to question this until the telescope.  It did however
lead to really obscene calculations of the sun as being "340,000 miles
high", etc., as observed in Dr. Askham's treatise on astronomy.  No one
worried about why something fell 'straight down', since the earth itself did
not move.  We still say 'sunrise' and 'sunset', even though these terms are
geocentric and grossly inaccurate.

I really love investigating the state of technology throughout time, and how
many of these observations were gathered.  Someone asked, (sorry I can't
find the e-mail), how relative longitude could have been established by
Ptolemy.  How was it established by Sacro-Bosco, Cardanne or Mercator?
Anyone with a stick could calculate true north, high-noon and the hours
before and after, to the minute.  From this point they could calculate
sunrise, sunset, etc.  Letters exchanged between people who had calculated
these and other bits of information were gathered and compared relative to
the rise and set of the moon, and thus a heavenly movement was established.
The answer to the question is that these things were not done by individual
observation, rather collective observation.  An individual would have to
travel to all the various places and do the calculations on the same day
each year to form a pattern, (something done by a few 17th century
investigators) but a letter and a few friends of like interest were much
more effective.  Collective observation is a fundamental element of modern
science, so make of this what you will.  Seems to work everywhere but the
Voynich, anyway.

One of the most informative accounts of the pursuit of longitude may be
found in a book by Daniel Boorstein.  It was the lack of knowledge in this
regard that kept navigators close to shore, and even in the case of
Christopher Columbus, his 'fake' set of books kept for consumption by the
crew was more accurate than his actual longitudinal calculations.  This may
be found under his discussion of the 'timepiece' and its influence on the
expansion of the known world.

To me it's not a question of what was known or when, rather to whom it was
known and when.  Did the Germans read the 1939 publication of "Johnny Got Hi
s Gun", did it flop miserably next to "Mein Kamf", or was such a
controversial work even available to the Germans at this time?  Going back
in time means picking your time, your location, and then calculating the
availability of information in your particular 'hamlet' as opposed to the
rest of the world.  We look at what we know now as a whole, but this is not
so even 30 years earlier in our own history.  Most can't even go back to the
Vietnam war, at a time where I and others were engaged, and understand that
'testimony' of atrocities were very common among groups of vets, not to
indict the government, but to face these memories and move on.  How many did
we lose in the after-years of peace that couldn't handle the past?
Travelling back in time is not something done by an idealist.  A German
citizen on the ground in 1939 could not have imagined what was about to
unfold.  These rants are of course irrelevant to our study, other than to
point out that as these things which should be fresh in our collective
memory are new to many and rejected by just as many, meaning that the idea
of 'collective memory' is a fantasy of filtered sunglasses.

Time itself is marked by great and tragic events, of which 1492 is one.  You
do not account for the effect this had on the individual's ability to
challenge Catholic thought, just as you do not mention the force with which
the church expressed its opinion and exercised its influence into this
debate.  You are aware that these things were known before this date, just
as the idea that plague and pestilence was not 'God's punishment', or that
mental illness was not a sign of 'demonic posession'.  These definitions
were however a means of control over the populace, and very few who
challenged the church view survived, as you might notice by recounting the
number of our early 'heroes' who perished at the hands of the church.
Thinking like our predecessors must also take into account their
environment.  Knowing and doing is a careful balance, even today.

GC

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list