MELK (APOD 2009 April 17)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: MELK (APOD 2009 April 17)

The moon went BELEWE!

by neufer » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:24 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_moon wrote:
Early English and Christian usage

The earliest recorded English usage of the term "blue moon" was in 1528 in a pamphlet
violently attacking the English clergy, entitled Rede Me and Be Not Wrothe [Read me and be not angry]:

  • "Yf they say the mone is belewe / We must believe that it is true"
    [If they say the moon is blue, we must believe that it is true].

Some interpret this "blue moon" as relating to absurdities and impossibilities,
and a similar moon-related adage was first recorded in the following year:

  • "They would make men beleue ... that þe Moone is made of grene chese"
    [They would make men believe ... that the moon is made of green cheese].

An alternative interpretation uses the other old English meaning of "belewe" (which can mean "blue" or "betrayer"). The church was responsible for the calendar and used the complex computus to calculate the important date of Easter, which is based on the full moon. Lent falls before Easter starting at the beginning of the Lent moon cycle (late winter moon). The next moon is the egg moon (early spring moon), and Easter usually falls on the first Sunday after the full egg moon. Every one to three years the Lent and egg moons would come too early, so the clergy would have to tell people whether the moon was the Lent moon or a false one, which they may have called a "betrayer moon".
........................................
Visibly blue moon

The most literal meaning of blue moon is when the moon (not necessarily a full moon) appears to a casual observer to be unusually bluish, which is a rare event. The effect can be caused by smoke or dust particles in the atmosphere, as has happened after forest fires in Sweden and Canada in 1950 and, notably, after the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, which caused the moon to appear blue for nearly two years.
........................................
Folklore

Historically, moons were given folk names, twelve each year, to help people to prepare for different times of the year and the related weather and crop needs. Names varied with locality and culture, often with descriptive names such as harvest moon, growing moon, snow moon, and egg moon. Most years have 12 moons (given 12 names) - but in the years with thirteen full moons the monthly "seasons" would be expected to come too early - hens would not recommence laying their eggs when expected after winter as it was still too cold - so the early moon was named a "blue moon", which then re-aligned the rest of the year's moons and 'seasons'.

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by bystander » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:37 pm

Dr. Skeptic wrote:A Blue Moon is simply the second full moon of a calendar month - nothing to do with it's color.
Actually, that is a mistake, an error in interpretation made in 1946.
wiki wrote:A blue moon is a full moon that is not timed to the regular monthly pattern. Most years have twelve full moons which occur approximately monthly, but in addition to those twelve full lunar cycles each calendar year contains an excess of roughly eleven days. The extra days accumulate, so that every two or three years (on average about every 2.7154 years) there is an extra full moon. The extra moon is called a "blue moon." Different definitions place the "extra" moon at different times.
  • In calculating the dates for Lent and Easter, the Clergy identify the Lent Moon. It is thought that historically when the moon's timing was too early they named an earlier moon as a "betrayer moon" ("belewe" moon), thus the Lent moon came at its expected time.

    Folklore gave each moon a name according to its time of year. A moon which came too early had no folk name - and was called a blue moon - bringing the correct seasonal timings for future moons

    The Farmer's Almanac defined blue moon as an extra full moon that occurred in a season; one season was normally three full moons. If a season had four full moons, then the third full moon was named a blue moon.

    Recent popular usage defined a blue moon as the second full moon in a month, stemming from an interpretation error made in 1946 that was discovered in 1999.

The term "blue moon" is commonly used metaphorically to describe the rarity of an event, as in the saying "once in a blue moon."
What's a Blue Moon?
Sky and Telescope - May 1999
  • The trendy definition of "Blue Moon" as the second full Moon in a month is a mistake.

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by Dr. Skeptic » Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:27 am

A Blue Moon is simply the second full moon of a calendar month - nothing to do with it's color. A Blue Moon will occur in any year when the first full moon falls on or before January 11th.

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by Frenchy » Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:26 am

Does this mean that the "blue moon" is the brown moon in the photograph that I have, because I thought the blue one would have been the blue moon?

Probably a dumb question, but could the Earth/moon system be considered a double planet?

To Aristarchusinexile...it has been a few years since I was last in the Canadian prarie provinces. Could I see a true blue moon if I went to Maine in the wintertime?

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by BMAONE23 » Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:17 pm

aristarchusinexile wrote:
BMAONE23 wrote:
Is it that the moon appears blue or is it that the viewpoint is through frozen eyeballs??? :wink:
I can't imagine winking with frozen eyeballs, but the first cold spell of summer here, when I get the dog sled out, I'll try.

For the casual observer here, the moon truly appears to be coloured blue .. an action of diffraction, not a wackson of a Jackson or a cantaloupe. The shadow of the cantaloupe set out during a blue moon is also blue if the shadow falls on white snow, as all shadows are blue in that time and place. A truly striking scene, one which should be witnessed by every so-called highly educated person who falls victim to the brainwashing and programming of their organic computer which dictates to them that blue moons are not blue, but are merely every second full moon of a month. Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and Double Sheesh!! Triple Sheesh even!!! And then some. 8)
Count me in for a visit there and soon

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by aristarchusinexile » Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:03 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:
Is it that the moon appears blue or is it that the viewpoint is through frozen eyeballs??? :wink:
I can't imagine winking with frozen eyeballs, but the first cold spell of summer here, when I get the dog sled out, I'll try.

For the casual observer here, the moon truly appears to be coloured blue .. an action of diffraction, not a wackson of a Jackson or a cantaloupe. The shadow of the cantaloupe set out during a blue moon is also blue if the shadow falls on white snow, as all shadows are blue in that time and place. A truly striking scene, one which should be witnessed by every so-called highly educated person who falls victim to the brainwashing and programming of their organic computer which dictates to them that blue moons are not blue, but are merely every second full moon of a month. Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and Double Sheesh!! Triple Sheesh even!!! And then some. 8)

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by BMAONE23 » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:06 pm

aristarchusinexile wrote:
Frenchy wrote:Double lunar orbits...a blue moon perhaps?
Frenchy, spend a winter or two in northern Ontario or Quebec, Canada, perhaps in the prairie provinces as well, and you are almost guaranteed seeing a true Blue Moon, in which the colour of the moon is truly blue.
Is it that the moon appears blue or is it that the viewpoint is through frozen eyeballs??? :wink:

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by aristarchusinexile » Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:45 pm

Frenchy wrote:Double lunar orbits...a blue moon perhaps?
Frenchy, spend a winter or two in northern Ontario or Quebec, Canada, perhaps in the prairie provinces as well, and you are almost guaranteed seeing a true Blue Moon, in which the colour of the moon is truly blue.

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by aristarchusinexile » Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:43 pm

Speaking of celestial shapes .. the flattening of the poles of the sun is suggested as a means of accounting for Merury's perihelion .. and as Mercury was the 'cornerstone' for the acceptance and promotion of Relavity, the flattening throws Relativity into doubt, again. Moffat's book 'Reinventing Gravity' should be a must read for anyone truly interested in astronomy. By the way, Moffat honours Einstein throughout the book, just as Einstein honoured Newton.


Come on Chris, I expected you to rise to the occasion ( and I don't mean that harshly .. but in the spirit of Comraderie .. passing the vodka, etc. )

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by Frenchy » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:57 am

Double lunar orbits...a blue moon perhaps?

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by neufer » Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:29 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:The moon is not treated explicitly
(except for the "unusual" fact that it shines by reflected light from the sun)
because ALL planets are on epicycles.
I understand that (and I also think the Wikipedia article needs a little bit of cleaning up). But I still don't know if the Moon was treated somewhat differently, since it clearly behaves differently. That is, it doesn't show apparent retrograde and prograde motion against the sky, and to the degree that irregularities in position could have been detected, they wouldn't correspond to the same epicycle that would produce the difference in distance. So my questions remain: were epicycles used to explain the varying distance to the Moon, and what sort of special exceptions (if any) were used in dealing with the Moon? This manuscript clearly doesn't show a lunar epicycle.
The lunar clockwise epicycle would have the same period (i.e., 27.5 days) as it's counterclockwise orbital cycle. Hence the full orbit appears to be, essentially, an off axis circle. Apollonius was apparently at least as aware of lunar "irregularities in position" as of the varying lunar distance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Perga wrote:
<<The hypothesis of eccentric orbits, or equivalently, deferent and epicycles, to explain the apparent motion of the planets and the varying speed of the Moon, are also attributed to [Apollonius of Perga (ca. 262 BC–ca. 190 BC)].>>

Re: MELK (APOD 2009 April 17)

by neufer » Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:07 pm

bystander wrote:Getting back to beer (or was that another thread)
The Ariadne thread? (I really haven't a clew.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacchus_and_Ariadne wrote:
Bacchus and Ariadne (1520-23) is an oil painting by Titian. An advance payment was given to Raphael, who originally held the commission for the subject of a Triumph of Bacchus. At the time of Raphael's death in 1520, only a preliminary drawing was completed and the commission was then handed to Titian. The painting, considered one of Titian's greatest works, now hangs in the National Gallery in London. Ariadne has been left on the island of Naxos, deserted by her lover Theseus, whose ship sails away to the far left. She is discovered on the shore by the god Bacchus, leading a procession of revelers in a chariot drawn by two cheetahs. Bacchus is depicted in mid-air as he leaps out of the chariot to protect Ariadne from these beasts. In the sky above the figure of Ariadne is her crown, which Bacchus has thrown into the sky and it then becomes the constellation Corona.
Image

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by Chris Peterson » Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:06 pm

neufer wrote:The moon is not treated explicitly
(except for the "unusual" fact that it shines by reflected light from the sun)
because ALL planets are on epicycles.
I understand that (and I also think the Wikipedia article needs a little bit of cleaning up). But I still don't know if the Moon was treated somewhat differently, since it clearly behaves differently. That is, it doesn't show apparent retrograde and prograde motion against the sky, and to the degree that irregularities in position could have been detected, they wouldn't correspond to the same epicycle that would produce the difference in distance. So my questions remain: were epicycles used to explain the varying distance to the Moon, and what sort of special exceptions (if any) were used in dealing with the Moon? This manuscript clearly doesn't show a lunar epicycle.

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by neufer » Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:51 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:To explain both Mars's retrograde motion and variable distance
in a geocentric model always required epicycles which,
if small enough, resembled off center circles NOT ellipses.
Yes, but have you seen epicycles used to explain the varying distance of the Moon? I don't recall seeing that explicitly. While epicycles cause a planet's distance from Earth to change, I don't think that effect was observed, only the effect on position- retrograde and prograde motion.
The moon is not treated explicitly
(except for the "unusual" fact that it shines by reflected light from the sun)
because ALL planets are on epicycles.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle wrote:
<<In the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, the epicycle (literally: on the circle in Greek) was a geometric model used to explain the variations in speed and direction of the apparent motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets. It was designed by Apollonius of Perga at the end of the 3rd century BC. In particular it explained the retrograde motion of the five planets known at the time. Secondarily, it also explained changes in the apparent distances of the planets from Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Perga wrote:
<<Apollonius of Perga [Pergaeus] (Ancient Greek: Ἀπολλώνιος) (ca. 262 BC–ca. 190 BC) was a Greek geometer and astronomer noted for his writings on conic sections. His innovative methodology and terminology, especially in the field of conics, influenced many later scholars including Ptolemy, Francesco Maurolico, Isaac Newton, and René Descartes. It was Apollonius who gave the ellipse, the parabola, and the hyperbola the names by which we know them. The hypothesis of eccentric orbits, or equivalently, deferent and epicycles, to explain the apparent motion of the planets and the varying speed of the Moon, are also attributed to him. Apollonius' theorem demonstrates that the two models are equivalent given the right parameters. Ptolemy describes this theorem in the Almagest XII.1. Apollonius also researched the lunar theory, for which he is said to have been called Epsilon (ε). The crater Apollonius on the Moon is named in his honor.>>
In the Ptolemaic system, the planets are assumed to move in a small circle, called an epicycle, which in turn moves along a larger circle called a deferent. Both circles rotate eastward and are roughly parallel to the plane of the Sun's orbit (ecliptic). The orbits of planets in this system are epitrochoids.

The deferent was a circle centered around a point halfway between the equant and the earth. The epicycle rotated on the deferent with uniform motion, not with respect to the center, but with respect to the off-center point called the equant. The rate at which the planet moved on the epicycle was fixed such that the angle between the center of the epicycle and the planet was the same as the angle between the earth and the sun.

Ptolemy did not predict the relative sizes of the planetary deferents in the Almagest. All of his calculations were done with respect to a normalized deferent. This is not to say that he believed the planets were all equidistant. He did guess at an ordering of the planets. Later he calculated their distances in the Planetary Hypotheses.

For superior planets the planet would typically rotate in the night sky slower than the stars. Each night the planet would "lag" a little behind the star. This is prograde motion. Occasionally, near opposition, the planet would appear to rotate in the night sky faster than the stars. This is retrograde motion. Ptolemy's model, in part, sought to explain this behavior.

The inferior planets were always observed to be near the sun, appearing only shortly before sunrise or shortly after sunset. To accommodate this, Ptolemy's model fixed the motion of Mercury and Venus so that the line from the equant point to the center of the epicycle was always parallel to the earth-sun line.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model wrote:
<<In the 4th century BC, two influential Greek philosophers wrote works based on the geocentric model. These were Plato and his student Aristotle. According to Plato, the Earth was a sphere, stationary at the center of the universe. The stars and planets were carried around the Earth on spheres or circles, arranged in the order (outwards from the center): Moon, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, fixed stars. In the "Myth of Er," a section of the Republic, Plato describes the cosmos as the Spindle of Necessity, attended by the Sirens and turned by the three Fates. Eudoxus of Cnidus, who worked with Plato, developed a less mythical, more mathematical explanation of the planets' motion based on Plato's dictum stating that all phenomena in the heavens can be explained with uniform circular motion. Aristotle elaborated on Eudoxus' system. In the fully developed Aristotelian system, the spherical Earth is at the center of the universe. All heavenly bodies are attached to 56 concentric spheres which rotate around the Earth . (The number is so high because several transparent spheres are needed for each planet.) The Moon is on the innermost sphere. Thus it touches the realm of Earth, which contaminates it, causing the dark spots (macula) and the ability to go through lunar phases. It is not perfect like the other heavenly bodies, which shine by their own light.>>
--------------------------------

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by Chris Peterson » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:45 pm

neufer wrote:To explain both Mars's retrograde motion and variable distance
in a geocentric model always required epicycles which,
if small enough, resembled off center circles NOT ellipses.
Yes, but have you seen epicycles used to explain the varying distance of the Moon? I don't recall seeing that explicitly. While epicycles cause a planet's distance from Earth to change, I don't think that effect was observed, only the effect on position- retrograde and prograde motion.

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by neufer » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:21 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
apodman wrote:On the eclipse diagrams on the manuscript, the moon is shown on a double orbit. Since the moon is shown at the intersection of these orbits in the solar eclipse diagram, I thought maybe one orbit was to suggest the ecliptic plane and the other the moon's orbital plane so the moon would be located at a rising or falling node as required for an eclipse. Would that have been advanced knowledge for the time? But the moon must be at a node for a lunar eclipse as well, and it's not shown that way. So does anybody know what the deal is with the double lunar orbits?
I was thinking it might be trying to show in some way the varying distance from the Earth to the Moon. At that time they must have been well aware of the difference between a total and an annular eclipse. You would also think they must have some idea that the Earth, Sun, and Moon didn't share a common plane- how else to explain partial eclipses? So your idea may be correct as well.
My thoughts exactly. I was actually rather surprised to see what appeared to be a drawing of elliptical orbits.
To explain both Mars's retrograde motion and variable distance
in a geocentric model always required epicycles which,
if small enough, resembled off center circles NOT ellipses.

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by vofl » Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:59 am

There is no "Tycho de Brahe". He is named Tycho Brahe. Tycho is a latinification of the name Tyge, which still is used in Denmark. Brahe is a family-name - also still in use. :)

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by iamlucky13 » Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:23 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
apodman wrote:Serious questions this time.

On the eclipse diagrams on the manuscript, the moon is shown on a double orbit. Since the moon is shown at the intersection of these orbits in the solar eclipse diagram, I thought maybe one orbit was to suggest the ecliptic plane and the other the moon's orbital plane so the moon would be located at a rising or falling node as required for an eclipse. Would that have been advanced knowledge for the time? But the moon must be at a node for a lunar eclipse as well, and it's not shown that way. So does anybody know what the deal is with the double lunar orbits?
I was thinking it might be trying to show in some way the varying distance from the Earth to the Moon. At that time they must have been well aware of the difference between a total and an annular eclipse. You would also think they must have some idea that the Earth, Sun, and Moon didn't share a common plane- how else to explain partial eclipses? So your idea may be correct as well.
My thoughts exactly. I was actually rather surprised to see what appeared to be a drawing of elliptical orbits.
BMAONE23 wrote:My guess would be like a coin, round but flat
Once the Greeks had spread over a geographically large area and had regular exchange of knowledge, they noticed that the sun reached different angles in the sky at noon depending on the location. They were also well aware of the horizon effect.

After some exercise in geometry, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the accurate to within just a few percent around the year 240 BC. His calculations were actually far more accurate than Columbus' were. I tend to think Columbus duped himself to convince himself and others that the land Norse sailors reported to the west was Siberia, not Canada.

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by Chris Peterson » Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:27 pm

apodman wrote:Serious questions this time.

On the eclipse diagrams on the manuscript, the moon is shown on a double orbit. Since the moon is shown at the intersection of these orbits in the solar eclipse diagram, I thought maybe one orbit was to suggest the ecliptic plane and the other the moon's orbital plane so the moon would be located at a rising or falling node as required for an eclipse. Would that have been advanced knowledge for the time? But the moon must be at a node for a lunar eclipse as well, and it's not shown that way. So does anybody know what the deal is with the double lunar orbits?
I was thinking it might be trying to show in some way the varying distance from the Earth to the Moon. At that time they must have been well aware of the difference between a total and an annular eclipse. You would also think they must have some idea that the Earth, Sun, and Moon didn't share a common plane- how else to explain partial eclipses? So your idea may be correct as well.

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by neufer » Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:08 pm

apodman wrote:Serious questions this time.

On the eclipse diagrams on the manuscript, the moon is shown on a double orbit. Since the moon is shown at the intersection of these orbits in the solar eclipse diagram, I thought maybe one orbit was to suggest the ecliptic plane and the other the moon's orbital plane so the moon would be located at a rising or falling node as required for an eclipse. Would that have been advanced knowledge for the time? But the moon must be at a node for a lunar eclipse as well, and it's not shown that way. So does anybody know what the deal is with the double lunar orbits?
The moon only has to be near a node for a lunar eclipse and that is what is shown, isn't it?
(Clearly, these are 'cartoons' with the size of the moon varying, etc.)

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by apodman » Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 pm

Serious questions this time.

On the eclipse diagrams on the manuscript, the moon is shown on a double orbit. Since the moon is shown at the intersection of these orbits in the solar eclipse diagram, I thought maybe one orbit was to suggest the ecliptic plane and the other the moon's orbital plane so the moon would be located at a rising or falling node as required for an eclipse. Would that have been advanced knowledge for the time? But the moon must be at a node for a lunar eclipse as well, and it's not shown that way. So does anybody know what the deal is with the double lunar orbits?

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by neufer » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:37 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
apodman wrote:If the manuscript is from 1490, why is the Earth round in the eclipse diagrams? I thought the Earth was flat until 1492.
Educated people, including Europeans throughout the Middle Ages, were fully aware that the Earth was spherical- knowledge from at least ancient Greece, which was never lost. The sort of person who would have constructed a chart like this would not have believed the world was flat.
Some even guessed that it was pear shaped!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth wrote:
<<The possibility that the Earth's equator is an ellipse rather than a circle and therefore that the ellipsoid is triaxial has been a matter of scientific controversy for many years. Modern technological developments have furnished new and rapid methods for data collection and since the launch of Sputnik 1, orbital data have been used to investigate the theory of ellipticity. A second theory, more complicated than triaxiality, proposed that observed long periodic orbital variations of the first Earth satellites indicate an additional depression at the south pole accompanied by a bulge of the same degree at the north pole. It is also contended that the northern middle latitudes were slightly flattened and the southern middle latitudes bulged in a similar amount. This concept suggested a slightly pear-shaped Earth and was the subject of much public discussion. Modern geodesy tends to retain the ellipsoid of revolution and treat triaxiality and pear shape as a part of the geoid figure.>>
ImageImage
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/pf/pf32.htm wrote:
The same principles which explain the strange world of Cosmas explain also the strange conception of the Earth which we found in the letters of Columbus. According to this latter, it will be remembered, the historic hemisphere was true to the spherical figure, but the hemisphere of his far West explorations rose to a lofty eminence at the equator, in what he supposed to be Asia, but which afterwards proved to be the northern part of South America. This gave to the Earth the figure shown in the adjoining cut,—a figure which he compared to that of a nearly round pear. At first view this conception seems altogether arbitrary, and even whimsical; but if we go back a century or two to Dante's Earth, we find a globe still more eccentric, one on which the Paradise-mount has slipped down full 30° below the equator, as shown in the following figure. A fundamental datum for its construction is found in the description of the Mountain of Purgatory, respecting whose location it is said, "Zion stands with this Mountain in such wise on the earth that both have a single horizon and diverse hemispheres." A commentator on this says, "When the Divina Commedia was written, Jerusalem was believed to be the exact centre of the habitable hemisphere; the other was conceived to be covered with water. Out of this ocean the mountain of the poet's Purgatory rises up, like the Peak of Teneriffe, from the bosom of the waves, and is exactly opposite to Mount Zion, so that the two become the antipodes of each other. The mathematicians in their measurement of Dante's Hell proceeded in this wise: An arc of thirty degrees was measured from the meridian of Jerusalem westward as far as Cuma, near Naples, and here, at the 'Fauces Averni' of Vergil, it pleased them to locate its dreary entrance. Another arc of thirty degrees was next measured from the same meridian eastward, so that both together made up a portion of the earth's circumference of about 4330 English miles, the chord of which would be equal to its semi-diameter. This was made the base of their operations, so that with the world's centre for its apex . . . the Inferno became as broad as it was deep. At this centre of gravity, firmly wedged in everlasting ice, the grim monarch of these dolorous realms is placed.">>

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by BMAONE23 » Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:56 am

What I find interesting about the geocentric manuscript is the Eclipsis Lune image depicts the earths shadow as a cone which can completely cover the moon but ends at a point beyond with a larger sun as the light source. However, in the Eclipsis Solis side, all bodies are the same size and the shadow completely covers the earth with no apparent convergence

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by Chris Peterson » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:42 pm

apodman wrote:If the manuscript is from 1490, why is the Earth round in the eclipse diagrams? I thought the Earth was flat until 1492.
Educated people, including Europeans throughout the Middle Ages, were fully aware that the Earth was spherical- knowledge from at least ancient Greece, which was never lost. The sort of person who would have constructed a chart like this would not have believed the world was flat.

Re: MELK: 1490 Manuscript (APOD 2009 April 17)

by apodman » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:42 pm

Aha, with turtles on the reverse no doubt.

Top