The importance of Truth in the Holy Writ

isaac_newton wrote:

going back to something I asked earlier... do you know in what form these calculations [and the original observations] were stored? do we have any of such records?

The correct answer is "Yes, lots." But given that we're talking about half the world, with some stuff dating back to 1800 BCE, or even before, the other correct answer is "in a variety of forms'.

If you have a look at Wikipedia's History of Astronomy article, you'll get some idea .

Returning to Safehold - if I remember my history of science, the main problem on Earth wasn't the maths, or the theology, or even a highly annoyed Pope who'd been publicly insulted by some idiot astronomer. It was obtaining the observational evidence. And while Galileo was right, and had increased the amount of evidence supporting a heliocentric system, he didn't provide enough data to overturn the accepted system.

Bluesqueak wrote:

isaac_newton wrote:

going back to something I asked earlier... do you know in what form these calculations [and the original observations] were stored? do we have any of such records?

The correct answer is "Yes, lots." But given that we're talking about half the world, with some stuff dating back to 1800 BCE, or even before, the other correct answer is "in a variety of forms'.

If you have a look at Wikipedia's History of Astronomy article, you'll get some idea .

SNIP

thanks for that.

I guess that I was specially wondering about 'transportable' data and also about how the necessary equations were formulated [written]...

So it was interesting to see about the Babylonian methods - cuniform tablets with rising/setting times and 'chains of stars'. [Pits and circles not being very transportable!]

It was not so obvious about the latter question though...

Well, neither Copernicus nor Kepler ever saw a telescope, and the observations available to them were conclusive enough. I don't think Tycho's observations were bettered until the development of astrophotography.

Whitecold wrote:I'd like to note that there is little evidence that anyone ever used more than a single epicycle to do calculations.
The main benefit of the keplerian system was that it was easier to calculate.
Observations by eye fit the Ptolemaic system still very, very well, for moreaccurate observations telescopes were needed.

Of course, Safehold has much improved optics available...

Louis R wrote:Well, neither Copernicus nor Kepler ever saw a telescope, and the observations available to them were conclusive enough. I don't think Tycho's observations were bettered until the development of astrophotography.

Whitecold wrote:I'd like to note that there is little evidence that anyone ever used more than a single epicycle to do calculations.
The main benefit of the keplerian system was that it was easier to calculate.
Observations by eye fit the Ptolemaic system still very, very well, for moreaccurate observations telescopes were needed.

Of course, Safehold has much improved optics available...

This is 'conclusive' in the very special sense of Tycho Brahe arguing against the Copernican system, Kepler rewriting it and Galileo then completely ignoring Kepler?

The problem was that the observations of planetary movement available to them could be explained by at least three different mathematical models, probably four. With hindsight (and better observations) we now know who was right; at the time it was a massive argument with added Inquisition.

I am not aware of any significant debate on the subject post-Principia, although it's always possible that every one of the authors I have on my shelf has dismissed the naysayers as fringe elements. I rather doubt that, since the best histories of science are written by trained historians who don't have dogs in any of the fights. [You should see them tying into people like Kuhn ] It would be another 2 centuries before observations improved far enough beyond the data Newton worked with to show up the incompleteness of his equations.

However, that's not really the point. If the Writ supplies sufficiently-accurate algorithms for predicting the positions of heavenly bodies, it doesn't much matter how they are _explained_. Heck, without a good analytic geometry, the actual equations could be Newtonian and nobody would have a clue that they actually describe conics, not epicycles.

[quote="Bluesqueak"]
This is 'conclusive' in the very special sense of Tycho Brahe arguing against the Copernican system, Kepler rewriting it and Galileo then completely ignoring Kepler?

The problem was that the observations of planetary movement available to them could be explained by at least three different mathematical models, probably four. With hindsight (and better observations) we now know who was right; at the time it was a massive argument with added Inquisition.[/quote]

Louis R wrote:
However, that's not really the point. If the Writ supplies sufficiently-accurate algorithms for predicting the positions of heavenly bodies, it doesn't much matter how they are _explained_. Heck, without a good analytic geometry, the actual equations could be Newtonian and nobody would have a clue that they actually describe conics, not epicycles.

So what you're getting at is the inherent flaws in the heliocentric model weren't something Langhorne was concerned with because it wasn't the integrity of the heliocentricity that he saw as the potential failure point. The failure point would have been in lacking the math needed to break it, and he was able keep that from becoming a problem by 1) not including it, 2) using the roman system, and 3) starting everyone with a mono-culture that they were able to evolve away from (rather than diverse cultures developing different ways to do the same thing).

I can see that making sense in a 'has to last for a thousand years or two' model. But in the truly long-term (forever-and-ever) I have to wonder if someone wouldn't start counting on fingers and toes and develop some sort of decimal system, and that would make practical a lot of things that roman numerals...don't.

Kael Posavatz wrote:

Louis R wrote:
However, that's not really the point. If the Writ supplies sufficiently-accurate algorithms for predicting the positions of heavenly bodies, it doesn't much matter how they are _explained_. Heck, without a good analytic geometry, the actual equations could be Newtonian and nobody would have a clue that they actually describe conics, not epicycles.

So what you're getting at is the inherent flaws in the heliocentric model weren't something Langhorne was concerned with because it wasn't the integrity of the heliocentricity that he saw as the potential failure point. The failure point would have been in lacking the math needed to break it, and he was able keep that from becoming a problem by 1) not including it, 2) using the roman system, and 3) starting everyone with a mono-culture that they were able to evolve away from (rather than diverse cultures developing different ways to do the same thing).

I can see that making sense in a 'has to last for a thousand years or two' model. But in the truly long-term (forever-and-ever) I have to wonder if someone wouldn't start counting on fingers and toes and develop some sort of decimal system, and that would make practical a lot of things that roman numerals...don't.

That is absolutely true and Shan-wei and her fellows recognized it at the time. It is, in fact, much of the basis for her final discussion with Langhorne and Bedard in the immediate run up to Armageddon Reef. Langhorne and his allies were firmly in the mindset you describe: "we can set enough limitations in place to keep this problem from ever arising, and we'll kick the mathematical stool needed to sole it out from under the Safeholdians' feet, so everything will be peachy forever and ever,"

They were wrong. They were self-evidently wrong about the ability of the system to maintain itself in perpetuity even assuming the rosiest possible conditions.

They were also desperate, traumatized people with a species-wide case of PTSD of unimaginable strength.

I hope readers can understand why Maikal Staynair has always sympathized with them (without excusing them from the consequences of their actions) and why even Merlin has discovered he can genuinely understand what drove them.

Thanks to everyone who led me to wisdom, and to RFC for confirming the lesson.

I failed to appreciate the Maths even though RFC and Merlin got us started on it all the way back at 'A is for Abacus.'

Kael Posavatz wrote:Thanks to everyone who led me to wisdom, and to RFC for confirming the lesson.

I failed to appreciate the Maths even though RFC and Merlin got us started on it all the way back at 'A is for Abacus.'

The serious challenge to the epicyclic systems was the existence of comets flying through the crystal spheres.

Bluesqueak wrote:

isaac_newton wrote:

going back to something I asked earlier... do you know in what form these calculations [and the original observations] were stored? do we have any of such records?

The correct answer is "Yes, lots." But given that we're talking about half the world, with some stuff dating back to 1800 BCE, or even before, the other correct answer is "in a variety of forms'.

If you have a look at Wikipedia's History of Astronomy article, you'll get some idea .

Returning to Safehold - if I remember my history of science, the main problem on Earth wasn't the maths, or the theology, or even a highly annoyed Pope who'd been publicly insulted by some idiot astronomer. It was obtaining the observational evidence. And while Galileo was right, and had increased the amount of evidence supporting a heliocentric system, he didn't provide enough data to overturn the accepted system.

Fortunately, there was a King of Denmark who believed in making his country more powerful via combat astrology, needing better observations of planetary positions.