Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Medieval science
 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Medieval science
    Posted: 27-Dec-2006 at 18:29
Looking for feedback:
 


Edited by fourwindsing - 27-Dec-2006 at 18:30
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 06:14
Interesting enough, and the effect of a major change in the moon's orbit could conceivably have that effect. However he only writes:
"June 25, 1178 occurred 1.5 days after the new moon, the time when the dark side of the moon is turned towards the earth. Approximately 520 miles (840 kilometers) beyond the edge of the portion of the moon visible from earth, an incident was to occur, which, it was thought, could not have occurred within the time of recorded history. It seemed even less likely that such an incident would have been witnessed and recorded. According to Gervase of Canterbury, the monks who witnessed the occurrence were "prepared to stake their honor on an oath that they had made no addition of falsification" in their narrative. What they had witnessed on that evening was a huge impact on the moon, probably by a meteorite."

What actually did the monks report seeing? They can't possibly have said "We saw a meteorite hit the moon." Moreover, if the impact was on the dark side of the moon, how could they see it?

I checked the date and time of the new moon, and it was 14:03 GMT on June 24 (Nicaean) so 1.5 days is a bit iffy - why not just say 'the day after the new moon'?

I would also have thought the monks at the time would have been using the Julian calendar, in which the new moon would have been on June 17, but the writer may have taken account of that.

I'd like to know what date the monks actually recorded. If they said June 25 using the Julian calendar, then the moon would have been over a week old and the crater visible.

If anyone's interested, I figure, assuming the impact was seen late in the evening, June 25 Nicaean that year was 1 Muharram, 3 Tir, 2 Asadha (though there are various Indian versions), and 2 Tammus. If it was in the early morning some of those dates would be a day earlier.



Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 07:22
People should not downplay Medioeval science at all. I remember reading in a book long time ago that several ideas the contributed to the scientific revolution were invented first in the Dark Ages of the West.
 
Penguin
Back to Top
Lepidodendron View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 18-Dec-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 128 		  Quote Lepidodendron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 19:41
The article is very slow to get to the point - in fact, I'm still not completely sure what the point is - and nowhere, absolutely NOWHERE the contents of the "tale of the monks" or the "observations of the monks of Canterbury" are given, they are only hinted at, which I find frustrating. It makes a lot of assumptions, like when, for instance, it suggests that solar activity minima are thought to be the sole cause of the Little Ice Age, which I am virtually sure is not true: there simply is no explanation for this particular phenomenon, while in general climate change is not assigned to one cause, but is thought to result from many factors. Solar activity may be one of them.
No corroboration whatsoever is given to the theory that an impact on the moon, if it took place, could have been responsible for the Little Ice Age; it is just assumed. No physics, no math, no sources, nothing. Just empty phrases. I'm not even sure what this has to do with Medieval science.
 
So, highly speculative and unconvincing, if you ask me.
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335 		  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 22:53
Originally posted by Lepidodendron

The article is very slow to get to the point - in fact, I'm still not completely sure what the point is - and nowhere, absolutely NOWHERE the contents of the "tale of the monks" or the "observations of the monks of Canterbury" are given, they are only hinted at, which I find frustrating. It makes a lot of assumptions, like when, for instance, it suggests that solar activity minima are thought to be the sole cause of the Little Ice Age, which I am virtually sure is not true: there simply is no explanation for this particular phenomenon, while in general climate change is not assigned to one cause, but is thought to result from many factors. Solar activity may be one of them.
No corroboration whatsoever is given to the theory that an impact on the moon, if it took place, could have been responsible for the Little Ice Age; it is just assumed. No physics, no math, no sources, nothing. Just empty phrases. I'm not even sure what this has to do with Medieval science.
 
So, highly speculative and unconvincing, if you ask me.
 
The article wasn't the best scientific article I read... but it has the point. Medieval science eventually brought the foundation of modern science. And imagine, they did not have the advance lab environment with reasonable equipment as we take it for granted. Furthermore, people seeked to Church for explainations, not by experiments. So, what they accomplished is greater than we realize.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Lepidodendron View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 18-Dec-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 128 		  Quote Lepidodendron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 16:36
I agree, but there are much better examples to prove that Medieval science had some substance to it than a vague story concerning monks who coincidentally saw something happen that might or might not relate to a scientific problem which has not been solved yet:
 
 
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335 		  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jan-2007 at 19:32
Originally posted by Lepidodendron

I agree, but there are much better examples to prove that Medieval science had some substance to it than a vague story concerning monks who coincidentally saw something happen that might or might not relate to a scientific problem which has not been solved yet:
 
 
 
Well, it's quite common that many scientific discoveries were made not by logics and theories... but by accidents.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Lepidodendron View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 18-Dec-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 128 		  Quote Lepidodendron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jan-2007 at 20:17
Originally posted by pekau

Well, it's quite common that many scientific discoveries were made not by logics and theories... but by accidents.
 
Well, this one did a pretty bad job then.
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.