Ptolemy's Shadows: Examining Our Astronomical Perception of Time

  • Thread starter saltydog
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Time
In summary: But what is "really"? Admitting our accelerated frame at the Earth's surface is not inertial, we can attribute the signs of our acceleration to forces and say the sun and the planets DO go around us! And if we can then get a suitable approximation to their motions through epicycles, well and good. How do you think we predict the motion of the...
  • #1
saltydog
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,591
3
I must say I have the utmost respect for modern Astronomy yet I am led to suspect we are still being misled by her. She is very deceptive you know: a flat-looking earth, wandering planets, sun and moon moving across the sky, other too. Is she still up to her old tricks as she was at the time of Ptolemy and before the Middle Ages?

I suspect so. Have we really advanced that much since then? How will she look to us in a 1000 years? Will men look back at us, our theories, in the same way as we look back to the Geocentric theory? Ptolemy's epicycles were "shadows" of what was really out there: his perception of what the world "looked like" from his vantage point. Later, men of greater intuition refined his image enabling us to shine a light on the real clockwork and we were humbled.

Sometimes I wonder if that is the same case with the Big Bang and the expansion of the Universe. Can it possibly be shadows of what's really out there, waiting to be illuminated?

Personally, I'm very optimistic something revolutionary will come out of the Sloan data; I look outside of my window and marvel at our non-linear world as I wait for a modern-day Kepler.

Edit: Oh yea, if I offend any practicing Astronomers in here I apologize for my insolence. I really do admire you all. :smile:
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
saltydog said:
I must say I have the utmost respect for modern Astronomy yet I am led to suspect we are still being misled by her. She is very deceptive you know: a flat-looking earth, wandering planets, sun and moon moving across the sky, other too. Is she still up to her old tricks as she was at the time of Ptolemy and before the Middle Ages?

I suspect so. Have we really advanced that much since then? How will she look to us in a 1000 years? Will men look back at us, our theories, in the same way as we look back to the Geocentric theory? Ptolemy's epicycles were "shadows" of what was really out there: his perception of what the world "looked like" from his vantage point. Later, men of greater intuition refined his image enabling us to shine a light on the real clockwork and we were humbled.
We must remember what a good ‘scientific’ theory the Ptolemaic system was.
The continual addition of ‘epicycles’ was a geometric equivalent of the summing of circular functions in Fourier analysis. Add enough and you can make ‘the theory fit the data’ to whatever accuracy required, and so convincing too!
The fact that the earth/universe only looks flat and the present epicycles (inflation, exotic DM and DE) are not necessary will take some time to sink in…

Garth
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Garth said:
The continual addition of ‘epicycles’ was a geometric equivalent of the summing of circular functions in Fourier analysis. Add enough and you can make ‘the theory fit the data’ to whatever accuracy required, and so convincing too!
Garth

Hello Garth. But the planets really DONT go back and forwards across the sky. It only "looks" that way against the celestial sphere.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Ptolemy invented his epicycles to account for this retro-grade motion which was of course only a reflection of the real clockwork. Sure it accurately accounts for their "apparent" motion but fails to describe their "actual" motion. How might such an equilavent analogy be applied to the "apparent" expansion of the Universe if such would be the case? That is, what would the "real" motion look like if this is indeed of the same coin? :smile:
 
  • #4
saltydog said:
Hello Garth. But the planets really DONT go back and forwards across the sky. It only "looks" that way against the celestial sphere.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Ptolemy invented his epicycles to account for this retro-grade motion which was of course only a reflection of the real clockwork. Sure it accurately accounts for their "apparent" motion but fails to describe their "actual" motion. How might such an equilavent analogy be applied to the "apparent" expansion of the Universe if such would be the case? That is, what would the "real" motion look like if this is indeed of the same coin? :smile:


But what is "really"? Admittedly our accelerated frame at the Earth's surface is not inertial, but in the spirit of the equivalence pronciplal we can attribute the signs of our acceleration to forces and then say the sun and the planets DO go around us! And if we can then get a suitable approximation to their motions through epicycles, well and good. How do you think we predict the motion of the Moon?

Actually the failing of the epicyclists was not geocentrism but the fixation on uniform circular motion. It was Kepler's rejection of that which broke the log jam.
 

1. What is Ptolemy's Shadows and why is it important?

Ptolemy's Shadows is a scientific theory proposed by the ancient astronomer Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD. It suggests that the way we perceive time is influenced by the shadows cast by celestial bodies, such as the sun and moon. This theory is important because it provides insight into how ancient civilizations understood and measured time, and it also has implications for our modern understanding of time and the universe.

2. How did Ptolemy come up with this theory?

Ptolemy's Shadows was developed through his observations of the movements of the sun and stars, and his understanding of the Earth's position in relation to these celestial bodies. He noticed that the length and direction of shadows changed throughout the day, and this led him to theorize that shadows could be used as a measure of time.

3. What evidence supports Ptolemy's Shadows?

Several historical artifacts, such as sundials and ancient calendars, provide evidence for Ptolemy's Shadows. These tools were used by ancient civilizations to track time and were often based on the movements of celestial bodies and the shadows they cast. Additionally, modern scientific studies have shown that our perception of time is influenced by environmental factors, including the position of the sun and shadows.

4. How does Ptolemy's Shadows impact our modern understanding of time?

Ptolemy's Shadows has had a significant impact on our modern understanding of time and the universe. It provides a historical perspective on how different cultures have measured and perceived time, and how this perception has evolved over time. It also highlights the role of environmental factors, such as the position of celestial bodies and the shadows they cast, in shaping our understanding of time.

5. Are there any criticisms of Ptolemy's Shadows?

While Ptolemy's Shadows has been an influential theory in the history of astronomy and timekeeping, it has also faced criticism. Some argue that it oversimplifies the complexity of time and its measurement, and that it does not take into account other important factors such as cultural and societal influences. Additionally, modern scientific advancements have provided more accurate and precise methods for measuring time, making Ptolemy's Shadows less relevant in contemporary science.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
880
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
974
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
819
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
795
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
5K
Back
Top