Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Do We Have Exactly 2 Years To Live?

The Caracol: ancient Maya observatory.

Do you realize what day it it? If you didn't, it's December 21, and according to some, we all have exactly 2 years to live as, come this date in 2012, the world will be destroyed by some as yet unknown worldwide cataclysm.

Ah, yes, the 2012 doomsday fears arise again, but are they founded in fact or fantasy?

Okay, before we start examining where the fear came from and whether we should even worry at all, let's run through the 2012 doomsday scenario first. On December 21, 2012, the Maya Long Count calendar runs out. Now, while no one has used the Classic Maya calendar in hundreds of years (the great Maya civilization in Southern Mexico/Central America collapsed around 1000 A.D.), some people read some ominous overtones into this whole idea of time just running out, which has lead some to believe that, since they were the only civilization with a calendar that ever ended at a fixed point in time, the Maya knew something that no one else did: the exact date the world would end.

Now, that's 2012 as told by the fear mongers, what about 2012 told by science and history?

Understanding the whole 2012 doomsday fear requires a mix of Maya history and religion, which will then come together quite elegantly in the end. First off, Maya religion was in itself quite a convoluted mix of mythology, the most important of which was the myth of the Hero Twins, as this story told of the triumph of life over death that just may be the basis for 2012.

The Maya, so far as we know, were the first people to possess rubber, which they used for, among other things, molding into giant balls (about 10-12 inches in diameter) that were used in a ceremonial ballgame that represented the triumph of life over death by recreating the myth of the Hero Twins. As for the story, it went as follows.

A Maya ritual ballcourt. Note how high the hoop is on the wall.
Way back when, perhaps at a time when the game was more about fun, a Maya king and his brother liked to play the ballgame, the object of which was to knock the ball through a hoop high on a wall without using one's hands or feet. Obviously, with the useful appendages out of play, the game could go on for days, with the first team to score winning. Unfortunately for the king and his brother, their ball court was just over an entrance to the underworld and the sound of the heavy ball bouncing all over the place started to irritate the Lords of Death, who also just happened to be ball players. Getting fed up, the Lords of Death invited the king and his brother to the underworld for a game. Accepting the challenge, the king and his brother entered the realm of the dead and squared off against, and lost to the Lords of Death. The king and his brother were then sacrificed. However, the story wasn't done: the king had twin sons of his own, who also liked to play the ballgame. In time, just like their father and uncle, the twins ball playing annoyed the Lords of Death, who then decided that they were going to try and go 2-0 against the humans. Long story short, the twins beat the Lords of Death, sacrificed them, and then resurrected their father and uncle as the Sun and Moon, respectively, thus, life triumphed over death.

A highly stylized representation of the Milky Way void as a monster swallowing the souls of the dead. A copy of the coffin lid for king Pacal the Great.

Onto the astronomy, the Maya were perhaps the greatest astronomers in history until the Renaissance, with achievements to their credit that still stun modern scientists. However, like the Greeks, the Maya were an interesting people in that they made the most accurate astronomical measurements of their day, yet still clung to mythologies characteristic of far more primitive peoples. For the Maya, one facet of this mythology was the idea that the Milky Way was the road to the underworld and a dark rift in the Milky Way itself right above the famous Teapot asterism was the actual gateway. Okay, fine, so what?


Back to the Hero Twins myth. Remember that the Twins resurrected their father and uncle a the Sun and Moon. In releasing their father (now the Sun) from the underworld, the twins were creating, according to the Maya, a “new Sun,” or cycle of life. Now, back to the ballgame. While no one knows the exact symbolism involved, there is agreement on the idea that the ball represented the Sun. So, if the ball represented the Sun and the players the Hero Twins and Lords of Death, it only makes sense that, by the winning team knocking the ball (Sun) through the hoop, they were thus representing the Hero Twins resurrection of their father as the Sun by shooting the Sun out of the underworld through the gateway, represented by the hoop on the wall. Now, back to astronomy. It just so happens that, due to precession of the equinoxes, the location of the Sun on any given day against the background sky changes over time. Now, perhaps one of the Maya's most remarkable astronomical achievements: on December 21, 2012, the Winter Solstice Sun will rise exactly in the center of the dark rift in the Milky Way, symbolically rising out of the underworld and representing a new cycle of creation, at least according to the Maya.

So, does this mean the world will end?

Ironically, for all the fear their calendar has created, according to the Maya, one cycle running out and another starting meant that the world could end, not that it would end. For a really interesting cosmology, one only has to look at the history of Maya timekeeping. The Maya (and other Mesoamericans before them) were interesting in that they believed that time was cyclical, not linear. So, being obsessed with cycles, it was only natural that that Mesoamericans started looking for them in nature. Being farmers, it was important for these early people to ascertain the length of the year to better ensure successful harvests. So, as every other primitive farming culture did, the Mesoamericans found the year to be about 365 days long. Now, for reasons unknown, the Mesoamericans used not one, but two calendars, the other being a 260 ritual one that was used for divination purposes. Now, here's the big unknown: which came first, the two calendars or the realization that they would line up exactly every 52 years? While the answer to that question will never be known (the Olmecs who developed it left no writing), the impact of the calendar would last for centuries, with the Maya taking it to new levels of sophistication.

As with some people today, the Mesoamericans found the notion of time running out to be a little unnerving. However, unlike today, this fear was held by the entire population. So, as the 52-year calendar round entered its final days, the priests would up the prayers and demand greater sacrifices in the hope that the gods would let the world continue to exist. Well, by looking at the fact that we're still here, those Maya priests must have been pretty good! Now, despite the fact that the end of the world had been successfully averted every time in the past, the thought of confronting doomsday every 52 years left the Maya rulers/priesthood (on whom the continued existence of the world hinged) uneasy. So, some unknown genius came up with a big idea: why not postpone the end of the world by finding a longer cycle of time so that we don't have to worry about it anymore? Well, the idea took off and, in time, the Long Count, which ran 5,125.25 years, was created.


The Maya were so obsessed with timekeeping that they even built calendars into their pyramids. This one has 91 steps on each side plus a temple on top (94 x 4 = 364 + 1 = 365).


By looking at the cycles contained within the Long Count, it quickly becomes apparent that the Maya had a true love of numbers and/or had too much free time on their hands. The breakdown of the units of time contained within the Long Count is a follows:

1 day = 1 K'in
20 days = 20 K'ins = 1 Winal
360 days = 18 Winals = 1 Tun
7200 days = 20 Tuns = 1 K'atun
144,000 days = 20 K'atun = 1 B'ak'tun
1,872,000 days = 13 B'ak'tuns = 1 Great Cycle (completion of Long Count)

Obviously, with the 5,125.25 year Long Count complete, the Maya must have felt more than secure in the knowledge that they would never have to worry about the world coming to an end in their lifetimes ever again, as if the gods somehow had to obey the will of man now that a longer time cycle had been created. Pretty funny, isn't it?

Okay, back to the present.

If you have made it this far, you (hopefully) have come to the logical conclusion that there was no way that the Maya could have predicted the end of the world as the Long Count is a human construction that has absolutely no basis in nature. Simply put, the Maya hated the prospect of having to worry about doomsday every 52 years, so they decided to create a longer cycle (the Long Count) so that they wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. So, come 2012 and the end of the Long Count, why worry? The world never ended at any of those 52 year calendar rounds, so why would it end now at the end of a Great Cycle? Answer: it won't, the Long Count means nothing and desperately needs to be confined to the realm of pseudoscience junk like astrology, tarot cards, and all other forms of divination, not a single one of which has stood up rigorous scientific scrutiny.

 
Oh, yes, here's the eclipse (or at least what the clouds allowed me to see of it . . . )



 
Humble requests:


If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for photography and astronomy for more great stuff.

Think this was cool? Why not tell a friend?

For something even better, become a follower.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Total Lunar Eclipse Tonight

Tonight, sky watchers all across North America will get treated to a total lunar eclipse that will be visible from beginning to end, no matter what time zone you live in! As a trivial note, this is the first time an eclipse has also occurred on a solstice since 1638, which also brought a lunar eclipse, and is only the second solstice eclipse in the last 2,000 years! With this being such a rare event, anyone who has a clear sky (or even a chance of a few clear breaks) should head out and take a look up at the Moon. So, instead of going on and on typing away about what you will be able to see, I'll just show you.


Below is the complete sequence of the October 27, 2004 total lunar eclipse, the lat one visible fro start to finish in Ohio that wasn't clouded out for part of the time. By the way, I took these pictures with a primitive Sony Mavica, circa 2000. Obviously, if this (even for it's day) digital dinosaur (it ised floppy discs for storage) could take pictures of the eclipse just by me aiming and shooting, a modern day digital camera should be able to do much better.
 
 










 
 
 
Humble requests:


If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for photography and astronomy for more great stuff.


Think this was cool? Why not tell a friend?


For something even better, become a follower.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Examiner For Week of 12/12, Other Interesting Events

Another week, another Examiner roundup, plus a couple of big things coming down the pike.
Astronomy
The origin of the Geminid Meteor Shower
Geminid viewing tips
Geminid Meteor Shower continues past the peak
Space shuttle Discovery to be rolled back from launch pad
Smash the asteroid into Earth, see what happens
Total lunar eclipse is coming!



Photography
Miley Cyrus bong video may be her undoing
Metrodome roof collapses
How to photograph meteors
Hands-on with the Nikon D7000
Rate classmates hotness with new website
Bob Feller: a life in photos
Free Shipping Friday
Score deals at Super Saturday sales

Thing 1: Total Lunar Eclipse Monday NightLucky us, all of North America will get treated to a total lunar eclipse, visible from beginning to end, on the night of December 20/21, the 21st also being the solstice, and thus the first solstice eclipse since 1638 and only the second in the last 2,000 years!

 
Thing 2: December 21Ah, yes, Tuesday, in addition to being the start of Winter (at least in the Northern Hemisphere) is also December 21, the day that many people all around the globe fear that our world, or even universe, may end. So, is all the doomsday hype justified or just a bunch of hot air? Check back for an objective examination of the 2012 Maya doomsday "prophecy."



Humble thanks and requests:


If you clicked on any of the above Examiner articles, you're helping me pay my bills. Thank you!

Know someone who misses my stuff or you think would find it interesting? Spread the word!

Like this, why not follow this blog?

Friday, December 17, 2010

In-Hand Feel: D7000 vs. D300s

For many current and prospective Nikon shooters, the company has created quite a dilemma in that its new D7000 ($1,200) out-specs. the older D300s ($1,700) in terms of imaging power, but not in terms of the control layout. So, time for the question of the day: am I willing to sacrifice user-friendliness for better pictures? Answer: that's up to you, but why not examine the differences first?




The D7000 and D300s are clearly different.

The key issue for current Nikon shooters is that the D7000 is different in user interface than the Dx00 and up line of cameras. So, for anyone with an old camera/looking for a backup body, there will be differences, so is the extra imaging power worth the learning curve? Also, Nikon's full frame cameras are laid out different than the D7000 in that they are virtually identical to the Dx00 line. So, for anyone coming to Nikon or upgrading from a lower level camera, the question of whether one will ever go FF should come into play as well.

So, how big are the differences?
Starting at the upper left, on both the D7000 and D300s, the two buttons (enter playback mode and delete) are absolutely identical, no differences (or learning curve) here.


The back left side of the cameras
Moving down the left side of the camera, one notices that the D7000 has 4 buttons (3 of which are dual function) while the D300s has 5 (only 1 of which is dual). First off, the easy part, the 'ok' button on the D300s (bottom on the left row) has moved to the center of the multi-selector on the D7000, which is a good thing in that this button is used to confirm menu settings, which means that the operation of changing menu selections on the D7000 is a one-thumb operation. On the D300s, there is some redundancy as there is both the 'ok' button and another unmarked one in the center of the multi-selector. Now, onto the remaining buttons, they're identical in their playback functions on both cameras. Unfortunately, the bottom 3 on the D7000 are dual function and have different functions in shooting mode. On the D7000, these buttons, when in shooting mode, control ISO, white balance, and file quality, all 3 of which are controlled by single function buttons on the top left of the D300s. Now, this is better than Canon where what dual function buttons do is dependent on which wheel you spin, but not as good on the higher-level Nikons where there are no dual functions at all.




The back right of the cameras, notice the fewer controls on the D7000

Looking at the right side of the camera and working from the top down, one notices that the 'AF-ON' button on the D300s is missing on the D7000. In my opinion, good riddance, why would anyone use the rear button to focus when the same thing can be done by half pressing the shutter button? In terms of functionality, it's a mixed bag with the 'AE-L/AF-L' button. Both D7000 and D300s have this function. Unfortunately, the D7000 loses the control over metering that the D300s allows by turning this same switch. On the D7000, metering is controlled by a button on the top right of the camera, which means having to look at the top side LCD display when changing metering modes. Moving down, the multi-selector and live view control (button on D300s and spring-loaded switch on D7000) have flip-flopped positions, no big deal there. The greatest difference lies with the second switch. On the D7000, it is merely a multi-controller lock switch. On the D300s and up, though, this identically-placed switch transforms into an AF area mode selector because the multi-selector lock is built around the selector itself. At the very bottom, both cameras share a dedicated 'info' button.



The top rights are almost identical.
Moving to the top right of the camera, things are more alike than different in that both cameras have the identical shutter/power/LCD light switch control setup. Also, both D7000 and d300s share an exposure compensation button nearest the right side of the camera, too. The difference comes with the left button, which has an exposure mode function on the D300s and a metering one on the D7000. Okay, mode button missing on the new camera, so where have these controls gone? Answer: on the front of the camera. Like on other Nikons, the AF-MF camera switch is on the left of the lens mount. However, it has been tweaked a bit, though. Now, instead of just a lever, there is a lever-button combo switch. The button is AF/MF and pressing it allows the front dial to control AF area modes (all points, some points, single point) while the back dial controls focus modes (single, servo, continuous). While this is more confusing than on higher-level Nikons, the plus is the fact that all of these mode changes can be seen in the viewfinder as you make them.




The biggest differnces come on the top left.
Coming to the top left of the camera, we see some other differences. First, the similarity is that both D7000 and the D300s share the drive mode dial, which includes functions like frame rate, self- timer, quiet mode, and mirror lock up. The letters on this dial are also easier to see than on older implementations (like on the D300s), too. However, on top of this advance dial, things get different. The D300s has single-function buttons for ISO, white balance, and file quality while the D7000 has a more amateurish mode dial (the ISO, WB, and quality functions are moved to the rear of the camera via dual function buttons on the left of the LCD). The good news is that the D7000 has, for the first time in Nikon, user-defined settings where you can save all your shooting parameters to the camera's built-in memory, essentially making your defined settings a shooting mode! So, good or bad? For me, a trade-off. Yes, the single function buttons of the D300s are nice, but having to look at the top LCD to see what mode you're in is a pain. Likewise, just turning the dial for mode and forgetting it on the D7000 is great, but those 3 dual-function buttons on the back of the camera can be a pain. Personally, I'd like to see Nikon put the ISO, WB, and quality buttons just behind the shutter and move the exposure compensation and metering/mode buttons over to the left, put them on a dial, and stack this new one on to of the drive dial both cameras already share.

Finally, onto the front of the camera. Both cameras share a flash pop-up button in the same location. However, the new D7000 adds a dedicated flash bracketing button below the pop-up button, a nice touch owners of older cameras probably wish they had. Below this, there is the front focus switch, which selects focus mode on the D300s and does, in addition to AF/MF, controls AF point selection and focus mode when used with the dials on the top right of the camera. Off to the left, you'll notice that the D7000, unlike the D300s, has no connection ports on the front, as all have been moved to the left side of the body on the newer camera. On the right side of the camera, both models are virtually identical in that they both have 2 buttons which can be assigned various functions.


So, after reading all of this, where do we get clear-cut advantages one way or the other?


Pros for D7000
No pointless AF button on back of camera
Dedicated flash bracketing button
All connection ports are in the same place


Pros for D300s and up
Less dual-function buttons
Multi-selector lock is built into the selector itself
Metering control is on rear of camera, no need to look at LCD screen
AF area mode selector on rear of camera



So, which camera to buy: D7000 or D300s?

For me, yes, the more expensive D300s is the better camera for user interface. However, the D7000 is no clunker, it's 90% of what the D300s is. Now, if that was all there was to the story, the D300s would be the better camera, but there's a lot more. On the spec sheet, the D7000 equals or betters the $500 more expensive D300s in areas like high ISO performance, resolution, video capability, AF capabilities (those extra 12 points on the D300s don't matter), build quality, frame rate (D7000 can go 6fps in 14 bit while the D300s can only do 2.5!), file storage/backup, AF microadjust, and a built-in intervalometer. Looking at the complete package, there's no reason not to buy the D7000 unless you absolutely must have the metering dial, AF point selection lever, and the dedicated ISO, WB, and file quality buttons. If this is you, then get the soon to be replaced, essentially 3 ½ year old D300s. If you can live with the few shortcomings, get the latest and greatest by buying the D7000.



Like What You Just Read?

Why not check out other great stuff about photography, astronomy, associated gear, and how to use it.

Think someone else would find this informative (or at least entertaining)? Use the buttons below to share!

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Hands-On With The D7000: The Images

Today on my Examiner page, I did a short report about my hands-on experience with a Nikon D7000, the camera that, at announcement, was quickly deemed the greatest thing since sliced bread. Well, after getting a hands-on experience with the camera, I can testify to the fact that the image quality the D7000 renders despite the 25% increase in resolution is all that it's cracked up to be. So, since I can't post large enough files on Examiner to show off the D7000's greatness, I'm going it here, instead.



The full scene, so note how heavy the crops are

Noise Test
For the noise test, I shot the display case at Loomis Camera in Elyria, OH, where the store proprietors were kind enough to let me play around with the worlds hottest camera. Why the display case? Well, there is a great range of brightnesses here going from white to black and noise appears differently thanks to brightness levels. So, let;s see how the D7000 does.



Bright Areas
In bright areas of the image, the D7000 is virtually noiseless through ISO 3200, an incredible achievement for an APS-C camera. At 6400, graininess starts setting in, but isn't truly objectionable until the top setting of ISO 25,600 (Hi 2) at which point the colors also appear greatly washed-out, too.




Dark Areas
In the shaded areas of the picture, the D7000 continues to perform very well, especially considering that it's not FF. Here, noise levels are fine through 1600 with only slight grain appearing at 3200. At 6400, grain starts to creep at a stronger level (just look at the bar code at the top left of the crops). By 12,800, the graininess increases and the colors appear slightly washed-out. 25,600? Avoid if at all possible, this is clearly 1 stop too many.






VR on the 18-105 works as advertised

VR Test
The camera I got to play with came with the 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR lens attached. In Nikon literature, the VR mechanism in the 18-105 is marketed as having a 3 stop effectiveness. Well, deciding to put this to the test, I set the camera at base ISO and shot, this time, an ancient Minolta SLR from the film days. After about half a dozen shots, no camera shake appeared at 105mm with a shutter speed of 1/5th second when, according to conventional wisdom, one should need to shoot 1/100th second for such a result. Not bad.



Bottom Line
The Nikon D7000 is one heck of a camera. The image quality is top-notch, with some people comparing it to that offered by the original D3 and D700. So, the high IQ combined with the new Sigma 8-16 lens effectively renders FF pointless except for people who want a large viewfinder and desire to use fast, mechanical drive primes. The only real nitpick in the D7000 itself is its dual function buttons on the rear of the camera (the D300s and up buttons are single function). Unless these two characteristics describe you, just buy a D7000, if you are lucky enough to find them in stock . . .



Humble requests:


If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for photography and astronomy for more great stuff.


Think this was cool? Why not tell a friend?


For something even better, become a follower.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Classical Greek Astronomy

History is a building process, each successive event building on the last. In the greater picture of civilization as a whole, the one culture that probably did more to shape the modern Western world was that of Classical Greece, defined as the period starting with the first Olympic Games in 776 B.C. And ending (this is open to debate) with the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C. During this fruitful period of 450 years, great advances were made in many fields, including political theory, philosophy, the arts, and science.

The birth of permanent settlements gave rise to civilization as we know it, which in turn spurred the growth of agriculture. With agriculture supplanting hunting and gathering as the primary means for feeding oneself, it became matter of life and death, literally, for early farmers to get their planting done at the correct time. Having no abundance of entertainment as we do today, early people often looked to the sky. Looking up, these early people started to notice patterns to the sky, such that, following a regular cycle, the same stars would be visible in the same season year after year. In time, it became apparent that the appearances of various stars could be used to predict the weather on Earth and thus help in the odds for a successful crop. Such tidbits of astronomical observations would eventually find their way into the earliest of Greek literature, with the poet Hesiod (c. 700 B.C.) stating that “when Orion and Sirius come to the middle of the sky and the rosy fingered dawn confronts Arcturus, cut off all your grapes and bring them home with you.”

As with all peoples interested in the sky, astronomy would start out as practical knowledge essential to matters of everyday life, however, the sky would soon be hijacked by people who exploited the heavens to bring themselves power on Earth.

Up until the Greeks, people had explained the way the world works through mythology and/or all-out religion, which served as the fuel for superstition and irrationality. Obviously, not everyone was intimately familiar with the annual motions of the stars. As a result, when a priest said that, for example, that the gods were angry and may not provide a favorable spring (whose coming the priest knew was evidenced by a star), the masses could be fooled into offering sacrifices and/or imploring the priest to intercede on their behalf with the gods and, as if by some human intercession, spring would come, the priest would be validated (he knew spring was coming by looking at the stars) and the people impressed. By 600 B.C., every culture had a deeply-rooted mythology describing why the world came to be the way it was, the Greeks included. At this point in history, it seemed as though the world would never wake up to reason. However, in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) science as we know it was born.

In a city called Miletus, there arose three great thinkers in the 6th century B.C. Now, looking back at the ideas of these three men and comparing them to what we know as fact today, the theories proposed were often wrong in both main idea and reasoning. However, science is a self-correcting process that builds on itself so, while the ideas of these first scientists were incorrect, that's not important, the rational approach they used was the innovation.



Thales of Miletus
The first of the great scientists from Miletus was a man called Thales, one of the legendary Seven Sages of Ancient Greece and, so far as we know, the first man to try and explain the world through reason, not myth. In his profession, Thales was a merchant and, having to travel all over the known world to sell his goods, came into contact with many different peoples and ideas. Of all the places he went, the one where Thales learned the most was Egypt. In Egypt, Thales learned to calculate distances and heights by using geometry (which would later factor into astronomy) and was even said to have predicted a solar eclipse. However, of all the ideas proposed by Thales, perhaps the most awe-inspiring was one of evolution. Thales believed that the world was all water at one point and this is where life got its start, gradually evolving from simple to complex organisms. At the same time, the water started to evaporate, exposing dry land (no need for a God/gods to intercede here), and eventually life moved out of the water and colonized the land. This was over 2,000 years before Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel-Wallace.



Anaximander
A young contemporary of Thales was a man called Anaximander, who would eventually become the second of the three great scientists hailing from Miletus. While Thales was not a career astronomer, Anaxaminder spent a lot of time thinking about the heavens and what the objects in them were to the point where he is now considered the father of cosmology. As far as history records, Anaximander was the first man to come up with a mechanical, not mythological, model of the solar system. As for the universe proposed by Anaximander, it was this: the Earth was a cylinder floating freely (without support) in space and the Sun, Moon, and stars were all fire-filled wheels with holes that allowed the light we see to escape.



Anaximenes
Like Anaxaminder was to Thales, Anaximenes was to Anaximander, a student. In terms of theory, Anaximenes wasn't as revolutionary as his predecessors (Thales = the world can be explained rationally, Anaxaminder = the heavenly bodies are physical places), his idea would be much longer-lasting. In the model of the Universe proposed by Anaximenes, the stars were no longer fire-filled wheels, but were bright points of light fixed to the inside of a sphere, in which were the Earth, Sun, and other planets. In time, this idea would grow into the celestial sphere, which would be central to astronomical thought for about 2,000 years.

After the three scientists from Miletus, the rational approach to explaining the world was well established and would continue to be refined as new ideas were put forth in the coming centuries.



Pythagoras
More famous for his famous triangle theorem, Pythagoras was also interested in astronomy and, despite living from 582-500 B.C., put forth an idea about the mechanics of the solar system that was surprisingly accurate. The first fundamentally correct insight by Pythagoras was this: the Earth moves. Second correct idea: all celestial bodies were spherical. Now, despite having these main ideas correct, Pythagoras also got a lot of things wrong, too. First, instead of the Earth simply revolving around the Sun, the Earth revolved around what was termed the “Central Fire,” which was invisible because it was blocked by a “Counter Earth.” Obviously, these ideas are extremely abstract, needlessly complicated, and would have been confusing to the masses. Obviously, for all of his brains, Pythagoras never heard of Occam's Razor. As for how Pythagoras came to the conclusion that all heavenly bodies were spherical, that's lost to history.



Anaxagoras
The next great figure in classical Greek astronomy, besides being a great thinker, was also somewhat of a martyr for free thought. This man was Anaxagoras, who moved to Athens in the middle of the 5th century B.C., the time at which Athens was at its peak of political and intellectual power. In Athens, Anaxagoras became a close friend of Pericles, the man who is credited with making Athens the great city it was while also sowing the seeds of its downfall at the same time. It is believed that this friendship with the city's leader is what put Anaxagoras on a collision course with the religious authorities in Athens. In his cosmology, Anaxagoras was remarkably rational and proposed natural explanations for eclipses, meteors, and rainbows, all while creating his own ideas of the solar system. In his model, Anaxagoras was, so far as we know, the first man to make guesses as regarding the sizes of the heavenly bodies when he declared that the Sun was a giant, blazing hot piece of metal in the sky bigger than all of Greece. Also, Anaxagoras thought that the planets, Moon, and stars were all part of Earth torn from the planet and ignited by rapid rotation. Also, Anaxagoras was the first man to profess that the Moon shines by reflected sunlight and that the stars are suns infinitely far away. Obviously, while Anaxagoras was correct about some things and wrong about others, what was important was the fact that, for the first time, someone dared answer the question of where the Sun, Moon, and stars came from.

Unfortunately, for some people, this was audacity gone wild.

The Greeks were an interesting people when it came to their thought processes. At no other time in history has a people ever been so logical and superstitious at the same time as was the case in Classical Greece. At the same time Thales was teaching that the world came about naturally, Anaxamenes was proposing mechanical models of the solar system, and Pythagoras already knew that Earth was spherical, other Greeks were basing important decisions on oracles and divination through, among other things, examining the entrails of sacrificial animals. It was this second group who, with Anaxagoras, decided to make an attack upon reason.

Whatever his accusers' motives were is unknown, but several leading men of Athens, who just happened to be political opponents of Pericles, accused Anaxagoras of impiety, a religious crime, because of his teachings about the universe. Result: Anaxagoras found himself imprisoned for shocking the sensibilities of everyday people and insulting the Olympian gods. It was only through the influence of Pericles that the charges against his friend Anaxagoras were finally dropped. However, in Athens, the tide had turned, the spirit of free thought that had propelled the Greeks to greatness was giving way to a drive for conformity. With the philosophical-religious climate so hostile, Anaxagoras, now free from prison, was forced to flee to Lampsacus, where he lived out the rest of his life, continuing to teach the ideas that enough leading Athenians deemed too dangerous for the good of the people. After his death, the people of Lampsacus built an altar to reason, which they dedicated to Anaxagoras. This hostility to free thought would come to a head in 399 B.C. when the Athenian assembly condemned the famed philosopher Socrates to death for, among other things, blasphemy.

After Anaxagoras, Greece would be plunged into the on and off 30 year struggle that was the Peloponnesian War, in which Athens, Sparta, and their respective allies fought an on and off war with the goal of becoming the supreme power in Greece. Obviously, with so much fighting going on, time for any science that could not help out in the field of military development was limited. Then, finally, after peace returned, the scientists of Greece once again took up the struggle to understand the universe.




Eudoxus
In the late 300s B.C., Eudoxus refined the model of the solar system to a new level of sophistication, or cumbersomeness, your call there. In the model of Anaxamenes, the Earth was at the center and was orbited by the planets with the stars lining the inside of a spherical vault. However, in its simplicity, the old model of Anaxamenes failed to address some undeniable observations about solar and planetary motion. First, while the Sun moves through the sky from East to West, it also moves along the Zodiac. Why was that? Also, planets appear to slow, stop, reverse course, move backwards, stop again, and continue in their forward motion. Why could this be? These are the two questions Eudoxus sought to answer.

In explaining the seemingly inexplicable motions of the stars and planets, Eudoxus set them on multiple celestial spheres. Starting with the stars, whose motions were easiest to explain, Eudoxus set them on a single sphere that rotated from East to West once per day, easy enough. However, this simplicity wouldn't last long. The Sun, besides moving across the sky once a day, also moves through the Zodiac once per year and both of these motions had to be rectified in the model. So, to explain why the Sun does what it does, Eudoxus set the Sun on two spheres, one moving East to West once per day and the other going Eastward once per year to account for the movement through the Zodiac. Sound confusing? It gets better. The planets need four, (yes, four) spheres. Sphere 1 rotated Westward once per day for the daily motion of the planet. Sphere 2 rotated Eastward once a year to account for the planet's motion through the Zodiac. Spheres 3 and 4 were slightly inclined to each other and were used to explain retrograde motion of planets, which occurs in an elongated figure 8 motion if observed carefully. In retrospect, this model was needlessly cumbersome and failed to account for the sometimes very obvious change in planet brightness. However, at the time, it was the best thing going.



Aristotle

After Eudoxus, the field of astronomy would not see advances for a time, but the discovery of “proofs” for some of the already postulated ideas. The man responsible for these, a philosopher whose shadow would stretch nearly 2,000 years into the future as the center of western thought: Aristotle. By the time of Aristotle, who lived from 384-322 B.C., several ideas had been proposed, but no real proofs made. Aristotle was the man who changed this. At this time, it was widely believed that Earth was spherical. Aristotle came up with two proofs of this fact. First, some stars are seen in Greece that aren't in Egypt, and vice versa. Second, the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during an eclipse. If Earth was flat, the shadow would be a line. Next, if Earth was spherical, what about the other heavenly bodies? Again, looking at the Moon during an eclipse, if the Moon was a two-dimensional circle, Earth's shadow would be perfectly circular, yet, it was slightly distorted because, as Aristotle correctly inferred, the Moon was spherical, too. So, if Earth and Moon were spherical, was it out of the question to assume that the stars and planets were circular, too? According to Aristotle, no.

Unfortunately, for all his brilliance, Aristotle also had some wrong ideas that were to be very long-lasting in their influence. Building on the earlier, and wrong, idea of Empedocles, who was the first man to find physical proof of air, Aristotle also assumed that the universe was made up of four elements: Earth, water, fire, and air. Now, by looking at the world, one notices that Earth and water are on the ground while fire and air go into the sky. So, taking this logic to the universe as a whole, Aristotle assumed that the heavy elements (Earth and water) are all on Earth while the light ones (fire and air) are in the sky. So, since the planets and stars are in the sky, they must be fire and air. So, what sense does the idea of a moving Earth make if it's so heavy? This was Aristotle's reasoning that would confine most scientists to a geo (Earth)-centered universe for almost 2,000 years.

However, there was one rebel to this orthodoxy before Copernicus in the 1500s: Aristarchus of Samos.




Aristarchus of Samos

Aristarchus lived from 310-230 B.C. On the island of Samos. Besides being an astronomer, Aristarchus was also a mathemitician and, so far as we know, the first man to try and measure the distances to the heavenly bodies, namely the Sun and Moon. Problem: no one knew how big the Earth was at the time. So, while Aristarchus used sound geometry, his incorrect assumed size for Earth resulting in his computations of distance being way off the mark. However, if Aristarchus had been lucky enough to live half a century later (more to follow), humans may have known that the Moon was about 250,000 miles and the Sun 93 million miles away before the birth of Christ. Unfortunately, it wasn't to be.

However, while Aristarchus was the first man to try and find the distances to the heavens, his major achievement was that he was the first man to reason that the Sun, not the Earth, was at the center of the solar system. Sadly, no original works of Aristarchus survive, only mentions of his ideas by later writers. How thrilling it would be to read Aristarchus and discover his reasoning process that led him to discover how the solar system really worked. A start is with geometry. Thanks to later writers, we know that Aristarchus calculated the Sun to be about 7 times bigger than the Earth. So, as a start, Aristarchus may have reasoned that it made no sense for a giant Sun to orbit a tiny Earth. To finish his model where the Sun, not the Earth, stood at the center, Aristarchus argued that the motion of the sky was only apparent, caused by the motion of the Earth turning on its axis once a day. However, save Seleucus of Seleucia, the ideas of Aristarchus met a wall of resistance.

First, if Earth moved, why wasn't there a great wind caused by it speeding through the heavens? Second, if Earth rotated on its axis once a day, why do falling objects still land directly under from where they fell and not to the West? However, the third argument, the unchanging nature of the stars, was perhaps the most compelling. If the Earth moved and the stars remained still, according to mainstream Greek thought, two things should happen: first, the stars should move relative to each other (stellar parallax) and change in brightness as the Earth moved around the Sun. Unfortunately, the critics of Aristarchus never considered the idea that the stars could be almost infinitely far away, thus negating both stellar parallax and brightness changes.



Eratosthenes
The man who could have helped Aristarchus discover that Moon was really 250,000 miles and the Sun 93 million miles away was Eratosthenes, who was the first man to measure the circumference of the Earth. The whole drive to do such an audacious thing came from curious stories coming out of Egypt. In Syene, Southern Egypt, it was said that at noon on the longest day of the year, and only on this day and at this time, the Sun would illuminate the water at the bottom of a deep well that was in shadow at every other time in the year. However, in Alexandria, where Eratosthenes served as chief librarian of the great Alexandria library, the Sun cast definite shadows at noon on the Summer Solstice. So how could this be?

Well, Eratosthenes was quick to realize that, for this to happen, the Earth had to be spherical. However, while lesser minds may have been content in this knowledge, Eratosthenes was not, he thirsted for more. Calculating the angle of the shadows, Eratosthenes determined that the shadow in Alexandria was at an angle of about 7.2 degrees, or about 1/50th of a circle. Thinking in terms of the big picture, he reasoned that the distance from Alexandria to Syene was about 1/50th the distance around the Earth. So, finding the distance between these two cities and then multiplying by 50 would give the circumference of the Earth, easy in principle but not in practice. As hard as it may be to believe, Eratosthenes hired a man to pace out the distance between the two cities! Despite no one having paced out such a great distance before, the distance was determined with remarkable accuracy, which resulted in Eratosthenes coming to a circumference within a few percent of Earth's actual circumference of just under 25,000 miles.

Not bad for the 3rd century B.C.




Hipparchus
After Erathosthanes, the next great astronomer was Hipparchus, widely regarded as the classical world's greatest astronomer. At the time of Hipparchus, it was believed that all stars were constant and unchanging. So far as we know, Hipparchus was the first man to notice a variable star, which served a the impetus to create a catalog of stars' brightness, which he did, creating the magnitude system in the process. As major of an achievement as this was, Hipparchus had far more to offer the world. In creating his star catalog, Hipparchus, when comparing older charts, noticed that every star he observed was about 2 degrees away from where it should have been. What was going on? While Hipparchus didn't know the reason for such motion, he had, nevertheless, discovered precession of the equinoxes.

After Hipparchus, there was a period of stagnation in classical civilization as the Greeks/Macedonians gave way to the Romans as the dominant power in the known world. So, after all the wars, stability, and free time for learning, returned, producing the last of antiquity's great astronomers, Claudius Ptolemy.



Claudius Ptolemy
Going back a few centuries to Eudoxus (and discounting the ignored correct model of Aristarchus), the picture of the solar system hadn't really changed in several centuries despite the fact that the Eudoxus model was extremely complex to say the least. With Ptolemy, who lived from 90-168 A.D., what would be the final word on the solar system for nearly 1,500 years would be written. Taking the failure of Eudoxus to explain the brightness change of the planets and the overall cumbersomeness of his model, Ptolemy streamlined the solar system and explained planetary brightness change in a single stroke. Like Eudoxus, Ptolemy put the Earth at the center of the solar system. Outside, the Moon was put in orbit around the Earth with the planets and Sun (in correct order) outside the Moon. Result: a much simpler, easier to understand model of the solar system. Now, as for the planets' change in brightness, Ptolemy solved this by adding epicycles to the orbits, which explained both retrograde motion and brightness changes at once. The system was so well received that was accepted without challenge for nearly 1,500 years.

After Ptolemy, the Greco-Roman civilization would start into its long, slow decline thanks to political and then religious instability. In 180 A.D., Marcus Aurelius, the last of the 5 Good Emperors, died, leaving the throne to his mad son, Commodus, the first in a pretty much unbroken string of lunatics to rule Rome. At the same time that the secular government was going to pieces thanks to reckless spending, corruption, and murder, the religious fabric of the Roman Empire was being torn to shreds as the Christian Church started making inroads against the old Pagan faith. In time, Christianity would win out and, in order to consolidate their religious power, Church leaders did everything they could to stamp out Pagan culture, which included the free, inquisitive spirit that inspired the Greeks to set out to try and understand the world way back in the 6th century B.C., starting with the Ionian scientist Thales of Miletus. With the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 A.D., the Catholic Church was unrivaled in power and, with eternity at stake, no one dared question Church position on anything, including the cosmos, which the Church deemed to be centered around a flat Earth that never moved and populated by a collection of perfect, unchanging heavenly bodies.

In the end, the Western world would have to wait over 1,000 years for the second flood of free inquiry that was the European Renaissance.


 
 
Like What You Read?

Why not check out other great stuff about photography, astronomy, associated gear, and how to use it.

Think someone else would find this informative (or at least entertaining)? Use the buttons below to share!