Tracing the history of medieval astronomy
In the last post, we followed Ptolemy as he reviewed three eclipses Hipparchus used to determine the parameters for his model showing they were different from Ptolemy’s. In this post, we’ll repeat the procedure for the second set of three eclipses, again showing that Hipparchus’ calculations did not match those of Ptolemy.
Continue reading “Almagest Book IV: Hipparchus’ Two Values of Lunar Anomaly Second Triad”
For the last chapter of Book IV, Ptolemy diverges from his own narrative to address why his predecessor, Hipparchus, evidently had derived two different values for the lunar anomaly which did not match the value Ptolemy derived, or each other. Continue reading “Almagest Book IV: Hipparchus’ Two Values of Lunar Anomaly First Triad”
Previously, we looked at how Ptolemy made corrections to the anomalistic motion for his lunar model. In this post, we’ll be doing something similar for the mean motion of lunar latitude.
Ptolemy explained that the value we originally noted was in error,
because we too adopted Hipparchus’ assumptions that [the diameter of] the moon goes approximately 650 times into its own orbit, and $2 \frac{1}{2}$ times into [the diameter of] the Earth’s shadow, when it is at mean distance in the syzygies.
In short, Hipparchus’ figures were a good starting point but now we can do better by
using more elegant methods which do not require any of the previous assumptions for the solution of the problem.
Continue reading “Almagest Book IV: Correcting the Lunar Mean Motion in Latitude”
Towards the beginning of Book IV, Ptolemy went through the methodology by which the various motions in the lunar mean motion table could be calculated. But if you were paying extra close attention, you may have noticed that the values that ended up in the mean motion table didn’t actually match what we derived. Specifically, for the daily increment in anomaly, we derived $13;3,53,56,29,38,38^{\frac{º}{day}}$. But in the table, we magically ended up with $13;3,53,56,17,51,59^{\frac{º}{day}}$. Identical until the 4th division.
So what gives? Why did Ptolemy derive one value and report another?
In Chapter 7, he gives the explanation: He found the value needed to be corrected and did so before he put it in the table. But before he could explain to us how, we needed to cover the eclipse triples we did in Chapter 6. So how do we apply them to check the mean motions? Continue reading “Almagest Book IV: Correction of the Mean Motions of the Moon in Longitude and Anomaly”
We’re almost finished with chapter 6. All that’s left is to determine the position of the mean moon during one of the eclipses which will tell us the equation of anomaly at that point. To do so, we’ll add a few more points to the image we ended the last post with:
Continuing on with Ptolemy’s check on the radius of the epicycle, we’ll produce a new diagram based on the positions of the Alexandrian eclipses. However, instead of doing it piece-by-piece as I did when we explored the Babylonian eclipses, I’ll drop everything into a single diagram since we already have some experience and the configuration for this triple is a bit more for forgiving on the spacing:
Continue reading “Almagest Book IV: Alexandrian Eclipse Triple – Radius of the Epicycle”
Modern commentary on Ptolemy often downplays the Almagest because it is certainly a work that relied heavily on the work that astronomers before him. While we no longer have a thorough record of those predecessors, it seems that few historians think much of the Almagest was truly novel1. But I would hasten to remind that, while Ptolemy stood on the shoulders of those who came before, he certainly climbed there on his own, not simply accepting their results, but doing his best to validate them.
And we’re about to get a big dosing of that, because all the work we’ve done in the past three posts, we’ll be redoing with a new set of eclipses observed by Ptolemy himself, allowing for an independent check on the important value of the radius of the epicycle.
So far in this book we’ve covered the ancient Greek values for the various motions of the moon. For the most part Ptolemy has accepted them as authoritative, but to demonstrate some of the methodology, Ptolemy wants to walk us through one: The lunar anomaly.
We shall use, first, among the most ancient eclipses available to us, three [which we have selected] as being recorded in an unambiguous fashion, and, secondly, [we shall repeat the procedure] using among contemporary eclipses, three which we ourselves have observed very accurately. In this way our results will be valid over as long a period as possible, and in particular, it will be apparent that approximately the same equation of anomaly results from both demonstrations, and that the increment in the mean motion [between two sets of eclipses] agrees with that computed from the above periods.
Now that we’ve covered the positions the sun needs to be in to avoid its anomaly influencing things, and the positions to avoid for the moon, so its anomaly doesn’t influence things, we’ll look into some positions which would make it the most obvious if the above were. Ptolemy states this saying,
we should select intervals [the ends of which are situated] so as to best indicate [whether the interval is or is not a period of anomaly] by displaying the discrepancy [between two intervals] when they do not contain an integer number of returns in anomaly.
So which are those? Continue reading “Almagest Book IV: Favorable Positions for Lunar Eclipse Pairs”
In the last post, we covered how the sun’s anomaly impacts things, but
we must pay no less attention to the moon’s [varying] speed. For if this is not taken into account, it will be possible for the moon, in many situations, to cover equal arcs in longitude in equal times which do not at all represent a return in lunar anomaly as well.
I’ll preface this section by saying this is, to date, by far the hardest section I’ve grappled with. I believe a large part of the difficulty came from the fact that Ptolemy is exceptionally unclear about what his goal is with this section. My initial belief was that it was to find the full period in which a the position of the sun and moon would “reset” as discussed in the last post. However, that’s something we’re going to have to work up to.
For now, we’re going to concentrate on just one of the various types of months. Namely, the “return in lunar anomaly” which is another way of saying the anomalistic month. Continue reading “Almagest Book IV: The Lunar Anomaly and Eclipses”