Who knows how.....

[Lakonian]

Man, im in a state of madness here, i cannot find any answers as to how the Greeks knew the planet Saturn had rings.....????? HOW???

Although reflection from them improves the brightness of Saturn to the naked eye, Saturn's rings are not visible with binoculars, let alone with unaided vision. The brightest are about equivalent in magnitude to Rhea, the planet's second-brightest moon, and most are much fainter than that.

Galileo Galilei was the first person known to have reported observations of Saturn's rings, in 1610. With the telescope technology available, he could barely resolve them, and hypothesized that they were two moons on either side of the planet. In 1655, Christiaan Huygens was the first person to propose that there was a ring surrounding Saturn.

Now go and search how many times Greeks mention Saturns rings, and the best source i have is the story of Er where Plato mentions ALL SEVEN OF THEM!

[Ehetlaios]

Where does Plato mention them?

[Truth Bearer]

Can u please elaborate Lakonian?

[Lakonian]

Ehetlaios,

as i said bro, his tale of Er when his soul travels to Saturn where he is to be judged, he passes the 7 Rings of Saturn, its towards the end of Book X in the Republic.

TB,

i dont know how much more i can elaborate. Like i said search yourselfs, i dont realy wanna quote some of the things i came across because some are silly, like Greeks came form out of space and our Gods where aliens and more malakias that keep the mind in the cave, and there is always an emphasis on this so that the reader is kept at a distance from probing these topics.

If you mean for me to actualy type out where Plato mentions it il do it tommorrow, i promise. I just wanted thoughts on this.


I am convince anyhow that Greeks had a much practical practical system for reading the sky than we know of. You only need to look at Democritus's works and wonder how the hell he knew what he did.

Or his model on the floors of the Tholo of Asklepion where its show 's the universe.

And id like to add on how did the Greeks know the Milky Way?? I dont need to elaborate here because we have a major myth on that Galaxy, how did we know it was a spiral shape let alone made up of stars?

These are questions im falling victim to by just reading philosophy, my mind is racing to find sources that are not there who are claimed by barbarians ( Anglos, Germans....) such as measuring shadows and all that to tell the sizes of planets.

How did Democritus also come within 96% of getting the distance of the Earth to the Sun?? And was it 100% then and the distance has changed over time?

And lastlty where Socrares mentions that if the soul traveled out of Earth and looked back it would see a sphirical Earth, made up of many colours of green blues and browns...and then they reward Galileo of the sphirical earth...come on man, does logic not prevail here and show that things have been darkened for us not see teh extnet the Greeks had reached in there abilities?

For now heres something else i came across....very interesting.

From the book "Ancient Inventions" by Peter James & Nick Thorpe, published by Ballantine Books in 1994

In 1853 Sir Austen Layard returned from his excavations at Nimrud, one of the capitals of the ancient kingdom of Assyria in northern Iraq. One treasure he brought back with him was a small oval piece of polished rocky crystal, about on-quarter inch thick, in the shape of the lens with one flat surface and one convex, which he had found among a collection of glassware of the ninth to seventh centuries B.C. Layard consulted Sir Davis Brewster, a famous physicist and specialist in optics, who pronounced the object could have been used "either for a magnifying or for concentrating the rays of the sun." Layard noted, "Its properties would scarcely have been unknown to the Assyrians and consequently we have the earliest known specimen of the burning and magnifying glass."

The lens from Nimrud is not an isolated example. Similar rock crystal lenses have turned up in archaeological excavations throughout the Mediterranean and Near East. Two lenses of optical quality are on display at the Heraklion Museum of ancient Cretan civilization. As many as fifty were reported as having been found in the excavations of Troy, though only a handful have been properly published.

Some lenses from these sites have impressive magnifying powers. One lens, probably of the fifth century B.C., found in Crete, can magnify with perfect clarity up to seven times. If it is held farther away from the object viewed, it will actually magnify up to twenty times, though with considerable distortion.


In his house he had a large looking-glass, before which he would stand and go through his exercises., Plutarch Demosthenes

Written by Robert Temple


I was surprised as I strolled through the museums of the world and saw ancient lenses on public display labelled as all kind of crazy things – as anything but lenses! When I went to study ancient Greek lenses in the Department of Classical Antiquities at the British Museum, I met one member of the staff who insisted that there never were any ancient Greek lenses.

(This is despite the fact that Aristophanes describes one in his play The Clouds, and there are countless ancient references to optical technology in the ancient literature) I then proceeded to photograph and measure some ancient Greek lenses in that very room, which the person concerned refused to acknowledge, and I thought more than a little ironic that there is a display cabinet standing just outside the door to the room containing ancient Greek lenses mis-labeled as ‘counters’, and which can be seen clearly magnifying the strands of the cloth underneath them.

When I was in the Athens Archaeological Museum studying Mycenaean lenses, which were clearly on display in the Mycenaean Room (where they are mis-labeled), I could not help but be aware that a former Deputy Director of the same museum had written an article about an apparent crystal lens which he had himself excavated on Crete, but he neglected to mention in his article that his own museum had many such lenses in display cabinets which anyone could walk into the museum and see on any day of the week.

Ancient lenses tended to be of rock crystal until Carthaginian and Roman times, beginning about the 4th century BC, after which glass lenses became more common (being much cheaper), and crystal lenses then became rare.

I discovered significant numbers of ancient British lenses, mis-cataloged in mineral collections; they had been moved to geological museums from their original archaeological collections and were thought to be ‘crystal specimens’! Some of them were most ingenious, and had what I called ‘resting-points’ protruding from their backs so that they could rest on a surface and an artisan could reach his cutting tool round the back and have both hands free for his work. In ancient Troy, one crystal lens excavated by Schliemann had a hole in the center. Some people thought this was an argument for claiming that the lens in question was ‘useless’ because it was perforated in the middle and thus clearly no lens. However, the hole in the center in no way interferes with the magnification, and offers an extremely clever way for an artisan to insert his cutting tool directly through the middle of the magnifier, and have magnification of his work all around it in a circle!

Schliemann excavated about 48 crystal lenses at Troy, but these all disappeared during the Second World War, and all that remained were catalogue descriptions and a single photo of four of the lenses in a group.

I tried for many years to find these missing lenses, and a friend who various times approached the museum in East Berlin where the lenses were last known to have been stored was repeatedly lied to and told that the lenses had ‘been destroyed by Allied bombing in the War’. But of course all this was complete rubbish. When the truth finally came out about the missing Trojan gold hoard found by Schliemann, and that the Red Army had seized it and taken it back to Russia, I suspected the lenses were probably with the gold. And indeed they were. But I have never been granted access to them; the Russians are afraid the Germans will claim them back, and so they won’t let scholars have normal opportunities to study them.

...On the cover of my book Crystal Sun, there is a photo I took of a fragment of a Greek pot from the 5th century BC, which was excavated near the Acropolis in Athens; showing a Greek looking through a telescope. Well now this has been on public display for about 20 years in the Acropolis Museum in Athens. Millions of people have filed past it. Nobody has paid the slightest attention to it, and yet it's obviously a Greek looking through a telescope. What else can it be?

Sines George and Sakellarakis Yannis, Lenses in Antiquity, American Journal of Archaeology 1987.

Note

The word telescope was invented by Demiscianus, a greek scholar. Federigo Cesi, founder of the Accademia dei Lincei asked Demiscianus for a name of the optical instrument and Demiscianus used the world tele "far" and skopeuein "to see" from which the word telescope is derived

[Lakonian]

Lads, seems this controversy doesnt revovle only around us. Check it out.

Dogon people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogon_people)

According to Robert Temple, the central element of Dogon cosmogony and cosmology is the star Sirius, which they call Po Tolo. This star was the seed of the Milky Way galaxy and is the "navel" of the entire universe. The Dogon describe the universe as "infinite, but measurable", and filled with many yalu ulo, or spiral star systems, including the one containing the Earth's sun. According to the Dogon perception of the universe, most of the universe is part of the "external" star system, while nearer to Earth is the "internal" star system. The stars in the "internal" system include many that they claim affect the lives of people of Earth and play a part in human history, including not only the Sirius star system, but also Orion, Pleiades and others.

An ethnic group that lives near the Dogon, the Bozo, have a similar mythology about Sirius in the sky and refer to it as the "Eye Star".


Controversy

A number of researchers investigating the Dogon have reported apparent knowledge that has subsequently become embroiled in controversy. From 1931 to 1956, two French anthropologists, Marcel Griaule and Germaine Dieterlen, spent 25 years with the Dogon, during which time they were initiated into the tribe. Griaule and Dieterlen reported that the Dogon appeared to know that the star, Sirius, in the constellation, Canis Major was in fact a binary star. They also appeared to know of the rings of Saturn, and the Moons of Jupiter, which are usually considered invisible to the unaided eye; In 1852 American missionary D.T. Stoddart wrote a letter to astronomer John Herschel that ".. at twilight, Jupiter's satellites could be seen with the naked eye and the elongated shape of Saturn also.", according to Hunter Adams.

MIT professor of physics, Kenneth Brecher, commented that "They (the Dogon) have no business knowing any of this".[7], and the controversy escalated when author Robert Temple suggested an extra-terrestrial source of the Dogon's knowledge.Griaule and Dieterlen made no claims on the source of the Dogon's knowledge.

Astronomer Carl Sagan dealt with the issue in his book Broca's Brain (1979), stating that there are many problems with Temple's hypothesis. As an example Sagan mentions that the Dogon seem to have no knowledge of another planet beyond Saturn which has rings, which would suggest that their knowledge is more likely from European, and not extra-terrestrial sources.



Now here we have the classic arguement of rational and plain idiocy...instead of probing the subject profesionally this Temple guy has stired the dust and made things more mirky... making his bogus claim.

Heres the cover to his book.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0099256797.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

My questions above can only lead to speculations because we dont apply ourselves to things we dont understand as our forefathers did. We live in such a brainwashed era we rather just believe what makes us sleep better at night.

[Euklid]

To look at objects, you use the science of optics. Light enters the eye and thus we see, light enters the prism and thus light is broken down to its components.

People who had mastered the golden ration as expressed in the Parthenon, people who had applied a Helio-centric system of the equinoxes, these people certainly had the technology of optics to look further beyond. Advanced people are advanced everywhere, in morality, theology/astronomy/maths, weapons/music/art/poetry and ofc optics which is just a sub-branch.

[Lakonian]

To look at objects, you use the science of optics. Light enters the eye and thus we see, light enters the prism and thus light is broken down to its components.

People who had mastered the golden ration as expressed in the Parthenon, people who had applied a Helio-centric system of the equinoxes, these people certainly had the technology of optics to look further beyond. Advanced people are advanced everywhere, in morality, theology/astronomy/maths, weapons/music/art/poetry and ofc optics which is just a sub-branch.


Ok i didnt want to rush into that claim, but yes i agree with you. Why is it not recorded in our works then Euklid?

Although Telescope is a greek word i dont think i have ever seen it in our books. Cryptography?

I did come across this interesting snip from Aristopanes THE CLOUDS.

STREPSIADES Have you ever seen a beautiful, transparent stone at the druggists', with which you may kindle fire?
SOCRATES You mean a crystal lens.
STREPSIADES That's right. Well, now if I placed myself with this stone in the sun and a long way off from the clerk, while he was writing out the conviction, I could make all the wax, upon which the words were written, melt.

[Euklid]

This discussion, would not sound at all wow, if we ourselves did not lead such mediocre lifestyle. One can actually create a huge lense himself, with a very minimal scientific knowledge during puberty and without instructions.

[Lakonian]

This discussion, would not sound at all wow, if we ourselves did not lead such mediocre lifestyle. One can actually create a huge lense himself, with a very minimal scientific knowledge during puberty and without instructions.

I am not one who seeks wow cousin, rather see what im trying to uncover.

The wow factor should be between a telescope and if we did have them, why is there no record of them. I believe such an instrument would have created a geat fuss in ancient Greece, we are talking about the stars here my friend, to them, this is where they wanted to be more than anything.

Xero oti ise san ke emena, xeris ti ine ke oti then ine. Ala gia alous xenous theloune pio poli apo common sense...mono eroto gia na theroume kati alo sto phos, ke oxi pseudo malakias like above.....

[Euklid]

There are probably no records because this knowledge is granted given, the information we have about the scientific advancements, not in their particular sense but in the general sense is enough to know that they did have lenses, they did have cranes, catapults, telescopes, observatories, mind and body exercise, made use of acoustics, had mastered masonry on all material, ivory, wood, marble, gold, stone, iron. We know that already, and we do not need to point that out to others.

You asked HOW did they do it?

Are you interested to know how?

Nature gives us all the fruit we need to eat, sleep, and rest. Nature also gives us the ability to observe her, and to do that we do not take a spaceship and observe it as external observers, we do not separate ourselves from it under any circustances, and we do not try to become "objective" by changing the angle of observation, on the contrary we take the right angle, the personal angle, but not the personal as expressed by our bastard personalities, which is an amalgamation of Star wars Hollywood technology, not our bastard personality, but the personality that we are born with and becomes tampered upon by our parents, our friends, the media, the films and most importantly money.

To know the nature, one must become one with the nature first, one must intune oneself with the natural life-force, one must intune the motion of his electrons with the cosmic motion instead of altering it repeatedly for stupid reasons with no meaning, and to do that first one must learn to use ones own nature, that is learn how to breath, learn how to walk, first and then go create a lense.

"Talent", "the chosen one", "Ellines from Space", are all bullshit.

[Alita]

It's amazing what humans are capable of with a bit of extra time and the gift of patience.

[Euklid]

Yes it is indeed astonishing what one can do with a bit of technique.

What is objective? The subject in its pure form.

[Lakonian]

Are we going to Parrot eachother or what??u

You are repeating what im pointing out. My question is something of this magnitude would have been recorded.

You know i agree with you in that Greeks would have had the equipment to lok at space, but to get aclear look at Saturn its a preety big instrument my friend. Its not something you can keep in your bag.

And my question does apply to other things such as the Milky Way, how did Democritus come to the conclusion that it was made up of many stars and that it was spiral??

I too hate the out of space jargon, but its still begs to be probed as to how they actualy did it. There is no straight answere. If it puts your mind at rest that they where just so intelligent fine, granted , that they where, and im sure more will be revealed as time goes on. But it is no general knowledge just because they they had lenses, its the detail of the subject. That is whats most puzzling.

And what of sirius???How they hell did they make out it was aband of three stars when with the naked eye it only looks as one big one?

Simplicity has nothing to do with it. Simple does not go with what these people where about.

[Euklid]

Simplicity has nothing to do with it. Simple does not go with what these people where about.

Yes it does. Things are very simple, and people tend to make them complex.

[Lakonian]

Yes it does. Things are very simple, and people tend to make them complex.

things that you cant answer one should not shrug to patch up the emptiness of where the answere should be?

Its something that yes we can say its obvious that they had what they had and then its putting the puzzle together to reveal for the rest who cannot see things they way YOU do.

And if these people where simple as you say they would not be who they where. Hellas is an enigma. Which needs to be brought to light slowly, not with bogus E.T claims and not with "the whatever" attitudes.

Anyways im over this. Other things await.But il leave you with Democitus, and his amazing SIMPLE explanation of how the universe is.

And we must suppose that men have been formed and all the other animals that have life; and the men have settled cities and cultivated fields as with us, and sun and moon and the rest as with us; and the earth grows all sorts of produce for them, the most useful of which they gather into their houses and use. This is my account of the separating off, that it must have taken place not only where we live, but elsewhere also. Anaxagoras Translation from W.K.C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 2, The Presocratic Tradition from Parmenides to Democritus (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965), p. 314.

There are innumerable worlds of different sizes. In some there is neither sun nor moon, in others they are larger than in ours and others have more than one. These worlds are at irregular distances, more in one direction and less in another, and some are flourishing, others declining. Here they come into being, there they die, and they are destroyed by collision with one another. Some of the worlds have no animal or vegetable life nor any water. Democritus according to Hippolytus, Refutation of the Heresies I 13 2, in Diels and Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, vol. 2, section 68 A 40, p. 94. Translation from Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 2, p. 405.

I believe above he clearly explains that some planets are forming as we speak, soem are expanding some are decreasing, he speaks of the univerese having mirror planets as in othe earths existing.

τo μεν πaν aπειρoν φησιν, oς προεiρηται· τοuτου δε τo μεν πλhρες εiναι, τo δε κενoν, καi στοιχεia φησι. κoσμους τε εκ τοuτου aπεiρους εiναι καi διαλoεσθαι εiς ταuτα. γeνεσθαι δo τοuς κoσμους οuτω· φoρεσθαι <κατa oποτομhν εκ τoς oπεiρου> πολλa σoματα παντοiα τοuς σχeμασιν εiς <μεγα κενoν>, aπερ aθροισθεντα δiνην iπεργoζεσθαι μiαν, καθ' oν προσκροuοντα καi παντοδαπες κυκλοuμενα διακρoνεσθαι χωρoς τo εμοια πρoς τo εμοια. oσορρεπων δu διo τo πλuθος μηκετι δυναμενων περιφoρεσθαι, τo μεν λεπτo χωρεoν εoς τε εξω κενεν, εσπερ διαττεμενα· τo δo λοιπε <συμμενειν> καi περιπλεκεμενα συγκατατρεχειν ελλελοις καε ποιεεν πρoτoν τι σuστημα σφαιροειδες. Democritus

A infinite large universe and a great void. Rotating matter attracted and pieces that collide. The light bodies escape and the heavy parts form spherical systems. Sounds like a model of the creation of stars or planetary systems by gravitational forces according to Democritus who also discovered the atoms.

The ideas of Democritus were adopted by his followers, Metrodorus of Chios and Epicurus 341-270 BC. Epicurus who believed in atoms, in an infinite large world and in the evolution of the world writes in a letter to Herodotus:

...there are infinite worlds both like and unlike this world of ours. For the atoms being infinite in number...are borne far out into space. For those atoms.. have not been used up either on one worlds or on a limited number of worlds, nor on all the worlds which are alike, or on those which are different from these. So that there nowhere exists an obstacle to the infinite number of worlds.

He says also "we must believe that in all worlds there are living creatures and plants and other things we see in this world.." Epicurus used a similar argument as Archytas: If the universe is limited then it would be possible to go to the end and throw a spear further.

To consider the Earth as the only populated world in infinite space is as absurd as to assert that in an entire field of millet, only one grain will grow. Metrodorus of Chios, Source

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/images/DemocritGalaxy.jpg

[Alita]

It's irrelevant whether or not life exists in outer space because we don't have the technology to reach it. We wonder about the what ifs and do not consider the wherefores.



To consider the Earth as the only populated world in infinite space is as absurd as to assert that in an entire field of millet, only one grain will grow. Metrodorus of Chios, Source

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/images/DemocritGalaxy.jpg

Kai omos...