|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
George Hammond
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE |
 |
|
SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE
In 1721 (Baron) Emanuel Swedenborg published a simple
method for finding longitude from the moon. It is known
that he personally discussed it in London with Royal
Astronomer Flamsteed and Edmond Halley. Apparently neither
of them thought it erroneous or incompetent.
Swedenborg of course later became world famous for
publishing visionary theological speculations. According to
me he had a schizophrenic reaction at the age of 55 and gave
up routine science to conduct the world's first scientific
investigation of schizophrenic visions, and which resulted
in his celebrated book _Heaven and Hell_; the world's most
famous quasi-technical description of Life After Death.
What I want to know, is how brilliant a scientist and
mathematician was he before he became fascinated with mental
phenomena? To wit; how competent and workable was his
proposed method of finding Longitude by:
"observing the moon between two stars"
as described at:
http://www.thenewphilosophyonline.org/journal/article.php?page=1043&issue=106b
(two pages... click to second page)
I have not obtained the original and this online version
has barely readable diagrams.
However, it appears simple, and a knowledgeable
astrophysicist should be able to discern immediately what he
was doing and whether it would work.
If anyone competent in this area could take 5 minutes to
look at this and recognize how it worked.... could you
explain it to this physicist in modern English and give an
opinion as to how astute Swedenborg actually was as a
scientist... bearing in mind he was only in his twenties
when he dreamed up this longitude method and believed that
it was a viable contender for the fabulous "Longitude Prize"
offered by the British government in 1714.
Very obliged, Hammond
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
===================================== |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
dkelvey@hotmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: Re: SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE |
|
|
On Jul 2, 11:40 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:08:07 -0700 (PDT),
luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:01 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
[Hammond]
SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE
In 1721 (Baron) Emanuel Swedenborg published a simple
method for finding longitude from the moon. It is known
that he personally discussed it in London with Royal
Astronomer Flamsteed and Edmond Halley. Apparently neither
of them thought it erroneous or incompetent.
Swedenborg of course later became world famous for
publishing visionary theological speculations. According to
me he had a schizophrenic reaction at the age of 55 and gave
up routine science to conduct the world's first scientific
investigation of schizophrenic visions, and which resulted
in his celebrated book _Heaven and Hell_; the world's most
famous quasi-technical description of Life After Death.
What I want to know, is how brilliant a scientist and
mathematician was he before he became fascinated with mental
phenomena? To wit; how competent and workable was his
proposed method of finding Longitude by:
"observing the moon between two stars"
as described at:
http://www.thenewphilosophyonline.org/journal/article.php?page=1043&i...
(two pages... click to second page)
I have not obtained the original and this online version
has barely readable diagrams.
However, it appears simple, and a knowledgeable
astrophysicist should be able to discern immediately what he
was doing and whether it would work.
If anyone competent in this area could take 5 minutes to
look at this and recognize how it worked.... could you
explain it to this physicist in modern English and give an
opinion as to how astute Swedenborg actually was as a
scientist... bearing in mind he was only in his twenties
when he dreamed up this longitude method and believed that
it was a viable contender for the fabulous "Longitude Prize"
offered by the British government in 1714.
Very obliged, Hammond
[Luke]
Seems reasonable George.
However, the amount of machinery and difficulty in measuring the
precise angles necessary to determine the longitude are likely more
difficult than that of building a clock.
I've been meaning to read "Longitude" by Dava Sobel, probably some
better answers as to the politics and 1714 technology that went into
the Longitude prize.
Cheers
[Hammond]
I haven't studied it but all "lunar distance" methods are
based on using the moon's motion around the Zodiac as a
clock. Problem is the moon only moves around the Zodiac
once a month while the minute hand of a clock rotates once
every hour meaning the moon moves (30)(24)=720 times slower
than a clock.
This would indicate that very precise measurements of the
moon would be necessary. Apparently however, the genius of
Swedenborg's method is that it uses the alignment of the
moon between 2 stars whose positions are already known and
therefore simple alignment eliminatesw most of the accurate
measurements otherwise required.
I wish I could get a knowlegable opinion of his scheme...
whch is probably already well known to astronomical experts
somwhere.
|
Hi
The problem with this method was that the Moon was not always
seen at night. Ships can't wait for the Moon.
Using a clock, one could use Moon, Sun or stars.
Dwight |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
spudnik
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:18 am Post subject: Re: SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE |
|
|
the moon can always be seen at some time of night, at sea,
except for a day or two per orbit. that is the basis
of Captain Maui's method in Erastosthenes' expedition,
which got as far as Chile (and perhaps no further;
see www.wlym.com).
re Swedenborg,
can you lift The Urantia Book?...
can God launch an albatross that he can't float?
| Quote: |
The problem with this method was that the Moon was not always
seen at night. Ships can't wait for the Moon.
Using a clock, one could use Moon, Sun or stars.
|
thus:
of course, even if you can see Venus, some times,
carefully shielding your eyes from the bright horizon
of dawn or dusk, why would that mean that the camera will see it?
thus:
do none of these articles mention tensegrity --
is that purposeful?
speaking of whether you're really a wigwam or a teepee [*],
Islam has many important cultural aspects, perhaps all
of them simply being codifications of Arabic ones, but
I don't plan on converting. I mean, I'd love
to be a camel jockey, two, but Obama's just-announced conversion
to the anticonstitutional faith-based initiatives [**], really,
has me wondering about camel poop ... and other forms
of "alternative energy." I only just read that
Obama shills for corn ethanol.
there is no "separation of church & state,"
for crying out loud; doesn't the DNC know this?
* the trouble with you is,
you're two tents; ha.
** here, we can perhaps see the true meaning
of *antidisestablishmentarianism*, if it's the case that
the Bill of Rights is "disestablishmentarian" with regard
to religions. I'd always thought, it was just a nonsequiter.
| Quote: |
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1818208,00.html
search:
buckminster june-26-2008 OR 6.26.2008
|
which one of you guys has ever photographed foreground objects,
against a supposedly starry background?... well,
I haven't, either, but I wouldn't even try. I mean,
do you ever see objects in the foreground, regardless of focus,
in astronomical photography?
this is a God-am Photo One dot One lesson -- yeesh!
| Quote: |
well, how about, what maximum angle over the horizon,
have you ever seen Venus without any visual aids?
* the trouble with you is,
you're two tents; ha.
|
--Seargent Cheeny Pepper,
"Give war a chance in the Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial markets!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
George Hammond
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: Re: SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:43:05 -0700 (PDT),
"dkelvey@hotmail.com" <dkelvey@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 2, 11:40 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:08:07 -0700 (PDT),
luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:01 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
[Hammond]
SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE
In 1721 (Baron) Emanuel Swedenborg published a simple
method for finding longitude from the moon. It is known
that he personally discussed it in London with Royal
Astronomer Flamsteed and Edmond Halley. Apparently neither
of them thought it erroneous or incompetent.
Swedenborg of course later became world famous for
publishing visionary theological speculations. According to
me he had a schizophrenic reaction at the age of 55 and gave
up routine science to conduct the world's first scientific
investigation of schizophrenic visions, and which resulted
in his celebrated book _Heaven and Hell_; the world's most
famous quasi-technical description of Life After Death.
What I want to know, is how brilliant a scientist and
mathematician was he before he became fascinated with mental
phenomena? To wit; how competent and workable was his
proposed method of finding Longitude by:
"observing the moon between two stars"
as described at:
http://www.thenewphilosophyonline.org/journal/article.php?page=1043&i...
(two pages... click to second page)
I have not obtained the original and this online version
has barely readable diagrams.
However, it appears simple, and a knowledgeable
astrophysicist should be able to discern immediately what he
was doing and whether it would work.
If anyone competent in this area could take 5 minutes to
look at this and recognize how it worked.... could you
explain it to this physicist in modern English and give an
opinion as to how astute Swedenborg actually was as a
scientist... bearing in mind he was only in his twenties
when he dreamed up this longitude method and believed that
it was a viable contender for the fabulous "Longitude Prize"
offered by the British government in 1714.
Very obliged, Hammond
[Luke]
Seems reasonable George.
However, the amount of machinery and difficulty in measuring the
precise angles necessary to determine the longitude are likely more
difficult than that of building a clock.
I've been meaning to read "Longitude" by Dava Sobel, probably some
better answers as to the politics and 1714 technology that went into
the Longitude prize.
Cheers
[Hammond]
I haven't studied it but all "lunar distance" methods are
based on using the moon's motion around the Zodiac as a
clock. Problem is the moon only moves around the Zodiac
once a month while the minute hand of a clock rotates once
every hour meaning the moon moves (30)(24)=720 times slower
than a clock.
This would indicate that very precise measurements of the
moon would be necessary. Apparently however, the genius of
Swedenborg's method is that it uses the alignment of the
moon between 2 stars whose positions are already known and
therefore simple alignment eliminatesw most of the accurate
measurements otherwise required.
I wish I could get a knowlegable opinion of his scheme...
whch is probably already well known to astronomical experts
somwhere.
[dkelvey]
Hi
The problem with this method was that the Moon was not always
seen at night. Ships can't wait for the Moon.
Using a clock, one could use Moon, Sun or stars.
Dwight
[Hammond] |
Crossing the Atlantic or Pacific took months in those
days. They certainly had plenty of time to wait for
favorable observing conditions.
Besides, in those days there was no way of even
determining longitude on land! The longitude of the
American colonies could only be approximately guessed for
instance. Surely Swedenborg's method could have been used
to determine the longitude of Boston, New York or St.
Augustine.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
===================================== |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:50 am Post subject: Re: SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE |
|
|
"spudnik" <Space998@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0af7ff9-e642-40e1-a2d0-ac0cb1ae6cb4@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
the moon can always be seen at some time of night, at sea,
except for a day or two per orbit.
=====================================
Babbling cretin. Not only are you idiotically wrong about
night, "at sea" has no relevance whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
William Elliot
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 luke.saul@space.unibe.ch wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 1, 11:01 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE
In 1721 (Baron) Emanuel Swedenborg published a simple
method for finding longitude from the moon. It is known
that he personally discussed it in London with Royal
Astronomer Flamsteed and Edmond Halley. Apparently neither
of them thought it erroneous or incompetent.
|
| Quote: |
What I want to know, is how brilliant a scientist and
mathematician was he before he became fascinated with mental
phenomena? To wit; how competent and workable was his
proposed method of finding Longitude by:
"observing the moon between two stars"
as described at:
http://www.thenewphilosophyonline.org/journal/article.php?page=1043&i...
(two pages... click to second page)
However, the amount of machinery and difficulty in measuring the
precise angles necessary to determine the longitude are likely more
difficult than that of building a clock.
I've been meaning to read "Longitude" by Dava Sobel, probably some
better answers as to the politics and 1714 technology that went into
the Longitude prize.
Read it! It's fantastic. The longitude prise was first offered by Britain |
when it lost a number of battle ships from running aground in the fog off
the shore of Britain. It covers the competing lunar transits efforts that
was favored over the clock makers entry. It involved transits of
of the four Jovian moons and required complicated ephemeris and training
to use them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
spudnik
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:53 am Post subject: Re: SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE |
|
|
then, you say,
What is the least path in phasespacetime, when
you've really got a problem ... of some sort.
| Quote: |
Swedenborg published his Lunar Method in Swedish in 1718,
|
thus:
a series of straigh bars in a linkage,
hanging like a chain, is called a "funicular," but
a series of least-time paths (from particular points
to particular points) would be a series
of brachistochrones....
the original Brachistochrone challenge by Leibniz was,
I think, a slider; the solution'd be somehow different,
for a rolling ball e.g.; eh?
a related problem is the cycloid,
which Galileo guessed to be a parabola;
a parabola is a limit of the catenary, though.
| Quote: |
If there's no friction, it certainly will. You're
just trading kinetic energy for potential energy.
|
thus:
you'll make the first, real face on Mars, perhaps;
how's the shingling?
thus:
that would be somewhat counterproductive,
compared to "getting" Keper's orbital constraints
in some kind of a write-up -- I mean,
you could read one at http://wlym.com/drupal/ -- and
there are probably more valid proofs of it,
than there are horribly misconstrued analyses
of Fermat's challenge in fermatian trigona
(trigona whose third corners are on fermatian curves,
X^n + Y^n = Z^n, or_ _
X^n +Y^n - Z^n = ...0. or .0...
in homogenous coordinates.
old Descartes would apparently never do such curves,
as not "constructible" in a mechanical sense,
not just by compasses.
| Quote: |
I would be more interesting if you learned anything at all about
"how Newtons works" in the first place.
|
thus:
shortest path or Leibniz's quickest time. in general,
the shortest path is not the quickest time,
with the exception just made,
which is just one of the tautochrones;
| Quote: |
If you choose to travel this radial path, then you
must discard the "free" velocity that you have
already got by simply travelling along with the
Earth in its orbit. That's throwing away about
|
--Seargent Barracks Soros McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial moments -- Yahoo!TM;
you're going to feel my computerized draft,
boys'n'girls: NO AMERICAN MIDDLESCHOOLER LEFT BEHIND
(come a/the/such-like Rapture?);
NO RHODESIA SCHOLARS IN HARM'S WAY!"
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3526lar_soros_pamph.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3526save_nations_parasites.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3526zim_brit_op.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: Re: SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE |
|
|
spudnik wrote:
Brachistochrone
Brachistochrone
Brachistochrone
Hmm,
It seems the Brachistochrone actually has a problem.
Without friction, it seems the curved path
will not beat the straight one.
You may wish to check that math again
It seems they will actually meet at the same time
if you actually check it out.
Try using an actual mass instead of the silly
massless light bullshit.
LOL
BTW: light taking a curved path by increasing
speed also would be allowing light to travel faster
than 186,000 mps.
so..
You best rethink that curve completely.
It is based upon a non constant speed if light
and more sad... it also says lightspeed
can increase faster than 186,000 miles per second
if sent though a gravitational field with vacuum
all around.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Major Quaternion Dirt Qua
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject: Re: SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE |
|
|
Ode to a brachistochronic dude by another dude with a proportion of
tude.
because space is only formed around matter,
there will be curvatures associated with the matter.
I even read that "relativistic" subatomic particles are so heavy,
that gravitation ceases being negligable between'em. unfortunattely,
the metaphor is taken one degree to far,
in applying electronvolt "mass" to "photons,"
in trying to discern their properties *other* than absorption or
emmission.
| Quote: |
Brachistochrone
Brachistochrone
Brachistochrone
Hmm,
|
--we don'need no Oxbridge-cation;
http://wlym.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Major Quaternion Dirt Qua
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:51 pm Post subject: Re: SWEDENBORG ON LONGITUDE |
|
|
the other problem is that the brachistochrone is the "path
of a photon" of light, but that doesn't mean that
that's what light is; this is just a representation
of the energy-function, or some thing.
| Quote: |
Brachistochrone
Brachistochrone
Brachistochrone |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
