It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Johannes Kepler - Tracing the source of his wisdom to 3000 B.C.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
New studies (by researcher and author: james bowles) reveal that the advanced sciences and mathematics (developed c3000 B.C. to c100 B.C.) - dominated the scientific scene throughout the first 16 centuries A.D.

Johannes Kepler - Tracing the source of his wisdom to 3000 B.C.

But it bides the question - "Why has it been such a secret?"

beforebc
.




posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Two points I think are worth considering here.

1) Did Kepler know about those previous works? I think he probably developed Kepler's Laws independently of them, since those ancient works are not commonly known of. This leads into...

2) ...the fact that since those ancient works appear to not have been very widely distributed, that they were never known to many people, and thus not able to spread very rapidly, if at all. A few thousand years ago, this stuff was the pinnacle of scientific and mathematic achievement, and is likely comparable to the average person today being interested in and/or understanding string theory, or even having heard of string theory.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Hello DragonsDe

Original source is always obscure - because it represents the very first time something can be shown to have existed. This case, however, is somewhat different as it involves physical principle, (i.e., conservation of momentum) and we cannot assume that who ever wrote the Book of Enoch, (disclosing therein the knowledge of momentum, and that the moon orbited the earth) - knew that all by his lonesome.

There had to be a source containing that knowledge. But considering the time involved, the books or scrolls have either turned to dust by now, or were burned in the great libraries of Alexandria and Ashurbanipal in Syria.

As an original source, the Pyramid Texts, of course are different, as they are scribed in stone in the pyramids of Saqqara, Egypt and are thus un-corrupted, and were the foundation of all that developed in Dynastic Egypt.

What we are looking at is a pyramid of knowledge that evolved, was recorded, and one by one the original source vanished, but the concepts continued on.

Modernly it is Kitty Hawk and the first flight - that one day will be forgotten and Boeing will be given all the credit.

bc, author of Johannes Kepler - Tracing the source of his wisdom to 3000 B.C.

.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
That's a pretty trivial piece of wisdom.

I notice that no credit was given to Aristotle or Euclid (who has a direct influence and who was studied), Savasworda and his quadratic equations solution, Hipparchus (who invented trigonometry), Coperincus (who wrote on astronomy and trigonometry), Menelaus, etc, etc. He was passionate about the works of Aristotle and wrote some books on Aristotle.

When we do math theory today, we don't waste our time by starting out with Aristotle and Euclid. We go right to the last and best known writers on the topic. Kepler corresponded with people like Napier as well as Brahe and Wilhelm Schickard (who was one of the notable scientific correspondants of the time -- he and Kepler reviewed each others' works.) Kepler certainly started out with Euclid (as did all the mathemeticians of the time) but he was more influenced by the new work coming out of the universities.

While it's true that when I balance my bank statement, I'm using math developed by the Egyptians in 3000 BC, it's also kind of trivial. I didn't learn my math from them, nor did anyone else I know. It also does a disservice to the REAL people I learned math from and to mathemeticians whose work I read.

I'm sure it was meant as inspirational, but it the writer of that webpage seems to suggest that Kepler invented all this in an intellectual vacuum, sitting alone in some closet somewhere, sending out for the occasional sandwich and reading old Egyptian manuscripts (which were unreadable until the Rosetta Stone was found) and a book that wouldn't be discovered for 300 years after his death.

There are better pages on Kepler and his correspondance and the people of the time that give a better insight on how his laws were developed.

This one's brief but gives a better insight:
www.sciencelives.com...



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
The more we look at real history, not textbook history, we realize how amazing the ancients actually were. I have made it quite clear in many of my posts that I believe the ancients were much more advanced than given credit for.

Kepler, like many other scientists before and since, did nothing more than build on pre-existing knowledge. I do not say that to disperse any notion of intelligence you may deem the man to have; I say that as a point of fact.

Of course, we could sit here and argue and debate as to what is more important, original knowledge or knowledge that is built upon, but there would be no conclusion to the argument.

I recently posted a thread about the "Plagiarism of Einstein" and the joint conclusion that we all came to is that all scientific theories are built upon what existed before.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
The more we look at real history, not textbook history, we realize how amazing the ancients actually were.


Uhm... how about "watered-down history that they teach in school." Lots of history books detail these things -- the problem is that many people aren't interested in learning them. Nor are we (as children) forced to learn "the classics" -- things that were commonly taught to the "well-educated" (they had to read Euclid and Aristotle and Caesar in the original languages.)


Kepler, like many other scientists before and since, did nothing more than build on pre-existing knowledge.
...
I recently posted a thread about the "Plagiarism of Einstein" and the joint conclusion that we all came to is that all scientific theories are built upon what existed before.


This is how all science is done. You have to construct a basis for your idea and you have to have supporting evidence as well as original evidence. A scientist won't say "this happens because I think it did" or "I think that light works this way because it makes the most sense to me." You hae to build the case just like a lawyer does.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I don't know about Keplers knowledge of the more obscure details of pre christ history, but I do know that several others like him did have extensive historical knowledge that we've only recently recovered.

Leonardo Davinci would be one of the better known ones, who seems to have been very knowledgeable about inventions and works by people like Archimedes and others.

The Catholic church destroyed and hid alot of history that clashed with its teachings, but people like Leonardo and other inovative scientists had a status that gave them special priveleges within the church, this included access to archives and libraries that to this day are still under lock and key by the vatican.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Uhm... how about "watered-down history that they teach in school." Lots of history books detail these things -- the problem is that many people aren't interested in learning them. Nor are we (as children) forced to learn "the classics" -- things that were commonly taught to the "well-educated" (they had to read Euclid and Aristotle and Caesar in the original languages.)



That is sort of what I stated. When I mentioned textbooks, I was referring to the books that schools use to "teach" children.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join