Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkland
As far as uncontested translations... They do not exist. There are disagreements in every camp of specialists who deal in translating dead languages. And as it is with all things in life, you have to pick the side you are most comfortable with.
|
I don't think it is the same. It is pretty clear that say the ancient Greeks knew of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Multiple sources say so and matches up with what we know was possible with the tools at hand. Now they didn't really know what those points of light moving against the background stars was but that is another story. To go beyond that there is a large hurdle one has to leap over. Despite the kind of disagreements you speak of we have a pretty good idea of large chunks of what the greeks knew. We have the writings of Aristotle, Plato, Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Euclid. One could go on and on. i mean general knowledge there; not astronomy.
It is not contested though that the Greeks knew of Jupiter. The reason it is not contested is because there are multiple sources which say so. Another reason it is not contested is because it just makes sense that they would know of it. Hell, I've seen it plenty of times myself.
The other thing is it all has to fit logically. If a civilization was capable of viewing objects that can only be seen with a telescope then why don't they list the other objects that can be seen with even a small telescope. Such as Saturn's rings or Jupiter's moons. When i was a kid I had a telescope and pointed it at the brightest objects in the sky. First thing I noticed? Saturn's rings and Jupiters moons.
There is a reason that it is uncontested (well unless you are REAL fringe) that the ancient Greeks knew of Jupiter. And what should we think if the person who translates one particular Sumerian text and reads it that they knew of a 10th planet? A planet that has a 3600 year cycle which Eris does NOT have BTW. And what if that one author believes ancient aliens came and seeded apes to make human slaves - or whatever it is he believes? I'm thinking that knocks his credibility down a few gaps. I don't think that is middle ground. Middle ground is between where the serious published scholars are. the ones whose work is subject to the scrutiny of others. They write papers, publish for all to criticize and only the strongest theories survive. I think there is a LOT to be said for peer review. peer review is tough as hell. A real gauntlet for ideas.