h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Jeremiah Horrocks - Father of British Astronomy - A2724699
Author: Galaxy Babe - A2724680 - did you see the Venus transit? - U128652

Here's my entry on Jeremiah Horrocks, quite topical

Such a short lifeone wonders what he may have achieved had he lived longer.

AGB

Interesting stuff. I just have a few quibbles:

'The educated classes knew that the Earth was round, but not much more (concerning astronomy).'

I'm not sure whether you're comparing them to the modern educated classes (which would make the point more about education than about astronomical knowledge) or to their astronomically-minded contemporaries. Is this a point about the state of general knowledge then, or the degree of scientific advancement? Or both?

'Since Egyptian times the accepted figure was that the Sun was 166 times bigger than the Earth.'

Accepted by whom, exactly? Was this a general belief? Was it an official dogma?

'What we know now, that the Sun is a massive nuclear furnace almost a million miles wide, attended by planets (and their own moons) who move in their own orbits, was almost unimaginable, and only the finest minds dared to think it.'

I'm not sure anyone back then would have had the thought 'nuclear furnace'.

'he had formulated his own theory of gravity decades before Newton's theory'

I'd like to know how close he came to being right. Aristotle accouned for gravity in terms of 'natural motion' centuries before; but he doesn't get any of Newton's credit, because he was off track in crucial respects. So was Horrocks's theory in any respect a forerunner of Newton's?

1) the degree of scientific advancement

2)"The Sun is a mass of fiery stone, a little larger than Greece."
- Anaxagoras 434 BC
The Ancient Egyptians reckoned the Sun was 166 times bigger than the Earth.

3) I'll change the words 'nuclear furnace' to "giant ball of fiery gas"

4) "I'd like to know how close he came to being right" so would I. He was working on it when he died.

Thanks for reading my entry.

Re: 3) I'll change the words 'nuclear furnace' to "giant ball of fiery gas"

I've changed it to "star" instead.

We could end up haggling over what 'much more' means in terms of scientific advancement, but even the Ptolemaic system permitted reasonably accurate predictions, albeit not as accurate as Kepler's modified Copernicanism. So the predictive knowledge was quite good. Galileo's telescope had also provided some new information, e.g. the existence of mountains on the moon. Still, I agree that the bulk of modern astronomical knowledge was unknown then.

Regarding the second point, you've referred to two ancient sources, but that doesn't confirm that the Eygptian figure was widely accepted between ancient Eygpt and Horrocks' time. Anaxagoras' belief wasn't universally accepted during his life -- it was the belief for which he was apparently prosecuted at Athens; and for much of the mediaeval period the dominant philosophy was Aristotle's, which involved the belief that heavenly bodies were composed of aether, not stone. As for the figure, Aristarchus of Samos appears to have come up with a different figure (not that that necessarily means it was accepted).

http://www.eas.purdue.edu/eas105/geos105/lecture3.html
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/aristarchus.htm
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sarist.htm

So to be convinced that the figure was the accepted one until Horrocks' time, I'd have to see some later evidence. I know it's a minor point, but at present the assertion lacks support that I think it needs to be convincing.

Hi GB,

This is great stuff ! Very topical! There was some nice footage about Horrocks on the telly a few night ago.

Two quick things.. a) in the seventeenth century you say that the people believed in witchcraft and stuff, but you neglect to mention that they had a very fundamentalist view of the bible, which dominated their whole lives at the time. The "important things to attend to" that Horrocks mentioned was actually attendance at church on that day.

b) he died at a very young age. Do you know anything about what happened to him?

Oh, and did I mention that your article is terrific?

Woodpigeon

Hello again RFJS
Your remarks and information are very interesting but way off the subject of my entry.

I believe I have written a well-balanced entry on my chosen subject and not strayed too far from the subject, nor made it too long.

I'm just following the guidelines.

I really don't want to go into all the things you have mentioned.


Woodpigeon, thanks very much for the compliment.
I was surprised there was no edited entry on Jeremiah Horrocks when I did a search for him, so set about writing one.

No, there is no information about how he died at such a young age, if he was terminally ill I am glad he lived long enough to view his predicted transit.
I thought I *had* mentioned how important their biblical beliefs were...at least, the struggle Jeremiah had with his knowledge of the Solar System and his strong religious beliefs.

I don't expect you to expand the Entry; I'm merely quesioning the accuracy/supportability of something you've written in the Entry as it stands. You've made a claim about what was generally accepted -- was it? If not, the claim is false, and hence not 'about reality', as the guidelines require it to be. I'm simply asking you to justify an assertion you made in the Entry.

How can I say what was "generally accepted" when everything I researched said something different?

If you want me to remove the information I have provided because you think it is false, then I will. But I don't see the signifance you seem to attach to such a small point.

I don't know how JH died, nor can I find out anywhere, and I tried everywhere, so I have not mentioned it.
I could have written my own scenario, of the deathbed scene with his mother, father and brother in attendance, with his last words "I am glad God spared me long enough to witness the Venus transit" and then his friend William receiving news of his passing but too late to make it to the funeral.

But it would all be made up, as much as it makes good reading and romantices my entry.

What would YOU rather I wrote?

What your sources, in their totality, give you good reason to believe to be true. I don't understand why you're getting upset about being asked to justify a claim made in factual Entry.

Why do you assume I am upset?

From the tone of your previous post. If you're not, in fact, upset, then I'm glad to hear that my interpretation was incorrect.

I am not upset
I have removed the reference to the ancient Egyptians as I can't back it up.

Thanks.

Very nice entry GB

One thing that puzzles me - After having introduced him in the opening paragraph we seem to get another introduction in the first paragraph of the Venus Transit section. We've also been already told by this point that he had predicted the Venus transit.


Scout

OK, I've re-written the first paragraph of the Venus transit.

Thanks Gosho

Is everyone happy now?

Anyone else interested in reading and commenting?

Cracking Entry GB

Pimms

Having read it through a couple of times the only thing I'd suggest that *may* be worthwhile amending is use of the TITLE tag in the external links to be a bit more informative.

This would mean that instead of the link in the Referenced Sites being shown as 'witchcraft' it might say 'Skeptic.com, Science and Witchcraft' or 'Science and Witchcraft in 17th Century England' and 'star' might say 'Facts about the Sun and Solar System'

Impressed by the quantity of links

Pimms