#◇Geometer what on earth◇ | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wisdomrays · 3 years

Text

TAFAKKUR: Part 336

THE WONDER OF THE SNOWFLAKE: Part 2

In his search for a logical reason for the six sides, he asserts that if you ask geometers on what plan honeycombs are built, they will respond "on a six-cornered plan." Each cell is surrounded by six others, each of which ends in an obtuse angle, pointing downwards, formed on three planes. The architecture causes each cell to share six walls with six cells surrounding it in a row, and also three plane surfaces with three other cells from the contrary row. Each bee, as a result, has nine neighbors.

Kepler also observed that the insides of such fruits as pomegranates and peas are squeezed into six sides. Why? One reason, perhaps, is that a plane surface can be covered without gaps by only three shapes: a triangle, a square, and a hexagon. Of these, the hexagon is the roomiest, and so has the most storage space, for example, for the honey produced by bees. Therefore, bees instinctively build their hives in this shape rather than others. Why and how?

Kepler concludes that this original, well-thought-out pattern can only have been imprinted on it by a Creator: our Creator. He concludes that the cause of each snowflake's hexagonal shape is the same cause that shapes plants and numerical constants. Nothing happens without a reason, but rather with a reason guided by a Supreme Reason.

The wonder of the snowflake is seen not only in its wealth of variety and form, which is perfectly constructed with complete beauty and perfection, but also in how these six-sided crystals are formed with perfect symmetry by various processes in the clouds.

As I mentioned earlier, such findings are merely realizations of a fact. The term realization is used because discoveries like these have been in existence since the beginning of time! They have always been around us and will continue to be. But now we can see some of these small miracles due to recent, rapid advances in technology. This displays to us more about the reality, existence, and attributes of the Creator. Yet even a tiny snowflake shows us, through sight and reasoning, the attributes of our Creator. Among these attributes are artistry in creation, finality in creation, countenance, and divine teaching and directing.

Artistry in creation: "The whole of creation exhibits an overwhelming artistry of dazzling worth. Yet it is brought into being, as we see it, easily and in a very short time. Furthermore, creation is divided into countless families, genera and species and even smaller groups, and each of these exists in great abundance. Despite the variety and abundance, we see only orderliness and art and ease in creation. This shows the existence of one with an absolute power and knowledge, who is God."

For example, each snowflake is literally a masterpiece of art, with a perfectly eye-appealing design. It is remarkable that such a masterpiece is created within minutes in the clouds, yet has perfect symmetry and a complex pattern. This is the first attribute of our Creator that we see when we look at a photo of a snowflake. Hence, our Creator is a master in artistry.

Finality in creation: "Nothing in the universe is for nothing, pointless. As ecology in particular shows, everything in creation, no matter how apparently insignificant has a very significant role in existence and serves a certain purpose.... There are many purposes for every thing, every activity, and every event in it. Since this requires a wise one who pursues certain purposes in creation, and since nothing in the world-except for man-has the consciousness to pursue those purposes, the wisdom and purposiveness in creation necessarily point to God."

An example is the snowflake. The causes for it and its six sides, which point to certain reasons, are still being examined. If something cannot be explained at this point in time, all it means is that we have yet to understand its complexity.

Countenances: "[Uncountable] human beings have lived since man's first appearance on the earth. Despite their common origin-a sperm and ovum, which are formed from the same sort of foods taken by the parents-and although they have all been composed of the same kind of structures or elements or organisms, every human being has an individual countenance distinguishing him or her from the others.... This obviously shows one with an absolutely free choice, and all-encompassing knowledge, and He is God."

Just as each snowflake is different in pattern and type, no snowflake has been identified as identical with another, even though uncountable snowflakes fall each year. This truly points to a Creator with an unbelievable attribute of countenance.

Divine teaching and directing: "For man to direct himself in life and distinguish between what is good or bad for him needs a minimum of around fifteen years. However, many animals can do this very soon after they come into the world. A duckling, for example, can swim as soon as it hatches. Ants start to dig nests into the earth when they get out of their cocoons. It does not need a long time for bees and spiders to learn how to make their honeycombs and webs, respectively, while each are marvels of handiwork beyond the capacity of man.... How can you explain all these astounding facts otherwise than by attributing them to the teaching or directing of one who knows everything and has arranged the universe with all creatures in it in a way that enables every creature, big or small, to direct its life?"

The snowflake is an example of such directing. How can a snowflake, which is completely devoid of intelligence and consciousness, create itself in such an absolutely perfectly manner within a matter of minutes? Such events can only be the result of Divine teaching and directing.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight two points. First, such astonishing facts exist all around us. Yet in order to appreciate them, first we must observe our surrounding environment and consider its complexity, purpose, and perfection. Second, acknowledging that we have limited senses and that our technology continues to advance rapidly, I am excited about all of the other wonders in this world that might be revealed to us, for all of them will enable us to better understand and marvel at our Creator.

1 note · View note

filipefrancoworks · 4 years

Text

The bright side of the moon | text by Tomaz Vieira

Tomaz Vieira, pintor

Luar

Estes “luares” de Filipe estão corporizados num processo de recriação de luz. Olho para estas criações instruído pelo conhecimento das obras anteriormente produzidas pelo artista. Mais do que isso, olho-as com todas as referências que vêm desde um passado de três décadas. Refiro a minha memória desse tempo, quando docente de uma turma do nono ano de escolaridade e recordo um jovem criativamente irrequieto, formalmente insatisfeito e de persistentes decisões. Agora, Filipe faz parte de uma geração de artistas em fase de confirmar os resultados da respectiva maturidade. Assistir ao “nascimento” de um artista, certamente condiciona uma postura perante a respectiva obra. Quantas vezes o facto de não se estar muito por dentro de um determinado processo “histórico”, poderá estimular a perplexidade expressa numa adesão espontânea, quiçá mais sentida, dos respectivos frutos ou consequências. Assim, outras pessoas poderão ver estas obras em contexto emocional diferente do meu. Por mim, aproveito o privilégio de uma panorâmica particular.

Depois de realizada uma obra, ela passa a ser uma ideia que adquiriu o próprio corpo. Uma vez materialmente separada do artista, tem de ser vista como entidade independente e de acordo com as respectivas intrínsecas potencialidades estéticas. Sabemos que os críticos, os sociólogos e os historiadores “emolduram” o juízo estético em variáveis que podem referenciar a obra em termos alheios à essencial existência dessa mesma obra. Por isso, abstenho-me de, nesta abordagem às obras de Filipe, referir classificações, quer se trate de “ismos” ou de quaisquer outras designações de estilo..

Nos trabalhos da série anterior, denominada “Óxidos”, Filipe estruturou formas de dimensão telúrica evocativas de uma postura contemplativa, acompanhadas de outras que, embora no mesmo contexto formal, podiam ter algo a ver com referências a “design”. A presença destas, junto das demais era como que uma estratégia para não deixar a Terra desabitada. Note-se que essas formas, pela escala e inutilidade funcional, apenas referiam “design” em termos de metáfora. Os materiais então usados por Filipe incluíam terra do chão desta ilha e lama das caldeiras, num processo de aplicação com resultados muito próprios. Para além do mais, denunciava um ritual no âmbito misterioso daquele estado de espírito que se atinge quando se imprime alma e sentimento na matéria. A obra de Arte, sintetizou alguém com a devida propriedade, resulta de um problema sentido.

Depois de “lidar” com essa entidade feminina, com profundas referências simbólicas de fecundidade e criação que é a Terra, Filipe enfrenta, agora, novamente em “veneração” pelo feminino, a forma lunar enquanto fonte de uma luz única na nossa experiência emocional. A lua já foi adorada, já foi deusa, já foi responsável na projecção de múltiplos sentimentos e, quantas vezes, cúmplice do que quer que lhe possa ter sido proposto, para o bem e para o mal, durante toda a existência da Humanidade. A ligação da anterior fase de trabalho de Filipe com a actual, tem, para além dessa correlação simbólica de feminilidade, outras tantas referências tanto de ordem formal como de cariz conceptual. Referio-me a aspectos que o artista evoca na estrutura sinóptica do projecto destas obras, por vezes derivados de questões científicas, assim como de questões filosóficas ou do âmbito gestáltico. Na forma algo peculiar que lhe é própria, disse Bertrand Russel que “A Ciência fala de coisas que estão provadas; a Filosofia fala de coisas que não se conhecem”. ”Quando Einstein falou da curvatura da luz, isso ainda não estava provado, pelo que se tratava de Filosofia e não de Ciência….” Será a Arte exactamente a via de falar do que não se conhece, através de metáforas e de materiais conhecidos ? A escolha dos materiais com que Filipe constrói estas obras é de um extremo rigor. Só eles podem alcançar objectivos muito bem definidos nas respectivas intenções. A “docilidade” textural e a leveza da chamada “esferovite” permite um corte com a momentânea expressão do percurso da mão que o talhou (quando não talhada com instrumentos de rigor industrial),. No método de execução escolhido por Filipe, a justaposição e ordenação dos elementos com que organiza cada composição, é feita com propósitos rítmicos. Propósitos esses, especialmente dirigidos ao jogo de iluminação a que são submetidas séries de barras paralelas geometricamente irregulares, predominantemente horizontais. O resultado, em termos de uso da luz, como elemento interveniente na composição, processa-se na interacção de porções de matéria iluminada com as respectivas sombras próprias e projectadas. É um conjunto de efeitos que, para além de poder conter algo de lúdico, enquanto factor próprio da criação artística, existe com a definida finalidade expressiva que tem a ver com um compromisso de intenção, isto é, com a temática destas obras. Trata-se de uma postura própria de quem procura uma determinada realidade, não a ilusão de qualquer realidade . Os recursos oficinais de Filipe são sempre sublinhados pela qualidade da excelente execução das suas obras. Fá-lo agora, uma vez mais, sem qualquer perigo de cair no virtuosismo porque possue a mestria de integrar os materiais numa vivência própria.

Tomaz Borba Vieira Janeiro de 2007 Moonlight

▶ bright side of the moon, works

-------

Tomaz Vieira, painter

Luar

These ‘moonlights’ of Filipe are corporated in a process of recreation of light. I look at these creations instructed by the knowledge of the earlier works produced by the artist. More than that, I look at them with all the references that go back as long as 30 years. I refer to my memory of the time that I was a teacher of a class of the ninth grade, and I remember a creative, restless young man, formally unsatisfied and of persistent decisions. Nowadays, Filipe is part of a generation of artists in the process of confirming the results of the respective maturity. To witness the ‘birth’ of an artist, certainly conditions a posture before the respective work. How many times the fact of not being very much within a certain ‘historical’ process could stimulate an expressive perplexity in a spontaneous adhesion, perhaps more felt, of the respective fruits or consequences. Therefore, other people could see these works in a different emotional context than mine. As far as I am concerned, I take advantage of the privilege of a private view.

After a work is realized, it gets to be an idea that acquired its own body. Ones materially separated of the artist, it has to be looked at as an independent entity and in concordance with its respective aesthetic, intrinsic potentialities. We know that the critics, the sociologists and the historians ‘frame’ an aesthetic judgment in variables that can referenciate a work in terms oblivious to an essential existence of this same work. For this, I abstain, in this approach of the works of Filipe, of referring classifications, nor about the ‘ists’, or about whatever other style designation.

In the works of the former series, called ‘Oxidos’, Filipe structured forms of telluric dimension, evocative of a contemplative posture, accompanied by others that, though in the same formal context, could have something to do with ‘design’. The presence of those, together with the others, was like a strategy for the world not to be uninhabited. It is to note that these forms, because of the scale and functional unusefullness, only referred to ‘design’ in metaphorical terms. The then used materials by Filipe included earth from the ground of this island and clay from the geysers, in a process of application with very typical results. What’s more, it announced a ritual in the mysterious extent of that state of spirit that one reaches when one prints soul and feeling in the matter. The work of Art, synthesized someone with a certain property, that results from a felt problem.

After leading with this feminine entity, with deep symbolic references of fertilization and creation that is the Earth, Filipe now faces again the ‘reverence´ for the feminine, the lunar form while source of a unique light within our emotional experience. The moon has already been adored, has already been a goddess, has already been responsible for the projection of multiple sentiments and, how many times, accomplice of whatever has been proposed to her, for the good or the bad, during the whole existence of Humanity. The connection of the former phase of the work of Filipe with the actual, has other references as well as this symbolic correlation of the femininity, as much of a formal order as of a conceptual face. I refer to the aspects that the artist evokes in the synoptic structure of the project of these works, sometimes stemmed from scientific questions, sometimes from philosophical questions or of the gestalt-point-of-view. In the special way that is typical for him, Bertrand Russel said that ‘ A Science speaks of proven things; a Philosophy speaks of things that are not known’. ‘ When Einstein talked about the curve of the light, this hadn’t been proved yet, and for that it was about Philosophy and not Science…’ Could it be that Art is exactly the way of speaking of the not known, through metaphors and known materials? The choice of the materials with which Filipe constructs these works is of an extreme rigour. Only these can achieve well-defined objectives within the respective intentions. A textural ‘sweetness’ and the lightness of the so-called ‘polystyrene’ permit a cut with the momentaneous expression of the route of the hand that it carved (when not carved with instruments of industrial thoroughness). With the method of execution chosen by Filipe, juxtaposition and ordering of the elements with which he organizes every composition, is done with rhythmic intentions. These intentions are specially directed for the light game to which are submitted series of parallel bars, geometrically irregular, predominantly horizontal. The result, in terms of use of light, as intervening element in the composition, processes itself in an interaction of portions of material lit up with the respective shadows, their own and projected. It’s a whole of effects that, besides to be able to contain something playful, while an own factor of the artistic creation, exists with a defined expressive purpose that has to do with a compromise of intention, that is, with the theme of these works. It has to do with the own posture of who searches for a determined reality, not an illusion of any reality. The officinal resources of Filipe are always underlined by the quality of the excellent execution of his works. He does it now, once again, without any risk of falling into virtuosity, because he owns the mastery of integrating the materials in an own vividness.

Tomaz Borba Vieira Janeiro de 2007 Moonlight

▶ bright side of the moon, works

All text and images, are subject to international copyright laws

#tomazvieira #2007 #thebrightsideofthenootext #painting #Filipe Franco #contemporary art

2 notes · View notes

solitariussanctumartarchitecture · 5 years

Text

Divine Dimensions and God’s Golden Ratio

Slightly different tack here…thought I’d explore an ancient mystery of celestial numbers and The Golden Ratio. I hope you enjoy reading about this legend!

When the great cathedrals were being built, who drew up the plans? How were the dimensions decided upon? Some say that the cathedrals were built using a mathematical formula called the Golden Ratio (In math, it is 2 numbers whose ratio is the same as the ratio of their sum to the larger of the two quantities. It is represented by the Greek symbol for Phi Ф). Please don't ask me to explain this because I really suck at math. I have added a link to a theology blog explaining this. Or, if you're really math savvy, you can go look it up and work it out for yourself!

If you read “The DaVinci Code” or other such novels, or you’ve seen the Nova special on PBS “Building The Great Cathedrals”, you may be somewhat familiar with this legend. The Golden Ratio is thought to be the idea that the universe is perfectly designed as only God could do. Is it possible that there is some kind of hidden mathematical code that would unlock the secret of these divine dimensions of the Gothic cathedral?

🔻Witness the labyrinth on the floor of Chartres Cathedral. Another mystery.🔻

Experts have been exploring a theory: a hidden mathematical code, taken from pages of the Bible, and used as a blueprint for designing the great cathedrals. “People were using the proportions by which God had created the universe”, states Jacqueline Jung from Yale University, and an expert in Gothic cathedrals. Medieval priests saw God as the Supreme Mathematician, a Divine Geometer, who used these sacred dimensions when creating the universe.

This theory was tested using present day technology. Stefaan Van Lieffering, a physicist and art historian, and his associates, used a laser scanner to measure two floors of Notre Dame de Paris. The height of each floor was 32.8 ft top to bottom. However, it had to be taken into account that the Medieval builders used a slightly different measurement called the Royal foot (which is 12.789 inches). So, upon conversion, the height of Notre Dame’s two floors were each 30 Royal feet, bringing the total to 60 Royal feet.

Van Lieffering did some research. He came upon a 12th century manuscript and found this passage, taken as a quote from the Old Testament in the Bible, “It was 30 cubits high, up to the first floor, upon which a second dwelling was built up to the second floor, also 30 cubits” (1 Kings 6:2-11). It was describing the Temple of Solomon, in Jerusalem. However, it also was describing the Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris. Joan Branham of Providence College adds, “We can analyze medieval manuscripts that show the Temple of Solomon, and guess what it looks like? It looks like a Gothic church.” Abbot Suger believed that his church, The Abbey Church of St. Denis, had recalled the glory of what the Bible calls God’s house on Earth, the Temple of Solomon. Joan Branham explains further, “Abbot Suger associates St. Denis with biblical prototypes, especially the Temple of Solomon….”

🔻 A sketch of what The Temple of Solomon may have looked like. 🔻

Stephen Murray, professor emeritus of Medieval Art History at Columbia University, has gone looking for further answers on the divine dimensions. He went to Amiens Cathedral, where he started by measuring the area at the very center of the cross, where the four central columns form a square. “The geometric code that gives the shape of this building involves a great square that sits right here in the middle.” It would seem that each side of the central square measures almost exactly 50 Roman feet, the same unit of measurement used by the Medieval builders of Amiens. Fifty also happens to be an important number from the Bible because God tells Noah to build an ark that is 50 cubits wide, to save him from the flood. Murray goes on to explain “Noah’s ark was 50 cubits. This is 50 feet. And this lies at the heart of the building.” It looks like the Medieval builders who constructed the cathedral at Amiens used a measurement from the Bible in which to build their cathedral.

Murray and his colleagues decide to measure the height of the cathedral down to the nearest millimeter. They choose one of the keystones and drop a plumb line to the floor below. Their measurement, 42.55 meters. They convert the number to Medieval units of measurement and come up with the number 144. In the Bible, the Book of Revelations, Heaven is referred to as The City of God. It’s height…144. Murray explains this, “This is the Book of Revelation, the vision of Saint John the Divine: As John measures the city, he finds it’s 144 cubits.”

The investigation continued to the other cathedrals in the region. Their findings were exactly the same. The builders at both Amiens and Beauvais used the height of God’s heavenly city in the Bible to design the height of their cathedrals. The experts believe that it was possible that medieval architects used the measurements from the Bible as a blueprint for building their cathedrals. By using these “sacred numbers” it would seem that Gothic engineers tried to make their cathedrals a sort of Heaven on Earth, a sacred place for medieval minds to take a break from their daily lives to replenish themselves in the lofty heights of these heavenly sanctuaries.

There is quite a bit more, but this is the gist of it. Much of this was taken from the Nova/PBS documentary “Building The Great Cathedrals”. I hope you enjoyed the topic! I may do more in the future.

https://www.goldennumber.net/theology/

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/building-the-great-cathedrals/

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/cathedral-architecture-au.html

1 note · View note

abwatt · 6 years

Text

Books of Shadows

@theweepingwillowbird just posted about how frustrated she (?) is with her Book of Shadows — how often she’s started and restarted it after making small errors. I wrote a long response, and then it was eaten. So rather than try again, I’m going to write my own list for beginners; and then it’s not crowding out her request, either, or offering things that don’t necessarily apply to her.

First, it’s helpful to consider Ira Glass’s advice. You have taste, and you don’t want to ruin your taste. But there is a gap between taste and skill — and you have to produce work to close that gap.

First, recognize that most of the impatience involved in producing a beautiful illustrated book by hand is really a daemonic presence — the Dweller on the Threshold. A genuinely creative and magical life is open to all, but first there’s this fear-monger that holds you back. Don’t let it. And recognize that this daemon will appear again and again through your process. All the good stuff you will ever produce is on the other side of that door.

There are also tools to help a newcomer to the art of making illuminated or illustrated books, to make rapid progress.

Learn the Secret Law of Page Harmony. Once you understand that pages have a standard size and a standard margin that can be harmonious, it’s easy to decide on a size of handwriting.

Study some calligraphy techniques. I really like Getty and Dubay’s Write Now series for adults (I used the left-hand version).

Learn some illustration skills. I began with Ed Emberley and Sachiko Umoto (”Let’s Draw!” translated from Japanese), then moved on to Dave Gray’s Visual Thinking School and Mike Rohde’s Sketchnotes. Now I’m working on Botanical and Bird Illustration and Botany in A Day.

You don’t have to learn bookbinding, but you can. Esther K. Smith’s book How to Make Books will teach you 60-80% of what you need to know. It means that you can produce pre-printed pages using your computer, and then hand-bind it (which I have done to some of my poetic works).

Learn some Geometry. I worked through all of the problems in Andrew Sutton’s book Ruler and Compass, and produced my own book of shadows specifically for geometric work... 114 pages, nearly 200 proofs. All those magical diagrams you see in beautifully-photographed witch-aesthetic posts have an underlying order to them, and knowing that geometric rule can really help.

Learn about Commonplacing. A Book of Shadows is really a kind of commonplace book with a specialized purpose of re-enchanting the world. A Book of Shadows is in part a tool for cultivating a particular kind of rich interior life. There’s a variety of techniques for making them work. This is also permission, in a sense, to copy all sorts of things into your Book of Shadows, which now serves a threefold purpose — to cultivate that rich interior life on the level of the soul; to practice the mental and physical skills of practical geometry, illustration and calligraphy at the level of the intellect; and to create an heirloom in the realm of the material world. Welcome to witchcraft. ;-)

Google “medieval manuscript elephant illustrations”. It will make you feel better about your illustrative work — those monks used beautiful colors and rare materials to produce high-quality illustrations of ... blobs. No medieval monk ever laid eyes on an elephant, and they hadn’t the slightest idea how to draw one. You can do better. And you will do better. And it will make you feel better knowing that centuries ago, professionals were once just as in the dark about this as you are.

Noah Bradley’s advice in his essay, Don’t Go to Art School, is spot-on. There’s a wealth of free and cheap resources to do everything I’ve just described above. Nearly everything on this list can be studied from YouTube videos, webpage tutorials and more. You can borrow many of these books from the library.

Spend some time thinking about time on five different layers: the “secular calendar” of January to December with its holidays and weekends; the “astronomical calendar” of constellations and wheeling stars; the “Earth calendar” of flowers and fruit in their seasons; the “astrological calendar” of planets, signs, houses, and aspects; and the “sacred calendar” you follow, whether it be Sabbats and Esbats, or Saint’s Days and Sundays, or Festae and Dies Aegyptiani. Find ways to represent and mark these in your book — because these tax all of your abilities as a geometer, a page designer, a calligrapher and an illustrator. These are the places where your artistic abilities will tend to be stretched the most.

Most of all, remember this: Your Book of Shadows, or your Book of Sunshine, or your Book of Splendor, is not required to be a masterpiece... unless you want to be a master maker-of-illustrated-books. You are making this book, though, in order to cultivate a kind of interior life — and there is a type of curriculum that aids that purpose. Some of that curriculum is rooted in the artistic and mathematical-proportional training I’ve laid out here.

But much, much more of it comes from the material that you choose for yourself. YOU should decide what goes into your commonplace book for magic and mysticism. YOU should decide what diagrams and illustrations it contains. YOU should decide how deep down this rabbit-hole you want to go.

There is a vast cloud of witnesses and allies, in the form of the geometers and illustrators of the past, who will aid you in this labor for as far into the work as you want to go. There are poets and preachers and witches and mystics a-plenty who will sing for joy and dance the boogie if you re-write their words in your best handwriting (no matter if they’re dead or not). But YOU are still the maker of the work.

#book of shadows #witchery #witchcraft #design #illustration #creativity #process #intelligence increase

255 notes · View notes

ecoeconomicepochs · 6 years

Photo

Why did I move to RVA Richmond Virginia -- besides the Flying Pig Restaurant and my brother and sister in law are here? It's where I'm supposed to be at this time... if I mess up what I have the opportunity to do, well, it's another trip / do loop to the earth school (minimum trips = 108 = 9 trips per Zodiac sign x 12) The Great Geometer creates in 3's / structures in 7's https://gab.ai/beaconheart/posts/33739705

#Masonic #numerology #geometer #mystery schools

2 notes · View notes

onenicebugperday · 5 years

Text

Oh my gosh I can't believe this! I just found this baby caterpillar inside my tank, which has contained nothing but house plants for months! I think the most likely thing is that butterfly eggs made their way into the earth I used for these plants when I put them into that tank a few weeks ago. I guess the warmth of my flat is what awakened this one despite the fact that outside it's still the harsh, cold and rainy winter.

Now the question is to know which species it is and what I can do to feed her (and maybe her potential siblings???). I live in France and this one is so tiny (hardly longer than 1cm in length and about 1mm in width), it's likely it freshly hatched like a few days ago or something at most. She's energic and actively looking for food, climbing around by making these Ω bridge shapes upon walking, but I'm afraid my aeonia succulent plants won't be of any interest to her.

TL;DR I KNEW I WANTED TO ADOPT SOME BUGS IN A MONTH OR SO BUT I WASN'T PREPARED TO GET BABBIES SO SOON SO PLZ TEACH A NERD WHO DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO PARENT

First of all I love the way you depicted how it moves that’s adorable. It’s actually an inchworm which is the caterpillar of a moth in the Geometridae family. Unfortunately, there are 23,000 species of geometer moths worldwide, they often look nearly identical as caterpillars, and they eat a very huge range of plants. Most eat the leaves of trees or the leaves of fruit and vegetable plants or the fruits and vegetables themselves.

Geometers lay their eggs on plants - under leaves or on branches or in bark crevices on trees. So if you collected dirt from outside it could be that leaf litter and thus eggs got mixed in. If that’s the case, then whatever plants are common in the area are likely what it would feed on. But since it’s winter, I don’t know if you have access to leaves outside. I suppose you could buy an array of produce from the grocery store and see if it’s interested in any of that - some leafy greens as well as fruits and vegetables. Probably your best bet in what to buy would be things that could potentially grow in your climate.

I’m sorry I can’t help more specifically, but there are too many species for me to narrow it down!

#animals #insects #bugs #submission #caterpillar #inchworm #moth #geometer moth

70 notes · View notes

ebenvt · 5 years

Text

Introduction to Bacon & the Art of Living

The quest to understand how great bacon is made takes me around the world and through epic adventures. I tell the story by changing the setting from the 2000s to the late 1800s when much of the technology behind bacon curing was unraveled. I weave into the mix beautiful stories of Cape Town and use mostly my family as the other characters besides me and Oscar and Uncle Jeppe from Denmark, a good friend and someone to whom I owe much gratitude! A man who knows bacon! Most other characters have a real basis in history and I describe actual events and personal experiences set in a different historical context.

The cast I use to mould the story into is letters I wrote home during my travels.

The Saltpeter Letter

June 1891

Dear Children,

The days grow ever more light and joyful as summer approaches. The cornerstone of meat curing is Saltpeter and understanding its composition and function in meat is the starting point to unravel the mysteries of bacon. Curing is a separate discipline to fermentation such as is used in making salamis and drying, such as is used in biltong. Saltpeter is what cures meat. It is the overarching and controlling mechanism in bacon production. My mind drifts back to Cape Town when I see the Danes going about their business of being Danish! Similar to saltpeter in bacon there are principles that make this great nation who they are. Traditionally, their work ethic, their view of the equality of all humans, their model of cooperation are not just good ideas. It is fundamental to their existence as people. We have similar beliefs that make us who we are as an emerging nation. Certainly, religion shaped our society in South Africa. I remember the last church service at the Groote Kerk in Cape Town before I left on my grand quest.

It is in the same church where my mom and dad were married and where I was christened as a baby. As staunch Calvinists, much of life revolved around church and the Groote Kerk was my second home.

1910 photograph – sent to Schalk LE ROUX from Marthinus van Bart Photographer: Unknown

It was the first Christian place of worship in South Africa. The oldest church structure on this piece of land dates back to 1678, 26 years after the Dutch landed to set up their refreshment station. The current building was built by the German architect Herman Schuette in 1841. Much of the old church, including the steeple, was retained in Schuette’s new design. It is situated right next to parliament. The last Sunday before I left for Europe, my kleinneef preached.

He is a gentle man with a large pastorly heart. His theology is progressive and his faith sincere. My mom and dad are close to Oom Giel and his Brother, Oom Sybrand. They are my mom’s cousins.

That particular morning his text was Ephesians 5. I remember hearing the horse carts rattling by in the street outside church down Adderly street. As always, there was energy in the air as people arrived. Oom Jacobus and the Graaff kids who lived with him sat in their own allocated seating. He hung his hat on the rack provided for every congregant.

Oom Giel’s thesis was “Live as people of the light.” Here, at the Groote Kerk, the people who started the Cape Colony worshiped and receives their spiritual direction. Oom Giel stressed that we receive the light, but he was humble about what that means. As a theologian, he was ahead of his time. “A day will come when we realise that the church does not have all the answers. One day the church will no longer be able to scare non-believers into faith by the threat of hell. The light we received is that we are in God’s hands. Its a way of life.”

Deep-seated Calvinism shaped the colony. From the straight roads and square corners on neat houses to straight orchards. They believed God was in the first place viewing life as a geometer and this shaped everything they did. The Groote Kerk is the spiritual spring of the Colony.

It was not only an obsession with geometry that bewitched those who drank from the well and a misplaced superiority complex over all of God’s world, but good was also distilled from these waters. A friend from further up in Africa pointed it out to me one day when he visited Cape Town and I took him around to see the beautiful city. A mindset prevails among its inhabitants that says, we are here and we can thrive! We can get many things from Europe, but by golly, we can do it ourselves! What we can do is any time as good as the best we can get from Europe! With discipline and diligence, inherent to the Christian gospel, we approach every task set before us! In straight lines! This is exactly the reason why I am in Denmark. An inherent belief that whatever the Europeans can do, we can do better!

Apart from this, people from southern Africa mind our own business and desire a quiet life. We want to live in light of our gospel. That is how Oom Jacobus, another one of my mentors, approaches life. How he cut his meat and wrap it for customers; cure the bacon; grew his spices in his enormous garden at his home in Woodstock, these are all outworkings of his fundamental view of life.

As Oom Giel lead us in reciting the Apostolic Creed, I wondered, how many times through the years was it recited in this Church! The settlers, for all their faults – many of them were bound by this confession and tried to live true to its articles.

Oom Giel broke the bread. It is communion with the body of Christ. And so is the wine, union with the blood of Christ. Our rituals and confessions link us to countless generations. Past and present and from these deeply held beliefs we became. I am in Denmark to learn the art of meat curing, like Uncle Jacobus. The last Sunday in Cape Town, I listened to Oom Giel with Uncle Jacobus and David de Villiers Graaff in attendance. What a special day!

Now I am learning another gospel in Denmark. The art of curing bacon and the salt we use is saltpeter. That day at the Groote Kerk Minette was also there. We sat together and shared communion. Today it is Sunday and again, Minette is here with me. It is a surprise I never expected! She arrived last weekend and Uncle Jeppe returned from Liverpool during the week. This morning she joined me at his bacon factory.

Uncle Jeppe reminded me of Oom Giel when he leaned forward in his chair pressing down on his desk. Passion for the subject. Authoritative. Uncle Jeppe must have been quite a ladies man in his day! He made Minette feel very welcome and gave her the grand tour of the factory. At lunchtime, I was already sitting in his office waiting for them.

They walked in while Uncle Jeppe and Minette were laughing at a joke. They do not share the joke with me. “So, today we go back to a time when saltpeter was still a mysterious compound,” Uncle Jeppe said. Minette took the seat beside me. Uncle Jeppe walked to behind his desk where he took a notebook out of a drawer. He does not sit in his cair but walks around the desk and sits on it facing us. “The story of saltpeter goes back, ions of time!”

Minette interjected that she still remembers exactly how it is formed. She looks at me when she recounts it. “Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), formed in the atmosphere when nitrogen reacts with ozone, reacts with raindrops which is water or H2O. The two oxygen atoms of nitrogen dioxide combine with the one from water to form 3 oxygen atoms bound together. There is now one nitrogen atom bound to three oxygen atoms to give us NO3 or nitrate. There is still one hydrogen atom left and it combines with the nitrate to form nitric acid (HNO3). Nitric acid falls to earth and enters the soil and serves as nutrients for plants.”

“In the ground,” I finish her thought, “it reacts with a salt such as potassium, calcium or sodium to form potassium nitrate, calcium nitrate or sodium nitrate which is taken up as plant food.” I smiled at her. “You remember well!”

Uncle Jeppe smiled. He almost got lost in the moment. He pulled himself back to reality and opened his notebook. He balanced the open book in his one hand. He is a meticulous note keeper, something that I learned from him. He keeps notes written in his neat cursive handwriting. One can see that he values every sentence he writes! I now have my own notebook and on Sundays, I review the work e covered that week and I write what I learned or saw in my letters to you guys.

“Saltpeter is one of the magical salts of antiquity. For most of human history, we did not know what saltpeter was,” Jeppe preached on. Saltpeter was used in ancient Asia and in Europe to cool beverages and to ice foods. There are reports dating back to the 1500s about it. Without any doubt, it has been known for millennia before it was reported on in writing. (Reasbeck, M: 4)

From antiquity the ancient cured their meat with it and enjoyed its reddening effect, it’s preserving power and the amazing taste that it gives. The earliest references to it go back to people in Mesopotamia from the Bronze Age who used it in the same way as the Romans. The characteristic flavor it imparts to meat was reported on in 1835 (Drs. Keeton, et al; 2009) but there can be little doubt that it was noticed since many thousands of years before the 1800s.

The Chinese worked out how to make explosives, using the power of saltpeter. There is even a record of gunpowder being used in India as early as 1300 BCE, probably introduced by the Mongols. (Cressy, David, 2013: 12) People started using it as a fertilizer when overuse of the land required us to replenish the nutrients in the soil.”

It was widely known traded in markets in China, India, the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and England. It was its use by the military in gunpowder and its pharmaceutical use made it generally available in Europe from the 1700s. This meant its usage as curing agent with salt increased and by 1750 its use was universal in curing mixes in Europe and England. Most recipe books from that time prescribed it as a curing agent. (Drs Keeton, et al, 2009)

Despite its wide use by 1750, people still could not work out if saltpeter occurred naturally or was it something that had to be made by humans. When they managed to get hold of it, they wondered how to take the impurities out of the salt which gave inconsistent curing results and was no good in gunpowder. People were baffled by its power.

“Some speculated that it contained the Spiritus Mundi, the ‘nitrous universal spirit’ that could unlock the nature of the universe!”

Jeppe quoted Peter Whitehorney, the Elizabethan theorist who wrote in the 1500s. He said about saltpeter, “I cannot tell how to be resolved, to say what thing properly it is except it seemeth it hath the sovereignty and quality of every element”.

Paracelsus, the founder of toxicology who lived in the late 1400s and early 1500s said that “saltpeter is a mythical as well as chemical substance with occult as well as material connections.” The people of his day saw “a vital generative principle in saltpeter, ‘a notable mystery the which, albeit it be taken from the earth, yet it may lift up our eyes to heaven’” (Cressy, David, 2013: 12)

Jeppe got up and settled in on his large office chair. He leaned back as he continued to read. “From the 1400s to the late 1800s we have records of almost every scientist probing and testing it to determine its properties. No doubt, ancient scientists and stone age chemists did the same for many thousands of years and in a way, it is the fascination with enigmatic salts that precipitated the science of chemistry.”

“Saltpeter encompassed the “miraculum mundi”, the “material universalis” through which ‘our very lives and spirits were preserved. Its threefold nature evoked ‘that incomprehensible mystery of … the divine trinity,’ quoting Thomas Timme who wrote in 1605, in his translation of the Paracelsian Joseph Duchesne. “Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor and Privy Councillor under James I, described saltpeter as the energizing “spirit of the earth.”” (Cressy, David, 2013: 14)

“Robert Boyle who did experiments trying to understand saltpeter found it, ‘the most catholic of salts, a most puzzling concrete, vegetable, animal, and even mineral, both acid and alkaline, and partly fixed and partly volatile. The knowledge of it may be very conducive to the discovery of several other bodies, and to the improvement of diverse parts of natural philosophy” (Cressy, David, 2013: 14)

I could tell that Minette loved it! We were both riveted to every word! When I saw her interest in the subject, I realised that in Minette I, not only have a friend and a beautiful friend at that, but I have a partner to explore life with me. She not only laves nature and exploring our natural universe, but she also has an amazingly inquisitive mind in all matters technical. “Cheepes, I thought, what a woman!”

Tristan, Lauren, I was completely dumbstruck! On the one hand was the realisation that there are bonds between Minette and me that are stronger than simply a friendship. On the other hand, there is the realisation that the salt that I have been using to cure pork for most of my life is one f the greatest salts from antiquity! I used it with my Dad and Oupa Eben on the farm every time we cured Kolbroek meat. Here in Denmark, I work with it every day! I was overcome by a feeling of deep respect for this chemical compound that we readily use. Even now that we know saltpeter is a salt attached to an acid in the form of one nitrogen atom and three oxygen atoms (CaNO3), its history is remarkable! I stepped onto a stage where a Shakespearean drama has been acted out and I became part of a grand history. I would never again hold it in my hand and think of it in the same way! Saltpeter is far more than just its chemical composition! Contained in its essence is the spirit of every man and woman who ever looked at it to unravel its secrets for thousands of years.

I recall Oom Giel’s sermon.”Live as people of the light. Be true to your most basic quality.” For millennia, saltpeter mesmerized us long before its essential nature could be explained. Oom Giel’s message was the same. Mesmerize others with your essential Christian character. There should be no need for debate or discussion.

It is late in the Østergaard family home. Andreas, his dad, mom, Minette and I were discussing Uncle Jeppe’s lessons from today after supper. They told us about a museum dedicated to geology in Copenhagen and they are planning to take us there next weekend where I intend exploring the question of the origins of saltpeter more closely. The question of who were the first people to change the use of saltpeter into an art? Who harnassed its use and who established what is now the collective knowledge of saltpeter into an art. The art of curing meats. Who were the custodians of its power for millions of human history? I intend exploring this question with the good people from the University next weekend!

Both Minette and I are insanely excited. The house is now quiet with everybody asleep except me, wrapping the day up with my customary letter to you guys. I love you more than life itself and cant wait to share what we learn from the University next weekend.

Lots of love,

Dad

“Bacon & the art of living” in bookform

Stay in touch

Like our Facebook page and see the next post. Like, share, comment, contribute!

Bacon and the art of living

Promote your Page too

References

Cressy, D. 2013. Saltpeter. Oxford University Press.

Cressy, D. Saltpetre, State Security, and Vexation in Early Modern England. The Ohio State University

Crookes, W. 1868/ 69.The Chemical News and Journal of Physical Science, Volume 3. W A Townsend & Adams.

Deacon, M; Rice, T; Summerhayes, C. 2001. Understanding the Oceans: A Century of Ocean Exploration, UCL Press.

Dunker, CF and Hankins OG. October 1951. A survey of farm curing methods. Circular 894. US Department of agriculture

Frey, James W. 2009. The Historian. The Indian Saltpeter Trade, the Military Revolution and the Rise of Britain as a Global Superpower. Blackwell Publishing.

Jones, Osman, 1933, Paper, Nitrite in cured meats, F.I.C., Analyst.

Drs. Keeton, J. T.; Osburn, W. N.; Hardin, M. D.; 2009. Nathan S. Bryan3 . A National Survey of Nitrite/ Nitrate concentration in cured meat products and non-meat foods available in retail. Nutrition and Food Science Department, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M, University, College Station, TX 77843; Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Texas, Houston Health Science Center, Houston, TX 77030.

Kocher, AnnMarie and Loscalzo, Joseph. 2011. Nitrite and Nitrate in Human Health and Disease. Springer Science and Business Media LLC.

Lady Avelyn Wexcombe of Great Bedwyn, Barony of Skraeling Althing (Melanie Reasbeck), Reviving the Use of Saltpetre for Refrigeration: a Period Technique.

Mauskopf, MSH. 1995. Lavoisier and the improvement of gunpowder production/Lavoisier et l’amélioration de la production de poudre. Revue d’histoire des sciences

Newman, L. F.. 1954. Folklore. Folklore Enterprises Ltd.

Pegg, BR and Shahidi, F. 2000. Nitrite curing of meat. Food and Nutrition Press, Inc.

Shenango Valley News (Greenville, Pensylvania), 26 January 1883

Smith, Edward. 1876. Foods. D. Appleton and Company, New York.

Schaus, R; M.D. 1956. GRIESS’ NITRITE TEST IN DIAGNOSIS OF URINARY INFECTION, Journal of the American Medical Association.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1938/mar/01/meat-prices

Photo credits:

The 1910 photo of the Groote Kerk, from https://www.artefacts.co.za/main/Buildings/bldg_images.php?bldgid=6457#25001

All other photos by Eben van Tonder

Chapter 08.04 The Saltpeter Letter Introduction to Bacon & the Art of Living The quest to understand how great bacon is made takes me around the world and through epic adventures.

#bacon and the art of living #Bacon Curing #Bacon History

0 notes

georgia-black-hat-society · 4 years

Text

Saturday: Sigils & Symbols: The Triangle

Who knew “geometry” would EVER be used again when you took it in high school? Well, a select few did and do. Now, those that have that knowledge utilize it and call upon the power it stores. They are helping you take your Sigil Work a step further.

Let us begin.

It is said on some Paths, that a God/dess is the Geometer of Earth. I venture to say, the Universe is Crafted in this way. Perhaps, many Universes and many times, on many planes are Crafted by this very same mechanism. Sacred geometry ascribes symbolic and sacred meanings to certain geometric shapes and certain geometric proportions to all that is known.

For this article, we will stay on THIS plane, this time and space. The shape of the Universe, in physical cosmology, is the local and global geometry of the Universe. The shape of the entire Universe can be described with three attributes: Finite or infinite. Flat (zero curvature), open (negative curvature), or closed (positive curvature). That gets a little bit heady for some, but I assure you, the math works. The geometry, works. Honing us in and keeping it even simpler, we will speak of here only … our present Earth.

Here on Earth, Geometry began to see elements of formal mathematical science emerging in Greece as early as 550BCE with Pythagoras of Samos. Although the method of the proof was written about 300 BCE and is credited to Euclid, the theorem is named for Pythagoras, who lived years earlier. It was even known to the Babylonians centuries before that.

Through Euclid of Alexander’s continued thought in the 6th century BCE, geometry was put into an axiomatic form. His treatment, The Elements, set a standard for many centuries to follow.

Although practical solutions of length, area and volume had already been occurring for thousands of years, the thinkers of the Ancient World were establishing a different view of the space around them. Human thought was beginning to grasp what had always been. Baby steps towards our human psychological understanding of the physiological world around us were taking shape before The Divine’s very eyes.

Varied forms of geometric methods were developing.

Moving on from Euclid, we have a plethora of methods of geometry from non-Euclid and topology to computational and complex. There were Thinkers who had theorems. And, there were thinkers that wanted proofs. Geometry was and is studied across a spectrum of human thought in search of those “proofs”. Hence, we even have “Pythagoreanism” or simply, followers of his theories. Regardless, the tetractyl is interpreted artistically and in architecture. It leaps all the way to its interpretations in medicine within the knowledge of various planes like coronal and sagittal. The word itself means “world measuring” which humans have done since before recorded history.

Geometric energy has all the while been gaining momentum. The tetractys, or tetrad, or the tetractys of the decad began to be seen. It is a triangular figure consisting of ten points arranged in four rows: one, two, three, and four points in each row, which is the geometrical representation of the fourth triangular number. This form is utilized in Magickal Works from Qabbalah to Tarot.

Geometry ties everything in the Universe neatly together. Drawing from this notion of “there is something more” that has been pulling at us for thousands of years, yet, we all cannot fully see the “proof” that is there. As humans, here to experience this plane for the Divine, we know it is there as we can seemingly prove it mathematically. We have “theorems” that explain the data points of our experience.

One of the most studied sets of “data points” is the tetractys. The tetractys is a piece of the whole to some and simply a “triangle” to others. That piece is one found INSIDE another, vesica piscis, which we will cover in a later installment. Back to the tetractys, we see it used today in many forms of Magickal Workings.

Balance. Creation. Creativity. Divine connection. Harmony. Inspiration. Intuition. Manifestation. Protection. Psychic abilities. Raising energy. All of these are ways this shape has been utilized. Whether it be a Sigil, Crystal Grid, Spell or something of your own creation, it is backed by Divine force.

Adding to that, we know its numerical Vibration is “3”. Being one of the most mystical shapes in humanity, the “triangle”, it is said to represent The Triple Goddess, The Holy Trinity AND “mind, body and Spirit”. We can go so far as to see it used in Sanskrit to represent the “Third Eye” Chakra, Anja.

Moving through its mysticism, the triangle is used in the alchemical expression of the Elements as well. Although studied centuries before with Hippocrates, it was not until the Medieval Arab alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan that the Elements were connected in this way.

Air in alchemy represents a life-giving force and is associated with the colors white and blue. In Ancient times, Hippocrates associated Air with blood. Air’s symbol is an upward triangle bisected by a horizontal line, notice it inverted in the symbol for the Element Earth.

Earth in alchemy represents physical movements and sensations. It is associated with the colors green and brown. It is also representative of “black bile” from the body, thanks to Hippocrates. Earth’s symbol is the inverse of Air’s: a downward-point triangle bisected by a horizontal line.

Next on deck is Fire. In alchemy, fire represents emotions such as passion, love, anger and hate. These are sometimes referred to as “fiery” emotions. Aristotle labeled it as hot and dry. Hippocrates associated it with “yellow bile”. The Element Fire is resented by the colors red and orange. In addition, it has also been associated with “male” or “masculine” energy. The Element Fire is represented by an upward-pointing triangle.

Aristotle labeled water as cold and wet. Hippocrates connected it to the phlegm of the body. Additionally, it is associated with Intuition as well as the color blue. It has been seen in its representation linked to the alchemic symbol for Mercury (as both are seen as feminine symbols). The Greek philosopher Thales believed water was the first substance created in the world.

As another contrast to Fire, the alchemic symbol for the Element Water is the inverse of the Fire symbol; a downward-point triangle. This symbol is sometimes said to resemble containers for holding water, such as a cup, urn or chalice …The Divine Feminine.

As you can see, there is great power in the use of a “triangle” in your Magickal Works. Throughout human history it has represented pieces of the world around us. Whether symbolically standing in a Spell for an Element or the “choice” in a Path as a “Dragon’s Eye” … The Divine, God or Goddess, the TRIANGLE is powerful in its use for Sigil Work.

Use it well!

0 notes

the-unbothered-goddess · 4 years

Video

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by IAm🅱️LuegoddessDesignsTech📲 (@bluegoddessdesignsdigital)

instagram

Hey Young World.... The world is yours..... Listen to your Soul.. 🔻Soul🔻 What I feel within.... Shine so bright...transends... Moonlight..... Feels.... Smoothing.... My Soul I can't control the essence divine withdrawals.. Enlightenment.. Findings.. Inside.. And out.. Soul search in dimensions.. Crusing in on this earth plane... I Am not the average Jane or She or He.. What my mission again?? To love from deep within 3rd eye AWOKE.. This is not a Joke.. Life... Infinite beings...landed on planet Earth.. EVOLUTION.... HAS BEGUN I FEELS........ Empath running to the sun. Remaining Still.. Are you on your right path.. Do the Math.. Geometic.. 3rd world order had unfold.. Mankind get a hold.. Inside your Soul. #PoetryinMotion🌟🦋 #theblueunicorn💙 #digitalmarketing #marketing #socialmediamarketing #socialmedia #seo #business #branding #onlinemarketing #marketingdigital #contentmarketing #entrepreneur #webdesign #advertising #digital #smallbusiness #marketingtips #marketingstrategy #graphicdesign #digitalmarketingagency #instagram #b #startup #websitedesign (at Ｓｏｕｌｐａｓｓｉｏｎ) https://www.instagram.com/p/CB__tSjAA-M/?igshid=xi62rymglxky

0 notes

mathematicianadda · 5 years

Text

Galileo’s theory of comets is hot air

Galileo thought comets were an atmospheric phenomenon, not physical bodies in outer space. How could he be so wrong when all his colleagues got it right? Perhaps because his theory was a convenient excuse for not doing any mathematical astronomy of comets. We also discuss his unsavoury ways of dealing with data in the case of double stars and the rings of Saturn.

Transcript

“Have you seen the fleeting comet with its terrifying tail?” That was the question on everyone’s lips in 1618. In that year a comet appeared that was “of such brightness that all eyes and minds were immediately turned toward it.” “Suddenly, men had no greater concern than that of observing the sky. Great throngs gathered on mountains and other very high places, with no thought for sleep and no fear of the cold.” “That stellar body with its menacing rays was considered a monstrous thing.” According to some prophets, the comet was a cosmic omen foretelling imminent disaster.

I quoted these vivid descriptions from Orazio Grassi: a contemporary of Galileo. These two had a big fight about comets. Grassi was a fine scientist. He was basically right about comets. Galileo, on the other hand, was way wrong on this. His theory of comets is extremely poor. However, Galileo managed to spin this somehow and still come out on top, in the eyes of many modern readers, despite being absolutely wrong as a matter of scientific fact.

This is quintessential Galileo: wrong on science, but a rhetorical master. Galileo could write a self-help book called “How to appear to win any debate even when you’re wrong from start to finish on every single point of substance.” If Galileo is the father of anything it is this art form. So you’re looking to pick up some tricks from that playbook then Galileo is your guy, and the comets dispute is the place to start.

Galileo skilfully caricatures his opponent as an obstinate enemy of science who relies on books and the words of authorities instead of using facts and reason and observation. People eat this up, this propaganda. Galileo is like a populist politician. He’s giving people a pleasing narrative that flatters and validates their worldview. Truth has little to do with anything.

That’s an overview of the story. Now let’s look at the details.

The science of comets. Like Grassi says, “the single role of the mathematician” is merely to “explain the position, motion, and magnitude of those fires,” that is to say the comets. So none of that superstition nonsense, just calculate the paths and distances and speeds and so on. Indeed, this is what mathematicians had been doing for generations. Tycho Brahe, for instance, worked extensively on comets in the generation before Galileo. He gave thorough mathematical analyses of their motions, as a mathematician should.

Now, of course, it would be difficult for Galileo to enter this game, since he was such a poor mathematician, as I have argued before. If Galileo had been honest he would have said: frankly, all those detailed calculations that Tycho Brahe and the other big-boy mathematicians are doing, that’s all too technical for me to follow.

But of course he doesn’t want to say that. He needs to save face. He needs an excuse for ignoring what all serious mathematical astronomers were saying about comets. Sure enough, he is quick to offer such excuses. First he claims that mathematical accounts of comets are hopelessly inconsistent. Here are his own words:

“Observations made by Tycho and many other reputable astronomers upon the comet’s parallax vary among themselves. If complete faith be placed in them, one must conclude that the comet was simultaneously below the sun and above it,” for example.

So the mathematical astronomy of comets is just a bunch of useless nonsense, you see. In fact Galileo has an even more fundamental argument for this. Namely that comets are not physical bodies travelling through space at all. Rather comets are nothing but a chimerical atmospheric phenomena. “In my opinion,” says Galileo, comets have “no other origin than that a part of the vapour-laden air surrounding the earth is for some reason unusually rarefied, and … is struck by the sun, and made to reflect its splendour.” A comet is like the northern lights. Galileo specifically makes this comparison.

So that’s Galileo’s very convenient excuse for why he doesn’t engage with the best mathematicians working on comets. This way he is able to pretend that: well, you see, it’s not that I can’t do these calculations, it’s just that I don’t want to, because they all just contradict themselves anyway, and it’s all nonsense in the first place because you can’t do mathematical astronomy of some vapour-cloud optical illusion thing. That’s a futile as chasing a rainbow.

That’s textbook Galileo. If you don’t believe my thesis that Galileo was a poor mathematician, the you tell me a better explanation for this. Why did Galileo propose such an idiotic theory of comets, that is dead wrong and obviously way worse than the common-sense standard opinion among all mathematical astronomers at the time? I gave you one explanation. I don’t think you can come up with a better one. Nobody has so far.

Galileo’s claim that the mathematical astronomy of comets was incoherent and self-contradictory did not convince anybody. Kepler was flabbergasted that someone who calls himself a geometer could write such drivel. Here are Kepler’s words:

“Galileo, if anyone, is a skilled contributor of geometrical demonstrations and he knows what a difference there is between the incredible observational diligence of Tycho and the indolence common to many others in this most difficult of all activities. Therefore, it is incredible that he would criticize as false the observations of all mathematicians in such a way that even those of Tycho would be included.”

Indeed. It is “incredible” that a “skilled geometer” could make such ludicrous claims. But of course the paradox disappears if one recognises that Galileo is not a skilled geometer after all.

Galileo also offered another very poorly considered argument against the correct view of comets as orbiting bodies. The orbits of comets are clearly much bigger than that of the planets in our solar system. Galileo tries to argue that this is unrealistic. Here is what he says: “How many times would the world have to be expanded to make enough room for an entire revolution [of a comet] when one four-hundredth part of its orbit takes up half of our universe?” This is a poor argument, because the universe must indeed be very big and then some according to Copernican theory. This is because of the absence of stellar parallax, as we have discussed before. Since the earth’s motion is observationally undetectable, the orbit of the earth must be minuscule in relation to the distance to the stars. That means there is plenty of room for comets. But Galileo conveniently pretends otherwise in his argument against comets. Evidently Galileo “was so intent on refusing Tycho[’s treatment of comets] that he failed to notice that he was pleading for a universe in which there would be no room for the heliocentric theory” either.

Galileo’s vapour theory of comets, meanwhile, is inconsistent with basic observations, as he himself admits. If comets are nothing but “rarefied vapour”---that is to say, some kind of pocket of thin gas---then you’d imagine that their natural motion would be straight up, like a helium balloon. Indeed Galileo does propose that comets have such paths. But then he at once admits that this doesn’t fit the facts: “I shall not pretend to ignore that if the material in which the comets takes form had only a straight motion perpendicular to the surface of the earth …, the comet should have seemed to be directed precisely toward the zenith, whereas, in fact, it did not appear so. … This compels us either to alter what was stated, … or else to retain what has been said, adding some other cause for this apparent deviation. I cannot do the one, nor should I like to do the other.” Bummer, it doesn’t work. But Galileo sees no way out, so he just leaves it at that.

Galileo’s contemporaries were not impressed. “[Grassi’s] criticism of Galileo is on the whole penetrating and to the point. He was quick to spot Galileo’s inconsistencies. Grassi produced an impressive array of arguments to show that vapours could not explain the appearance and the motion of the comets [as Galileo had claimed].” For instance, the speeds of comets do not fit Galileo’s theory. According to Galileo’s theory, the vapours causing the appearance of comets rise uniformly from the surface of the earth straight upwards. Therefore the comet should appear to be moving fast when it is close to the horizon, and then much slower when it is higher in the sky. Just imagine a red helium balloon released by a child at a carnival: it first it shoots off quickly, but soon you can barely tell if it’s rising anymore, even though it keep going up at more or less the same speed, because your distance and angle of sight is so different. But comets do not behave like that. Detailed observations of the comet of 1618 showed a much more constant speed than Galileo’s hypothesis requires.

Now let’s see how Galileo responded to this. Not by improving the scientific quality of his arguments, mind you. But with some clever rhetorical tricks that has many readers fooled to this day. Many find Galileo’s rousing mockery of his opponent so satisfying that they are seduced into celebrating it as proof of Galileo’s philosophical acumen. You can read Galileo’s triumphant put-downs of his opponent and go “yeah, crush him!” It’s the same kind of pleasure as watching the villain get punched in the face in an action movie. But a little reflection shows that this hero-versus-villain dynamic that Galileo tries to cultivate is a dishonest fiction that has very little to do with reality.

One of Galileo’s most celebrated passages concerns eggs. The context is this. Grassi makes the absolutely correct point that comets, if they entered the earth’s atmosphere, would quickly heat up to very great temperatures due to the friction of the air. In support of this point, Grassi quotes a 10th-century Byzantine author, Suidas, who claimed that “The Babylonians whirl[ed] about eggs placed in slings … [and] by that force they also cooked the raw eggs.” Grassi also quotes passages describing similar phenomena in Ovid, Lucan, Lucretius, Virgil, and Seneca. And then he says: “For who believes that men who were the flower of erudition and speak here of things which were in daily use in military affairs would wish egregiously and impudently to lie? I am not one to cast this stone at those learned men.”

Galileo is unable to answer the substantive point. Indeed, he thinks comets entering the atmosphere would cool down because of the wind rather than heat up because of friction. Galileo is wrong and Grassi is right about the actual scientific issue about comets. But that’s nothing Galileo’s trademarked sophistry can’t work around. Galileo finds a way to “win” the debate anyway, without actually offering any correct scientific claim regarding the actual subject of comets. He does this by gloatingly attacking Grassi for relying on books rather than experimental evidence:

“If [Grassi] wants me to believe that the Babylonians cooked their eggs by whirling them in slings, … I reason as follows: If we do not achieve an effect which others formerly achieved, then it must be that in our operations we lack something that produced their success. And if there is just one single thing we lack, then that alone can be the true cause. Now we do not lack eggs, nor slings, nor sturdy fellows to whirl them; yet our eggs do not cook, but merely cool down faster if they happen to be hot. And since nothing is lacking to us except being Babylonians, then being Babylonians is the cause of the hardening of eggs, and not friction of the air. … Is it possible that [Grassi] has never observed the coolness produced on his face by the continual change of air when he is riding post? If he has, then how can he prefer to believe things related by other men as having happened two thousand years ago in Babylon rather than present events which he himself experiences?”

Like I said, not a few modern philosophers blindly and uncritically fall for Galileo’s rhetoric. Here’s a typical quote on this. It’s from the Wiley-Blackwell book “Philosophy of Science: An Historical Anthology.” Here’s what the editors of this popular textbook say about Galileo’s argument: “Galileo shot back with a blistering critique in which he pillories [Grassi] and articulates a tough-minded empiricism as an alternative to the mere citation of venerable authority.”

Galileo would no doubt be very pleased that so many readers still to this day come away with the impression that “tough-minded empiricism” is what sets him apart from his opponents. That is precisely the intended effect of his ploy. It has very little basis in reality, however. Just a few pages earlier in the same treatise, Grassi describes extensively various laboratory experiments he has carried out himself with regard to another point. “I decided that no industry or labor ought to be spared in order to prove this by many and very careful experiments,” says this supposed obstinate enemy of empirical science. So the notion that Galileo is the only one “tough-minded” enough to reject authority in favour of experiment is very far off the mark.

Even in the passage criticised, Grassi is clearly not engaged in “the mere citation of venerable authority.” Rather he honestly and openly cites sources purporting to truthfully report empirical information, just like any scientist today cites previous works without re-checking all the experiments personally. Grassi does not believe that these authors are automatically right because they are “venerable authorities.” Rather he explicitly considers the possibility that they are wrong, but estimates, quite reasonably, that they are probably right.

For that matter, Galileo himself was not above believing falsehoods on the basis of “venerable authorities.” We have seen him make an error of this type in his theory of tides. He had heard somewhere that high and low tide in Lisbon occurred twelve hours apart rather than six, and jumped at the chance to cite this false information as “evidence” for his erroneous theory. To take another example, Galileo also believed the ancient myth of Archimedes setting fire to enemy ships by means of mirrors focussing the rays of the sun. This myth is “credible,” Galileo says. Descartes sensibly took the opposite view.

Altogether, the simplistic contrast between Grassi the credulous believer in authority and Galileo the experimenter has little basis in fact. Galileo is scoring easy points with his taunts about the eggs, by dishonestly pretending that a simplistic point about empiricism was the crux of the matter.

It is worth keeping the context of the passage in mind. Indeed, the pro-Galileo interpretation I quoted above from the Wiley-Blackwell textbook comes with its own origin story:

“In the course of his career [Galileo] engaged in many controversies and made powerful enemies. One of those enemies was the Jesuit Grassi, who published an attack on some of Galileo’s works.”

This framing goes well with the notion of the “tough” Galileo bravely defending himself against “attacks” from the “powerful” establishment. But the reality is quite different. Grassi was not a “powerful enemy”: he was a middling college professor just like Galileo. And the conflict did not start with Grassi “attacking” Galileo, but precisely the other way around. Grassi published a fine lecture on comets in which he argued, correctly, that the absence of parallax shows that comets are beyond the moon. Galileo is not mentioned in this work. Galileo read Grassi’s lecture and filled the margins, as one scholar has observed, with an entire vocabulary’s worth of savage expletives. Buffoon, bumbling idiot, piece of utter stupidity, and so on.

Galileo then published an attack on Grassi which was not much more restrained than these marginal notes. Grassi replied to it. It is this reply that is called “an attack on some of Galileo’s works” in the pro-Galilean quotation above.

So, to sum up, Galileo’s celebrated “pillorying” of Grassi was not a “tough” defence against an “attack” on “some of his works” by “powerful enemies.” The “enemy” was not a “powerful” arm of “authority,” but a conscientious scholar who was right about comets based on good scientific arguments that Galileo rejected. And the enemy was not a cruel aggressor going after “some works” by Galileo unprovoked; rather, the “some works” in question was an aggressive attack initiated by Galileo in the first place. Furthermore, Galileo’s enemy did not favour venerable authority over empiricism, but rather based his analysis of comets on much more thorough empirical work than Galileo did.

Ok, that’s what I had to say about comets.

Let me tell you another story: Double stars. The telescope revealed the existence of “double stars,” meaning stars that had appeared as just a single point of light to the naked eye but then when you looked at them with good magnification in a telescope they turned out to consist of two separate stars.

Double stars had the potential to prove Copernicus right. This was pointed out to Galileo by his friend Castelli. Castelli was excited about double stars, because he hoped they could be used to prove that the earth moves around the sun because of how the double star would change appearance in the course of a year.

The idea is the following. You look at the double star in your telescope. You see that it is not one star but two: one bigger and one smaller. Now you make the assumption that probably all stars are pretty much the same. They are all just so many suns, as it were. So the smaller-looking one is probably about the same size, in reality. It’s just further away.

Now let’s see what happens when the earth moves. Let’s try to picture this. You can use your index fingers. Hold up one finger in front of you. Now put your other index finger further away from you but aligned with the first one in a single line of sight. Now if you move your head slightly to one side, you will see the two fingers “move apart,” so to speak. And if you move your head to the other side, they will move apart in the other direction. So the closer finger, which corresponds to the bigger star, is sometimes to the left and sometimes to the right of the other one. Moving your head means moving the earth. If the earth is truly moving like Copernicus said then we should be able to observe this kind of thing: stars “switching places” in this way. This would certainly not happen if the earth was stationary, so we have striking and undeniable evidence for the motion of the earth.

This is a parallax effect. We spoke about parallax before. Astronomers had failed to detect parallax in the past, even though Copernican theory predicts that parallax must be a thing. The traditional method to look for parallax was based on trying to detect subtle shifts in the relative position of stars using tricky precision measurements of angles. The double star case would prove the matter in a much more striking and immediate way, without the need for technical measurements: anyone would be able to see with their own eyes the undeniable fact the the two stars switched places in the course of a year. And since with this method everything takes place within the field of view of the telescope, there was reason to hope that this new technology could enable success where conventional naked-eye astronomy had failed.

Castelli urged Galileo to make observations of double stars for this purpose, as indeed Galileo did in 1617, when he made detailed observations of the double star Mizar. Galileo used the above principle that however many times smaller a star is, it is that many times further away. With this method Galileo estimated that Mizar A and B were 300 and 450 times further away than the sun, respectively. This means the above effect should easily be noticeable: “Mizar A and Mizar B should have swung around each other dramatically as Galileo observed them over time.” But that didn’t happen. They didn’t change position at all. Everything remained exactly stationary, as if the earth did not move.

Today we know that all the stars in the night sky are much further away than Galileo estimated, and much too far away for any effects of this sort to be detectable with the telescopes of Galileo’s time. Galileo’s distance estimates were way off because of certain optical effects that make it impossible to judge the distances of stars in the manner outlined above. It would be anachronistic to blame Galileo for not knowing these things, which were only understood much later.

But Galileo’s way of discussing the matter in the Dialogue is not above reproach. He describes the above procedure but frames it hypothetically: “if some tiny star were found by the telescope quite close to some of the larger ones,” they would, if the above effect could be observed, “appear in court to give witness to such motion … of the earth.” “This is the very idea that later won Galileo renown and for which he was to be remembered by parallax hunters in the centuries that followed. While it is generally thought that Galileo never tried to detect stellar parallax himself, he is credited with this legacy to future generations.” In reality he deserves no renown, because the idea was not his own. It had already been explained to him in detail not only by Castelli, who discovered the double star Mizar and explained its importance for parallax to Galileo, but also even earlier by Ramponi in 1611. There is no indication that Galileo had though of any of this before his friends explained it to him.

Furthermore, Galileo’s discussion in the Dialogue is deceitful. He didn’t want to state the truth, of course, which is that he tried the experiment and it came out the wrong way; the data said that the earth did not move. But that’s only important if you are an honest scientist concerned with objectively evaluating the evidence. Galileo instead finds it more convenient to pretend that this falsifying data doesn’t exists. Instead he presents the double star idea as a suggestion for further research, and pretends that he hasn’t already carried it out. That way he doesn’t have to explain actual data or engage seriously with actual current astronomy like the system of Tycho for instance which agreed better with this data. It was much easier for Galileo to suppress his data and disingenuously insinuate that the outcome of the observation would be the opposite of what he knew it to be.

Now I will turn to another topic. The rings of Saturn. We all know that iconic cartoon-planet look. But that image only became clear some twenty years after Galileo’s death. Christiaan Huygens published a book on Saturn in 1659 where the rings are depicted with perfect clarity just as we are used to seeing it.

But the telescopes of Galileo’s day were not good enough to show the rings of Saturn with any clarity. Instead Galileo thinks the rings are actually two moons. Saturn is “made of three stars,” says Galileo. The planet has two “ears,” as it were. We can’t blame Galileo for limitations that were inherent to his time. It was no fault of his that he didn’t discern the rings of Saturn. Neither did any of his contemporaries.

However, we can blame Galileo for his lack of balance in evaluating the evidence. He does not say, as an honest scientist might, that his theory about Saturn’s “companion stars” is the best guess on the available evidence and that we can’t know for sure until we have better telescopes. Instead he boldly proclaims it as certainty that Saturn is “accompanied by two stars on its sides,” “as perfect instruments reveal to perfect eyes.” Those are Galileo’s words. And they are of course very hubristic. But that’s Galileo for you, always overstating his case, not least when he is wrong.

In the same vein, Galileo overconfidently declared that the appearance of Saturn’s companions would never change:

“I, who have examined [Saturn] a thousand times at different times, with an excellent instrument, can assure you that no change at all is perceived in him: and the same reason … can render us certain that, likewise, there will be none.”

Bombastic certainty as usual. All the more embarrassing then when in fact the appearances did change radically soon thereafter. Here’s Galileo again, just a few months later:

“I found [Saturn] solitary without the assistance of the supporting stars. … Now what is to be said about such a strange metamorphosis? Perhaps the two smaller stars … have vanished and fled suddenly? Perhaps Saturn has devoured his own children?”

This is a reference to classical mythology. Saturn the god “devoured his newborn children to forestall a prophecy that he would be overthrown by one of his sons.”

In any case, one moment Galileo says that “thousands” of observations prove that Saturn’s companion stars will never change, and then just months later he has to admit that, whoops, it turns out that that exact thing he said would never happen actually took place almost right away. That was some bad publicity, especially at a time when many doubted the reliability of his telescope.

The so-called disappearance of Saturn’s ring was due to the earth passing through the plane of the ring, so that a line of sight from earth was parallel to the plane of the ring. This made the ring invisible, just like a sheet of paper becomes vanishingly thin if you look at it exactly sideways.

But Galileo did not interpret it that way. Instead, he proposed what he considered to be some “probable conjectures” about the future appearance of Saturn’s companion stars. This theory was based on attributing to them a slow revolution, like very slow-moving moons. Later he praised himself for “thinking in my own special way” and marvelled at how “I took the courage” to make such brave conjectures. Those are Galileo’s own words, praising himself.

Indeed, Galileo liked his model so much that he also “took the courage” to lie about having made an observation verifying it. He claims that he “saw Saturn triple-bodied this year [1612], at about the time of the summer solstice.” But modern calculations show that the ring of Saturn would have been vanishingly thin at this time. There was a paper on this in the Journal for History of Astronomy not long ago. Here is the conclusion from the paper: “Clearly [Galileo] could not have observed the ring at the summer solstice of 1612. … Yet the picture of the Saturnian system that was accepted by Galileo implied that the ring should have been visible, so much so that he made a claim to this effect that we know must have been untrue.” Oh well. That’s business as usual in Galileo land.

This concludes our discussion of Galileo’s work with the telescope. Next time I believe we shall have to get to the real hot potato: Galileo and the church.

from Intellectual Mathematics from Blogger https://ift.tt/2RYg0mV

#Blogger

0 notes