- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Does the VMs show the solar eclipse of April 15, 1409?
- Does the VMs show the solar eclipse of April 15, 1409?
-
RE: Does the VMs show the solar eclipse of April 15, 1409?
davidjackson > 05-02-2017, 05:12 PM
If we ever do a ranking of theories based on a tenous grasp of the facts, this bloke's right up there
It's based on the 15 ladies of Taurus (because it happened on April 15), one of Stephen Bax's words and a glance at the star map. The link to the Spanish article given in the above article doesn't work, here's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
Oh, and the impressive sounding society is actually an amateur astronomy group in Mexico.
Next theory, please! -
RE: Does the VMs show the solar eclipse of April 15, 1409?
Paris > 05-02-2017, 06:29 PM
I don't know if this drawing shows the eclipse of April 15th 1409, but what is quite sure is that eclipse wasn't important because it was an annular eclipse, not a total eclipse.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Other eclipses (between years 1400 and 1500) can be seen on this page :
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
On the seventh column, you can see the type of eclipse (A for annular, T for total)
More interesting the eclipse of June 16th 1406, because it's total and the shadow of the moon runs through western Europe (Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Finland). You can see the map with the help of Google map :
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Another interesting eclipse happened on June 7th 1415 for the same reasons (total eclipse and runs over Europe) :
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Anyway, it's seems difficult to say if this drawing shows an eclipse or another celest event. -
RE: Does the VMs show the solar eclipse of April 15, 1409?
Anton > 05-02-2017, 09:36 PM
What I like is this shrewd remark by Schmeh:
Quote:Martínez Rojas’ claim has one thing in common with many other Voynich theories: it is poorly explained by its founder.
-
RE: Does the VMs show the solar eclipse of April 15, 1409?
Diane > 17-02-2017, 02:10 AM
David
I think anyone who takes the time and trouble to try understanding the imagery deserves our good wishes. Part of the problem of course is that rather than seeing such efforts as an effort to correctly understand the imagery, we tend to presume that it's a comprehensive "theory" and, dismissing what we've decided to call a "theory" we dismiss everything about it.
I don't necessarily believe that Martínez Rojas has got it right, but I'm dam' sure that Schmeh's facile and ill-informed assertions aren't backed up by much reading - not of the history of astronomy, or of medieval or earlier history, or even of the secondary writings available to us.
In fact, I could find only two of his assertions - expressed with quite remarkable self-confidence though they were - which weren't plainly and demonstrably either untrue or based on guesswork, and mostly other peoples' guesswork at that.
As example, there isn't a shred of proof for the constant assertion that the astronomical diagrams are connected with astrological ideas or calculations. This depends on a series of fairly flimsy assumptions: first that the central emblems represent a sub-set of the 12 constellations according to the habit of Latins. And it doesn't. Building on the first assumption, flawed as it is, a second - that the figures being imagined those 12 constellations, they may be termed a 'zodiac' (which they do not form), and then by an enormous failure of logic that if they represent those month-marking constellations that their purpose must relate to the superstitions and mathematics of astrology.
By comparison with the sloppy logic of that 'theory' Martínez Rojas efforts to at least read something relevant deserves respect.
(I'm thinking of changing my membership tag to senum severiorum)
-
RE: Does the VMs show the solar eclipse of April 15, 1409?
-JKP- > 17-02-2017, 02:40 AM
Quote:Diane
David
...
As example, there isn't a shred of proof for the constant assertion that the astronomical diagrams are connected with astrological ideas or calculations. ...
We don't even know if they are astronomical.
They are organized differently, with different numbers of divisions, different emphases, and different references, from traditional drawings that look at least superficially similar.
It's possible that a circle populated with labeled stars stands for rulers or dynasties, cities, or cities with specific properties (such as botanical gardens or spas). We're only assuming, until we know better, that a group of stars represents stars. -
RE: Does the VMs show the solar eclipse of April 15, 1409?
davidjackson > 17-02-2017, 07:53 PM
Quote: I think anyone who takes the time and trouble to try understanding the imagery deserves our good wishes. Part of the problem of course is that rather than seeing such efforts as an effort to correctly understand the imagery, we tend to presume that it's a comprehensive "theory" and, dismissing what we've decided to call a "theory" we dismiss everything about it.
Perfectly correct, Diane. However, after reading the original Spanish interview, it seems obvious that this is another "Hey I though of an idea" ideas which has nothing to back it up, and fails to comprehend even the most basic concepts of the manuscript.