I call it a possibility because, unless more books survived the destruction of the Great Alexandrian Library and other attempts to obliterate Classical civilization, we will never know for certain what the Greeks had managed to deduce from their knowledge. Our knowledge of ancient Greek civilization is fragmentary and sometimes contradictory. For example, there is evidence of the Greeks frowning on experimental science, preferring the purity of the abstract. This is one reason their steam engine never got anywhere. It never occured to them to see what it could actually do. However, Archimedes was unquestionably an experimental scientist and there is ample evidence of many others.
At the time of the desctruction of the Alexandrian Libary most the important scientific work of the hellenistics was already lost or away from the library. Persecution of scientists started quite before the romans.
We surely lost forever part of their work, I.E. in astronomy, but important parts are left: of Archimedes for istance we still have important books. Some of Euclides (mathematic and optic) the same for others.
Experimental science is addicted at the Greeks of the classical period, at the Egyptin end mesopothamic region, not at the hellenistic. We learned mathematic and geometry -for many many centuries (and still do) - from the Euclides work: is there anybody here who would call it "not science"?!
Archemedes in particular was NOT an experimental scientist, how could you say that is truly a mistery, unless you only know Archimedes from the mith.
You have a theory, you DEMOSNTRATE your theory. That's science. Others after you may apply your theory in practical forms.
But we should equally well not conclude that they failed to see what was right in front of them.
That's NOT the point. The point is that who came after them was not able anymore to understand what was left in front of them. You could easily know it reading their books, Plinius could be a good starting point.
surely we cannot say it was a device for navigation, but there is an interesting aspect to keep present:
The ships at that period navigated in the open sea, it's not a coincidence the Alexandria Light "pharos", and some other were built in the hellenistic ports of mediterranean sea.
After the ones built in the hellenistic times we must wait the XII sec (Genoa's dated 1139).
In medioeval times the navigation was strictly closed to the coasts.
To be able again to navigate the open sea - and start later the oceanic's - we must wait the discovery of the hellenistic scientists work, starting from the X sec.
The geocentric theory was mainly supported by the greek philosofers of the classic period: Aristoteles in primis. The heliocentric one was developed by the hellenistics in the III sec BC (thought the earth revolution was known from the IV sec BC, Heraclides Ponticus). Most of their work went lost, in fact 3 important books only survived: an Aristharcus's "on dimensions and distances of sun and moon", one by Hipparcus's "Comments on Aratus and Eudossus phenomena", the Archiemedes's "Arenarius" where he explains in short the Aristharcus theory. But none of these is a specific work on astronomy.
The most important on the argument that survived is the one known as "Almagest" by Claudius Ptolemaeus but it's far later (imperial evo) and supports the geocentric theory.
Archimedes for sure built a planetarium machine able to display the movements of the planets in the solar system according to the heliocentric theory. It seems that it was taken to Rome right after the fall of Syracuse. Cicero (De re pubblica), between others, reports an admired description of it.
Ah, and Archimedes knew the gravity force quite before Newton.
no, AFAYK hellenes is simply an alias for greeks. Hellenistic stands for "of greek influence, culture...".
Geographically speaking we cannot say Archimedes was a greek (Syracuse is in Italy), or Euclides was a greek (Alexandria is in Egypt), Perga in Turkey. Thought we cannot say that Alexandria (founded by Alexander the great) was egyptian.
So, as we speak of the "classic" greeks, (Aristoteles, Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras...) it's correct to call them greeks, hellenes.
The scientists from the hellenistic period (dated from 323 B.C. death of Alexandeer) let's call them "hellenistics".
First of all we should call them "hellenistics", not "greeks".
Then, about the Earth roundness: thought the size was measured by Erathostenes the theory were expressed most by the study of Aristarchus of Samos and Hipparchus of Rhodes.
In such a period (III sec B.C.) in the hellenistc world was the birth of the Science.
Beside the ones already mentioned above, Euclides of Alexandria and Apollonius of Perga (mathematics, geometry, Optic), Herophilus of Chalcedon (medicine, anathomy, psychiatry), Ctesibius (mechanics), Archimedes of Syracuse (machanics, mathematic, geometry, pneumathics...).
Ah, mind that these genius all lived in a closed period of time of about 80 years, and yes, as already mentioned hellenistic culture had female researchers (never heard about Ipatia? SHE was the chief reasearcher responsable of the Alexandria Library).
Sadly we lost most of these knoweledge, and it requested almost 2000 years to get it back (someone called it "the lost revolution").
They were well known at scientists such as Copernichus, Keplerus, Leonardo, Galileo, Newton... even Freud. The Illuministic period is responsable of such a CUT.
[irony]
Did you ever notice how ironic is the presence of an apple in the Newton's novell (indeed from Voltaire). Doesn't it remind you anything similar? "rationalism-logic" and "superstition-religion" they both were geneterad by the same plant.
[/irony]
Slashdot Mirror
We surely lost forever part of their work, I.E. in astronomy, but important parts are left: of Archimedes for istance we still have important books. Some of Euclides (mathematic and optic) the same for others.
Experimental science is addicted at the Greeks of the classical period, at the Egyptin end mesopothamic region, not at the hellenistic. We learned mathematic and geometry -for many many centuries (and still do) - from the Euclides work: is there anybody here who would call it "not science"?!
Archemedes in particular was NOT an experimental scientist, how could you say that is truly a mistery, unless you only know Archimedes from the mith.
You have a theory, you DEMOSNTRATE your theory. That's science. Others after you may apply your theory in practical forms. That's NOT the point. The point is that who came after them was not able anymore to understand what was left in front of them. You could easily know it reading their books, Plinius could be a good starting point.
surely we cannot say it was a device for navigation, but there is an interesting aspect to keep present: The ships at that period navigated in the open sea, it's not a coincidence the Alexandria Light "pharos", and some other were built in the hellenistic ports of mediterranean sea.
After the ones built in the hellenistic times we must wait the XII sec (Genoa's dated 1139).
In medioeval times the navigation was strictly closed to the coasts.
To be able again to navigate the open sea - and start later the oceanic's - we must wait the discovery of the hellenistic scientists work, starting from the X sec.
The geocentric theory was mainly supported by the greek philosofers of the classic period: Aristoteles in primis. The heliocentric one was developed by the hellenistics in the III sec BC (thought the earth revolution was known from the IV sec BC, Heraclides Ponticus). Most of their work went lost, in fact 3 important books only survived: an Aristharcus's "on dimensions and distances of sun and moon", one by Hipparcus's "Comments on Aratus and Eudossus phenomena", the Archiemedes's "Arenarius" where he explains in short the Aristharcus theory. But none of these is a specific work on astronomy.
The most important on the argument that survived is the one known as "Almagest" by Claudius Ptolemaeus but it's far later (imperial evo) and supports the geocentric theory.
Archimedes for sure built a planetarium machine able to display the movements of the planets in the solar system according to the heliocentric theory. It seems that it was taken to Rome right after the fall of Syracuse. Cicero (De re pubblica), between others, reports an admired description of it.
Ah, and Archimedes knew the gravity force quite before Newton.
no, AFAYK hellenes is simply an alias for greeks. Hellenistic stands for "of greek influence, culture...".
Geographically speaking we cannot say Archimedes was a greek (Syracuse is in Italy), or Euclides was a greek (Alexandria is in Egypt), Perga in Turkey. Thought we cannot say that Alexandria (founded by Alexander the great) was egyptian.
So, as we speak of the "classic" greeks, (Aristoteles, Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras...) it's correct to call them greeks, hellenes.
The scientists from the hellenistic period (dated from 323 B.C. death of Alexandeer) let's call them "hellenistics".
-illitarate-
First of all we should call them "hellenistics", not "greeks".
Then, about the Earth roundness: thought the size was measured by Erathostenes the theory were expressed most by the study of Aristarchus of Samos and Hipparchus of Rhodes.
In such a period (III sec B.C.) in the hellenistc world was the birth of the Science. Beside the ones already mentioned above, Euclides of Alexandria and Apollonius of Perga (mathematics, geometry, Optic), Herophilus of Chalcedon (medicine, anathomy, psychiatry), Ctesibius (mechanics), Archimedes of Syracuse (machanics, mathematic, geometry, pneumathics...).
Ah, mind that these genius all lived in a closed period of time of about 80 years, and yes, as already mentioned hellenistic culture had female researchers (never heard about Ipatia? SHE was the chief reasearcher responsable of the Alexandria Library).
Sadly we lost most of these knoweledge, and it requested almost 2000 years to get it back (someone called it "the lost revolution").
They were well known at scientists such as Copernichus, Keplerus, Leonardo, Galileo, Newton... even Freud. The Illuministic period is responsable of such a CUT.
[irony] Did you ever notice how ironic is the presence of an apple in the Newton's novell (indeed from Voltaire). Doesn't it remind you anything similar? "rationalism-logic" and "superstition-religion" they both were geneterad by the same plant. [/irony]