1507 text ref of Inventio Fortunata
Inger E Johansson
comments of to the group:
In 1507 AD Rusch edited a map. - Vniversalior cogniti orbis tabula ex
recentibvs observationibvs. We have discussed that map as well as other
early maps on the New World many times. How come that no scholar seems to
have noticed the text on the top of the map?
"Legere est î Libro de Îvêtione Forvnati svb polo arctico rvpê esse excelsâ
ex lapide magnete 33 miliarivm germanorvm ambitv hanc côplectitvr mare
svgenvm flvidvm instar vasis aqva deorsv per foramina emittetis circv isvle
svt & eqvibvs involvtr dve ambivnt avtem has insvlas continvi montes vasti
latiq dietis 24 qb negat hominvv habitatio'
While the text is disputable in many ways and contradicted by other
contemporary documents, I can't understand why no one noticed this 1507
reference to Nicholas of Lynn's Inventio Fortunata?
Isn't it the common practice to read, observe and analyse all information on
a map as well as text in a document?
Inger E
David B
>
>One more thing I have been waiting 'ages' for anyone to note and send
>comments of to the group:
>In 1507 AD Rusch edited a map. - Vniversalior cogniti orbis tabula ex
>recentibvs observationibvs. We have discussed that map as well as other
>early maps on the New World many times. How come that no scholar seems to
>have noticed the text on the top of the map?
[snip]
>
>While the text is disputable in many ways and contradicted by other
>contemporary documents, I can't understand why no one noticed this 1507
>reference to Nicholas of Lynn's Inventio Fortunata?
>Isn't it the common practice to read, observe and analyse all information
on
>a map as well as text in a document?
Who's this "no one"? See for example page 76 of
Seaver, K. "Maps, Myths, and Men" (2004)
which in turn refers back to much earlier work by R.A. Skelton & others.
David B.
Inger E Johansson
she hasn't followed it up with correct ref. neither to contemporary
sources - for example Agnese's maps content, which in itself directly
contradicts all her assumptions re. the Vinland map(!) but that might be why
she hasn't followed that one up. Nor has she shown that she has the context
for the quote I sent. That's what I am after - that's what no one neither
you nor her shown that you have comprehended!!!!
For example do you or don't you know where Rusch got that information? I
refer to place, reason etc.
Do you or don't you know the impact of that knowledge. Neither you nor her
has shown that you do.
For example have you or haven't you followed up that knowledge of where at
least one example of Inventio Fortunata was and when? Have you or haven't
you understood the impact of that knowledge and have you or haven't you
followed that example of Inventio Fortunata into Moderna Age?
That's a lot of more that a good scholar could and should have been able to
find out from that little quote. But that you will learn about in the end.
No fantasy tails from the quote but pure facts derived from the contemporary
sources around the place where that examplar was in early 1500's.
One other from that edition is located due to that information. Observe
located and will be gone thru by an Italian scholar. The examplar that Rusch
'had' access to can be followed up to 1939. No later information at present
unfortunatly.
Inger E
"David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:F8pTc.832$1z2...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
Doug Weller
> Inger E Johansson wrote in message ...
>>
>>One more thing I have been waiting 'ages' for anyone to note and send
>>comments of to the group:
>>In 1507 AD Rusch edited a map. - Vniversalior cogniti orbis tabula ex
>>recentibvs observationibvs. We have discussed that map as well as other
>>early maps on the New World many times. How come that no scholar seems to
>>have noticed the text on the top of the map?
>>"Legere est î Libro de Îvêtione Forvnati
> [snip]
>>
>>While the text is disputable in many ways and contradicted by other
>>contemporary documents, I can't understand why no one noticed this 1507
>>reference to Nicholas of Lynn's Inventio Fortunata?
>>Isn't it the common practice to read, observe and analyse all information
> on
>>a map as well as text in a document?
>
> Who's this "no one"? See for example page 76 of
> Seaver, K. "Maps, Myths, and Men" (2004)
> which in turn refers back to much earlier work by R.A. Skelton & others.
>
> David B.
More proof that Inger hasn't read Seaver's book - if it's true she borrowed
a copy, she clearly had decided it was worthless and didn't read it
properly or she wouldn't be making such a claim - she doesn't seem to read,
observe and analyse all information in a book. And now it appears that she
hasn't read The Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation, or if she did, not
very carefully.
Doug
Doug Weller
> David B,
> she hasn't followed it up with correct ref. neither to contemporary
> sources - for example Agnese's maps content, which in itself directly
> contradicts all her assumptions re. the Vinland map(!) but that might be why
> she hasn't followed that one up. Nor has she shown that she has the context
> for the quote I sent. That's what I am after - that's what no one neither
> you nor her shown that you have comprehended!!!!
>
What she did or didn't do is irrelevant.
You wrote "I can't understand why no one noticed this 1507
reference to Nicholas of Lynn's Inventio Fortunata?"
Kirsten certainly noticed it, as did Skelton et al.
Now that your ignorance of what Seaver and Skelton et al has been revealed,
> For example do you or don't you know where Rusch got that information? I
> refer to place, reason etc.
> Do you or don't you know the impact of that knowledge. Neither you nor her
> has shown that you do.
You don't *know* either. Seaver suggests Cnoyen, which seems most likely.
>
> For example have you or haven't you followed up that knowledge of where at
> least one example of Inventio Fortunata was and when? Have you or haven't
> you understood the impact of that knowledge and have you or haven't you
> followed that example of Inventio Fortunata into Moderna Age?
You made a claim a while ago about this, and a map historian at the
University of Utrecht checked it out. He wrote as follows:
* Mrs Johansson sent me the following information about her find of
* "Jacobus Cnoyen's own narriative from 1360's":
* At 14:46 23-6-2004, you wrote: Dear Mr van der Krogt, it's in
* Rijksuniversiteit Groningen' Facultet der Letteren's Narrative sources
* that Jacob Cnoyen, Verslag van een reis naar Noorwegen, No CK 291; No
* NS J001 What I don't know is if this is the same I have seen in an old
* document where the title (well in correspondence to the Dutch title
* translated into Scandinavian) is said to have the information, in other
* words if the title which has been given in a 16th c document and the
* narrative is one and the same. That's one thing I like to know.
* I wrote her:
* I am sorry for you, but your "find" brings nothing new. All it does, is
* referring to Mercator's letter to John Dee with a partial copy of
* Cnoyen's narrative.
* The source you refer to is not an archive, but an on-line concordance
* between the book M. Carasso-Kok, Repertorium van verhalende historische
* bronnen uit de Middeleeuwen ('s-Gravenhage, 1981) (= CK) and the
* Belgian website Narrative-Sources (NS). You could have given me the url
* directly: http://odur.let.rug.nl/narrative-sources/, clicking on
* Concordans brings you to this. The Cnoyen text has in Carasso-Kok's
* book no. 291, and on the Narrative Sources website no J001.
* I checked for the the website Narrative Sources - url: http://www.
* narrative-sources.be/ - and searched for Cnoyen. To be short, this
* website refers to: Part of an account of a journey to Norway, only
* preserved in a letter (1577) from Gerard Mercator to the English
* mathematician and astronomer John Dee. Mercator narrates the story
* partly in the original Dutch language, and partly in a Latin
* translation. Jacob Cnoyen describes in his travel story a visit to the
* court of the Norwegian king in Bergen in 1364. It is not clear whether
* the author was an eyewitness or got his information elsewhere. Further
* they refer to the following documents:
* LONDEN, BL: Cotton Vitell. C VII, n.f. 266r-269r. 16e eeuw, afschrift
* door John Dee, beschadigd in de brand van Ashburnham House in 1731. For
* editions of this text is reference to: E.G.R. TAYLOR, 'A Letter dated
* 1577 from Mercator to John Dee', Imago Mundi 13 (1956) 56-61.-- M. VAN
* DURME, Correspondance Mercatorienne (Antwerpen 1959) 132-139.
* and for literature: CARASSO-KOK no 291.-- BNM.-- H. AVERDUNK, J. MÜLLER-
* REINHARD, Gerhard Mercator und die Geographen unter seinen Nachkommen
* (Gotha 1914, herdruk: Amsterdam 1969) 68.-- E.G.R. TAYLOR, Tudor
* Geography 1485-1583 (Londen 1930) 133.-- E.G.R. TAYLOR ed., 56-68.-- M.
* DURME ed., 132-140.-- R. JANSEN-SIEBEN, Repertorium van de
* Middelnederlandse Artes-literatuur (Utrecht 1989) no L860.-- M. SPIES,
* Bij noorden om. Olivier Brunel en de doorvaart naar China en Cathay in
* de zestiende eeuw (Amsterdam 1994) 93.-- W. VAN ANROOIJ, 'Schepen
* achter de horizon. Jacob Cnoyen uit 's-Hertogenbosch over koning Arthur'
* in: B. BESAMUSCA e.a. ed., Hoort wonder! Opstellen voor W.Gerritsen bij
* zijn emeritaat (Hilversum 2000) 19-24.
* I was suprised to see here the Jansen-Sieben book - I could have
* thought about that book earlier, since I edited that book for Mrs.
* Jansen. There Mercator's letter has no. L860. I have used the option to
* send the information to my e-mail adress. I will forward the text to
* anyone who wants to have it. - or to the list, if many of you want it).
>
> That's a lot of more that a good scholar could and should have been able to
> find out from that little quote. But that you will learn about in the end.
> No fantasy tails from the quote but pure facts derived from the contemporary
> sources around the place where that examplar was in early 1500's.
>
> One other from that edition is located due to that information. Observe
> located and will be gone thru by an Italian scholar. The examplar that Rusch
> 'had' access to can be followed up to 1939. No later information at present
> unfortunatly.
Your claim above having been found worthless, now you are making other
unspecified claims which can't be checked.
Doug
Philip Deitiker
news:1lkr9ws2by3nm$.pn9cotke...@40tude.net:
> More proof that Inger hasn't read Seaver's book - if it's
> true she borrowed a copy
Her hisplexia gives her comprehension problems.
Inger would read it if was capsulized on a cheap, low grade,
amatuer fruitloop website. Why don't you try that approach.
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Philip Deitiker
> * I checked for the the website Narrative Sources - url:
> http://www. * narrative-sources.be/ - and searched for
> Cnoyen. To be short, this * website refers to: Part of an
> account of a journey to Norway, only * preserved in a
> letter (1577) from Gerard Mercator to the English *
> mathematician and astronomer John Dee. Mercator narrates
> the story * partly in the original Dutch language, and
> partly in a Latin * translation. Jacob Cnoyen describes in
> his travel story a visit to the * court of the Norwegian
> king in Bergen in 1364. It is not clear whether * the
> author was an eyewitness or got his information elsewhere.
> Further * they refer to the following documents:
Is Inger, BTW, related to Ed Conrad. I remember a similar
request by Andy McRae back in the 90's
This is the myth
"
Hapgood focuses his attention on the polar regions, but he fails
to mention one of the most interesting details there on many of
the maps he studied, as well as others, namely, four large
islands in a ring around the north pole, where no such islands
exist. This is the story behind them. In 1364, a Dutchman, Jacob
Cnoyen, travelled to Bergen. There, at the Norwegian royal
court, he met an Oxford friar who claimed to have travelled five
times to these islands, above the 78th parallel. His description
of them, in the lost book Inventio Fortunatae, is compounded of
medieval legends. From extracts we learn that the islands are
rocky and surrounded by a high wall of mountains, each of the
four separated from its neighbors by several tortuous channels
"called `indrawing seas' because the current always flows
northwards so strongly that no wind can make a ship sail back
against it."65 Any ship that enters, if not driven ashore by the
strong currents, is cast out into a great whirlpool in the midst
of the four islands.
"
So that's were the Royal Norwegian fleet went. They smashed into
the north pole.
"...Right under the Pole there lies a bare rock in the midst of
the Sea. Its circumference is almost 33 French miles, and it is
all of magnetic stone..... it is black and glistening." 66 Ships
which have iron on board cannot return. 67 Nearly 4,000 persons
who entered the indrawing seas, including part of the army of
King Arthur, were never seen again.
"
King Authur you say?
"
Two of the islands are inhabited, one them by pygmies.
"
Let me guess the other Island was occupied by little blue
gremlins with yellow belly buttons.
http://www.laputanlogic.com/story/2004/01/07-0001.html
Here is another take.
"
In his letter to Dee, Mercator wrote
"we have taken [the Arctic geography] from the Itinerium of
Jacobus Cnoyen of the Hague, who makes some citations from the
Gesta of Arthur"
[Gesta Regum Anglorum] William of Malmesbury 1125.
"
of Britain; however, the greater and most important part he
learned from a certain priest at the court of the king of Norway
in 1364. He was descended in the fifth generation from those
whom Arthur had sent to inhabit these lands, and he related that
in the year 1360 a certain Minorite, an Englishman from Oxford,
a mathematician, went to those islands; and leaving them,
"
OK so 5 x 20 is 120 years, this means that the inhabitants left
this mythical land in 1364-120 = 1245AD, this would have been
just about the time the colony started declining. ;^).
"
advanced still farther by magic arts and mapped out all and
measured them by an astrolabe in practically the subjoined
figure, as we have learned from Jacobus. The four canals there
pictured he said flow with such current to the inner whirlpool,
that if vessels once enter they cannot be driven back by wind."
Mercator then quotes from Cnoyen
Anno Domini 1364 came 8 of these persons to Norway to the King.
Among them were two clerics. One of them had an astrolabe who in
the fifth generation was descended from Brusselites. These 8
were of the orginal party who had penetrated into the northern
regions...
"
Here in fact we see the first embellishment, the men were from
brussels, flemish or normans? Isn't Mercator flemish?
"
The priest who had the astrolabe related to the king of Norway
that in AD 1360 there had come to these Northern Islands an
English Minorite from Oxford who was a good astronomer etc.
Leaving the rest of the party who had come to the Islands, he
journeyed further through the whole of the North etc, and put
into writing all the wonders of those Islands, and gave the King
of England this book, which he called in Latin Inventio
Fortunatae...
"
So he left them on the doorstep of the islands and discovered
these by himself (The north pole, on foot, by himself).
"
Writing about the North Pole:
In the midst of the four countries is a Whirlpool into which
there empty these four Indrawing Seas which divide the North.
And the water rushes round and descends into the earth just as
if one were pouring it through a filter funnel. It is 4 degrees
wide on every side of the Pole, that is to say eight degrees
altogther. Except that right under the Pole there lies a bare
rock in the midst of the Sea. Its circumference is almost 33
French miles, and it is all of magnetic stone. And is as high as
the clouds, so the Priest said, who had received the astrolabe
from this Minorite in exchange for a Testament. And the Minorite
himself had heard that one can see all round it from the Sea,
and that it is black and glistening.
"
Right, and this could not have been written in the 14th century.
And it is clear that this is a complete fabrication by Mercator.
The indrawing seas at the arctic is the bering strait.
http://www.pibburns.com/smmia5.htm. The north pole has no
polarity. Seas outflow into the atlantic and flow south. See
the recent paper in science about the CO2 sink.
So this is where the 1364 date comes from, clearly Inger is
gullible to childhood myths. The Iberian explorers believed they
would see chinese dragons and sea monsters as they headed to
india. Mabye she thinks that everyone else was superstitous to
produce such myths, except the Norse.
There is also a fellow who thinks that the North Pole has a hole
in it where ships go into the earth, this is where atlantis if
found.
Hear is a logical point however.
1. Cnoyen discusses _Oxford_ friar who is discussing the fate of
King Arthur in 1364.
2. King Authur is beleived to be of the <7th century. And this
is _Anglo/Celtic_ folklore, Not Norse.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4186/Arthur/htmlpages/kinga
rthurfaq1.html
"
The most important early source for Arthur's deeds is Historia
Brittonum, written by the monk Nennius in the 9th century.
"
See text on site
"
Nennius calls Arthur dux bellorum and tells us of 12 great
battles Arthur fought. Although Nennius tells us the location of
each battle, those locations are hard to come by these days.
Scholars are still arguing over the locations. Even the agreed-
on locations suggest that Arthur got around--literally--from
Scotland to the lowlands of Wessex to Wales.
"
3. Arthur was, if he existed at all probably a roman holdover
who took up the side of the celts against the anglo, saxons, and
jutes. IOW, he would not have affiliated with the Norse.
4. The north pole is not a 'pole' but one end of a magnetic
dipole, and it is not very strong. Nor are iron ships magnets
and the flux lines are weakest at the poles because the iron
that creates the dipole is the earths core, deep in the earth.
Within a few hundred miles of the poles magnets loose function.
5. There are no pygmies or there have never been pygmies at the
magnetic north pole. Pygmies are found in the tropical jungles
of africa, excepting the !kung (desert dwelling) the closest
people are the negrito population of austronesia.
"
The first person recorded to have used the compass as a
navigational aid was Zheng He (1371-1435), from the Yunnan
province in China, who made seven ocean voyages between 1405 and
1433.
" http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcompass.htm
Magnetism was not know to the English in 1364, and the idea of
the North Magnetic Pole. In fact, "The Magnetic North Pole is
the northern point at which the geomagnetic field points
vertically, i.e. the dip is 90°. This definition was proposed by
Sir William Gilbert, a courtier of Queen Elizabeth I, in 1600
and is still used. Despite its name, it is a south magnetic
pole, because the north pole (labelled N) of every other magnet
is attracted to it, and opposite magnetic poles attract each
other. Its location (in 2003) is 78 18' North, 104 West, near
Ellef Ringness Island, one of the Queen Elizabeth Islands, in
Canada." http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/North-Pole
IOW it would be impossible in 1364 for there to be a report by
an Oxford friar to a anyone concerning the magnatism between 4
circumpolar islands because:
Magnetism was not know to the enlish until much later.
The north pole wasn't defined until the 1600.
There is no whirlpool at the magnetic north pole, the north pole
has very diffuse magnetism.
Ship would not be pulled in the direction of the north pole.
The inward current is in the bering strait.
How could a report from 1364 by Jacob Cnoyen have reports of
magnetism and poles, without knowledge of magnetism or poles.
Well it turns out that the written report by Cnoyen,[cough] its
name is 'Belgica Lingua', is also lost.
The abstracts of Mercator and Dee were of the late 16th
century, when magnetism was being explored by the british but
still mystical to them. Here even further we overturn one other
myth.
The author of the report Richard Hakluyt -(1552? - 1616) Was by
then recieving 4th hand information. And why, if Nicholas was of
the Ilses, and if the original written source was from the Ilses
is Hakluyt relying on abstract of a written report from an
Oxfordian in Bergen. At each step of this process we see how
myth is embellished upon myth and so on.
So what did cnoyen actually say:
"
The priest who had the astrolabe related to the king of Norway
that in AD 1360 there had come to these Northern Islands an
English Minorite form Oxford who was a good astronomer etc.
Leaving the rest of the party who had come to the Islands, he
journeyed further thorough the whole of the North etc, and put
into writing all the wonders of those Islands, and gave the King
of England this book, which he called in Latin Inventio
Fortunatae, whch book began at... latitude 54, continuing to the
Pole.
"
Or did he? It is unlikely that one would get 54' without a
sextet, and the latitude 54 would not be given, but the degree
variation between that position and the port from which he left,
it would not have been in degrees. The extraction of the cnoyen
report are in modernish lingo for the 16th century, not the
14th, which means that whoever translated it must have
embellished it. In 1355 to 1363, the date given by Inger for
Nicholas of Lynn the most likely instrument to have been used
was the quadrant, and it did not give degrees variation but a
measure of the outside cord. For example if you left bristol
England and you traveled to iceland, the distance in the outside
cord might have been an inch and 1/2. So you would note in your
log (or scratch on the side of your bed that the distance from
bristol to iceland was 1 - 1/2 inch. In the year 1364 the
correction for yearly variation was not yet known, and thus all
a sailor had was an approximation that was something like. If I
left bristol on . . . and travel 2 weeks north to iceland I
would have traveled . . . distance on the quadrant. It would
be near impossible to estimate a variation of 54' without the
correction unless one measured in mid-March or mid-September.
One could also dispute the claim that Lynn had an astrolabe,
since these were rare in the 13th century and were primarily in
use by Arabs and Greeks.
http://historymedren.about.com/library/prm/blroger3.htm
"
When his appointment as magister expired, Bacon returned to
Oxford and set out to become a "master" of the sciences. After
tapping the well-spring of his family's fortune, he spent some
£2,000 (in 20th Century funds, approximately £10,000) on "secret
books and various experiments, and on languages and instruments,
and astronomical tables". He sent to continental apothecaries
for alchemical powders and essences which were unavailable in
England. His vendors across the Channel also supplied him with
prisms and lenses and drawings of instruments such as the
astrolabe, which were unavailable, to be shipped to him. He was
not always successful: the materials that he sought were
"difficult and most expensive, for which reason those who know
the art . . . are not able to operate and the books on that
science are so secreted that a man car scarcely find them".
"
We also learn that Bacon could not have been Cnoyen source in
1364 because Bacon was dead for more than a half a century.
But also it appears his astrolabe was not very good, and the
English were more interested in the french Astrolabe of the
early 15th century. This improved Astrolabe was marked off every
2'.
in addition.
Here marks Chaucer's thesis on Astrolabe marked of in 5' from
1391.
"
The Astrolabe in Europe
The astrolabe moved with Islam through North Africa into Spain
(Andalusia) where it was introduced to European culture through
Christian monasteries in northern Spain. It is likely that
information about the astrolabe was available in Europe as early
as the 11th century, but European usage was not widespread until
the 13th and 14th centuries. The earliest astrolabes used in
Europe were imported from Moslem Spain with Latin words engraved
alongside the original Arabic. It is likely that European use of
Arabic star names was influenced by these imported astrolabes.
"
Arabs however did not use degrees on their astrolabes, they
measured off in parcels of 60'. Therefore it is likely the the
first degreed instrument reached England close to the end of the
13th century.
In addition maps made with these instruments show just how
deviant they are when plotted, from the pre 16th century most of
the maps have undergone extensive latitude corrections for major
and easily identifyable landmarks. A Astrolabe imported in the
1350s from Arabs, like made in the early 1300s would not have
given latitude in degrees, and even if this was an
interpretation marked off in 10ths of a 60, IOW 9/10ths of the
60' bearing that measurment would be +/-5' meaning it could have
been 49 to 59' North. Therefore this 54' within Mercators is
probably not a translation, but an extraction of what he felt
Cnoyen meant.
> * LONDEN, BL: Cotton Vitell. C VII, n.f. 266r-269r. 16e
> eeuw, afschrift * door John Dee, beschadigd in de brand
> van Ashburnham House in 1731. For * editions of this text
> is reference to: E.G.R. TAYLOR, 'A Letter dated * 1577
> from Mercator to John Dee', Imago Mundi 13 (1956) 56-61.--
> M. VAN * DURME, Correspondance Mercatorienne (Antwerpen
> 1959) 132-139.
>> That's a lot of more that a good scholar could and should
>> have been able to find out from that little quote.
Tranlation into English 'I lied, I got no such confirmation
back'. But to see what a good scholar extracted, see above.
>> But
>> that you will learn about in the end.
Translation into English 'I am grandstanding and bluffing, I
threw out the 1507 date because you have run through all my
evidence and I aint got shit left'. Then end of what Inger, your
presence here in this group. Please tell us so you can leave, I
almost have enough of your post to create a nice fictional
novel.
>> No fantasy tails
>> from the quote but pure facts derived from the
>> contemporary sources around the place where that examplar
>> was in early 1500's.
Translation into English 'I wish it wasn't fantasy, but
apparently it is, the Oxford friar apparently had a problem
with alcohol, hey just like me!'
>> One other from that edition is located due to that
>> information. Observe located and will be gone thru by an
>> Italian scholar.
About 1380
"
Niccolo Zeno may have visited Greenland ("Engroneland")
"
Creates a map which is published later and shown to be a fraud.
>> The examplar that Rusch 'had' access to
>> can be followed up to 1939. No later information at
>> present unfortunatly.
Why is that later arrivals to greenland after 1450 treat
Greenland as undiscovered land and report seeing skraelings
about but no Norse?
> Your claim above having been found worthless,
Not exactly, I got a good laugh out of the running into the
pygmies living on solid iron north pole part.
now you are
> making other unspecified claims which can't be checked.
I have a better theory for what happened to the eastern colony.
It was raided by bristol prirates, the goods were hocked in
europe and the people captured (women and children) while the
men were out hunting and were sold as slaves in england. The
inuit were freindly with the Norse as long as the women and
children were present. Without women and ships from Norway the
men died leaving no children. Parts of greenland built ships
found in iceland probably represent a few who tried to return to
Norway, but died at sea. The remaining men were burned because
they became pest to the Inuit. This explanation does not require
alot of devination. One of the bigger problems was that there
were English, Pirates, Norse and Icelander out looking for these
Norse after the Bardsson expedition, and they not only found the
Norse less and less far west, but Inuit further and further
east, after 12 century no contact with Vinland.
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> says in
>news:g04x0has1vl2$.huguwqmz...@40tude.net:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:56:43 GMT, Inger E Johansson wrote:
>>
--- snip ---
>
>This is the myth
Straight from http://www.pibburns.com/smmia5.htm
>"
>Hapgood focuses his attention on the polar regions, but he fails
>to mention one of the most interesting details there on many of
>the maps he studied, as well as others, namely, four large
>islands in a ring around the north pole, where no such islands
>exist. This is the story behind them. In 1364, a Dutchman, Jacob
>Cnoyen, travelled to Bergen. There, at the Norwegian royal
>court, he met an Oxford friar who claimed to have travelled five
>times to these islands, above the 78th parallel. His description
>of them, in the lost book Inventio Fortunatae, is compounded of
>medieval legends. From extracts we learn that the islands are
>rocky and surrounded by a high wall of mountains, each of the
>four separated from its neighbors by several tortuous channels
>"called `indrawing seas' because the current always flows
>northwards so strongly that no wind can make a ship sail back
>against it."65 Any ship that enters, if not driven ashore by the
>strong currents, is cast out into a great whirlpool in the midst
>of the four islands.
>"
--- snip ----
>
>"
>The first person recorded to have used the compass as a
>navigational aid was Zheng He (1371-1435), from the Yunnan
>province in China, who made seven ocean voyages between 1405 and
>1433.
>" http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcompass.htm
>
>Magnetism was not know to the English in 1364, and the idea of
>the North Magnetic Pole. In fact, "The Magnetic North Pole is
>the northern point at which the geomagnetic field points
>vertically, i.e. the dip is 90°. This definition was proposed by
>Sir William Gilbert, a courtier of Queen Elizabeth I, in 1600
>and is still used. Despite its name, it is a south magnetic
>pole, because the north pole (labelled N) of every other magnet
>is attracted to it, and opposite magnetic poles attract each
>other. Its location (in 2003) is 78 18' North, 104 West, near
>Ellef Ringness Island, one of the Queen Elizabeth Islands, in
>Canada." http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/North-Pole
>
>IOW it would be impossible in 1364 for there to be a report by
>an Oxford friar to a anyone concerning the magnatism between 4
>circumpolar islands because:
>
>Magnetism was not know to the enlish until much later.
"
http://www.computersmiths.com/chineseinvention/compass.htm
"As found in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1999 "Sometime in the 12th
century, mariners in China and Europe made the discovery,
apparently independently, that a piece of lodestone, a naturally
occurring magnetic ore, when floated on a stick in water, tends to
align itself so as to point in the direction of the polestar".
The later Vikings may have known of the magnetic compass.
http://www.sjolander.com/viking/museum/Compass/rebobsun.htm
"The Norse may have had a magnetic compass in the 14th century".
>The north pole wasn't defined until the 1600.
>There is no whirlpool at the magnetic north pole, the north pole
>has very diffuse magnetism.
>Ship would not be pulled in the direction of the north pole.
>The inward current is in the bering strait.
>
>How could a report from 1364 by Jacob Cnoyen have reports of
>magnetism and poles, without knowledge of magnetism or poles.
>Well it turns out that the written report by Cnoyen,[cough] its
>name is 'Belgica Lingua', is also lost.
> The abstracts of Mercator and Dee were of the late 16th
>century, when magnetism was being explored by the british but
>still mystical to them. Here even further we overturn one other
>myth.
By supplanting it with another - that magnetism was not known to
Europe until much later than 1364.
>
>The author of the report Richard Hakluyt -(1552? - 1616) Was by
>then recieving 4th hand information. And why, if Nicholas was of
>the Ilses, and if the original written source was from the Ilses
>is Hakluyt relying on abstract of a written report from an
>Oxfordian in Bergen. At each step of this process we see how
>myth is embellished upon myth and so on.
>
>So what did cnoyen actually say:
>"
>The priest who had the astrolabe related to the king of Norway
>that in AD 1360 there had come to these Northern Islands an
>English Minorite form Oxford who was a good astronomer etc.
>Leaving the rest of the party who had come to the Islands, he
>journeyed further thorough the whole of the North etc, and put
>into writing all the wonders of those Islands, and gave the King
>of England this book, which he called in Latin Inventio
>Fortunatae, whch book began at... latitude 54, continuing to the
>Pole.
>"
>
>Or did he? It is unlikely that one would get 54' without a
>sextet, and the latitude 54 would not be given, but the degree
>variation between that position and the port from which he left,
>it would not have been in degrees.
The use of the astrolabe to take altitudes of stars, planets and the
sun dates back before 100BC. A modified marine version designed
explicitly for taking sights of the sun was in use by 1480. The marine
quadrant was probably in use by 1430AD. [ May: A History of Marine
Navigation]
>The extraction of the cnoyen
>report are in modernish lingo for the 16th century, not the
>14th, which means that whoever translated it must have
>embellished it. In 1355 to 1363, the date given by Inger for
>Nicholas of Lynn the most likely instrument to have been used
>was the quadrant, and it did not give degrees variation but a
>measure of the outside cord. For example if you left bristol
>England and you traveled to iceland, the distance in the outside
>cord might have been an inch and 1/2. So you would note in your
>log (or scratch on the side of your bed that the distance from
>bristol to iceland was 1 - 1/2 inch. In the year 1364 the
>correction for yearly variation was not yet known, and thus all
>a sailor had was an approximation that was something like. If I
>left bristol on . . . and travel 2 weeks north to iceland I
>would have traveled . . . distance on the quadrant. It would
>be near impossible to estimate a variation of 54' without the
>correction unless one measured in mid-March or mid-September.
>One could also dispute the claim that Lynn had an astrolabe,
>since these were rare in the 13th century and were primarily in
>use by Arabs and Greeks.
Nonsense!
>
>http://historymedren.about.com/library/prm/blroger3.htm
>
--- irelevancies snipped ---
>
>"
>The Astrolabe in Europe
>The astrolabe moved with Islam through North Africa into Spain
>(Andalusia) where it was introduced to European culture through
>Christian monasteries in northern Spain. It is likely that
>information about the astrolabe was available in Europe as early
>as the 11th century, but European usage was not widespread until
>the 13th and 14th centuries. The earliest astrolabes used in
>Europe were imported from Moslem Spain with Latin words engraved
>alongside the original Arabic. It is likely that European use of
>Arabic star names was influenced by these imported astrolabes.
Very likely. But - astrolabes were imported.
--- snide remarks snipped ---
Eric Stevens
Inger E Johansson
Philip D and Doug W aren't updated. Magnetic compass were used from 12th
century by Scandinavians as well as others the 'Modern' type was used from
1119 AD.
Inger E.
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:l9mth0tfqah2qn25l...@4ax.com...
Philip Deitiker
news:l9mth0tfqah2qn25l...@4ax.com:
> http://www.computersmiths.com/chineseinvention/compass.htm
>
> "As found in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1999 "Sometime
> in the 12th
> century, mariners in China and Europe made the
> discovery, apparently independently, that a piece of
> lodestone, a naturally occurring magnetic ore, when
> floated on a stick in water, tends to align itself so as
> to point in the direction of the polestar".
That reference is Garbage and you know it. Scrape off the BS and
do a realk search and you will find.
"
The first european mention of the Magnet [not the compass, but
the magnet] was in The Roman d'Enéas, written by an anonymous
Norman poet probably between 1155 and 1160.
"
This lags what the chinese knew by 1000 years.
"
Petri Pergrinus (fl. 1269) writes Letter on the magnet of Peter
the Pilgrim of Maricourt to Sygerus of Foucaucourt, Soldier, the
first western analysis of polar magnets and compasses. He also
demonstrates in France the existence of two poles of a magnet by
tracing the directions of a needle laid on to a natural magnet.
"
Still no reference to the use of a martime compass in europe.
Chinese had been using the compass for maritime use at least 200
years previous, probably 500.
This Brittania site is wrong.
BTW compasses are not very useful in the far north atlantic,
unless you are traveling from boston to the north pole, because
the deflection of the pole is so close to greenland. If you
approach greenland from the east when you are traveling on the
78 parallel heading true west your magnet point north.
> The later Vikings may have known of the magnetic compass.
Little green men may have flown from mars. The Oxford expedition
would have been from England. Not scandinavia.
> http://www.sjolander.com/viking/museum/Compass/rebobsun.htm
>
> "The Norse may have had a magnetic compass in the 14th
> century".
14th century extends from 1301 to 1399. Anything after 1360
would have been irrelevant. They may have had a compass, not on
a ship, in 1399.
> By supplanting it with another - that magnetism was not
> known to Europe until much later than 1364.
But maritime compasses were not known in England in 1364.
The compasses that were in use had a polar magnet on a board
that floated on water. One would need to take a large barrel on
a ship with a wide lid filled with water to make a compass work.
> The use of the astrolabe to take altitudes of stars,
> planets and the sun dates back before 100BC. A modified
> marine version designed explicitly for taking sights of the
> sun was in use by 1480. The marine quadrant was probably in
> use by 1430AD. [ May: A History of Marine Navigation]
In use by greeks and Arabs. In 1360 and englishman may have had
an astrolab of arab design, would he know how to use it as well
as an arab, and would it given him a latitude in degrees, and
would that measurement be of any good. There was a thing in
europe, you may remember it, it was called the dark ages. A time
when religious autocracy suppress the spread of science and
technology.
You can read the history of shipping in the 14th and 15th
century, even after better sight navigation equipment had been
invented. There are two basic problems.
1. One cannot take measurements in heavy seas or in cloudy
weather.
2. The user of such equipment needs some skill and training in
its use.
3. Even so, many a ship smashed into rocks sailing on the
measurement of that equipment.
> Very likely. But - astrolabes were imported.
What did I say. The issue was whether Mercator could have
extracted from Cnoyen a measurement of 54' for labrador entry
based on an arab astrolabe. Europeans may have had their own
astrolabe, but those in use were of arab design. But they did
not give variation in degrees. In fact I do not beleive that
Cnoyen ever even saw the Inventio Fortunata, and would be
recalling, in essence, bar talk. This bar talk was noted and
taken to Belgium were it was picked up by Mercator 200 years
later and once again embellished [Clearly it could not have been
embellished to the degree by Cnoyen because some of the
technologies and information would not have made sense in 1364
to the time of his death]. And BTW, why did not
Cnoyen catch the name of the Oxford friar?
So I am glad you responded. This is what we have:
1. two maps
a. one by Mercator
b. one by Dee
2. Maps showing an incorrect geology about the north pole,
the magnetic north pole is superimposed over the
rotational north pole (the magnetic pole being in the Queen
Elizibeth islands.
3. The maps are based on here-say by gerald Mercator in notes
taken from a book of a fellow brusselite, the original notes
are gone, the busselite lived in the 14th century. Therefore
there was no personal contact between the two. From what we
see the notations are breif and abstract in nature.
4. Magnetic north pole and the idea of poles was not known to
brusselites or to Bergen or Oxford in 1360 or 1364.
5. The heresay claims they entered a channel at 54' and yet the
two instruments they might have used would not have given
that precise of information and the probably not in degrees.
6. The brusselite who made the notations in the 14th century
obtained them at a 'convention' in Bergen in meeting an
unnamed Oxford friar, who claims to have written a book.
It is not clear whether the brusselite saw the book, that
book also no longer exists, and the Oxfordian clergyman is
unnamed, so we have no way of knowing their origin. In
fact do we have any reason to believe that book even existed,
other than this 3rd hand report?
7. The notations claims either that there were 8 belgium or 8 of
king arthurs men who were 120 to 150 years removed from their
ancestors who lived, with a band of pygmies at this north
pole [Weeeeeeeeeeeee]. One possible consistency is that
they left the greenland as situation deteriorated. Do inuit
live, however on Queen Elizabeth Islands in 1360, at the
height of one of the coldest periods since the 'big' thaw.
8. That these islands are mountains are steep cliffs where water
flows to the center and disappears all in all 66 ships and
4000 men were lost (So thats were the Greenland Viking were)
No such geography exists at the north pole, no such currents
exist at either the north pole or the magnetic north pole.
Also no such geography exists in the Queen Elizabeth Islands,
either. One might confuse; however, the Nares Strait between
Greenland and Elsemere Island. Here one would find a remnant
of Inuit and possibly traces of Norse. The Nares strait pnts
south relative to magnetic North. This would mean that the
oxford reporter would have had to have entered the channel
from true north of greenland in 1360, that strikes me as
insane, because from eastern greenland to baffin bay one
would have been traveling continuously through pack or sea
ice.
9. In 1300 to 1360, during a period in which the greenland,
where the peoples reported the coldest weather in 400 years,
the channels to the magnetic north would have been virtually
impassible,
So even if one scrapes off Mercators likely embellishments,
possibly Cnoyens embellishments de post facto, we still have a
very good myth and nothing else.
What Cnoyen likely heard was a 'drinking' story.
Let's follow the chain Dee reports what Mercator said and wrote.
Mercator translates what cnoyen wrote, Cnoyen translates and
reports what an unnamed Oxfordian says about what he wrote at a
'conference' in Bergen. And lets count
Dee reports what
Mercator said and wrote.
Mercator translates what cnoyen wrote,
Cnoyen translates and reports what an
unnamed Oxfordian says about what he wrote at a 'conference' in
Bergen. And lets count
This is what you call 5th hand information, possibly
translations occurred twice, or people were not speaking in
their native tongues when relaying the information.
In addition Mercator is well familiar with Oxford, why is not
Oxford a better source of this information? Why is the best
source of the information a here-say trail from Oxford, to
Bergen, to Brussels and back to Oxford again?
Finally if these 8 men were of Greenland in <1250 at a time when
the Norwegians were strong then if they existed and if they
were probably norse, one report would have them of England and
the other of Brussels. I think Brussels is a Mercator/Cnoyen
embellishment. However it appears that from about 1300AD people
may have abandoned greenland and settled in england. If Lynn did
make a trip then this is his source of information. Later
Englishmen may have stolen Norse women and children from
greenland and brought the back to england as slaves and
servents. Could these people have been of the western settlement
in 1310-20, 2 to 3 generations removed from greenland.
It is hard to say in a story so preponderously embellished with
myth whether this could be or not. One hint that this Oxford
friar might have existed is that during the 14th century
arthutianism was on the rise, and people attributed many things
to king Arthur, as England was stretching out to become
independent of all the various factions that had laid claim in
the past. Alot of this was misinformation. Just as Mdm Inger
lays claim to all the achievements in the world to her small
hillbilly town in Sweden, so the Arthurians were assigning all
kinds of feats to Arthur, from a warlord he became a King . . .
So it would only be natural that they would claim greenland was
settled by Arthurs people (although Arthur was a Gaelic/Roman
hero not a norseman). This element of Cnoyens story is likely
correct. However, Author was a 7th and 8th century legend, and
these men are 5 generations removed which at most would make
them an early 13th century extract. The number of generations
removed may have been an embellishment in order to reconcile
the history of the eight men and the desire to insert them into
an Arthurian timeline. In fact if one is going to remove
generations why not also remove men, why should we believe there
were 8 men, why not 1 man.
The find of the northern islands is likely cnoyen own
creation after the fact based on his very limited 13th century
understanding of magnetism. The reports of the pygmies is likely
an embellishment of the Inuit and the location of these peoples
are either eastern or western greenland, either could be true.
Anymore than that based on the reports would be pure conjecture.
Simon Pugh
Philip Deitiker <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> writes
On Arabs, I came across this:
http://www.uib.no/jais/v001ht/schmidl1.htm
--
Simon Pugh
Remove X for email
Doug Weller
> Eric S,
> Philip D and Doug W aren't updated. Magnetic compass were used from 12th
> century by Scandinavians as well as others the 'Modern' type was used from
> 1119 AD.
Someone please tell me why Inger is talking about me in relationship to
magnetic compasses in this thread? I've said nothing about them.
Nicholas of Lynn could have had an astrolabe, but he wasn't the friar
mentioned in the Inventio (Inger of course disagrees, nothing new there).
[SNIP]
Doug
Inger E Johansson
"Simon Pugh" <Ne...@mrzsp.demonX.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:OUVcMDBb...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk...
Scandinavians had access to compasses, and used it, from early 12th century
sailing in the Baltic Sea as well as in the North Sea and what we call
'västerhavet'(The Western Sea). That goes from west of Gothenburg all way up
the Swedish and Norwegian coasts to Troms.
Some of you might have missed that what was known by Greeks and Arabs was
also known by Swedes and Norwegians. Actually the Scandinavian Ar-Rus are
noted from 844 AD on forwards by Arabic sources to have traded all way to
China, along the Silkroad, and down in India. In 10th-13th century you had a
lot of Swedes and Norwegian working at the Byzantic court.
So what might not be known by the English was known long before that by the
Norse.
Inger E
>
> Remove X for email
Dick Wisan
>>the magnet] was in The Roman d'Enéas, written by an anonymous
>>Norman poet probably between 1155 and 1160.
>
From Simon's URL:
>>>
>>> Although the magnet and its attractive property were known in
>>> Antiquity,there is no mention of its directive potential in the
>>> sources.
Quite. EG Aristotle:
From what has been related about him, it seems that Thales,
too, supposed that the soul [psyche] was something that
produces motion, if indeed he said that the magnet has soul
because it moves iron. --De Anima, I, 5, 411a 19-25
Aristotle lived 384-322 BC. Thales flourished ca 585 BC
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@catskill.net
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'am; no fax
Philip Deitiker
> Nicholas of Lynn could have had an astrolabe, but he wasn't
> the friar mentioned in the Inventio (Inger of course
> disagrees, nothing new there).
In addition the voyage proclaimed in the Oxford text left
England not scandinavia.
Even if he did have a compass, there is no place on this earth
that will generate the compass bearings as described.
David B.
>
>maritime compasses were not known in England in 1364.
Maybe the English were really really forgetful. See references to Alexander
Neckham's work of c1190, e.g.:
http://gallery.sjsu.edu/cartography/compass.html
>In 1360 and englishman may have had
>an astrolab of arab design, would he know how to use it as well
>as an arab
Why not? There is a pretty decent, probably-English-made, astrolabe
surviving from 1326, and numerous other pre-1360 European astrolabes of
varying degrees of sophistication and development from Arab designs:
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/goto?id=OBJ3820
David B.
Philip Deitiker
news:cfoeev$lol$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
> Philip Deitiker wrote in message ...
>>
>>maritime compasses were not known in England in 1364.
>
> Maybe the English were really really forgetful. See
> references to Alexander Neckham's work of c1190, e.g.:
> http://gallery.sjsu.edu/cartography/compass.html
Neckham was reported a sail on someone elses boat. One way you
can judge the use of astrolabes and compasses, when the maps
start improving rapidly, you know people are using these peices
of equipment while navigating. Previous people were taking
measurements from ports and then measuring off distance by time
and speed and angle of sun and stars. The geography between
ports would be distorted.
>>In 1360 and englishman may have had
>>an astrolab of arab design, would he know how to use it as
>>well as an arab
>
> Why not? There is a pretty decent, probably-English-made,
> astrolabe surviving from 1326
The date is wrong, this is Chaucers and its probably 1362.
, and numerous other pre-1360
> European astrolabes of varying degrees of sophistication
> and development from Arab designs:
> http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/goto?id=OBJ3
> 820
Tell the museum to fix their page, Chaucer cannot invent an
astrolabe before he was born, that would be Ingerish.
http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/chaucer.htm
Geoffrey Chaucer lived from 13?43?46 to 1400. In the year of
1360 he would have been 14 to 17 years old, that would be the
first British Astrolabe. As I said there were Arabic Astrolabs.
However the Oxford Friar apparently reported in 1364 a
measurement of 54' on a voyage started in 1360 or 1359. I don't
beleive that report was possible. The other astrolabe listed on
that page was a quadrent from 1399.
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/hixclient.exe?_I
XDB_=compass&_IXFIRST_=1&_IXMAXHITS_=1&_IXSPFX_=graphical/full/&
$+with+all_unique_id_index+is+$=OBJ606&submit-button=summary
This is the earliest on the site, how accurate do you think it
was, it 'was' used for making land based measurements.
Show me where are the degee markings?
Doug Weller
> "David B." <dav...@tronospamchos.freeserve.co.uk> says in
> news:cfoeev$lol$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
>> Philip Deitiker wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>maritime compasses were not known in England in 1364.
>>
>> Maybe the English were really really forgetful. See
>> references to Alexander Neckham's work of c1190, e.g.:
>> http://gallery.sjsu.edu/cartography/compass.html
>
> Neckham was reported a sail on someone elses boat. One way you
> can judge the use of astrolabes and compasses, when the maps
> start improving rapidly, you know people are using these peices
> of equipment while navigating. Previous people were taking
> measurements from ports and then measuring off distance by time
> and speed and angle of sun and stars. The geography between
> ports would be distorted.
>
>>>In 1360 and englishman may have had
>>>an astrolab of arab design, would he know how to use it as
>>>well as an arab
>>
>> Why not? There is a pretty decent, probably-English-made,
>> astrolabe surviving from 1326
>
> The date is wrong, this is Chaucers and its probably 1362.
No, it is called the Chaucer Astrolabe. Nowhere does it say it belonged to
Chaucer. And even if it did, that doesn't stop it from being 1326.
[SNIP]
Doug
Martyn Harrison
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> said:
>BTW compasses are not very useful in the far north atlantic,
>unless you are traveling from boston to the north pole, because
>the deflection of the pole is so close to greenland. If you
>approach greenland from the east when you are traveling on the
>78 parallel heading true west your magnet point north.
I don't understand this. You can plot "new lands" from a nautical point of view
by mapping lat and long relative to the magnetic north pole, without realising
this is displaced relative to the true north pole.
IOW, if you know you have to sail at 275 degrees magnetic to get to where you
wanted to go, it doesn't matter if this is actually 277 degrees relative to
true north, you should get there anyway. Course, when you think you are sailing
true west, it'll be something like a degree or two out but then the port you
are sailing to is also (in that case) fifty or a hundred miles further north
then you think that it is.
These errors being corrected once someone realises there is a variation of
magnetic to true north and goes to the trouble of determining true latitudes by
astronomy to show up the magnetic variation, whereupon everyone can simply
adjust their compass readings according to place, with a chart that tells them
by how much.
What did you have in mind?
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> says in
>news:1qx64kztkgiln$.8s4s2no2umnf$.d...@40tude.net:
>
>> Nicholas of Lynn could have had an astrolabe, but he wasn't
>> the friar mentioned in the Inventio (Inger of course
>> disagrees, nothing new there).
>
>In addition the voyage proclaimed in the Oxford text left
>England not scandinavia.
>
>Even if he did have a compass, there is no place on this earth
>that will generate the compass bearings as described.
But when the text refers to degrees, is it a compass bearing or
latitude which is being discussed? I've missed a reference to a
compass bearing in what has been quoted in this thread, if such a
refrence is intended.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:l9mth0tfqah2qn25l...@4ax.com:
>
>> http://www.computersmiths.com/chineseinvention/compass.htm
>>
>> "As found in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1999 "Sometime
>> in the 12th
>> century, mariners in China and Europe made the
>> discovery, apparently independently, that a piece of
>> lodestone, a naturally occurring magnetic ore, when
>> floated on a stick in water, tends to align itself so as
>> to point in the direction of the polestar".
>
>That reference is Garbage and you know it. Scrape off the BS and
>do a realk search and you will find.
The only part in which I was interested was the reference to the date
at which compasses may have been used in Europe. I am aware the
conventional date is later but the early adopters of the compass are
believed to have kept the information for themselves (a) for
commercial advantage and (b) fear of being accused of dabbling in the
'black arts'.
--- snip ---
>
>Still no reference to the use of a martime compass in europe.
>Chinese had been using the compass for maritime use at least 200
>years previous, probably 500.
>
>This Brittania site is wrong.
>
>BTW compasses are not very useful in the far north atlantic,
>unless you are traveling from boston to the north pole, because
>the deflection of the pole is so close to greenland. If you
>approach greenland from the east when you are traveling on the
>78 parallel heading true west your magnet point north.
The failure of medieval navigators to understand the difference
between the magnetic and geographic poles may explain the strange
orientation of some of the older maps wich show Iceland and Greenland
to the north of Scandinavia rather than to the west.
>
>> The later Vikings may have known of the magnetic compass.
>
>Little green men may have flown from mars. The Oxford expedition
>would have been from England. Not scandinavia.
>
>> http://www.sjolander.com/viking/museum/Compass/rebobsun.htm
>>
>> "The Norse may have had a magnetic compass in the 14th
>> century".
>
>14th century extends from 1301 to 1399. Anything after 1360
>would have been irrelevant. They may have had a compass, not on
>a ship, in 1399.
<Deitiker deletion>
>
>> By supplanting it with another - that magnetism was not
>> known to Europe until much later than 1364.
>
>But maritime compasses were not known in England in 1364.
>The compasses that were in use had a polar magnet on a board
>that floated on water. One would need to take a large barrel on
>a ship with a wide lid filled with water to make a compass work.
W.E. May in his 'History of Marine Navigation' wrote under the heading
of 'The First Mariner's Compass':
"It is shortly before the year 1200 A.D. that we know definitely
that the compass was in use in some ships in European waters
for references to it begin to appear in the writings of scholars.
The first of these was Alexander Neckam, a man of whose life
we know an unusual amount for this period of history. One reason
for this is that he happened to have been born in St. Albans on the
same day in September 1157 that the future king, Richard I, was
born at Windsor and Alexander's mother was employed to nurse the
royal infant. We are told rather picturesquely that she suckled the
prince from her right breast and her own son from the left. I have
always wondered why it was necessary to send so far as St. Albans
for a wet-nurse!
In 1180 Neckam was at the University of Paris and there is no doubt
that it was here he heard of the compass which was already in use
in some ships at sea. Shortly after his return to England he
compiled two works which were evidently known before the end of
the century and were probably written about the year 1187. The more
important of these is an encyclopaedia called De Naturis Rerum*,
the second a less important work called De Utensilibus. Taken
together we get a clear view of the occasional use of the compass
needle and of the need to magnetize it every time it was used, but
its actual construction is still rather obscure.
Our next authority is Guyot de Provins, a minstrel turned monk, who
wrote a long satyrical poem between the years 1203 and 1208. In it
he castigates the pope and regrets that the holy father is not as
constant as the Pole Star, and this gives him an opportunity to
describe the use of the compass needle and how it was floated on
the surface of water in a bowl by means of a straw which it
transfixed. Other rather similar references appear in the works of
thirteenth century writers.
In 1269 a noted scholar, Petrus Peregrinus, whiled away the tedium
of the siege of Lucera, in Italy, by writing a celebrated letter to
his friend and neighbour in Normandy, Sigerius de Faucoucourt. In
this he describes at considerable length two compasses. The first
is merely a lump of lodestone floated in water on a piece of board
on which the north-south line was drawn by the aid of astronomical
means. This would be a very crude instrument but could have been
used for checking wind direction. He then describes a magnetized
needle mounted horizontally in a vertical axle which could turn
between upper and lower pivots. It is unlikely that Peregrinus
could every have seen either form used at sea. It is likely that he
knew of the usual needle floated by a straw and thought that he
could improve it. How often does one find some landlubber, who
has never been to sea, advising the sailor on how to improve his
equipment without having any idea of the practical conditions to
be encountered.
Although an attempt was made in the mid-nineteenth century to use
a double-pivoted compass needle as suggested by Peregrinus it
had no practical use at sea. As soon as the axis is deviated even
slightly from the vertical in any other than the north-south plane
the needle must inevitably be subjected to the influence of the
vertical component of the earth's magnetic field as well as to the
horizontal and this will pull the end of the needle downwards,
forcing it to deviate from its proper direction.
The next improvement to the compass may have been the placing of
the needle on a single pivot instead of floating it,* thus enabling
the water to be eliminated, and the attachment of the needle to a
card on which the directions were marked. Let us consider the
second. It has often been suggested that as charts of the portolan
type had appeared in the Mediterranean by 1290 and that as these
had on them representations of a compass card, it follows that the
compass, more or less in the form we now know, must already have
been in use when these charts were made. But this is to jump to
conclusions and to overlook most of the facts.
Afteer several pages of discussion of the compass card, May wrote:
"The first reference we have to a compass card is by Francesco
da Buti in 1380 in his commentaries on the work of Dante showing
that it was well established by that date ... "
Taking all of that into account, it is entirely possible that an
advanced student of navigation could have had both a useable compass
and an astrolabe by the 14th century.
I think you are confusing bearings with latitude.
>In fact I do not beleive that
>Cnoyen ever even saw the Inventio Fortunata, and would be
>recalling, in essence, bar talk. This bar talk was noted and
>taken to Belgium were it was picked up by Mercator 200 years
>later and once again embellished [Clearly it could not have been
>embellished to the degree by Cnoyen because some of the
>technologies and information would not have made sense in 1364
>to the time of his death]. And BTW, why did not
>Cnoyen catch the name of the Oxford friar?
>
> So I am glad you responded. This is what we have:
>
>1. two maps
> a. one by Mercator
> b. one by Dee
>
>2. Maps showing an incorrect geology about the north pole,
> the magnetic north pole is superimposed over the
> rotational north pole (the magnetic pole being in the Queen
> Elizibeth islands.
I could quote at length (What? More!) from Nicholas Crane's 'Mercator'
to throw more light on how this came about but I am afraid I now have
real (paying) work to do. Sorry about that. :-(
>
--- snip ---
Eric Stevens
Philip Deitiker
> No, it is called the Chaucer Astrolabe. Nowhere does it say
> it belonged to Chaucer. And even if it did, that doesn't
> stop it from being 1326.
Nor does it stop it from being somewhere else in europe prior to
1360s either. If he did not build it, where was it built?
Inger E Johansson
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:43:40 GMT, Philip Deitiker
> <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> says in
> >news:1qx64kztkgiln$.8s4s2no2umnf$.d...@40tude.net:
> >
> >> Nicholas of Lynn could have had an astrolabe, but he wasn't
> >> the friar mentioned in the Inventio (Inger of course
> >> disagrees, nothing new there).
So does the Vinland Bibliography!
Bergersen,Writings relating to the Norse in Greenland and America, editor
Universitesbiblioteket i Tromsos skriftserie Ravnetrykk nr 10;
isbn 82-91378-11-8.
Doug seems to have missed to check the most important of all works when
Scandinavian-Greenland-NA questions are up on the table..... I just wonder
if it's because someone missed to tell him.
> >
> >In addition the voyage proclaimed in the Oxford text left
> >England not scandinavia.
Orkney Islands - neither England nor Scandinavia. On the second ship that
sailed to Greenland on that mission, but via Bergen - which Doug has missed.
Look and you will find the ship in the shiplist.....where? Lynn.
> >
> >Even if he did have a compass, there is no place on this earth
> >that will generate the compass bearings as described.
>
> But when the text refers to degrees, is it a compass bearing or
> latitude which is being discussed? I've missed a reference to a
> compass bearing in what has been quoted in this thread, if such a
> refrence is intended.
>
latitude.
Inger E
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Philip Deitiker
> But when the text refers to degrees, is it a compass
> bearing or latitude which is being discussed? I've missed a
> reference to a compass bearing in what has been quoted in
> this thread, if such a refrence is intended.
The account refers specifically to the latitude of the southern
most tip of greenland as one enters that labrador sea. The
account is not about compass, you cannot devinated latitude from
a compass, it only tells you relative bearing (relative to what,
your longditude). Having at least a little training with
aircraft I have a pretty good knowledge of different areas of
the world in terms of magnetic deviation, and the deviations
around the eastern side of greenland are a navigators night
mare.
Here are some little factoids for you
NANORTALIK (southern most airport in greenland)
Longitude :45° 13' 0" W
Latitude :60° 9' 0" N
(Note 6' from 54' each degree represents ~66miles, therefore
60-54 = 6, 6*66 = 200 miles)
Current variation is close to 30'(guessing based on GPS polling)
(whereas in houston it is around 4' and in california it ranges
around 15'. [I was able to get an official confirmation on this
but the magnetic variation for NARSARSUAQ (Guessing 70 miles
NNW) is.
Latitude 61° 09' 38.59" N
Longitude 045° 25' 32.43" W
027° W (01/04)
For Thule its 58° W (01/04)
What this means if one wanted to travel due east from thule (a
difficult prospect in the polar regions anyway, but) along the
76°30' parallel one would travel SouthWest at a bearing of 148°
and this would require adjustment (increasing to around 160°
over central greenland and then reducing in severity as one
approached northern norway).
To give Thule as an example for an airman, to keep course while
traveling due true-west around the world that airman would have
to shift in course from going almost due south to going almost
due north in the course of his flight and in northern canada he
would be changing his compass bearing every few minutes to stay
on course.
At southern greenland the problem is less severe, but still
bad, as it is over alaska and if one is traveling from southern
greenland to iceland I beleive the maximum variation for that
latitude would be between the two places at ~40°. If however
you were to travel west at the equator. I beleive the maximum
deviation would be 22° somewhere in south america. The easiest
place to go due west is in the indian ocean and china. This may
be the reason that compasses were used in China and India first.
The north pole is on the move 40 km NW. When it was first
detected it was in the Boothia peninsula Canada in the early
1831, several decades later it was on Prince of Wales Island
1903 and now it is in off the NW most islands of canad heading
toward russia. It will not reach russia before it decays. My
guess for its position in 1364 is between wger bay and James bay
in the the hudson bay region. Traveling due west from greenland
would have taken you south in the direction Nova Scotia,
traveling due north (mag) would have taken you into Labrador,
and traveling E would have taken you up the labrador bay. The
North pole is moving faster because it is weakening, the
northern pole being
subserviant to the southern pole and as it weakens its direction
will become irradic in the north followed by irratic in the
south, and then it will disappear. The dip is also more
difficult to detect. The USGS has apparently created a program
that simulates the movement of the pole and its affect on
variation around the world. I don't have time to download it.
Compass bearings in the 13th century would not have taken one
anywhere near the north pole, it would have probably taken one
into the hudson bay region, surrounded on all sides by lowlands,
and wetlands. IOW, Noone used a compass to find this magical
pole. Anyone who claimed they did was lying. The prospect of
finding the North Pole was difficult because as one approaches
north horizontal magnetism declines and at true north magnetism
is dominated by dip magnetism which, if you get a dip of greater
than 89' you are there [hands outstreched indicating the several
hundred square miles in which magnetic dip is essentually the
same]. Because the south pole is the source of magnetic flux and
because when you get close to the north pole your compass
prefers to point down, navigating by compass close to the north
pole is excruciating and ambient magnetism (fan motors, iron
objects, etc will throw the compass heading off)
likewise you should read the literature for the 16th century,
slightly before Mercators time, people believe that there was a
magnetic mountain on the North pole, this is where the idea of
an island at the center of the pole came from. There are
magnetic hot spots in the north; however these do not give rise
to geomagnetism. The 'hottest' spots for geomagnetism are in the
southern hemisphere.
Mercator's report is MYTHOLOGY.
Question for you, do you believe anything of Mercators report on
Cnoyens notations?
Philip Deitiker
> The only part in which I was interested was the reference
> to the date at which compasses may have been used in
> Europe. I am aware the conventional date is later but the
> early adopters of the compass are believed to have kept the
> information for themselves (a) for commercial advantage and
> (b) fear of being accused of dabbling in the 'black arts'.
See other post, a compass in 1360 would have wholeheartedly
screwed the navigator up, particularly if he was the first
person to use a compass in the straits of labrador. If he had
managed to make it to Thule, for instance he would have realized
that he was traveling SSE by compass while trying to head NNW.
>>But maritime compasses were not known in England in 1364.
>>The compasses that were in use had a polar magnet on a
>>board that floated on water. One would need to take a large
>>barrel on a ship with a wide lid filled with water to make
>>a compass work.
>
> W.E. May in his 'History of Marine Navigation' wrote under
> the heading of 'The First Mariner's Compass':
> In 1180 Neckam was at the University of Paris and there
> is no doubt that it was here he heard of the compass
> which was already in use in some ships at sea.
This is probably correct, and the ship where he investigated
this was probably of iberian origin and had an arabic compass on
board along with several arabic seamen who knew how to use it.
And I should point out, that in terms of maritime knowledge,
paris was way ahead of England and the english were hot to get
their hands on astrolabs and other impliments from the
continent. If you compare the astrolabs with the decorative
peices produced in england you will see why these were
preferred. There were two things that made England hot in 13th
century, 1 was Roger bacon and the second was the neccesity for
maritime tools. Bacon appears to be only transiently interested
in magnetism. There is a need for maritime tools, no doubt, and
as you say from the decisive decline of the norwegian western
colonies and the opportunity in the 1400s surely ships were
being equipped with all version of navigational aids. These
Englishmen that were romping around off the southern coast of
England prior to 1600s certainly had these aids at their
disposal.
> Shortly
> after his return to England he compiled two works which
> were evidently known before the end of the century and
> were probably written about the year 1187. The more
> important of these is an encyclopaedia called De Naturis
> Rerum*, the second a less important work called De
> Utensilibus. Taken together we get a clear view of the
> occasional use of the compass needle and of the need to
> magnetize it every time it was used, but its actual
> construction is still rather obscure.
It was lab prototype as I described. its like the H1 and H2
maritime clocks, technically proficient but not durable to a
task.
Again, consider the fact that iceland now, with a pole that is
several hundred miles more north, north west of where it was in
1360 and the airport has a deviation of 22'W, consider how
useful those compasses are for sailing north. In the
mediterranean were the deviation is far less true west is closer
to west.
> Although an attempt was made in the mid-nineteenth
> century to use a double-pivoted compass needle as
> suggested by Peregrinus it had no practical use at sea.
> As soon as the axis is deviated even slightly from the
> vertical in any other than the north-south plane the
> needle must inevitably be subjected to the influence of
> the vertical component of the earth's magnetic field as
> well as to the horizontal and this will pull the end of
> the needle downwards, forcing it to deviate from its
> proper direction.
And you think this will work in the north?
> Taking all of that into account, it is entirely possible
> that an advanced student of navigation could have had both
> a useable compass and an astrolabe by the 14th century.
If he sailed west from england using a compass in the 14th
century he would have ended up in florida.
Your bearing relative to various celestial objects varies with
latitude. This is why we don't use the southern cross in the
north, lol.
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:pojvh0lppoh3dbuuh...@4ax.com:
>
>> But when the text refers to degrees, is it a compass
>> bearing or latitude which is being discussed? I've missed a
>> reference to a compass bearing in what has been quoted in
>> this thread, if such a refrence is intended.
>
>The account refers specifically to the latitude of the southern
>most tip of greenland as one enters that labrador sea. The
>account is not about compass,
Then why the blankety blank have you been writing about 'variation'
and "Even if he did have a compass, there is no place on this earth
that will generate the compass bearings as described ... "?
> ...you cannot devinated latitude from
Eric Stevens
Philip Deitiker
news:6ujvh09rciv7ue6e7...@4ax.com:
> Apparently on date Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:45:29 GMT, Philip
> Deitiker <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> said:
>
>>BTW compasses are not very useful in the far north
>>atlantic, unless you are traveling from boston to the north
>>pole, because the deflection of the pole is so close to
>>greenland. If you approach greenland from the east when you
>>are traveling on the 78 parallel heading true west your
>>magnet point north.
>
> I don't understand this. You can plot "new lands" from a
> nautical point of view by mapping lat and long relative to
> the magnetic north pole, without realising this is
> displaced relative to the true north pole.
how do you establish your magnetic latitude (how big the
circumference of the earth is at that latitude line) without
knowing the position of the north pole?
> IOW, if you know you have to sail at 275 degrees magnetic
> to get to where you wanted to go, it doesn't matter if this
> is actually 277 degrees relative to true north, you should
> get there anyway. Course, when you think you are sailing
> true west, it'll be something like a degree or two out but
> then the port you are sailing to is also (in that case)
> fifty or a hundred miles further north then you think that
> it is.
Actually you can't, the reason is that magnetic poles of the
earth are not exactly bipolar with respect to each other, and
the magnetic lines are not exactly circumradial either. The
magnetic poles is generated from the southern hemisphere and it
runs a skew in the north. This is one source of distortion. The
other source of distortion is that you concept of sphericity is
based on the latitude lines and the magnetic counterpart does
not. In addition the north pole is moving at up to 40 km per
year since 1300 and thus the map you make in one century will
confound the explorer in the next. This is not a problem in
india, in canada all hell breaks loose.
See other post for details. Magnetic variation in 1300 was
probably severe in the north, not so bad in sweden, but as one
approached labrador it would be horrendous, the magnetic pole
would be due true west. The current magnetic variation at the
tip of greenland is 30. In houston it is 4 degress, but only
because we are due south of the pole, as one moves east or west
and particularly northeast or northwest variation changes
rapidly. This change will create distortions. It is close to
zero somewhere in Louisiana. There could be very good reasons
the magnet was used in the eastern mediterranean and not the
western regions until later. The best place to map using
compasses is the indian ocean and indonesia. The worst place to
map is in eastern canada. One possible reason is that sailors
who relied on magnets instead of stellar observations would run
off course and smack into something or some enemy they did not
plan on smacking into.
> These errors being corrected once someone realises there is
> a variation of magnetic to true north and goes to the
> trouble of determining true latitudes by astronomy to show
> up the magnetic variation,
Distortion.
1. Imagine that the magnetic north pole is around iceland. Now
imagine you are traveling NW to iceland. But your compass will
read due north as you travel in the direction of greenland you
will be heading due south, and as you head down greenlands coast
heading southeast, and up the Labrador sea southwest finally as
you cross around greenland and start heading to england you
would be heading north.
2. Imagine however that you are marking your map off in days at
knots traveling in a given magnetic direction, when you travel
at the equator, you imagine yourself traveling on a cylinder
because the distortion is not to bad. As you pass objects to
your south and north you note them as being perpindicular to
your craft. Now imagine that you are marking off equidistant
periodic landmarks on boths sides. Each landmarks is equal
distance.
Next you are traveling around iceland again you are marking
off landmarks that are equidistance from your boat but on the
edge of the horizon and each landmark being a pair which form a
perpendicular line that the boat cross. from the perspective of
the boatman, if he does not know where the pole is but he is
conserving course, the map he makes shows him traveling around a
column up a circum columnar ladder that interconnects itself,
the reality is that he is makine a circle along a radial.
3. Your next argument is that he could correct for this
deviation if he knew his magnetic latitude. How do determine
rotational latitude, using a sextet or astrolabe. How do you
determine magnetic latitude, using a calibration of the dip. Was
it possible for them to know the dip with any precision in 1400,
they did not even know where the north pole is. The magnetic dip
is not single parametric equation, feild lines propogate out
from the magnetic core of the earth in the shape of an apple the
dip is where these lines cross the earths surface for any
distance to a pole. Let us say that you assumed that in england
you assumed that your magnetic latitude = your true latitude.
Thus you were to base measurement distances and latitude line
circumferance on this measure. Now also assume that the north
pole was in canada, your magnetic latitude line its actual
latitude equivelent in the azores, thus you would be assigning
the things a much bigger landmass to the north of you than to
the south.
4. Therefore the only way to know your magnetic latitude is to
go to the north pole, measure its position in true coordinates,
From this you could then calculate based on the size of the
earth your actual latitude to arrive at your magnetic latitude.
The best calculator would be a globe and a peice of string with
a nail holding the string from the magetic north pole.
5. When you travel mag north you can then take up courses west
and east by compass measuring of the exact distance traveling
north and east or west, doing this you establish your new
latitude and then you use your calculations for that latitude as
well as corrections for distortion you can create a map.
6. But the magnetic pole is not strait, and it is moving.
Therefore before you get to far into mapping you would need to
set an absolute point of reference for each object. For example
for greenland you would go south to the tip, take a latitude,
then you would need to go directly back to port while measuring
speed along the latitude line.
Another way to think about the problem is as such, when
christopher columbus plotted his course to the new world he
traveled south, not very wise considering it increased
distances, but kind of smart considering that it is easier to
deal with the curvature of the earth. At the equator he would
always be traveling strait along the XY axis but would be
dipping into the Z axis, this direction is of no concern to him
because it is controlled by the sea. So it removes that
variable. For a pilot traveling from Quito ecuador to Nairobi
Kenya the fastest route is along the equator. For a pilot
traveling from Miami to Ankara the route will take him over
iceland. The more one approaches the north pole the more a path
between to positions on the same latitude will deviate north to
find the shortest route, along the trek ones geograhic and
magneti bearings will be constantly changing. It will be a
mapmakers nightmare. In fact the best way to travel in the north
is just how the vikings originally did, from landmark to
landmark and follow landmarks and create new rule for each
stretch of the journey. With respect to latitude ones maps will
reflect a quality of a cylinder at that equator and the quality
of a disk at the pole. Between the equator and the pole
regarding latitude ones map will reflect the quality of a
cylinder and a disk at the same time.
> whereupon everyone can simply
> adjust their compass readings according to place, with a
> chart that tells them by how much.
I understand that in Thule now they ask the airman to check
magnetic variation before flying into the region, I read a
'NOTAM' for thule that now requires the use of radio navaids set
prior to approach as they have tired searching down lost and
wrecked pilots. When you get close to magnetic north your
compass becomes like your ex-wife at your bachelor party. This
could be a major reason that transpolar flights were not real
popular until GPS. A major reasoning for wanting to do so is
that the more recent jets like the 777 can consistently travel
at higher altitudes, but not kill the passengers (lol) take
advantage of that ozone hole and the very cold air at the poles
scraping out a few more miles per lb of fuel = less fuel = less
$s. Hey and in 20 years we may know the true affects of cosmic
radiation on Flight attendants and Pilots. In any case GPS is a
must now, with a pole on the move and disappearing, in 100 years
you could be flying north from Rio and end up at the south pole.
Philip Deitiker
> Then why the blankety blank have you been writing about
> 'variation' and "Even if he did have a compass, there is no
> place on this earth that will generate the compass bearings
> as described ... "?
Well 'putatively' unknown Oxford scolar said they traveled due
north attracted to a magnetic mountain in the center. I was not
describing the entry to labrador but the claim is that a compase
was used to delineate the north pole. The he decribed a set of
islands all south of that central islands.
Philip Deitiker
news:4QTTc.212648$OB3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne
t:
let me make this clear so even Eric can understand this.
The abstraction of Cnoyens account is that
1. an astrolabe was used to determine the latitude of the entry
point, this was given a 54'. However after some research, the
shortest and safest dead reckoning path was west north west to
greenland and around greenland at the 59`30'th parallel.
Therefore as I supposed the 54' was not correct, one can enter
labrador from crossing the 54th parallel traveling in from the
southeast, as from the azores. More than likely the individual
would have been using a crude peice of equipment. And likewise
not known where the hell he was at.
2. A magnetic compass was claimed to have been used to determine
the qualities of the north pole. IOW a magnetic compass was used
to determine that the north pole was reached and the positioning
of land masses around that pole.
3. The distance measurements would have been taken in knots *
time.
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Philip Deitiker <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> says in
>news:4QTTc.212648$OB3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne
>t:
>
>let me make this clear so even Eric can understand this.
>
>The abstraction of Cnoyens account is that
>
>1. an astrolabe was used to determine the latitude of the entry
>point, this was given a 54'. However after some research, the
>shortest and safest dead reckoning path was west north west to
>greenland and around greenland at the 59`30'th parallel.
>Therefore as I supposed the 54' was not correct, one can enter
>labrador from crossing the 54th parallel traveling in from the
>southeast, as from the azores. More than likely the individual
>would have been using a crude peice of equipment. And likewise
>not known where the hell he was at.
>
>2. A magnetic compass was claimed to have been used to determine
>the qualities of the north pole. IOW a magnetic compass was used
>to determine that the north pole was reached and the positioning
>of land masses around that pole.
Up to here I think you are merely reading too much into the evidence.
>
>3. The distance measurements would have been taken in knots *
>time.
... but here you are talking nonsense.
Measuring speed in knots is a much later development based on towing a
rope. Quoting W.E. May once again:
"It has been suggested that the first measurement of speed was made
by what has come to be called the Dutchman's log, though it does
not seem to have been mentioned until 1623. Two marks were set up
at the ship's side and the distance between them measured. Then a
chip was thrown overboard ...".
......
"It is now generally accepted that the log-ship appeared before the
Dutchman's log and was an English inventoin. It was first
described by Bourne in 1574, but not as being something new. ....
As the log-ship drifted astern it was allowed to draw out the line
.... As it was hauled in the the length of line that had run out
was measured by the traditional way against the stretch of the
arms."
But see - no knots.
"The marking of the log-line [with knots] probably came into being
early in the 17th century ... we first read of a marked log-line
in 1632 ... "
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:jujvh05uqo29flfj8...@4ax.com:
>
>> The only part in which I was interested was the reference
>> to the date at which compasses may have been used in
>> Europe. I am aware the conventional date is later but the
>> early adopters of the compass are believed to have kept the
>> information for themselves (a) for commercial advantage and
>> (b) fear of being accused of dabbling in the 'black arts'.
>
>See other post, a compass in 1360 would have wholeheartedly
>screwed the navigator up, particularly if he was the first
>person to use a compass in the straits of labrador. If he had
>managed to make it to Thule, for instance he would have realized
>that he was traveling SSE by compass while trying to head NNW.
There is a map of the historical movements of the magnetic pole here
http://geo.phys.uit.no/articl/roadto.html There was a better map but
it seems to have disappeared. In any case, I dont see quite how your
remark applies.
Aah. Here you seem to be confusing bearing with altitude.
Eric Stevens
Philip Deitiker
> There is a map of the historical movements of the magnetic
> pole here http://geo.phys.uit.no/articl/roadto.html There
> was a better map but it seems to have disappeared. In any
> case, I dont see quite how your remark applies.
The map is incorrect, in 1830 the pole was in the peninsula
whereas the map shows it being south of Prince of wales island.
Read the report of 1831 and you can trace the motion of the pole
from that time, to the prince of wales island in 1900s to its
location in 1971 to present. While not a perfectly strait line
http://www.geotimes.org/may02/NN_pole.html
This is the map you should have found if you were looking for
accurate information.
>>Your bearing relative to various celestial objects varies
>>with latitude. This is why we don't use the southern cross
>>in the north, lol.
>
> Aah. Here you seem to be confusing bearing with altitude.
Aah, No you are once again trying to confuse matter, Inger.
Seriously Eric you know better than to plays these types of
games with me. Diversions are another form of propaganda aren't
they?
Philip Deitiker
> Up to here I think you are merely reading too much into the
> evidence.
You mean Mercator, Inger's Prime source. I make no claim that
anyone had a compass or could devinate the north pole.
As a matter of fact I feel compelled to question that a book by
the name of Inventio Fortunata existed, and if it did I think
that a Oxfordian friar (if he was from oxford) misrepresented
it.
>>3. The distance measurements would have been taken in knots
>>* time.
Sorry, I was too specific, I should have said throw anything
overboard and measure the distance it traveled in an amount of
time.
"
Using this system, the navigator can determine the distance
traveled from one point to another by multiplying the time
underway by the speed of the vessel. Since time was measured
with a sandglass and speed was estimated by watching pieces of
seaweed pass by the hull, these early calculations were often
way off.
"
"
In the ancient times, the only way to measure ship speed was to
throw a wood log into the water and observe how fast it moves
away from the ship. This approximate method of ship speed
measurement was called 'Heaving the Log' and was used until
1500-1600s when the 'Chip Log' method was invented (both methods
probably invented by Dutch sailors.)
"
Of course on any modern boat you wouldn't have to do that, all
you would need is to say you are going to repeat the heyderdahl
expedition and a bunch of lackies without sea legs will come
running, They can chum the water and you can measure the speed
of the chum. Saves throwing valuble wood overboard.
PS. if you will do a little research you will find that the
smart stewards tied ropes to their jettyson so they could bring
it back.
> ... but here you are talking nonsense.
You wish
The only way to measure speed was to throw something overboard
and watch it drift. The subsequent invention is the pitot.
According to Mercator the 4 islands were of a precise size and
orientation. I make no claim that unnamed oxfordian had a chip
and knot device, what I am saying is that to have made the claim
someone had to have taken these measurements. Of course my claim
is that all three claims are false.
1. No-one measured 54*, in fact if it was the entrance to
labrador then it was the wrong measurement.
2. No-one had a compass determination of the north pole, in fact
the report is a complete fantasy.
3. And noone measured the distance between islands or sizes of
islands because they are fantasies.
IOW between 1360 and Mercators report, these non existent events
were conjured up and represent some earlier and later
technologies. And BTW the astrolabe mentioned in the museum
could only measure to 54`.
Inger E Johansson
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:10:24 GMT, Philip Deitiker
> <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
> >news:pojvh0lppoh3dbuuh...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> But when the text refers to degrees, is it a compass
> >> bearing or latitude which is being discussed? I've missed a
> >> reference to a compass bearing in what has been quoted in
> >> this thread, if such a refrence is intended.
> >
> >The account refers specifically to the latitude of the southern
> >most tip of greenland as one enters that labrador sea. The
> >account is not about compass,
>
> Then why the blankety blank have you been writing about 'variation'
> and "Even if he did have a compass, there is no place on this earth
> that will generate the compass bearings as described ... "?
Actually there is a note that the compass got cracy in the Greenland waters.
Especially north of the place we today call Disco Bay.
Inger E
Michael Zalar
> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
> news:jujvh05uqo29flfj8...@4ax.com:
>
> > The only part in which I was interested was the reference
> > to the date at which compasses may have been used in
> > Europe. I am aware the conventional date is later but the
> > early adopters of the compass are believed to have kept the
> > information for themselves (a) for commercial advantage and
> > (b) fear of being accused of dabbling in the 'black arts'.
>
> See other post, a compass in 1360 would have wholeheartedly
> screwed the navigator up, particularly if he was the first
> person to use a compass in the straits of labrador. If he had
> managed to make it to Thule, for instance he would have realized
> that he was traveling SSE by compass while trying to head NNW.
>
I may chime in on other things here, once I get ahold of my copy of
the Mercator letter, but on the subject of the lack of usefulness of
the compass in the region, I believe that the Ruysch map of 1508 noted
that the compass became useless in the regions around the pole. This
is not simply a matter of deviation, but also a matter of the weakness
of the force on the compass and the tendency for it to 'dip' downward.
see:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug98/899130154.Es.r.html
this site has a nice map of where the compass would be unreliable:
http://www.albertaclassic.com/nav.php
Obviously, the Ruysch map is correct on this point, and it predates
the Mercator letter by about 70 years. The question is where did he
get his information?
1. He made it up and got lucky.
2. From someone who made the voyage circa 1360, as he alludes to in
his map.
3. Someone else entirely. Unfortunately there are no known
explorations to that region that Ruysch could have cribbed off of.
Michael
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:toa0i0ta9v3i5uvm4...@4ax.com:
>
>> Up to here I think you are merely reading too much into the
>> evidence.
>
>You mean Mercator, Inger's Prime source. I make no claim that
>anyone had a compass or could devinate the north pole.
You keep using that word. What do you mean (in English) by 'devinate'?
You forget the doppler log. That's even later.
>According to Mercator the 4 islands were of a precise size and
>orientation. I make no claim that unnamed oxfordian had a chip
>and knot device, what I am saying is that to have made the claim
>someone had to have taken these measurements. Of course my claim
>is that all three claims are false.
>1. No-one measured 54*, in fact if it was the entrance to
>labrador then it was the wrong measurement.
>
>2. No-one had a compass determination of the north pole, in fact
>the report is a complete fantasy.
>
>3. And noone measured the distance between islands or sizes of
>islands because they are fantasies.
>
>IOW between 1360 and Mercators report, these non existent events
>were conjured up and represent some earlier and later
>technologies. And BTW the astrolabe mentioned in the museum
>could only measure to 54`.
Maybe that wasn't the one they used?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:fkb0i0h61egtne22q...@4ax.com:
>
>> There is a map of the historical movements of the magnetic
>> pole here http://geo.phys.uit.no/articl/roadto.html There
>> was a better map but it seems to have disappeared. In any
>> case, I dont see quite how your remark applies.
>
>The map is incorrect, in 1830 the pole was in the peninsula
>whereas the map shows it being south of Prince of wales island.
>Read the report of 1831 and you can trace the motion of the pole
>from that time, to the prince of wales island in 1900s to its
>location in 1971 to present. While not a perfectly strait line
>
>http://www.geotimes.org/may02/NN_pole.html
>
>This is the map you should have found if you were looking for
>accurate information.
Except for the last 100 years there seem to be nearly as many opinions
as there are maps. The map you cited only goes back to the late 19thc
while the one I cited goes back 200 years further. The one I really
want goes back to 1400.
>
>>>Your bearing relative to various celestial objects varies
>>>with latitude. This is why we don't use the southern cross
>>>in the north, lol.
>>
>> Aah. Here you seem to be confusing bearing with altitude.
>
>Aah, No you are once again trying to confuse matter, Inger.
>Seriously Eric you know better than to plays these types of
>games with me. Diversions are another form of propaganda aren't
>they?
The problem is that you seem to have fixated on a particular
interpretation of the text. You fail to realise that my comments
indicate that you and I are on two different wavelengths. Nor do you
explain exactly what you have in mind. To make things worse, you
delete text which might help explain your remarks and fail to indicate
that you have done so.
Lets go back:
You wrote:
What did I say. The issue was whether Mercator could have
extracted from Cnoyen a measurement of 54' for labrador
entry based on an arab astrolabe. Europeans may have had
their own astrolabe, but those in use were of arab design.
But they did not give variation in degrees.
[Note: variation applies to compass bearings which implies that you
think the 54' refers to a compass bearing. I think it is a latitude so
I wrote as follows.]
I wrote:
I think you are confusing bearings with latitude.
You respond
Your bearing relative to various celestial objects varies with
latitude. This is why we don't use the southern cross in the
north, lol.
[This confirms that you are indeed thinking of a compass bearing.]
I wrote:
Aah. Here you seem to be confusing bearing with altitude.
.... and now you come on thinking that I am trying to run a diversion.
I'm not. You are consistently talking about bearings and I am
consistently talking about latitudes. One of us is wrong. Is it
bearing or altitude, and why?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
As I said, the vikings may have had the magnetic compass and the later
Norse almost certainly did.
Eric Stevens
Inger E Johansson
the history of astrolab goes back to Ptolomy. The first spheric astrolab
known to show 360 degrees goes back to early 15th century became common in
late 15th century. http://astrolabes.org/mariner.htm
the ordinary astrolab was introduced to Europeans, (among them Swedes and
Norse working at the court in Bysans) in the early 12th century.
http://www.astrolabes.org/astrolab.htm
The earliest usage here around Scandinavia we know of was in around 1120
same time as the compass was introduced. Not 1190 for the compass's
introduction in Europe as said in this url which otherwise present correct
information:
http://nvnv.essortment.com/compasshistory_rumo.htm
Inger E
Inger E Johansson
He got it from Inventio Fortunata which at that time existed in at least one
copy in Rome, where he came in 1507/08 short before he edited his map.
Inger E
Philip Deitiker
news:a458909b.04081...@posting.google.com:
> I may chime in on other things here, once I get ahold of my
> copy of the Mercator letter, but on the subject of the lack
> of usefulness of the compass in the region, I believe that
> the Ruysch map of 1508 noted that the compass became
> useless in the regions around the pole. This is not simply
> a matter of deviation, but also a matter of the weakness
> of the force on the compass and the tendency for it to
> 'dip' downward.
> see:
> http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug98/899130154.Es.r.ht
> ml this site has a nice map of where the compass would be
> unreliable: http://www.albertaclassic.com/nav.php
This is a very good site. Unfortunately it does not give the
magenetic lines of flux in 1831. I should make a bit of
correction however, compasses are better and worse that in 1831.
THey are better because the pole is closer to true north, and
they are worse because the magnetic feild is weakening, and
because the pole is moving.
> Obviously, the Ruysch map is correct on this point, and it
> predates the Mercator letter by about 70 years. The
> question is where did he get his information?
> 1. He made it up and got lucky.
> 2. From someone who made the voyage circa 1360, as he
> alludes to in his map.
> 3. Someone else entirely. Unfortunately there are no known
> explorations to that region that Ruysch could have cribbed
> off of.
I haven't seen the map, but I would be willing to be that the
English who were on the seas after 1450 had compasses.
Philip Deitiker
> You keep using that word. What do you mean (in English) by
> 'devinate'?
sp divinate.
It means to use other than pure facts to find something, to
speculate based on your belief, historica bias and skletchy or
circumstantial details. In sceince, it would be a line of
thought that has evolved based on the unscientific (or
religious) past analysis and bias, which has remained in to the
present and continues to evolve even though the facts point
otherwise.
And example of divination was the european belief that humans
evolved in europe, as they searched for this intermediate in
europe piltdown man was found.Piltdown if you don't know was a
fraud. Despite the uncovery of the fraud, European divination
still existed on the subject of human origins up to the mid 90s
and a few famous authors still hold on to the basic idea that
races evolved in separation over long periods of time. This
bias, like Inger's bias, is based on the Victotian concept of
tripartite race, which evolved from the Norse ethnocentric
concepts, with the reformist europeans placing themselves in the
center of an essentially concentric circle argument concerning
origin. The middle easterners had the same type of argument, but
they did not tie it up in arguments about the superiority of
skin color.
Fraud is the salvation of divination. KRS is the piltdown man of
'american discovery' divinations and there are many Piltdown
frauds. The exact reasoning for this is that people want to be
the discoverer of the resolution of the speculation. [Holding
object] 'Look here see, my [famous ancestor] was correct, see
how superior I(we) are'. This report of Cnoyen was ripe for
bias and fraud, replace players with your favorite players,
inject deviced to make it beleivable to a modern audiance,
create a fancy psuedo color map.
>>IOW between 1360 and Mercators report, these non existent
>>events were conjured up and represent some earlier and
>>later technologies. And BTW the astrolabe mentioned in the
>>museum could only measure to 54`.
>
> Maybe that wasn't the one they used?
What about the word 'fantasy' do you not understand? There is no
factual basis or point of leverage by which we could decide with
any certainty that there was a voyage, that there was an
astrolabe on the voyage, and that they entered a channel heading
to the north pole. In fact, we don't even know where the north
pole was in 1360. Look at Zalars link, see move the north pole
south 1000 miles and reassert those radial lines and then tell
me what one would make of compass measurements.
Philip Deitiker
> many opinions as there are maps.
Many opinion based on facts does not also include other opinions
based on false information. That map lacks the 1831 measurement.
> The map you cited only
> goes back to the late 19thc while the one I cited goes back
> 200 years further. The one I really want goes back to 1400.
The map you site fails to include the measurment points and
completely fails to pinpoint the 1831 measurement.
>>Aah, No you are once again trying to confuse matter, Inger.
>>Seriously Eric you know better than to plays these types of
>>games with me. Diversions are another form of propaganda
>>aren't they?
>
> The problem is that you seem to have fixated on a
> particular interpretation of the text. You fail to realise
> that my comments indicate that you and I are on two
> different wavelengths. Nor do you explain exactly what you
> have in mind. To make things worse, you delete text which
> might help explain your remarks and fail to indicate that
> you have done so.
>
> Lets go back:
>
> You wrote:
> What did I say. The issue was whether Mercator could have
> extracted from Cnoyen a measurement of 54' for labrador
> entry based on an arab astrolabe. Europeans may have had
> their own astrolabe, but those in use were of arab design.
> But they did not give variation in degrees.
>
> [Note: variation applies to compass bearings which implies
> that you think the 54' refers to a compass bearing. I think
> it is a latitude so I wrote as follows.]
That is a different form of variation. With the astrolabe, for
example the one given on the website, you would have the
latitude from London, and your position would be a variation of
that position from London. The magnetic variation is known as
deviation, technically and it refers to the deviation of
magnetic polarity from true north.
Because many astrolabes (if not all) of the 1360 period gave
latitude in relative position, your answer would not be in
degrees but in ? variation from a fixed latitude, say london.
You may in fact know that london was 52'N and thus you could
then estimate relative variation. Knowing precise latitude for a
map maker of a far from complete world is not as important as
knowing what else sits on that latitude and the distance between
those what esles. Secondarily, measurements at see were poor
anyway, and the only way to get a good measurement would be to
get off the boat and take a measurment from a beach someplace.
When world maps get close to joining around the equator, then
one wants to know latitude precisely because of the issue of
distance around at a given latitude. However distance is still a
very fuzzy problem at sea, even with knots. So that really
precise measurements were held back until the maritime clock was
invented.
> I wrote:
> I think you are confusing bearings with latitude.
>
> You respond
> Your bearing relative to various celestial objects varies
> with latitude. This is why we don't use the southern cross
> in the north, lol.
>
> [This confirms that you are indeed thinking of a compass
> bearing.]
>
> I wrote:
> Aah. Here you seem to be confusing bearing with altitude.
>
> .... and now you come on thinking that I am trying to run a
> diversion. I'm not. You are consistently talking about
> bearings and I am consistently talking about latitudes. One
> of us is wrong. Is it bearing or altitude, and why?
>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
>
--
Philip Deitiker
> As I said, the vikings may have had the magnetic compass
> and the later Norse almost certainly did.
You are thick headed aren't you?
Philip Deitiker
> http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug98/899130154.Es.r.ht
> ml this site has a nice map of where the compass would be
> unreliable: http://www.albertaclassic.com/nav.php
>
> Obviously, the Ruysch map is correct on this point, and it
> predates the Mercator letter by about 70 years. The
> question is where did he get his information?
You mean the four islands at the north pole, IOW being correctly
wrong. teh uyshe map correctly places european but poorly
characterizes the north atlantic, has 1/2rds of the earth
missing, has the same 4 islands at the north pole.
> 1. He made it up and got lucky.
> 2. From someone who made the voyage circa 1360, as he
> alludes to in his map.
Cnoyen? If so cnoyens details were not that good and one can
understand why Mercator is filling in the holes.
> 3. Someone else entirely. Unfortunately there are no known
> explorations to that region that Ruysch could have cribbed
> off of.
http://mappingboston.com/html/map2-a.htm
What information on this map had to have come from a non-post
columbian source. Based on what I see all of the precolumbian
information is missing. The map fuses greenland and
newfoundland.
If the pole were in Canada, close to the hudson bay
1. the map maker would have had to have appraoch the pole via
labrador. However the labrador bay does not exist on that map.
2. The position of greenland would be a shape with the southern
point pointing west and the north western point pointing
northeast, the northeastern point pointing south. On this map
the southern tip of greenland is pointing east, the NE tip
pointing north and the northwestern tip pointing south into the
mainland.
IOW, a magnetic compass was not needed to make this detail on
the map. Such a compass would have greenland rotated 120' from
its position on the map. Very poor information about the
labrador sea, however, is essential to this map. Therefore it
does not justify any information from previous precolumbian
sources, other than those that had disclosed eastern Greenland,
which as we are no discussing appears to have been frequented by
the english.
From what it appears that all useful information about western
greenland has been lost, or never officially mapped prior to the
decline in the western colony.
Are there any other fantasies we need to bring up at this point?
Dick Wisan
>
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says
>> Up to here I think you are merely reading too much into the
>> evidence.
>
>>>* time.
>
>Sorry, I was too specific, I should have said throw anything
>overboard and measure the distance it traveled in an amount of
>time.
>
>"
>Using this system, the navigator can determine the distance
>traveled from one point to another by multiplying the time
>underway by the speed of the vessel. Since time was measured
>with a sandglass and speed was estimated by watching pieces of
>seaweed pass by the hull, these early calculations were often
>way off.
>"
The problem with this is how to measure time. You can't use a sandglass
to measure how long something took. It marks a fixed time in which
you can measure how much of something (like how far you've travelled)
has passed in that time. It seems doubtful that you could get any
useful speed measurement by measuring distance something drifs along
the hull while a very small sandglass runs out. Columbus, I believe,
tried to use his own pulse as the time measure. Calibrated it ashore
(somehow) so he could count pulse beats while something drifted along
the hull. That's what he was using when he made his famously erroneous
overestimates of his speed.
>"
>In the ancient times, the only way to measure ship speed was to
>throw a wood log into the water and observe how fast it moves
>away from the ship. This approximate method of ship speed
>measurement was called 'Heaving the Log' and was used until
>1500-1600s when the 'Chip Log' method was invented (both methods
>probably invented by Dutch sailors.)
>"
Doesn't have to be anything you'd normally call a log. Spit will do
if you can keep your eye on it. The "log" was probably very small.
Thus, it probably _is_ correct to say that:
>Of course on any modern boat you wouldn't have to do that, all
>you would need is to say you are going to repeat the heyderdahl
>expedition and a bunch of lackies without sea legs will come
>running, They can chum the water and you can measure the speed
>of the chum. Saves throwing valuble wood overboard.
>PS. if you will do a little research you will find that the
>smart stewards tied ropes to their jettyson so they could bring
>it back.
The reason for the rope was probably not to economize logs, but to
get a long enough distance for a sand-glass to measure. Note that
your smart steward's rope turns into precisely the kind of unknotted
log-line that Eric described:
>> Measuring speed in knots is a much later development based on towing a
>> rope. Quoting W.E. May once again:
>>
>> "It has been suggested that the first measurement of speed was made
>> by what has come to be called the Dutchman's log, though it does
>> not seem to have been mentioned until 1623. Two marks were set up
>> at the ship's side and the distance between them measured. Then a
>> chip was thrown overboard ...".
[As I said, the difficulty is how to to measure that variable quantity
of time? This is what Columbus tried using his pulse for. What did the
"Dutchman" use?]
>> "It is now generally accepted that the log-ship appeared before the
>> Dutchman's log and was an English inventoin. It was first
>> described by Bourne in 1574, but not as being something new. ....
>> As the log-ship drifted astern it was allowed to draw out the line
>> .... As it was hauled in the the length of line that had run out
>> was measured by the traditional way against the stretch of the
>> arms."
And there's your smart steward's log-saver. BTW, "log-ship"? What that
describes is a crude (because unknotted) chip-log. Its "chip" is either
a more economical version of that "log", or perhaps only an apter
description of it. Calling it a "ship" might be thought cute, I
suppose. The standard later chip-log used a trick beyond merely tying
a string to a chip or log or small ship-model. The chip is tied to
the line by three small lines, one of which is held merely by friction.
(like a cork) when the sandglass runs out, you grab or jerk the line,
the cork pops out, and the "chip" now falls flat so it's easier to
recover. (_Very_ smart steward.) Was this invented before or after
somebody thought of knottingthe line?
[snip]
>1. No-one measured 54*, in fact if it was the entrance to
>labrador then it was the wrong measurement.
If Morrison is right ("Admiral of the Ocean Sea"), nobody _could_ use
an astrolabe from a moving deck. Magellan did take one along, set it
up on a tripod ashore, and even so got highly inaccurate measurements.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@catskill.net
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'am; no fax
Doug Weller
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
> news:pojvh0lppoh3dbuuh...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:43:40 GMT, Philip Deitiker
>> <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> says in
>>>news:1qx64kztkgiln$.8s4s2no2umnf$.d...@40tude.net:
>>>
>>>> Nicholas of Lynn could have had an astrolabe, but he wasn't
>>>> the friar mentioned in the Inventio (Inger of course
>>>> disagrees, nothing new there).
>
> So does the Vinland Bibliography!
>
> Bergersen,Writings relating to the Norse in Greenland and America, editor
> Universitesbiblioteket i Tromsos skriftserie Ravnetrykk nr 10;
> isbn 82-91378-11-8.
>
> Doug seems to have missed to check the most important of all works when
> Scandinavian-Greenland-NA questions are up on the table..... I just wonder
> if it's because someone missed to tell him.
>>>
>>>In addition the voyage proclaimed in the Oxford text left
>>>England not scandinavia.
>
> Orkney Islands - neither England nor Scandinavia. On the second ship that
> sailed to Greenland on that mission, but via Bergen - which Doug has missed.
> Look and you will find the ship in the shiplist.....where? Lynn.
I have asked people in Kings Lynn about Inger's unreferenced claims about
Nicholas of Lynn, and they know of nothing to back them up.
So what do we have?
1. Unreferenced Inger claims. (she may claim she sent references, but she
didn't, at least nothing that could be checked in the archives).
2. A description in the Inventio that doesn't match Nicholas of Lynn
3. A statement by the world's expert on Nicholas of Lynn, Sigmund Eisner,
saying that the person in the Inventio is not Nicholas of Lynn.
Then we have this statement from Inger:
"if Nicholas of Lynn born in 1299 or 1300 is or isn't the same Nicholas of
Lynn who wrote "the Kalendarium" or not isn't the thing I am discussing. I
am only telling you that there were two Nicholas of Lynn in 14th Century,
two in 15th Century and two later - one was a Benedictiner monk, one was a
"white Friar" and the rest are said to have been either Minoritian or only
named as Friars."
[SNIP]
Doug
>>
Philip Deitiker
news:cfqh3...@news3.newsguy.com:
> The problem with this is how to measure time. You can't
> use a sandglass to measure how long something took. It
> marks a fixed time in which you can measure how much of
> something (like how far you've travelled) has passed in
> that time. It seems doubtful that you could get any useful
> speed measurement by measuring distance something drifs
> along the hull while a very small sandglass runs out.
> Columbus, I believe, tried to use his own pulse as the time
> measure. Calibrated it ashore (somehow) so he could count
> pulse beats while something drifted along the hull. That's
> what he was using when he made his famously erroneous
> overestimates of his speed.
'One thousand one, One thousand two, . . . '
> The reason for the rope was probably not to economize logs,
> but to get a long enough distance for a sand-glass to
> measure. Note that your smart steward's rope turns into
> precisely the kind of unknotted log-line that Eric
> described:
Yes but the critical ingredient is the shape of the chip,
designed to create drag a very hydrodynamic log will end up
accelating as tension increased.
> [As I said, the difficulty is how to to measure that
> variable quantity of time? This is what Columbus tried
> using his pulse for. What did the "Dutchman" use?]
Columbus, reported was not a very good navigator, I mean he
thought he was in India.
> And there's your smart steward's log-saver. BTW,
> "log-ship"? What that describes is a crude (because
> unknotted) chip-log. Its "chip" is either a more
> economical version of that "log", or perhaps only an apter
> description of it. Calling it a "ship" might be thought
> cute, I suppose.
The reasoning here is a chip with rope triangluted to the sides
creates more drag per unit mass, the result is that it does not
need inertia but drag to hold it in place. The nautical mile, of
course, is in error, because the chip slips as the holder counts
knots. Ideally the setup would have a parachute shaped chip that
inflated and a drag line at the back to retreive it. However I
guess that 15% error was tolerable and hence we are forever
stuck with having boats and airplanes register nautical miles
rather than statute miles. Even so, in order to create drag the
object must be moving, the amount of force is the square of
velocity and this increase surface areas or parachutes would
only go so far. In addition there is that added problem of
currents, disruption cause by the keel, motion of waves and the
boat slipping up and down wave fronts.
In airtravel it is even worse, because one has a different
kind of slippage which is loss of aerodynamic inertia with
altitude. For this reason an Jet traveling at 40,000 feet can
have an indicated airspeed (knots) of 250 knts and be traveling
at Mach 0.9 with a Ground speed of 600 MPH. All of that however
is tempered againt the extremely violent winds at high
altitudes. Dead reckoning based on IAS, altimeter settings, etc
has plopped a few aircraft in the sides of mountains that
'weren't supposed to be there' GPS is a wonderful thing, same as
the maritime clock is a wonderful thing.
> If Morrison is right ("Admiral of the Ocean Sea"), nobody
> _could_ use an astrolabe from a moving deck. Magellan did
> take one along, set it up on a tripod ashore, and even so
> got highly inaccurate measurements.
Because they were calibrated for use within a certain zone.
Magellen went well south of that zone. You probably could use an
astrolabe on a completely calm flat sea, such as in the
doldrums. These reports of people using astrolabs in the north
sea and compasses at the north pole is funny. It sometimes
reminds one of why the English picked up such humourous
reputations over the ages. At the same time we are refering to
questioning the astrolabe, the arabs had much more sophiticated
and delineated instruments and could tell you which direction
Mecca was just by using a compass. Of course they were hip
hopping all over the indian ocean. Compass is of reasonable use
in the Indian ocean because the mag north pole is in canada and
the latitudes are mostly north.
Philip Deitiker
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 22:59:38 GMT, Inger E Johansson wrote:
>>>>> Nicholas of Lynn could have had an astrolabe, but he
>>>>> wasn't the friar mentioned in the Inventio (Inger of
>>>>> course disagrees, nothing new there).
>> Doug seems to have missed to check the most important of
>> all works when Scandinavian-Greenland-NA questions are up
>> on the table..... I just wonder if it's because someone
>> missed to tell him.
It hardly matters because our only account of the book is 3rd or
4th hand information AND that information can be easily
discredited. IOW there is no evidence from any known direct
account that an Oxfordian sailed to the north pole via labrador.
Anyone who made such claim would be lying.
>> Orkney Islands - neither England nor Scandinavia. On the
>> second ship that sailed to Greenland on that mission, but
>> via Bergen - which Doug has missed. Look and you will find
>> the ship in the shiplist.....where? Lynn.
lol. Bad writing trying to confuse even worse logic.
> I have asked people in Kings Lynn about Inger's
> unreferenced claims about Nicholas of Lynn, and they know
> of nothing to back them up.
There is no source of information, and if the ship was from
Bergen why are we relying on a source from Oxford, told in a
story by a friar in Bergen to a brusselite. Does it seem odd
that there are no direct accounts in Oxford of what was written
in Oxford or in Bergen, which bergen ported.
This sounds a bit like Hildago.
> So what do we have?
>
> 1. Unreferenced Inger claims. (she may claim she sent
> references, but she didn't, at least nothing that could be
> checked in the archives).
She reference Cnoyen, in a private email, that turned out to be
a blast.
2. A description in the Inventio that doesn't match Nicholas of
Lynn
Inventio does not match the known world. Not to much of a
problem if you like fiction. I especially like the little green
pygmies on the north pole, weeeeeeeeeee.
3. A statement by the world's expert on Nicholas of Lynn,
Sigmund Eisner, saying that the person in the Inventio is not
Nicholas of Lynn.
Embarrasment?
> Then we have this statement from Inger:
> "if Nicholas of Lynn born in 1299 or 1300 is or isn't the
> same Nicholas of Lynn who wrote "the Kalendarium" or not
> isn't the thing I am discussing. I am only telling you that
> there were two Nicholas of Lynn in 14th Century, two in
> 15th Century and two later - one was a Benedictiner monk,
> one was a "white Friar" and the rest are said to have been
> either Minoritian or only named as Friars."
Maybe you could give the birth and death dates of these Lynn's
David B.
>
>m_z...@hotmail.com (Michael Zalar) says in
>news:a458909b.04081...@posting.google.com:
>
>> I may chime in on other things here, once I get ahold of my
>> copy of the Mercator letter, but on the subject of the lack
>> of usefulness of the compass in the region, I believe that
>> the Ruysch map of 1508 noted that the compass became
>> useless in the regions around the pole. This is not simply
>> a matter of deviation, but also a matter of the weakness
>> of the force on the compass and the tendency for it to
>> 'dip' downward.
>
>
>> Obviously, the Ruysch map is correct on this point, and it
>> predates the Mercator letter by about 70 years. The
>> question is where did he get his information?
>
>I haven't seen the map, but I would be willing to be that the
>English who were on the seas after 1450 had compasses.
If, for example, Columbus is to be believed, ships from England were
sailing beyond Iceland (i.e. into the area where this caption appears on
the Ruysch map) by the 1470s. The text about wonky compasses on the Ruysch
map does not, as far as I can see, appear in Mercator's summaries from
Cnoyen. I therefore see no problem with Philip's suggestion.
What Ruysch does claim to take from the "Inventio Fortunata" is the
information about the Polar region and its magnetic mountain. Because the
same information is given in Mercator's quotation from Cnoyen, I am
inclined to agree with those who suspect that Ruysch too was working from
Cnoyen's supposed summary of the "Inventio" rather than from the real
thing.
While I am quite prepared to accept the existence of a Franciscan from
Oxford travelling through the North equipped for scientific investigation
in 1360 (and even that he might give away an astrolabe, if it only had
plates for latitudes below 54 degrees, which is about as far north as you
could expect for a standard model made in England), I remain worried that
his alleged discoveries are apparently being conveyed at third hand, via an
anonymous (though plausibly identified) priest and a travel writer whose
accounts of his own journeys do not seem to have been considered worthy of
repetition.
David B.
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:u111i0h7jlmtl8crc...@4ax.com:
>
>> You keep using that word. What do you mean (in English) by
>> 'devinate'?
>
>sp divinate.
--- frothing snipped ---
>
>>>IOW between 1360 and Mercators report, these non existent
>>>events were conjured up and represent some earlier and
>>>later technologies. And BTW the astrolabe mentioned in the
>>>museum could only measure to 54`.
>>
>> Maybe that wasn't the one they used?
>
>What about the word 'fantasy' do you not understand? There is no
>factual basis or point of leverage by which we could decide with
>any certainty that there was a voyage, that there was an
>astrolabe on the voyage, and that they entered a channel heading
>to the north pole. In fact, we don't even know where the north
>pole was in 1360. Look at Zalars link, see move the north pole
>south 1000 miles and reassert those radial lines and then tell
>me what one would make of compass measurements.
By 'Zalar's link' I presume you mean
http://www.albertaclassic.com/nav.php
That's all very well, but it only goes back to 1831. The link I gave
you http://geo.phys.uit.no/articl/roadto.html goes back to 1600 and
shows that before about that date the North magnetic pole was north -
not south - of the earliest position shown in Zalar's URL. In 1360 it
probably was closer to where it is today than it was in 1860.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
---- snip ---
>>1. No-one measured 54*, in fact if it was the entrance to
>>labrador then it was the wrong measurement.
>
>If Morrison is right ("Admiral of the Ocean Sea"), nobody _could_ use
>an astrolabe from a moving deck. Magellan did take one along, set it
>up on a tripod ashore, and even so got highly inaccurate measurements.
I'm afraid Morrison was not quite right except with respect to the
original land based astrolabe. See
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461526216_761558742_-1_1/Tycho_Brahe%E2%80%99s_Astrolabe.html
However, the navigational astrolabe was designed to be suspended from
a ring at the top. See
http://www.zakariya.net/images/gallery/fullsize/Aramco-Astrolabe-Face.jpg
Nevertheless, it was far from an accurate navigational instrument when
used on a heaving deck. A 'cross-staff'
http://www.westsea.com/tsg3/octlocker/octcapchart04.html was easier to
use but was not altogether popular as repeated use tended to lead to
blindness in at least one eye. The 'shadow squares' on the back of the
astrolabe meant that it did not require the user to stare at the sun.
See
http://www.zakariya.net/images/gallery/fullsize/Aramco-Astrolabe-Back.jpg
which is the reverse of the astrolabe I cited above.
I don't believe it is entirely coincidence that the vast proportion of
surviving astrolabes are of the navigational variety.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:jf21i0tf1todvuq65...@4ax.com:
>
>> As I said, the vikings may have had the magnetic compass
>> and the later Norse almost certainly did.
>
>You are thick headed aren't you?
You mean I'm not cowed into believeing your clouds of squink?
Eric Stevens
Philip Deitiker
news:cfqvc6$8s1$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk:
> If, for example, Columbus is to be believed, ships from
> England were sailing beyond Iceland (i.e. into the area
> where this caption appears on the Ruysch map) by the 1470s.
> The text about wonky compasses on the Ruysch map does not,
> as far as I can see, appear in Mercator's summaries from
> Cnoyen. I therefore see no problem with Philip's
> suggestion.
I have seen the map but I have only seen gross details of the
map, I haven' seen the translations of the insert noted so I
don't know if Ruysch mentions Wonky compasses or not. If anyone
who contributed to the map had sailed from Cape Cod to iceland
they would have experienced the Wonky compasses. I suspect that
many voyages used the easterly winds and current to return home
some probably followed the coast to nova scotia and then turned
east they would have experienced just such strange magnetic
feilds.
> While I am quite prepared to accept the existence of a
> Franciscan from Oxford travelling through the North
> equipped for scientific investigation in 1360 (and even
> that he might give away an astrolabe, if it only had plates
> for latitudes below 54 degrees, which is about as far north
> as you could expect for a standard model made in England),
> I remain worried that his alleged discoveries are
> apparently being conveyed at third hand, via an anonymous
> (though plausibly identified) priest and a travel writer
> whose accounts of his own journeys do not seem to have been
> considered worthy of repetition.
The basic problem in science is that one has to have some
internally consistent corroboration, some, 2 or 3 elements that
prove some proof as incontrovertable evidence that some event
had occurred. The only evidence I see from this is the 54' and
if in fact it were taken in would have to have been taken from
Nova Scotia. As far as I can tell the story cnoyen presents is
from a person who had no personal experience in the western
artic region of the atlantic.
I think Doug did us a big favor by providing the respondent
letter to Inger, as this cuts to the chase about her 3AM emails
from famous scholars.
From: "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@telia.com>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Jacob Cnoyen
Lines: 22
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <xQcZa.23513$dP1....@newsc.telia.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 20:29:17 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.65.48.202
X-Complaints-To: ab...@telia.com
X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 1060460957 213.65.48.202 (Sat, 09 Aug
2003 22:29:17 CEST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 22:29:17 CEST
Organization: Telia Internet
"Among their ranks was the Franciscan Friar Roger Bacon. At the
direction of Pope Clement IV, Friar Bacon prepared a secret
document called the Opus Majus. Among his many ideas, Bacon
proposed the creation of a scientific map of the world to assist
the cause of Christian evangelism and commerce. Deans of Oxford
University implemented Bacon's proposal by sending well-equipped
friars on mapping expeditions to the New World from 1330 to
1360. A Dutch journalist, Jacob Cnoyen, wrote about the
Franciscan mapping effort in his book Travels in The North.
Portions of the Franciscan survey may have survived in the
Medici Maps (ca. 1350), DeVirga's Map (1414), the Clavus Map
(1427), and Martin Behaim's globe of 1490-92. "
Synopsis this report contains several errors.
1. The expedition to the north while possibly having other
motives was inspired by the lack of religious contacts with
greenland, particularly in the west.
2. There is no such book relied upon, it is stated that the
Itineratum of Jacob Cnoyen was the source of Mercator's
information.
The Pope sent or attempted to send friars from England because
Norway was in a bad situation (I beleive) that the friars were
sent specifically to survey the extent of the western colony.
The claim was that the greenlanders had returned to heathenism
(more likely replaced by 'heathens') The reasoning of the
expedition was to survey a lost colony, not survey the new
world. One of the things that happened in the period is that a
number of clergy that reached greenland died soon their after,
and Norway was probably reluctant to provide passage for more,
the climate may have something to do with that. I remember
reading somewhere that an english explorer found a 'skraeling'
lying dead in the snow close to one of the churches with a knife
still in hand, he took the mans knife and left, I assume that
polar bears dealt with the rest at their convinience.
We have enough information now to create a page on the Inventio
Fortunata and Cnoyen.
The book Travels in the North is not mentioned anywhere else.
However of some interest may be www.maphist.nl/ct/index1982-
2001.pdf
http://www.pibburns.com/smmia5.htm
"
On the strength of these charming legends [refering to Inventio
Fortunata, and if true, logically there was more to cnoyens
account than what we obtain from Mercator] Martin Behaim
included the four circumpolar islands in his globe of 1492. His
innovation was followed in the maps of Johann Ruysch, Oronce
Fine, Mercator, in his 1569 world map, and Hadji Ahmed, among
others. The islands are described in inscriptions on the Ruysch
and Mercator maps, and featured in an inset on the latter. If
the mapmakers of their day could give concrete form to such
flimsy legends, what need is there to invent a lost civilization
to account for anything found on the maps presented by Hapgood?
"
About the book Travels to the North
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Island/3634/HISMercator.html
"
"we have taken [the Arctic geography] from the Itinerium of
Jacobus Cnoyen of the Hague, who makes some citations from the
Gesta of Arthur of Britain; however, the greater and most
important part he learned from a certain priest at the court of
the king of Norway in 1364. He was descended in the fifth
generation from those whom Arthur had sent to inhabit these
lands, and he related that in the year 1360 a certain Minorite,
an Englishman from Oxford, a mathematician, went to those
islands; and leaving them, advanced still farther by magic arts
and mapped out all and measured them by an astrolabe in
practically the subjoined figure, as we have learned from
Jacobus. The four canals there pictured he said flow with such
current to the inner whirlpool, that if vessels once enter they
cannot be driven back by wind."
"
I have this quote from 2 sources. One being Zalar's
This 'Travels in the North' is not the source of Mercator or
Dee, and it appears to be an error in the abstract.
It also appears the Mercator borrowed from Ruysch because the
orientation of greenland appears to be a distortion similar to
that of Ruysh but with the island separated from the mainland.
In Mercators map greenland could either be rotated 90'
counterclockwise or it could be missing much of the west side of
the Island.
The question therefore is who provided the coastline
information for the Ryusch Map. Again the Ryusch Map seems to
borrow from cnoyen
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13282a.htm
John Ruysch
Astronomer, cartographer, and painter, born at Utrecht about
1460; died at Cologne, 1533. Little is known of his early life.
He became a secular priest, but joined the Benedictine Order in
the monastery of St. Martin's at Cologne, where he made his
profession in 1492. He devoted himself to the study of astronomy
and painting, in which art he acquired much skill.
"
"
He went to Rome about 1508 and received a post in the pontifical
palace. While here he published his famous map of the world
entitled "Nova et universalior orbis cogniti tabula". It
contains in particular the new Spanish and Portuguese
discoveries in America.
"
How he got the Cnoyen notes in rome is an issue, being from the
region . . . . .
Philip Deitiker
> I don't believe it is entirely coincidence that the vast
> proportion of surviving astrolabes are of the navigational
> variety.
1. At least two on the museum page were for terrestrial use.
2. Compare the french Astrolabe from the 15th century to the
best English or Arab astrolabe from the 14th century and you may
know why the English do not get claim for discovering america.
Philip Deitiker
Let's not try to be so dense for a change.
1. There was not measurement of the north pole prior
to 1831.
2. The plot you gave has a line that does not even come close to
the 1831 measurement.
3. IOW it is an extrapolation from later points
4. And since it deviates from actual measurements we can assume
it is wrong.
5. Read the USG site on magnetic north pole. You will find if
you read that site that the pole does not move consistently but
moves in jerks, sometimes it does not move for a long period of
time, then it will jerk 100 miles. This pattern makes if very
difficult to assign an exact position for the pole.
Philip Deitiker
No I mean you fail to capture important facts and instead focus
on the weakest facts you can find. The point was that the Norse
might have had a compass, but if they did and they relayed that
information to Ruysch as you inferred, Greenland would have been
oriented in the exact opposite direction.
The alternative is that they had a compass and you choice of
magnetic poles was wrong, and the magnetic pole was east of
northern greenland, then a compass would have given a mapping of
greenland consistent with the Ruysch map.
However if you read my post you will see that Ruysch goes to
Rome and publishes a map based on some knowledge of Cnoyen which
is derived from England oxfordian minorite, and recent knowledge
from columbus and other explorers. The net result is that there
is no connection between Ruysch and the Norse that is to be
believed and he inserts the wrong position of Greenland because
the information beyond the south eastern coast is missing.
The absolute squink here is that you are trying to shove a
knowledge of a region into existence that, to an abstract degree
such as maps, never existed, and by the by you are trying to
serve up things like compasses and ship going Astrolabes that
were either crude or not designed for maritime use, and then say
this is proof positive that these map elements were
precolumbian. They are not. Potentially if we had a compy of the
Inventio we could extract from the 'legends' the elements of
measure, but this is so corrupted by 'hand information' that it
is not even worth considering.
This does not mean that precolumbian europeans did not reach
the new world, but how they did it was quite simple, the paths
they took were written notes and sailors tales, etc. The point
is that the sophistication is in the art of being a sailor not
in the natural magical arts and this limited to traveling the
margins and not full open ocean travel.
There were probably people who in 1400s had compasses and
other navigations aids, but they were on the seas for personal
gain and not notariety.
Having studied notes for many years and accumulated vast amounts
of information does not make you correct. Inger being the Prime
example, it is the quality of being able to discern myth, lore
and bias from potential facts in that set. The parsing of facts
may leave that data set with 1/10 or 1/20 reliable accounts, the
other 90-95% being, as you say, squink, for newsgroups like
this.
Daryl Krupa
<snip>
> There is a map of the historical movements of the magnetic pole here
> http://geo.phys.uit.no/articl/roadto.html There was a better map but
> it seems to have disappeared.
try this one:
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/Mwander.gif
From:
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/MagRev.html
Daryl Krupa
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
You don't know how its done, do you? You really think I'm talking
rubbish, don't you? This may give you a clue:
http://www2.umt.edu/geology/faculty/sheriff/437-Seismology_Magnetics/Images/PzMz_APW.gif
I really do wish you give up asuming you have all the answers.
>2. The plot you gave has a line that does not even come close to
>the 1831 measurement.
Which 1831 measurement?
I've already pointed out that there is a considerable disagreement
amongst the earlier maps. They only really **started** to closely
converge in the last 10 years.
>3. IOW it is an extrapolation from later points
>4. And since it deviates from actual measurements we can assume
>it is wrong.
You mean your map is right and mine is wrong? Quantitatively they are
both wrong. Qualitatively they are both consistent with the general
body of knowledge.
>5. Read the USG site on magnetic north pole. You will find if
>you read that site that the pole does not move consistently but
>moves in jerks, sometimes it does not move for a long period of
>time, then it will jerk 100 miles. This pattern makes if very
>difficult to assign an exact position for the pole.
Then why are you trying to do it?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:t262i0lhvpg52l8tt...@4ax.com:
>
>> I don't believe it is entirely coincidence that the vast
>> proportion of surviving astrolabes are of the navigational
>> variety.
>
>1. At least two on the museum page were for terrestrial use.
>2. Compare the french Astrolabe from the 15th century to the
>best English or Arab astrolabe from the 14th century and you may
>know why the English do not get claim for discovering america.
It might help if you gave a reference. I thought this kind of thing
p****d you off?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Thanks Daryl. That is one of the ones I was looking for. Nevertheless
I have doubts about it as from memory it differs significantly from
other other maps. Yet, it is relatively recent being last modified on
22 August 2003. As I've told Philip, there is considerable
disagreement amongst the various sources.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:8372i0tvdcohnc60d...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:25:43 GMT, Philip Deitiker
>> <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>>>news:jf21i0tf1todvuq65...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> As I said, the vikings may have had the magnetic compass
>>>> and the later Norse almost certainly did.
>>>
>>>You are thick headed aren't you?
>>
>> You mean I'm not cowed into believeing your clouds of squink?
>
>No I mean you fail to capture important facts and instead focus
>on the weakest facts you can find. The point was that the Norse
>might have had a compass, but if they did and they relayed that
>information to Ruysch as you inferred, Greenland would have been
>oriented in the exact opposite direction.
Rusch only had to hear the reports of the squiffy compass behaviour.
There was no need for the Norse to map Greenland for him while they
were at it.
>
> The alternative is that they had a compass and you choice of
>magnetic poles was wrong, and the magnetic pole was east of
>northern greenland, then a compass would have given a mapping of
>greenland consistent with the Ruysch map.
I suggest you read Nicholas Cranes 'Mercator' to get an idea of the
kind of information used to construct maps in those days.
>
>However if you read my post you will see that Ruysch goes to
>Rome and publishes a map based on some knowledge of Cnoyen which
>is derived from England oxfordian minorite, and recent knowledge
>from columbus and other explorers. The net result is that there
>is no connection between Ruysch and the Norse that is to be
>believed and he inserts the wrong position of Greenland because
>the information beyond the south eastern coast is missing.
>
>The absolute squink here is that you are trying to shove a
>knowledge of a region into existence ...
Actually, all I did was point out that the vikings may have had the
magnetic compass and the later Norse almost certainly did. And, for
that, I get all this!
> ... that, to an abstract degree
>such as maps, never existed, and by the by you are trying to
>serve up things like compasses and ship going Astrolabes ...
I even gave you references which you seem to have totally disregarded.
Let the squink continue ...
> ... that
>were either crude or not designed for maritime use, and then say
>this is proof positive that these map elements were
>precolumbian. They are not. Potentially if we had a compy of the
>Inventio we could extract from the 'legends' the elements of
>measure, but this is so corrupted by 'hand information' that it
>is not even worth considering.
> This does not mean that precolumbian europeans did not reach
>the new world, but how they did it was quite simple, the paths
>they took were written notes and sailors tales, etc. The point
>is that the sophistication is in the art of being a sailor not
>in the natural magical arts and this limited to traveling the
>margins and not full open ocean travel.
> There were probably people who in 1400s had compasses and
>other navigations aids, but they were on the seas for personal
>gain and not notariety.
>
>Having studied notes for many years and accumulated vast amounts
>of information does not make you correct. Inger being the Prime
>example, it is the quality of being able to discern myth, lore
>and bias from potential facts in that set. The parsing of facts
>may leave that data set with 1/10 or 1/20 reliable accounts, the
>other 90-95% being, as you say, squink, for newsgroups like
>this.
Thank you for the demonstration.
Eric Stevens
Philip Deitiker
> You mean your map is right and mine is wrong?
> Quantitatively they are both wrong. Qualitatively they are
> both consistent with the general body of knowledge.
My map is not an extraplolation your's is
here is a better picture.
http://www.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/long_mvt_nmp_e.shtml
Now see if either of your maps fit over the original data
points.
Philip Deitiker
> It might help if you gave a reference. I thought this kind
> of thing p****d you off?
Good then, next time your buddy goes spouting off and starts
handing you images through the backdoor, tell it to her.
AFAIC, your spewing sour grapes about the fact that I have
turned something you thought was solid into what it really is,
myth.
Every post I have mentioned or given the source of information,
a link or two for each. go find it.
Philip Deitiker
Maybe so but there is only one that is plotted from actual
points. The 1904 was taken from four measurements, from 1831
when the daily osscilation was relatively mild.
Philip Deitiker
> Rusch only had to hear the reports of the squiffy compass
> behaviour. There was no need for the Norse to map Greenland
> for him while they were at it.
His map was from 1508, which means he could have gotten that
information from:
Basque fisherman with compasses.
English profiteers with compasses
Belgium fisherman
Irish fisherman.
Portuguese Fishermen
There is no neccesity for his report about compass behavior to
have come from the Norse before 1364. There is a period of 144
years in which he could have learned from anyone he might have
come into contact with, including people in meditteranean,
explorers who grazed greenland on their way back to europe.
>>The absolute squink here is that you are trying to shove a
>>knowledge of a region into existence ...
>
> Actually, all I did was point out that the vikings may have
> had the magnetic compass and the later Norse almost
> certainly did. And, for that, I get all this!
No, you claimed they did based on Ruysch's map. And we are not
arguing about the later Norse, we are arguing about the Norse in
1360 and we are arguing specifically the types of information
that Cnoyen would have gotten in Bergen. If they had compasses
in 1400 it becomes moot to the argument. The 'Norse' now have
compasses, that is for certain, of course they also have GPS,
lol.
> I even gave you references which you seem to have totally
> disregarded.
I disregarded them because the word 'may', that word couple with
a marked decline in Norse trading west to greenland between 1300
and 1400 would indicate that their need for either compasses or
sundials was at a minimum, which could explain the lack of
sundials and the uncertainty about compasses. Hyperdiffusionist
live on the word 'may'. You should note that the Royal Greenland
Knarr was sunk in Norway, and never rebuilt. This shows how
serious they were about getting out in the cold north atlantic.
> Let the squink continue ...
From your fingers.
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:lpj2i09229uh5p0qq...@4ax.com:
>
>> It might help if you gave a reference. I thought this kind
>> of thing p****d you off?
>
>Good then, next time your buddy goes spouting off and starts
>handing you images through the backdoor, tell it to her.
>AFAIC, your spewing sour grapes about the fact that I have
>turned something you thought was solid into what it really is,
>myth.
> Every post I have mentioned or given the source of information,
>a link or two for each. go find it.
"mentioned or given" with the emphasis on "mentioned".
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:adj2i05a99bp9o2ud...@4ax.com:
>
>> You mean your map is right and mine is wrong?
>> Quantitatively they are both wrong. Qualitatively they are
>> both consistent with the general body of knowledge.
>
>My map is not an extraplolation your's is
That you should say that seems to confirm that you believe the
position of the North Pole at a particular date can only have been
determined by contemporary measurement. Hopefully you will by now have
received my article bearing a diagram of the principles of
geo-magnetism.
>
>here is a better picture.
>
>http://www.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/long_mvt_nmp_e.shtml
>
>Now see if either of your maps fit over the original data
>points.
Why do you persist in acting as though the location of the pole is as
definitive as a peg driven into the ground?
Eric Stevens
Philip Deitiker
> That you should say that seems to confirm that you believe
> the position of the North Pole at a particular date can
> only have been determined by contemporary measurement.
It is the best measure for that date. The fact that you have two
plots, one that deviates to the west and the other that deviates
to the east, and still neither overly what was plotted, and also
given the 1904 measurement is very close to the 1831, I will
stick with the 1831, thank you.
The USGS claims that between 1904 and 1831 the vector of
motion reversed explaining the juxtopostion, however others
contest this feild jerk. Some of my readings on the internet
show that the number of harmonics used to estimate past
positions is on the rise, therefore the map produced is likely
to change. In addition they claim that extrapolation based on
magnetic deviation since 1700 shows that pole to be 110'W and
~75'N and ossicilating. They also claim there was a pole 'run'
during the lifetime of ezekial for which the maximum declination
was 60', over russia. They claim a great many things; however
their claims cannot be verified and to start, they admit just
that, and they are trying to improve their models. The best way
to test a model is to see if the future motion agrees with the
predicted motion, if it does not, it means that the estimations
of the past are also in error.
> Hopefully you will by now have received my article bearing
> a diagram of the principles of geo-magnetism.
I read it before you started throwing out your squink.
>>here is a better picture.
>>
>>http://www.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/long_mvt_nmp_e.shtml
>>
>>Now see if either of your maps fit over the original data
>>points.
>
> Why do you persist in acting as though the location of the
> pole is as definitive as a peg driven into the ground?
You sound like an argument on a bad date. The location of the
'north pole' that is an oval that rotates over a 24 hour period,
that degree of rotation is increasing, it was somewhat easier to
measure in 1831.
This pole give one an approximation of where the declination
lines are going to be; however I did not make that assumption
and instead of assuming that I gave you important magnetic
deviation data for airports about greenland, which you ignored
because you do not understand their meaning.
In your thick head, however, you should have created a
abstraction called an inclination map.
I didn't need the map because based on airfeild magnetic
deviations one can guess (perpendicularize) the approximate
feild lines. And also in prolonged flights heading along any
latitude one observes the change in compass heading relative to
true heading the feild lines are the inverse of the magnetic
course corrections required to stay on latitude. However, my
assumption that you would understand the inclinations are a
roughly perpendicular function of magnetic deviation was
probably too much to ask of you. This is what you need to suckle
your thumb with
http://geomag.usgs.gov/IGRF_I.html
Follow the 70' inclination line in the north and the -60'
inclination line in the south. This is the problem with
traveling in the atlantic by compass.
OK, so if you think that the Mercator map is based on measured
observations of greenland based on the compass, I have given you
all the data you need, take this data and superimpose greenland
onto any globe of your choice, distort it such that the
concavity of inclination lines around greenland is compensated
for and reinsert this image with flattened out inclination lines
on a latitude and see if this map image reconciles with any
known map of the period. When you have done this and realize
that it does not, you can then waste lots of time trying to
reposition the earths internal dipole such that the inclination
lines will roll and angle themselves such that it will
superimpose on those maps. Otherwise I don't want to hear any
more of your crap about why I don't think the poles move or why
I don't beleive your version of polar localization over the real
charts. The point is that with my model or your model the
outcome is the same. Conceptually speaking I have a much better
understanding of the poles than you do, and in addition if the
poles had swept over norway, there would be lots of reports of
magnetic bearing changes because this change would have altered
navigation within the Indian ocean. If you take a look at the
map you will see, as I said the inclination lines are
essentially flat, as they have been for the last 1000 years.
(And I repeat this can be estimated based on the position of the
north pole within canada, i.e. on the american hemisphere),
If you can't figure it out with the above html, I can't help you
to figure it out, please consult your psychiatrist or
pediatrician. Alternatively go suckle up to your swedish marm
and gather your information from her Prime sources.
Eric Stevens
Bullshit. I made that comment **with a supporting reference** back in
Message-ID: <l9mth0tfqah2qn25l...@4ax.com>. I did that
in response to your assertion based on one of the lesser web sites
that "The first person recorded to have used the compass as a
navigational aid was Zheng He (1371-1435), from the Yunnan
province in China, who made seven ocean voyages between 1405 and
1433". You seem to have advanced beyond that now.
>And we are not
>arguing about the later Norse, we are arguing about the Norse in
>1360 and we are arguing specifically the types of information
>that Cnoyen would have gotten in Bergen.
Are you arguing that the Norse have no relevance to this?
>If they had compasses
>in 1400 it becomes moot to the argument. The 'Norse' now have
>compasses, that is for certain, of course they also have GPS,
>lol.
The question is what did they have c1360?
>
>> I even gave you references which you seem to have totally
>> disregarded.
>
>I disregarded them because the word 'may', that word couple with
>a marked decline in Norse trading west to greenland between 1300
>and 1400 would indicate that their need for either compasses or
>sundials was at a minimum, which could explain the lack of
>sundials and the uncertainty about compasses.
A problem for you is that the evidence which suggests they 'may' have
had magnetic compasses does not depend on the level of trade. I'm not
sure why you are dragging sundials into this unless you are confusing
them with the sun compass.
>Hyperdiffusionist
>live on the word 'may'. You should note that the Royal Greenland
>Knarr was sunk in Norway, and never rebuilt. This shows how
>serious they were about getting out in the cold north atlantic.
I see. You are one of those who knows so little that you thing the
voyaging began and ended with the Royal Knarrs .... .
Apart from that, you can do no better than resort to name calling.
>
>> Let the squink continue ...
>
>From your fingers.
Eric Stevens
Inger E Johansson
How come it's so impossible for Philip D to accept that Nicholas of Lynn
participated in at least one of the sailings to Greenland and North America
in mid 14th century?
Inger E
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:9l23i091j6d446oqb...@4ax.com...
Dick Wisan
>
>Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net> says
>> The problem with this is how to measure time. You can't
>> use a sandglass to measure how long something took. It
>> marks a fixed time in which you can measure how much of
>> something (like how far you've travelled) has passed in
>> that time. It seems doubtful that you could get any useful
>> speed measurement by measuring distance something drifs
>> along the hull while a very small sandglass runs out.
>> Columbus, I believe, tried to use his own pulse as the time
>> measure. Calibrated it ashore (somehow) so he could count
>> pulse beats while something drifted along the hull. That's
>> what he was using when he made his famously erroneous
>> overestimates of his speed.
>
>'One thousand one, One thousand two, . . . '
Yup. Or "One chimpanzee, two chimpanzee..." Best one I know I
saw in Bernard Shaw's "Good King Charles", in which Newton counts
seconds "Hackerty backerty one, hackerty backerty two..." Con-
sidering the English use of the letter "r", you might translit-
erate that as "Hackety backety one..." Adjust syllables to your
personal rate of syllabification.
>> The reason for the rope was probably not to economize logs,
>> but to get a long enough distance for a sand-glass to
>> measure. Note that your smart steward's rope turns into
>> precisely the kind of unknotted log-line that Eric
>> described:
>
>Yes but the critical ingredient is the shape of the chip,
>designed to create drag a very hydrodynamic log will end up
>accelating as tension increased.
Again, yup. Inch by inch we progress.
>> [As I said, the difficulty is how to to measure that
>> variable quantity of time? This is what Columbus tried
>> using his pulse for. What did the "Dutchman" use?]
>
>Columbus, reported was not a very good navigator, I mean he
>thought he was in India.
That's not a navigation error. That's false geography.
Like Inger's Norsemen, Columbus was a spectactularly good
dead-reckoning navigator (again, per Morrison). The best
proof of that is his passage from Trinidad (3rd or 4th
voyage?) to Hispaniola. He knew where Hispaniola was
because he had navigated to it from Spain and back. He
knew where Trinidad was because he had navigated there
from Spain. Then he closed the triangle by sailing from
Trinidad to Hispaniola. He was off by about 200 miles,
thought that was terrible (though we might not) and
inferred he must have been offset by a current. He was
right. Going long distances and getting to the intended
place is what navigating is about.
>
>> And there's your smart steward's log-saver. BTW,
>> "log-ship"? What that describes is a crude (because
>> unknotted) chip-log. Its "chip" is either a more
>> economical version of that "log", or perhaps only an apter
>> description of it. Calling it a "ship" might be thought
>> cute, I suppose.
>
>The reasoning here is a chip with rope triangluted to the sides
>creates more drag per unit mass, the result is that it does not
>need inertia but drag to hold it in place. The nautical mile, of
>course, is in error, because the chip slips as the holder counts
>knots.
No. The nautical mile is different from but as precise as the
statute mile (or the Roman mile or...). It's defined to come out
even in degrees of lattitude, which the statute mile is not. The
difference has nothing to do accuracy of speed measurement.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@catskill.net
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'am; no fax
Dick Wisan
>
>Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net> wrote:
>>
>> ---- snip ---
>>
>>>1. No-one measured 54*, in fact if it was the entrance to
>>>labrador then it was the wrong measurement.
>>
>>If Morrison is right ("Admiral of the Ocean Sea"), nobody _could_ use
>>an astrolabe from a moving deck. Magellan did take one along, set it
>>up on a tripod ashore, and even so got highly inaccurate measurements.
>
>I'm afraid Morrison was not quite right except with respect to the
>original land based astrolabe. See
>http://encarta.msn.com/media_461526216_761558742_-1_1/Tycho_Brahe%E2%80%99s_Astr
>olabe.html
>
>However, the navigational astrolabe was designed to be suspended from
>a ring at the top. See
>http://www.zakariya.net/images/gallery/fullsize/Aramco-Astrolabe-Face.jpg
That thing of Tycho Brahe's is surely more a calculating or demonstrating
device than an observational tool. Most astronomical astrolabes were
disk-shaped like a circular slide rule. They are often not intended for
precise observation at all. The mariner's astrolabe is simplified because
it's supposed to be purely a measuring device. The ring in the top is
there because the thing _is_ supposed to be usable for measurement.
What's wrong with it is the difficulty in using it, especially without
a fixed support. The advantage of an astronomical astrolabe is that it
makes calculations for you. That's quite separate from making the meas-
urement itself. Obviously, after you've measured an angle, whether with
cross-staff, astrolabe, quadrant, or sextant, you need a way to calculate
what it means.
[snip]
>I don't believe it is entirely coincidence that the vast proportion of
>surviving astrolabes are of the navigational variety.
Well, that's a good point, to show that the thing was meant to be used
to measure angles, but I find it hard to imagine using a free-swinging
thing like an astrolabe accurately from even a gently moving deck.. To
use it even ashore will require a trained knack. My guess is they
weren't common seagoing tools, and Magellan's trouble was that he was
not an astronomer, and unaccustomed to using the instrument.
Doug Weller
[SNIP]
> How come it's so impossible for Philip D to accept that Nicholas of Lynn
> participated in at least one of the sailings to Greenland and North America
> in mid 14th century?
Which of your 4 Nicholas's is this?
[SNIP]
Doug
Michael Zalar
> >in 1400 it becomes moot to the argument. The 'Norse' now have
> >compasses, that is for certain, of course they also have GPS,
> >lol.
>
> The question is what did they have c1360?
>
http://education.qld.gov.au/curriculum/area/maths/compass/html/compassbearings/cohis.html
Somewhat contradictory but still applicable:
"Reports of chinese sailors using this early compass surfaced around
the 12th Century, detailed in Zhu Yu's "P'ingchow Table Talk".
The first recorded instance of the compass being used in Europe
occured around 1190.
This was similar to the early chinese lodestone model, but by the end
of the 13th century, the English had mounted a needle on a pin, the
basis of the compass as understood today."
http://nvnv.essortment.com/compasshistory_rumo.htm
Keep in mind that the marine traffic around the Baltic was controlled
by the Hanseatic League, which would have been up to date with the
modern navigational tools.
You can even look for a later date specifically for the mariner's
compass:
"The discovery of the Mariner's Compass*, which is generally
attributed to Flavio Gioia, a citizen of the once celebrated maritime
republic of Amalfi, about the year 1302, gave, as it has been truly
said, to man the dominion of the sea, and marked the commencement of a
new era in the history of commerce and navigation. The use of the
compass rapidly spread..."
http://www.londonancestor.com/london-docks/london-docks-03.htm
Even assuming that this was the first use of a marine compass in
Europe, that would still give over half a century for the use of the
compass to have spread to the Hansea and to the Norse.
Can we set this argument aside...?
Michael.
Inger E Johansson
"Michael Zalar" <m_z...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:a458909b.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > >If they had compasses
> > >in 1400 it becomes moot to the argument. The 'Norse' now have
> > >compasses, that is for certain, of course they also have GPS,
> > >lol.
> >
> > The question is what did they have c1360?
> >
> "The Vikings used a basic form of compass in the eleventh century A.D"
>
http://education.qld.gov.au/curriculum/area/maths/compass/html/compassbearin
gs/cohis.html
>
> Somewhat contradictory but still applicable:
>
> "Reports of chinese sailors using this early compass surfaced around
> the 12th Century, detailed in Zhu Yu's "P'ingchow Table Talk".
> The first recorded instance of the compass being used in Europe
> occured around 1190.
> This was similar to the early chinese lodestone model, but by the end
> of the 13th century, the English had mounted a needle on a pin, the
> basis of the compass as understood today."
> http://nvnv.essortment.com/compasshistory_rumo.htm
Refering to url:s for compass history which I sent yesterday to the groups I
would like to make known that the Norse in 12th-15th century DID have same
type of Compasses as refered to existing in the Byzans.
>
> Keep in mind that the marine traffic around the Baltic was controlled
> by the Hanseatic League, which would have been up to date with the
> modern navigational tools.
That's not correct bbefore 1240 AD. The Hanseatic League didn't have that
influence in Norway and Sweden before that time.
>
> You can even look for a later date specifically for the mariner's
> compass:
> "The discovery of the Mariner's Compass*, which is generally
> attributed to Flavio Gioia, a citizen of the once celebrated maritime
> republic of Amalfi, about the year 1302, gave, as it has been truly
> said, to man the dominion of the sea, and marked the commencement of a
> new era in the history of commerce and navigation. The use of the
> compass rapidly spread..."
> http://www.londonancestor.com/london-docks/london-docks-03.htm
>
> Even assuming that this was the first use of a marine compass in
> Europe, that would still give over half a century for the use of the
> compass to have spread to the Hansea and to the Norse.
The first known use of marine compass in Europe was by Swedes in the Baltic
Sea after 1119 AD.
Inger E
Philip Deitiker
> Bullshit. I made that comment **with a supporting
> reference** back in Message-ID:
> <l9mth0tfqah2qn25l...@4ax.com>. I did that
> in response to your assertion based on one of the lesser
> web sites that "The first person recorded to have used the
> compass as a navigational aid was Zheng He (1371-1435),
> from the Yunnan province in China, who made seven ocean
> voyages between 1405 and 1433". You seem to have advanced
> beyond that now.
This clearly has everything to do with the Norse, since they are
obviously full-blooded chinese [sic]. That is not the post, you
responded to <jf21i0tf1todvuq65...@4ax.com>
> Are you arguing that the Norse have no relevance to this?
If I beleived Inventio Fortunata, I might, but since it has been
described as various myths and legends, I am enclined to beleive
that the Norse role in this is to have provided a place where 2
men undertook some Bar talk.
> The question is what did they have c1360?
No, the question is whether the use of compasses on a ship in
the years 1360 has anything what-so-ever to do with the
placement of greenland and the 'north pole' on the maps of
Ruysch in 1508 and Mercator later that century.
The issue of the compass is a side issue of little importance,
the reason it is of little importance because during the years
between 1300 and 1360 the Norse were have trouble simply getting
where they had been getting for 500 year previous. A compass
does not, as far as I know, delineate the magnetic feilds of
icebergs.
> A problem for you is that the evidence which suggests they
> 'may' have had magnetic compasses does not depend on the
> level of trade. I'm not sure why you are dragging sundials
> into this unless you are confusing them with the sun
> compass.
A sun compass is a modified sundial, just as a martime compass
is a modified compass, just as a maritime astrolabe is a
modified astrolabe, just as a maritime 'nautical' mile is a
modified mile, just as a maritime clock is a modified clock . .
. . . .
> I see. You are one of those who knows so little that you
> thing the voyaging began and ended with the Royal Knarrs
> .... .
Intent, and the intent is structured around lost missions, and
failed missions.
David B
>
>How come it's so impossible for Philip D to accept that Nicholas of Lynn
>participated in at least one of the sailings to Greenland and North
America
>in mid 14th century?
Because his hood was the wrong colour.
David B.
David B
>
>You can even look for a later date specifically for the mariner's
>compass:
>"The discovery of the Mariner's Compass*, which is generally
>attributed to Flavio Gioia, a citizen of the once celebrated maritime
>republic of Amalfi, about the year 1302, gave, as it has been truly
>said, to man the dominion of the sea, and marked the commencement of a
>new era in the history of commerce and navigation. The use of the
>compass rapidly spread..."
> http://www.londonancestor.com/london-docks/london-docks-03.htm
>
>Even assuming that this was the first use of a marine compass in
>Europe, that would still give over half a century for the use of the
>compass to have spread to the Hansea and to the Norse.
>
>Can we set this argument aside...?
Well we could, but we enjoy bitching at each other.
I haven't found the actual quotation about compasses from Alexander
Neckam's "De Utensilibus" (which I gather is the one with the technical
detail), but here's the related material from his "De Naturis Rerum" (also
dated c1190):
"Nautae etiam mare legentes cum beneficium claritatis solis in tempore
nubilo non sentiunt, aut etiam cum caligine nocturnarum tenebrarum mundus
obvolvitur, et ignorant in quem mundi cardinem prora tendat, acum super
magnetem ponunt, quae circulariter cicrumvolvitor usque dum, ejus motu
cessante, cuspis ipsius septentrionalem plagam respiciat."
My translation: "Also mariners traversing the sea, when they cannot
perceive the benefit of the sun's brightness, in cloudy times, or also when
the world is cloaked in mist and the shadows of night, and they do not know
in which of the world's cardinal directions their prow is directed, place a
needle on a magnet, as a result of which it spins round in circles until,
ceasing its motion, its point faces the northern region."
I've also found an excuse to blame one M. Zalar for all this chaos and
confusion. The cruel Mr Zalar's web pages downplay the significance of a
crucial phrase in the Mercator/Dee letter by including it only in the guise
of a note by Eva Taylor; whereas it was actually in the (translated)
letter: "Inventio Fortunate, which book began at the last climate, that is
to say latitude 54 deg., continuing to the pole". In other words, there no
need to assume that the 1360 Oxford Minorite used either an astrolabe or a
compass for precise navigation at sea, because the latitude measurement is
not a measurement at all, but just Mercator's (or Cnoyen's) explanation of
a formal, ancient designation of the northernmost part of the Earth.
David B.
Philip Deitiker
news:cfsjk...@news2.newsguy.com:
> No. The nautical mile is different from but as precise as
> the statute mile (or the Roman mile or...). It's defined
> to come out even in degrees of lattitude, which the statute
> mile is not. The difference has nothing to do accuracy of
> speed measurement.
1.131 versus 1.151.
A definition of convinience, since knots were alraedy in use.
lol.
Philip Deitiker
news:LNnUc.214$PW1...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net:
In that case Ruysch Map would be more accurate than Mercator's
relative to Cnoyen, because Cnoyen places the north pole up the
'eastern' side of greenland, it also means that who ever
undertook the mission had an east facing map consistent with
their travels. The placement thus being in question.
Philip Deitiker
For one, I haven't discussed Nicholas of Lynn at all. I was
discussing an unnamed and still unnamed Oxford friar who
discloses a fairy tale to a man names Cnoyen in Bergen. It
probably was not the first fairy tale to be told in and around
Bergen that has gotten a good public airing, and as we can see
in this group, it will not be the last.
Michael Zalar
>
> If the pole were in Canada, close to the hudson bay
>
Need to be quick at the moment - I am short of time. However, I did
investigate several years ago the possible position of the magnetic
pole in 1362. I emailed Larry Newitt of Natural Resources Canada see:
http://www.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/contacts_e.shtml
Part of his response follows (pardon me for the carriage return
problem do to cut and paste):
"Nevertheless, some time ago my colleague Ed Dawson and
I used all available
magnetic reference field models and determined north
magnetic pole positions
at fifty year intervals from 1550 to the present. The
positions for 1850
and 1900 were close to where Ross and Amundsen
determined the pole to be,
and the determinations subsequent to that agree fairly
well with the path
based on observation. The determinations prior to
1850 show the following
path: In 1600, the pole was located in the Arctic
Ocean at approximately
80° N, 130° W. With time, it moved south and east,
crossing Prince Patrick
Island, moving down the west side of Melville Island
and the east side of
Victoria Island before ending up in the King William
Island-Boothia
Peninsula area in the early 19th century.
Although there are great uncertainties in this
picture, I nevertheless feel
that it is accurate enough to rule out the possibility
that the magnetic
pole was anywhere near the Melville Peninsula or
Southhampton Island in the
early 16th century. Second, there is no real was of
knowing where the pole
was during the time of Nicholas Lynn's possible
expedition. A linear
projection back from the 1600 position would place it
at roughly 85° 160° E,
however there is no reason for believing that it
followed that path. About
all that can be said is that is was probably within
1200 km of its 1600position."
Even given the most favorable reading regarding your hypothesis, this
1200 km range would put the pole to the N of Baffin Bay circa 1362,
and even farther away circa 1500.
Hopefully I will have more time tomorrow.
Michael
Dick Wisan
>
>
>Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net> says in
>news:cfsjk...@news2.newsguy.com:
>
>> No. The nautical mile is different from but as precise as
>> the statute mile (or the Roman mile or...). It's defined
>> to come out even in degrees of lattitude, which the statute
>> mile is not. The difference has nothing to do accuracy of
>> speed measurement.
>
>1.131 versus 1.151.
>
>A definition of convinience, since knots were alraedy in use.
>lol.
You could measure any speed ratio by knots. Or, are you claiming
an amazing coincidence?
Martyn Harrison
<wis...@catskill.net> said:
>No. The nautical mile is different from but as precise as the
>statute mile (or the Roman mile or...). It's defined to come out
>even in degrees of lattitude, which the statute mile is not. The
>difference has nothing to do accuracy of speed measurement.
Out of interest, I recall from somewhere in the mists of my memory, a technique
for measuring speed simply by counting waves and measuring their angle in a
cunning way.
The idea was you got the speed, based on wavelength (relative to the length of
the ship) and frequency (number of waves per unit of time). Because this also
relates to the wave speed w.r.t. the planet you don't get caught out by current
drift as the waves move independent of the current or something.
I can't recall exactly how this worked, though, and it may be a false
recollection as I can't figure out how I might go about doing it.
Philip Deitiker
> You could measure any speed ratio by knots.
That is correct. But if you were going to relate
nautical travel with land travel you might try to make sure
your knots were parcels of miles before you left port.
This is going to a have some bearing on those who start making
maps, is that not correct, because at the time of columbus
there are no particular knowledge in place that defines
the circumference of the earth. And so where are these maps
being made and who by (Rome, at the directive of the pope, no
less)
> Or, are you claiming an amazing coincidence?
I wouldn't do anything like that, perish that thought.
--
Pi and the square root of 10.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
[heh-heh, lets see who catches my little trick]
Inger E Johansson
"David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:ZLnUc.213$PW1...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
Are you sure it's the hood and not the colors on the shield?
Inger E
>
>
> David B.
>
>
>
Inger E Johansson
No need to suppose but Nicholas of Lynn did use it anyhow, as had by his
days at least one Dane done in the Greenland-NA waters by then.
Inger E
>
>
> David B.
>
>
Doug Weller
I repeat, which Nicholas of Lynn, since you think there are up to 4 of
them, do you mean? You've posted no evidence that it is the Nicholas of the
Kalendarium.
Doug
David B.
>
>> >
>> >How come it's so impossible for Philip D to accept that Nicholas of
Lynn
>> >participated in at least one of the sailings to Greenland and North
>> >America in mid 14th century?
>>
>> Because his hood was the wrong colour.
>
>Are you sure it's the hood and not the colors on the shield?
Yes :-)
David B.
Dick Wisan
>
>
>Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net> says in
>news:cfsvf...@news2.newsguy.com:
>
>> You could measure any speed ratio by knots.
>
>That is correct. But if you were going to relate
>nautical travel with land travel you might try to make sure
>your knots were parcels of miles before you left port.
Quite, whatever kinds of distance units you like. Once you
think of the nautical mile and the advantage of using it for
navigation, you might use that. Before you've thought of it,
you'll have to use some other unit.
>This is going to a have some bearing on those who start making
>maps, is that not correct, because at the time of columbus
>there are no particular knowledge in place that defines
>the circumference of the earth. And so where are these maps
>being made and who by (Rome, at the directive of the pope, no
>less)
And there are no chip logs. I don't know what Columbus used
for a distance unit when he was trying to time them with his
pulse and a puddle of spit, , but I bet it was the same unit
they used at court when they were arguing about just how big
the world was, Do you happen to know what that unit was?
>
>> Or, are you claiming an amazing coincidence?
>
>I wouldn't do anything like that, perish that thought.
Perish, indeed.
--
Richard N (Dick) Wisan
No wit in this SIG (By order of DSH)
To reply to me, disHONOR my address
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--- snip ---
>No. The nautical mile is different from but as precise as the
>statute mile (or the Roman mile or...). It's defined to come out
>even in degrees of lattitude ...
Not quite, not exactly and not now. :-)
See http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/nautical%20mile
"A nautical mile is approximately a minute of arc ... and was
formerly defined so. The earth is not a perfect sphere, so a
minute of arc can be less than, or more than, a nautical mile
by a few metres. The approximation to the minute of arc is
convenient for air and sea navigation".
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>eric.s...@sum.co.nz says...
>>
>>Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> ---- snip ---
>>>
>>>>1. No-one measured 54*, in fact if it was the entrance to
>>>>labrador then it was the wrong measurement.
>>>
>>>If Morrison is right ("Admiral of the Ocean Sea"), nobody _could_ use
>>>an astrolabe from a moving deck. Magellan did take one along, set it
>>>up on a tripod ashore, and even so got highly inaccurate measurements.
>>
>>I'm afraid Morrison was not quite right except with respect to the
>>original land based astrolabe. See
>>http://encarta.msn.com/media_461526216_761558742_-1_1/Tycho_Brahe%E2%80%99s_Astr
>>olabe.html
>>
>>However, the navigational astrolabe was designed to be suspended from
>>a ring at the top. See
>>http://www.zakariya.net/images/gallery/fullsize/Aramco-Astrolabe-Face.jpg
>
>That thing of Tycho Brahe's is surely more a calculating or demonstrating
>device than an observational tool.
Yes, that's a prtaicularly complicated one but it was the only picture
that I could find with Google. :-)
>Most astronomical astrolabes were
>disk-shaped like a circular slide rule. They are often not intended for
>precise observation at all. The mariner's astrolabe is simplified because
>it's supposed to be purely a measuring device. The ring in the top is
>there because the thing _is_ supposed to be usable for measurement.
>What's wrong with it is the difficulty in using it, especially without
>a fixed support. The advantage of an astronomical astrolabe is that it
>makes calculations for you.
But so too does the marine astrolabe when you take into account all
the fiddly bits, engraved ellipses etc. Its just that it doesn't
handle spherical trigonometry.
>That's quite separate from making the meas-
>urement itself. Obviously, after you've measured an angle, whether with
>cross-staff, astrolabe, quadrant, or sextant, you need a way to calculate
>what it means.
>
> [snip]
>
>>I don't believe it is entirely coincidence that the vast proportion of
>>surviving astrolabes are of the navigational variety.
>
>Well, that's a good point, to show that the thing was meant to be used
>to measure angles, but I find it hard to imagine using a free-swinging
>thing like an astrolabe accurately from even a gently moving deck.. To
>use it even ashore will require a trained knack.
Better still, a tripod. This was the Roman practice with their
equivalent instruments.
>My guess is they
>weren't common seagoing tools, and Magellan's trouble was that he was
>not an astronomer, and unaccustomed to using the instrument.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Inger has certainly identified at least four in the past and I seem to
recall she even said their had been six over various centuries.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>> >If they had compasses
>> >in 1400 it becomes moot to the argument. The 'Norse' now have
>> >compasses, that is for certain, of course they also have GPS,
>> >lol.
>>
>> The question is what did they have c1360?
>>
>"The Vikings used a basic form of compass in the eleventh century A.D"
>http://education.qld.gov.au/curriculum/area/maths/compass/html/compassbearings/cohis.html
>
>Somewhat contradictory but still applicable:
>
>"Reports of chinese sailors using this early compass surfaced around
>the 12th Century, detailed in Zhu Yu's "P'ingchow Table Talk".
>The first recorded instance of the compass being used in Europe
>occured around 1190.
>This was similar to the early chinese lodestone model, but by the end
>of the 13th century, the English had mounted a needle on a pin, the
>basis of the compass as understood today."
>http://nvnv.essortment.com/compasshistory_rumo.htm
>
>Keep in mind that the marine traffic around the Baltic was controlled
>by the Hanseatic League, which would have been up to date with the
>modern navigational tools.
People commonly think of news from the orient having to pass through
the Mediterranean and around Spain before it got to the Baltic.
However, the trading connection via the Danube and the Black Sea meant
that the Baltic could get the information even before it could get to
the Meditteranean.
>
>You can even look for a later date specifically for the mariner's
>compass:
>"The discovery of the Mariner's Compass*, which is generally
>attributed to Flavio Gioia, a citizen of the once celebrated maritime
>republic of Amalfi, about the year 1302, gave, as it has been truly
>said, to man the dominion of the sea, and marked the commencement of a
>new era in the history of commerce and navigation. The use of the
>compass rapidly spread..."
>http://www.londonancestor.com/london-docks/london-docks-03.htm
>
>Even assuming that this was the first use of a marine compass in
>Europe, that would still give over half a century for the use of the
>compass to have spread to the Hansea and to the Norse.
>
>Can we set this argument aside...?
>
>Michael.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:9l23i091j6d446oqb...@4ax.com:
>
>> Bullshit. I made that comment **with a supporting
>> reference** back in Message-ID:
>> <l9mth0tfqah2qn25l...@4ax.com>. I did that
>> in response to your assertion based on one of the lesser
>> web sites that "The first person recorded to have used the
>> compass as a navigational aid was Zheng He (1371-1435),
>> from the Yunnan province in China, who made seven ocean
>> voyages between 1405 and 1433". You seem to have advanced
>> beyond that now.
>
>This clearly has everything to do with the Norse, since they are
>obviously full-blooded chinese [sic]. That is not the post, you
>responded to <jf21i0tf1todvuq65...@4ax.com>
Aah - then the author of Message-ID:
<l9mth0tfqah2qn25l...@4ax.com> is obviously an imposter.
>
>> Are you arguing that the Norse have no relevance to this?
>
>If I beleived Inventio Fortunata, I might, but since it has been
>described as various myths and legends, I am enclined to beleive
>that the Norse role in this is to have provided a place where 2
>men undertook some Bar talk.
But what you 'believe' is not evidence. That's why I try not to
'believe' these things. I consider the evidence and, if it allows me
to, I reach a conclusion. In this context, a conclusion can be changed
by additional evidence while a belief remains fixed against all
opposition.
>
>> The question is what did they have c1360?
>
>No, the question is whether the use of compasses on a ship in
>the years 1360 has anything what-so-ever to do with the
>placement of greenland and the 'north pole' on the maps of
>Ruysch in 1508 and Mercator later that century.
Well, that's your question. Have you tried to answer it?
> The issue of the compass is a side issue of little importance,
>the reason it is of little importance because during the years
>between 1300 and 1360 the Norse were have trouble simply getting
>where they had been getting for 500 year previous.
The Norse might have been experiencing trouble but that was partly for
political reasons. However they don't seem to have been the only
people sailing those water at that time and contact was maintained.
> A compass
>does not, as far as I know, delineate the magnetic feilds of
>icebergs.
One of your well known straw icebergs?
>
>> A problem for you is that the evidence which suggests they
>> 'may' have had magnetic compasses does not depend on the
>> level of trade. I'm not sure why you are dragging sundials
>> into this unless you are confusing them with the sun
>> compass.
>
>A sun compass is a modified sundial, just as a martime compass
>is a modified compass, just as a maritime astrolabe is a
>modified astrolabe, just as a maritime 'nautical' mile is a
>modified mile, just as a maritime clock is a modified clock . .
If you mean 'sun compass' why don't you say 'sun compass'?
>
>
>> I see. You are one of those who knows so little that you
>> thing the voyaging began and ended with the Royal Knarrs
>> .... .
>
>Intent, and the intent is structured around lost missions, and
>failed missions.
We know so well of the Royal knarrs sailing to Iceland and Greenland
through the surviving volume of Norse documentation. While not so well
documented there is plenty of evidence pointing to others having
sailed to that part of the world as well.
Eric Stevens
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<Nb6Uc.459854$Gx4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Donev...@worlnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote:
> These reports of people using astrolabs in the north
> sea and compasses at the north pole is funny.
Position of a ship as regards to latitude is fairly simple to measure.
This could be determined by measuring the maximum height the sun or a
known star gets above the horizon. There were various instruments used
starting with the cross-staff. Longitude is a different matter.
For a start 0 degrees longitude is a completely arbitrary factor. The
only reason it is generally accepted is because the Royal Observatory
at Greenwich produced the best almanacs. For a long time the French
used a line through Paris. Attempts to establish longitude by
calculating the angle between true north and magnetic north failed
because not only did the Magnetic North Pole move but there was
extensive local variation. In fact at one point it was thought there
was more than one magnetic pole. By the 17th century it was
established that the only way to determine longitude was to measure
time differences.
The first successful method was observing the moons of Jupiter and
comparing the motion you see where you are with the predicted motion
as observed from your base point. This was only possible on land. The
next method was Lunars, this needed a quadrant and detailed tables for
the moon's movement. The Royal Observatory was set up to provide the
star maps and data on the moon's orbit required. It took about four
hours off calculating to reduce an observation to a position. The
final method was to use a chronometer.
You are perfectly correct about the usefulness of magnetic compasses
near the poles, which is why all vehicles operating there are required
to have gyro compasses as well.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
eric.s...@sum.co.nz (Eric Stevens) wrote:
> use but was not altogether popular as repeated use tended to lead to
> blindness in at least one eye.
Which is why it was replaced by the back-staff.
Inger E Johansson
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:fmp4i0deskilrc73u...@4ax.com...
Would have been bad if they hadn't! That goes for Swedes and some Norwegians
as well. Up to 1228 when the Smolensk tract between the merchandisers in
Riga and Russia, agreed to and signed by the merchandisers on Gotland
island(Swedes), were ratified no German merchandiser neither in Lübeck nor
living in Riga had the rights to trade down the Russian rivers. But that had
the Swedes had since 861 AD. It was Birger
Jarl(http://www.fact-index.com/b/bi/birger_jarl.html) who finally ended
Sweden's chances short afterwards with an other tract/treaty. Btw. King
Magnus Eriksson had Birger Jarl as an ancestor.
Anyhow up to mid 13th century Swedish Royalty and Swedish Merchandisers and
sailors used to travel down the Russian rivers to Bysans. Some to work, up
to 12th century in varjag guard at Byzan's court, others to trade.
> >
> >You can even look for a later date specifically for the mariner's
> >compass:
> >"The discovery of the Mariner's Compass*, which is generally
> >attributed to Flavio Gioia, a citizen of the once celebrated maritime
> >republic of Amalfi, about the year 1302, gave, as it has been truly
> >said, to man the dominion of the sea, and marked the commencement of a
> >new era in the history of commerce and navigation. The use of the
> >compass rapidly spread..."
> >http://www.londonancestor.com/london-docks/london-docks-03.htm
> >
> >Even assuming that this was the first use of a marine compass in
> >Europe, that would still give over half a century for the use of the
> >compass to have spread to the Hansea and to the Norse.
NO the Norse had it from the Swedes who had had it from Arabs in Asia Minor!
That's very well documented.!!!
Inger E
Inger E Johansson
Correct. And I also told the groups, and Doug, which Nicholas of Lynn it was
that participated in at least one of the voyages. Btw I gave a clue for
people to find him. I gave it once again the other day - it's same Grey
Friar Nicholas of Lynn who owned a ship sailing at least between the Orkney
islands and Lynn in late 1360's..... That's all in ship-documents and harbor
papers.
Inger E
>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>