Автор сообщения: Roger
Дата и время сообщения: 07 July 2005 at 07:14:35:
В ответ на сообщение: Re: Предложение
> Someone should let Lukacz know -- imho he honestly tries to understand, not
> just copies Fomenko, and this was a less obvious place (and btw, if the
> quotation from Homer is interpreted correctly, it alone kills much of Fomenko.)
А я случайно нашёл следующую интересную ссылку на Ноэля Свердлова:
Hipparchus, says Swerdlow,
...offered various hypotheses, all quite tentative. He considered the possibility that only zodiacal stars, or perhaps bright zodiacal stars like Spica, move with respect to the equinoxes (as though they were very slow, distant planets). Ptolemy calls this Hipparchus's "first hypothesis." He also considered the possibility that the fixed stars were not fixed at all, but had independent motions, and he left many descriptions of stellar alignments that could later be checked to see if any changes had occurred. Ptolemy used them to show that none could be detected. Hipparchus may also have proposed that the sphere of the fixed stars might oscillate back and forth over a short arc of eight degrees, a theory doubtless related to the Babylonian location of the equinoxes at the eighth degree of Aries and Libra. This is the so-called "trepidation of the equinoxes" described by Theon of Alexandria (late 4th cent.) in his shorter commentary on Ptolemy's Handy Tables." Finally, one of his suggestions was a motion of the sphere of the fixed stars through not less than one degree per century with respect to the equinoxes-- the very motion later confirmed by Ptolemy; but it is evident from Ptolemy's account that this too was highly tentative, something that "Hipparchus too seems to have suspected" in his book On the Length of the Year.
Это объясняет, почему Страбон, зная труды Гиппарха, вовсе не обязательно понимал механизм прецессии.