astronomy

"The first Graeco-Egyptian astrologists did not invent the discipline they claimed to teach the Hellenic world. They used Egyptian sources going up to the Persian period which were themselves at least partially derived from ancient Chaldaean documents. Traces of this primitive substratum still survive in our much later texts, erratic blocks transported on to more recent soil. When we find mentions there of ‘the king of kings’ or ‘satraps’ we are no longer in Egypt but in the ancient Orient … We limit ourselves to noting that in all appearances, the priests who were the authors of Egyptian astrology stayed relatively faithful to the ancient Oriental tradition."

"It is worth quoting Anthony Grafton’s summation of Scaliger’s assault on the prisca theologia presumptions of his contemporaries here, as Scaliger’s position strongly foreshadows the nineteenth-century philhellenist view of cultural relations in the ancient world: “In astronomy and astrology, it had been the Greeks, not the Babylonians and the Egyptians, who performed most of the observations and, above all, tabulated and systematized the results. The ancient Near East had been not a world of gold, populated by calm sages, but a world of iron, haunted by superstitious fears and only fitfully illuminated by the work of certain science- minded priests — themselves prone to spin out unfounded speculations.”’"

"You climb a mountain situated close to the sea or a level plain, and then observe the setting of the sun and find out the dip of the horizon... [Then] find the value of the perpendicular of the mountain. You multiply this height into the sine of the complementary angle of the dip, and divide the total by the versed sine of this dip itself. Then multiply (twice) the quotient into 22 and divide the result by 7. You will get the... earth's circumference (in the same units) in which the height of the mountain has been found."

"In making his own calculation, however, Christopher Columbus preferred the values given by the medieval Persian geographer, Alfraganus: one degree (at the equator) is equal to 56.67 miles. That was Columbus’s first error, which he compounded with a second: he assumed that the Persian was using the 4 856-foot Roman mile; in fact, Alfraganus meant the 7 091-foot Arabic mile.Taken together, the two miscalculations effectively reduced the planetary waistline to 16,305 nautical miles, down from the actual 21,600 or so, an error of 25 percent."

"The gods living in the north at the Meru mountain (i.e., at the north pole) see the Sun, after it has risen, for half a solar year; so is done by the demons too [who live at the south pole]."

"On any day calculate the longitude of the Sun and the Moon for sunrise or sunset without applying the longitude correction, and therefrom find the time (since sunrise or sunset), in ghatis, of rising or setting of the Moon; and having done this, note the corresponding time in ghatis from the water clock. From the difference, knowledgeable astronomers can calculate the local longitude in time."

"Having fixed a pole, on a level piece of ground, and having described a circle by a cord attached to the pole, one should mark the points with pegs, where the shadow of the top of the pole touches the circle. The line joining these pegs is the West to East line. Having increased the length of the cord (which is equal to the distance of the two pegs fixed in the East West line) by itself, one should provide two slings at each end of the cord. Fix the slings on the two pegs (already fixed) stretch the cord with its mid point towards the south and fix a peg at the place, where the mid point of the cord touches the ground. He should similarly proceed towards the North. The line joining these pegs will be the South to North line."

"The waning strength and stability of Dharma in the four yugas is graphically depicted by representing it as a majestic bull which stood firm on its four legs in the golden age of the world (krtayuga) and lost one of its legs to [ either of] the succeeding two yugas, Tretā and Dvāpara, to stand tottering on a single leg during the present kaliyuga."

"The Hindu religion is the only one of the world’s great faiths dedicated to the idea that the cosmos itself undergoes an immense and indeed an infinite number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond […] to those of modern scientific cosmology."

"The Aitareya Brāhmana (VII.15.4), describing the merits of exertion, has the picturesque phrases: "A man while lying is the Kali; moving himself he is the Dvāpara; rising, he is the Tretā; walking, he becomes the Krita.'""

"A hundred to you, ten thousand years, two Yugas, three Yugas, four we make."

"In the great philosophy of Brahma, such violent turns of the scale are quite unknown. It embraces vast stretches of time, cycles of human ages, whose successive lives gravitate in concentric circles, and travel ever slowly towards the center...."

"In his commentary to the Physics of Aristotle, Simplicius gives us an interesting quotation from a commentary to the Meteorology of Posidonius, written by ... Dealing with the difference between physics and astronomy, Geminus says... to the former... belongs the examination of the nature, power, quality, birth, and decay of the heavens and the stars, but astronomy does not attempt... this, it makes known the arrangement of the heavenly bodies, it investigates the figure and size and distance of earth and sun and moon, the eclipses and conjunctions of stars and the quality and quantity of their motions... with help from arithmetic and geometry. But although the astronomer and the physicist often prosecute the same research... they do not proceed in the same manner, the latter seeking for causes and moving forces, while the astronomer finds certain methods, adopting which the observed phenomena can be accounted for. "For why do sun, moon, and planets appear to move unequally? Because, when we assume their circles to be excentric or the stars to move on an epicycle, the appearing anomaly can be accounted for.., and it is necessary to investigate in how many ways the phenomena can be represented, so that the theory of the wandering stars may be made to agree with the ... Therefore also... Herakleides of Pontus... said that also when the earth moved... and the sun stood still.., could the irregularity observed relatively to the sun be accounted for. ...[I]t is not the astronomer's business to see what by its nature is immovable and of what kind the moved things are, but framing hypotheses as to some things being in motion and others being fixed, he considers which hypotheses are in conformity with the phenomena in the heavens. He must accept as his principles from the physicist, that the motions of the stars are simple uniform, and regular, of which he shows that the revolutions are circular, some along parallels, some along oblique circles." This... distinguishes clearly between the physically true causes of observed phenomena and a mere mathematical hypothesis which (whether true or not) is able to "save the phenomena." This expression is ... a favourite... with Simplicius, who doubtless had it from the authors long anterior to himself, from whose works he derived his knowledge. It means that a certain hypothesis is able to account for the apparently irregular phenomena revealed by observation, which at first sight are puzzling and seem to defy all attempts to make them agree with the assumed regularity of all motions, both as to velocity and direction. In this passage Geminus points out that an astronomer's chief duty is to frame a theory which can represent the observed motions and make them subject to calculation, while it is for this purpose quite immaterial whether the theory is physically true or not."

"He gives the Greek text of the Placita Philosophorum... about Philolaus, Herakleides and Ekphantus, and continues: " Occasioned by this I also began to think of a motion of the earth, and although the idea seemed absurd, still, as others before me had been permitted to assume certain circles in order to explain the motions of the stars, I believed it would readily be permitted me to try whether on the assumption of some motion of the earth better explanations of the revolutions of the heavenly spheres might not be found. And thus I have, assuming the motions which I in the following work attribute to the earth, after long and careful investigation, finally found that when the motions of the other planets are referred to the circulation of the earth and are computed for the revolution of each star, not only do the phenomena necessarily follow therefrom, but the order and magnitude of the stars and all their orbs and the heaven itself are so connected that in no part can anything be transposed without confusion to the rest and to the whole universe." According to this statement, Copernicus first noticed how great was the difference of opinion among learned men as to the planetary motions; next he noticed that some had even attributed some motion to the earth, and finally he considered whether any assumption of that kind would help matters. ...It must then have struck him as a strange coincidence that the revolution of the sun round the and the revolution of the epicycle-centres of Mercury and Venus round the zodiac should take place in the same period, a year, while the period of the three outer planets in their epicycles was the synodic period, i.e. the time between two successive oppositions to the sun. This curious relationship between the sun and the planets must have struck scores of philosophers, but at last the problem was taken up by a man of a thoroughly unprejudiced mind and with a clear mathematical head. Probably it suddenly flashed on him that perhaps each of the deferents of the two inner planets and the epicycles of the three outer ones simply represented an orbit passed over by the earth in a year, and not by the sun! His emotion on finding that this assumption would really "save the phenomena," as the ancients had called it, that it would explain why Mercury and Venus always kept near the sun and why all the planets annually showed such strange irregularities in their motions, his emotion on finding this clear and beautifully simple solution of the ancient mystery must have been as great as that which long after overcame Newton when he discovered the law of universal gravitation. But Copernicus is silent on this point. This may have been the way followed by Copernicus, but we cannot be sure..."

"The statement of Diogenes, that Herakleides attended the Pythagorean schools is of... importance... as it is... likely... their influence (which is also perceptible in his ideas about atoms, which he calls masses...), tended to convince him of the truth of the... simple explanation of the daily motion of the stars proposed by Hiketas and Ekphantus. ... He first alludes to Herakleides when discussing the chapter in which Aristotle considers the motion of the starry vault. Aristotle... remarks that, taking for granted that the earth is at rest, the starry sphere... and the planets might either both be at rest, or both be in motion, or one be at rest and the other in motion. And these cases he considers (says Simplicius) "on account of there being some, among whom were Herakleides of Pontus and Aristarchus, who believed they could save the phenomena (account for the observed facts) by making the heavens and the stars be immovable, but making the earth move round the poles of the equator... from the west, each day one revolution as near as possible; but 'as near as possible' is added on account of the [daily] motion of the sun of one part (degree); so that, if then the earth does not move, which presently he (Aristotle) is going to show, the hypothesis of both being at rest cannot possibly save the phenomena.""

"[T]he principal reason why the heliocentric idea fell perfectly flat, was the rapid rise of practical astronomy, which had commenced from the time when the Alexandrian Museum became a centre of learning in the Hellenistic world. Aristarchus had no other phenomena to "save" except the stationary points and retrograde motions of the planets as well as their change of brilliancy; he may even have neglected the inequality of the sun's apparent motion originally discovered by Euktemon and recognized by Kalippus. But when similar and much more marked inequalities began to be perceived in the motions of the other planets, the hopelessness of trying to account for them by the beautifully simple idea of Aristarchus must have given the deathblow to his system, which thereby even among mathematicians lost its only claim to acceptance, that of being able to "save the phenomena." Most likely, as we have already said, these new inequalities had already more or less dimly commenced to make themselves felt in the days of Apollonius... and in that case we can understand why he did not feel disposed to simplify the system of movable excentrics by gathering the reins of all the unruly planetary steeds into one mighty hand, that of ."

"The system of Anaxagoras, like that of Empedokles, aimed at reconciling the Eleatic doctrine that corporeal substance is unchangeable with... a world which... presents the appearance of coming into being and passing away. The conclusions of Parmenides are... accepted and restated. Nothing can be added to all things; for there cannot be more than all, and all is always equal... Nor can anything pass away. What men commonly call coming into being and passing away is... mixture and separation... This... reads almost like a prose paraphrase of Empedokles (fr. 9); and it is... probable... Anaxagoras derived his theory... from his younger contemporary, whose poem was most likely published before his own treatise. ...Empedokles sought to save the world of appearance by maintaining that the opposites—hot and cold, moist and dry—were things, each...real in the Parmenidean sense. Anaxagoras regarded this as inadequate. ...[T]hings of which the world is made are not "cut off with a hatchet" ...the true formula must be: There is a portion of everything in everything."

"Let us define the job of the astronomer in the classical phrase as "saving the appearances" of the celestial movements. ...[A]n astronomical theory must "save" in the sense of "preserve"– ...[i.e.,] it must not deny any of the apparent celestial movements as appearances, and in this bare sense, it might merely comprise a record of observed positions... [I]n order to take into account all the apparent movements, it must... predict apparent movements in the future from those observed in the past. ...[T]o be able to look backwards and forwards beyond recorded positions of the planets, it must arrange the celestial movements in a pattern of orderly recurrence. ...[B]y setting up this pattern of order, it saves... in a second sense... [I]t gives them salvation... by making them intelligible and... explicating them in terms of a permanent order."

"While knowledge of the dimensions of the universe had... advanced, philosophers found it... difficult to agree with regard to the physical constitution of... heavenly bodies, though all acknowledged that they were of a fiery nature, the Stoics in... supposing them... of... pure fire or ether, which pervaded... upper regions of space. ...[T]he peculiar appearance of the "face of the moon" pointed to its being... different... and... Anaxagoras and Demokritus... recognized... it was a solid mass having mountains and plains, while Plato held it to be chiefly... earthlike matter. ...[In] Plutarch "On the face in the disc of the moon"... opinion of the Stoics [that the moon is a mixture of air and gentle fire] is refuted, since the moon ought not... be invisible at new moon if it did not borrow all its light from the sun; and this... proves... it is not... a substance like glass or crystal, since s would... be impossible. The manner in which the sunlight is reflected... and... absence of a bright, reflected image of the sun and... earth, prove... the substance of the moon is not polished but is like... earth. ...Plutarch ...to combat the idea that the moon cannot be like the earth since it is not in the lowest place ...asserts ...it is not proved ...earth is in the centre of the universe, as space is infinite and therefore has no centre; ...if everything heavy and earthy were crowded together ...we should expect all ...fiery bodies ...likewise brought together."

"Rosen quotes various passages from De Revolutionibus in which Copernicus uses without distinction, the terms: principle, assumption and hypothesis, for fundamental s: "Furthermore astronomy, that divine rather than human science, which inquires into the loftiest things, is not free from difficulties. Especially with regard to its principles (principia) and assumptions (assumptiones), which the Greek call 'hypotheses' (hypotheses)..." These axioms, in order to be recognized as true, must satisfy two conditions: 1) apparentias salvare (save the appearances): "the results deduced from them must agree with the observed phenomena within satisfactory limits of error."..: 2) aequalitatem tueri [to protect equality]: "They must be consistent with certain preconceptions, called 'axioms of physics,' such as that every celestial motion is circular, every celestial motion is uniform, and so forth.""

"In the 1590s... Kepler adopted the ideas of Copernicus. In the heliocentric model... the simultaneous motion of the earth around the sun and about its own axis explained the observed motion of the planets and stars. Kepler set out to prove that this... hypothesis... an attempt to "save the appearances", did... correspond with reality. In doing so, however, he noticed that the circular orbits... proposed by Copernicus were not in keeping with his... observations. ...Kepler wanted... to glorify God, who... was responsible for the harmonious arrangement of the universe... This aim is... in the... first lines of the preface to The Secret of the Cosmos: "It is my intention... to show... that the most great and good Creator, in the creation of this moving universe and the arrangement of the heavens, looked to these five regular solids... so celebrated from the time of Pythagoras and Plato... and that he fitted to the nature of those solids the number of the heavens, their proportions and the law of their motions.""

"[I]n Plutarch's book On the face in the disc of the Moon...[o]ne of the persons in the dialogue, being called to account for turning the world upside down, says that he is quite content so long as he is not accused of impiety, "like as Kleanthes held that Aristarchus of Samos ought to be accused of impiety for moving the hearth of the world.., as the man in order to save the phenomena supposed... that the heavens stand still and the earth moves in an oblique circle at the same time as it turns round its axis.""

"Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point: firstly, for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle... Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof... but... confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in astronomy the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained [saved] (possunt salvari apparentia sensibilia); not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them."

"Here Pharnaces... broke in... you are not going to draw me on... to answer your charges against the Stoics, unless we first get an account of your conduct in turning the universe upside." Lucius smiled : "Yes, my friend," he said, "only do not threaten us with... heresy, such as used to think that the Greeks should have had served upon Aristarchus of Samos, for shifting the hearth of the Universe, because that great man attempted 'to save phenomena' with his hypothesis that the heavens are stationary, while our earth moves round in an oblique orbit, at the same time whirling about her own axis. ...[W]hy are those who assume that the moon is an earth turning things upside down, any more than you who fix the earth where she is, suspended in mid air, a body considerably larger than the moon? At least mathematicians tell us so, calculating the magnitude of the obscuring body from... eclipses, and from the passages of the moon through the shadow. For the shadow of the earth is less as it extends, because the illuminating body is greater, and its upper extremity is fine and narrow, as even Homer... did not fail to notice. He called night 'pointed' because of the sharpness of the shadow. Such... is the body by which the moon is caught in her eclipses, and yet she barely gets clear by a passage equal to three of her own diameters. Just consider how many moons go to make an earth, if the earth cast a shadow as broad at its shortest as three moons. Yet you have fears for the moon lest she should tumble, while as for our earth, Aeschylus has perhaps satisfied you that Atlas'Stands, and the pillar which parts Heaven and Earth His shoulders prop, no load for arms t' embrace!'Then you think that under the moon there runs light air, quite inadequate to support a solid mass, while the earth, in Pindar's words, 'is compassed by pillars set on adamant.' And this is why Pharnaces has no fear... of the earth's falling, but pities those who lie under the orbit of the moon... Yet the moon has that which helps her against falling, in her very speed and the swing of her passage round, as objects placed in slings are hindered from falling by the whirl of the rotation. For everything is borne on in its own natural direction unless this is changed by some other force. Therefore the moon is not drawn down by her weight, since that tendency is counteracted by her circular movement. ...[B]ut the earth, being destitute of any other movement, might naturally be moved by its own weight; being heavier than the moon not merely in proportion to its greater bulk, but because the moon has been rendered lighter by heat and conflagration. It would actually seem that the moon, if she is a fire, needs earth all the more, a solid substance whereon she moves and to which she clings, so feeding and keeping up the force of her flame. For it is impossible to conceive fire as maintained without fuel. But you Stoics say that our earth stands firm without foundation or root." "Of course," said Pharnaces, "it keeps its proper and natural place, as being the essential middle point, that place around which all weights press and bear, converging towards it from all sides. But all the upper region, even if it receive any earth-like body thrown up with force, immediately thrusts it out hitherward, or rather lets it go, to be borne down by its own momentum.""

"For it is now clear to me that there are no solid spheres in the heavens... But there really are not any spheres in the heavens.... and those which have been devised by the authors to save the appearances exist only in the imagination, for the purpose of permitting the mind to conceive the motion which the heavenly bodies trace in their course and, by the aid of geometry, to determine the motion numerically through the use of arithmetic... Of course, almost the whole of antiquity and also very many recent philosophers consider as certain and unquestionable the view that the heavens are made of a hard and impenetrable substance, that it is divided into various spheres, and that the heavenly bodies, attached to some of these spheres, revolve on account of the motion of these spheres. But this opinion does not correspond to the truth of the matter..."

"The language... as to the Moon's movements and the Epicyclic Theory... settled later on by Ptolemy... deserve careful examination... Astronomy had... become... technical and mathematical, sharply distinguished from general physical enquiry. Even Hipparchus... "though he loved truth above everything," yet was not versed in "natural science," and was content to explain the motions of the heavenly bodies by an hypothesis mathematically consistent, without care for its physical truth... Take the case of the Moon. Ptolemy was content to "save the phenomena"... by a system which admirably accounted for her very complex movements, but which involved the consequence that her distance from us at the nearest must he half that at the farthest, and her angular diameter therefore double!"

"When Newton wrote his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and System of the World, he distinguished the phenomena to be saved from the reality he postulated. He distinguished the "absolute magnitudes" that appear in his axioms from their "sensible measures" which are determined experimentally. He discussed carefully the ways in which, "the true motions of particular bodies [may be determined] from the apparent," via the assertion that "the apparent motions... are the differences of true motions.""

"Now, so far as appearances go, it... the same thing whether the heavens, that is, all space with its contents, revolve round a spectator at rest in the earth's centre, or whether that spectator... turn round in the opposite direction in his place, and view them in succession. The aspect of the heavens, at every instant, as referred to his horizon (which must be supposed to turn with him), will be the same in both suppositions. And since... appearances are also, so far as the stars are concerned, the same to a spectator on the surface as to one at the centre, it follows that, whether we suppose the heavens to revolve without the earth, or the earth within the heavens, in the opposite direction, the diurnal phenomena, to all its inhabitants, will be no way different. The Copernican astronomy adopts the latter as the true explanation of these phenomena, avoiding... the necessity of otherwise resorting to the cumbrous mechanism of a solid but invisible sphere, to which the stars must be supposed attached, in order that they may be carried round the earth without derangement of their relative situations inter se [among themselves]. Such a contrivance would..., suffice to explain the diurnal revolution of the stars, so as to "save appearances;" but the movements of the sun and moon, as well as those of the planets, are incompatible with such a supposition... On the other hand, that a spherical mass of moderate dimensions (or, rather, when compared with the surrounding and visible universe, of evanescent magnitude), held by no tie, and free to move and to revolve, should do so, in conformity with those general laws which, so far as we know, regulate the motions of all material bodies, is so far from being a postulate difficult to be conceded, that the wonder would rather be should the fact prove otherwise. As a postulate, therefore, we shall henceforth regard it... The earth's rotation on its axis so admitted, explaining, as it evidently does, the apparent motion of the stars in a completely satisfactory manner, prepares us for... its motion, bodily, in space... to explain... the apparently complex and enigmatical motions of the sun, moon, and planets. The Copernican astronomy adopts this idea in its full extent, ascribing to the earth, in addition to its motion of rotation about an axis, also one of translation or transference through space, in such a course or orbit, and so regulated in direction and celerity, as, taken in conjunction with the motions of the other bodies of the universe, shall render a rational account of the appearances they successively present... [i.e.,] an account of which the several parts, postulates, propositions, deductions, intelligibly cohere, without contradicting... experience. In this view of the Copernican doctrine it is rather a geometrical conception than a physical theory, inasmuch it simply assumes the requisite motions, without attempting to explain their mechanical origin, or assign them any dependence on physical causes. The Newtonian theory of gravitation supplies this deficiency, and, by showing that all the motions required by the Copernican conception must, and that no others can, result from a single, intelligible, and very simple dynamical law, has given a degree of certainty to this conception, as a matter of fact, which attaches to no other creation of the human mind."

"[I]t does not follow that because heaven moves in a circle that the earth or something else rests at its center... because circular movement... does not require... any body at rest at the center... [I]t is possible to imagine that the earth moves with heaven in its daily movement... [A]ssuming that the earth moves with or contrariwise to heaven, it does not follow... that celestial movement would stop; so... this circular movement of heaven does not require that the earth should remain motionless at the center of the world. ...[I]t is not impossible that the whole earth moves, with a different movement or in another way... For otherwise the parts near the center would never reach the place where they are destroyed and would be perpetual... Against this objection and against the principal argument is the manifest evidence of heaven itself, for to save appearances and from our observations of celestial movements... there are spherical bodies called epicycles in heaven, and that each epicycle has its own proper circular movement about its center... different from the... heavenly sphere... [I]t is impossible... that any body should be at rest in the center of this epicycle."

"When Copernicus, instead of leaving the earth at rest in the center of the world, gave it not only two rotations on its own center, but... an annual revolution around the sun, astronomers were able to maintain that these hypotheses are not... realities, that it suffices for them to be fictions by which the phenomena are saved in a simpler... more exact manner than... Ptolemy's devices. But physicists did not willingly use this loophole; they not only saw in the system of Copernicus a model enabling them to construct new tables of celestial movements, they also imagined something... that claims to reveal a truth. They imagined that the earth is a planet of the same nature as Venus, Mars, or Jupiter. The problem... can each of the... wandering stars be a world similar to the world in which we are living, having at its center an earth covered by water, surrounded by air?"

"[T]he heliocentric idea of Aristarchus might just as well have sprung out of the epicyclic theory as from that of movable excentrics... But with regard to the curious dependence of each planet on the sun in the Ptolemaic system.., the zodiacal inequality of the planets showed that in any case a simple circular motion would not "save the phenomena"; while the discovery of a strongly marked inequality of the moon, depending on its position with regard to the sun, confirmed the notion that the sun was mixed up in the theories of all the celestial bodies alike. ...For more than fourteen hundred years it remained the Alpha and Omega of theoretical astronomy, and whatever views were held as to the constitution of the world, Ptolemy's system was almost universally accepted as the foundation of astronomical science."

"The first book contains the general description of the universe and the foundations by which he undertakes to save the appearances and the observations of all ages. He adds as much of the doctrine of sines and plane and spherical triangles as he deemed necessary to the work."

"Greek astronomers observed intricate motions of the sun, moon, and planets on the two-dimensional sky. They explained them—saved the appearances—by positing simple regular motions... in three dimensions. The success... [was] brought to a triumphant conclusion by Kepler..."

"Thro' scudding drifts the rainy Hyades Vext the dim sea."

"Looking upward, I saw through a sudden rift in the clouds Aldebaran and the Hyades! In all this there was a hint of night—the lynx, the man with the torch, the owl. Yet I saw—I saw even the stars in absence of the darkness."

"Still from the living root the mantling green Against the Dog-star spreads a leafy screen."

"Songs that the Hyades shall sing, Where flap the tatters of the King, Must die unheard in Dim ."

"But Pallas now Tydides’ soul inspires, Fills with her force, and warms with all her fires, Above the Greeks his deathless fame to raise, And crown her hero with distinguish’d praise. High on his helm celestial lightnings play, His beamy shield emits a living ray; The unwearied blaze incessant streams supplies, Like the red star that fires the autumnal skies, When fresh he rears his radiant orb to sight, And, bathed in ocean, shoots a keener light."

"Great Hector, cover’d with his spacious shield, Plies all the troops, and orders all the field. As the red star now shows his sanguine fires Through the dark clouds, and now in night retires, Thus through the ranks appear’d the godlike man, Plunged in the rear, or blazing in the van; While streamy sparkles, restless as he flies, Flash from his arms, as lightning from the skies."

"Him, as he blazing shot across the field, The careful eyes of Priam first beheld. Not half so dreadful rises to the sight, Through the thick gloom of some tempestuous night, Orion’s dog (the year when autumn weighs), And o’er the feebler stars exerts his rays; Terrific glory! for his burning breath Taints the red air with fevers, plagues, and death. So flamed his fiery mail."

"As for Hubble’s brightest star criterion, Sandage... has shown that objects in the of galaxies which Hubble believed to be highly luminous stars are... regions of glowing of intrinsic luminosity... two magnitudes brighter... If Sandage’s result is accepted, then the distances of all galaxies beyond those in which Cepheids can be detected... must be augmented by a factor... between 5 and 10... with the result that the rate of increase of velocity with distance will be reduced to between 5O and 100 kilometres per second per megaparsec. Consequently, taking 80 as a rough average... the , if it has expanded uniformly, will have to be increased to about 13-5 thousand million years. If... it was expanding more rapidly in the past... this... might be reduced to about 9 thousand million years."

"[I]n... 1952, Baade... announced that Hubble’s entire distance scale was in error... According to Baade, the distances formerly assigned to all extragalactic objects must be multiplied by a factor of about two. Later it was generally accepted that this... was probably nearer three. ...[I]t followed that the sizes of all such objects had been underestimated. ...Therefore ...this nebula must be... twice as far away... [T]he average absolute magnitude at maximum brightness of novae... in the Milky Way attain on the average... 7.4, whereas those... in the Andromeda... 5.7... [T]he apparent anomaly could be removed by placing... Andromeda... rather more than twice as far as previously. ...[[w:Distance measure|[E]xtragalactic distances]] had ...been underestimated because of an error in converting... relative distances of s into an absolute scale. ...Baade's revision ...applied only to extragalactic objects... [and] had momentous consequences concerning the size and , for the scale of both was correspondingly increased."

"At last, in 1949, the... ... was ready... Humason... succeeded in photographing the spectra of two remote galaxies in the . These exhibited red-shifts which, on the Doppler interpretation, indicated... one-fifth of the velocity of light. [I]n 1956, with... photoelectric equipment attached... [W. A.] Baum obtained a red-shift... recessional velocity of about two-fifths of the velocity of light."

"An important new survey of the law relating red-shifts and magnitudes published in 1956 by Humason, Mayall and Sandage suggested... that the expansion of the universe may have been faster in the past... so that its age may be somewhat less than that estimated on the hypothesis of uniform expansion. But... caution, for a recent review (1958) by Sandage of Hubble's criteria for constructing the extragalactic distance-scale has revealed that, not only must his Cepheid criterion be corrected but also... the brightest star criterion..."

"All of this picture of the expansion is exciting, pleasant, coherent, well in order. But what if the s are not to be interpreted by the Doppler-Fizeau law in the classical mechanical view, or general relativistically, by the fact that the ratio of the of a photon (as measured by a co-moving observer) to the space radius of curvature is independent of ? Not speaking of quasars, the first indications for non-Doppler redshifts for a galaxy have been provided... What if not all galaxies were formed at the dawn of the Big Bang; what if some are being formed now? Then, at least, the can be anything larger than the age of our own Galaxy..."

"All kinds of questions remain. Many have to do with cosmology. How did the universe originate? How did the galaxies become distributed in space like the suds in the kitchen sink..? Why is the cosmological constant apparently very tiny but non-zero and has a peculiar value that leads the universe to expand more rapidly?"

"Red-shifts are produced either in the nebulae, where the light originates, or in the intervening space through which the light travels. If the source is in the nebulae, then red-shifts are probably velocity-shifts and the nebulae are receding. If the source lies in the intervening space, the explanation of red-shifts is unknown, but the nebulae are sensibly stationary."

"This circumstance of an expanding universe is irritating. ...To admit such possibilities seems senseless to me."

"If a distant galaxy is moving relative to us, its entire is Doppler-shifted in frequency. Its s are displaced relative to those of stationary light sources. Thanks to this effect, we know that distant galaxies recede from the solar system at speeds proportional to their distances from us. That's the effect that told us of the expanding universe, and of its birth, long ago, in the Big Bang."

"A book, too, can be a star, explosive material, capable of stirring up fresh life endlessly, a living fire to lighten the darkness, leading out into the expanding universe."