Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
The Third Story

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Horus Journals TOC
Kronos Journals TOC
Pensee Journals TOC
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors



A Hypothetical Ancient Telescope
Francis G. Graham

The telescope is traditionally thought to have been invented around 1608 and first used astronomically by Galileo in 1610. However, there are numerous instances of Renaissance "discoveries" actually being rediscoveries of ancient knowledge. Electroplating, mechanical clocks, steam engines, concentrating mirrors, and the circumnavigation of Africa are certain and sure examples. Since less than ten percent of the writings of the ancient world survive, it is likely there are many more examples of lost discoveries.

Archaeological evidence from Pompeii shows that the ancient Romans used water-filled glass globes to magnify words on manuscripts. Later, and independently, the tailors and seamstresses of the Pennsylvania Harmonite Society discovered the uses of glass globes as lenses when these glass globes were filled with water, circa 1845. It's likely that the magnification abilities of glass globes filled with water have been discovered many times in the past and applied to practical problems of observation.

[*!* Image: Magnification by glass globe filled with water]

[*!* Image: Glass globe lens in Old Economy, a Harmonite community. It was used for sewing]

I therefore decided to investigate the conjecture that the ancients used water-filled glass globes to construct a telescope. It is important to realize that this experiment does not prove glass globes were used to make telescopes, but only that a simple extension of technology the ancients possessed could have resulted in such a device. But no remains of an ancient glass globe telescope have ever been found.

It is a simple matter to take a large glass globe filled with water, and perhaps, on an afternoon of lazy curiosity, place it in front of a smaller water-filled glass globe. At that point, looking through the two, one would behold an inverted magnified image of a distant scene. Or perhaps, such a scribe using a waterfilled globe to magnify some small writing may have thought that two globes were better than one, and so, operating in the same fashion, an inverted distant scene would have been brought much closer. One could even dispense with a pair of glass globes; a single water-filled glass globe looking into the rounded concave polished interior of a serving spoon would have revealed a magnified, inverted distant scene brought much closer. To summarize: the chances for discovering a telescope in ancient society once magnification was discovered are quite large; it would be almost surprising, actually, if someone did not stumble over it.

In the spirit of Thor Heyerdahl's Kon-tiki and Ra experiments, one can create hypothetical situations from ancient technology even though they are not in the historical record. I therefore took two spherical water-filled glass globes, of 1000 mI and 25 mI capacity, and brought them together to form an optical system in which the 1000 ml flask was the objective and the 25 mI flask served as the eyepiece. The system focused parallel rays of light when the globes were held nine centimeters apart.

[*!* Image: The hypothetical ancient telescope as assembled and used. LABELS: spherical flasks filled with water for magnification]

Initial observations were made April 11, 1978, and the Moon appeared wondrous in the telescope. Words simply fail in describing the beauty of a nearly full Moon magnified by water! The craters Tycho, Copernicus, Plato and the Alps were easily visible. I repeated these observations November 4, 1984. It is apparent that any ancient astronomer viewing the moon under such circumstances would not fail to recognize that the Moon has a landscape.

I next aimed the hypothetical ancient telescope at Jupiter. After the most careful adjustment, the optical centers were lined up and the astigmatism reduced. The disk of that planet was full of rainbow chromatic images caused by the crude nature of the optical system. Nevertheless, out of the halo, were the two tiny dots of two Galilean moons of Jupiter next to the planet. The other two apparently did not at that time have an angular separation large enough to escape the imperfect image.

Saturn was next but, in spite of the most careful painstaking adjustment, the rings of Saturn were beyond the capabilities of this combination of water-filled glass globes. Yet, a more complex optical system of water-filled globes might have resolved it.

Additionally, stars were visible in this hypothetical ancient telescope which were not visible to the eye.

On August 18, 1978 I aimed the telescope at Venus. One could see the 50% illuminated disk of that world. A crescent Venus would have been still more visible because of its larger angular size.

Basically, these experiments show that the ancients could have done astronomy with such devices as their technology had already created, but can not prove that they did. We need additional evidence to suggest that they did use such telescopes.

We turn, therefore, to the ancient record in hopes of finding clues to suggest that at least some observations could not have been made with the unaided eye.

Ancient observations of the Moon

Most of the work on the subject of the Moon in the ancient world consisted of integrating it into a cosmological perspective. To the ancient scientists of Alexandria's Library, the Earth was fixed in the center of the universe and the only question was the precise nature of the Moon's orbit. Both Aristarchus and Ptolemy had determined its size and distance within 10% error. The Earth was fixed, and all the motions of the Moon and the planets around it were fourier-analyzed by Claudius Ptolemy that is, resolved into a combination of circular motions. This allowed the ancient astronomers to determine that the Moon was slower at its apogee and faster at its perigee, in accordance with the later discovered laws of Johannes Kepler in the 17th Century. It also allowed the ancient astronomers to predict solar and lunar eclipses, and allowed solar and lunar calendars to be set down with great accuracy.

[*!* Image: The Alpine Valley on the Moon [NASA]]

Having accomplished this, there was not a great deal to say about the physical nature of the Moon or planets by Ptolemy or the other cosmologists. Not one lunar drawing was found before the 16th century. The later copyists, who immortalized Ptolemy's system, were more concerned with a world-view and its uses for navigation and prediction of phenomena than with actual physical drawings of individual objects that may or may not have been telescopic. It seems unthinkable that no ancient artists ever sketched the features visible in the face of the Moon with the eye alone. Yet, none have survived partly due to the higher priority given to translating, reproducing and distributing the cosmological texts.

In spite of this, a few very precise verbal descriptions of the Moon's surface have come down to us; unfortunately these are second-handed, from other commentators.

Plutarch (46-120) was a biographer famous for his Parallel Lives. For this reason, even his minor works were copied and preserved. One of his short essays in a collection of short essays on morals is sadly out of place. It's called "On the face in the Disk of the Moon", and, alas, part of it too is lost.

At that time there were competing theories about the physical nature of the lunar surface. Aristarchus held that the Moon was a solid body of its own with a unique landscape: mountains, "hollows", etc. The other theory, created by Clearchus, was that the Moon was a crystalline sphere reflecting the landscape of the Earth.

Clearchus noticed the similarity between the lunar sea pattern and the map of the Mediterranean Sea area which, then, was the presumed center for the world's known surface. He also thought that the crater we can Tycho, whose rays are visible only near full Moon, and which otherwise is not at all conspicuous, was the reflected image of the Sun. The Alps and Apennine mountain ranges on the Moon, named on the Moon for their similar positions in the Mediterranean Sea analogy, are a holdover from Clearchus' ideas. Plutarch's essay is a dialogue between proponents of the two theories. Both theories, note, accepted the landscape visible on the Moon; it was just a question of whether the landscape was indigenous to the Moon or a reflection of the Earth.

Plutarch goes on to describe the prominent lunar topography, and it would be a tribute to extremely keen vision if it were done without a telescope. But he goes further: he described how the heights of lunar mountains could be measured by measuring the length of their still longer shadows at sunrise or sunset. He mentions as a specific analogy 6350 ft. Mt. Athos in Greece, which near sunset casts a shadow 50 miles across the Aegean sea to the island of Lemnos, where it darkened a brass cow that was built by the people there. It is difficult to determine whether Plutarch was describing an observation which might be made or which had been made, and the remainder of the essay which might have clarified this is lost; but it is certain that, if the shadows of lunar mountains actually were observed, they are several standard deviations from the visual acuity of the human eye alone. In short, such an observation is impossible without a telescope.

[*!* Image: The Full Moon as seen from space [NASA]]


There are many ancient observations of Venus as a crescent and symbolic depictions with crescents of the goddesses representing Venus. Personified as Ishtar or Astarte, crescents appear everywhere temples or votive structures are found. Astarte bore a crescented staff. Even in the Judeo-Christian tradition, Satan is also called Lucifer, the "bearer of light. In ancient Hebrew tradition, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Lucifer is also associated with Venus the planet. Lucifer traditionally is represented with two horns. Are these the cusps of the crescent planet Venus?

The Venus crescent can get as large as arc-minute, which is just beyond the resolution of the normal eye and possibly within the range of people with exceptional visual acuity. But at that time, it is very near inferior conjunction and the crescent is very thin. At the time when Venus looks like the crescents of the goddess, it is only one-third of this apparent size. 1 wonder, then, if some kind of crude telescope were used to see Venus in the crescent phase.

There are other astronomical observations of the ancient world which seem to require telescopes, and undoubtedly more will surface. In Ptolemy's Quadripartite, an astrological text, we find references to the Praesepe cluster which is difficult to see as individual stars, without a telescope. Objection might be raised to the telescope theory, since the full-phase of Venus, or anything past half-phase, was disproof of Ptolemy's planetary system. However, then Venus is difficult to see with the kind of crude glass globe telescopes we are considering, because of its smaller angular size.

Nevertheless we've suggested a case for the ancients having had occasional access to crude telescopes. We cannot discount extraordinary natural vision, or even lucky guessing, as the cause of these observations, but I merely offer the telescope hypothesis as one to be considered. Its acceptance depends in part on the prejudices and dispositions we have toward the intelligence of our forefathers a mere hundred generations ago. Although the amount of truly scientific knowledge has increased a millionfold, I believe the basic inventiveness of the human mind is no different than one sees today. The ultimate demonstration, of course, will be when an archaeologist actually finds an ancient telescope.

[*!* Image: Ishtar with a crescent above her head as shown on an ancient Babylonian chalice]

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665