I know that it is inappropriate and ungrateful to engage in a polemic, or more “precisely” a “ptolemic”, with a “great old” scholar, but I must argue with Master Ptolemy! In my defence: Had Ptolemy not outed himself as the pope of the geocentric worldview, Giordano Bruno, who was at odds with him many centuries later, would not have been burned….
(You can be at odds with me; I’m just old and not a natural scientist. I can be persuaded because the debate is sweet, even if it is fiery for me. Of course, my argument is much less important than the debate of Giordano Bruno because I am not so convinced of my hypothesis as he was of his principles).
That’s all I said to the great old man:
“Dear Master Claudius!
I doubt you “accidentally” had overlooked the fact that there is such a significant discrepancy between your “own” precession parameters and Hipparchus’s. I do not believe you were not familiar with the differences in Spica coordinates measured in centuries.”
At first glance, this may sound like praise, but it is a serious objection.
Because of this “debate”, I researched the net and quickly came across some former “debaters” of late.
Many scholars have expressed doubts regarding Ptolemy’s data, especially regarding the data related to precession.
Some are more lenient. According to them, the multiple translations and copying, the slight differences in the Arabic numerals in the manuscript, which are easily confused, lead to distortions of content and highly disputable data in the Almagest, incredibly incorrect star coordinates.
The more hard-line scholars consider the Almagest unprofessional, misleading treatise, a collection of errors and forgeries, thus proclaiming Ptolemy himself a “forger”.
It cannot be entirely without foundation that in his book “Crime of Claudius Ptolemy”, Robert R. Newton called Ptolemy simple a “criminal”.
And Dennis Rawlins called Ptolemy “the greatest forger of antiquity”. He gave the Almagest the nickname “ALMAJEST” in a witty play on words.
“In the material that has survived, Hipparchus does not use a single consistent coordinate system to denote stellar positions. He inconsistently uses several different coordinate systems, including an equatorial coordinate system (i.e., declinations) and an ecliptic coordinate system (i.e., latitudes and longitudes).”
Duke’s “Ancient Declinations and Precession”
“…Dennis Rawlins recognised that “the locations specified by Ptolemy might be right ascensions… that the passage in Almagest 7.3 might be originally from Hipparchus”.
The summary of “PTOLEMIC”: According to renowned scientists who have detailed examined the subject, it cannot be ruled out that some of Ptolemy’s stellar coordinates included in Almagest are not celestial ecliptic but rather celestial equatorial, RA coordinates.
(Celestial ecliptic: ecliptic longitude (Ecl. long.) and ecliptic latitude Ecl. lat.); others zodiacal. Celestial equatorial: hour angle, aka right ascension (RA) and declination (dec.), the celestial equivalent of the Earth’s meridian system, Earth’s longitude, and latitude; blogger’s note. See below).
The RECOUNTING of TIME 