European Astronomers Research Articles

THE FOUNDING OF ARCETRI OBSERVATORY IN FLORENCE

The first idea of establishing a public astronomical observatory in Florence, Capital of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, dates to the middle of the eighteenth century. Initially, the use of a low building on a high ground was proposed, and the hill of Arcetri was suggested as a suitable location. At the end of the century, the Florence Observatory - or <italic>Specola</italic> - was built instead on a tower at the same level as the city's centre. As soon as astronomers started to use this observatory they recognized all its flaws and struggled to search for a better location. Giovanni Battista Donati, Director of the <italic>Specola</italic> of Florence from the eve of the Italian Unification in 1859, finally succeeded in creating a new observatory: first, he obtained funds from the Parliament of the Kingdom of Italy to build an equatorial mounting for the Amici 28-cm refractor, which could not be installed conveniently in the tower of the <italic>Specola</italic>; then, he went through the process of selecting a proper site, seeking funds and finally building Arcetri Observatory. Although Donati was a pioneer of spectroscopy and astrophysics, his intent was to establish a modern observatory for classical astronomy, as the Italian peninsula did not have a national observatory like those located in many foreign capitals - Florence was the capital of the Kingdom of Italy from 1865 to 1871. To promote this project, Donati made use of writings by one of the most authoritative European astronomers, Otto Wilhelm Struve. This paper describes all the steps that eventually led to the inauguration of Arcetri Observatory in 1872, almost 150 years ago.

European Astronomical Society prizes 2020

The European Astronomical Society awarded its most prestigious prizes during its annual meeting held from 29 June to 3 July 2020. The meeting was entirely virtual and the largest such gathering of astrophysicists so far.

The carbon footprint of large astronomy meetings

The annual meeting of the European Astronomical Society took place in Lyon, France, in 2019, but in 2020 it was held online only due the COVID-19 pandemic. The carbon footprint of the virtual meeting was roughly 3,000 times smaller than the face-to-face one, providing encouragement for more ecologically minded conferencing.

European Astronomical Society prizes 2019

The European Astronomical Society awarded its most prestigious prizes during its annual meeting, the European Week of Astronomy and Space Science, held in Lyon, France, from 24 to 28 June 2019.

Before Copernicus: The Cultures and Contexts of Scientific Learning in the Fifteenth Century ed. by Rivka Feldhay and F. Jamil Ragep

Reviewed by: Before Copernicus: The Cultures and Contexts of Scientific Learning in the Fifteenth Century ed. by Rivka Feldhay and F. Jamil Ragep Matthew Stanley Before Copernicus: The Cultures and Contexts of Scientific Learning in the Fifteenth Century. Edited by rivka feldhay and f. jamil ragep. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2017. 344 pp. $120.00 (hardcover); $39.95 (paper); $39.95 (ebook). Once your name is on a revolution, you become special—uniquely worthy of attention, while your predecessors fade in importance. This has been the case for Copernicus for a long time. While historians of science have certainly tried to understand and explain his context for the last half-century or so, Before Copernicus represents a new, singular attempt to solve the "Copernicus problem" by focusing completely on the era before him—fifteenth century astronomy and how it was formed. This book is an attempt to reject efforts to find a single explanation for Copernicus, instead assembling a methodologically diverse group of [End Page 645] scholars to talk about him in a multicultural and multidisciplinary way. The introduction by Feldhay and Ragep provides an excellent review of the Copernicus historiography, against which they explicitly contrast themselves. They take as their point of departure the assumption (based on good evidence) that Copernicus was originally only interested in reforming the geocentric system of astronomy. And to do that, heliocentrism was not a necessary step. He chose to use that solution. Why did he do so? They do not accept "genius" as an answer. Rather, they contend that historians should think of knowledge in a dynamic way, as something that accumulates in communities and around problems. In particular, they say, there is increase in production of knowledge wherever there are boundaries crossed (language, discipline, or culture). In a highly unusual and refreshing move, they lay out all the historical assumptions and guideposts they are working with, and the conclusions they draw from them. The most important assumption is that they take the similarities between Copernican and Islamic hay'a astronomy seriously, and demand explanations for them. The book concludes that the Copernican system came from what the editors call multiple transformations along multiple paths—most importantly of the practices of Ptolemaic astronomy and of the social and epistemic status of astronomy. The eight chapters are divided into three categories: fifteenth century European social and political contexts, fifteenth century European intellectual and scientific contexts, and the multicultural background to the Copernican revolution. The individual authors try to establish what it was like to be a scholar of astronomy in that era, particularly in the specific locales where Copernicus would be learning and working. The core question that all the chapters touch on is: which Islamic astronomy texts likely laid the foundations for the Copernican system, and how did the ideas and practices in those texts arrive in Latin Europe? A crucial part of this puzzle is that, if Copernicus and his predecessors were indeed indebted to these Islamic astronomers, why did they never say so? None of those figures or texts were explicitly named by contemporary European astronomers. Nancy Bisaha's chapter is extremely helpful for making sense of this. She explains how contemporary European ideas about their own identity and their relationship with Ottoman civilization made it eminently reasonable that Islamic astronomy was brought to Italy by people either who did not know its origins or who deliberately obscured it out of social discomfort. As ideas traveled west they were changed or cloaked, consciously or unconsciously. [End Page 646] Chapters by Edith Dudley Sylla and Jamil Ragep make detailed cases for a technical genealogy between Islamic astronomy and the Copernican system, presenting the most concentrated and focused arguments available on this issue. Perhaps the most valuable chapter is the one written by Raz Chen-Morris and Rivka Feldhay on an essential epistemic foundation for Copernicus—the idea that astronomical observations do not necessarily speak for themselves, but should be interpreted according to the conditions of the observer. This volume's significance for world history is best exemplified by essays such as Sally Ragep's careful exploration of exactly what astronomy looked like in the fifteenth century Islamic world. These...

Resurrecting Maunder’s ghost: John ‘Jack’ Eddy, the Maunder Minimum, and the rise of a dilettante astrophysicist

SUMMARYDuring the 1970s, widespread scientific interest in the risks of climate change prompted John A. Eddy (1931–2009), an astrophysicist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO, to investigate whether sunspots could be used to predict future climate changes. Methodologically, Eddy’s investigations were uniquely historical in nature. By interrogating old manuscripts of solar observations since the early seventeenth century, he identified what appeared to be a correlation between the so-called Maunder Minimum – a virtual cessation of sunspots between 1645 and 1715 – and severely cold temperatures during the Little Ice Age. While he could not identify the physical mechanisms that governed solar-climate relationships, this historical episode fostered his curiosity. Fortuitously, Eddy’s solar-climate research coincided with efforts to use satellites to monitor and record variations in solar energy output, which in context constituted a significant development in managing environmental and technological risk.But using the Maunder Minimum to advance the frontiers of knowledge about solar-terrestrial relationships was not Eddy’s only – or even primary – motivation. In the mid-1840s, German astronomer Heinrich Schwabe (1789–1875) discovered what appeared to be a decadal sunspot cycle, the existence of which inspired generations of astrophysicists to more precisely estimate its length as well as determine its underlying causes. Eddy, however, came to believe that the astronomical community failed to consider the implications of subsequent evidence suggesting that Schwabe's solar cycle was not an enduring characteristic of the sun. Instead, he reasoned that evidence offered by nineteenth-century European astronomers Gustav Sporer and Edward Maunder in the 1880s and 1890s had been entirely overlooked. But rather than arguing that their evidence was overlooked in error, Eddy identified what he cast as a conspiracy of wilful ignorance on the part of a staid and conservative astronomical community. By utilizing Eddy's private hand-written notes as they appeared in undergraduate lectures, public speeches and academic talks, as well as his appreciation for the seminal views of sociologist of science Thomas Kuhn, I show that Eddy sought to rectify this injustice by proposing a contrasting vision of science as an interdisciplinary, collaborative and creative process of exploring the ignored areas between scientific disciplines.

European Astronomical Society prizes 2017

The European Astronomical Society awarded its most prestigious prizes during the annual European Week of Astronomy and Space Science, held in Prague from 26–30 June 2017.

Exploring the Temporality of Complex Computational Practice: Two Eclipse Notes by John of Murs in the ms Escorial O II 10

Manuscript Escorial O II 10 is a late 13th-century document containing a well-known collection of astronomical texts from the arts faculty context. During the first half of the 14th century, this manuscript belonged to John of Murs, an important master of art of the Paris University, responsible, with others for the establishment of the Parisian Alfonsine Tables. John of Murs used the Escorial manuscript to record a wide range of notes over a 20-year period. Among those notes I examine here one concerned with two solar eclipses. Although I will review the relevant information concerning eclipse theory and mathematical practices of European astronomers in the 14th century, this essay will not focus directly on such matters. Rather I am interested in a documentary question: looking at a specific astronomical source I seek clues about the temporal dimensions of a computation as it was recorded in the codex. This focus will help assess the computation practices of John of Murs and will allow an understanding of the meanings such a computational record could have both for its author and in the more general context of early Alfonsine astronomy.

Karel Slavíček, SJ and His Correspondence from China with European Astronomers and Scholars

Karel Slaviček, SJ (1678–1735) was a Jesuit missionary to Chinese Empire, and in the same time the mathematician, astronomer and musician, coming from the Czech Crown lands. He was one of the eight Jesuits of the old Bohemian province who reached China. His letters from China are an ample source of his observation of life and customs in China, as well as of Chinese science. These letters in Czech translation, together with their originals (mostly in Latin), were published, for the first time, in 1995. This edition was later translated into Chinese and published in 2002 in Beijing. This article aims to acquaint the readers with the scientific contribution of Karel Slaviček, which we can found primarily in his letters to European scholars published so far.

Albert of Brudzewo's Little Commentary on George Peurbach's ‘Theoricae Novae Planetarum’

1. IntroductionAlbert of Brudzewo (c. 1445-95) was the most influential astronomer at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow when Nicholas Copernicus began the serious study of astronomy.1 He not only taught the subject - although he probably did not teach Copernicus - he trained the other teachers of astronomy in Copernicus 's day, and supplied the text used in the second and more advanced part of the astronomy course. This was his Little commentary on George Peurbach 's 'Theoricae novae planetarum ', completed in 1482, and printed in Milan in 1495.2 It is now generally accepted that Copernicus would have been familiar with Brudzewo 's little commentaryby the time he left Cracow, and that the book contains many items relevant to his later campaign to reform Ptolemaic astronomy.3 On the vexed question of the reality of the celestial orbs, modern commentators usually depict Brudzewo as a fictionalist, that is as denying the physical reality of the orbs introduced by Peurbach in the Theoricae novae. One important case is the late Edward Rosen who classifies Brudzewo as a fictionalist in the last of a series of responses objecting to Noel Swerdlow's work on Copernicus 's first statement of heliocentrism, the Commentariolus, and especially Swerdlow's account of Copernicus 's route to heliocentrism.4 Rosen rejects classifying Brudzewo as a realist on the basis of two frequently quoted passages from the little commentary, which will be discussed in detail below.5 More recently, in an important contribution to Copernicus studies that is especially valuable as a guide to the milieu at Cracow during Copernicus 's education, Andre Goddu also takes Brudzewo to be a fictionalist.6 Goddu, it must be said, does a better job than Rosen, locating many key passages in Brudzewo, correctly identifying him as an opponent of Averroes, and even feeling obliged to explain why, despite being a fictionalist Because he sometimes reports Peurbach's view, [Brudzewo] seems to agree with Peurbach's realism about spheres, orbs, eccentrics and epicyles.7 Like Rosen, Goddu rejects Swerdlow's account of Copernicus's route to heliocentrism.8 In this paper I will suggest that the common view of Brudzewo is an error based on selective reading and ignoring the context in which Brudzewo was writing. The latter is especially important, as it is only through understanding the context, including the intellectual background and intended audience, that we can correctly evaluate the contents of the Little commentary. Rosen, I will suggest, commits both these errors. To be fair to Goddu, there is evidence for fictionalism in the little commentary. However, a fuller consideration of the contents, together with an examination of the context in which the book appeared, will, I suggest, show that Brudzewo supported the existence of Peurbach's orbs. Two of the most important issues here are locating Brudzewo in the wider dispute between Ptolemaic astronomers and Averroists on the nature of celestial spheres, and examining the other main text used in the astronomy course at Cracow, the commentary on Sacrobosco 's Sphere written by John of Glogow. Glogow's book contains a very clear statement of the reality of Peurbach's orbs, and some other remarks, for example on the equant, that exactly parallel those in Brudzewo.9 If, following Goddu, we acknowledge Glogow and Brudzewo as the two most influential teachers at Cracow in Copernicus 's day, then these conclusions lead to an interesting outcome. First, the case of Cracow provides additional evidence that a significant number of European astronomers before Copernicus accepted that celestial orbs were real. Throughout the elementary astronomy course, students at Cracow were presented with a consistent and clearly stated position on celestial orbs of the type found in Peurbach's Theoricae novae; both main texts, by Glogow and Brudzewo respectively, endorsed the reality of celestial orbs. Cracow thus deserves to be recognized as a centre of innovation in the new approach to astronomy initiated by Peurbach, which spread rapidly throughout Europe in the decades following Copernicus's education. …

The Revolving Planets and the Revolving Clocks: Circulating Mechanical Objects in the Mediterranean

In 1574 the Ottoman Sultan Murad III invited TaqI al-Din Muhammad Ibn-Ma'araf to build an observatory in Istanbul. Using his exceptional knowledge in the mechanical arts, TaqI al-Din constructed instruments and built mechanical clocks that he used in his observations of the comet of 1577. Such astronomical and mechanical activity was documented, in 1580, by an anonymous painter who illustrated some miniatures in a manuscript titled Shahinshahnama. In the same decade, European astronomers, such as Tycho Brahe, built instruments and promoted a mechanical worldview of the celestial bodies. Although the scientific cultures coexisted for years, current historiography tends to present them as developing along separate linear paths. Yet, if we examine closely the peculiarities in one of the miniatures, we extract clues about a possible connection between TaqI al-Din's and the European mechanical culture.Astronomers played many roles within the court, where they relieved the anxieties of the rulers they served and helped provide those same rulers with displays of power and influence. During wars, times of crises or natural disaster, they were summoned to lengthy and usually tense meetings in which they looked for guidance from the stars. They also attended solemn receptions when ambassadors from far-flung nations brought with them gifts of scientific objects and books. More than any other early modern scientific figures, they operated within cross-cultural networks and were aware of adjacent cultures.1 Traditional historiography, however, tends to view them through a narrow cultural lens and cuts them off from those adjoining cultures.2In the historiography of Islamic TaqI al-Din emerges as a purely Islamic astronomer. Scholars have desired to show that even up to the seventeenth century, natural philosophy in Islam was still viable, and so they have looked toward TaqI al-Din as the last representative of its 'golden age'. They framed TaqI al-Din's achievements as an internal scientific product of an Islamic culture, operating without regard to Europe's astronomy and mechanical worldview.3 However, they gave little attention to the sources of TaqI al-Din's cutting-edge mechanical skills. As this paper argues, such mechanical skills were acquired via European sources and were incorporated into the ways he observed celestial bodies. The observations materialized into a new science, as he put it, which introduced to the Islamic world the European mechanical worldview of the universe. Moreover, TaqI al-Din not only presented the celestial mechanics as wheels of a machine, but more importantly he carried on his Hermetic belief that just as the artisan manipulates the laws of nature with the machine, so can the mechanic-astronomer manipulate the cosmic order with Hermeticism.SCIENTIFIC OBJECTS AS CLUESIn looking for clues to Taql al-Din's awareness of the rising, mechanical worldview in Europe we pay close attention not only to scientific writings but also to those that are non-scientific. Despite the fact that most of his writings are technical scientific texts, the titles of works, introductions, paintings, and other writers' texts (not necessarily in natural philosophy) give us access to the cultural crossroad where Taql al-Din was situated and where the margins of his surrounding cultural fields overlapped. There are more than a dozen scientific writings found in various libraries and archives in Istanbul that document his intellectual interest; their subjects vary from astronomical models for the planets to observational data of the comet of 1577, to manuscripts of mechanics with instructions how to build automata like clocks and watermills. However, there is also a piece of cultural writing, a manuscript of poetry titled Shahinshahnama (Book of the king of kings), which contains clues about the context within which he worked. The work was composed in 1580 by a Persian poet named 'Ala' al-Din al-Mansur. …

Recenzja książki: James Evans, The history and practice of ancient astronomy, Oford University Press, 1998.

Professor James Evans is a physicist working an University of Pudget Sound in the USA. His reseatch is focused on ancient astronomy and application of that knowledge. He also successfully attempted to build gnomon, astrolabe or analemna – instruments used in antuiquity and medieval times to make observations of celestial bodies. In his work, The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy, professor Evans introduces the reader to the evolution of astronomical knowledge, from the simplest observations made by farmers or sailors to complex astronomical models and calculations of asronomers such as Ptolemy. The author focuses mostly on ancient Babylonians and Greeks as he believes that their input on that field was most significant and the apex of ancient astonomy was Almagest by Ptolemy (one may criticise author’s thesis that Copernicus’ work was mostly a repetition of dicoveries made by the Greek astronomer with addition of the heliocentric theory of the universe). Next, professor Evans speaks of celestial pheres, stars and planets, also explaining the particular theories related to them. What is interesting is the author’s approach to ancient testimonies. He does not only ask what we learn from ancient scriptures, tablets and other findings, but also how do we learn it. Language and phrasing in this book are clear enough to unsderstand for those without background in physics or ancient languages. Priceless addition to this work are numerous illustrations placed on page margins although it happens sometimes that figure to which the current text refers to is located several pages away. This requires te reader to pay close atention to figure numbers. The word ‘practice’ mentioned in this book’s title points to one of the most importants assets of professor Evans’ work. Apart from sharing the knowledge with the reader the author shows him how to use that knowledge to verify the author’s hypotheses and how to make the observations the way they were mentioned in the ancient texts. The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy shows the reader how to make observations of daily and annual movement of the Sun, how to determine latitude of a particular place or how to measure the approximate distance of Sun or the Moon form the Earth. Each of the subchapters is ended by list of excersises that allow to test the freshly gained knowledge. On top of that the author has also provided schematics which allow the reader to build his own astrolabe – an instrument commonly used by Arabic and European astronomers. Some might feel surprised that footnotes have been moved to the end of the entire book which makes it a little difficult to track loci of the texts quoted by the autor. Apparently it is a compromise made for sake of clarity of the lecture and general estethic feeling of the book. Without any doubt The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy is a position worthy of being recommended not only to enthusiasts of physics and astronomy but also of ancient science and culture.

Four years of HELAS

AbstractThe European Coordination Action on HELio‐ and ASteroseismology (HELAS) has completed its fourth and final year of initial funding by the European Commission. Set up as a network which combines solar and stellar physics communities in the important and vigorously evolving field of seismology, HELAS has been able to coordinate the efforts of European astronomers with remarkable success. Four large international conferences including the HELAS‐IV conference on Lanzarote as well as many workshops were organized with a substantial contribution from HELAS. About a dozen workshops, addressing specialized questions in global and local helioseismology and asteroseismology were entirely organized by HELAS. Data analysis tools to prepare the European communities for the upcoming influx of data from new missions have been prepared, tested and demonstrated. Lecture notes and outreach material have been assembled and prepared for general access. As a result, HELAS has an important impact on the scientific output of the astrophysics seismology com‐munities and significantly increased the visibility of European research in this field. This paper summarizes the activities and accomplishments of HELAS (© 2010 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH &amp; Co. KGaA, Weinheim)

The correspondence of Giovanni Santini and Giuseppe Lorenzoni, directors of the Astronomical Observatory of Padua in the 19th century

Giovanni Santini was appointed director of the Astronomical Observatory of Padova from 1817 to 1877. His scientific correspondence covers a period from 1807 to 1874. Most of the letters are from Italian and European astronomers, mainly concerning astronomical subjects. In actual fact, all Santini’s activity was devoted to the classical astronomy, mainly to the new comets and planets orbit calculation, as far as to the compilation of a catalogue of almost ten thousand stars. From 1821 to 1828, he was involved in geodetic observations in order to determine the difference of longitude between Milan-Padua and Padua-Fiume. Giuseppe Lorenzoni was appointed director after Santini’s death, from 1877 to 1913. Since 1873, he took part in the Italian Geodetic Commission to which he devoted almost all his scientific activity. Lorenzoni’s scientific correspondence was partly lost for war reasons. A partial correspondence with Giovanni Virginio Schiaparelli and almost the complete correspondence with Pietro Tacchini, were recovered after the second World War. Santini and Lorenzoni correspondence cover a period about a hundred years long. So, it is an important tool of knowledge for the history of Padova Astronomical Observatory in the 19th century, for its scientific activity, and for the relationship among Italian and European astronomers and institutions.

Conjectures and reputations: The composition and reception of James Bradley's paper on the aberration of light with some reference to a third unpublished version.

In January 1729 a paper written by James Bradley was read at two meetings of the Royal Society. On a newly discovered motion of the fixed stars, later described as the theory of the aberration of light, it was to transform the science of astrometry. The paper appeared as a narrative of a programme of observation first begun at Kew and finalized at Wanstead, but it was, in reality, a careful reconstruction devised to enhance his reputation in response to a recognition that the programme was initially conducted in terms that were inimical to what he conceived to be his interest. The planned attempt to repeat Robert Hooke's celebrated experiment by James Pound, Samuel Molyneux and George Graham was set up at Molyneux's residence in Kew with James Bradley replacing Pound after his untimely and sudden demise. The unexpected and counterintuitive behaviour of the object star γ Draconis and the eradication of any suspicion of instrumental or systemic error led to the abandonment of the attempt to measure annual parallax and the initiation of new conjectures. An annual nutation was proposed but after the observation of a control star, 35 Camelopardalis, this conjecture was abandoned. Unknown to Bradley and Graham a premature approach was made by Molyneux to Newton claiming that the 'nutation' negated the whole of Newton's system. In the abandonment of the nutation yet another conjecture opposed to Newtonian theory was proposed and abandoned. Bradley determined to use his own instrument designed on different principles by Graham to observe the phenomenon in Wanstead. At Wanstead Bradley observed many stars to determine the parameters of the phenomenon. With the law of the motion described, Bradley proposed a hypothesis to explain it. Drawn from his earlier work on the ephemerides of Jupiter's satellites his hypothesis of the 'new-discovered motion' was quickly presented to the Royal Society as Bradley was working on a later and more definitive version of his paper. It is this later, third, unpublished version that is commonly referred to throughout this essay. It issued a challenge to 'anti-Copernicans' to offer an explanation of the observed phenomenon in geostatic terms. One such astronomer, Eustachio Manfredi, had examined the phenomenon of 'aberrations' in detail, the term being his. It was Bradley who first applied the term to the 'new-discovered motion' and within a short time 'aberration' was being applied by astronomers in the reduction of their observations. Annual aberration was widely accepted as evidence of the motion of the Earth. The paper enhanced Bradley's reputation and projected him into the forefront of European astronomers.

Star Formation from Spitzer (Lyman) to Spitzer (Space Telescope) and Beyond11Conference was held in Vienna on 2008 September 10–12, and was part of the European Astronomical Society’s JENAM 2008.

Star Formation from Spitzer (Lyman) to Spitzer (Space Telescope) and Beyond11Conference was held in Vienna on 2008 September 10–12, and was part of the European Astronomical Society’s JENAM 2008.

Past and future of ESO

In 1964, the European Southern Observatory (ESO) came into being as a response to the need of European astronomers for access to large telescopes in good observing conditions. The original plan called for a 3.6 m telescope in addition to a number of smaller instruments. The 3.6 m telescope took some 12 years to build, while ESO headquarters moved from Hamburg to CERN to Garching near Munich, and during the times of office of three Directors General, and it was built on La Silla in Chile, where superior sites had been found. After 1982, when Italy and Switzerland joined the original six member countries, ESO was able to expand by building the 3.5 m New Technology Telescope, and ultimately planning and constructing the VLT on Paranal. At present ESO is a stable organization that has been successful in its original aims, and in view of new plans can look forward in confidence.

Transmission of Computational Methods within the Alfonsine Corpus: The Case of the Tables of Nicholaus De Heybech

By the end of the fourteenth century the tradition, which originated in Castile more than 100 years earlier, had become the main computational tool for European astronomers. A great variety of astronomical tables, often accompanied by texts, followed this tradition, using the same models to describe the motions of the celestial bodies and the same underlying parameters, but differing in presentation. This Alfonsine dominated the scene of Western astronomy for several centuries. Within this corpus are the Parisian Tables of which hundreds of copies in manuscript are extant as well as two editions that appeared before 1500. Of particular interest are various methods and tables for finding the time from mean syzygy to true syzygy, starting with the method described in the canons by John of Saxony. A specific approach to this problem was introduced by an otherwise almost unknown Nicholaus de Heybech of Erfurt.Keywords: tradition; celestial bodies; computational tool; European astronomers; John of Saxony; Nicholaus de Heybech

A United European Astronomy

At a time when the political vision of Europe is struggling to regain focus and momentum, European astronomers are working together more than ever on new projects. Despite the fact that modern astronomy emerged from the European Renaissance, the continent9s lead crumbled in the 20th century. At that time, visionary minds in the United States exploited large economic fortunes to construct great observatories that opened a new window onto the distant universe. Europe, recovering from the world wars, was unable to compete when the United States launched its overwhelmingly comprehensive space program in the 1950s and 1960s. But today, the American and European situations in astronomy are more balanced, and European astronomers look toward the future with renewed optimism, even though they are well aware that, given the cost of projects and the available funds, hard choices will have to be made.

Europe Joins Forces in Push for Monster Scope Project

DWINGELOO, THE NETHERLANDS-- European astronomers want to leapfrog current technology to make a telescope 10 times as wide as today9s largest. But do they have the know-how or the unity?