NavList:

   

Reply

Since I posted the following, in the early hours of this morning, there
have been three postings on the Biruni topic, none of them referring to
that text.

=======================

I think I have found what John Huth is seeking, though I haven't really
read it yet. It's at-

http://www.jscimath.org/uploads/J2010145AG.pdf?CFID=1980504&CFTOKEN=51765461&jsessionid=84303618f42d5fc6af37543e5fa6358265d7

It's ref 37 in the Wikipedia page on Biruni,

Gomez, A. G. (2010) 'Biruni's Measurement of the Earth', Journal of
Scientific and Mathematical Research.

I've no idea whether it's worthwhile or not.

=======================

That recent paper deals with the question of refraction, and claims to have
identified the mountain used for the observation, in the Himalayan
foothills South of Rawalpindi, and provides a profile of the plain below
it, to the South, between the Jhelum and Chenab rivers, which was claimed
to suffice in place of a sea-horizon.

There are several curiosities, including the notion that with an astrolabe,
one might measure a dip of 34' to the nearest minute. All astrolabes that I
have seen have been divided to whole degrees, no finer, and the sighting
and levelling arrangements are remarkably crude. It seems clear that any
similarity between the true radius of the Earth and Biruni's result can
only have been accidental.

I suggest that anyone making pronouncements about Biruni's procedure should
first take a look at the Gomez paper.

George.

contact George Huxtable, at  george@hux.me.uk
or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.

   

Reply