by eesmith | 2025-12-07 16:50:28+00:00
> Thanks for pointing that out but there's must some mistakes on the website.

You were the one who suggested that web site.

> Al-Kindi contribution is on the experiment in showing that tides are caused by the expansion of water due to heat but of course later people know that it mainly due to gravity.

Where is the mistake? That is what I quoted.

Your original premise is "Reading most of the technology articles would have you to believe that dark ages really existed and for more than thousands years".

That is, IMO, quite an exaggeration. In the European context, the "Dark Ages" is a dated and inaccurate term for the early middle ages, so the period of about 500 years after the fall of Rome - far from even a single thousand years that you wrote, which would exclude the Carolingian Renaissance.

The term also contains both anti-Catholic and anti-religion attitudes, by Protestant and Enlightenment thinkers who regarded the Roman Church and religion in general as the oppressors of intellectual thought.

I therefore can't help but think you are listening to some very misinformed writers, which is probably why they are writing about technology and not history.

Like, you wrote "Romans however, had a very limited exposure to ocean tides since they mostly observing the tide-less Mediterranean sea" but the Romans had access to the Atlantic coastline from Gibraltar up to modern day Netherlands, plus the modern English coastline .. and those have tides. Famously so, given Julius Caesar's problems with tides during his invasions of Britain.

For that matter, the Roman Empire also reached the Red Sea, with maritime routes to India all the way to the Ganges. Hardly "limited"!

You wrote "Albumasar in his seminal book on tides was the first hypothesized the lunar correlation" but that correlation was made well before. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_tides#History "An ancient Indian Purana text dated to 400-300 BC refers to the ocean rising and falling because of heat expansion from the light of the Moon." (sounds familiar, yes?), and "Ultimately the link between the Moon (and Sun) and the tides became known to the Greeks, although the exact date of discovery is unclear; references to it are made in sources such as Pytheas of Massilia in 325 BC and Pliny the Elder's Natural History in 77 AD."

Your [1] even says he rejected "rejected Greek thought that moonlight influenced the tides and considered that the Moon had some astrological virtue that attracted the sea." How do you conclude his book was the first to hypothesize the lunar correlation?

You also wrote "Al-Bitruji was the very first astronomer who proposed an alternative to Ptolemy's model of the universe" but that is also not true. The very same paragraph on that Wikipedia page points out "Seleucus of Seleucia is thought to have theorized around 150 BC that tides were caused by the Moon as part of his heliocentric model." and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism adds "a moving Earth was proposed at least from the 4th century BC in Pythagoreanism, and a fully developed heliocentric model was developed by Aristarchus of Samos in the 3rd century BC."

What your [3] says is that he was first "to present the concentric spheres model", it points out how it "was a modification of the system of planetary motion proposed by his predecessors, Ibn Bajjah (Avempace) and Ibn Tufail (Abubacer). He was unsuccessful in replacing Ptolemy's planetary model, as the numerical predictions of the planetary positions in his configuration were less accurate than those of the Ptolemaic model" . It links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentric_spheres which points out that model dates back to the Ancient Greeks.

These far predate the start of Islam, much less the Islamic Golden Age.

The Islamic Golden Age was a fantastic era of scholarship, architecture, and research. Making incorrect claims of primacy tarnishes that glory.