Timeline for What could an average modern human achieve in medieval times?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2015 at 21:36 | comment | added | Crissov | +1 for “I'm trying to help humanity, not the time traveler”. I don’t share the optimism regarding the printing press, though, which is essential for this answer. | |
| Apr 4, 2015 at 5:57 | comment | added | gia | #4 will get you killed :P start with easier to prove stuff | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 19:30 | comment | added | supercat | @Oldcat: My point was that measurements will show that the Earth, rather than the Sun, is at the center of the celestial sphere; any proposed heliocentric theory must be considered unscientific unless or until one can measure the effects of atmospheric distortion on stellar observations--something I think would be rather difficult with 15th-century technology. | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 18:01 | comment | added | Oldcat | @supercat - Heliocentrism does not eliminate all epicycles until you also reject the requirement for circular movement. It just reduces the number greatly. | |
| Mar 29, 2015 at 22:14 | comment | added | supercat | @BrendanLong: One can eliminate epicycles by having all of the planets orbit the Sun and everything else (including the Sun) orbit the Earth. Beyond that, my point is that from what I've read the difficulty isn't with the Newtonian mechanics. The hybrid geocentric model described above, or even the more complex geocentric-with-epicycles model, can more accurately predict what will be observed through atmospheric distortion than would a heliocentric model which didn't factor atmospheric distortion into account. | |
| Mar 29, 2015 at 21:45 | comment | added | Brendan Long | @supercat The nice thing heliocentrism gives you is that you can explain the motion of the planets without weird features like deferents and epicycles, but you can only do that with calculus and basic knowledge of gravity. I agree that the apparent size of the stars would be hard for an average person to explain or demonstrate, but the accuracy would be enough better to make this the standard method, even if it seemed to make some weird predictions (and it's not like the epicycles made much sense either). | |
| Mar 29, 2015 at 21:41 | comment | added | supercat | ...stars which are a nearly-infinite distance away to appear much closer, theories which don't put the Earth in the center of the celestial sphere would have to be regarded as, at best, mathematically-elegant fancy. | |
| Mar 29, 2015 at 21:39 | comment | added | supercat | @BrendanLong: From what I've read, astronomers weren't simpletons. They could measure the apparent size of the celestial sphere as well as the distance to the Sun, and determine that if the celestial sphere and the Sun were stationary and the Earth were moving around the Sun, the apparent relative positions of stars should noticeably change throughout the year. Since the relative positions of stars don't change in such fashion, that contradicts the idea that the Earth is moving around the Sun. Unless one can demonstrate how atmospheric diffraction can cause... | |
| Mar 29, 2015 at 21:21 | comment | added | Brendan Long | @supercat Heliocentrism is much easier to explain with calculus (the last piece of the puzzle to be discovered, and also the easiest to explain without any special technology), although I doubt an average person would think of that. | |
| Mar 29, 2015 at 18:10 | comment | added | supercat | @Scott: Your post has made me ponder wonder what scientific/engineering principles could be most usefully applied. I would think making a compass shouldn't be hard, but I don't know how readily one could procure a lodestone. Another idea that might be helpful would be a barometer. I think there would be ways of making one which would be capable of at least indicating whether pressure was rising or falling--something mariners could probably learn to appreciate. | |
| Mar 29, 2015 at 18:04 | comment | added | supercat | ...explaining why the Earth would move around the sun given that there's nothing pushing it. Heavenly bodies were made of stuff unlike anything on earth, so it's not implausible that such stuff might magically move itself, but the Earth is made of earth-stuff, which always stops moving in the absence of any driving force (concepts like vacuum hadn't been discovered yet). | |
| Mar 29, 2015 at 18:02 | comment | added | supercat | @sumelic: Many things which are accepted as scientific fact today would be inconsistent with observations people could make in medieval times. For example, a model in which planets revolve around the sun but everything else revolves around the earth is a better fit for celestial observations than one in which everything moves around the sun, unless one is willing to accept that naked-eye-visible stars are both insanely huge (many orders of magnitude larger than the Sun) and insanely far away (many orders of magnitude further away than any planets). Further, one would have a hard time... | |
| Mar 29, 2015 at 17:56 | comment | added | supercat | Also, I was just thinking that while crossbows existed in medieval times, longbows were much faster to reload. The problem with a longbow was the skill necessary to aim accurately while keeping it under tension. Today's compound bows use fancy modern materials, but even with medieval technology I would think the principles could be used to fashion a compound longbow that would could be used accurately by a much wider range of people. | |
| Mar 29, 2015 at 8:16 | comment | added | zeta | The pike is basically just a long spear. I doubt mediaevals needed time travelers to point out the idea. Also, why on earth would most scientific facts be considered heresy? There's a lot of simple chemical concepts that the traveler might be able to introduce, such as the concept of chemical elements, compounds, and knowledge about which substances are which. | |
| Mar 29, 2015 at 5:53 | history | edited | Scott | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1182 characters in body
|
| Mar 28, 2015 at 22:13 | comment | added | supercat | How about weaving? To be sure, many people today have no idea how a flying-shuttle loom works, but someone who did could probably with crude tools and a few days' effort build a loom which would be able to operate much faster than earlier ones. If one could locate an independent weaver who would see such a device as an opportunity rather than a threat, I would think one would be able to achieve some reasonable merchant-class standing. | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 21:38 | comment | added | HDE 226868♦ | Really nice job; +1. I do object to "point out that God does play dice with the universe", because that was just Einstein getting rather annoyed at quantum theory. | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 21:37 | history | edited | HDE 226868♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Mar 27, 2015 at 15:45 | comment | added | zovits | Also, there is a subtle catch in your point #5. He can't just write "Do not use asbestos", because people at that age wouldn't know what it is. His warning would only create a fear of something called asbestos, without a mental link to the material itself, possibly giving roots of various superstitions. He could of course explain the concept and give ample reasoning why it is dangerous, but first he has to think of it :) | |
| Mar 27, 2015 at 6:34 | comment | added | zovits | The printing press is a genius idea, I really haven't thought of that. While trains and revolvers might prove too problematic (due to the lack of metalworking skills and general low precision of the age), writing down his basic facts could very well ensure his going down in history as the greatest scientist ever. The catch is of course this would mostly happen after his life, so it would be the ultimate case of misunderstood genius. | |
| Mar 27, 2015 at 3:22 | history | answered | Scott | CC BY-SA 3.0 |