Posted by Gary on March 15, 1999 at 13:57:49 {MWI..8PVPLcMY}:
Hello Carl and everyone:
Carl has been delighting us with his new Skymap program observations, which is great. But it is a bit complex and I think we need to understand not only how Skymap works but what we really want to look at. It's
an issue
of making the right adjustments within the parameters of the program. Since this is new territory and thus some presumptions are being made, I would like to sort of give a more specific explanation of "where I am" as far as
everything goes and thus with that understanding, with whatever adjustments you need to make, we at least will be talking about the same things. As it is, we have a communication problem.
SKYMAP:
Skymap is a wonderful program and it
can show you many things, but also the same thing in many different ways.
For instance, Line 3 says that the Moon was 1 cubit in front of the rear foot of the Lion, which is Sigma-Leonis. This event happened at a certain time. But, who saw it and when, is another story. Here are some of the complications:
That event took place on the 9th of the Month. That means near sunset when the stars come out and everything becomes visible, the Moon is high in the sky. But that also means that the Moon was high in the sky for the better part of the late afternoon, only you couldn't see it because the sun was up. BUT that doesn't stop the Skymap program from showing you the Moon in that position, say at 3:00 p.m. from some location with the sun in the sky. So one thing you have to be aware of and to always check and that is to make sure that you're looking at a sky where the sun ha set or is near setting or near sunrise. That's something that comes with just understanding observation of the sky. A lot of what we see right after sunset, was already there, we just couldn't see it. Thus TIMING is important as far as where the sun is given a certain observation.
Now Skymap is very smart. It will show you that observation from any place on the Earth that could see it. That is, wherever Leo was above the Horizon (Sigma-Leonis is part of Leo). DAY or NIGHT.
How you get it to show you the same event from various locations is that you must determine a specific LOCAL TIME, or UNIVERSAL TIME. Universal time is easiest.
For instance, in this case, when the Moon was about 1 cubit in front of Sigma-Leonis, it was seen by half the world, some
of whom were experiencing daylight and some who were experiencing nighttime. It was about sunset near the longitude of Honolulu on this date in 511BCE.
That means that everyone West of Honolulu could not see this because the sun was
up. In fact, in London it was about 5:00 a.m. In Babylon it would have been around 8:00 a.m.
So it would be possible for you to see what the Babylonian sky looked like at 8:00 a.m. and it would show the Moon 1 cubit in front of Sigma-Leonis, but it would not be a match because you know that the sun is up and you can't see the stars a that time of the day, even though the program shows you this scene.
Now the way to look at the sky from these different locations, whether or not the sun is up, is simply to change the longitude and/or latitude of the observations point, WITHOUT CHANGING THE TIME! Once the time is set, Skymap will remember what it is looking at. It interprets changing the longitude with the user wanting to see what this specific event looked like from a different vantage point on the earth.
So you might say. Okay, that's easy! So if I want to compare Honolulu with Babylon, I just have to change the longitude, right?
WRONG!
Why?
Because the Babylon-Honolulu comparison also involves TIMING! The specific timing is given in the text which is the "beginning of the night" which I begin right at sunset. So if you want to compare Honolulu with Babylon, you must also change the time.
That is, Honolulu saw the same thing that Babylon did when it was sunset in Honolulu and about 8:00 a.m. in Babylon, which is about 10 hours earlier/later. But that is specifically not the same thing that Babylon saw at sunset. Thus whenever comparing Honolulu with Babylon, we always want to make sure the time of the text is the same. Thus we are not just comparing Honolulu with Babylon but Honolulu with Babylon at the same local time. We are comparing Babylon's sky at sunset with Honolulu's sky at sunset. That's the critical comparison we are making.
That comparison, however, will show you two different skies, about 10.5 hours apart. Thus the Moon would have moved in those 10.5 hours about 2.5 degrees or so. And that is enough to distinguish an absolute match in the text, especially if something specific has been given such as 1 cubit, etc.
This is why it is so critical to be aware of how these obsevations work. Once a specific time is given, even if it is a general time, such as "beginning of the night", etc. you are stuck to look at that approximate time for a certain location. If it doesn't match the specific distance indicated by the text, then you are forced to modify the location until all three parameters agree.
Thus the simple statement of Line 3 that says, "the Moon was 1 cubit in front of Sigma-Leonis at the beginning of the night, Sivan 5" requires THREE SPECIFIC COORDINATES.
1. THE MOON: You have to adjust the Moon to 1 cubit in front of Sigma-Leonis.
2. DATE: You must make sure it is the correct date of the month.
3. TIME OF DAY: You have to make sure the time of day is consistent with "the beginning of the night" which we just use sunset as a standard time.
4. LOCATION: The only variable you can use to adjust to get all of these coordinates to agree is "location".
Only one
location on Earth experienced this event at around sunset, and that location was around the longitude of Honolulu.
But since we know these observations are from Babylon, barring the idea that they had a satellite observatory in Honolulu (smile).... we are now forced to presume the ADJUSTED LOCATION for Babylon must be in the vicinity of Honolulu based upon this observation, or our interpretation of this observation. That's the theory.
How does this affect the delta-T?
It doesn't! Not for our observations. We don't look at the delta-T. We don't concern ourselves with any comparisons. Nothing. In fact, the Honolulu implied relocation is really a COMPENSATORY ADJUSTMENT to the delta-T. It compensates for where the program along with the delta-T is placing and timing this event in relation to Babylon.
So one thing you need to do immediately when starting to deal directly with the text, it is get over any idea of delta-T relevance or compatibility, except as a general observation. If you are reluctant to do this, then don't worry about it, just make both comparisons.
But you'll find that very few observations per the text match up with where the program is placing these events.
Of note, however, the texts are consistent in their displacement of Babylon to Honolulu.
For instance, in Line 14, presuming that it is an encryption for 511BCE since it doesn't work for 568BCE, for the 5th of Sivan, the Moon is 1 cubit in front of Beta-Virginis near the beginning of the night. On June 24, 511BCE the Moon can be adjusted to 1 cubit in front of Beta-Virginis, but only from Honolulu's longitude.
That is, on this date in 511BCE, when the Moon got to be 1 cubit in front of Beta-Virginis, for all the people on half the globe who saw it, the location where it was sunset was near Honolulu. It was just around 8:00 a.m. at Baghdad (Babylon).
CRITICAL
POINT:
The critical point here is that these two independent observations, when adjusted to be correct per the text, throws us to the same location, which is Honolulu.
But the same thing happens again and again.
Take Line 8, where the Moon is 4 cubits below Beta-Geminorum at sunset. If you adjust the Moon to 4 cubits below Beta-Geminorum per the normal observation in the VAT4956, that is 4 vertical degrees below Beta-Geminorum, as if the Moon were directly below Beta-Geminorum, then you come up with Honolulu again.
So they are all consistent. No matter whether you want
to agree with the theories or not, the underlying relocation is the same relocation for Honolulu. Thus it is worth now,
looking at this location as an alternative to all the observations.
Thus, when we compare the Nabon 18 text, where the eclipse in the sixth month of the 2nd of Nabonidus is being considered, I automatically have to look at the Honolulu situation for the eclipse in 479BCE which is the true second year of Nabonidus per Anstey's chronology. And of course, interestingly enough, this reference, which is a narrative reference and not truly an astronomical text, shows an eclipse in 479BCE in that month, only it is a total eclipse, whereas in the revised date of 554BCE it is only a partial eclipse.
But the ecipse which must set while eclipsed from the Babylonian location, doesn't work out in 479BCE from Baghdad/Babylon, but it does from Honolulu. Therefore, if we were to presume, even based upon the Nabon 18 that the September 7, 479BCE eclipse was really the eclipse referred to in the text that made Nabonidus offer his daughter to the service of Sin, the Moon God, because of this eclipse, when we found that we had to look at a range of longitudes who experienced the setting of the Moon while eclipsed, it would have included the 3-4-hour range of longitudes that encompassed the Mid-Pacific including Hawaii.
So even that eclipse forces the relocation of Babylon to within that range.
So it's a viable location to look at and consider, even if you don't understand the principles involved, simply because the texts require it and are consistent in that relocation.
Interestingly, planetary movements that are not that observable over a period of 10.5 hours, are not affected. But eclipses and lunar events are very much affected if you need accuracy.
My position is not dogmatic, though. For observation and discussion, it is just another place to explore and look just to be thorough as suggested by the text.
Thus as far as the delta-T is concerned, it's not dismissed, it's still part of the equasion. Since the text is generating the change, however, I suppose one might eventually start asking some questions about the current delta-T's reliability. But that's another scientific discussion that is OFF-TOPIC for simply making the observations and comparisons.
What I would hope from you, Carl, is that if we can ever get on line to looking at the same date and time and location for what we are discussing that I can draw some real criticism and dissenting opinion as far as the theory is concerned. Right now, however, you're addressing issues that are off point and don't matter in the long run.
So I hope this has been a little bit of background in understanding how totally confused I am about everything, but at least if you know if there is a method to my madness, you can understand how to address the conspiracy.
I hope I've given you a few clues about the dynamics of the astroprogram as well. It is very easy to be looking at the right thing and the wrong time from the wrong location, or visa versa. So there does have to be some continuity in our observations.
But hopefully, with that past, we can see some critical discussion.
I decided to post this since everybody needs to be "up to speed" on this if they are to follow COJ's baptism into the horrible realities of the VAT4956.
LURKERS: Please! Do not discourage Carl from his continued investigation of the VAT4956. It will be just a matter of time before he gets a grasp of what it's really all about, and it would be good for him if he does since he publishes information. So this is very important. He must understand how to check these observations properly to be of critical benefit.
Hopefully, all of us will understand these critical aspects of chronology and astronomy a little better and it will be easier to understand why we must date the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE based upon the observations in the VAT4956.
So Carl, ask all questions and I will answer them until we get to a common understanding about the basics, and then we can go from there. The board obviously is not discussing anything else, we may as well post something useful that is happening on the cutting edge.
Thanks again for your posts...
Cheers,
Gary