Posted by Gary #3 on March 22, 1999 at 16:19:49 {MWI..8PVPLcMY}:
In Reply to: ANSTEY'S CHRONOLOGY DEAD posted by COJ on March 22, 1999 at 03:11:25:
Continued - Part 3
To CARL:
This is my effort to answer your challenges.
But I want to remind you that you and the
ever-charming A.F. often post things and
and then announce abruptly that you're
"not going to discuss the
VAT4956" or
something else since you claim you already
did and you won that argument.
So please understand that sometimes I don't
read your posts or I don't find them if they
are too far down on the list and I don't
feel
overly obligated to answer your posts when
you're not willing to be cornered when I want
to discuss something. You can't have it both
ways (or I guess you think you can!). You
should answer my questions if you expect
me
to answer yours.
>>>YOUR IMPOSSIBLE DELTA-T VALUE
You have never disclosed your Delta-T value
and how you have arrvied at it, although we
have repeatedly asked you about it.
This is true. I have been checking and
adjusting
the "delta-T" (not really) recently based upon
some contemporary palace correspondence documents
between the astrologers and some of the Assyrian
kings and I've had some incredible match-ups
supporting the original
chronology. These are
important since they are "contemporary" documents
and I can't claim "AUTOMATIC FRAUD" (smile).
So it is true I haven't discussed my latest
adjustment. Maybe because I'm still working on
it. But
also, because, in reality, it's not
really a "delta-T" adjustment. For instance,
the delta-T is part of the canon. The
adjustment to Hawaii is just the CORRECTION
ADJUSTMENT for the correct observations with
the current,
delta-T adjusted canon. So
even the adjustment to Honolulu, doesn't affect
the delta-T. I still use that delta-T as
part of the formula with the Honolulu adjustment.
That is, the Honolulu adjustment is just a
make-shift
adjustment to correct the implied
location. But it doesn't adjust the "delta-T"
technically.
Of course, it does imply an adjustment in the
Earth's rotational position, which we usually
ascribe the delta-T to. What the
problem is,
is that the "delta-T" is an adjustment to some
other pre-established ERP (earth rotational
position). It is an adjustment itself to
some other calculation. So the relocation to
Honolulu is purely placebotic and
how that
is to be understood as far as the Earth's
rotational position is concerned is another
scientific argument. You see, in a way,
by moving things to Honolulu, it completely
erases the delta-T with respect to
the
original adjustment. This suggests, therefore,
that even the original position of the Earth
PRE delta-T adjustment is also incorrect.
So speaking of my delta-T revised adjustment
is not the correct concept to apply to
the
Honolulu adjustment. The Honolulu adjustment
is simply the text-generated position of the
Earth at a given time. The adjustment totally
ignores the delta-T in one sense, yet in
another sense, it is actually BASED upon
the
delta-T since it allows you to adjust your
program to give you a desired result, that
program being modified by the delta-T.
So in a way, it is complex, and while you
are interested in how I'm making my
adjustments,
it is not necessary to scientifically come up
with an adjustment theory for this, since the
observations only require a relocation for
Babylon to Honolulu for the observations.
That is, IN PRACTICE, I just ignore
the delta-T
completely and use the Honolulu adjustment.
Over and beyond that, depening upon the
observation, I make certain other adjustments
based upon how specific my data is. Otherwise,
I just consider the adjustment a
GENERAL
adjustment and consider a reasonable error
margin for accuracy, and that error margin
is about 0-3 hours LESS than the current delta-T,
depending upon the observation.
>>But your
movement of the location to the
longitude of
Honolulu shows the degree of change that
you feel is required by your theory, in order
to have two or three of the observations fit
your chronology.
This is REQUIRED, if in Line 8 of the VAT4956
which
says the moon was "4 cubits below
Beta-Geminorum" that you presume the text
implies "if the moon were 4 degrees DIRECTLY
below Beta-Geminorum" (adjust to Honolulu)
rather than just 1.5 cubits DIRECTLY below
Beta-Geminorum,
where it was near sunset
near Baghdad (program-generated Babylon).
So yes, it is required, based upon and
conditional upon that theory of observation,
which I stand by.
>>This change of location
implies moving the
sublunar point about
13.5 hours westward, which is in addition
to the Delta-T of c. 5 hours for the 6th century
BC established by a careful study of hundreds
of eclipses recorded from the 25 centuries before
the 17th
century (which already is accounted for
in our programs). Your Delta-T value for the 6th century BC, then, amounts to about 18.5 hours,
which implies that earth�s rotation has been
slowing down at a rate of early 6 ms/cy, or
about
3.5 times that established by modern scholars!
Nice analysis Carl, except... and I don't blame
you for getting confused. We are actually
moving EAST. That is, Honolulu is EAST of
Babylon about 10.5 hours. It is
East of
London, about 13.5 hours. So the comparison
should be to the reciprical location of Babylon
(10.5 hours) and not London (13.5 hours). Thus
your calculations are about 3 hours off in
general. But I understand what
you're saying.
All I can say regarding this, which seems way
off topic to an extent as far as whether or
not Lines 3 and Lines 14 are appropriately
dated and matched to 511BCE or not, which I
think is the only issue of
import here, is
that this chronology is very complex and based
upon a lot of different information, but to
a large extent upon Ptolemy's canon!
Regarding that canon, Professor Newton has said
this very emphatically, in The
Crimes of
Claudius Ptolemy, page 379:
"It is clear that no statement made by
Ptolemy can be accepted unless it is confirmed
by writers who are totally independent of Ptolemy
on the matters in question. All research
in
either history or astronomy that has been based
upon the Syntaxis must now be done again.
(And that's what I've been trying to do, Carl!--
Just kidding, ROFL)
"I do not know what others may think, but to
me
there is only one final assessment: The
Syntaxis has done more damage to astronomy
than any other work ever written, and astronomy
would be better off if it had never existed.
Thus Ptolemy is not the greatest astronomer
of
antiquity, but he is something still more
unusual: He is the most successful fraud in the
history of science."
So, Carl, I suppose the astronomers are going to
have to work out the problems with the delta-T,
but it
surely isn't a cut-and-dried issue.
And here's another one of my favorite quotes
about the delta-T from Liu-Fiala on the
cover of their book:
As you were saying...
>>Although you evidently do not realize it,
this consequence alone proves that your
revised chronology is simply impossible.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, the problem
is with
the ancient texts, Carl, not me. The adjustment
is not date-related at all, Line 8 is a 568BCE
observation, so, my hands are tied, sorry.
Besides, I don't really care what the final
result will be. This is just
something that
is in contradiction. Maybe you can work it out,
or whatever. Maybe the text is wrong, or
whatever. This is just what this stage of
the research is showing from all the texts
I've been charting. They all
are coming up
requiring the 10.5 hour earlier adjustment.
Why? Maybe I don't know. But that's what
the data is right now. All I can say is
Line 8 of the VAT4956 requires the Moon at
sunset to be 4 cubits below
Beta-Geminorum
and that requires you to relocate to Babylon.
???
>>Firstly, you cannot just pick out a line or
two from VAT 4956 and apply your new
Delta-T to those observations only.
Yes I can. If the text requires it.
I'm just
the observer. If there are discrepancies or
inconsistencies within the text itself, then
those are the FACTS and they have to be evaluated.
For instance, Lines 3 and 14 don't match 568BCE.
So what does that mean?
It has to be evaluated.
But I know what you're saying. Thus it is of
note that ALL the observations from this period,
once you move to Honolulu, would require you
use this adjustment for ALL the observations!
>>If it
could be demonstrated that the rotation
of the earth had been slowing down at the
rate required by your alternative Honolulu
longitude, this would affect EVERY lunar
position recorded in the ancient texts,
including
the dozen or so recorded in
VAT 4956!
You're RIGHT! You're absolutely right! This
relocation doesn't affect nonspecific planetary
observations, but it absolutely affects all
lunar observations, especially lunar
eclipses!
You're right, it is a dynamic adjustment!
But you've got eclipses that don't match up
even now! The two eclipses in the SK400,
for instance don't match up with the current
delta-T. That implies an adjustment for
523BCE
accuracy or 541BCE accuracy. In fact, Liu-Fiala
state clearly in their book that the ancient
records are "contradictory" many times, and that's
why they leave it up to you which observation
you'll use to adjust the
delta-T. Some of them
are close matches and some of them are not.
That's why they say: "User make your own
desired adjustment" since they know the problems
with these records. Part of the problem is
that they didn't
realize some of these records
had encrypted observations to the original
chronology which they figured belonged to the
wrong year, and thus it is confusing. I believe
the current delta-T is based upon some of those
wrong
dated observations and that's part of the
whole problem.
So, again, pre 1620, the delta-T is NOT
scientific, but based upon ancient records
and the interpretation of those records. So
basically, it is up for grabs. All I
can do
is confirm for you that the VAT4956 observations
were observed, "theoretically" from Honolulu's
longitude and not that of Baghdad. You can
make out of it whatever you want.
>>You must demonstrate that ALL
of these
fit you Honolulu location!
They do! For instance, the 479BCE eclipse is
Honolulu compatible (Nabon 18)! Line 3 is
Honolulu compatible. Line 14 is Honolulu compatible. Line 8 is Honolulu compatible.
Line 2 is Honolulu
compatible. And numerous
Assyrian text match-ups are all Honolulu
compatible. So ALL my observations have to
be out of Honolulu. I thought I had made that
clear.
>>And you must also explain why they fit so
excellently
the Babylonian location!
They DON'T fit so excellently to the Babylonian
location. Oh yeah, they fit excellently to
the Babylonian location if you rename the star
the wrong name and claim "scribal error - please
back up one
day..." Yeah, then it fits
EXCELLENTLY!
I'm talking about a 10.5-hour adjustment and
you want a 24-hour adjustment! And even when
you do make the 24-hour adjustment, it still
doesn't fit from Babylon.
Oohhhhh, I get it. You were making a joke!
HAAA, HAAA...funny. You're a funny man, COJ!
The problem is, Carl, they don't fit Babylon!
>>Further, you have to apply your Delta-T
to the dozens of lunar eclipses recorded
in the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar.
I could, but I don't have to since you don't
have any corrected records for those eclipses.
The king's lists which you are implying which
match up 568BCE dating eclipses with the
revised king's list is
totally bogus, it is
from the Seleucid Period and thus is AUTOMATICALLY
CONSIDERED FRAUDULENT. There are no
contemporary eclipse records from the
Neo-Babylonian period to look at Carl. They
were all destroyed. All we
have is revised,
redated "copies" which have "FRAUD-WRONG DATING"
written all over them.
Now, Carl, I know how much fun it is to ride
on the log ride in Adventure Land and on the
rides at Space Mountain. Hey, I can be a
fun
guy too. But the Park closed a half hour ago.
Don't you think it would be nice of you to come
down now so these security guards and everybody
can go home to their families?
>>In fact,
you have to explain why the
hundreds of
eclipses used by Stephenson and other scholars
show the rotation of the earth to have slowed
down at a rate of 1.7 ms/cy instead of the
nearly 6 ms/cy required by your theory. This
means you have to check
carefully all these
eclipse records, which you said that you
would "LOOOVE to do", but which you now
seem to prefer to ignore completely.
Ha! I don't have to explain any of those eclipses.
Those are all relative dating!
They will fall
right in line with whatever delta-T adjustment
they finally come up with. The only rule
is basically, whatever changes you make, just
make it consistently across the board, that's
all. Newton told you all of
Ptolemy's
calculations were totally fraudulent and
wrong anyway, so it all has to be redone.
So frankly, I'll let the astronomers worry
about all that. This has little to do with
what the ancient documents are saying
about
the the true location of the Earth on a certain
date and time. I understand that Line 8
contradicts the current, popular delta-T,
but that's their problem. They have to deal
with the text, not me.
>>In other words:
Your theory is confronted by
unsurmountable obstacles in several ways,
which you seem to prefer not to face.
They just look unsurroumountable from where you're
sitting which is on top of the Mattahorn. But
really, they
dismiss themselves quite easily!.
Continued - Part 4