Posted by Gary #4 on March 22, 1999 at 17:09:44 {MW9hQZt3yw8IU}:
In Reply to: ANSTEY'S CHRONOLOGY DEAD posted by COJ on March 22, 1999 at 03:11:25:
This is posted in order to answer, line-for-line
of COJ's commentary, which has been so far
quite off topic to some extent, which is
focussed on whether or not the dating of
Line 3 and Line 14 of the VAT4956 don't
actually
match-up to 511BCE since they don't match 568BCE.
But just for those persons who are interested
in my comments or reactions to his issues:
>>THE NABON. NO. 18 ECLIPSE
Ah, my favorite eclipse!
>>>Although this
lunar eclipse fits excellently
the one that could be observed at Babylon
in the evening of Sept. 26, 554 BC, you
still insist that it HAS TO be identified
with the Sept. 7, 479 BC eclipse, adapted to
your Honolulu
longitude.
This is true! This eclipse does fit excellently
for Babylon per the current delta-T. Not
really "excellently" that's too strong of a
term, but certainly it would fit. I allow a much
wider error margin to
make this work. I thus
consider this an excellent example of a good
match-up with the current delta-T and the current
location for Babylon. But the SK400 eclipses
don't match up as well, the Tammuz 14 one is nearly an hour
off!
>>You constantly
repeat the argument that the latter was total,
while that of 554 BC was just nearly total.
Ooops, sorry. I meant to say that the 554BCE
eclipse was PARTIAL...definitely partial! To
me, "nearly
total" means 96% or more. According
to the records, it looks like the 554BCE eclipse
was the smallest eclipse ever recorded in ancient
history at 0.285.....oops! Wait-a-minute. Sorry,
I was looking at the wrong eclipse. The
554BCE
eclipse was 0.842 magnitude; 84%. I wouldn't call
that "nearly total", I'd call that PARTIAL.
That means that 16% of the surface of the Moon
at its greatest magnitude was always visible,
so the eclipse never ever ever
became completely
"dark". The Moon never, ever, ever left the
sky totally. Whereas in 479BCE it did. It
left the sky because it was a total eclipse.
The Moon God was gone for 1 hour and 37 minutes.
That's an awful long
time..an awful long time!
I'd think when an eclipse like this happened
that was total that it would scare the observers.
Do you know if there are any records of anyone,
say the king or anybody, making any sacrifices?
This
was a MAJOR eclipse in 479BCE. But not
such a big deal in 554BCE.
There's one way we can maybe tell whether the
eclipse happened in 554BCE or 479BCE or not and
that is whether or not the king madea big deal
out of the
eclipse or not; you know, if he
sacrificed a relative or something. The bigger
the eclipse, the bigger the sacrifice. On the
other hand, with a puny partial eclipse like
in 554BCE which really never left the sky,
frankly,
I'm surprised it got mentioned at all
in the narrative records. You don't know
whether or not they made a big deal out of this
event or not do you? You know, partial versus
Total?
>>This is a foolish argument, Gary.
Firstly, this
is completely irrelevant, because we know
that the Babylonians were as much interested
in partial eclipses as in total eclipses, and the
text says nothing about the magnitude of this
eclipse.
Now where
did you hear that?!!! Since when is
a partial eclipse more significant than a total
eclipse? Or "just as important"? I seriously
doubt this position, Carl. It's because these
planets were considered to be "gods" and
their
absolute ABSENCE from the sky as in a total
eclipse or when they went below the horizon
was significant, compared to if they were just
partially occluded.
In other words, if the Moon God was considered
to be angered
by leaving the sky, or if there
was a FIGHT between the Earth God shadow and
the Moon God, then a partial eclipse means only
partial victory. It means only partial anger.
Whereas if it left the sky totally for about
1 hour
and 37 minutes, that's more of a definite
statement. So, your attempt to blurr the
margins and minimize the significance of total
versus partial is not well-taken in this
context. But nice try. I won't make an issue
of
it.
>>Secondly, the totality of the 479 BC
eclipse could not be seen from the Honolulu
horizon, because the totality did not begin
until some 15-20 minutes after moonset,
when the moon was nearly 5 deg. below that
horizon! Its totality, then, doesn�t matter!
Whether or not that is the case is totally
dependent upon the final "delta-T" adjustment.
I can always move it over a little bit for more
dramatic effect. According to Fiala, it
took
about 1 hour 2 minutes to reach totality. So
at 15 minutes, it was still 0.75% total at
moonset, that's just 10% less than your maximum
eclipse which based upon the current numbers
shows moonset was 4 minutes AFTER the
eclipse
was over. Per AF the eclipse ended at 6:00 a.m.
which means they only missed the last 7 minutes
or so of the eclipse. That means, it was nearly
totally returned at the time.
So I think an eclipse which sets at 75%
occlusion
is a bit more impressive as "setting while
eclipsed" than one which is only about 3%
occlusion to zero % per cent occlusion.
>>That this eclipse fits excellently the eclipse
of Sept. 26, 554 BC, was confirmed to
me
by Professor F. Richard Stephenson, today
the leading authority on Delta-T.
Oh please. F. R. Stephenson? Let's just say
regarding Stephenson: Sorry, not impressed.
His credibility with me is around ZERO!
>>I asked
him to check whether the 554 BC eclipse
really "set while eclipse", and here is his
answer, based on the most up-to-date
research, as quoted from his letter of March
5, 1999:
Oh, please, give me a break....
"I
compute using an interpolation value for
Delta T of 17700 sec that at Babylon the
Moon actually set while eclipsed. My
computed details are as follows (times
to the nearest tenth of an hour):
(1) Beginning at 3.0 h
local time, lunar
altitude 34 deg in the SW.
(2) End at 6.1 h local time, lunar altitude �3
deg in the W.
The eclipse would thus end about 15 minutes
after moonset. A deep penumbral eclipse may
possibly be visible for
a very few minutes and
there is always the possibility of anomalous
refraction at the horizon. However, I would
judge that the Moon indeed set eclipsed on
this occasion."
He doesn't know anything. All he can do is
go
on ancient records like everybody else
and his interpretation of those records.
That's it. As soon as the dating changes,
then so do the RELATIVE dates and times.
And this is still just a DISTRACTION, Carl.
This has nothing
to do with whether or not
Line 3 of the VAT4956 which describes the
Moon as 1 cubit in front of Sigma-Leonis
is a non-match for 568BCE and a perfect match
for 511BCE, suggesting the 37th year of
Nebuchadnezzar II was in
511BCE, which
perfectly matches the Bible's chronology!!!
All this technical talk is just beating around
the bush. Nothing has changed, absolutely
nothing.
As far as Stephenson is concerned, he is no
different than the
canon by Fiala and Liu.
These are complex calculations in one area
but ultimately ADJUSTED to ancient texts.
So it is meaningless! The ancient texts will
preempt ANYTHING they come up with. They
themselves allow the texts
to dictate the
astronmy pre 1620BCE. They don't use calculations
for this period for the Earth's position.
Even if they did, the VAT4956 and other texts
are now contradicting their positioning.
Line 8 of the VAT4956,
currently interpreted,
CONTRADICTS the current delta-T location for
Babylon and relocates that position to
the longitude of Honolulu.
So with all due respect, Stephenson's calculations
are just wrong according to the
VAT4956. But
no big deal, there are lots of eclipses that
don't match the current delta-T. So who cares?
It's not cut-and-dried at this point. It is not
scientific when you depend upon ancient records
which can be
fraudulent, misinterpreted,
self-contradictory, etc. Depending upon which
records you consider "reliable" and which ones
you interpret properly will determine your
results and thus your later calculations for
Earth's
rotation and Earth's relative slow-down
speed or whatever. All Stephenson is reporting
on is what pile of ...pile of..... what PILE
of "texts" he decided to divide by 2500!
It's all RELATIVE. If any of this was
purely
scientific, that is, if we could tell by
the level of the tide how slow the Earth is
now compared to then, then you wouldn't need
ancient record consultation. You wouldn't even
need a delta-T. You'd just give the
Earth's
rotational position and that would be that.
The fact is, though, they've based these
calculations on fraudulent records, with
misinterpreted observations and thus those
calculations reflect the errors in the
records.
It doesn't confirm anything. The wrong answer
divided by 0.22343344 isn't going to make it
right! It will look "specific", but it's
still wrong.
>>This should logically end your quibble about
this eclipse,
shouldn�t it, Gary?
OH, no. You have proved nothing but your ability
to type up a lot of off-topic commentary, as
usual. But I didn't mind, I was glad to hear
from you and that your computer is back up.
>>SUMMARY
In
summary, Anstey�s obselete chronology
was dead and buried already when you picked
it up.
Far from it! Now that I have Line 3 and Line
14 of the VAT4956 confirming 511BCE as the
37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, it
seems
that Anstey's chronology has a brand new life!
These lines CONFIRM his dating as correct!
His chronology, is now, CONFIRMED, ALIVE...
AND WELL!
>>My and AF�s comments on it have been
just some "quotations from the
funeral speech".
Carl
(smile) Well, at least you have a sense of
humor.
I'm sure this debate will go on.
Take care, Carl....
Cheers,
Gary
Wanna see my latest AD? (see below) What do you
think?
Gary