View Single Post
  #8  
Old December 11th 05, 09:10 AM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default THALES eclipse vindicated/Neugebauer proved wrong!

A little harsh, surely. As I read it, Larry Wilson merely got his
terminology wrong and failed to follow his own advice. Perhaps he didn't
even know the term Exeligmos, as I could not find it in his original post,
in which case he may have assumed on first hearing it that it meant the same
as the Saros cycle. We all make mistakes.

"Stephen Tonkin" wrote in message
...
LARRY WILSON wrote:
It is true the exeligmos pattern was well known to the ancients. That is
the discovery that eclipses recur every 18 years.


False. That is the Saros cycle, not the Exeligmos cycle.

[...]
The pattern I am referencing is an extension of the 18-year pattern where
eclipses every 54 years (3 x 18) will occur in a graduating pattern that
would allow a specific region or location to observe these eclipses as a
'pattern' in relation to LOCATION.


That is the Exeligmos cycle (actually 54.090 yrs or 19755.96 days) . As
I told you previously, it was known to the ancient Chaldeans. However, a
problem with using the Exeligmos cycle to predict total solar eclipses
is the latitude shift of approx 1000 km.

[...]
Meaning what? Meaning you missed the point.


No, I have not. Either you have not understood the relevant eclipse
cycles or you are deliberately misrepresenting them.

As to your wider theory, it is clear that you are only able to get it to
work by changing the date of Thales's eclipse from 585BC to 478BC in
order to force-fit it to the theory. Maiers's Law obviously lives on!

[...]
Sorry if I didn't explain the theory sufficiently for you
to grasp this.


It doesn't require you to explain it "sufficiently". What is required is
that you actually understand what you are pontificating about before you
choose to infect a newsgroup with it.

[...]
So in that regard, please re-read the post carefully before
commenting next time and presuming the poster doesn't know what they are
talking about,


In this instance it is blatantly obvious that you don't have a clue what
you are on about, otherwise you would not be attempting to misrepresent
the Exeligmos cycle as being identical with the Saros cycle.

*plonk*

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +