THALES eclipse vindicated/Neugebauer proved wrong!

World renown mathematician and expert in ancient astronomy claimed that
Thales could not have predicted the 585BCE solar eclipse because of lack of
expertise at the time by either the Greeks or Babylonians. But a recent
solar eclipse series discovered proves Babylonians/Assyrians knew of a
predictable eclipse series and likely passed this on to Thales allowing him
to predict an eclipse in 478BCE which duplicates the pattern.

This new discovery proves Neugebauer was wrong about what the Babylonians
could do though he knew it was theoretically possible to predict the time
and location of a solar eclipse if based upon ancient records of a possible
eclipse pattern that allowed for this. He was not aware that such a pattern
actually existed and thus discounted both Thales and the Babylonians who are
now vindicated!


---------------------
Here's the rare predictable eclipse series observed by the Babylonians and
Assyrians establishing predictable solar eclipses:
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/comp532-478x2j.JPG

Here's the matching pattern for the Thales predicted eclipse in 478BCE
during the corrected two-year reign of Nabonidus (480-478BCE):
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4653/709.gif -

QUOTE REGARDING ISSUE OF THALES:

It is reported that Thales predicted an eclipse of the Sun in 585 BC. The
cycle of about 19 years for eclipses of the Moon was well known at this time
but the cycle for eclipses of the Sun was harder to spot since eclipses were
visible at different places on Earth. Thales's prediction of the 585 BC
eclipse was probably a guess based on the knowledge that an eclipse around
that time was possible. The claims that Thales used the Babylonian saros, a
cycle of length 18 years 10 days 8 hours, to predict the eclipse has been
shown by Neugebauer to be highly unlikely since Neugebauer shows that the
saros was an invention of Halley. Neugebauer wrote:

.... there exists no cycle for solar eclipses visible at a given place: all
modern cycles concern the earth as a whole. No Babylonian theory for
predicting a solar eclipse existed at 600 BC, as one can see from the very
unsatisfactory situation 400 years later, nor did the Babylonians ever
develop any theory which took the influence of geographical latitude into
account.

After the eclipse on 28 May, 585 BC Herodotus wrote:

.... day was all of a sudden changed into night. This event had been foretold
by Thales, the Milesian, who forewarned the Ionians of it, fixing for it the
very year in which it took place. The Medes and Lydians, when they observed
the change, ceased fighting, and were alike anxious to have terms of peace
agreed on.

Some doubt that Thales predicted the eclipse by guessing writing:

.... a more likely explanation seems to be simply that Thales happened to be
the savant around at the time when this striking astronomical phenomenon
occurred and the assumption was made that as a savant he must have been able
to predict it.

http://phoenicia.org/thales.html

LARRY WILSON wrote:
But a recent solar eclipse series discovered

The Exeligmos cycle is hardly a recent discovery: it was known to the
ancient Chaldeans.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

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

To Stephen

It is almost incredible that you would comment on this matter when the
practical transfer of the pre-Copernican equable 24 hour day to its
heliocentric adaption to axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour is
beyond you.

Do you wish me to explain again how the Equation of Time,which provides
the core principles,straddles both the pre-Copernican principles behind
the 24 hour day and its heliocentric adaption.

The only astronomical story worth knowing this year is how those core
principles are used by everyone on the planet even as they are denied
by really ignorant people like you who have found themselves the
inheritors of the fudging by 17th/18th century cataloguers.

How does it feel to adhere to an exceptionally dumb and astronomical
incompetent value for axial rotation* despite the fact that the
transfer from the pre-Copernican principles to the heliocentric
adaption for independent and constant axial rotation is easy to
comprehend ?. That you manage to live with an incompetent
astronomical value for a year (never mind 3 centuries) definitely
highlights your indoctrination rather than your intelligence.

* http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

Thanks Stephen, my foot is often in my mouth which sometimes hampers
adequate communication to others which is apparent in this case. Thanks.

It is true the exeligmos pattern was well known to the ancients. That is
the discovery that eclipses recur every 18 years. Otto Neugebauer knew of
this predictable pattern and discussed it in relation to the Thales
prediction and determined that while most eclipses fall in the 18-year
pattern that does not allow for LOCATION prediction. Everybody back then
could predict another ecilpse would occur in 18 years but they didn't have
the ability to predict the location. Often they appeared on the opposite
side of the globe.

Thus Neugebauer, applying the exeligmos theory to the 585 BCE clearly noted
that that theory would not have been able to help Thales predict the
LOCATION of any eclipse.

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's the difference here. That's
what's new. The exeligmos 18-year pattern is of no use generally for
location of eclipses unless they appear in a pattern such as this one, where
both time and location became predictable. Neugebauer was unaware of this
pattern which allowed for prediction of both time and LOCATION.

Meaning what? Meaning you missed the point. This is a pattern previously
unknown to modern academic astronomy as far as the Babylonians and others
being able to predict the location of an upcoming eclipse. That's what this
discovery is about. A hybrid pattern based upon the exeligmos pattern that
allowed for the prediction of location.

What is left after discovering this pattern of "regional" eclipses is
determining if they occurred in the region of Babylon, when, and whether
that pattern again occurred during the timeframe range for Thales. The
eclipse occurring in 478 BCE is a rare eclipse that fits this new pattern
which would qualify for the Thales eclipse if the rule of Alyattes or
Nabonidus were datable to that year. The 478 BCE date for year 2 of
Nabonidus fits the timeline of Martin Anstey.

So it turns out it was not my foot in my mouth after all, but my foot in
your ear maybe. Sorry if I didn't explain the theory sufficiently for you
to grasp this. Even so, a little research would have revealed that
Neugebauer dismissed the exeligmos rule as being able to allow Thales to
predict the location of an ecilpse, so this was already aware of and already
dismissed. The focus of this post was what Neugebauer missed, so you missed
the key point.

My experience is that post readers who are speed readers who scan these
posts thinking they can grasp the context end up with their own foot in
their mouths sometimes because they miss the some of the fine critical
details. 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, which apparently is not the case this time, though often I do
make mistakes, right?

Thanks for your reference though!

Ciao

Misha



"Stephen Tonkin" wrote in message
...
LARRY WILSON wrote:
But a recent solar eclipse series discovered

The Exeligmos cycle is hardly a recent discovery: it was known to the
ancient Chaldeans.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

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

Thanks so much for this reference Oriel36!!!

Misha



"oriel36" wrote in message
oups.com...
To Stephen

It is almost incredible that you would comment on this matter when the
practical transfer of the pre-Copernican equable 24 hour day to its
heliocentric adaption to axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour is
beyond you.

Do you wish me to explain again how the Equation of Time,which provides
the core principles,straddles both the pre-Copernican principles behind
the 24 hour day and its heliocentric adaption.

The only astronomical story worth knowing this year is how those core
principles are used by everyone on the planet even as they are denied
by really ignorant people like you who have found themselves the
inheritors of the fudging by 17th/18th century cataloguers.

How does it feel to adhere to an exceptionally dumb and astronomical
incompetent value for axial rotation* despite the fact that the
transfer from the pre-Copernican principles to the heliocentric
adaption for independent and constant axial rotation is easy to
comprehend ?. That you manage to live with an incompetent
astronomical value for a year (never mind 3 centuries) definitely
highlights your indoctrination rather than your intelligence.

* http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

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 +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

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 +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Charles Gilman wrote:
A little harsh, surely.

No. Entirely justified, IMO. YMM(&OD)V.

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,

Then one must question why he was using the term. It is clear, from his
first post, that he knows that the 18yr cycle is the Saros. It is also
clear, from my initial response, that "Exeligmos" refers to what Wilson
falsely claimed was recently discovered, i.e. the 54yr cycle.

We all make mistakes.

Indeed we do, but we don't all twist the evidence in order to make a
point (e.g. using Biblical pseudo-chronology to re-date Thales's eclipse
by a century or so, or pretending that the 54yr cycle is "recently
discovered" when it was written in cuneiform!). Neither do we all
respond to the statement of verifiable fact with, as Wilson did in his
latest post, sniping sarcasm.

I get thoroughly fed up at the way astronomy is misused by those with
other, usually pseudo-scientific or pseudo-historical, agendas, and I
have to admit to having little, if any, tolerance for it. Of course,
everyone is entitled to his own beliefs and opinions, but that does not
equate to an entitlement to try to pass them off as fact.

Rant over. :-)

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

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

To Stephen

The technical adaption of the equable 24 hour day to both the
heliocentric adaption of the principle of the constant axial rotation
of the Earth exactly and the calendar system based on equable 24 hour
days is too magnficent for your puny eyes.

The stellar background based reference for the calendar system
requiring a leap adjustment every 4 years of one equable 24 hour day is
derived from an older format based on the annual loop system of the
Equation of Time correction.For your puny intellect,this means that you
have to derive the equable 24 hour day first to calculate the annual
cycle of 365 .25 days.

Because you intellectual midgets derive your celestial sphere/calendar
system based on axial rotation at 23 hours 56 min 04 sec you do not
stand a chance of appreciating the most exquisite and enjoyable
astronomical transfer ever - the heliocentric adaption of the 24 hour
day to the newly discover principle of indepedent and constant axial
rotation.

Use you emoticons but they won't save from being the dumbest people
ever to inherit astronomical data,I do not condemn you for you do it
yourselves quite nicely -


http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

You cannot get any worse than that !.

To Larry

People like Tonkin operate within very strict borders,mostly propping
up the 'primitive' Greeks to justify their empirical inheritance, and
those genuine investigators who have sought to extend the historical
or technical borders have been ostracised such as Stecchini.

http://www.metrum.org/measures/measurements.htm

Having spent the day at Newgrange * which happens to be not only one of
the oldest known Western structures but also an astronomical clock
marking the annual cycle,the one fact I can come away with and which
these guys should be ashamed.As contemporaries use a
calendrical/celestial sphere format and those ancients used a
different format to register the annual cycle,I live among those who
could not build the Newgrange solstice marker because every 4th year
has a different cycle that the previous 3 years due to the calendrical
correction.

I would not be ashamed to stand in the presence of those ancient
astronomers while these punt imposters with their emoticons have
little regard for the annual natural cycle reflecting axial and orbital
motion.


* http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/newgrang.htm