THALES eclipse vindicated/Neugebauer proved wrong!

Dear Stephen, I stand corrected, partially. Sarcasm always backfires on me.
It won't be the first time and thanks for your further explanation. I need
to make some clarifications.

1. Neugebauer indeed compared the Saros (18-year cycle) to the 585BCE
eclipse and determined it could not be used effectively for a determination
for LOCATION of a solar eclipse.

2. I stand corrected for implying the exeligmos cycle, which is 54 years 1
month, was the same as the Saros. I was aware that the ancients understood
the 54-year cycle.

But that does not address these series of eclipses, which I must emphasize
makes a difference. That's because the same principle applies. That
varying circumstances in the elliptical rotation of the Earth and Moon make
for different kinds of eclipse pattern criss-crossing the earth. It's
interesting with modern astroprograms to see how "artistic" the eclipses
are, repeated patterns, etc.

Even so, eclispes occurring every 54 years 1 month still don't always occur
in the same location. So yes, even though the Babylonians knew of this
cycle, it would not have helped them to predict the LOCATION of a specific
eclipse for every pattern.

But the patterns or eclipses change with every eclipse cycle. This
particular pattern was one of horizontally oriented eclipses that just
happened to occur in stages from of 15 degrees starting from the South Pole
and rising to the North Pole. So it is this specific pattern of eclipses in
the exeligmos series that made the third observed eclipse predictable.
That's the difference.

Many eclipses in the exeligmos series occur in varying patterns but not all
consistently in the same location. In this case they did. The SUBJECTIVE
experience of any location experiencing a total eclipse would have permitted
them to predict both TIME AND LOCATION of a third eclipse.

You need only first recognize the unique nature of these eclipses and
confirm that they occurred at at time when the astronomy program at Babylon
and in Assyria were in effect for observation. This was thought possible
by Neugebauer but not known to him thus this is NEW in that sense. NASA
and others have currentl thought based upon Neugebauer that the ancient
Greeks and Babylonians did not have sufficient technical information to
accurately predict the location of a solar eclipse. That is no longer a
true statement. They did.

The second application here is, with this rare eclipse pattern, whether or
not the Thales eclipse utilized this information? That is, is the eclipse
that Thales is thought to have predicted a predictable eclipse based upon
this rare exeligmos pattern? After all, he did become famous.

For sure, the 585BCE eclipse does not fit this pattern, so if that is the
eclipse Thales allegedly predicted going through Ionia, then we are back to
square one as to how he was able to do it.

But, the only reference for this eclipse is Herododus and he puts this
eclipse in the context of two non-contemporary kings, Alyattes and
Nabonidus. Why? That's another story.

But for the chronolog of this period, there is more than one timeline and
history. I don't want to introduce this long topic but it is important to
note that that timeline and issues of revisionism are two different topics.
Persons expert in astronomy may not be so expert in interpreting
revisionistic historical reference. But since we are only dealing with
Herodotus at this point, I hasten to mention that he claims the king of
Babylon at the time was Nabonidus. So it has to be considered. Right now
585BCE is not the rule of Nabonidus.

But as noted, there is more than one timeline for thsi period and more than
one reference, including that of the Bible, Josephus and Ktesias in
particular. One of those timelines dates the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE when
he became king in Babylon and his overthrow of Astyages in year 6 of
Nabonidus 20 years earlier, which dates the 6th of Nabonidus in 475BCE and
his first year in 480BCE. Nabonidus only ruled for 2 years before turning
over the throne to his son, Belshazzar. So if we lift the reference from
Herodotus regarding Nabonidus mediating this peace agreement after the
eclipse there is only a two-year window. That's not alot. But for a
historical match with Thales, the eclipse would have to occur during these
first two years when Nabonidus was active on the throne.

Secondly, besides the dating of the eclipse, a LOCATION is part of the
reference. Thales warned "IONIA" about the eclipse. Meaning he expected
the eclipse in that region. The 585BCE eclipse did not go through Ionia.
So 585BCE is out for a Thales match-up of a predictable eclpse in Ionia.

However, getting back to 480-478BCE, the two years of the reign of Nabonidus
in hopes of a match, when we test that period for a solar eclipse coursing
through Ionia (just to be thorough), lo and behold there it is! in early
478BCE!

But that still doesn't make that eclipse predictable. It fits the
historicity as far as being during the active two-year reign of Nabonidus
and occurring over Ionia. But the big question is, whether it was
"predictable eclipse." So far, the only pattern of eclipses that would
seem predictable were the ones occurring over Babylon in 817, 763 and
709BCE. So was the 478BCE eclipse predictable by an eclipse 54 years and 1
month earlier? That is, the eclipse of 532BCE? As you see from the
graphic, IT WAS! It was predictable by the same pattern of exeligmos
eclipses of 817-763-709BCE!

That is the information being presented here. That, indeed, the
Babylonians on rare occasion had observed predictable eclipses and that the
one in 478BCE was predictable and that by some dating criteria that does
occur during the reign of Nabonidus.

If one is thus able to get past the propanga of revised history and revise
the dating for Nabonidus, then it would explain how Thales predicted the
eclipse. I think that's an interesting prospect. But of course, the proof
is no longer in astronomy at this point but in comparison of ancient records
as to which chronology is the most reliable.

I'm not here to promote any particular chronology but to note that there is
more than one for this period and for the reign of Nabonidus. For instance,
Ktesias claims Cyrus was the son-in-law of Astyages whereas Herodotus and
Xenophon claim he was his grandson. The contradiction alone suggests
revisionism.

Josephus claims Nabonidus ruled for 18 years and that there were 70 years
from the last deportation (year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar) to the 1st of Cyrus.
This adds 26 years to the Neo-Babylonian Period. Finally, Herodotus himself
is claiming the eclipse event actually occurred during the time when
Nabonidus (not Nebuchadnezzar) was ruling but that self-contradicts this
eclipse occurring during the time of Alyattes, which is a couple of
generations earlier. The self-contradiction, though is also a clue to
revisionism, that is, the history reflects both eclipse dates, the original
and the substitute. The substitute event was during the time of Alyattes
but the original during the original reign of Nabonidus. That's why you
have both kings mentioned. Thus, for those who actually locate the true
eclipse, a predictable eclipse occurring over Ionia during the reign of
Nabonidus, you have a confirmation for 478BCE. For those not understanding
this clearly, the substitute eclipse and timeline point to the 585BCE event.

Since the chronology issue historically is not really the expertise of an
astronomy group and the focus is on the eclipse and predictability is to
provide information regarding what the Babylonians and Thales were capable
of during their day and noting WHEN the predictable eclipses per this
special exeligmos pattern occurred for further consideration.

Thus I'm not debating here whether or not 478BCE is a better date for year 2
of Nabonidus, only that a rare predictable eclipse did occur that year and
that some "alternative" timelines had already dated this year as year 2 of
Nabonidus. Thus, at some point when the dating is seen more authorative for
478BCE for year 2 of Nabonidus, then the Thales eclipse event would have an
easy explanation for making him famous since he would have been able to
predict that eclipse.

Finally, for those thinking that this won't work because the current dating
for the Neo-Babylonian Period is so confirmed, think again! It is based
upon an eclipse event that doesn't work in 585BCE. At some level,
therefore, the match-up of a predictable eclipse in 478BCE for year 2 of
Nabonidus is proof the current timeline is in error and should be revisited.
You can't use a mismatched eclipse in 585BCE to dismiss a matched eclipse
elsewhere. It doesn't work that way. It's the other way around. The fact
that Thales works out perfectly in 478BCE suggests that 585BCE was the wrong
dating in the first place.

Larry


"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.

"Stephen Tonkin" wrote in message
...
Charles Gilman wrote:

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.

NO. In correction to the above. I was not talking about the discover of
the exeligmos 54-year-1-month cycle. I knew already that this was a known
cycle. It's the specific pattern of horizontally oriented eclipses within a
certain pattern of this cycle that is NEW that was discovered, a pattern
where the eclipses occur in the same region and whereby given a total
eclipse in a specific location, the first and third would be obserevd as
partial eclipses and the eclipse tracks are all the same distant apart.
That's what makes this PREDICTABLE.

The Exeligmos series itself does not always allow for predictability in a
certain area, just this particular sub-pattern in the series.

So I'm not saying the exeligmos series is new, only that a rare sub-series
in the pattern that allows predictability is newly discovered and unknown.

Stephen, did you know about it?

Do you understand WHY this particular series of consistently graduated
eclipses would allow for predictability? Every exeligmos eclipse does not
fit this pattern.

The 817, 763 and 709BCE eclipses in the region of Babylon-Assyria did. And
also the eclipses of 532-478BCE.

If 478BCE eventually becomes the accepted year 2 of Nabonidus then HOW
Thales predicted the Ionian ecilpse mystery would be resolved.

I'm proposing that this be considered.

Further, I want credit for discovering this sub-series of the Exeligmos,
since I did and it should be dubbed the WESES? (Wilson Exeligmos Solar
Eclipse Series) or the PESES (Predictable Exeligmos Solar Eclipse Series).
: Your choice.

This is a new discovery relating to the exeligmos. :
Larry W

"Stephen Tonkin" wrote in message
...
LARRY WILSON wrote:
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


Good advice Stephen and for the record, you are correct. I did have to look
up exeligmos and did get it confused with the Saros. But I was aware of the
54-year-1-month ancient knowledge already and it DOES NOT AFFECT THIS
REFERENCE. That's because every exeligmos eclipse series does not create
the same PATTERN of eclipses. What is the new discovery is an exeligmos
pattern of horizontally oriented eclipses that occur in the same region a
consistently graduating distance apart to predict other eclipses in the
series both by TIME and LOCATION.

What the Babylonians knew via the exeligmos was TIME ONLY, not LOCATION.
Generally, location would not be predictable or at least not pertinent to
the region. But this rare sub-series did allow that. It therefore is a
basis to correct old ideas that there was no known pattern of predictable
solar eclipses. That's a new update. Secondly, if the Biblical timeline
is accepted over the pagan timeline being currently used, then we have an
explanation for how Thales predicted an eclipse in Ionia in 478BCE. So
there is still a potential here for updating Thales.

But I also hasten to remind you that the dating of Nabonidus to 478BCE is a
"historical" discussion, not necessaarily an astronomical one. I'm just
noting that an "alternative" timeline that had already dated the 2nd of
Nabonidus in 478BCE would now be in agreement with the Thales eclipse event
that year since Herodotus claims it happened during the reign of "Labynetus"
(Nabonidus).

Thales is potentially vindicated along with the Babylonians. That's what
this is about. I've discovered HOW they could have done it. This was not
appreciated previously. The academic information on Thales needs to be
updated or at least expanded, IMHO, and the sub-series named after me!
(smile)

What do you think?

Larry Wilson


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

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:17:10 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "LARRY WILSON"
wrote:

pattern of horizontally oriented eclipses

what????

What do you think?

I think that probably nobody is reading your posts any more, they're
over long and excessive use of Caps makes them sound more than a
little ranty.

If you genuinely have discovered something new, present it for peer
review to one of the Astronomical journals.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Stephen Tonkin" wrote in message
...
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!

I'm sure astronomers are not interested in revisionist theories in ancient
history but they are unavoidable since these ancient eclipses come from
these sources. There are not always perfect matches. But we certainly can
look at what happens when certain ecilpses are moved around in light of the
varying chronologies of this period. In that regard there is another
eclipse issue. There was supposed to be another solar eclipse the year
Xerxes invaded Greece. With the dating of that event in 480 BCE, it is
confirmed there was eclipse visible to Xerxes that year.

However, the same timeline that would date the 2nd of Nabonidus per the
Thales eclipse, dates the invasion by Xerxes in 424BCE not 480BCE. In that
case there was an eclipse during the spring that Xerxes would have seen.

So, not that some would be persuaded without looking into the historical
problem of this period that the popular chronology and timeline would
disallow the only possible predictable eclipse for Thales in a narrow 2-year
window for the rule of Nabonidus to be persuasive, a second eclipse
mentioned Herodotus when Xerxes invaded Greece does occur with the corrected
timeline.

So with the corrected timeline, you gain two eclipses references in
Herodotus that work better than with the current timeline.

Briefly, the developed theory establishes that there were two revisions
made, one first by the Persians who added 30 years to the 6-year rule of
Darius I (Ezra 6:14,15 limits the rule of Darius I to six years, followed on
the throne by Artaxerxes) and that to compensate for this extension 26 years
were squeezed from the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian kings. That's why
some historians such as Josephus show a 26-year longer Neo-Babylonian Period
than the current records. However, this first revisin would not have
affected the timeline after the death of Darius. Later, Xenophon added
another 56-58 years to the timeline. These were unadjusted years and so
pushed all dating back by 56-58 years. The 585BCE eclipse was
sufficiently removed not to have been affected by this latter revision, but
not the eclipse in 424BCE, the original year of the invasion. That event
was pushed back first 58 years to 482 BCE and then adjusted to 480BCE
because the invasion needed to fall during an Olympic year. But it turned
out there is no solar eclipse in the spring in 480 BCE with the newer
revision.

Point being that the timeline Herodotus was playing with, manipulating and
reflecting was a different one than that survives post Xenophon. Xenophon's
changes end at the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes III. As an
interesting side note, apparently Plato and Aristotle participated with
Xenophon in the revisions. It all works out perfectly when the character of
Phaedo, the young lover student of Socrates was actually Aristotle.
Socrates would have died in 656 around the time Aristotle was 18-19.

Again, I don't want to introduce those theories here in the astronomy
discussion but since these eclipses are "historical" events some background
is sometimes necessary.

But just for general reference, for those who have researched the revisions,
there is the issue that Herodotus' revised timeline was not the same as the
current one which reflects a second later revision and so when the revised
timeline of Herodotus is considered, there is another historical eclipse to
discuss, the one which occurs during the spring of the year Xerxes invades
Greece. There is no solar eclipse in 480BCE, but there is one in 424BCE.

Thus dating Thales' eclipse to 478BCE isn't done in entire isolation
historically nor with reference to another eclipse that Herodotus claims to
have taken place.

Finally, since imaginations run wild I hasten to note that the revisions in
this period are in sync again by 358 BCE with the beginning of the rule of
Artaxerxes III, just so that the imaginations of those not familiar with the
specific revisions dismiss it out of hand thinking they have to change later
more established history during the late Persian Period and the advent of
Alexander the Great. That part of the timeline and subsequent remains in
place.

Larry Wilson

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:17:10 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "LARRY WILSON"
wrote:

pattern of horizontally oriented eclipses

what????

What do you think?

I think that probably nobody is reading your posts any more, they're
over long and excessive use of Caps makes them sound more than a
little ranty.

If you genuinely have discovered something new, present it for peer
review to one of the Astronomical journals.

Methinks it smells of an Oriel, Mark.
--
Craig Oldfield

Having seen Mark's reply, I briefly "unplonked" LARRY WILSON
to find that he had written:
[...]
NO. In correction to the above. I was not talking about the discover of
the exeligmos 54-year-1-month cycle. I knew already that this was a known
cycle. It's the specific pattern of horizontally oriented eclipses within a
certain pattern of this cycle that is NEW that was discovered,

If, as I presume, by "horizontal" you mean "similar longitude, different
latitude", the above is, like much else you have written here, utter
drivel. This is not a new discovery. It was known to Ptolemy, who wrote
of it in the Almagest, where he also said that it was known to his
ancient forbears (i.e. the various Mesopotamians).

The Exeligmos series itself does not always allow for predictability in
a certain area, just this particular sub-pattern in the series.

More drivel. Do the maths.


So I'm not saying the exeligmos series is new, only that a rare
sub-series in the pattern that allows predictability is newly
discovered and unknown.

More drivel. It is not "rare" and it was known in ancient Mesopotamia.


Stephen, did you know about it?

Yes.

[...]
If 478BCE eventually becomes the accepted year 2 of Nabonidus then HOW
Thales predicted the Ionian ecilpse mystery would be resolved.

Translation: If we ignore everything we know and accept Biblical
pseudo-chronology....

Further, I want credit for discovering this sub-series of the
Exeligmos,

Yet another case of someone trying to revise astronomical history purely
for his own glorification. Shame on you!


Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

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

Hello Stephen,

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I quoted the absolute authority in this field of
ancient astronomy, Otto Neugebauer who understood that possibly with ancient
records it might be possible due to some consistent phenomenon pattern to
predict an eclipse based upon a previous event in the same region, claims no
known pattern existed or was known to the Babylonians to assist Thales.

NASA quotes him when discussing the Thales event.

What I have discovered is a series of exeligmos eclipses that do provide
that predictability via their pattern. That is, eclipses that are in
location consistently approximately 15 degrees farther north every 54 years
1 month later. This was not known to Neugebauer!

Thus I have discovered a predictable eclipse series and the "official" claim
that the Babylonians did not have the expertise to predict the LOCATION of
solar eclipses needs to be updated. That's even before we get to whether
this applies to Thales or not.

RIGHT NOW, the official word is that the Babylonians had no method of
predicting the location of solar eclipses, but I have proven that incorrect
and outdated. This predictable eclipse pattern is not yet part of the
academic consciousness of predictable ancient eclipses.

But having noted that, when it comes to Thales if the 585BCE eclipse was the
absolute date for that event, if you believe Herodotus, "the father of
history" and "the father of lies" then that particular knowledge would not
have helped Thales because the 585BCE eclipse was not part of that specific
pattern of eclipses.

But of note, the 478BCE eclipse does fit that pattern. That is, upon
observing the 532 BCE eclipse both the TIME AND LOCATION would be
predictable.

Herodotus claims Thales warned IONIA and thus the location is specific for
this eclipse.

There was a predictable eclipse based upon 532BCE in 478BCE that would have
occurred in Ionia.

Further, Herodotus claims that the king ruling over Babylon at the time was
Nabonidus.

It is interesting and curious, therefore, that per the Biblical timeline,
with just a 2-year window for when Nabonidus was ruling on the throne, that
the predictable eclipse of 478BCE occurs in the Biblical second year of
Nabonidus.

You can make out of this what you want. I'm just providing you the
research.

1. The Babylonians did have a means of predicting some solar eclipses,
contrarary to the official beliefs of Neugebauer.
2.. The 585BCE eclipse did not fit in this rare series.
3. The 478 BCE eclipse does qualify as a predictable eclipse based upon
this series.
4.. It happens to be the 2nd year of Nabonidus per the Biblical timeline.

So you can chalk all this up to coincidence if you want to, but the bottom
line is, if 478BCE really was the original 2nd year of Nabonidus then Thales
vindicated for at least reporting the eclipse event to the Ionians thanks to
the Babylonians.

Events in ancient history are often in conflict so it is just who you decide
to believe. I accept that. But Thales has a legitimate reason for becoming
famous when you use the Biblical timeline dating year 2 of Nabonidus in
478BCE. He is a total mystery and non-scientist if you use the 585BCE
dating.

Suire he could have gotten LUCKY in 585BCE, volunteering to warn the Ionians
of an eclipse he had no basis for believing would have occurred there and
became famous out of a fluke. But I choose to believe the Babylonians were
already expecting this eclipse, in a precise year and in a precise location
and they told Thales about it and seeing it would affect Ionia, he simply
"warned" them about it. That seems more realistic and logical to me than
the fluke of his being convinced of an eclipse in that region based upon
nothing.

LarryW



"Stephen Tonkin" wrote in message
...
Having seen Mark's reply, I briefly "unplonked" LARRY WILSON
to find that he had written:
[...]
NO. In correction to the above. I was not talking about the discover of
the exeligmos 54-year-1-month cycle. I knew already that this was a known
cycle. It's the specific pattern of horizontally oriented eclipses within
a
certain pattern of this cycle that is NEW that was discovered,

If, as I presume, by "horizontal" you mean "similar longitude, different
latitude", the above is, like much else you have written here, utter
drivel. This is not a new discovery. It was known to Ptolemy, who wrote of
it in the Almagest, where he also said that it was known to his ancient
forbears (i.e. the various Mesopotamians).

The Exeligmos series itself does not always allow for predictability in a
certain area, just this particular sub-pattern in the series.

More drivel. Do the maths.


So I'm not saying the exeligmos series is new, only that a rare sub-series
in the pattern that allows predictability is newly discovered and unknown.

More drivel. It is not "rare" and it was known in ancient Mesopotamia.


Stephen, did you know about it?

Yes.

[...]
If 478BCE eventually becomes the accepted year 2 of Nabonidus then HOW
Thales predicted the Ionian ecilpse mystery would be resolved.

Translation: If we ignore everything we know and accept Biblical
pseudo-chronology....

Further, I want credit for discovering this sub-series of the Exeligmos,

Yet another case of someone trying to revise astronomical history purely
for his own glorification. Shame on you!


Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

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

Hi Craig, thanks for reading the post.

You know, it's interesting that HOW something is presented is often more
important than the substance of what is being presented. It's not that
important if something important has been discovered, it's how it is
presented that is important.

But in this case, it's pretty academic, fortunately. Otto Neugebauer was
aware of the possibility of this eclipse cycle but not didn't know of it
specifically. Therefore, he considered the Babylonians incabable of
predicting the time and location of any solar eclipse and, therefore,
incapable of passing that information on to Thales.

I have demonstrated that that is incorrect by the discovery of this eclipse
series. Thus a formal paper alerting the astronomical community of
Babylonian expertise in this area is quite the next step. I proves the
Babylonians were able to predict certain rare reclipses after all, so
Neugebauer was subinformed.

I think it is worth it, purely on an academic level to know that certain
solar eclipses are predictable based upon a previous eclipse when an eclipse
in that rare series occurs.

Again, this doesn't help Thales any if you limit his dating to 585BCE. But
it works pefectly for the Biblical dating when year 2 of Nabonidus falls in
479-478BCE when a predical eclipse based upon this predictable pattern did
occur.

Thanks again for your note. I will submit a formal paper. No problem.

Larry Wilson

"Craig Oldfield" wrote in message
news:MPG.1e072dcadbe79777989a5b@localhost...
In article ,
says...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:17:10 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "LARRY WILSON"
wrote:

pattern of horizontally oriented eclipses

what????

What do you think?

I think that probably nobody is reading your posts any more, they're
over long and excessive use of Caps makes them sound more than a
little ranty.

If you genuinely have discovered something new, present it for peer
review to one of the Astronomical journals.

Methinks it smells of an Oriel, Mark.
--
Craig Oldfield

LARRY WILSON wrote:
What I have discovered is a series of exeligmos eclipses that do
provide that predictability via their pattern. That is, eclipses
that are in location consistently approximately 15 degrees farther
north every 54 years 1 month later.

Which bit of :

"This is not a new discovery. It was known to Ptolemy, who wrote of it
in the Almagest, where he also said that it was known to his ancient
forbears (i.e. the various Mesopotamians)."

is too difficult for you to understand?

Whereas you *may* have discovered this phenomenon independently
(although, given the number of references to it readily available on the
'net, I find that difficult to believe that you could not find any of
them), but you are several millennia too late for primacy.


This was not known to Neugebauer!

Historical astronomers are finding an increasing number of flaws in
Neugebauer. There are many things that that Otto Neugebauer didn't know.
However, that is not a reason to assume that nobody else knew about
them, especially when there is ample evidence that they did!

It amazes me how some people to a "Custer's Last Stand" when their pet
theories have their flaws exposed.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

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