THALES eclipse vindicated/Neugebauer proved wrong!

LARRY WILSON wrote:
[...]
told NASA about it? Why are they maintaining

I do not presume to speak for NASA -- if you have a problem with what
they publish, speak to them, not me.

[...]
Thanks for your information about Ptolemy. If you could provide a specific
reference

From fallible memory, Almagest IV.1 -- but you'll probably have to do
your own legwork. (It's odd that you haven't already done so.)

This is my last on this -- I'm now going to do what I should have done
sooner, and follow Mark's advice.


Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

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

Hello Stephen,

Thanks, so much for your help...

See final comments for you below:

"Stephen Tonkin"

I do not presume to speak for NASA -- if you have a problem with what they
publish, speak to them, not me.

I plan to. I've already written Espenak and will submit/coordinate a paper
with them.

[...]
Thanks for your information about Ptolemy. If you could provide a
specific
reference

From fallible memory, Almagest IV.1 -- but you'll probably have to do your
own legwork. (It's odd that you haven't already done so.)

Thanks, will look it up. In fact I think he's online now. But this
discovery was inadvertent when researching Assyrian astronomy and only
recently realized that it solved the Thales mystery. I didn't get into
Ptolemy because of Robert Newton who called him the "biggest fraud in
ancient history" and basically challenged and dismissed his work so it was
like a lost cause. But Ptolemy did provide me with a critical reference for
the timing of the 523BCE eclipse in the 7th of Kambyses. So he does provide
good reference. I love research so don't mind the "legwork", no telling
what else I'll discover.

This is my last on this -- I'm now going to do what I should have done
sooner, and follow Mark's advice.

That's fine, this can be exhausting and my theory is not fully developed
yet. I'll post what's happening and you can chime in when you want to help
me out. I think my discovery is significant even if it doesn't change
anything or affect the Thales issue.

Thanks for your reference! No reply necessary.

Best regards,

Larry
http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

To Larry

The Ptolemaics were at least attempting to gauge epicycles out apparent
retrogrades which means they had already cut the motions of planets
loose from the stellar background -

http://www.physics.carleton.ca/~wats...Epicycles2.gif

They would have arranged the Sun betwen Venus and Mars by way of the
transits .

Ultimately epicycles are direct explanations for planetary motion based
on a stationary Earth and look like this -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

Here is the Copernican resolution for retrogrades -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

If the Ptolemaic resolution looks the same as the Copernican,the
difference is that the heliocentrists seen the orbital motion of the
Earth sharing a common heliocentric axis with the slower moving outer
planets.

Let me make this abundently clear -

The current attempt to remove the core principles for the axial
rotation of the Earth, the 24 hour day and subsequently the equable
hour,minute and second is the most incredibly stupid thing I have ever
come across.

Which one of you geniuses would like to figure out why Harrison had to
produce an Equation of Time table for a calendar year seperate to the
other years.If any of those highly paid dummies who are so intent in
trying to dislodge the association between clocks,terrestial longitudes
and astronomy ever woke up and figured out that the original core
principles cannot,i repeat cannot be invalidated due to the exquisite
mechanism between the pre-Copernican equable 24 hour day and the
heliocentric adaption using the Equation of Time as a common
denominator between the two.

If nobody is furious with what is going on,they certainly are no
astronomers for this involves not only the destruction of Western
Copernican heliocentricity but the clock/calendar system that,in
principle ,was refined through civilisation after civilisation from
remote antiquity.

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:38:18 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "LARRY WILSON"
wrote:

Stephen Tonkin, you still don't get the point.

Seems improbable. Stephen has quite good credentials round here. You
on the otehr hand, don't.

----== 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 =----

Hello Mark,

I am a bit blushed since I only recently logged onto some of Stephens links,
and he is quite impressive, that is correct.

But in my issue is not really that major, just a technicality and quite
fundamental. It simply addresses the generally perceived idea in the
astronomy community that the Babylonians had no means of predicting eclipses
even based upon an unusual eclipse pattern observation that made subsequent
eclipses in the pattern predictable. Since Neugebauer didn't think the
Babylonians knew of such a rare series, it means he was not specifically
aware of any known series of ecilpses that provided predictability.

So what I'm bringing to the community here is this rare series of exeligmos
eclipses that just happen to sync the earth's rotational position during
this eclipse series. So that's #1. Recognizing the nature of the
predictability of this eclipse series in a specific region. I don't
believe this has been appreciated. So first there are just the fudamentals
of how this series provides predictability.

Once that is established, there is the issue of whether the Babylonians
witnessed this eclipse series and thus gained the potential for predicting
similar ecilpses that fit the pattern. That's point #2. I have shown that
indeed the Assyrians and Babylonians experienced this rare series between
817-709BCE, allowing them to predict both time and location of the 709BCE
eclipse.

That's it. So I'm not competing in any way with Stephen unless he has a
problem with the basis of this discovery. If he does have a problem, for
instance thinking that even though the eclipses occurred consistently in a
predictable pattern, then it would nice to hear his more professional view
on this, perhaps something not thought of. But this is so obvious, who
could argue with it.

So that's what I'm primarily contributing here. The discovery of this
eclipse pattern that allowed the Babylonians to predict other eclipses
matching this pattern. This contradicts wholly Neugebauer.

As far as Thales is concerned I only note that the 585BCE eclipse does not
fall in this pattern of predictable eclipses. But one does in 478BCE. Now
that is not a related issue at all, ordinarily, since Thales is not dated
that late. However, since Herodotus does mention that Nabonidus was ruling
at the time, we have to leave open the possibility that he did have 478BCE
in mind as 478BCE falls in the 2-year window for the dating of Nabonidus by
Judeo-Biblical records.

So even if we table Thales and table Nabonidus' year 2 in 478BCE, we still
need to deal with updating the preception what the ancient astronomers were
capable of as far as predictable eclipses. Right now the official word out
there is that they couldn't. I'm arguing this witnesses eclipse series
proves that they could.

So I'm just saying we need to discuss and then update Neugebauer about what
was possible in that period of ancient astronomy.

The historian experts will always have the last word as far as dating and
history, not the astronomers, so I'm not concerned about that beyond how it
affects understanding ancient astronomy.

Larry





"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:38:18 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "LARRY WILSON"
wrote:

Stephen Tonkin, you still don't get the point.

Seems improbable. Stephen has quite good credentials round here. You
on the otehr hand, don't.

----== 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
=----

Thanks, Oriel, for the graphics! There is no way that ancient astronomy
will advance until they adjust to ALL the possibilities in the weaknesses
and complexities of the historical record.

Right now the Earth's Rotational Speed (ERP) doesn't avary to within a
fraction of a hundredth of a second from year to year. The precise length
of the year was the same during the reign of Ramses II (13th century BC).

The only reason there are theories about the Earth's rotational speed
varying is because the Seleucids, in an attempt to include some original
astronomical references revised the lunar times. For some reason astronomy
academics finding an abundance of these adjusted references during the
Seleucid Period have presumed the Earth's Rotational Speed must have been
different explaining the discrepancies. So that's the problem, the revised
Seleucid Texts upon which changed the lunar times.

TO CLARIFY: The Persians revised their chronology twice and had to destroy
all the astronomical texts which exposed the revisions. Obviously this is
suspicious so when an occasion arose to maintain a reference from the old
chronology in the new they went for it.

For instance, there was a critical eclipse event during the second year of
Nabonidus wherein the moon set while totally eclipsed and panicked everyone,
so Nabonidus sacrificed his daughter to the moon god, Sin. (Nabon 18 text).
Once the revisions were in place, references like this had to be destroyed.
But it so happened that this eclipse occurring in the 6th month of the 2nd
year of Nabonidus had a counterpart in the revised chronology year. Only
problem was, the moon didn't set while eclipsed. There was about a 12-16
hour difference (not sure because of the delta-T adjustment).

At any rate another eclipse event coincidence came up. Turns out a double
eclipse during the original "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar repeated itself in
the revised "year 7" of Kambyses. This would afford for a nice cryptic
double-reference to the original chronology. But this eclipse was also
specifically timed. It occurred one hour before Midnight. But it turned
out that if you retimed this eclipse to one hour before midngiht for year 7
of Kambyses, the eclipse occurring in the 6th month of the revised year 2 of
Nabonidus would set while eclipsed!

Apparently, this was too resistible and some ambitious astronomer priests
thus set out to make it true and created many astronomical texts with the
adjusted time for lunar eclipses. They even renamed a key star to help make
the time adjustment. To make this work, as many astronomical texts as
possible would be created with predictions adjusted to the revised lunar
time.

When modern scientists got ahold of the records and noted the lunar
discrepancy, instead of understanding the Persians were lying, they invented
the earth rotational speed slow down theory, which sounded all soo good, but
why isn't the earth slowing down at the same pace now? And why was the
length of the year so precisely the same a thousand years earlier in Egypt?

But since "scientists" don't want to deal with complex historical issues,
their science is compromised by those prejudices. We know precisely when
the lunar time revisions were made by comparison of other astronomical texts
from the Seleucid Period. The current computerized canons are based upon
these observations from the Seleucid Period and so when it comes to lunar
times, the historical eclipses often don't work.

If you want to reflect on this. Note that the original year 2 of Nabonidus
in 479BCE has a total lunar eclipse event occuring in the 6th month, which
fits the context of the panic if it set while eclipsed in the total phase.
If you time the first of two eclipses found in the SK400 text to precisely
one hour before midnight for 541BCE, the original year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar
and apply that to the 479BCE eclipse time, then that ecilpse is near the end
of it's total phase when it sets.

On the other hand, if you adjust the 523BCE eclipse for year 7 of Kambyses
to one hour before midnight, an eclipse mentioned by Ptolemy, and apply
those times to previous eclipses, then the partial eclipse occuring in month
6 of the revised year of Nabnoidus in 554BCE is still in progress at
moonset.

So it would seen the revising of lunar timing was contrived to make certain
key events in ancient texts work out, adding some credibility to the
revisions. The revisions were done for political reasons to protect a
favorite king in Persia, Artaxerxes, who was claiming to be his own son.
Xerxes and Artaxerxes were really the same king. But don't tell anyone I
told you! :

Larry




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

The Ptolemaics were at least attempting to gauge epicycles out apparent
retrogrades which means they had already cut the motions of planets
loose from the stellar background -

http://www.physics.carleton.ca/~wats...Epicycles2.gif

They would have arranged the Sun betwen Venus and Mars by way of the
transits .

Ultimately epicycles are direct explanations for planetary motion based
on a stationary Earth and look like this -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

Here is the Copernican resolution for retrogrades -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

If the Ptolemaic resolution looks the same as the Copernican,the
difference is that the heliocentrists seen the orbital motion of the
Earth sharing a common heliocentric axis with the slower moving outer
planets.

Let me make this abundently clear -

The current attempt to remove the core principles for the axial
rotation of the Earth, the 24 hour day and subsequently the equable
hour,minute and second is the most incredibly stupid thing I have ever
come across.

Which one of you geniuses would like to figure out why Harrison had to
produce an Equation of Time table for a calendar year seperate to the
other years.If any of those highly paid dummies who are so intent in
trying to dislodge the association between clocks,terrestial longitudes
and astronomy ever woke up and figured out that the original core
principles cannot,i repeat cannot be invalidated due to the exquisite
mechanism between the pre-Copernican equable 24 hour day and the
heliocentric adaption using the Equation of Time as a common
denominator between the two.

If nobody is furious with what is going on,they certainly are no
astronomers for this involves not only the destruction of Western
Copernican heliocentricity but the clock/calendar system that,in
principle ,was refined through civilisation after civilisation from
remote antiquity.

Larry Wilson wrote:

Thanks, Oriel, for the graphics! There is no way that ancient astronomy
will advance until they adjust to ALL the possibilities in the weaknesses
and complexities of the historical record.

Right now the Earth's Rotational Speed (ERP) doesn't avary to within a
fraction of a hundredth of a second from year to year. The precise length
of the year was the same during the reign of Ramses II (13th century BC).


To Larry

The subtleties of the core principles which transfer the
pre-Copernican equable 24 hour day via the noon Equation of Time
correction to its heliocentric adaption of precisely 15 degress per
hour or 1 deg every 4 min may be just too intricate for contemporaries.

How to proceed in explaining the transfer of pre-Copernican to
heliocentric always presents a problem so often it is neccessary to
highlight it against the contemporary infantile correlations which
involve introducing an uneccessary stellar background reference for
axial rotation -

http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/...S/AACHCIR0.JPG

I simply cannot compete against people who refer the Earth's axial and
orbital motion as a calendrically/celestial sphere based homogenised
average,by calendrically based that cycle is 4 years and 1 day working
off the Earth's axial rotation.

There is a very good reason why Copernicus isolated the Earth's orbital
motion to explain retrogrades and infer heliocentricity in contrast to
the Ptolemaics who isolated planetary motion to epicycles based on a
stationary Earth but all these wonderful subtleties have been lost.

There is no real point of departure for all this,it is a gift that
cannot be rote learned or can be bought by owning a telescope.It is
just the ability to put motions into proper context for
astronomical,geological and climatological modelling or refining the
seperate system based on the calendar but everyone is intent in mixing
up the two and keeping the Earth's axial and orbital motions
homogenised.

I am signing off on all this as the sidereal value leads to a corrupt
quasi-geocentricity while the core Equation of Time principles were
adapted by heliocentrists to an accurate clock system based on the
principle of axial rotation at 1 degree every 4 minutes and 360 degrees
every 24 hours precisely.

Until those principles are acknowledged ,people are wasting their time
on anything astronomical except the convenience of optical astronomy.





The only reason there are theories about the Earth's rotational speed
varying is because the Seleucids, in an attempt to include some original
astronomical references revised the lunar times. For some reason astronomy
academics finding an abundance of these adjusted references during the
Seleucid Period have presumed the Earth's Rotational Speed must have been
different explaining the discrepancies. So that's the problem, the revised
Seleucid Texts upon which changed the lunar times.

TO CLARIFY: The Persians revised their chronology twice and had to destroy
all the astronomical texts which exposed the revisions. Obviously this is
suspicious so when an occasion arose to maintain a reference from the old
chronology in the new they went for it.

For instance, there was a critical eclipse event during the second year of
Nabonidus wherein the moon set while totally eclipsed and panicked everyone,
so Nabonidus sacrificed his daughter to the moon god, Sin. (Nabon 18 text).
Once the revisions were in place, references like this had to be destroyed.
But it so happened that this eclipse occurring in the 6th month of the 2nd
year of Nabonidus had a counterpart in the revised chronology year. Only
problem was, the moon didn't set while eclipsed. There was about a 12-16
hour difference (not sure because of the delta-T adjustment).

At any rate another eclipse event coincidence came up. Turns out a double
eclipse during the original "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar repeated itself in
the revised "year 7" of Kambyses. This would afford for a nice cryptic
double-reference to the original chronology. But this eclipse was also
specifically timed. It occurred one hour before Midnight. But it turned
out that if you retimed this eclipse to one hour before midngiht for year 7
of Kambyses, the eclipse occurring in the 6th month of the revised year 2 of
Nabonidus would set while eclipsed!

Apparently, this was too resistible and some ambitious astronomer priests
thus set out to make it true and created many astronomical texts with the
adjusted time for lunar eclipses. They even renamed a key star to help make
the time adjustment. To make this work, as many astronomical texts as
possible would be created with predictions adjusted to the revised lunar
time.

When modern scientists got ahold of the records and noted the lunar
discrepancy, instead of understanding the Persians were lying, they invented
the earth rotational speed slow down theory, which sounded all soo good, but
why isn't the earth slowing down at the same pace now? And why was the
length of the year so precisely the same a thousand years earlier in Egypt?

But since "scientists" don't want to deal with complex historical issues,
their science is compromised by those prejudices. We know precisely when
the lunar time revisions were made by comparison of other astronomical texts
from the Seleucid Period. The current computerized canons are based upon
these observations from the Seleucid Period and so when it comes to lunar
times, the historical eclipses often don't work.

If you want to reflect on this. Note that the original year 2 of Nabonidus
in 479BCE has a total lunar eclipse event occuring in the 6th month, which
fits the context of the panic if it set while eclipsed in the total phase.
If you time the first of two eclipses found in the SK400 text to precisely
one hour before midnight for 541BCE, the original year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar
and apply that to the 479BCE eclipse time, then that ecilpse is near the end
of it's total phase when it sets.

On the other hand, if you adjust the 523BCE eclipse for year 7 of Kambyses
to one hour before midnight, an eclipse mentioned by Ptolemy, and apply
those times to previous eclipses, then the partial eclipse occuring in month
6 of the revised year of Nabnoidus in 554BCE is still in progress at
moonset.

So it would seen the revising of lunar timing was contrived to make certain
key events in ancient texts work out, adding some credibility to the
revisions. The revisions were done for political reasons to protect a
favorite king in Persia, Artaxerxes, who was claiming to be his own son.
Xerxes and Artaxerxes were really the same king. But don't tell anyone I
told you! :

Larry




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

The Ptolemaics were at least attempting to gauge epicycles out apparent
retrogrades which means they had already cut the motions of planets
loose from the stellar background -

http://www.physics.carleton.ca/~wats...Epicycles2.gif

They would have arranged the Sun betwen Venus and Mars by way of the
transits .

Ultimately epicycles are direct explanations for planetary motion based
on a stationary Earth and look like this -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

Here is the Copernican resolution for retrogrades -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

If the Ptolemaic resolution looks the same as the Copernican,the
difference is that the heliocentrists seen the orbital motion of the
Earth sharing a common heliocentric axis with the slower moving outer
planets.

Let me make this abundently clear -

The current attempt to remove the core principles for the axial
rotation of the Earth, the 24 hour day and subsequently the equable
hour,minute and second is the most incredibly stupid thing I have ever
come across.

Which one of you geniuses would like to figure out why Harrison had to
produce an Equation of Time table for a calendar year seperate to the
other years.If any of those highly paid dummies who are so intent in
trying to dislodge the association between clocks,terrestial longitudes
and astronomy ever woke up and figured out that the original core
principles cannot,i repeat cannot be invalidated due to the exquisite
mechanism between the pre-Copernican equable 24 hour day and the
heliocentric adaption using the Equation of Time as a common
denominator between the two.

If nobody is furious with what is going on,they certainly are no
astronomers for this involves not only the destruction of Western
Copernican heliocentricity but the clock/calendar system that,in
principle ,was refined through civilisation after civilisation from
remote antiquity.

Hello Dennis, just getting back to you regarding Meeus!

Thank you very, very much for this reference. I truly found it informative
and fascinating, one of the more fun books on astronomy that I have come
across.

I'll post something in the discussion group but just in case you might miss
this:

Chapter 9 doesn't mention the exeligmos cycle at all, perhaps because it is
not known to be significant in connection with any geographical significance
to a single area. Solar eclipse patterns vary greatly and some patterns seem
to only occur once in several hundred years thus the series of eclipses from
979-655 BCE, which occur in a consistent pattern in relation to each other
and at least three ecilpses in the series occurring in the same region
allowing for prediction of a third maybe a unique series.

However, I had already known of another "geographical" solar eclipse
phenomenon I was surprised Meeus didn't mention. I use this pattern to
compare locations of ancient eclipses with modern. It's a pattern that
occurs every 1841 years and 15 days.

Amazingly, the pattern repeats itself again in a nearby region but by the
same approximate pattern formula.

Here's is a rough schematic.

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/comp1A.JPG

For comparison with a compute program, corresponding dates a

979 BCE - 863 AD

925 BCE - 917 AD

871 BCE - 971 AD

817 BCE - 1025 AD *#1 seen at Babylon

763 BCE - 1079 AD *#2 seen at Babylon

709 BCE - 1133 AD *#3 predictable at Babylon

655 BCE - 1187 AD

Again, thanks for the reference, it was very helpful, but the geographically
predictable exeligmos eclipse pattern and the 1841-year eclipse patterns
were not covered by Meeus.

Larry Wilson


"DT" wrote in message
...
LARRY WILSON wrote
Thanks again for your note. I will submit a formal paper. No problem.

Larry Wilson

Chapter 9, Mathematical Astronomy Morsels, Jean Meeus.
Don't submit 'til you've read it.
You don't want to look a complete ****, do you?
nuff said.

Denis
--
DT
change nospam: n o s p a m
v a l l e ys