Sachs/Hunger: VAT4956 misrep exposed to British Museum

The VAT4956 is a key text that is used in confirming the current dating for
year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 568BCE. But because of modern astronomy
programs that have reexamined the text, it was discovered that Abraham Sachs
and Hermann Hunger, who did the translation and translitation of this text
and many other ancient Babylonian astronomical texts may have biasedly
misrepresented what was in the text. This has been brought to the attention
of the British (UK) Museum and nothing so far officially has been done about
correcting it for some reason.

The issue involves Line 18 where the text was broken off but a clear
reference to some planet being immediately below the "bright star behind the
Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A), this star reference also being
found in Line 14. Sachs/Hunger inserted "the moon" as the missing planet
here. But the moon was far way from Virgo on the 15th of Sivan, having been
noted near this star on the 5th (Line 14).

A mistake? Perhaps. But this becomes a bit troubling since for Line 3
Sachs/Hunger notes "an error for the 8th" where the text mentions the 9th of
the month and thus a lunar mismatch for the lunar location for that date.
This means Sachs/Hunger did, indeed, compare the actual lunar locations for
references in the text. So one wonders why they did not note, even if they
believed this was a reference to the moon in Line 18 that this was an "error
of 10 days!"? Without making this comment it would seem that "the moon"
was the correct reference for time and location for Line 18.

Which brings us to observation #2. If the moon was not the correct
reference here for the 15th of Sivan in Virgo, then would this be applicable
to another other planet in this position on that date? The answer is "Yes"!
On the 15th, as plain as day, Venus was immediately below beta-Virginis on
this date, and obviously the reference in the text. So one wonders how
could Sachs/Hunger have confused the moon as being in Virgo still 10 days
off and at the same time miss that Venus was the obvious reference?

One explanation might be bias and politics. How so? Because Venus was the
only planet in Virgo on the 15th and specifically immediately below
beta-Virginis, which thus *defines* beta-Virginis as the "bright star behind
the Lion's foot. That means in this particular text, the Rear Foot of the
Lion would be the natural rear foot of Leo, sigma-Leonis (GIR ar sa UR-A).
The "Rear Foot of the Lion" is referenced in Line 3, only Sachs/Hunger note
that this is a reference to "beta-Virginis." That means for Lines 14 and
18, Sachs/Hunger were assigning the "bright star _behind_ the Lion's Foot"
to the star next in line after beta-Virginis, which was eta-Virginis. This,
of course, contradicts the text's references! Of note, the original
reference for the "Rear Foot of the Lion" was the rear foot of Leo in
earlier texts, but later during the Seleucid Era the "Rear Foot of the Lion"
became a new reference for beta-Virginis. This is likely the references
Sachs/Hunger were ascribing to. But this is contradicted clearly by Line
18 which references Venus below the "bright star behind the Lion's Foot"
establishing in this particular text, the old references were being applied
and not the new.

Had Sachs/Hunger left this place blank, it would have been a red flag to
simply look up which planet was in this position on that date and when it
was discovered it was Venus, it would have been clear that the "Rear Foot of
the Lion" reference in Line 3 was sigma-Leonis and not beta-Virginis as
Sachs/Hunger claimed. Inserting "the moon" in that position without any
reference to any "error of ten days" was less of a focus than leaving it
blank.

At any rate, the British Museum along with Hunger were informed of this
error and neither have since officially corrected it, though they did
acknowledge the obvious error. It certainly doesn't speak well for the
British Museum that they are covering for their colleagues on this one, but
when truth and scientific accuracy don't follow the same course as
"political correctness" usually the crowd follows whatever path the money
takes. It also proves that everyone in the end are human, even the
"experts" so doing your own research still remains the best way to establish
truth and accuracy sometimes.

LarryW

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:01:02 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Larry Wilson"
wrote:

The VAT4956 is a key text that is used in confirming the current dating for

whatever.
Will you please stop spamming astronomy newsgroups with
historical/religious discussions? Its wildly offtopic.

Actually I don't know why I'm bothering to post. I know you won't
listen, you're so full of it.

*plonk*
Mark McIntyre
--

----== 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 =----

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:01:02 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Larry Wilson"
wrote:

The VAT4956 is a key text that is used in confirming the current dating
for

whatever.
Will you please stop spamming astronomy newsgroups with
historical/religious discussions? Its wildly offtopic.

Actually I don't know why I'm bothering to post. I know you won't
listen, you're so full of it.

*plonk*
Mark McIntyre

You know your trouble, Mark? You just aren't sufficiently educated in
Copperknicker's Equation of Time and the famous Missing Eclipses in the rule
of Dynarod the Great. These worthy placentas are prepared to help you
through this dark matter and what thanks do they get ... hysterical
anti-historical histrionics! Full of it indeed. Tut!

To Teatime

The one thing that distinguishes Newton from numbskulls that follow
him,such as yourself, was his consistency in his descriptions even as
he eventually lapses into misconduct and vandalism.

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. "

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

Over the centuries as the 17th century analemmatic fudge took hold, at
the expense of the Equation of Time, the cataloguing and theoretical
guys came to consider the rotation of the Earth to absolute
space,inertial space or otherwise 23 hours 56 min 04 sec to be
something actual hence theorists like Mach had'nt a clue what
absolute/relative time refers to -

Mach: on Newton's Absolute Time


"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception."
Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.


I actually enjoy ,at least up to a point, how Newton acquired his
geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency from the value of 23 hours
56 min 04 sec even as it represents misconduct but I assure you the
Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 24 hours exactly for the
pre-Copernican transfer to its heliocentric adaption of indepdendent
axial rotation with the Equation of Time as a common denominator cannot
alter the association between axial rotation,the pace of clocks and
terrestial longitudes.

So Teatime,the first bit of framehopping was attributing a direct value
for the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees to the Sun in 24
hours exactly (it does'nt hence the Equation of Time) and attributing a
celestial sphere/calendrical average to the rotation of the Earth
through 360 degrees to the stellar background in 23 hours 56 min 04
sec.

Again,at least Newton was consistent in his misconduct,you otoh and
just plain silly and it shows .

I'm not talking about eclipses that happened when Jesus or whomever was on
the cross, but ancient astronomical texts that help us explore how astronomy
has changed for us today and that actually reflect on current concepts of
modern astronomy. Even the electronic astronomical programs use ancient
astronomical references to adjust for the changing Earth's rotational speed
and other factors. So it is *relevant* astronomy and not religious.
Thales being able to predict an ecilpse based upon Babylonian expertise is
not "religious".

Sachs and Hunger lying about what is in an astronomical text while being
quoted widely as experts is concerning and still related to astronomy. And
the last time I checked the British Museum was still in the UK.

This is a legitimate aspect of the entire field of "astronomy". If if does
not interest you particularly, why don't you just ignore posts about
"historical" astronomy? If you don't want to learn anything new about this
field of astronomy, then don't bother reading this. It shouldn't bother you
that others have interests in this aspect of the science.

Historical astronomy not your cup of tea? Ignore it. Others enjoy
exploring these things, you shouldn't care if they want to.

Larry


"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:01:02 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Larry Wilson"
wrote:

The VAT4956 is a key text that is used in confirming the current dating
for

whatever.
Will you please stop spamming astronomy newsgroups with
historical/religious discussions? Its wildly offtopic.

Actually I don't know why I'm bothering to post. I know you won't
listen, you're so full of it.

*plonk*
Mark McIntyre
--

----== 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
=----

To Oriel:
I am not usually one to top-post; however, your rudeness and presumption set
something of a precedent. What on Earth gives you the impression that I am
a follower of Newtonian principles of sidereal time? What makes you think
that I am a 'cataloger' or telescope-wielding amateur astronomer? How can
you know whether my skull is numb or not? And how can someone who posts the
same repetitive poppycock week after week dare to call his intellectual
superiors silly? You are quite wrong on all counts and you presume too
much. In truth, I am a confectioner by trade and therefore able to
distinguish between a choice sweetmeat and pure humbug. Your posts, like
those of Larry the Lamb, may have artistic merit (outmoded and quaint as
they are in these modern times) but they are off-topic here and decidedly
non-u as a result. Analemmatic Fudge was gay anyway.
---
TeaTime
Even a fish wouldn't get into trouble if it kept its mouth shut.


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

The one thing that distinguishes Newton from numbskulls that follow
him,such as yourself, was his consistency in his descriptions even as
he eventually lapses into misconduct and vandalism.

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. "

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

Over the centuries as the 17th century analemmatic fudge took hold, at
the expense of the Equation of Time, the cataloguing and theoretical
guys came to consider the rotation of the Earth to absolute
space,inertial space or otherwise 23 hours 56 min 04 sec to be
something actual hence theorists like Mach had'nt a clue what
absolute/relative time refers to -

Mach: on Newton's Absolute Time


"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception."
Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.


I actually enjoy ,at least up to a point, how Newton acquired his
geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency from the value of 23 hours
56 min 04 sec even as it represents misconduct but I assure you the
Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 24 hours exactly for the
pre-Copernican transfer to its heliocentric adaption of indepdendent
axial rotation with the Equation of Time as a common denominator cannot
alter the association between axial rotation,the pace of clocks and
terrestial longitudes.

So Teatime,the first bit of framehopping was attributing a direct value
for the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees to the Sun in 24
hours exactly (it does'nt hence the Equation of Time) and attributing a
celestial sphere/calendrical average to the rotation of the Earth
through 360 degrees to the stellar background in 23 hours 56 min 04
sec.

Again,at least Newton was consistent in his misconduct,you otoh and
just plain silly and it shows .

To Teatime

I will not even give you the satisfaction of an insult for I have
learned that this is the only perverse satisfaction empiricists can get
the nature of your consensual indoctrination makes it impossible to
distinguish one individual from the next.Do not for one second imagine
that I distinguish between one and another so you can forget superior
and inferior,this is a matter of restoring some dignity to a ruined
astronomical heritage.

Many here will,for the first time, see the outlines of the Equation of
Time emerge in Newton's description -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

They may even feel a release in seeing a genuine tangible and familiar
astronomical principle such as the Equation of Time and its association
between the natural day and the 24 hour clock day emerge from the text
above.

The neccessary astronomical foothold to extract genuine astronomical
insights from exotic trash like Newtonian quasi-geocentricity or its
homocentric relativistic extension is established once the correct
principles are re-aligned to the transfer of the pre-Copernican
equable 24 hour day to its heliocentric adaption to the principle of
independent and constant axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24
hours/360 degrees exactly.

It is wishful thinking to imagine that the core principles can be
altered however less careful people assume that the flexibility of the
system which allows a seasonal hour to be added and subtracted,time
zones to be adjusted for practical purposes* ect can be applied to the
core principle of axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour allied with
terrestial longitudes superimposed on the planet's geometry/geography.

Your punishment is living a silly 17th century lie,mistake,misconduct
or whatever you wish to call it,for everyone else,they are free to
explore the exquisite systems devised by men for the purpose of
creating the equable 24 hour day first,then the calendar system that
followed and then the heliocentric adaption to terrestial longitudes
and axial rotation.Then and only then can a person call himself an
astronomer.


* http://www.tandilnet.com/Turismo/zones.gif

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

I will not even give you the satisfaction of an insult for I have
learned that this is the only perverse satisfaction empiricists can get
the nature of your consensual indoctrination makes it impossible to
distinguish one individual from the next.

Why would you wish to insult me, you rude cretin? It is you who is making a
damn fool of himself in this newgroup and cluttering it up with off-topic
repetitive nonsense!

Do not for one second imagine
that I distinguish between one and another so you can forget superior
and inferior,this is a matter of restoring some dignity to a ruined
astronomical heritage.

You speak so easily of dignity when you are only capable of indignance.

All time measurements are empirical by the very nature of physics. The
Earth does not rotate at a precisely constant rate over the centuries.
Whichever system of measurement we choose will require occasional tweaking
for that reason. We are all aware of that. That is why we have
institutions like the Greenwich Observatory. It works. Get over it.

To Teatime

I do not feel sorry for you and your position in the scheme of things
as I have been explicit is assigning a fool's pardon on empiricists
beginning with Newton over a very specific error created by a celestial
cataloguer - John Flamsteed.Do you know how much these guys here care
about exotic and cartoon conceptions of space,dimensions and all the
other empirical kitch,they want to show you pretty pictures of Mars or
geocentric crescents of Venus,galaxies placed in
constellations/celestial spheres and thing like that.They care even
less for Copernican heliocentricity and its later Keplerian/Roemerian
refinements,they just want to be left alone with their celestial peep
show.

Among them there may be a few who genuinely have that astronomical gift
that was present in Copernicus,Galileo and Kepler and in their works
and insights.The benchmark for knowing whether that gift is present is
knowing how the pre-Copernican equable 24 hour day principles transfers
into its heliocentric adaption in terms of the equable pace of a
clock,terrestial longitudes and the Sun as a reference.

Nothing can help the empiricists who have convinced themselves that
clocks measure a time 'quantity' like rulers measure distance even as
the longitude problem and its resolution relies on clocks comparisons
measuring distance and thus determining location on the planet.Again,if
you imagine that you are the masters of cataloguers then think
again,they created the problem and you poor creatures built your
unfortunate conceptions of celestial structure and motion on it.

When they show you their pretty picture of the analemma * or what
amounts to the same thing - the non existent variation in axial tilt to
the Sun/Orbital plane you may even get a slight twinge that something
is badly wrong but such is the price for attempting to destroy the
noble Equation of Time principles and using the celestial
sphere/calendar system as a substitute.

Time !,you can't even tell the time for the single event that is the
Earth's rotation on its axis through 360 degrees.

* http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/analemma.jpg

To Larry

I quite understand your position in respect to ancient astronomy and in
no way would I seek to grandstand at your expense in these matters
however there is a point of departure when you go the same way as the
others.

The less you force into the works of the ancient astronomers the more
their works and the way they projected them emit more clarity.In
contrast,the practice of 17th century cataloguers/empiricists in
forcing ugly conceptions into heliocentric insights and insofar as
such fraud can be practiced openly and for so long there is very little
sense in appealing to more ancient conceptions of astronomy and the
works of many civilisations.

The loss of that astronomical intutive sense or an atrophy which is
difficult to dispel now marks our civilisation,the 'that was then,this
is now' remarks designed to mark our civilisation as advanced against
our ancestors only highlights that astronomy has turned into a cistern
rather than a fountain it once was and still can be.

Have no connection with the past except to strut a non existent
superiority, except in practical/optical astronomy, to our ancestors
nor any of the careful complimentary additions passed on from
civilisation to civilisation,the astronomical giants of our race
descend into consumerism of buying a telescope and becoming an
astronomer.

Yet everyone here will use our ancestor's treasure today and for the
rest of their lives even as they deny it, with just a few easy steps
they can have their cataloguing while setting real astronomy * free
from this dark era of empiricism .


* "To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets [vias
planetarum apparentes] and the record of their motions is especially
the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy; to discover

their true and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas] is . . .the
task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what circle and lines
correct images of those true motions may be depicted on paper is the
concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers"


Kepler 'Mysterium Cosmographicum'