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 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

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

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

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

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.