Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce

You are right on point here, but...

"William Hamblen" <william.hamblen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0g3om4lcil7am5khoc28ud2s5k6bl8hb5e@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:46:21 -0600, "Moshiachyozif"
<siaxares@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snipissimo]

There was so much wrong in this article it is hard to begin.

Nothing wrong with the "article" but what it suggests is wrong with the
calculations based upon ancient references.


The difference between mean solar time and what used to be called
ephemeris time is called delta-t. You can think of delta-t as
resulting from the rate of rotation of the Earth being different from
the movements of the solar system as a whole. The change in delta-t
over the 3,500 years from the earliest known eclipse records to the
present is less than 1/2 of a day and would not effect ordinary
chronology - things like who reigned when - at all.

This is the KEY to all of this. "earliest known eclipse records." Which
specific records are we talking about?

Even so, is there enough historical reference to identify the eclipse
specifically? The earliest potential eclipse reference is the KTU 1.78. In
fact, it is called the earliest in some reference. It describes an eclipse
specifically to the hour, day, month in the 12th of Akhenaten by our best
guest of historical context. The eclipse can only occur in 1375 BCE which
it is dated if the sixth year is a reference in the text (though this is
debated).

Now right now, indeed, this eclipse does begin in the 6th Egyprian hour
(Ugarit was under Egypt at the time and the text reflects Egyptian
astronomy). So this is quite accurate for a SOLAR ECLIPSE. But the lunar
eclipse times are definitely compromised. The lunar eclipses are what are
in contention for revised chronology.


Solar eclipses make a reasonably good clock because the eclipse is
visible over a small area. If the rotation of the Earth changes the
location where the eclipse is visible changes.
Bud

This is correct. But what this means is that the eclipse canons are using
current earth's rotational speed to calculate SOLAR ECLIPSES and using lunar
eclipse times from the Seleucid Period to calculate the lunar times. But we
have texts that are SPECIFIC for lunar-geo-solar coordination that does not
fit the current lunar projections in these programs.

Case in point the eclipse occurring in Tammuz in the 7th year of Kambyses in
523 BCE. This is specifically noted by Ptolemy to occur "one hour before
midnight." When you have the specific time a lunar eclipse begins, then
you can harmonize the eclipse time, hour of the day, which is the earth's
rotational position. It is all you need to determine the Earth's position
on that particular day at that particular time time in conjunction with the
eclipse to within a minute to 4 minutes. That's specific. But when you
view this eclipse from Babylon it occurs some 57 minutes too early.

Now the SK400 (Strm. Kambyses 400) is a text that records this same eclipse
as occurring 3:20 "after night". Night designation is 32 minutes after
midnight. So calculated based upon sunset on the date of the eclipse at
7:09 p.m. we get the same timing. That is 7:09 plus 32 is 7:41 plus 3:20 is
1061 = 11:01 p.m. = "one hour before midnight."

So why doesn't this observed reference work any closer? OR, why not use
this lunar reference to get an absolute alignment? This is better than a
generalized solar eclipse reference.

Another absolute reference is Line 8 of the VAT4956 which gives the location
of the moon in relation to the zodiac, that is 4 cubits below beta-Geminorum
at the time of sunset on the first day of the month as observed from
Babylon. But when you check for sunset at Babylon on that date, the moon
is some 13.5 hours downrange from what the text says. Even so, this would
be another reference that allows for geo-lunar-solar coordination but is a
mismatch for the current delta-T references.

So it entirely depends, subjectively, on the references used by the
astronomers.

But again, the Egyptian length of year reflects our current deceleration
rate suggesting the Seleucid Period lunar eclipse references are
compromised.

In the meantime, as you say, adjusting the ERS would affect these ancient
solar eclipses, which would seem to confirm that the solar eclipses were
never adjusted by delta-T in the first place. We know the lunar eclipses
are fabricated in some cases but all the solar eclipses seem to be perfectly
in line.

So how could astronomers guess ancient eclipses as far back as 1375 BCE in
Ugarit based upon skeptical lunar complications from the Seleucid Period
that fail for many text specifics? The only explanation is a double
standard. That is, the solar eclipses are based upon the current ERS and
the lunar eclipses adjusted historically to the Sleucid Era projections.
But those projections are distorted by about a half day. A name change for
the star "Rear Foot of the Lion" from sigma-Leonis to beta-Virginish, which
are about 12-14 hours lunar distance apart seems to confirm as well a
deliberate introduction of 12 hours or more to the lunar times to facilitate
manipulation of astronomical texts to match revised timeline events.

In other words, the apparent discrepancy in the ERS compared to lunar events
suggests the times are "wrong" in the Seleucid Period texts. This would
lead to dismissal of these texts and eposure of the revisions. That would
in turn expose the revisions and force the timeline to adjust to its
original events. But politics intervene here to try to help substantiate
the Seleucid Period astronomy so that the timeline seems legitimized. This
is now exposed by the VAT4956 and the SK400 which hide references to the
original chronology.

This leads to questions about lunar times and when that occurs we obviously
compare current earth deceleration rates with other references such as the
Egyptian length of year during the time of Rameses II. What we find is the
timing is in-sync with Egypt but not the Seleucid Period as far lunar times.
But solar eclipse times and positions are critically accurate. So it
appears lunar times are placebotic and apoloegic for the Seleucid Period
revised times but are not applied to solar eclipse calculations which must
be based on our current earth rotational speed.

What I would like is to calculate both ways. Calculate all eclipses based
upon the current earth's rotation to see if some of the double-dated hidden
events which are lunar time specific (i.e. Nabon 18 and SK400) reflect a
zero deceleration. In fact, this must be an already accepted understanding
in private circles based upon the specific solar calculations.

Thanks for your comments.

Yoshi


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
    ... But I'm saying if you use any lunar observations from the Seleucid ... In other words, an eclipse in year two, month 6 in year 2 ... So I'm basically just sharing with the astronomy community this ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Bible far ahead of ancient astronomers!
    ... the Persians changed the lunar observation times during the ... Seleucid Period and modern astronomers didn't realize these were ... time for the "7th year" eclipse is the same adjustment needed tor the "2nd ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
    ... of lunar distance time between sigma-Leonis and beta-Virginis. ... been the natural rear foot of Leo, the star sigma-Leonis. ... One is the KTU 1.78 describing an eclipse occurring over Ugarit that occurs ... So that tends to be a strong confirmation that the solar eclipses are all ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
    ... The lunar eclipses don't match well or at all. ... calculation in the SK400 but is also an eclipse mentioned by Ptolemy. ... then the 554 BCE moon sets while eclipsed. ... happen in the case where the moon may be near sigma-Leonis, the Rear Foot ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
    ... delta-T by itself tells nothing about the Earth's rotational speed. ... eclipse records are not likely to be very precise. ... the precise coordinated time of lunar position and earth position. ... reference for two eclipses, where we have specific observational signs, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)