Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
- From: "Greg Neill" <gneillRE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:54:36 -0500
Moshiyosef wrote:
You are right on point here, but...In
"William Hamblen" <william.hamblen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0g3om4lcil7am5khoc28ud2s5k6bl8hb5e@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:46:21 -0600, "Moshiachyozif"Nothing wrong with the "article" but what it suggests is wrong with the
<siaxares@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snipissimo]
There was so much wrong in this article it is hard to begin.
calculations based upon ancient references.
The difference between mean solar time and what used to be calledThis is the KEY to all of this. "earliest known eclipse records." Which
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.
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Even so, is there enough historical reference to identify the eclipse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.
fact, it is called the earliest in some reference. It describes aneclipse
specifically to the hour, day, month in the 12th of Akhenaten by our bestwhich
guest of historical context. The eclipse can only occur in 1375 BCE
it is dated if the sixth year is a reference in the text (though this islunar
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
eclipse times are definitely compromised. The lunar eclipses are whatare
in contention for revised chronology.
Lunar eclipses are observable over a much wider geography, so
the timing information associated with whether or not an event
is viewable from a given location (thus pinning down the Earth's
rotational position and Delta-T) is much less accurate.
lunar
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
eclipse times from the Seleucid Period to calculate the lunar times.
No, it is the reverse. Using the integrated positions of the
Earth, Sun, and Moon, in models that take into account orbit
perturbations over time (such as VSOP87 theory), the conditions for
an eclipse are located on a uniform time scale. For that eclipse
the ground track of the event on the globe can be determined (without
necessarily specifying the particular land mass that will be in that
position for that time). Only observers who were in the ground track
could have observed the eclipse. If the event was recorded, the
recorded location and local timing yields the Earth's rotational position
for the event, so that the Delta-T can be inferred.
But wenot
have texts that are SPECIFIC for lunar-geo-solar coordination that does
fit the current lunar projections in these programs.in
Case in point the eclipse occurring in Tammuz in the 7th year of Kambyses
523 BCE. This is specifically noted by Ptolemy to occur "one hour beforethe
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
eclipse to within a minute to 4 minutes. That's specific. But when youeclipse
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
as occurring 3:20 "after night". Night designation is 32 minutes afteris
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
1061 = 11:01 p.m. = "one hour before midnight."a
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
generalized solar eclipse reference.location
Another absolute reference is Line 8 of the VAT4956 which gives the
of the moon in relation to the zodiac, that is 4 cubits belowbeta-Geminorum
at the time of sunset on the first day of the month as observed fromwould
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
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.
The length of the year in Egyptian times was very, very close to the
length of the year in modern times. A time offset is not the same as
a rate difference.
.
- References:
- Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
- From: Moshiachyozif
- Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
- From: William Hamblen
- Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
- From: Moshiyosef
- Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
- Prev by Date: Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
- Next by Date: Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
- Previous by thread: Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
- Next by thread: A Bigger Milky Way
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
