Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce


"oriel36" <kelleher.gerald@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8baafa18-cce4-41ca-b0d2-1a665f7d9c66@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 16, 10:07 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Moshiachyozif wrote:

It doesn't have to affect it at all if, due to the various influences,
the day happened to be 24 hours long at that time. We know it wasn't,
but the point is that Delta-T alone does not specify the day length,
it only specifies the time *offset* from a universal mean time.


Thanks, again for trying. But the problem is this. You have some people
calculating the delta-T based upon the current decleration rate of
milliseconds extrapolated back to 1250 BCE. That works for me. That is
consisent with the length of the year the Egyptians observed. But that is
not the delta-T listed in the canons. The delta-T is 8:34.

So which delta-T is correct?

So there are two methods for determining delta-T, entirely based upon which
observations you use or consider most reliable, the second is to simply use
the current rate of decelerations and extrapolate that back in time. Per
the current rate of deceleration which is nanoseconds per day allegedly, the
length of the year in 1250 BCE would still be essentially the same as it is
now, 365.25. But based upon observed events from ancient texts the delta-T
of the canons show delta-T's of up to 12 hours in the distant past. But
that concept contradicts the Egyptian reference which is consistent with the
current deceleration rate.

So it doesn't make sense. The lunar drag on the planet right now is just
nanoseconds per day, milliseconds per year, yet c. 1260 we are to believe
the lunar drag was decreasing earth's rotation at a rate of 3 minutes per 10
years, that is 18 seconds every year. 18 seconds versus milliseconds in a
single year. Plus all that stops in 1600 for some reason?

No. This is not scientific it is placebotic.

My take is that the Seleucid Period references used for the current delta-T,
according to Stephenson a single reliable eclipse in the third century BCE
is in error. Further, other texts contradict the earth's rotational
position for specific references.

Moshi


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
    ... The fact is that c. 1250 BC you have a delta-T of 8 hours ... This is related to deceleration by lunar drag at the rate ... But Egyptian records completely disprove this, ... direct references in the distant past and totally ignoring the Egyptian ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
    ... but the point is that Delta-T alone does not specify the day length, ... milliseconds extrapolated back to 1250 BCE. ... the current rate of deceleration which is nanoseconds per day allegedly, ... celestial reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
    ... been in 1260 BCE? ... Delta-t is also derived from the rate at which Earth's rotation rate ... for a back of the envelope calculation. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
    ... but the point is that Delta-T alone does not specify the day length, ... the current rate of deceleration which is nanoseconds per day allegedly, ... celestial reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce
    ... Point being during the mid 6th century BCE the earth was ... Any astro program or eclipse canon that shows the delta-T gives you ... The delta-t for a given year BCE? ... only if rotation rate were off by a constant amount--but it isn't, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Loading