Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce


"Greg Neill" <gneillRE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:49723938$0$4930$9a6e19ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A change in Delta-T wouldn't grossly affect the relative positions of the
Sun and Moon for a given date; they are not moving that quickly with
repect to each other. A more likely scneario is that the ephemeris for
lunar or solar positions (or both) are not accurate for the period in
question.

Well, affecting that assessment are astronomical texts dating back to 1375
BCE.
When we compare the projected eclipses to match the ancient records I have
consistently found both time and location very confirmed for the solar
eclipses.
The lunar eclipses don't match well or at all.

For instance, you couldn't hope for a better specific event that gives you
coordinated earth-moon-sun coordination than the SK400 which gives the
time a lunar eclipse begins, "one hour before midnight." This is the
correct
calculation in the SK400 but is also an eclipse mentioned by Ptolemy. Yet
the time projected in the canon is 57 minutes too early.

Likewise, even though the wrong date as well, the Nabon 18 describes a
lunar eclipse in progress at the time of moonset. At the current settings
and
delta-T, this partial eclipse in 554 BCE sets shortly after the eclipse is
over.

Now both these eclipses are revised in the new timeline, but would not have
been left "on the books" unless they actually were adjusted to the specific
timing. That is, if you artificially for the location of Babylon adjust the
SK400
eclipse misdated as it is to "one hour before midnight" which was the intent
of the Persians, then that 57 minute later eclipse event affects the 554 BCE
partial eclipse so that that eclipse likewise extends to 57 minutes later
(minus or plus delta-T adjustment of a few minutes) and then you get
a text match. When the SK400 eclipse begins one hour before midnight
then the 554 BCE moon sets while eclipsed. Even though both dates are
linked to the revised chronology. When the timeline is corrected, the
same eclipses correct the same way. The original dating for the "one hour
before midnight" eclipse dated to 541 BCE makes the 479 BCE moon set
at the very end of totality. Which is the context of why the eclipse was
so unusual it caused a panic and thus got mentioned in the narrative.

So I think the lunar times were adjusted so that these references from
the original timeline that had coincidental substitutes in the revised
chronology
would work. That is, the coincidence worked as far as eclipses occurring in
the
same months and years, but the lunar times were off in these cases because
the times were so specific. But the same adjustment worked for both
eclipses.
At that point, it was just a matter of creating as many documents predicing
lunar
eclipses 16 hours later than they really did occur and changing the name of
beta-Virginis to the "Rear Foot of the Lion" to cover their tracks.

I don't know if you follow why changing the name is consistent with the
16-hour revision, so let me elaborate. If you project the moon in positions
16 hours later than it really should be, then some ancient references will
expose this since it will show the moon 16 hours earlier. This is what
would
happen in the case where the moon may be near sigma-Leonis, the Rear Foot
of the Lion. But if you rename beta-Virginis the "Rear Foot of the Lion"
then
even the ancient texts will reflect the 16-hour revision because
beta-Virginis
is approximately 16 lunar hours away from sigma-Leonis. So it covers their
tracks with respect to ancient lunar positions described near sigma-Leonis.
However, this revision was done after the VAT4956 was created. Thus we
find the Rear Foot of the Lion (GIR ar sa UR-A) still a reference to
sigma-Leonis and beta-Virginis called the "Bright Star Behind the Lion's
Foot" (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A). Of course, this would hvae been apparent
if Sachs/Hunger had not distracted from this by lying about what was in Line
18, inserting the moon there so that people would not discover Venus was
there and thus the name discrepancy with later texts. I guess they didn't
want to open a potential can of worms or a closer look.

But when you stand back, it becomes fascinating how astronomy was
manipulated in ancient times when they had the opportunity to do so. Of
course, the VAT4956 also shows in Line 8 the 16-19 hour earlier position at
sunset of the moon than does the canon adjusted to the current delta-T.
So it does make a difference. Everything is less than a day but lunar
movement is sensitive to 1 degree (2 hours) in some ancient texts.

Again, you have professionals lying about a critical text. Why? There is
no way they made a mistake. The text itself records the moon out of Virgo
and into Libra and Scorpio. The moon at this time of the year travels above
beta-Virginis, so would have never been "sap" (just below) that star.
Further, line 3 proves they cross-checked for lunar times because they noted
an "error for the 8th" for a reference to the 9th in Line 3. But there is
not only the wrong planet, they don't note any error of any kind. It was
not their intention to have this discovered. Had they left this part blank
since you have both the date and position it would have immediately been a
matter of looking to see which planet it was which would confirm that
beta-Virginis was being called the "bright star behind the Lion's foot" and
not the "Rear Foot of the Lion." So they not only avoid comparison with
later texts, they misrepresent the accuracy of the astronomy.

So people talk about "conspiracy theorists" and why there are conspiracies,
well you have a perfect chance to ask someone why they would feel it was so
important to try and hide this? Further, the British Museum was notified
regarding this. They acknowledged the obvious error but then did nothing
about correcting it beyond saying they would have FR Stephenson and Hunger
and others revisit this. But they can't. Once you correct line 18, you
will have to correct line 14 and line 3, and it will be clear this was a
deliberate manipulation and then academic peer review would ensue. But
Abraham Sachs and Hermann Hunger are well respected icons in the field of
archaeoastronomy and Assriology, so why embarrassed someone by this
correction? So unless you force the hand on something like this, everybody
wants this to just be swept under the rug. And that's how conspiracies
develop.

Note also that the time of sunset recorded could be influenced by
local terrain (horizon visibility), and the local convention of
whether sunset is counted when the Sun's lower limb reaches it, its
center, or its upper limb.

Well, this is simulated and besides that we are dealing with time zones of
one hour. So this is just the "model" being set up with understanding of
the error margins involved. The program sets sunset time for that
particular location likely based upon horizon. The SK400 which is based on
the time of sunet for Babylon, which is in no way for sure the precise
location the text was created and thus a regional reference, ends up
beginning the eclipse 1 minute after 11 p.m. When rounded to the nearest 4
minutes you get 11 pm = "one hour before midnight", so we are impressed at
how specific it matches, well within our presumed error margins.

Moshi


.

Relevant Pages