Re: Earth Deceleration theory likely a farce


"Greg Neill" <gneillRE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4972364d$0$23000$9a6e19ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Moshiachyozif wrote:

Very, very interesting. We do have two references to make comparisons
though.
Two potential references specific to one minute.

[snip]

You should ask yourself about the accuracy of timekeeping
in those days, especially since hours tended to be variable
in length from day to day. Accuracy to the minute is a
very questionable proposal.

Hi Greg,

You make this statement with general skepticism, which is understandable,
but we have the ancient texts in hand to answer just how accurately it was
observed. But I'll let you decide.

Let's take the first eclipse of the Sk400 which is said to begin 3 hours 20
minutes after "night". Night is a division after sunset of 32 minutes.
Per Redshift for the location of Babylon, sunset ocurred on Tammuz 14 at
7:09 The offset to "night" of 32 minutes gives us 7:41 to which we add 3:20
giving us 10:61 which is 11:01. So with no adjustments we are one minute
away from 11 pm. Ptolemy's canon confirms this eclipse occurred "one hour
before midnight." So it would seem we are within a minute of the correct
time.

But the second eclipse also is specific enough so that we can dismiss 523
BCE as the reference for these two eclipses for "year 7". That is, the
second eclipse is said to begin 5 hours before morning. Morning, like
"night" is an offset of 32 minutes before sunset or sunrise. This eclipse
occurs on Tammuz 14 when sunrise occurs at 7:19 a.m. I convert 7:19 to
6:79 and subtract 32 minutes which gives me 6:47. I then subtract five
hours from 6:47 which gives me 1:47. Now in 523 BCE, the interval between
the two eclipses is 4:46, so the eclipse interval is 2 hours longer than the
text requires. The interval per the text and our calculations is 2:56.
That is, from 11 pm to midnight is 1 hour, so we add 1 hour to 1:47 and we
have an interval of 2:47. But to be accurate to the minute 11:01 is one
minute less and that gives us an interval of 2:46. Now 2:46, again, does
not match 523 BCE for "year 7" of Kambyses. So what gives?

Turns out lunar eclipses occur in patterns of 18 years for similar eclipses.
So 18 years earlier in 541 BCE a similar eclipse pattern occurs on he same
days: Tammuz 14 and Tebet 14, a 50% partial followed by a total lunar
eclipse. But of note, the eclipse interval is exactly 2:46!!

That is, based upon the times found in the "Canon of Lunar Eclipses" based
on Universal time, the first eclipse occurs at 12:14 and the second at
14:59. 14:59 - 12:14 is 2:45.

So the question is: was the times of both eclipses given as a cryptic
reference to point to 541 BCE rather than 523 BCE? We say likely because it
is not a matter of a parallel reference, but a mismatch for 523 BCE, year 7
of Kambyses.

What can we presume? A reference that 541 BCE was "year 7" of Kambyses,
first, if not, then to some other king whose original year was "Year 7."
Turns out this is the original "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar in the corrected
timeline. So it makes sense why the text was created. It was created to
hide a secret reference to the original timeline by giving the specific
times of both eclipses, it points away from 523 BCE and toward 541 BCE in
the context of "Year 7" for both years, only different kings. The fact
that the precision points to observed events rules out this being just a
coincidence.

But that then brings up something else. If the Seleucids intended to play
this little game of hiding details of the original timeline in diaries that
otherwise pointed to the revised timeline, in this case, to pull this off,
they would have to adjust the substitute eclipse time for the first eclipse
to occur "one hour before midnight." Otherwise, this reference does not
work. Thus you have an incentive to revise lunar times to make this align.

But having noted that, we are faced with the presumption that the 541 BCE
eclipse was actually the original eclipse that occurs "one hour before
midnight", obviously. To make this correction you must adjust this eclipse
16:14 and every other lunar eclipse time as well, adjusting for the
decreasing delta-T. But when you do this, the eclipse occurring in month 6
of Nabonidus, year 2, ends up setting at the last minute of totality. This
is absolutely required to match an even where the moon sets while "eclipsed"
or "dark", a reference to a TOTAL eclipse setting during totality. Which is
what happens. When you adjust all the eclipses by 16:14 based upon the
redated SK400, then the original Nabon 18 eclipse matches the text of
setting during totality. That can't be an error.

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/479x541J.JPG

Again, you have a mismatch for the current dating that turns out a match to
the original chronology specifically, in this case, year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar
dated to 541 BCE if you match the eclipse interval and change the timing of
the eclipse. But when you do, you get a match for the Nabon 18. The Nabon
18 does not work in 554 because it is only a partial eclipse. The context
is a total eclipse that sets during totality, causing a panic and thus
Nabonidus had to sacrifice his daughter to the service of the Moon god, Sin.
A nearly completely recovered partial eclipse does not inspire that kind of
fear. A total eclipse that turned into blood and lasted 1 hour and 32
minutes before the moon finally set will cause a panic. That's an unusual
event, but perfectly understandable as an eclipse that sets during totality,
particularly near the very end of totality.

But again, that this was likely the original timing and dates is confirmed
by the VAT4956 which shows the lunar location displaced earlier by 17-19
hours!

Quite fascinating.

Here's another example of how everything falls into place. The eclipse that
begins the PPW now dated to 431 BCE doesn't work. FR Stephenson commented
that as described, the stars coming out and a tiny crescent remaining cannot
happen effectively with an annular eclipse that far away from Athens. So
that reference is considered spurious. But when we factor in "The Delian
Problem" where Plato is not born yet in 430 to be consulted regarding a
match problem, we know we have to adjust the PPW down at least 20 years so
Plato is old enough to be consulted. We look for an eclipse event close to
Athens but not over Athens to create this specific astral phenomenon of
seeing the crescent and darkness. This eclipse must also occur in the 1st
year of the Olympic cycle to fit history. The eclipse occurring in January
of 402 BCE fits this perfectly.

Here is darkness comparisons between 431 BCE and 402 BCE.

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/403darkcomp.JPG

At any rate, if this was the original eclipse event then besides Plato being
25 years old at the time instead of not being born, the Peloponnesian War
begins in the summer of 403 BCE which does happen to be an Olympic year. We
can use this reference to now calculate back to the time of Cyrus. That's
because the 30-year peace agreement ends in the 10th year of the war, thus
384 BCE. That means Xerxes' invasion occurs in 424 BCE. Per Herodotus
this is an Olympic year and there was an eclipse in the Spring seen in
Persia. This checks out x2! This dates the Battle of Marathon to 434 BCE.
Darius died in this battle in his sixth year. His rulership was later
expanded to 36 years. Per the Bible the year Darius died is the same year
the temple was completed by his son after 21 years of building. Add 21 to
434 and you have the corrected dated for the 1st of Cyrus, which is 455 BCE.
Per Josephus' dating, 70 years reaches back into the 23rd year of
Nebuchadnezzar, the last deportation. Thus we have a reference for the
original rule of Nebuchadnezzar, with year 23 falling in 525 BCE. If this
is really correct and our cryptic theory that year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar falls
in 541 BCE, then everything should check out. Well, it does! Year 7 in 541
BCE means year 23 falls in 525 BCE! So we have a double confirmation and
we have linked the PPW 402 BCE corrected eclipse at a time when Plato was at
least born and 25 years of age, to an eclipse occurring in 424 BCE mentioned
by Herodotus, but that does not occur in 480 BCE, and that in turn is now
linked to the SK400 which dates year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar to 541 BCE as does
now the PPW eclipse in 402 BCE.

Is all this just some easy manipulation? Or does it all work out because it
was the original chronology in the first place?

Plus now, even more exciting scientifically, we have RC14 dating for
Shishak's invasion that is consistent with the original timeline but that
contradicts the current revised timeline which dates all events 57 years too
early, including David and Solomon.

It all works now. The astronomy is lining up with history and history is
being corrected and its loose ends corrected so we don't have to wonder why
Plato is being consulted 2 years before he was born.

Moshi




.

Relevant Pages

  • DESTROYING GREEK HISTORY: 10-POINT PLAN OUTLINE
    ... the Bible's timeline must prevail. ... Biblical chronology where the 1st of Cyrus occurs in 455 BCE, ... Socrates is only 7 years older ... Doesn't work for 431 BCE as a total eclipse that caused ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • ANCIENT ASTRONOMY events limit corrected timeline options
    ... ANCIENT ASTRONOMY EVENTS LIMIT CORRECTED TIMELINE OPTIONS ... It had to be aligned with another eclipse. ... BCE when he was at least 20 years of age. ... The VAT4956 now is a key text dating the Babylonian Period. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • 709 BCE ECLIPSE, why PREDICTABLE? Why important?
    ... Archaeologists use the current Assyrian timeline for their dating of certain ... such as Shishak's invasion in 925 BCE. ... my position is that the only reason this eclipse was mentioned ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Xenophons 56-year Greek revision still tripping up archaeologists
    ... 424-403 BCE) was expanded by the rather standard ... that previous summur was moved back to an eclipse occurring in 431 BCE. ... two cryptic references to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 511 BCE, ... Further confirming the NB timeline was revised and also giving us an ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: For MATT and DIGGER: VAT4956 FRAUD, How interested are you?
    ... it's 871 BCE. ... that link back to the original dating. ... new eclipse, saying it was a partial eclipse and it did not get fully dark. ... WHY include that reference? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading