Jump to content

Gauss' Easter Formula Applied To The Chronology Of History: Dating The Council Of Nicaea


sandokhan
 Share

Recommended Posts

No. In the geocentric calendar you do not have 366 days at all every four years. That extra day is accounted for in the context of those 364 days (each day, though, is a little longer).


Five synodical years of Venus equal 2919.6 days, whereas eight years of 365 days equal 2920 days, and eight Julian years of 365/4 days equal 2922 days. In other words, in four years there is a difference of approximately one day between the Venus and the Julian calendars. 

Therefore, apparently in a strange way, we are following a Venusian calendar, unknowingly.

This is one of the main reasons for the entire Gregorian calendar reform hoax (the other being, of course, to falsify the chronology of history, as we have seen earlier).

And there is much more to be accounted for in the heliocentrical setting.

For example, the axial precession of the Earth.

pre1.jpg

"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period. 

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

As can be seen from the chart below, the precession rate (now 50.29 arc seconds per year) has been accelerating over the last 100 years. This means the calculated time required to complete one precession cycle has been falling. Note that the precession rate was under 50.255 arc seconds before 1900 when Simon Newcomb first began to keep accurate records, (meaning a complete precession cycle would have taken about 25,790 years), but now just 100 years later, the rate is 50.29 arc seconds per year and the computed time to complete one full cycle is down under 25,770 years. That is a decline of 20 years of periodicity in just 100 years of record keeping. Also, the trend is fairly consistent year over year and it is accelerating. 

If the local gravity theory of lunisolar precession were correct, and this trend was extrapolated back a few hundred thousand years then precession would have been virtually non-existent even though the Sun and Moon exerted about the same gravitational influence as they do now. And if this trend were extrapolated forward a few million years the Earth might be wobbling so severely it would retrograde a day for every day it spins, and essentially stop moving or go into reverse!

Following is a chart with points representing the actual annual calculated precession rates
for the last 100 plus years. The early calculations are by Simon Newcomb and the later
by Williams or the Astronomical Almanac. We have drawn a line in the middle of the
dots to show the slope of the trend. If precession were the result of our Sun’s motion
around another object (causing a reorientation of the Earth) then according to Kepler’s
laws any trend line would reflect the signature of an elliptical orbit. 

precession_trends.gif

Figure 1. Current trends in precession. Source: 1900-1980 The American Ephemeris and
Nautical Almanac;
1981-2002 The Astronomical Almanac. United States Naval Observatory


However, in the lunisolar model (local gravity) the changing trend in precession rates was entirely unexpected. 

The fact of the matter is the gravity of the Sun and Moon have been very stable for
millions of years [according to the official theory of astrophysics] and there should be no reason in the lunisolar model for this significant upward trend in the wobble rate. If  anything it might be expected to slightly “decrease” under lunisolar theory as the Moon moves a fraction of an inch farther from Earth each year and as the Sun burns up a small fraction of its mass each year. But frankly these amounts are so negligible relative to the mass and scale involved that the precession rate should be noticeably stable year after year – if these masses are indeed the cause of the wobble. Lunisolar theorists not only need to find new inputs to the precession formula for the sake of accuracy, they need to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces and come up with larger effects in the opposite direction.

W. Cruttenden

 

Dr. Anatoly Fomenko - Dean of the Faculty of Mathematics-Mechanics, Moscow State University, author of 200 scientific publications, and 28 treatises on advanced mathematics.

But Fomenko proposes only the new chronology of history.

I am an adept of the much more radical new chronology of history.

Fomenko's papers were published in respected journals, please see the references above.

 

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

some of my coins are from the Kushan empire... which was set up before Christ.   And ancient Greece and Rome. They have pictures of Constantine, Claudius etc.. on them.  Are they made up too?

Well done.

Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn has already demonstrated in his best known work that the entire historical period of 2100 BC - 600 BC was invented:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110517042728/http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html

"Heinsohn has made a very important contribution to the revisionist debate by focussing attention on the evidence of stratigraphy outside Egypt. Dayton had uncovered many examples in museums around the world where near identical ancient artefacts of very similar styles and manufacturing techniques were given dates which varied sometimes by as much as 1000-1500 years. Heinsohn, from an extensive study of archaeological reports from most of the better known sites across Asia Minor, showed how these anachronisms had arisen. At site after site, archaeologists had artificially increased the age of the lower strata by inserting, without supporting evidence, 'occupation gaps' of many centuries. They did this in order to meet the expectations of excessive antiquity among historians, who had used Biblically derived dates for Abraham (c. 2100), initially seen as broadly contemporary with the great Assyrian king Hammurabi. Using this elongated time frame, great empires of the past such as the Sumerians, Akkadians and Old Babylonians were invented by late 19th C and early 20th C scholars to fill the historical voids. The ancient Greek and Roman historians, not surprisingly, knew nothing of these ancient peoples. Sumerian, said Heinsohn, 'is the language of the well known Kassite/Chaldeans, whose literacy deserves its fame'. 

He showed that the Bronze Age started in China and Mesoamerica some 1500 years later than in the Near East and proposed this gap be largely closed by lowering the ages of the Mediterranean civilisations. He cited the Indus Valley where the early period civilisations, dated from Mesopotamian seals to c. 2400BC, sit right underneath the Buddhist strata of 7-6C. Seals from Mesopotamia are found in the Indus valley and in Mesopotamia there are seals from the Indus Valley. So the excavators have to say they have an occupation gap of some 1700 years. Thus some sites only about 30km apart have chronologies some 1500 years apart. But in the same strata, supposedly 1500 years apart, they frequently find the same pottery. 

C&CR had insufficient space to provide a full forum for Heinsohn's work, but a volume entitled Ghost Empires of the Past was published in C&CR format in 1988, thanks to help from SIS stalwarts Birgit Liesching and Derek Shelley-Pearce. In this, Heinsohn set out many chronological 'problems' and 'riddles', and argued persuasively for equating, among others, the Mittani with the Medes and the Empire Hittites with the Late Chaldeans. 

 

His excellent paper on the archaeology of Hazor (C&CR 1996:1) revealed some important anachronisms. For example, two cuneiform tablets written in Old-Babylonian Akkadian and two more written in the Akaddian of the Amarna era were found in the upper layers of the site. Heinsohn asks 'How did tablets from the early second millennium end up in a stratum reaching its peak in the period of the Persian Empire (550-330 BC)?'. The tablets were, of course, immediately labelled 'heirlooms' by their finders. But, as Heinsohn pointed out, it seems strange that the later Hazoreans kept tablets for over 1000yr as heirlooms from the MBA or LBA, yet were apparently incapable of producing any texts of their own. Also, a clay jar inscribed in 23C Old-Akkadian was found in the Hyksos layer c17C. Yes, you've guessed - this was explained as yet another boring old 'heirloom'. Heinsohn makes a plea to archaeologists to 'set textbooks aside and allow oneself the liberty of following reason and hard stratigraphical evidence'. The textbook schemes 'separate by enormous time spans what is found in parallel stratigraphical locations, exhibiting very similar material cultures.' Unfortunately for archaeologists, the writers of the textbooks are often the 'Guardians of the Dogma' who control the funding for archaeological research. As a result, an archaeologist brave enough to confront conventional thinking may quickly find himself both professionally discredited and out of a job. 


Heinsohn has presented many well-researched papers exposing stratigraphical problems, and suggesting much lower chronologies for Near Eastern civilisations. His stratigraphy and stylistic-based chronologies and, more recently his explanation for the 'lost' Persian layer throughout the Persian Empire have generated much debate and some unanswered controversy among revisionists."

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

You seem to be asserting that a large explosion will not send any material upward. 

tunguska-3.jpg

A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.5 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.

http://www.phenomena.org.uk/features/page88/page88.html

 

This is what we are talking about: the light from the explosion was seen over a distance of 5,200 km, while at the same time the light from the Sun could not be observed in that interval of time.

 

Now, let us see how the extended arctangent series was used for the Gizeh pyramid. Surely this will attract your attention.

TAN 51.8554° = TWO SACRED CUBITS

Reference #1

http://davidpratt.info/pyramid.htm

For example, the angle of slope of the Pyramid’s outer casing was 51.85 degrees.


Reference #2

The Pyramid Age, E.J. Sweeney

Chapter 1, page 4

This ratio provides a slope of 51.85 degrees (calculated).


Reference #3

http://stochasticprojectmanagement.com/?p=105

ratio of height to width: 1.571 (one half of pi)  slope: 51.85 degrees


Reference #4

http://www.numberscience.me.uk/Giza.html

The slant angle of the face of the pyramid approximates to 51.85 degrees.


Nineteenth century archaeologists or even modern researchers into the Gizeh pyramid phenomenon have no idea what to look for, having succumbed to the official propaganda which tells us that ancient Greeks introduced the п symbol/number.

The pi ratio in the pyramid is derived from the ratio of the 
pyramid baseline divided by the height.  The average baseline 
is 9,068.8.  Divide this by the height (5776 +- 7 inches) and you
get 1.5701.  This value times two is 3.1402.  A better approximation
of pi is obtained using the angle of the slope of the faces of the 
pyramid.  The angle for the north slope according to Petrie is 
51 deg. 50 min. 40 sec. +- 1 min. 5 sec.  The same ratios in a 
pyramid with this angle yield a value of 3.1427+-0.002.  

The Pi value in the pyramid is an interesting feature, but the 
facts show that the value that can be found is not any more accurate
then the value of 22/7 for pi (or 11/14 for pi/4) that is traditionally
attributed to Archimedes.  It is not at all clear that the Egyptians
intended this Pi relationship to be a design feature per se.



The builders of the Gizeh pyramid could not care less about π: the entire edifice is built according to the sacred cubit figure, which is the value of 2/π.

3.1427/2 = 1.57135

1/1.57135 = 0.636395, one of the exact values of the sacred cubit


The sacred cubit is designated in the form of a horseshoe projection, known as the "Boss" on the face of the Granite Leaf in the Ante-Chamber of the Pyramid. By application of this unit of measurement it was discovered to be subdivided into 25 equal parts known now as: Pyramid inches.

ONE SACRED CUBIT = 0.6356621 meters

30_great_pyramid.jpg

Those who are seeking for the ultimate proof that the builders of the Gizeh Pyramid knew advanced calculus, have to look no further than the following demonstration, which I discovered two years ago.


As we have seen, the angle of the slope of the Pyramid’s outer casing is 51.85 degrees.

However, in order to reach/know this value, the architects of the Gizeh Pyramid must have had at their disposal the extended arctangent series:

1a65c25333063610ba7ca6aecd562356.png


TAN 51.8554 DEGREES = TWO SACRED CUBITS = 1.27330478216 = 0.636652 x 2


In order to reach the value of 51.8554 degrees, the architects MUST have used the extended arctangent series to achieve the final result.

136.12 = actual height of the Gizeh Pyramid (without the masonry base).

The other angle of the triangle, 38.145 degrees, is also closely related to the sacred cubit:

38.13 = 60 sacred cubits

And 51.85/38.1 = 1.361 - therefore, all these measurements/dimensions must have been known well ahead of time to the arhitects of the Gizeh Pyramid; but in order to have the actual angle values, they needed to calculate the arctangent of two sacred cubits.


Further proof that the values of 51.8554 and 38.1446 are related to the sacred cubit.

51.8554/14.134725 = 11/3

1400/11 = 127.27272727

127.272727 = 63.63636363 x 2

51.8554 x 27 = 1400


51.8554 x 1.618034 = 83.904

1.618034 = PHI

83.904 x 0.6366 = 53.413

53.413 x 0.2548 = 13.61

0.02544 = one sacred inch (0.636/25)

136.1 = height of Gizeh Pyramid without the masonry base


Relationship between the two angles:

The other angle of the triangle, 38.145 degrees, is also closely related to the sacred cubit:

38.13 = 60 sacred cubits

And 51.85/38.1 = 1.361 - therefore, all these measurements/dimensions must have been known well ahead of time to the arhitects of the Gizeh Pyramid; but in order to have the actual angle values, they needed to calculate the arctangent of two sacred cubits.

TAN 51.8554 DEGREES = TWO SACRED CUBITS = 1.27330478216 = 0.636652 x 2


In order to reach the value of 51.8554 degrees, the architects MUST have used the extended arctangent series to achieve the final result.

Just a "very good approximation" won't do it.

One needs the correct value to the fifth decimal, something that can be achieved ONLY by using advanced calculus.
 

There is no other way to calculate the inverse tangent function of a certain angle (without using a pocket calculator/computer) other than resorting to power series, that is, utilizing calculus. Moreover, one would need a clear understanding of the concept of the radian measure.

The architects of the Giza Pyramid had these choices at their disposal in order to solve the following equation:

TAN X = 1.27330478216 = 0.636652 x 2


1. Maclaurin series in conjunction with the arctan reciprocal formula

1e513f13f671fc98e01e5b25c47a69905ae2fedf

ecb0a376d9148e3cf65ea6e6ed5fb37752a581c7

(equation #3)


51.8554° = 0.907045 radians

1/1.27330478216 = 0.78535

Substituting the value of 0.78535 in the Maclaurin arctan series and solving the reciprocal arctan equation, up to the O(x11) term we get:

0.905045

This corresponds to a 51.983° value.

Therefore, the builders of the Pyramid must have had at their disposal the notion of the derivative (either the Newton-Leibniz or the Madhava definitions) in order to obtain the arctan Maclaurin series, not to mention the reciprocal arctan equation; even in that case, they had to be able to compute powers of certain numbers, going perhaps all the way to the O(x17) term (in the Maclaurin series) or even beyond, to obtain a meaningful accuracy.


2. Extended arctangent series

1a65c25333063610ba7ca6aecd562356.png

This is a result from advanced calculus.


3. Gauss-Pfaff-Borchardt-Carlson iterative formula

http://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/1972-26-118/S0025-5718-1972-0307438-2/S0025-5718-1972-0307438-2.pdf

This formula necessitates the use of the concept of derivatives for its mathematical proof.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=cGnSMGSE5Y4C&pg=PR20&lpg=PR20&dq=numerical+methods+that+work+forman+acton&source=bl&ots=_TWAL76eh8&sig=UoUEc2xjUGxLP0awbJv64HXJG14&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCsci5h4_QAhUJaRQKHcR6CkoQ6AEIXTAH#v=onepage&q=numerical%20methods%20that%20work%20forman%20acton&f=false(pg 6-9)

Other variants of this formula:

http://files.ele-math.com/articles/jmi-09-73.pdf

A more advanced look at this approach:

https://www.math.ust.hk/~machiang/education/enhancement/arithmetic_geometric.pdf


4. My formula

ARCTAN v =  2n x ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ v2)}1/2)1/2]...1/2}))1/2 (n+1 parentheses to be evaluated)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DrP said:

some of my coins are from the Kushan empire... which was set up before Christ.   And ancient Greece and Rome. They have pictures of Constantine, Claudius etc.. on them.  Are they made up too? :huh:

You've got me thinking now. I have seen coins and many other artefacts from China, and many other other countries, that date back before 1000AD (thousands of years before in some case). There is a LOT of this stuff. There must have been an enormous industry in 1000AD to create all these forged artefacts, transport them around the world and bury them in ways that recreate a false prehistory. 

Why is there no evidence of this massive manufacturing and distribution enterprise? And who paid for it all? And why?

And what were people doing before 1000 that had to be hidden with all these forgeries? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

IOW, you seem to be assuming that line-of-sight to the blast itself is the only way for the sky to get bright. Which is bollocks.

I did not see this reply.

Go ahead and explain how the light of the Sun was blocked by the curvature of the Earth, while at the same time the light of the explosion was seen instantaneously from London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

No. In the geocentric calendar you do not have 366 days at all every four years.

You are missing the point. I know you find it hard to understand what you read so let me try again. I will type more slowly so you can keep up.

This calendar year is called (for fairly arbitrary reasons) 2019.

This calendar year has 365 days in it from the day we call January the 1st to December 31st.

119 calendar years ago there was a calendar year that we called 1900.

That calendar year had 365 days in it, as well.

This is about calendar years; in other words you can go out and buy a calendar for 2019 and count the little boxes to see how many days it has (you might need a grown unto help you).

You can also get a calendar for the year we called 1900. And you can count the days in that year. There were 365 of them. That piece of paper won't magically change if you utter the magic phrase "heliocentricus geocentrum!!!"

So, the simple fact that the calendar year 1900 had 365 days in shows that it is a GREGORIAN calendar. (If it had been a Julian calendar it would have had 366 days because 1900 is divisible by 4.)

I'm sure you will try to wave this fact aware with more incoherent gibberish. But I can't help you beyond that.

11 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

Fomenko's papers were published in respected journals, please see the references above.

Not his insane droolings on fake history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn has already demonstrated in his best known work that the entire historical period of 2100 BC - 600 BC was invented

Yea?  This guy, Tom Grant, has shown for a fact that the moon is made of cheese. http://zemonster.tripod.com/cheesy.html 

cheese-moon-astronaut.jpg

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why is there no evidence of this massive manufacturing and distribution enterprise?

Because they covered it all up of course! How else are they going to fool people 500 years later? :doh:

Edited by DrP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

I have seen coins and many other artefacts from China,

The great wall of China was constructed quite recently.


http://de.geschichte-chronologie.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83:chronological-revolution-part-1&catid=2:2008-11-13-21-58-51&Itemid=90 (glorious Chinese history is a fake section)

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27892#27892 (not so ancient china 1)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27945#27945 (not so ancient china 2)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27981#27981 (not so ancient china 3)
 

Damodar Kosambi, India's greatest historian of the 20th century:

"There is virtually nothing of what we know as historical literature in India... 
all we have is a vague oral tradition and an extremely limited number of 
documented data, which is of a much greater value to us than that obtained 
from legends and myths. This tradition gives us no opportunity of 
reconstructing the names of all the rulers. The meagre remnants that we do 
possess are so nebulous that no date preceding the Muslim period [before the 
VIII century A.D.] can be regarded as precise... the works of the court 
chroniclers didn't reach our time... all of this leads some rather earnest and 
eminent scientists claim that India has no history of its own". 
 
"Written memorials of the Indus culture defy decipherment to this day. .. not a 
single finding can be associated with an actual person or historical episode. We 
don't even know the language that was spoken by the inhabitants of the Indus 
valley." 

We are told further on that many vital issues concerning the "ancient" history 
of India are based on the manuscripts found as late as the XX century. It turns 
out, for instance, that:"the main source of knowledge in what concerns the 
governmental system of India and the policy of the state in the epoch of 
Maghadhi's ascension is the Arthashastra - the book. .. that had only been 
found in 1905, after many a century of utter oblivion". It turns out that this 
book is basically an Indian version of the famous me-diaeval oeuvre of 
Machiavelli. However, in this case the "ancient Indian Arthashastra" couldn't 
have been written before the Renaissance. This could have happened in the 
XVII-XVIII century, or even the XIX."

Emperor Ashoka, considered to be India's greatest ruler, never existed:

https://madhesi.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/did-ashoka-exist/

 

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

So, the simple fact that the calendar year 1900 had 365 days in shows that it is a GREGORIAN calendar. (If it had been a Julian calendar it would have had 366 days because 1900 is divisible by 4.)

The geocentric year has 364 days, each day though is a little longer: it accounts for the extra heliocentrical day (leap day every four years) quite nicely. What you have to deal with is the absolute fact that the Council of Nicaea could not possibly have taken place in the year 325 AD, as proven by the Gauss Easter formula. Then, the claim made by Gregory XIII re: the ten extra days is completely false.

Moreover, I can prove that Michelson and Gale did not record the SAGNAC EFFECT at all in 1925: all they registered is the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift, a huge difference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sandokhan said:

The great wall of China was constructed quite recently.

Many of the repairations and refurbs were.

Just to be clear  -  my coins from the Kushan Empire aren't real and they were made to give support to the lie that the Kushans ever existed and all that history was made up to fool people?

 

 

 

cheese-moon-astronaut.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

There must have been an enormous industry in 1000AD to create all these forged artefacts, transport them around the world and bury them in ways that recreate a false prehistory. 

Good point. Then, I suppose, that industry also included Radiocarbon dating equipment, to be able to supply organic material of correct age to support the modified prehistory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sandokhan said:

The geocentric year has 364 days, each day though is a little longer:

But I am NOT talking about geocentric years.

I am talking about calendars.

Let me try that again more slowly and loudly for you.

I AM TALKING ABOUT C A L E N D A R S.

The CALENDAR year 1900 had 365 days. Therefore it was the Gregorian CALENDAR. You know, the one that you claim doesn't exist.

3 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

Moreover, I can prove that Michelson and Gale did not record the SAGNAC EFFECT at all in 1925: all they registered is the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift, a huge difference.

I have no idea why you bring this up but I would recommend that you keep your piles of excrement in separate threads and don't try to mix them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

I have no idea why you bring this up but I would recommend that you keep your piles of excrement in separate threads and don't try to mix them.

But you should.

My formula was peer reviewed and also published by Professor Yeh in the Journal of Optics Letters.

It is flawless.

Can you understand the connection?

You are asserting heliocentrism.

Yet, Michelson and Gale (and every ring laser gyroscope) did not record the SAGNAC EFFECT at all, only the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift.

A most direct proof I am correct.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

But I am NOT talking about geocentric years.

I am talking about calendars.

Sure.

The calendar we are using is set in the heliocentrical context. That is why you have to add an extra day every four years.

In 1900, the geocentric year had 364 years, yet each of those days is a bit longer than the correponding heliocentrical day, it also accounts for the extra leap day.

You are constantly avoiding the fact that the Council of Nicaea could not possibly have taken place in the year 325 AD.

6 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Then, I suppose, that industry also included Radiocarbon dating equipment


Dr. Anatoly Fomenko:

We have cross-checked archaeological, astronomical, dendro-chronological, paleo-graphical and radiocarbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts. We found them ALL to be non-independent, non-exact, statistically implausible, contradictory and inevitably viciously circular because they are based or calibrated on the same consensual chronology.

Unbelievable as it may seem, there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the XI century. Classical history is firmly based on copies made in the XV-XVII centuries of 'unfortunately lost' originals. 

It just happens that there is no valid irrefutable scientific proof that ALL ‘ancient’ artefacts are much older than 1000 years contrary to the self fulfilling radiocarbon dating obligingly rubber-stamped by radiocarbon labs to the prescriptions of the mainstream historians. How heartbreaking is that the oldest ORIGINAL written documents that can be reliably, irrefutably and unambiguously dated belong only to the 11th century! All dirty and worn out originals have somehow disappeared in the Very Dark Ages, as illiterate but tidy monks kept only brand new copies. Better yet, most of the very old original document of 11th-13th tell very peculiar stories completely out of line with the consensual history. 

Radio-carbon method:

Very sorry about c14 radiocarbon dating methods, the poor Nobel Libby must be turning in his grave after ‘calibration’ of his method (pity that!). By ‘calibration’ on statistically non-significant number of wood samples from Egypt with ARBITRARELY suggested alleged age of 3100 B.C. the Arizona university radiocarbon team simply smuggled the consensual chronology into c14 method of dating, turning it into a sheer fallacy.

The c14 radiocarbon dating procedure runs as follows: archaeologist sends an artefact to a radiocarbon dating laboratory with his idea of the age of the object to get a to ‘scientific’ rubber-stamp. Laboratory gladly complies and makes required radio dating, confirming the date suggested by archaeologist. Everybody’s happy: lab makes good money by making an expensive test, archaeologist by reaping the laurels for his earth shattering discovery. The in-built low precision (because of sensitivity) of this method allows cooking scientifically looking results desired by the customer archaeologist. General public doesn’t realize that it was duped again.

Just try to submit to any c14 lab a sample of organic matter and ask them to date it. The lab will ask your idea of the age of the sample, then it fiddles with the lots of knobs (‘fine-tuning’) and gives you the result as you’ve ‘expected’. With c14 dating method being so mind bogglingly precise C14 labs decline making 'black box' test of any kind absolutely. Nah, they assert that because their method is SO very sensitive they must have maximum information about the sample. This much touted method often produces reliable dating of objects of organic origin with exactitude (mistakes that) of up to plus minus 1500 years, therefore it is too crude for dating of historical events in the 3000 years timeframe!

History: Fiction or Science? volume I:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=history%20science%20or%20fiction&f=false

chapter 1, sections 15 and 16

Isotopic dating: science or fiction? 

https://web.archive.org/web/20080514235945/http://www.atenizo.org/evolution-c14-kar.htm


Thermochronology/geochemical analysis errors:

http://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/dating2.html

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/u-th-pb-dating-an-example-of-false-isochrons/

https://web.archive.org/web/20110808123827/http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro14.html

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html (superb documentation)

http://web.archive.org/web/20110301201543/http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v8i9f.htm

http://itotd.com/articles/349/carbon-dating/


http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm
http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07b.htm
http://evolutionfacts.com/Appendix/a07.htm
(must read)

http://www.parentcompany.com/great_dinosaur_mistake/tgdm9.htm


Spectroscopy methods errors:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489346.html#msg1489346

http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html


Ice core dating errors:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html


Collapsing Tests of Time:

http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htm


The methods described above cannot be used to date anything.

 

The only accurate and direct method is: comets as luminous bodes MUST have limited lives.

When passing close to the sun, comets emit tails. It is assumed that the material of the tail does not return to the comet's head but is dispersed in space; consequently, the comets as luminous bodies must have a limited life. If Halley's comet has pursued its present orbit since late pre-Cambrian times, it must "have grown and lost eight million tails, which seems improbable." If comets are wasted, their number in the solar system must permanently diminish, and no comet of short period could have preserved its tail since geological times.

But as there are many luminous comets of short period, they must have been produced or acquired at some time when other members of the system, the planets and the satellites, were already in their places. 

(from Worlds in Collision)


The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.

From the work Saturnian Comets:

The usual explanation for the Saturnian and Jovian families of comets is that they had originally traveled on extremely elongated or even parabolic orbits and, passing close to one of the large planets, were changed into short-period comets, traveling on ellipses—it is usual to say that they were “captured.” However, the Russian astronomer K. Vshekhsviatsky of the Kiev Observatory, one of the leading authorities on comets, has brought strong arguments to show that the comets of the solar system are very youthful bodies—only a few thousand years old—and that they originated in explosions from the planets, especially from the major planets Saturn and Jupiter or their moons.By comparing the observed luminosity of the periodic comets on their subsequent returns, he found it failing and their masses rapidly diminishing by loss of matter to the space through which they travel; the head of the comet emits tails on each passage close to the sun and then dissipates the matter of the tails without recovery. Thus Vshekhsviatsky concluded that comets of short duration originated in the solar system, were not captured from outside of that system—a point to which the majority of astronomers still adhere—and that they came into existence by explosion from Jupiter and Saturn, and to a smaller extent by explosion from the smaller planets, like Venus and Mars.


http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1962PASP...74..106V/0000107.000.html]1962PASP...74..106V


K. Vshekhsviatsky was the leading expert in comet astrophysics as his works clearly demonstrate this.

Two months after the discovery of the ring around Jupiter, the Soviet Union claimed joint credit for the discovery, contending that Vsekhsviatskii had predicted the ring’s existence as early as 1960 in a journal called Izvestia of the Armenian Academy of Sciences. The passage from the relevant paper is as follows:

‘The existence of active ejection processes in the Jupiter system, demonstrated by comet astronomy, gives grounds for assuming that Jupiter is encircled by comet and meteorite material in the form of a ring similar to the ring of Saturn.’


PAGE 107: Halley's comet, for example, could not exist as a comet for more than 120 revolutions.

120 x 75 = 9000 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sandokhan said:

You are asserting heliocentrism

No I am not. Please don't lie.

You are the only person who has mentioned heliocentrism.

2 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

The calendar we are using is set in the heliocentrical context.

It is called the Gregorian calendar. Therefore everything from your first sentence has been false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Ancient Romans used Roman calendar. Dates were numerated since the foundation of the Rome city (AUC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar

2) In 46 BC Julius Caesar ordered to reform calendar, named by him Julian calendar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar

If there are true artifacts about The First Council of Nicaea happening in 325 AD, they should have ancient Romans calendars dates.. i.e. no AD/BC, but AUC..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bufofrog said:

This is getting (been) freaking absurd.  Reported as inane.

You cannot dismiss the fact that Gauss' Easter formula disproves the Gregorian calendar.

This is the crux of the matter.

Nor can you dismiss the acceleration of the moon's elongation paradox.

As for the wall of China, be kind and consider the alternatives.

 

Are you going to call Garry Kasparov's article as absurd?

http://www.revisedhistory.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is called the Gregorian calendar.

Fine. Explain this then.

"With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.

“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion” 

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

So, by approximately 1330 AD, when Vlastar wrote his account, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday happened to be within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar was aware, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.

Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722 (722 = 1330 - 2 x 304). Had Vlastar known of the Easter Book’s 325 AD canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the computed and the real full moon in more than a thousand years. So he either was unaware of the Easter Book or knew the correct date when it was written, which could not be near 325 AD.

G. Nosovsky: So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.


Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea. 

The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.

The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.

However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.


We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.


But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.


Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler.

Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology); again, more fiction at work: no European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology).

 

EXPLICIT DATING GIVEN BY MATTHEW VLASTAR

It is indeed amazing that Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers – the book that every Paschalia researcher refers to – contains an explicit dating of the time the Easter Book was compiled. It is even more amazing that none of the numerous researchers of Vlastar’s text appeared to have noticed it (?!), despite the fact that the date is given directly after the oft-quoted place of Vlastar’s book, about the rules of calculating the Easter date. Moreover, all quoting stops abruptly immediately before the point where Vlastar gives this explicit date.

What could possibly be the matter? Why don’t modern commentators find themselves capable of quoting the rest of Vlastar’s text? We are of the opinion that they attempt to conceal from the reader the fragments of ancient texts that explode the entire edifice of Scaliger’s chronology. We shall quote this part completely:

Matthew Vlastar:

“There are four rules concerning the Easter. The first two are the apostolic rules, and the other two are known from tradition. The first rule is that the Easter should be celebrated after the spring equinox. The second is that is should not be celebrated together with the Judeans. The third: not just after the equinox, but also after the first full moon following the equinox. And the fourth: not just after the full moon, but the first Sunday following the full moon… The current Paschalia was compiled and given to the church by our fathers in full faith that it does not contradict any of the quoted postulates. (This is the place the quoting usually stops, as we have already mentioned – Auth.). They created it the following way: 19 consecutive years were taken starting with the year 6233 since Genesis (= 725 AD – Auth.) and up until the year 6251 (= 743 AD – Auth.), and the date of the first full moon after the spring equinox was looked up for each one of them. The Paschalia makes it obvious that when the Elders were doing it; the equinox fell on the 21st of March” ([518]).

Thus, the Circle for Moon – the foundation of the Paschalia – was devised according to the observations from the years 725-743 AD; hence, the Paschalia couldn’t possibly have been compiled, let alone canonized, before that.

7 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Ancient Romans

 

Both Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed in the 18th century. NO ancient Rome at all. The Colosseum, the Parthenon were built much more recently in time. Read Kasparov's article. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sandokhan said:

Are you going to call Garry Kasparov's article as absurd?

I did not read it, but if you think it is a good article then based on you past history it is a good bet that it is absurd, or it is a good article and you misunderstood it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sandokhan said:

Both Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed in the 18th century. NO ancient Rome at all. The Colosseum, the Parthenon were built much more recently in time. Read Kasparov's article. 

Are you serious.. ?!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

Fine. Explain this then.

I don't need to explain anything. 

We use the Gregorian calendar.

You said the Gregorian calendar does not exist.

Therefore you are wrong.

That is a matter of fact. Your conspiracy theories and mountains of incoherent word salad don't change that.

8 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

Are you going to call Garry Kasparov's article as absurd?

Yes.

Not as absurd as the drivel you have posted, but pretty daft. It is fairly typical of the sort of thing written by people who think they are very clever because they are good at one thing and then learn a little bit about something else. (See also various Nobel laureates...)

6 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Are you serious.. ?!

Sadly, it seems he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Enough! This style of making outrageous claims with dubious support from crackpot sites, then ignoring/willfully misunderstanding those trying to refute what you're saying by piling on more garbage is completely inconsistent with meaningful discussion. Hand-waving isn't going to work when you're making claims that are absurdly easy to prove false, and neither is simple denial.

You've had two pages of other members trying to help show you where you've gone wrong, and you've ignored every attempt. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and your arguments are hardly persuasive. This Gish Gallop tactic may work on sites where the membership is far more ignorant, but it's clear you don't know what you're talking about, and have no interest in learning the facts.  

It's against our rules to ignore the questions put to you about an idea like this. You can't go into a discussion with your fingers in your ears. I'm closing this thread, and if you open another thread where you refuse to defend your absurd ideas, I've already got enough votes from the staff to ban you on your next breach of the rules. 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.