The earths axial tilt - presenting evidence for it being much larger 4000 years ago

page: 3
71
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by rozetta
 


In my experience young earth creationist websites also have an agenda. Question is, which do you consider more trustworthy?


reply to post by epsilon69
 


Wht assume that accepted Egyptian chronology is incorrect simply because it does not fit in with the work a young earth creationist 100 years ago?

Again, which is more trustworthy?


At the moment we need colloborate evidence in order to proceed any further with Dodwell's theory - not argyments that because evidence contradicts it then the evidence itself if flawed.




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Interesting. Thanks for posting.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Great thread - thanks for your efforts in putting it together.

You may be interested in this thread by Scott Creighton. He has put together quite a bit of research as well to support his theory.


Do Great Pyramid Internal Structures Indicate a 6.5* Earth Tilt?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Axis tilt and shifting is well understood and has been taken into consideration when dealing with global warming - James Hansen discusses its effect in Storms of My Grand Children - nothing new here what so ever - all this thread represents is a lack of understanding of where modern science is at - perhaps people should do some reading before they present amazing "INSIGHTS" that are already well and truly understood, accepted and have been part of the calculations regarding global warming - read the book.

He is the worlds leading climatologist - planetologist - and was the head of NASA and advisor to several presidents - he the worlds foremost authority on the issue.

Please - just read the book.

www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com...


www.amazon.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Just a thought - and this is something the climatologists could not take into account previous poster - it is a known fact that severe earthquakes can affect the rotational speed, and severe impacts could as well, including perhaps affecting the tilt?

Could changes have been made by severe earthquakes and/or impacts?

@aristophrenia

He is the worlds leading climatologist - planetologist - and was the head of NASA and advisor to several presidents - he the worlds foremost authority on the issue.


And that makes him right? Not in my book it doesn't and there are very good reasons why he might (does) have an agenda. In fact re-reading your post I think you do the OP a disservice and your attitude to the OP is extremely condescending. A myopic attitude to a subject will not enable you become enlightened.


[edit on 28/7/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I suggest everyone goes and watch this 9 minute video...very cool
www.wimp.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
This is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out post.

Star and flag for you. however what does all this mean?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
That was indeed an awesome and impressive post. Unfortunately my maths sux. Could someone dumb it down for me? Are we saying the earths axis revolves a lot faster than previously suspected and what possible impact would that have? Again sorry for my ignorance.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Oh my goodness. Stonehenge dated at 350 B.C.?

That seems just a bit too recent doesn't it. Even the most recent construction at Stonehenge is dated at 1600 B.C. The placement of the sarsen stones has been carbon dated in the neighborhood of 2500 BC. That seems to correspond pretty closely to the Lieske calculation.

I suppose Dodwell's "event" could have occurred after Stonehenge was built but it would seem to make the cyclical occurrence problematic.

[edit on 7/28/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by rozetta
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Great post! I forwarded it to a friend of mine who has some theories about the Earth's past.

P.S. Don't believe everything you read in New Scientist, etc. - those publications have an agenda and are often incredibly inaccurate, on purpose.


a very enjoyable post!

I have found New Scientist to write well in hard-science but stumbling badly in matters of psychology and spirit. There seems to be , to me, an "agenda", there, to discredit anything of "mysticness" or psychics, in Reality.

---and for the Creationist sites?!
why I feel that they often will publish stuff that no mainstream scientist
will touch! Stuff hidden away in back cabinets of museums, and such stuff might upset the "apple carts" of the ways of thinking of the academics!
freestone



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Good reading. It reminds me of something I read awhile ago on a different website, and I'm trying to look it up.

The Biblical deluge, according to it's own chronology, took place in the year 2370 B. C. E., not too far off from the idea postulated that there was a huge swing in the earth's axis according to this data in the year 2345 B. C. E. (a difference of 25 years, which I perceive to be no coincidence.)

The year 2370 [edit] is ascertained by pin-pointing a certain historic event that occurs in the Bible and is verified by history, that being the destruction of Jerusalem by the king of Babylon, which took place in 607 B. C. E. The Bible chronicles with precision all of the line of Jesus' from the time of Adam's fall to his birth. So once you pinpoint a date that can be historically verified you can pinpoint the exact date the flood took place according to the Bible.

It has been postulated that the Bible explains how this change in the earth's axis occurred as the water canopy that existed in the earth's atmosphere prior to the flood were released, causing the tilt on the axis, and also the introduction of the seasons as we know them.

That would explain why tropical vegetation has been discovered in the fossil record in all parts of the earth, including the now frigid parts of the earth like Siberia, where Mammoths still earth vegetation have been uncovered in the permafrost that has been melting there.

I found that file I was looking for if anyone is interested it is here:
The Atlantis File


Interestingly enough they use the date of 2345 B. C. E. as the date of the flood, and I believe that has to do with an erroneous dating of the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon. Here is an excerpt of the article:






During the antediluvian period (4026 B. C. E. to 2345 B. C. E.) there was a universal warm climate over the whole planet totally different to that which we know today.

The Earth at this time spun on an almost perpendicular axis and was surrounded by a great vapor and ice-crystal canopy. This of course was the Antediluvian Veil through which all light shone, causing perpetual summer over the whole planet. There was no rain, no sun, no moon, no rainbow, no storms or winds, no reasons (as we know them), no great oceans or seas and man lived far longer than now.

This veil or canopy was none other than 'the waters above the expanse' recorded in Genesis 1:7, the 'crystalline firmament' mentioned in the first paragraph of chapter one, book one of Josephus' historical work 'Antiquities of the Jews' and the 'sky' help up by Atlas.

...Then came the Noachian Deluge. A surviving Mayan document, the book of 'Chilam Balaam' tell us:

"During the Eleventh Ahau Cantoun it occurred...when the Earth began to waken. And a fiery rain fell, and ashes fell, and rocks and trees fell down. And their Great Serpent was ravished from the heavens. And then, in one watery blow, came the waters, the sky fell down and the dry land sank. And in a moment the great annihilation was finished."

...The action which caused the breaking of the Great Canopy was the sudden movement of the Earth's axis from it's original perpendicular position to an angle of 26.5 degrees. This occurred in the year 2345 B. C. E. from which during the interval of the succeeding 3194 years, it returned to an equilibrium at the present inclination of 23.5 degrees by the year 1850. C. E.

This movement of the planet also affected the length of the year from 360 days antediluvian, to the 365.25 post-diluvian, which also suggests a possible shift in the Earth's orbit.


[edit on 28-7-2010 by Calender]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I think I have a pretty good idea about why two particular data points match your graph so perfectly. You said these two sites (Stonehenge & Karnak) were closely studied by Dodwell. He first determined the tilt of the Earth of those sites at the time of their construction and then used the Newcomb formula to determine the date of the site. Since you corrected the data in the chart to the Lieske formula (which is very close to the Newcomb formula, except for shifting the baseline date), it agrees exactly with the formula he used at the two sites in question.

Many ancient sites can be difficult to date, especially if they are made completely of stone and predate other available records. New information or better dating techniques can often change the estimated age of a site. Has the proposed dating for these two sites changed since the time of Dodwell's work? If so, his findings, based on the Newcomb formula, might have fit relatively well into the age estimates of the sites, allowing him to think of it as confirmation that the was on the right track.

In my research I came across the following book:
The dawn of astronomy by Sir Norman Lockyer (Google Books) Chapter XI, Page 113, 1894

This details the original dating of the site using astronomy:


This results from the fact that there is a slow change in what is called the obliquity of the ecliptic - that is, the angle between the plane of the earth's equator and the plane of the ecliptic; this change is brought about by the attraction of the other planetary bodies affecting the plane of the ecliptic. If these planes approach each other, the obliquity will be reduced; the present obliquity is something like 23* 27'; we know that 5000B.C. it was 24* 22', nearly a degree more. A difference of 1* means, then, a difference of time of about seven thousand years. It may go down to something below 21*. ...


This was the understanding of Sir Norman Lockyer as of 1893. Current estimates say that it only varies between 22 and 24, I believe. So, how far had understanding of this effect changed by 1935, when Dodwell submitted his preliminary paper? What is the currently accepted date of the portion of the temple that he used to date the site and do they match his measurements?

It seems to me that if you want to find out which formula for the precession is most accurate, you'll need to ignore sites which are dated primarily by calculating the measured tilt of the axis built into 'architectural clocks'. Unfortunately, the further back in history you go, the harder it is to accurately date the site without it. Most carbon dating can only date the death of (formerly) living things found on the site, or when tools were made. Counting and comparing layers of rock and soil can also be used to help date a site. It all depends closely on the context of the site and how many artifacts and data are available. The older the site, usually, the less you have to work with.

Essentially, for any site where the age is determined solely by the axis of the Earth at the time of construction, the age of the site will shift depending on the formula used. Therefore, such sites can't be used to help determine the most accurate formula. Unfortunately, on a curve this long, the accuracy of the information in the distant past is most crucial but often the least precise.

There's also the problem, with these two sites in particular, that they were each constructed over the course of centuries. Stonehenge: 2600BC - 1600BC | Karnak: 1971BC - 395AD. So, the age of the tilt can only match the final configuration of the structure used to measure.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Essan
 

Maybe someone better versed in Egyptology can help me out but now that you mention it, Dodwell seems to have been relying upon some questionable information. He mentions "King Amen Emhat" (Amenemhat) as laying the foundation for the temple of Amon Re in 2045B.C. The trouble with that is that Amenemhat was not alive in 2045 B.C. and any work he did at Karnak did not survive (other than some statues).


I'm in complete agreement with you that there does indeed seem to be a small discrepency in Dodwell's mention of Amenemhat being responsible for the initial laying of the temple axis foundation 2045 B.C.
This date actually falls within the reign of Mentuhotep II (2061 BC – 2010 BC) who was then succeeded by Mentuhotep III who was then in turn succeeded by Mentuhotep IV and finally Amenemhat.




That kind of messes up the curve doesn't it?

Not at all.
Bear in mind that when Dodwell began his research back in the '30's, there was no such thing as the internet that he could use to quickly confirm from multiple sources (and within seconds) which Egyptian Pharaoh ruled during which time period. Instead he did it the hard way with tedious book research, most likely in the University of Adelaide library. And I would tend to suspect that in the 60-70 years since he started his research, that a lot of Egyptology taken for granted in those days has become superseded and updated with newer research and findings.

But irrespective, it really makes little difference which Pharoah bent his back and symbolically turned the 1st clod of soil over at the commencement of the main axis foundation laying. Dodwell did NOT pick the date of 2045 B.C. based on a particular Pharoah's time in office but rather as the inevitable result and conclusion based on analyising precisely when the solstitial sun would shine directly down the center of the main temple axis. Karnak has after all been shown to be undisputably a temple of Solar worship. So as as result of this astro-archeological work (based on data from Lockyer, Wakefield, Egyptian Survey Department, and others), it was deduced that circa 2045 B.C. the main temple axis would have been in perfect alignment with the solstitial sun in that era.




Oh my goodness. Stonehenge dated at 350 B.C.?

That seems just a bit too recent doesn't it. Even the most recent construction at Stonehenge is dated at 1600 B.C. The placement of the sarsen stones has been carbon dated in the neighborhood of 2500 BC. That seems to correspond pretty closely to the Lieske calculation.

I suppose Dodwell's "event" could have occurred after Stonehenge was built but it would seem to make the cyclical occurrence problematic.

I've justed re-read Dodwell's chapter on his astronomical analysis based on the orientation of the main avenue axis leading away from outer Stonehenge circle and from my understanding, he's not actually claiming that Stonehenge was constructed in circa 350 B.C., rather he's making a very strong case that some form of reconstruction took place at that time that resulted in the main avenue's axis being deliberately oriented in the exact direction of the sumer solstice as it happened circa 350 B.C..

Admitedly, and based on information available to him when he was conducting his research, archaeologists of that time had dated the origins of Stonehenge to circa 1800 - 1900 B.C. Current research however has pushed that date back to around circa 3100 B.C. for the Stonehenge I building phase. So compared to current Stonehenge research, his sources of information regarding Stonehenges earliest origins were certainly innacurate.

But again, similar to the example earlier as to the irrelevancy as to which Pharoah was alive at the time of the laying of the Karnak avenue foundation, Dodwell doesn't appear to be attempting to dispute, or really care regarding, the original construction date of Stonehenge and whether it was constructed in 500 B.C., or 1000 B.C., or 2000 B.C. or earlier. He seems to only be concerned with and dealing with the results of his analysis relating to a re-construction period (in fact, he uses the term 'reconstruction' exclusively) in which work may have been performed on the main avenue axis to align it perfectly with the summer solstice for the period in which the avenue re-construction took place ... which appears to be circa 350 B.C.
Note that over the millennia that Stonehenge has been conclusively shown to have undergone numerous 'changes' ... so another one to potentially re-align the main axis in 350 B.C. is by no means an unwarranted conclusion to make. In fact, realigning the axis may have been a relatively simple process resulting in the minimum of tell-tale evidence showing that work had actually been done on it.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
That was indeed an awesome and impressive post. Unfortunately my maths sux. Could someone dumb it down for me? Are we saying the earths axis revolves a lot faster than previously suspected and what possible impact would that have? Again sorry for my ignorance.


Thanks for that ... very much appreciated !

No, the earth's revolution around it's axis (24 hours) is NOT in dispute and as far as we know has remained virtually constant for millions of years. Well, actually it is tending to slow down very, very, very imperceptibly because of gravitational interaction with the moon and sun as well as ocean tidal drag ... but nothing we're going to notice for a heck of a long time to come.

This subject of this thread was actually to highlight what appears to be a significant discrepancy between what an internationally recognized formula (Lieske's formula) is telling us about the 'expected' amount that the earth's axis should be tilted over a period of many thousands of years and what actual "eyeball observations" made and recorded by astronomers over those millennia are telling us about the actual amount the earth's axis was tilted in those times.

An analysis of both sets of data (Lieske and observed) seems to indicate that circa 2345 B.C., that the earth's axis was tilted an additional 3 degrees more than it should have been according to the Lieske Formula ... so somewhere, something does not compute ! If by chance the Lieske Formula does prove to lose accuracy the further back in time we go, then we have to come up with some kind of new hypothesis to account for the earth tilting more than science tells us it should have done.

Also, if this excess tilt really did occur, then there would be major climatic changes as a direct consequence.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by epsilon69
reply to post by tauristercus
 


i have a question about your chart. In the chart you list the observed angles of the earth. AT the bottom of that chart it says that someone at the Temple of Amen Ra in Karnak observed the angle of the earth. I would like to know how he left this data for us to find and can we be sure on the date that is left. If we are receiving this date based on a theory from an egyptologist then i am truely skeptical on the credibility of that measurement.


No one at the Amen Ra temple specifically left definitive data regarding the earth's axial tilt at the time of the temple's main avenue axis construction ... this info was determined through analysis of the main avenues geographical orientation and calculations of when the summer solstice sun would shine directly down the center of the avenue.

Please see my response to Phage that also covers your question:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by epsilon69
 


A good point


What evidence is there that the Egyptians who erected the Karnak gnomon were aware of any axial tilt?

Maybe that's why it was wrong?


It's a proven fact that the use of the gnomon has been in continuous use since Babylonian times and the astronomers of those periods fully understood that they could use it to determine the earths axial tilt and in fact they did exactly that and kept accurate records over the thousands of years.

In fact, the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes way back in 230 B.C. (over 2 thousand years ago) was the 1st person (as far as we know) to use the gnomon principle to work out the circumference of the earth. His accuracy, considering the gnomon is basically a long wooden pole stuck in the ground, was incredible. His answer was only 200 miles less than the modern value ... almost spot on !



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
I noticed a couple errors. First, the centuries used in the calculations are Julian centuries (36525 days), not 100 years.

My apologies as I did state that T was measured in centuries when in fact I should have been more specific and stated that it was measured in Julian centuries.




Second, the Lieske formula is not the one currently used by the International Astronomical Union. They recommend ε = 84381.448 − 46.84024T − (59 × 10^-5)T^2 + (1.813 × 10^-3)T^3.

If you RE-READ my OP, you'll find that I did in fact use the Lieske formula currently recommended by the IAU for the 2000 epoch.
I'll show it to you again ....







Third, the formulas (including Lieske's) only produce a linear trend in the near-term:


www.tenspheres.com...

You'll note that all the models are in good agreement +/- 6000 years.

No argument from me ... I totally agree that the Lieske (and other) Formulas are essentially linear in nature over the time period range of -3000 B.C to +5000 B.C.
But this is exactly the issue and why I started this thread in the 1st place. The accepted consensus is that the amount of axial tilt is believed, based on a formula, to have changed relatively linearly over the last 3000 years or so and will continue to change linearly well into the future.
However, a large amount (71 data points were used) of eye-witness observations by astronomers over approximately that same period of past time are indicating quite clearly that as recently as only 300 years ago, that the linear expectation started to break down badly and that observed values of axial tilt began to significantly diverge from formula calculated values of tilt ... and the further back in time we look, the greater the divergence.



The above is EXACTLY what this thread is all about ... why are observed values NOT following linear expectations the further back in time we look ?

[edit on 28/7/10 by tauristercus]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 

In reading Dodwell's explanations certain fudge factors appear which help to back up his hypothesis.

In the case of Karnak he seems to use a certain amount of circular logic. He rejected Lockyer because Lockyer came up with a date of 3,700 BC and he did select the date himself (erroneously, based on an erroneous date for the start of the 12th dynasty):

The mean date, taken from a number of recent Egyptological works (Cambridge Ancient History, Breasted, Budge, etc.) places the commencement of the XII Dynasty at about 2050 B.C., and I have adopted 2045 B.C. as the date of the foundation of the earliest part of the Karnak Temple of Amen Ra.

So, since the temple must have been constructed to line up with the summer solstice and 2045BC hits his curve then it must have been constructed in 2045BC, showing that his curve is correct. The earliest construction at Karnak apparently did occur at some time during the 11th dynasty (according to some texts of the time). But if there was a temple there there at that time there is no longer any evidence of it. It was not until Amenemhat that any of the existing remnants were built. Apparently it wasn't until later in the 12th dynasty that Amun Ra really took on any importance.

The temple at Karnak was known as Ipet-esut (‘Most Select of Places’). No one knows for certain when the earliest one was built but it seems likely that there was at least a shrine there during the Old Kingdom if not before. Like most Egyptian temples, it was oriented towards the river—in this case, it faced roughly east. By New Kingdom times, however, there was a second avenue of approach, from the north where the sanctuary of Mut and the Luxor Temple were situated. It is so far unknown whether or not this alternate axis was present in earlier periods
www.odysseyadventures.ca...

So, even if we do assume that the later construction was intended to be aligned with the solstice, it would move the data point several hundred years to the right, far from Dodwell's curve.


In the case of Stonehenge he is just wrong (the entire history he quotes is wrong in light of modern research) and employs the same sort of circular logic. Starting with an incorrect date, he "proves" that the data fits his curve. But the alignment of Stonehenge is very close fit to the calculated value for 2500BC (the currently accepted age), only 4 arcminutes off (less than 1/10º). The builders of Stonehenge got it right long before the Druids (whom Dodwell believed did it) arrived on the scene.

[edit on 7/28/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tauristercus
 

{At Karnak, Dodwell}...seems to use a certain amount of circular logic. ... and employs the same sort of circular logic {at Stonehenge}. Starting with an incorrect date, he "proves" that the data fits his curve. ....


I wondered if that might have been the case. It looks suspiciously like it is.

Essentially:
1 - I've calculated the Earth's axis at Site X.
2 - According to the formula I use, that axis occurs at Time X.
3 - Therefore, Site X was built at Time X.

Without external data to date each site, they're floating points that will shift dates around to fit whichever formula you choose to accept. That's why the input points need to be scrutinized, and ignored as appropriate, if we want to challenge the accuracy of the currently accepted formula.

 

reply to post by tauristercus
 

I had another problem with some of the graphs used to analyze the data. The information is good and I follow you all the way to the part about how the red line curves away from the green line. You only begin to lose me at the graphs which show the asymptotes. They're good to note on their own and they don't seem erroneous but the next set of graphs might be off base, if I'm reading them right.

It seems like you're trying to find a repeating pattern (by zooming out) on the same set of data, which varies between 0 and 3 degrees. You show a repeating cycle with the data from the column in the chart that shows the difference between Lieske and Observation. Indeed, this shouldn't repeat because the formula presumably will never re-converge (in the past) and be more accurate again.

I think the reason the two converge in the first place is because the more accurate correlation of observational evidence to accurate dating of that observation. In my opinion, the 'event' in the past where the red line skews off the chart is a time in the past when our inaccuracy approaches infinity.

To see the familiar Sine wave (or cosine or quadratic or whatever), you'll need to put in the original data from the two charts and zoom that out. I would still be interested to see what the two sets of data show in comparison to each other at that scale.

Though I have to admit I wasn't brave enough to wade through all that text, the link nataylor provided has a lot of relevant info and charts:
www.tenspheres.com...


Thirteen models for numerical expressions for General Precession and Obliquity of the Ecliptic are examined for long-term validity, and only seven of them found worthy to consider in this sense. Among these seven models, only two (La86 and B03) seem to be more accurate and meticulously framed than the others, and one (W94) is theoretically remarkable. Among the four models, which appeared after the IAU 2000 resolutions, B03 seems to be the only referable one for long-term applications. Yet, it seems quite possible that a more precise model can be developed in the future, by merging the theories of Laskar and Williams, and applying the new VLBI and LLR results, to build accurate numerical expressions for precession and the obliquity, which can be valid for a few ten thousand years.

La86 - Laskar; B03 - Bretagnon; W94 - Willams
L77 - Lieske, didn't make the cut, at least according to whatever standards were set by the author of the work linked to above, Haluk Akcam.

I don't have a problem with the idea that the timeline implied by the precessional and the obliquity of the ecliptic might be different than what is currently being accepted but it looks like this Haluk Akcam guy is way ahead of us in figuring it out and trying to prove it.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tauristercus
 

In reading Dodwell's explanations certain fudge factors appear which help to back up his hypothesis.

In the case of Karnak he seems to use a certain amount of circular logic. He rejected Lockyer because Lockyer came up with a date of 3,700 BC and he did select the date himself (erroneously, based on an erroneous date for the start of the 12th dynasty):

The mean date, taken from a number of recent Egyptological works (Cambridge Ancient History, Breasted, Budge, etc.) places the commencement of the XII Dynasty at about 2050 B.C., and I have adopted 2045 B.C. as the date of the foundation of the earliest part of the Karnak Temple of Amen Ra.

So, since the temple must have been constructed to line up with the summer solstice and 2045BC hits his curve then it must have been constructed in 2045BC, showing that his curve is correct. The earliest construction at Karnak apparently did occur at some time during the 11th dynasty (according to some texts of the time). But if there was a temple there there at that time there is no longer any evidence of it. It was not until Amenemhat that any of the existing remnants were built. Apparently it wasn't until later in the 12th dynasty that Amun Ra really took on any importance.

The temple at Karnak was known as Ipet-esut (‘Most Select of Places’). No one knows for certain when the earliest one was built but it seems likely that there was at least a shrine there during the Old Kingdom if not before. Like most Egyptian temples, it was oriented towards the river—in this case, it faced roughly east. By New Kingdom times, however, there was a second avenue of approach, from the north where the sanctuary of Mut and the Luxor Temple were situated. It is so far unknown whether or not this alternate axis was present in earlier periods
www.odysseyadventures.ca...

So, even if we do assume that the later construction was intended to be aligned with the solstice, it would move the data point several hundred years to the right, far from Dodwell's curve.

I notice that you've latched strongly onto the Karnak and Stonehenge data points exclusively (2 points out of a total of 71, I might add) and are attempting to disprove their validity, which is how a review process should indeed work. But I was just wondering if, should these 2 points prove to be invalid, does that in your opinion invalidate the remaining 69 data points and the associated analysis ? Even if the Karnak data point was removed from the logsine graph, we would still have the identically same shaped graph rapidly descending and converging on circa 2345 B.C.

Anyway, I don't really see any obvious attempt to 'fudge' the Karnak data.
As I mentioned in my previous response to you, it's perfectly understandable that based on the Egyptian pharaoh dynasty time line as known by Egyptologists of Dodwell's era, it's not totally surprising that he may have unintentionally named the wrong Pharaoh based on the sources available to him.
But let me reiterate once again ... it makes NO difference whatsoever just who the actual Pharaoh may have been during 2045 B.C., the actual determination of the earth's axial tilt for that date was calculated by working out exactly when the summer solstice sun would be observed to shine directly down the center of the temple axis. This effect will always be independent of the name of the pharaoh that he states was reigning at that time ... just unfortunate that he named the wrong pharaoh.
In fact, even if nothing was known about any of the pharaohs whatsoever, the date of the summer solstice shining down the center of the Temple's axis would still be discoverable based on the physical location/positioning of the Temple and the knowledge that the Egyptians were heavily into sun worship at that time period and would almost certainly have aligned their principal sun worshiping temple towards the solstices.

As for the reason Dodwell seems to have rejected Lockyer's determination of a date of 3700 B.C. for the foundation of the temple is purely and simply not because Lockyer stuffed up his measurements or observations ... but simply because Lockyer took those perfectly validate and accurate measurements and inserted them into the Newcomb Formula, which in turn spat out a completely incongruous date of ca 3700 B.C. But by using Lockyer's, et al data and observations and only replacing the seemingly "innacurate" Newcomb Formula with his own modified formula, Dodwell arrived at the more reasonable foundation date of circa 2045 B.C.

So as can be seen, Dodwell did NOT reject Lockyer's, et al observations and data - he merely replaced the formula Lockyer had used to determine the specific date period in which the summer solstitial sun was expected to shine directly down the center of the Temples axis.





In the case of Stonehenge he is just wrong (the entire history he quotes is wrong in light of modern research) and employs the same sort of circular logic. Starting with an incorrect date, he "proves" that the data fits his curve.

I'm really confused as to how you can make a statement such as "he is just wrong" when all the data Dodwell used regarding the physical construction of Stonehenge was taken from the detailed analyses conducted by Lockyer, Hawley, Petrie, Aubrey, et al. Unless you're also suggesting that the research of these well known personages was also "just wrong ?".

Again, it doesn't matter an iota as to what Dodwell's personal beliefs may have been regarding when and by whom Stonehenge was constructed. For all it matters it could have been the elves or aliens that constructed stonehenge. So whether Dodwell got the history of Stonehenge correct or not has no bearing on his determination of the specific date that the main avenues axis aligned perfectly with the solstitial sun.
All that matters is that the measurements and observations made by Lockyer, et al and then used by Dodwell were sufficiently accurate to allow the determination of what date the solstitial sunrise could be expected to be seen directly and centrally located above the center of the main avenue axis.





But the alignment of Stonehenge is very close fit to the calculated value for 2500BC (the currently accepted age), only 4 arcminutes off (less than 1/10º).

Now that's interesting ... could you please supply a source ?





new topics
top topics
 
71
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join