It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 06:00 PM
reply to post by tauristercus

The technology is not in the gnomon itself but in the method used to measure the length of the shadow.

The earliest measurements of the shadow's length were no doubt made with the foot-rules of the time, but as it was realised that these varied according to bureaucratic prescription and local custom, a standard jade tablet (thu kuei), which may be called the Gnomon Shadow Template, was made for this purpose only. It is mentioned in the Chou Li, and actual specimens, made of terra-cotta, one dated +164 are extant.

The moment of the solstice could thus be determined by placing the calibrated template at the base of the post due north for several days around the expected time, and taking noon of the day when the shadow most nearly coincided with it.

The purpose of the gnomon was to determine the day the solstice occurred. A template was adopted because of the inconsistency of other methods of measurement.

The template system was an attempt to overcome the chaos of primitive metrology, and did not persist...In +500 Tsu Keng-Chih made bronze instruments in which the gnomon and a horizontal measuring scale were combined. About fifty years earlier Ho Cheng-Thien had proceeded to more careful observations of the winter solstice shadow.

So there was an improvement in Chinese technology around the time of the 6th century and that is apparent in the consistency of the measurements after then. At that point the variation from the calculated obliquity varies by amounts of less than 1/10º (.083º). With an 8 foot gnomon that is a difference in shadow length of less than 1/5". A difference in timing of a few minutes and/or leveling errors can easily account for such a small difference.


Yes, Lockyer got it wildly wrong. In the case of Karnak he was off by at least 1500 years and for Stonehenge about 800 years.

[edit on 7/30/2010 by Phage]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 06:25 PM
reply to post by Phage

I think the OP already pointed out that what you are concentrating on are "2" point out of 71 in his graph and thus would make little difference,

however, why don't you use your obvious knowledge in this field and calculate the true points for these two??

You may find that they still fit within his curve and thus this whole argument is mute...

IMO until you can show where them two points are supposed to be you are just rambling..

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 07:04 PM
reply to post by virgom129

I guess you didn't notice that I did address them.

The solstice measurement for Stonehenge corresponds to a date of around 2500BC, which is also the presumed date of its construction as determined by carbon dating. It is not placed in the correct position on the graph and does not fit Dodwell's curve.

Since it is not clear that Karnak was constructed in alignment with the solstice its use is not reliable. Calculated obliquity never reaches that alignment of Karnak. However, since it is known that the existing structures at the site date from after the time of Amenemhat I, the date of 2045BC is off by at least several hundred years. If the data point did represent a true solstice measurement, it is at the wrong point on the x axis of the graph and does not fit Dodwell's curve.

[edit on 7/30/2010 by Phage]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by Phage

So you are saying that those 2 points on the curve are not proved either way?

So ignore them 2 and go by the other 69...

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by tauristercus

The 'improved technology' was the discovery of precession and that earth tilts on its axis - something not known to those who erected earlier gnomons. Thus they became more accurate.

Precession does not influence the amount that the earth's axis is tilted by at any given period of time.
And it was by the use of the gnomon in abcient times and those observations that it was eventually deduced that the earth did indeed have a significant tilt. The angular values obtained by "reading" the gnomon gave the actual tilt amount.

btw how do we know the exact angle and position to which an ancient gnomon was set? Or do we presume it was set to the angle necessary to fit our hypothesis?

There were only 2 essential physical conditions that had to be met for the gnomon to be used accurately.
Firstly, the ground that the gnomon was erected on had to be perfectly level. There are many ways of ensuring this e.g. using a water level.
Secondly, the wooden/metal pole had to be placed in the ground perfectly upright. In other words, at right angles to the ground. There are many ways of ensuring this e.g. plumb bob.

And does stonehenge fit with 350BC because it was re-erected incorrectly by the Victorians

The 350 BC date was specified because it was in this time period that the summer solstitial sun would rise directly above the center of the main avenue leading away from the Stonehenge complex.
Note that this does not in any way imply that Stonehenge itself was built in 350 BC, only that work may have been carried out on that date to ensure that the main avenue lined up perfectly with the summer solstice sunrise. Stonehenge itself was built much, much earlier than that date.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:06 PM
reply to post by tauristercus

But if there were events as described by velikovsky, hapgood, clube, napier,allan, delair, etc., havent we been doing some serious wheel spinning here?

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by tauristercus

Tauristercus ever try the calculations for the Axis Tilt for Tiwanaku just to see if it matches up with the Ancient old world tilt theory's

Just Make Sure you to take those Measurements
at the Archway of the temple The entrance (archway)of the Kalasasaya. and not the Gateway of the Sun
as it is claimed not to be at the exact location

The estimates are claimed to be 17 years old..
During the time of the Deluge ?

The Structures of Puma Punku are more complex then any Old World Ruins is there any others ?

The Facts
perfect joint cuts in stone not even a razer blade can not penetrate
parts of the ruins made of stone (diorite ) so hard that only a diamond can be used to make a Perfect cut, Machinist Carved Stones ? or a precised Lazar might able to do the job or High extreme water pressure cutter.. would be a candidate but that is just what we are able to do in modern present world ..

building blocks fit like a puzzle that resembles Lego's ( for Earthquakes ?

ohh by the way these sites is right up your ally Enjoy
thats if you would like to see the New world SIDE..

Ancient Monuments Placemarks

The Dresden Codex Lunar Series and Sidereal Astronomy Dresden

Astronomy pages of jqjacobs wit some good links

I would love to see your results Taur

but it will get ignored as usual

The Mysterious And Intriguing Ruins Of Tihuanaco And Pumapunku


[edit on 31-7-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Wolfenz]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:12 PM
I heard the weight of China's Three Gorges reservoir will tilt the earths axis by nearly a full inch.

I wonder if all the fat people in America will counter that

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:28 AM
reply to post by tauristercus

Well, I have to say I'm very impressed by the amount of work and dedication you've put into this.

Regardless of the indiscrepency's to the accuracy of Ancient sites, you are most certainly on the right track IMO.

In your opinion, would a celestial body, such as a Planet/Comet have possibly influenced these tilt changes?
Kinda like Neptune bowing to Nibiru as it passed (according to Sitchin)

Anyways, keep up the great work

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:07 AM

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:48 PM
reply to post by Wolfenz

The estimates are claimed to be 17 years old.. During the time of the Deluge ?

I have meant 17,000 years old not 17 !

posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by tauristercus

Resurrecting an old thread.

Is there still interest in this thread? I have some questions for tauristercus.
a) In converting to the Lieske values you have added another three centuries to table. That changes the constant in the Dodwell formula. (the 2.14592 should become reduced). How will that effect the curve?
b) The cutoff date of 2345 bce appears to have been chosen datum. Had it been an earlier date it would still give similar results. Correct?
c)Do you know if the source data (ie scans of the Dodwell manuscript) is available?




new topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in