Dating and Chronology

[Deleted member 37]

If you think that my references should not be posted here, why then do you include them in your messages?

I never said you should not post here. I said you should stick to the issue. If you post a good link with good specifics about the pages to read I think it's good to re-post it. I will mention you the next time

Bede gives a series of dates of events that occurred within his lifetime, in the anno domini format. I know you are going to question whether these are astronomically correct. But you accept that they are correct relative to one another? For example, Bede writes the year 710 for event A. Then a year passes - you don't need science to understand the seasons, right? - and event B happens so he records it as happening in year 711. Then another year, another event and so on throughout his life. So we have a series of events correlated with numbers.

I already told you that I have nothing against the inner relation between dates. The problem is about absolute dates and the fact that these documents are copies of copies of copies.
The link I (and @sandokhan) gave you explains why the dates reported in the text are absurd.

My references to Bede were entirely unconnected with his calculations on the Easter cycle.

You cannot disconnect those things though, because Bede was the one who is said to have resumed Dionysius' Anno Domini from an apparent oblivion.

By the way @Grosseteste, I promise! The link we are giving you is not a third rate research by a delusional individual with mental issues! You should really read it (at least the suggested pages)... and also find the eventual mistakes! Why not?

 

[Grosseteste]

I already told you that I have nothing against the inner relation between dates. The problem is about absolute dates and the fact that these documents are copies of copies of copies.
The link I (and @sandokhan) gave you explains why the dates reported in the text are absurd.

“Copies of copies” is not a problem, because we have sets of manuscripts which we can compare together for accuracy, and to determine which is a copy of which. Besides, they must be copies of something, right?

You also ignored the point I made about overlap. So we have internal evidence of a series of dates. But these will overlap. Bede writes “AT this time, that is, in the year of our Lord 605, the blessed Pope Gregory, after having most gloriously governed the Roman apostolic see thirteen years, six months, and ten days, died, and was translated to the eternal see of the heavenly kingdom.” 605 is Bede’s date, but that will overlap with other records about that pope, so with enough different but overlapping records we can construct a complete sequence.

By the way @Grosseteste, I promise! The link we are giving you is not a third rate research by a delusional individual with mental issues! You should really read it (at least the suggested pages)... and also find the eventual mistakes! Why not?

Fomenko has a bad reputation among historians. Remember he never trained as a historian, but as a mathematician.

You will object that being a mathematician is not a bad thing. Perhaps, but one of his methods, namely using correlation, is very bad. E.g. this http://chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img157.pdf where one set of events is arbitrarily correlated with another set of events. (1) Some X ruled for 4 or 5 years, then got married, then ruled for another 3 years then died, (2) Some X ruled for 4 or 5 years, or perhaps 6 years, then got married, then ruled for another 1-3 years then died". Ah right, so X MUST be the same person as Y. Even though they had different names, lived in different countries etc. Also he ignores all the wealth of historical detail that distinguishes X from Y. This is terrible, even terrible statistics.

It would take me time to investigate his work thoroughly. His style and presentation – perhaps this is the result of bad translation – is atrocious. Disconnected and random observations, no references to sources that I could find – the online version is impossible to read, and an apparent reliance on secondary sources.

[EDIT] On the overlap point, see the page below from "The Mission of Augustine of Canterbury to the English", Ian Wood,
Speculum Vol. 69, No. 1 (Jan., 1994).

The point I am making is that as well as Bede's record of events, we have Pope Gregory's register, which is a separate record. This is how historians do it. We go to primary sources (not secondary, as Fomenko appears to have done), as independent as we can find (i.e. so that one document is NOT a copy of the other) and try to get to the truth.

 

[Deleted member 37]

“Copies of copies” is not a problem, because we have sets of manuscripts which we can compare together for accuracy, and to determine which is a copy of which. Besides, they must be copies of something, right?

Yes. And we don't have that something. That is the issue.

You also ignored the point I made about overlap. So we have internal evidence of a series of dates. But these will overlap. Bede writes “AT this time, that is, in the year of our Lord 605, the blessed Pope Gregory, after having most gloriously governed the Roman apostolic see thirteen years, six months, and ten days, died, and was translated to the eternal see of the heavenly kingdom.” 605 is Bede’s date, but that will overlap with other records, so with enough different but overlapping records we can construct a complete sequence.

It's not that I have ignored it. The problem, I repeat myself, regards absolute dates. If absolute dates are different then the dates reported in these copies of copies of copies without the original assume another value that must be evaluated in the light of the correct datings.

Fomenko has a bad reputation among historians. Remember he never trained as a historian, but as a mathematician.

I know that. I also know that historians are not trained in chronology (a branch of mathematics) and have a bad reputation among mathematicians.

You will object that being a mathematician is not a bad thing. Perhaps, but one of his methods, namely using correlation, is very bad. E.g. this http://chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img157.pdf where one set of events is arbitrarily correlated with another set of events. (1) Some X ruled for 4 or 5 years, then got married, then ruled for another 3 years then died, (2) Some X ruled for 4 or 5 years, or perhaps 6 years, then got married, then ruled for another 1-3 years then died". Ah right, so X MUST be the same person as Y. Even though they had different names, lived in different countries etc. Also he ignores all the wealth of historical detail that distinguishes X from Y. This is terrible, even terrible statistics.

This is just a glimpse of the methods he has adopted to analyse the historical records. And it is generally used to prove his inconsistency. But the only thing that really proves is the bias historians have towards what they consider an external interference (and also their lack of mathematical skill, since no one has proved him wrong in his field). The example you give is a pure misconception that I frequently read. It is not worth to explain to you the error you are doing in your comment because everything is explained in his books, if someone has the patience to read them, of course!

It would take me time to investigate his work thoroughly. His style and presentation – perhaps this is the result of bad translation – is atrocious. Disconnected and random observations, no references to sources that I could find – the online version is impossible to read, and an apparent reliance on secondary sources.

No one asks you to do that. If you want to read the simple link we have given you (a mere 15 pages) you will see something new to open your mind a little bit. As for the bad translation I agree with you, the rest I think is up to your lack of will, since where there's no interest there's no gaining.

In the end @Grosseteste, I think we have reached the end. Here is the link we have suggested to you. No need of headhaches doing complicate researches. If you want to read it we can comment it afterward, ok?
A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)

 

[Grosseteste]

In the end @Grosseteste, I think we have reached the end. Here is the link we have suggested to you. No need of headhaches doing complicate researches. If you want to read it we can comment it afterward, ok?
A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)

OK, a deal, I will aim to read that, best efforts basis. I feel you haven't really taken my points fully on board, though.

[EDIT] I read through the pages you asked, but don't entirely follow the logic. Also, I see no conclusion. According to other sources he and Fomenko used astronomical methods to calculate that Jesus lived 1152–1185 AD.

I would like to start from there. If Jesus lived 1152–1185 AD, what texts must be false in order for that date to be true?

For example, any text that discusses any aspect of Christian doctrine must be dated after 1185. Do you agree?

 

[Deleted member 37]

OK, a deal, I will aim to read that, best efforts basis. I feel you haven't really taken my points fully on board, though.

I think I have. I trust you when you say that historians have reconstructed history based upon documents: the opposite would be absurd to me. The problem is the dates contained in documents as well as a hundred other things explained by recentists.

By the way, as I already said, I don't think Fomenko is always right. I am not a fanatic. But the problems he poses are real and should be addressed in a proper manner and taken seriously, I think. It is really hard to understand his overall analysis at first glance though. And his reconstruction is not convincing to me.

Read that research by Nosovsky. I think it's worth the time spent

 

[Grosseteste]

I think I have. I trust you when you say that historians have reconstructed history based upon documents: the opposite would be absurd to me. The problem is the dates contained in documents as well as a hundred other things explained by recentists.

Read that research by Nosovsky. I think it's worth the time spent

Our posts crossed, see above. But you haven't explained why the dates in documents should be a problem, given you accept that the dates are internally consistent. Perhaps I haven't explained the problem you face sufficiently clearly. In fact, it's obvious I haven't explained myself well enough.

 

[Deleted member 37]

But you haven't explained why the dates in documents should be a problem, given you accept that the dates are internally consistent.

They are a problem in the light of the real absolute dates found in papers such as the one by Nosovsky.

I read through the pages you asked, but don't entirely follow the logic. Also, I see no conclusion.

Did you really read it from start to end? I am impressed. You are very talented.

According to other sources he and Fomenko used astronomical methods to calculate that Jesus lived 1152–1185 AD.

I would like to start from there. If Jesus lived 1152–1185 AD, what texts must be false in order for that date to be true?

For example, any text that discusses any aspect of Christian doctrine must be dated after 1185. Do you agree?

Sorry, but it is useless to talk about the hundreds of things in their books. We should stick to the link I gave you, if you want. It proves that the Council of Nicaea could not happen in 325 AD. Can you disprove him?

 

[Grosseteste]

It proves that the Council of Nicaea could not happen in 325 AD. Can you disprove him?

“Can I disprove him” – no, but I cannot prove him either, because I cannot follow his proof, nor am I clear what he thinks follows from what he says.

I will try again when I have more time. I did find this discussion https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201304/201304-full-issue.pdf by Florin Diacu useful, but it was the only one I could find outside of crank websites.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss.

 

[Deleted member 37]

“Can I disprove him” – no, but I cannot prove him either, because I cannot follow his proof, nor am I clear what he thinks follows from what he says.

I will try again when I have more time. I did find this discussion https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201304/201304-full-issue.pdf by Florin Diacu useful, but it was the only one I could find outside of crank websites.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss.

The conclusion to the article Calendar Reform and the Council of Nicaea from the link you provided says: "Unfortunately, this conclusion generated no reaction from historians. Nosovski’s mathematical reasoning seems plausible, but it would be interesting to know if the historical aspects he invokes hold water."

I agree with this conclusion. Many reasonings behind Fomenko/Nosovsky's work seem to be correct. But for whatever reason historians don't want to deal with it and as a consequence Fomenko is now considered (wrongly) an historian himself. The two worlds shoud cooperate and, I'm sorry to say, historians have to move forward, in every sense!

It's been nice to speak to you. Hope to see you again on the forum.

 

[Grosseteste]

The conclusion to the article Calendar Reform and the Council of Nicaea from the link you provided says: "Unfortunately, this conclusion generated no reaction from historians. Nosovski’s mathematical reasoning seems plausible, but it would be interesting to know if the historical aspects he invokes hold water."

I agree with this conclusion. Many reasonings behind Fomenko/Nosovsky's work seem to be correct. But for whatever reason historians don't want to deal with it and as a consequence Fomenko is now considered (wrongly) an historian himself. The two worlds shoud cooperate and, I'm sorry to say, historians have to move forward, in every sense!

It's been nice to speak to you. Hope to see you again on the forum.

I raised a question about the Easter dating on a private forum mostly used by academic historians. I referred to the article by Florin Diacu to endow it with, er, some respectability.

Let's see what they say, and happy to report back. One of them is a distinguished expert on Arabic philosophy of the early middle ages, and knows the subject backwards. I will be interested in his thoughts.

 

[sandokhan]

Refer them to the leading authority in the world on the subject, Dr. G. Nosovsky, this article:

Dating the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea - Inexistence of Axial Precession

Now, copy the first three messages which actually comprise Nosovsky's article into a pdf file, so that the FE address will not show up, and upload that pdf for the private forum.

The other article you mentioned is nowhere near Nosovsky's level of expertise on the subject.

 

[Deleted member 37]

Refer them to the leading authority in the world on the subject, Dr. G. Nosovsky, this article:

Dating the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea - Inexistence of Axial Precession

Now, copy the first three messages which actually comprise Nosovsky's article into a pdf file, so that the FE address will not show up, and upload that pdf for the private forum.

The other article you mentioned is nowhere near Nosovsky's level of expertise on the subject.

Please!

 

[Grosseteste]

I think best not to overburden them with 'stuff'. The question I am asking them is how their view of their subject would change on the assumption that there is a missing 300 years of history somewhere.

First reply:

If Boethius had been writing around the time of the Carolingian Renaissance then Justinian the Great and Charlemagne would have been contemporaries, but Charlemagne was was contemporary with Irene of Athens, and there were about ten Byzantine rulers between Justinian and her, so we’d have to ignore a lot of the Byzantine chronology, which arguably is some of the best documented history of the era.

You are going to get a lot of objections like this. Which is why no historians take revisionism seriously. (Just telling it like it is).

 

[Deleted member 37]

You are going to get a lot of objections like this. Which is why no historians take revisionism seriously. (Just telling it like it is).

This is why historians are not prepared to reply to Fomenko. As Florin Diacu said: "Unfortunately, this conclusion generated no reaction from historians. Nosovski’s mathematical reasoning seems plausible, but it would be interesting to know if the historical aspects he invokes hold water."

The problem is that chronology affects history. So the opinion of historians on the subject is un-scientific. This is just not their job!

Nice to have spoken to you though

 

[Grosseteste]

This is why historians are not prepared to reply to Fomenko. As Florin Diacu said: "Unfortunately, this conclusion generated no reaction from historians. Nosovski’s mathematical reasoning seems plausible, but it would be interesting to know if the historical aspects he invokes hold water."

The problem is that chronology affects history. So the opinion of historians on the subject is un-scientific. This is just not their job!

Nice to have spoken to you though

The politesse of academia is that there are mainstream theories and 'challenger' theories, and the accepted burden of proof is for the challenger theories to reply to any objections from the mainstream. Rather than the mainstream prove that the challenger theory is wrong. Why should they do that?

Indeed that's a general principle of Science as a whole. If you have a startling theory that challenges all existing preconceptions, then your theory should include or anticipate the objections that may arise from those preconceptions.

No one here has attempted that. To the objection "we’d have to ignore a lot of the Byzantine chronology, which arguably is some of the best documented history of the era", you simply have ignored the problem. But this is your problem, not ours.

 

[Deleted member 37]

The politesse of academia is that there are mainstream theories and 'challenger' theories, and the accepted burden of proof is for the challenger theories to reply to any objections from the mainstream. Rather than the mainstream prove that the challenger theory is wrong. Why should they do that?

Indeed that's a general principle of Science as a whole. If you have a startling theory that challenges all existing preconceptions, then your theory should include or anticipate the objections that may arise from those preconceptions.

No one here has attempted that. To the objection "we’d have to ignore a lot of the Byzantine chronology, which arguably is some of the best documented history of the era", you simply have ignored the problem. But this is your problem, not ours.

I think you have not understood the question: I will repeat again.

Here is the scientific proof that the Council of Nicaea could not happen the year it is commonly believed to have happened. It is on YOU to demonstrate the opposite. If you are not capable or you don't want to do it, it's not a problem. Just please don't go on with the same concepts over and over again.

Here is the link with the un-challenged scientific demonstration, CONFIRMED by Florin Diacu.
A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)

 

[Grosseteste]

I think you have not understood the question: I will repeat again.

Here is the scientific proof that the Council of Nicaea could not happen the year it is commonly believed to have happened. It is on YOU to demonstrate the opposite. If you are not capable or you don't want to do it, it's not a problem. Just please don't go on with the same concepts over and over again.

Here is the link with the un-challenged scientific demonstration, CONFIRMED by Florin Diacu.
A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)

No, once again it is for challenger theories to explain the contradictions that arise from their 'demonstrations'. You need to persuade us. We don't need to persuade you of anything.

 

[Deleted member 37]

No, once again it is for challenger theories to explain the contradictions that arise from their 'demonstrations'. You need to persuade us. We don't need to persuade you of anything.

No one needs to persuade you. No one cares to do it. Florin Diacu, mentioned by you, has already told you what you should do. He has done it in a polite manner and now it is up to YOU.

I hope you will not go on and on with the same poor arguments. It seems the old @Grosseteste is making space to a new fundamentalist one.

If you want to discuss of chronology we start from here: A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)

 

[sandokhan]

Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn's best work, one of top archaeologists in the world, demonstrating that the assumed historical period 2,100 - 600 BC never existed:

THE RESTORATION OF ANCIENT HISTORY

 

[dreamtime]

The politesse of academia is that there are mainstream theories and 'challenger' theories, and the accepted burden of proof is for the challenger theories to reply to any objections from the mainstream. Rather than the mainstream prove that the challenger theory is wrong. Why should they do that?

Indeed that's a general principle of Science as a whole. If you have a startling theory that challenges all existing preconceptions, then your theory should include or anticipate the objections that may arise from those preconceptions.

That's bullshit.

You forget that you are a guest in a forum with a certain consensus. It is up to you to read up about this consensus and challenge it.

So in your own words, since in the context of this forum the revisionist position is the accepted one, it is up to you to challenge it.