Dating and Chronology

[sandokhan]

Again, you are dodging and evading the main issues.

The years 566, 577, 593 are not in question. You are not addressing what we are discussing here, the fact that Exiguus had recorded, ALWAYS, the wrong dates for the instances where the Passover coincided with the Easter.

Evidence for that?

Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica and Life of Constantine), the canons of the Council of Antioch (341 AD) and of the Council of Laodicea show clearly that it was forbidden to celebrate the Easter on the same date as that of the Passover. The fourth Carthaginian council (398 AD) again enforces those canons.

 

[Grosseteste]

You are not addressing what we are discussing here, the fact that Exiguus had recorded, ALWAYS, the wrong dates for the instances where the Passover coincided with the Easter.

Incorrect, read my post again, and on the Passover I again strongly suggest you read the book I recommended: Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar, 2nd Century BCE to 10th Century CE by Sacha Stern, who knows more about the subject than anyone here.

 

[sandokhan]

But I am correct: you are evading the main issues with each and every message you write. Prof. Stern does not address what we are discussing here: the fact that several church Councils (4th and 5th centuries) had forbidden for the Easter to be celebrated on the same day as that of the Passover. In the official chronology of history, certainly those people knew very well when the Passover did occur, otherwise what would have been the point to issue those canons?

Exiguus could not have predicted the date for the First Easter to fall on Saturday, March 24, 1,095 AD. Only someone who was calculating retroactively the First Easter, could have accomplished such a task. Exiguus always records the wrong date (which is impossible) when the Passover and the Easter had coincided.

Now, let me bring in the heavy artillery.

Moon elongation parameter dating

The Moon's Acceleration

"Understanding the moon's orbit around Earth is a difficult mathematical problem. Isaac Newton was the first to consider it, and it took more than two centuries until the American mathematician George William Hill found a suitable framework in which to address this question.

The concern is with the acceleration, D'', of the moon's elongation, which is the angle between the moon and the sun as viewed from Earth. This acceleration D'' is computable from observations, and its past behavior can be determined from records of eclipses. Its values vary between -18 and +2 seconds of arc per century squared. Also, D'' is slightly above zero and almost constant from about 700 BC to AD 500, but it drops significantly for the next five centuries, to settle at around -18 after AD 1000. Unfortunately this variation cannot be explained from gravitation, which requires the graph to be a horizontal line.

Among the other experts in celestial mechanics who attacked this problem was Robert Newton from Johns Hopkins University. In 1979, he published the first volume of a book that considered the issue by looking at historical solar eclipses. Five years later, he came up with a second volume, which approached the problem from the point of view of lunar observations. His conclusion was that the behavior of D'' could be explained only by factoring in some unknown forces.

Newton's results can be interpreted similarly: if we exclude the possibility of mysterious forces, his graph puts traditional ancient and medieval chronology in doubt."

https://image.ibb.co/kOHkBJ/dp1.jpg

https://image.ibb.co/kC1HQd/dp2.jpg

https://image.ibb.co/ecjhrJ/dp3.jpg

A. T. FOMENKO, THE JUMP OF THE SECOND DERIVATIVE OF THE MOON'S ELONGATION

It is important for some computational astronomical problems to know the behaviour of D'' -- the second derivative of the Moon's elongation - as a function of the time, on a rather long segment of the time line. This problem, particularly, was talked about during the discussion organized in 1972 by the London Royal Society and British Academy of Sciences. The scheme of the calculation of D'' is as follows: we are to fix the totality of ancient observations of eclipses, then calculate. on the basis of the modern theory, when these observations were made, and then compare the results of the calculations with the observed parameters to evaluate the Moon's acceleration.

Newton: "The most striking feature of Figure 1 is the rapid decline in D'' from about 700 to about 1300 ... . This decline means (Newton, 1972b) that there was a 'square wave' in the osculating value of D''... . Such changes in D'', and such values, unexplainable by present geophysical theories ... , show that D'' has had surprisingly large values and that it has undergone large and sudden changes within the past 2000 yrs".

D" parameter, new chronology of history:

Dr. Robert Newton, Two Uses of Ancient Astronomy:

R. R. Newton, "Two uses of ancient astronomy"

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Land. A. 276, 99-110 (1974)


Dr. Robert Newton, Astronomical Evidence Concerning Non-Gravitational Forces in the Earth-Moon System:

R.R.Newton, "Astronomical evidence..."

Each and every astronomical recording supposedly made in the period 500 BC - 1200 AD is proven to be false.

 

[Grosseteste]

And now we are back to the problems discussed in the other thread: massive copy pasting of irrelevant texts and unrelated links.

 

[sandokhan]

Not at all. No historical astronomical dating for the period we are investigating here (500 AD - 1200 AD) can be trusted. They were simply all wrong. It certainly proves my point that Exiguus was a fictional character invented much later in time.

How is this irrelevant, when you are not able even to address the main issues we are discussing here?

Exiguus could not have predicted the date for the First Easter to fall on Saturday, March 24, 1,095 AD. Only someone who was calculating retroactively the First Easter, could have accomplished such a task. Exiguus always records the wrong date (which is impossible) when the Passover and the Easter had coincided.

 

[Grosseteste]

I would be interested in the views of others on this subject. As I have said above, I can make no sense whatsoever of Sandokhan's "arguments".

 

[Jd755]

I can make no sense whatsoever of Sandokhan's "arguments".

Who can?

 

[dreamtime]

As I have already told sandokhan, he is now limited to a single thread on the forum, and can't reply anywhere else. He's clashing with so many other users it would seriously damage the quality of content in our forum over time.

Also this thread is now locked as it's already full of distracting arguments, but you are free to create a new thread to continue your discussions.