New radical chronology of history

sandokhan

Active member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
163
Reaction score
199
Location
EU
The proofs for the new radical chronology of history must be extremely precise: astronomy, archaeology, mathematics.

1. Gauss' Easter formula applied to the dating of the Nicaea Council
2. Gizeh pyramid: the use of the extended arctangent formula and full knowledge of the notion of the meter
3. Pfister's dating of Swiss castels/cathedrals/monuments
4. When and where was Christ crucified/resurrected? Constantinople, some 250 years ago
5. Mozart, Bach, Haydn, Da Vinci, Euler, ancient empires
6. Moon elongation parameter dating
7. Comets' tails dating

New radical chronology of history

Adam and Eve: the first solar eclipses on the vernal equinox, 1643 AD and 1662 AD
Giants, dinosaurs (Enoch, the son of Adam), the creation of the ape, Gizeh pyramid: 1662 AD - 1706 AD
Great Deluge: 1706 AD
Pelasg and his three sons (Pelasg first born of Noah, who was the son of Enoch), first Egyptian pharaohs, the development of calculus: 1706 AD - 1769 AD
Nibiru/Mercury/Typhon cosmic cataclysm: 1761 - 1769 AD: the island of California becomes part of the north american continent, Siberia becomes a frozen desert, end of the Tartarian empire
1769 AD - modern history: everything is faked after 1780 AD, religious texts, documents, science

1. Gauss' Easter formula

Now, Gauss' Easter formula is the most accurate astronomical dating tool at our disposal.

A brief summary of the dating of the First Council of Nicaea and the startling conclusions following the fact that the Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD.


Dr. G. Nosovsky:


"Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:


“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.

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.

Another reason to doubt the validity of 325 AD is that the Easter dates repeat themselves every 532 years. The last cycle started in 1941, and previous ones were 1409 to 1940, 877 to 1408 and 345 to 876. But a periodic process is similar to drawing a circle—you can choose any starting point. Therefore, it seems peculiar for the council to have met in 325 AD and yet not to have begun the Easter cycle until 345.

Nosovsky thought it more reasonable that the First Council of Nicaea had taken place in 876 or 877 AD, the latter being the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with his full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

G. Nosovky:

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 - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

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).


The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the approximately 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.


"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."


The spring equinox could not, and did not, fall on March 21, in the year 325 AD, CONTRARY to the figures implied by the RE equations of orbital mechanics.


Gauss' Easter formula proves that the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD, and that the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 743 AD (and not in the year 325 AD).


Dead Sea scrolls forgery:

The Bulletin - Philadelphia's Family Newspaper - Challenging History: The Dead Sea Scrolls

Who Claimed the Dead Sea Scrolls a Hoax?

The Next Level :: View topic - History: Fiction or Science?
 

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
368
Reaction score
838
Location
Langobardia
You should better distinguish your opinions from Nosovsky's research.
For example:

"The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the approximately 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth."

Are all of these opinions from Nosovsky? FE stands for Flat Earth? Nosovsky believes in flat earth?
If not, please better distinguish your opinion from Nosovsky's research.

Also, can you give the sources (related to what is written in the thread)?
 
Last edited:

sandokhan

Active member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
163
Reaction score
199
Location
EU
Dr. G. Nosovsky, The Easter Issue

2. Gizeh pyramid: the use of the extended arctangent formula and full knowledge of the notion of the meter

The angle that each face of the Pyramid makes with the base is exactly 51.8554°.

The most precise ever measuremets of the Giza pyramid were taken by D. Davidson (beyond Piazzi or Petrie):

http://www.magia-metachemica.net/up...dson_the_great_pyramid_its_divine_message.pdf

Page 75

51° 51' 14.3"
= 51° + 51'/60 + 14.3"/3600
= 51.85397°

90° - 51.8554° = 38.1446°

All of the inner and outer measurements of the Gizeh pyramid were determined using three circles each having a radius of 60 sacred cubits = 38.18 meters (one sacred cubit = 0.636363 meters).



"Our own calculations show that the radius adopted for the three circles envisioned by us was equal to 60 such Sacred Cubits; the number 60 being, not accidentally, the base number of the Sumerian sexagesimal mathematical system. This measure of 60 Sacred Cubits is dominant in the lengths and heights of the pyramid's inner structure as well as in the dimensions of its base."

The value of 38.18 can only be inferred if, and only if, the 60 sacred cubits are expressed in meters.

The architects of the Gizeh pyramid had at their disposal the METER, as an UNIT OF BASIC MEASUREMENT OF LENGTH. In the official chronology of history, the meter was adopted in 1799 AD in France.


Virtually all of the authors who do study the dimensions of the Gizeh pyramid use the ARCTANGENT FUNCTION to calculate the various angles, especially those of the slope of the pyramid's outer casing. Yet, they do not understand that the planners of the pyramid had to do the same thing in order to calculate the very precise values of these angles.

51.85/38.1 = 1.361

5.23 (masonry base) + 136.1 (pyramid frustum w/o the masonry base) + 7.28 (apex) = 148.61

Length of the sides of the right triangle: 148.61 meters, 116.71204 meters, 188.961987 meters.

Again, we can obtain the value of 136.1 meters, if, and only if, we substract from the total height of the frustum of the pyramid, the elevation of the masonry base which is 5.23 meters. The height of the masonry base was obtained, for the first time, in 1985 with the help of the diagram which features the three circles.

The elevation of the king's chamber is 43.37 meters.

http://www.magia-metachemica.net/up...dson_the_great_pyramid_its_divine_message.pdf (pages 151 - 158)

43.37 - 38.14 = 5.23

The width of the queen's chamber also measures 5.23 meters.


The architects of the Gizeh pyramid had to use the extended arctangent series to find the precise values of the angles, but in addition they also knew the value of the most important constant of the eta zeta function (alternating series zeta function): 2π/ln2.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0209393.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.2840.pdf


90 - 38.1446 = 51.8554

51.85 x ln2/2π = 2 x 2.86


286.1 is the displacement factor of the Gizeh pyramid.

136.12° radians x 3.81553 = 2π/ln2

That is, 2π/ln2 is the arclength corresponding to the 136.12° expressed in radians multiplied by 6 sacred cubits.


Thus the builders of the pyramid also knew the value of π and made use of the radian measure and of the natural logarithm.

"The concept of radian measure, as opposed to the degree of an angle, is normally credited to Roger Cotes in 1714. He had the radian in everything but name, and he recognized its naturalness as a unit of angular measure

The first mention of the natural logarithm was by Nicholas Mercator in his work Logarithmotechnia published in 1668, although the mathematics teacher John Speidell had already in 1619 compiled a table on the natural logarithm."


In order to find the values of the two angles, 51.8554° and 38.1446°, the architects had to solve these equations:

TAN X = 1.27330478216 = 0.636652 x 2

SIN X = 0.617648


To find the final 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 way that Euler's extended arctangent series would have been used 4,500 years ago by the civilization which built the Gizeh pyramid: the entire development of the accepted chronology of history would be defied on a monumental scale.

The architects of the pyramid did use the extended arctangent series exactly in the 17th century, when they also infused the knowledge about calculus into mainstream science in Kerala, France, Italy, and England.

The derivation of the extended arctangent series, a result from advanced calculus:

http://eulerarchive.maa.org/hedi/HEDI-2009-02.pdf
New series formula for $\arctan(x)$? Ln(x)?



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.

And the value of TAN 51.8554° equals exactly two sacred cubits expressed as a dimensionless number (1.27330478216 = 0.636652 x 2).


The total height of the apex is 286.1 sacred inches = 7.28 meters.

148.61 - 7.28 = 141.33 meters.

The value of the first zero of Riemann's zeta function is 14.134725.


Reference #1

The Great Pyramid

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

01 The Pyramids | SPM

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


Reference #4

Secret Numbers in the Egyptian Great Pyramid

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


When tourists enter the Grand Gallery and the so-called King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid for the first time, most are surprised to encounter high humidity. In 1974, a joint research project carried out by Stanford Research Institute (SRI International), of Stanford (California) and Ain Shams University, in Cairo, indicated that whereas the bedrock of Giza is dry, the pyramid blocks are full of moisture.

(Davidovits & Morris, The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved, p. 15).

"Nobel Prize winning "scientist" Dr. Luis Alvarez was given the task of x-raying the pyramids at Giza to find hidden chambers. Using naturally occurring cosmic rays, his scheme was to place spark chambers, standard equipment in the high-energy particle physics of this time, beneath the second pyramid of Chephren in a known chamber. By measuring the counting rate of the cosmic rays in different directions the detector would reveal the existence of any void in the overlaying rock structure.

Alvarez and his team were about to use space age technology to look inside the oldest building in the world.

Dr. Luis Alvarez recommended using cosmic rays to x-ray all the pyramids in the Giza Plateau.

Archaeologist and author Ahmed Fakhry was his liaison in Egypt.

Their work continued until the Six-Day War in June 1967."


http://www.reformation.org/en-x-team.jpg

Preparing to X-ray the pyramids with Egyptologist Ahmed Fakhry and team leader Jerry Anderson, Berkeley, 1966.

"The results were ASTONISHING. The cosmic rays could not penetrate the water saturated limestone blocks of the pyramids."


http://www.reformation.org/alvarez-pyramid-team.jpg

"The x-ray team in front of the Great Pyramid. Alvarez is on the left."


In 1974, a massive 1 million dollar project was launched by the National Science Foundation in the U.S. to locate hidden chambers in the Giza pyramids.


http://www.reformation.org/x-raying-great-pyramid.jpg

(setting up the x-ray equipment in the Great Pyramid)

"In 1974, apparently unaware of the pyramid x-raying of Alvarez, the National Science Foundation launched another attempt to x-ray the pyramids.

This time the results were published.

The limestone rocks were too saturated with water to allow penetration by cosmic rays."


http://www.reformation.org/x-raying-great-pyramid2.jpg

(oscilloscope setup in Belzoni's Chamber)

The search had to be abandoned because the electro-magnetic sounder equipment could not penetrate the limestone rocks due to their high water content.


http://www.reformation.org/cheops-limestone.jpg

(Cheops limestone water content chart)

"Limestone from all over Egypt was tested against Cheops limestone for water content.

The results were that Great Pyramid limestone is UNIQUE because it is saturated with MOISTURE and not found anywhere else in the world.

It is antediluvian limestone."

A Joint Egyptian-American research team conducted electromagnetic sounder experiments during autumn 1974 with the primary objective of locating archaeologically significant chambers in the Giza area. Radio frequency losses in the limestone rock of the area, ranging from 6 dB/m at 10 MHz to 25 dB/m at 150 MHz, appear to preclude much practical application of radio-frequency sounding in the vicinity of Giza. The high losses are contrary to expectations based on samples analyzed before the Giza experiments, but are consistent with later laboratory analyses made at the high temperature and high humidity characteristic of the Giza environment.

(Electromagnetic Sounder Experiments at the Pyramids of Giza. p. iii).

http://www.ldolphin.org/egypt/egypt1/index.html

Electromagnetic Sounder Experiments at the Pyramids of Giza

Stanford University

During its autumn 1974 electromagnetic sounder experiments the joint Egyptian-American research team established that high attenuation due to high water content in the limestone of the Giza area precluded many practical applications of radio-frequency sounding for archaeological purposes in that area.

The 10-MHz transmitter and antenna were carried 100 m up the south face of Cheops' pyramid, and placed by the air shaft from the King's chamber:


http://www.ldolphin.org/egypt/egypt1/fig12.jpg

Even when the receiving antenna in the portable receiver was placed next to the air shaft on the south wall of the King's chamber, no sounder signals could be heard through the intervening 50 m of rock.



“We can clearly see the pristine condition and the details of the perforations of the exoskeleton, this means that the sea creature must have been petrified in recent times.” -Sherif El Morsy

https://www.gigalresearch.com/uk/Menkara-petrified-shallow-marine-creature.php

“During one of the documentations of the ancient coastline, I almost tripped with a block of the second level of a temple,” said Mr. Morsy in an article published on the website Gigal Research. “To my surprise, the bump on the top surface of the block that almost tripped me was in fact a exoskeleton of a fossil of what appears to be a echinoid (sea urchin) which are marine creatures that live in relatively shallow waters.”

Archaeologist Sherif El Morsy, who has worked extensively on the Giza plateau for over two decades, and his colleague Antoine Gigal, were the ones who made the discovery of this controversial fossil, which backs up studies and theories that the Pyramids of Giza and the mighty Sphinx were once submerged under the sea.

According to El Morsy, the flooding, was quite significant, peaking at about 75 meters above current sea level and creating a coastline spanning to the Khafra enclosure near the Sphinx at the temple of Menkare.

A convincing clue proving that the Giza plateau was once covered by the sea is being studied, along with other evidence of erosion due to saturation by deep water of the surface of the plateau. An echinoid (a type of sea urchin or shallow marine creature) petrified in “recent times” has been found embedded upright in the upper surface of a block adjoining the Menkaura pyramid and within the ancient intertidal range.


"Since the end of the third millennium B.C. the climate of Egypt has been generally similar to that of the present day. Between 2350 B.C. and A.D. 700 the average temperature seems to have been, if anything, a trifle above and the average rainfall a little below the modern levels, but with at least two 'quite moist' spells, one in late Ramesside times [circa 1200-1100 B.C.] and one about 850 B.C."

"The nature and especially degree of weathering seen in the Sphinx enclosure and on the body of the Sphinx itself, is incompatible with sporadic flash floods since dynastic times. Even if occasional heavy rains occur on the Giza Plateau, the fact remains that currently on average only about an inch of rain each year occurs in the region (25 to 29 mm annually)."

"The Giza Plateau has had a mean annual rainfall of about one inch (2.5 cm) per year since Old Kingdom times."

"The Great Pyramid took 20 years to build, with an estimated 12 blocks moved into place each hour for 24 hours a day on average."

The Gizeh pyramid was not built using ramps:

https://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/khufu-pyramid/pyramid-theories.html

Ropes/pulleys could not have been used to transport the 40 ton stress-relieving, granite slabs above the roof of the King’s Chamber. To transport a 60 ton block of stone, even using wheels, requires a sophisticated braking system.

Moreover the basic problem remains: how were those blocks of stone transported to the building site in the first place?

The Gizeh pyramid was not built using hydraulic methods:

https://arkysite.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/how-the-pyramids-were-really-built-really/

By comparison, here is the Penasquito mine tailing dam (one side will measure 4 km).



"To give you an idea of the enormous size of Penasquito’s tailings dam, the red circle shows just how small the large Komatsu 930E haul truck is next to the dam. The Komatsu 930E haul truck, which Penasquito has 85 currently in its fleet, is 24 feet tall and can move 320 tons of ore, rock or sand in a single trip."

The ultimate height of the tailings dam will reach 142 meters: the total height of the Gizeh pyramid is 148.6 meters (frustum + apex).


Given these facts, engineers and physicists have sought to explain the Gizeh pyramid by other means: the use of concrete.

https://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/are-pyramids-made-out-of-concrete-1/

The author of the theory claims that even the Baalbek huge granite blocks, and the monuments at Tiahuanaco, were built using concrete.

Now, it is known for sure that the diorite vases/amphoras were produced using the potter's wheel (geopolymer cement).

http://chronologia.org/en/how_it_was/04_14.html

However, the geopolymer concrete technique would have still required the grinding down of the primary rocks into a dust-like powder. Then, that powder had to be transported to the construction site. Faced with these problems, the physicists were forced to come up with an explanation: sonic drilling was used to carve and grind down the stones.

But then, if sonic/ultrasonic carving and drilling was actually used, acoustic levitation could have been utilized to transport the enormous blocks of stone.
Post automatically merged:

~1706 AD

Antarctica is covered by ice
The Giza pyramid is flooded

1769 AD

The island of California is realigned with the continent
The Grand Canyon is formed
Sahara becomes a desert
Siberia is covered by ice
Extinction of the mammoths

1811

The New Madrid earthquake is caused by a meteor impact

https://www.earthfrenzyradio.com/conspiracies/2422-the-great-comet-quake-of-1811-a-neo-connection

https://archaeologica.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3691

http://www.dillum.ch/html/napoleon_maystre_uebersetzung_09.htm (amazing related events in the history of the reigns of Napoleon III/I)

1862

The great mud flood originated with the largest volcano eruption in Africa ever recorded (May 1861, Dubbi volcano), also there were huge mud floods in the period 1761-1769 AD (Nibiru/Aten - Venus cosmic cataclysms).

http://www.atmosedu.com/Geol390/articles/ComingMegaFloos4.pdf

https://cepsym.org/Sympro2012/Schick.pdf




Both Nobel prize winning Dr. Luis Alvarez and and the National Science Foundation (Stanford University) determined that the limestone rocks of the Gizeh pyramid were too saturated with water, up to an elevation of 100 meters, to allow penetration by cosmic rays (the rocks had a high water content). Another convincing proof showing that the Gizeh plateau was once covered by the sea is represented by the exoskeleton of an echinoid (sea urchin) which was found embedded upright in the upper surface of a block adjoining the Menkaura pyramid.

Given these undeniable proofs that the Gizeh pyramid was actually submerged under the Mediterranean Sea, mainstream scientists have sought to find a possible explanation.

The first of these attempts was to claim that the tsunami generated by the explosion of the Santorini volcano reached the shores of Egypt. However, the studies which have been carried out show that the height of the initial wave was only 28 meters in height; moreover, the northern coastline of Crete would have blocked the tsunami from reaching Egypt.

https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/186/2/665/589033

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/3/3/745/htm

https://theconversation.com/santori...-caused-devastating-bronze-age-tsunamis-68368



“Crete's northern coastline would have acted like a 250 kilometer long breakwater that absorbed and reflected much of the tsunami's energy back into the Aegean. This would have significantly reduced the amount of wave energy able to escape into the open waters of the Mediterranean Sea.”



The sea surge lasted long enough for sea urchins to embed themselves on the rocks on some of the temples; the Gizeh plateau was submerged under the sea at least for a period of time measuring in days (the Great Flood) or even years (1761 AD – 1769 AD, in the new radical chronology of history timeline).

Since the Santorini volcano explosion could not possibly explain that the Gizeh pyramid was submerged under the water, researchers in the field have begun to understand that the only possible period of time in the official chronology of history when this event could have taken place is at the end of the last Ice Age (some 12,000 years ago):

https://humanoriginproject.com/younger-dryas-event-extinction-prehistoric-period/

https://humanoriginproject.com/early-earth-history-the-great-flood/

http://mgu.bg/geoarchmin/naterials/64Manichev.pdf

In view of the fact that these scientists could not possibly accept that the Gizeh pyramid had already been built some 12,000 years ago, new explanations were required. The only feasible scenario is that proposed by Charles Ginenthal: that the last Ice Age ended some 3,500 years ago, so the Gizeh plateau was submerged under water in the period 1,500 BC:

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/NewtonEinstein&Veli.pdf (page 129)

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Mammoth.pdf (pages 257, 274-277 and 284-291)

The only possible cause of the huge sea surge could have been a pole shift (heliocentrical theory); however, this fact would render useless the current approach to orbital mechanics based on nonlinear ordinary differential equations with initial values (it would prove the instability of the solar system and that the solutions obtained through numerical methods have no scientific basis.

However, in this case we are left with a question that no one, not even I. Velikovsky, could answer:

One other question, of a like nature. I think it is generally accepted that the Great Pyramid of Gizeh was built before this close approach. The sides of the Great Pyramid are oriented—north, south, east, west—within, as I recall, about three minutes of arc, about the smallest angle one could expect the orientation to be if surveying was done with the naked eye. It seems a rather unusual coincidence that this north, south, east, west orientation could have come out of an Earth that had been thrown into such a chance disorientation by the close approach.

The almost perfect north-south orientation means that no tilt or change of poles has occurred since the Great Pyramid was constructed.

In the heliocentrical context, a massive pole shift must have taken place in the recent historical time; however, this fact is disproven by the north-south orientation of the Gizeh pyramid, not to mention its precise calendar of the solstices and of the equinoxes (the Gizeh pyramid was constructed, we are told, well before the time of the pole shift itself).

Moreover, the facts concerning the north-south orientation are even more startling.

"To understand why, we look at Livio Catullo Stecchini, who was a professor of ancient history at Paterson State Teachers College and wrote on the history of science, ancient weights and measures (metrology), and the history of cartography in antiquity.
Professor Stechhini is best known for his numerological theories about the dimensions of the Great Pyramid.

In the 1960’s Professor Stecchini wrote about the apparent inaccuracies detected in the north-south orientation of the Great Pyramid and how these were present with a purpose.

As Stecchini claimed, the alignment axis of the western side of the Great Pyramid was drawn first by its builders, then, the builders outlined the northern side so it could be perfectly perpendicular to the western side. The eastern side, however, was intentionally placed at a larger angle of 3 arcmins, resulting in a larger side.

In other words, the northeast corner should have been 90 ° 03 ’00 “, not 90 °. As for the southern side of the Great Pyramid, it was predicted to be half an arcminute larger than perpendicular, so that the southwest corner measured 90 ° 00 ’30.
However, Stecchini also studied a small line on the floor of the base of the Great Pyramid located near the center of the northern side. Some authors have assumed that this was the original north-south axis of the Great Pyramid.

The data shows that the axis line is located at 115.090 meters in the northwest corner, and 115.161 meters in the northeast corner, so it seems to be a bit off center. This variation was typically rejected as human error.

However, Professor Stecchini concluded that this was not a mistake. Rather, the north-south axis of the Great Pyramid was misaligned on purpose. Therefore, the apex was also misaligned on purpose by about 35.5 millimeters westward."


The pole shift of the Earth which occurred, in heliocentrism, after the Gizeh pyramid was built, would have thrown into disarray any and all calendars based on its position and dimensions.

Usually, the north-south orientation of the pyramid is brought in the discussions, in order to prove that the Earth is stationary.

However, there is a much more precise calendar, the display of the equinoxes in the form of shadows, at work using the Gizeh pyramid's dimensions.

https://blog.world-mysteries.com/mystic-places/giza-the-time-machine/ (it includes videos of the concepts being discussed)





As a result of the position of the Gizeh Necropolis on the 30 degrees latitude the rays of the rising Sun accurately indicate the direction of due east at the time of the autumnal and vernal equinoxes; while the Sunrise is directed 28 degrees to the north of this (i.e. N62ºE) at the time of the summer solstice and 28 degrees to the south of this (i.e. S62ºE) at the time of the winter solstice.

This means that, had the Earth been orbiting the Sun since the Gizeh pyramid had been constructed, the precise calendar would have been disrupted to a huge degree. The fact that it still displays the equinoxes with such precision means that the Earth is stationary, and that it is the Sun which undergoes the annual westward precessional shift (1.5 km/year).
Post automatically merged:

4. When and where was Christ crucified/resurrected? Constantinople, some 250 years ago

The historians are supposed to concern themselves with chronology. However, without a sufficient mathematical education – and in the case of chronological studies, sufficient means fundamental – the historians are forced to evade the solution and even the discussion of the rather complex chronological issues.

Every historical oddness and contradiction becomes carefully concealed from the public attention; in dangerous and slippery places the historians put on a “professional” mien, saying that “everything is really okay” and they shall “give you a full explanation” later on.


Dr. G. Nosovsky

Flat earth theory cannot be true in the context of the official chronology of history, but only in view of the new radical chronology of history. The heliocentrical precessional movement of the Earth argument is all it takes to put in end to the flat earth movement. We are told that Hipparchus proposed that the axis around which the heavens seemed to rotate (shifted gradually, though very slowly). Then, the first astronomer known to have continued Hipparchus's work on precession is Ptolemy in the second century AD. Next, in medieval Islamic astronomy, precession was known based on Ptolemy's Almagest, and by observations that refined the value. Finally, the Renaissance and late Renaissance astronomers (from Kepler to Cassini to Flamsteed) also make pertinent observations relating to the precession of the equinoxes.

A seemingly unbeatable argument which proves that the Earth did orbit the Sun at least in the period 200 BC - 1700 AD, based on the axial precession astronomical observations/recordings listed above.

That is why the flat earth believers who take for granted the official line of history have no chance whatsoever when they are faced with this type of reasoning which, without making use of the new radical chronology of history, is really irrefutable.

Biblical historians have to deal with the fact that there are undeniable proofs that the Epistles attributed to Paul, Peter and James could not possibly have been written during the 1st century AD, not to mention the dating of the Gospels themselves (the 600 page treatise, The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty, as an example). Or with the undeniable contradictions and anachronisms which are to be found in the Gospels and Acts texts. Or with the fact that the legends concerning many pagan deities (Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, India) coincide incredibly well with the main features of the storyline found in the Gospels.

A.T. Fomenko did a disservice to the new chronology field of study by claiming that Christ lived in the 11th century AD. Given the huge success of his History: Fiction or Science? books, and his credentials in advanced mathematics, the researchers in the field, not to mention the readers of his series of publications, found it difficult to separate the obvious and correct mathematical proofs which prove that everything prior to 1,000 AD pertaining to ancient/medieval history was forged and falsified, and the correctness of Fomenko's reconstruction of history in the period 1,000 AD - 1,600 AD, which is plain wrong. By not having understood that the dating of the destruction of both Pompeii and Herculaneum really occurred in the 18th century, or not having taken into account the proofs offered by Dr. Christoph Pfister (the pioneer in the field of the new radical chronology of history) Fomenko was practically forced to invent a fictitious history for the period 1,000 AD - 1,600 AD, which of course included his take on the Nativity/Resurrection, and which affected in a negative manner the faith of many people, especially those living in eastern Europe (orthodox denomination).


Dionysius Exiguus, On Easter (translation from Latin to English)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htm


Exiguus assigns the date of March 24, year 563 AD, for the Passover.

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/easter/easter_text4a.htm

However, in the year 563 AD, the Passover fell on March 25.


Dr. G.V. Nosovsky:

Ecclesiastical tradition, in accordance with the New Testament, tells that Christ was resurrected on March 25 on Sunday, on the next day after Passover, which, therefore, fell in that time on March 24 (Saturday). These are exactly the conditions used by Dionisius in his calculation of the date of the First Easter.

Dionysius supposedly conducted all these arguments and calculations working with the Easter Book. Having discovered that in the contemporary year 563 (the year 279 of the Diocletian era) the First Easter conditions held, he made a 532-year shift back (the duration of the great indiction, the shift after which the Easter Book entirely recurs) and got the date for the First Easter. But he did not know that Passover (the 14th moon) could not be shifted by 532 years (because of the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle) and made a mistake: "Dionysius failed, though he did not know that. Indeed, if he really supposed that the First Easter fell on March 25, 31 A.D., then he made a rough mistake as he extrapolated the inaccurate Metonian cycle to 28 previous cycles (that is, for 532 years: 28 x 19 = 532). In fact, Nisan 15, the Passover festival, in the year 31 fell not on Saturday, March 24, but on Tuesday, March 27!". [335, pg. 243: I.A. Klimishin, Calendar and Chronology, in Russian, Nauka, Moscow, 1985]


That is a modern reconstruction of what Dionysius the Little did in the 6th century. It would be all right, but it presupposes that near Dionysius' date of 563 A.D. the 14th moon (Passover) really fell on March 24. It could be that Dionysius was not aware of the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle and made the mistake shifting Passover from 563 to the same day of March in 31 A.D.

But he could not have been unaware of the date of Passover in the the almost contemporary year 563! To that end it was sufficient to apply the Metonian cycle to the coming 30-40 years; the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle does not show up for such intervals.


But in 563 Passover (the 14th moon) fell not on March 24, but on Sunday, March 25, that is, it coincided with Easter as determined by the Easter Book.


As he specially worked with the calendar situation of almost contemporary year 563 and as he based his calculation of the era "since the birth of Christ" on this situation, Dionysius could not help seeing that, first, the calendar situation in the year 563 did not conform to the Gospels' description and, second, that the coincidence of Easter with Passover in 563 contradicts the essence of the determination of Easter the Easter Book is based on.



Therefore, it appears absolutely incredible that the calculations of the First Easter and of the Birth of Christ had been carried out in the 6th century on the basis of the calendar situation of the year 563. It was shown in Sec. 1 that the Easter Book, used by Dionysius, had not been compiled before the 8th century and had been canonized only at the end of the 9th century. Therefore, the calculations carried out by (or ascribed to) Dionysius the Little had not been carried out before the lOth century.

www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)


Exiguus, the central pillar of the official historical chronology, could not have made such a colossal mistake UNLESS his works/biography were forged/falsified at least five centuries later in time.

In the official chronology, Bede, Syncellus, Scaliger, Blastares, and Petavius base their calculations on Exiguus' methods and data.

Dr. G.V. Nosovsky verified the interval of 100 BC - 1700 AD, using the exact conditions stipulated by Exiguus, and found that ONLY the date of 1095 AD corresponds exactly.


In the official chronology of history we find one of the most perplexing mysteries.

Kepler advocated the adoption of the reformed calendar in a work entitled "Dialogue on the Gregorian Calendar" published in 1612.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1920PA.....28...18L/0000021.000.html

In 1613, the Emperor Matthias asked Kepler to attend the Reichstag at Regensburg to counsel on the issue of adopting the Gregorian calendar reform in Germany. In Germany, the Protestant princes had refused to accept the calendar on confessional grounds. Kepler believed that the new calendar was sufficiently exact to satisfy all needs for many centuries. Thus, he proposed that the Emperor issue a general imperial decree to implement the calendar.


Moreover, the arch enemy of the Vatican, Galileo Galilei, also agrees with the changes instituted by the Gregorian calendar.

Clavius was the senior mathematician on the commission for the reform of the calendar that led, in 1582, to the institution of the Gregorian calendar.

From his university days, Galileo was familiar with Clavius's books, and he visited the famous man during his first trip to Rome in 1587. After that they corresponded from time to time about mathematical problems, and Clavius sent Galileo copies of his books as they appeared.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=o6-...&q=galileo galilei gregorian calendar&f=false


Thesaurus Temporum, published by Joseph Scaliger, which was based almost entirely on the calculations of Dionysius Exiguus and Matthew Blastares, received criticism from Johannes Kepler.


However, it is absolutely impossible (and amazing at the same time) for Johannes Kepler to have agreed with the Gregorian calendar reform, given the fact that he was familiar with the popular work attributed to Matthew Blastares.

It would have been perfectly simple for Kepler and Galilei to show the humongous errors inherent in the Gregorian calendar reform, to publicize these results, and thus have a very solid base on which to express their opinions regarding the planetary system.

All Kepler had to do is to refer each and every historian/astronomer/researcher of his time to the familiar quote signed Matthew Blastares:


"By about AD 1330, the medieval scholar Matthew Vlastar wrote the following about how to determine the anniversary of Christ's resurrection in the Collection of Rules of the Holy Fathers of the Church:

The rule on Easter has two restrictions: not to celebrate together with the Israelites and to celebrate after the spring equinox. Two more were added by necessity: to have the festival after the very first full Moon after the equinox and not on any day but on the first Sunday after the full Moon. All the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now, but now we often change for a later Sunday. We always count two days after the Passover [full Moon] and then turn to the following Sunday. This happened not by ignorance or inability of the Church fathers who confirmed the rules, but because of the lunar motion.

In Vlastar's time, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday took place 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 knew, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.

Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722. Had Vlastar been aware of the Easter Book's AD 325 canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the real and the computed full moon in more than 1,000 years."


And yet, to the amazement and uncomprehending stupor of modern historians, no such thing happened.

Not only Kepler or Galilei, but every reader of Scaliger's works could have brought forward the quote from Blastares, and reveal the errors made by Luigi Lilio (the Gregorian reform of the calendar was carried out on the basis of the project of the Italian "physician and mathematician" Luigi Lilio).

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).

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1920PA.....28...18L/0000024.000.html

No less a figure than Isaac Newton (1642-1727) also took an active interest in the field, publishing "The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended", a substantial monograph disputing several key conclusions in Scaliger's work.

But Newton couldn't possibly have missed the work done by Blastares, and the quote attributed to the same author.


Benjamin Franklin told his readers of the Poor Richard's Almanac to enjoy the extra 11 days in bed and that losing 11 days did not worry him--after all, Europe had managed since 1582.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1920PA.....28...18L/0000024.000.html

But in 1752 AD, the error/discrepancy between the false Gregorian calendar reform and the real calendar would have amounted to a full 3 (three) days difference, a thing that could not have been missed by any researcher.



In 1806, Napoleon, we are told, ordered a return to the Gregorian calendar.

In accordance with the Concordat with Pope Pius VII (1742-1823), signed July 15, 1801, a decree put an end to the revolutionary calendar. On 17 Brumaire Year 14 (November 8, 1805) the Minister of Finance announced the January 1, 1806, return to the Gregorian calendar which had been outlawed in October 1793.

But in 1806 AD, the error would have been at least a full 2 (two) days, and no one could have missed this huge discrepancy.

The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No RE axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.


The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era: the most comprehensive work on the official history/chronology of dating the Christian era, with special emphasis on Dionysius Exiguus

http://ixoyc.net/data/fathers/524.pdf

Ptolemy (Almagest 3. 1) reports an observation of the equinox by Hipparchus on 27 Mechir of the 178th year from the death of Alexander (24 March 146 bc) and his own observation 285 years later on 7Pachon in the year 463 (22 March ad 140).


But we have already seen that the entire work attributed to Ptolemy, especially Almagest, was falsified at least after 1350 AD: thus the references to Hipparchus were also introduced in order to give the impression that the axial precession of the Earth was astronomically dated/recorded even in antiquity.


Julius Africanus is made to confirm Ptolemy:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Av...e&q=julius africanus ptolemy claudius&f=false


And Eusebius bases his work on chronology exactly on the publications of Julius Africanus:

Julius Africanus was a Christian writer (A.D. c.170-c.240) ... As a whole, [his Chronographies] has been lost, but there are quotations and extracts from it in Eusebius and other writers, while Eusebius himself probably based his own Chronicle upon it. (Finegan, page 140)

In the Church History Eusebius also refers in very complimentary terms ... to the Chronographies of Africanus, and his acquaintance with and high regard for that work make it probable that it provided much of the basis for his own Chronicle. (Finegan, page 148)


Each and every other detail attributed to Dionysius Exiguus' biography, the central pillar of chronology, had to be falsified/invented at the very same time Exiguus' false works were forged: Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Anatolius, Demetrius, Bede.



Fomenko and Nosovsky did not take into account the evidence that Exiguus' dating of the Resurrection in 1,095 AD (ecclesiastical/paschal moon, Saturday, March 24, 1,095 AD) was related to the fact that the group of conspirators who made the actual calculations in the Easter table attributed to Exiguus simply got tired of computing backwards through time the calendar conditions and left the final mathematical determination for the year 1,095 AD knowing full well that no one was going to research the actual date until much later in time.

Christ lived and was crucified at Constantinople some 250 years ago, this is the most extraordinary finding of the new radical chronology of history. The legends concerning ALL other pagan deities were invented AFTER the Resurrection, some few decades later (as were the forged Nag Hammadi manuscripts).


On dating the works of Exiguus and Vlastar:

www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img411.pdf

www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img412.pdf


The corresponding details of the biographies of Dionysius Exiguus (the Small) and Dionysius Petavius (the Little):

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Yc...v=onepage&q=dionysius petavius little&f=false

Matthew Vlastar's equinoxes and modern chronological tradition:

www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img415.pdf

www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img416.pdf

www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img418.pdf






When was Ptolemy's Star Catalogue in 'Almagest' Compiled in Reality? Statistical Analysis:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131111204106/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko3.pdf

http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html

Appendix 2. When Was Ptolemy's Star Catalogue Really Compiled? Variable Configurations of the Stars and the Astronomical Dating of the Almagest Star Catalogue:

pages 346 - 375



The Dating of Ptolemy's Almagest Based on the Coverings of the Stars and on Lunar Eclipses:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131111203642/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko4.pdf


http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html

pages 376 - 381




https://web.archive.org/web/20131111203642/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko4.pdf (section 3: The Dating of the Lunar Eclipses and Appendix 2: The Table of the Almagest's Lunar Eclipses)


http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html (pages 382 - 389)



The author of Revelation 11:8 tells us that Christ was not crucified in Jerusalem.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.


King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. (Rev. 14:8 )


Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits (Rev. 17:9 )

The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth. (Rev. 17:18 )



Great city on seven hills - either Rome or Constantinopole (also built in seven hills - http://www.istanbulguide.net/insolite/english/seven_hills.htm )


"Furthermore, the crucifixion did not even take place in Jerusalem! According to the book of Revelations, Jesus was crucified in Rome:

And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Revelations 11:8, KJV)

The Christians would probably argue that the “great city” refers to Jerusalem, yet the renowned Bible scholar John Gill disagrees:

And their dead bodies [shall lie] in the street of the great city,.... Not Jerusalem, which was destroyed when John had this vision, and which will not be rebuilt at the time it refers to; nor is it ever called the great city, though the city of the great King; however, not in this book, though the new Jerusalem is so called, Revelation 21:10; but that can never be designed here; but the city of Rome, or the Roman jurisdiction, the whole empire of the Romish antichrist, which is often called the great city in this book; see Revelation 16:19."


Two works which agree that Constantinople is actually described in the well-known quotes from the book of Revelations:

http://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/revelation-17-who-is-the-woman-who-sits-on-7-hills/

https://gofishministries.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/is-istanbul-the-rome-of-revelation-part-2/


Another important clue, which shows that the description can only be fulfilled by Constantinople and not by Rome or Jerusalem:

The woman (city) in Revelation 17:1 also sits on many waters. Istanbul “sits” on or near the Sea of Marmara, the Golden Horn Rver, the Bosphorus Strait, the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea, the sea of Crete, and the Mediteranean Sea.

Babylon = Constantinople = Troy

http://books.google.ro/books?id=Ycj...YDYCA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=babylon&f=false

Chapter I, section 10, the locations of Troy and Babylon, pg. 42 - 44


"Oros", greek translation for mount/hill:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=31V...ns hills greek translation 17:9 horos&f=false

www.eternalgod.org/qa/5229


The Book of Apocalypse/Revelations dated astronomically to no earlier than 1486 AD:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=Ycj...y#v=onepage&q=history science fiction&f=false

Chapter 3: The new dating of the astronomical horoscope as described in the Apocalypse, pg. 134-166


Christ entering Constantinople:


Pilate wearing a turban:



Original quote from the epistle to the Galatians:




Schliemann's false Troy:

www.chronologia.org/en/how_it_was/03_4.html#sch5


CHRIST, CRUCIFIED NEAR AN IMPORTANT SEA/STRAIT/RIVER

005.jpg




Dr. Anatoly Fomenko:

Incidentally it is interesting to look carefully at the representation of the crucifixion. It appears that in many paintings, icons and frescoes Christ’s crucifixion is shown with a background of either a big sea strait or a wide river. Besides the artists were painting in particular either a strait or a river, but by no means a sea, fig.5. So, by depicting water, the opposite shore was always shown [5v1], ch.14. As we understand it now, it could not have been otherwise, as the Beykoz mountain is situated right on the shore of the wide Bosphorus. From there can be seen very clearly the European shore of the strait, where the centre of Constantinople is situated.

Any artist, had a more or less accurate recollection of the original story, would have depicted the Bosphorus strait as a significant part of the landscape, which served as a backdrop to the site of Christ’s crucifixion.




erusalem quae in Bosphorus est possidebit civitates Austri.

http://www.johncunyus.com/files/The_Book_of_Obadiah.pdf

Obadiah 1:20 "et transmigratio exercitus huius filiorum Israhel omnia Chananeorum usque ad Saraptham et transmigratio Hierusalem quae in Bosforo est possidebit civitates austri"

Jerome, author of translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate) used the word Bosphorus in Obadiah 1:20.

Et transmigratio exercitus hujus Filiorum Izraelu omnia loca Chananæorum usque ad Sareptam: et transmigratio Jerozolima, quæ in Bosphoro est, possidebit civitates Austri.

The same word appears in one English translation as well ( Douay–Rheims), from 1610.

And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel, all the places of the Chanaanites even to Sarepta: and the captivity of Jerusalem that is in Bosphorus, shall possess the cities of the south.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/36001.htm

In most later translations, the word ‘Bosphorus’ was replaced with ‘Sepharade’. It is supposedly a place of ‘uncertain location’.
 
Last edited:

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
368
Reaction score
838
Location
Langobardia
I can enjoy the sources you give, but Fomenko/Nosovsky are not flat earthers AT ALL. You quote hundreds of authors in this thread but you cannot prove your points. So I'm asking... what's the point?

Fomenko and Nosovsky did not take into account the evidence that Exiguus' dating of the Resurrection in 1,095 AD (ecclesiastical/paschal moon, Saturday, March 24, 1,095 AD) was related to the fact that the group of conspirators who made the actual calculations in the Easter table attributed to Exiguus simply got tired of computing backwards through time the calendar conditions and left the final mathematical determination for the year 1,095 AD knowing full well that no one was going to research the actual date until much later in time.

Christ lived and was crucified at Constantinople some 250 years ago, this is the most extraordinary finding of the new radical chronology of history. The legends concerning ALL other pagan deities were invented AFTER the Resurrection, some few decades later (as were the forged Nag Hammadi manuscripts).
Can you explain this? Or are you going with other 1000 pages of quotes by other authors without giving a clue of how you came to your conclusions?
 
Last edited:

sandokhan

Active member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
163
Reaction score
199
Location
EU
Points proven so far:

- the Gizeh pyramid was covered by sea water for months after it was built
- The 1582 Gregorian calendar reformation is a hoax
- Advanced calculus was used to construct the Gizeh pyramid (extended arctangent series)
- No axial precession of the Earth can be documented from Hipparchus to Kepler

A. Fomenko, G. Nosovsky, C. Pfister are not geocentrists, not even flat earthers. However, what Fomenko and Nosovsky do not seem to infer is that they have proven abundantly that from Hipparchus and Ptolemy to Kepler and Galilei, there are no valid astronomical proofs that the axial precession of the Earth was ever recorded by "ancient" and "medieval" historians/scientists.

What they seem to be saying is that the Earth is rotating around the Sun, but since history has been forged (prior to the 16th century - Fomenko, prior to the 18th century - Pfister) to such an extent, the only recorded data (documents) we have is that which can be found after 1600 AD (or 1800 AD).

Now, since my readers are demanding definite proofs that the Earth is indeed stationary (does not rotate around its own axis, does not rotate around the Sun, undergoes no axial precession), I have to meet their requirements.

All the RE (round earthers) have to do is to point in the direction of the Michelson-Gale experiment (or the RLGs currently used all over the world, RLG = ring laser gyroscope). A. Michelson published a formula in 1925 which he said it represented the SAGNAC EFFECT equation. Since the Sagnac effect is a measure of rotation, the FE/GE are helpless, as Bob Knodel found out the hard way, when he used a RLG to register actual rotation.

However, what Michelson published is a formula for the CORIOLIS EFFECT. The Coriolis effect can have two different causes: either the Earth rotates around its own axis, or the ether drift above the surface is rotating. The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT, but no one has been able to find the actual Sagnac effect formula for the MGX (Michelson-Gale experiment). Until now.

mg.JPG


Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner

l1 is the upper arm.
l2 is the lower arm.

Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -

A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.

The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.


Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c^2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c^2

This is how the correct Sagnac formula is derived: we have single continuous clockwise path, and a single continuous counterclockwise path.

If we desire the Coriolis effect, we simply substract as follows:

dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))

Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:

2v1l1/(c^2 - (v1)^2) - 2v2l2/(c^2 - (v2)^2)

l = l1 = l2

2l[(v1 - v2)]/c^2

2lΩ[(R1 - R2)]/c^2

R1 - R2 = h

2lhΩ/c^2

By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.


However, for the SAGNAC EFFECT, we have a single CONTINUOUS CLOCKWISE PATH, and a single CONTINUOUS COUNTERCLOCKWISE PATH, as the definition of the Sagnac effect entails.

HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:

Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction around a closed loop (either circular or a single uniform path), while the interferometer is being rotated.

Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

A single continuous pulse A > B > C > D > A, while the other one, A > D > C > B > A is in the opposite direction, and has the negative sign.


We can see at a glance each and every important detail.


For the Coriolis effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the area; only the phase differences of EACH SIDE are being compared, and not the continuous paths.

For the Sagnac effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the velocity of the light beam; the entire continuous clockwise path is being compared to the other continuous counterclockwise path exactly as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

Experimentally, the Michelson-Gale test was a closed loop, but not mathematically. Michelson treated mathematically each of the longer sides/arms of the interferometer as a separate entity: no closed loop was formed at all. Therefore the mathematical description put forth by Michelson has nothing to do with the correct definition of the Sagnac effect (two pulses of light are sent in opposite direction around a closed loop) (either circular or a single uniform path). By treating each side/arm separately, Michelson was describing and analyzing the Coriolis effect, not the Sagnac effect.

Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

Connecting the two sides through a single mathematical description closes the loop; treating each side separately does not. The Sagnac effect requires, by definition, a structure, the end of which is connected to the beginning.



http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf



The promise made by A. Michelson, "the difference in time required for the two pencils to return to the starting point will be...", never materialized mathematically.

Instead of applying the correct definition of the Sagnac effect, Michelson compared TWO OPEN SEGMENTS/ARMS of the interferometer, and not the TWO LOOPS, as required by the exact meaning of the Sagnac experiment.

As such, his formula captured the Coriolis effect upon the light beams.


The definition of the Sagnac effect is applied to a closed loop (either circular or a uniform path).

Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

Thus, from a mathematical point of view, Michelson did not derive the Sagnac effect formula at all, since he compared two open segments, and not two loops.

Using the correct definition, we recover not only the error-free formula, but also the precise velocity addition terms.



Practically, A. Michelson received the Nobel prize (1907) for the wrong formula (published in 1904 and 1887; E.J. Post proved in 1999 that the Michelson-Morley interferometer is actually a Sagnac interferometer).

No other physicist has been able to derive the correct Sagnac formula: for the past 100 years they have been using the wrong formula (the Coriolis effect equation) to describe a very different physical situation.

Here, for the first time, the correct Sagnac formula for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation has been derived in a precise manner.


Since Michelson and Gale did not record the global SAGNAC EFFECT on their fringes, but only the CORIOLIS EFFECT, it means that the Earth is indeed stationary.
 

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
368
Reaction score
838
Location
Langobardia
Who is this C. Pfister you are talking about?
The 1582 Gregorian calendar reformation is a hoax
Where did Fomenko/Nosovsky claim this? Or is it your claim? Give the source please.
since my readers are demanding definite proofs that the Earth is indeed stationary
Who are you talking to?
 

sandokhan

Active member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
163
Reaction score
199
Location
EU
It is well known that both A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky are researchers in the field of the new chronology of history. That is, they believe that Scaliger and Petavius were real persons. As such, they cannot afford to criticize the Gregorian calendar reform.

However, given the fact that the Nicaea Council could not have taken place earlier than the year 876-877 AD, the Gregorian reform is a hoax.

Here is another fact from the official chronology of history:

"When the Emperor was waging war in Syria, at the winter solstice there was an eclipse of the Sun such as has never happened apart from that which was brought on the Earth at the Passion of our Lord on account of the folly of the Jews. . . The eclipse was such a spectacle. It occurred on the 22nd day of December, at the 4th hour of the day, the air being calm. Darkness fell upon the Earth and all the brighter stars revealed themselves. Everyone could see the disc of the Sun without brightness, deprived of light, and a certain dull and feeble glow, like a narrow headband, shining round the extreme parts of the edge of the disc. However, the Sun gradually going past the Moon (for this appeared covering it directly) sent out its original rays, and light filled the Earth again."

Refers to a total solar eclipse in Constantinople of 22 December AD 968.
From: Leo the Deacon, Historiae, Byzantine.

Eclipse Quotations - Part II


However, the winter solstice in the year 968 MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 16, given the 10 day correction instituted by Gregory XIII, as we are told (a very simple calculation - 11 minutes in the length of a solar year amount to a full day for each 134 years), according to the official chronology.

Let us imagine the protests which would have followed if the Vatican would have dared to say that the winter solstice in 1581-1582 occurred on December 11, given the precise fact that IT MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON DECEMBER 16. This means, of course, that the Papal Bull, dated 1582, was created much later in time, in fact at least after 1700 e.n., to give the impression of a "historical proof" of the axial precession hypothesis.

There is no other way around it: the most precise proofs that the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that the entire medieval and even ancient chronology was invented by both Scaliger and Petavius some centuries later.


Can you see what is going on?

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.


According to the official chronology and astronomy, the direction of Earth's rotation axis executes a slow precession with a period of approximately 26,000 years.

Therefore, in the year 325 e.n., official date for the Council of Nicaea, the winter solstice MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 21 or December 22; in the year 968 e.n., on December 16; and in the year 1582, on December 11.

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 superb work The Easter Issue, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that the winter solstice in the year 968 e.n., for example must have fallen on December 21.

And, of course, in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.



Who are you talking to?

It is my sincere hope that no one has hacked your account in the past few hours.

You demanded this just a while ago:

So I'm asking... what's the point?
 

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
368
Reaction score
838
Location
Langobardia
Who is this C. Pfister you are talking about?
sandokhan said:
The 1582 Gregorian calendar reformation is a hoax
Where did Fomenko/Nosovsky claim this? Or is it your claim? Give the source please.

Who are you talking to?

It is my sincere hope that no one has hacked your account in the past few hours.

You demanded this just a while ago:

So I'm asking... what's the point?
Don't be sarcastic. It's not funny.

Give the sources. Where can we read the passages from Nosovsky's work?
 

sandokhan

Active member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
163
Reaction score
199
Location
EU
I understand what is going on, the source of your discontent: you posted two threads in the Calendars and Grand Cycles section, in which you assumed that both Dionysius and Pontiff Gregory XIII were real, historical persons. My messages make your threads null and void.

You see, you should have done more research, asking yourself this question: what if the work attributed to Dionysius was forged much later in time?

Christoph Pfister is Switzerland's greatest historian.

My favorite website on the internet:


Use the webarchive/google translate as needed:

C. Pfister has discovered that there was no human settlement prior to 1700 AD in Switzerland, and that all gothic/medieval buildings and all ancients documents pertaining to the period 500 AD - 1600 AD were actually created in the 18th Century AD. He also found out that the printing press was invented around 1730 AD, and wrote the exceptional book Matrix of Ancient History: http://www.dillum.ch/html/matrix_werbeblatt.htm

albrecht kauw, actually lived in the 18th century AD
http://www.dillum.ch/html/kauw_bern_1700.htm
Der Frienisberg

city of bern founded in the 18th century
Christoph Pfister
http://www.dillum.ch/html/ankh_von_bern.htm
Berns goldene Zeit

bern cathedral constructed in the 18th century
http://www.dillum.ch/html/bern_muenster_baugeschichte_neu.htm

radical new chronology
http://www.dillum.ch/html/geschichtskritik_chronologiekritik_09.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/plurs_campanile_legende1.htm

abbey library of st. gallen constructed in the 18th century
Die angeblich (exceptional analysis)

vesuvius/troy: the origin of the names of places in Switzerland
http://www.dillum.ch/html/vesuv_ortsnamen_werbeblatt.htm

celtic history hoax
http://www.dillum.ch/html/beltaine_verein_neu.htm
Laut Presseberichten fanden im Juli 1999 zwei

Main Archive:

archeology of switzerland
http://www.dillum.ch/html/inhalt_7.html
http://www.dillum.ch/html/keltenschanzen_schweiz.htm
Bern sah sich als Troja und als Stadt am Fuße eines Vesuvs
http://www.dillum.ch/html/guggershorn_guggershörnli.htm
Das Wallis ist kein gewöhnliches Tal

fake marcus aurelius sculpture
http://www.dillum.ch/html/mark_aurel_avenches.htm

city of aventicum: 18th century
http://www.dillum.ch/html/avenches_aventicum_wiflisburg_neapolis.htm

gothic architecture of 18th century/new chronology (superb analysis)
http://www.dillum.ch/html/bern_mutige_zeit.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/bernbiet_heilige_berge.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/lausanne_sion_bellinzona_küssnacht.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/harz_heiliges_land.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/bern_troja.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/bern_ausgrabung_richtstuhl.htm

wilhelm tell hoax
http://www.dillum.ch/html/wilhelm_tell.htm

radical new chronology analysis
http://www.dillum.ch/html/anti_illig.htm
Neu Bubenberg bei Schliern
http://www.dillum.ch/html/1291_fiktives_gruendungsdatum_schweiz.htm

C. Pfister on A. Fomenko's History: Science or Fiction?
http://www.dillum.ch/html/fomenko_history.htm

"The biggest fake in the history of mankind is the history of mankind"
http://www.dillum.ch/html/gabo_altertum_renaissance.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/rezension_serrade.htm

ancient olympics hoax
Olympia ist ein neuzeitliches vesuvianisches Neapel

gothic/medieval architecture, best analysis
Der Barock: ein Bau- und Kunststil zwischen ca
Dillum

amazing related events in the history of the reigns of Napoleon III/I
http://www.dillum.ch/html/napoleon_maystre_uebersetzung_09.htm


More amazing discoveries:

signature of cleopatra forgery
Die Fälschung einer Klopatra-Unterschrift

falsification of history: treasure of troy
http://www.dillum.ch/html/schliemann_priamos_schatz.htm

fake pergamon altar
Der Pergamon

nebra disc forgery
Laut Presseberichten fanden im Juli 1999 zwei

"roman" settlement in switzerland
http://www.dillum.ch/html/klein_wabern.htm

freiburg castle
http://www.dillum.ch/html/freiburg_fryburg_fribourg.htm.htm

frienisberg monastery
Der Frienisberg

"ancient" zurich
Der Ursprung des Ortsnamens Zürich und des Üetlibergs endlich gedeutet
http://www.dillum.ch/html/zürich_bullinger_kritik.htm

federal charter of 1291 forgery
Der Bundesbrief von 1291

white book of sarnen forgery
Das Weiße Buch von Sarnen ist eine Sagensammlung

pantheon, constructed in the 18th century
http://www.dillum.ch/html/pantheon_rom_chronologie.htm

fake swiss history
http://www.dillum.ch/html/stettler_alte_eidgenossen_kritik.htm
Berns mächtige Zeit
Berns goldene Zeit
La Suisse n

alexander mosaic of pompeii
Anhang

gold treasure of erstfeld forgery
Die goldenen Ringe von Erstfeld

albrecht von haller fake history
Albrecht von Haller



It is Pfister who discovered this:



Abbildung 11: Italienische oder pompejanische Renaissance:
Tizian: Liegende Kurtisane (unten) und liegende Mänade aus
Pompeji (oben)
Abbildung der Mänade aus: Pietro Giovanni Guzzo: Pompei, Ercolano, Stabiae, Oplontis;
Napoli 2003, 75

Figure 11: Italian Renaissance and Pompeian:
Titian: Horizontal courtesan (below) and from lying maenad
Pompeii (top)
Figure out the maenad: Pietro Giovanni Guzzo: Pompei, Ercolano, Stabia, Oplontis;
Napoli 2003, 75

The well-known painting by Titian copied perfectly at Pompeii...

As Titian did not have at his disposal a space-time machine to take him back to the year 79 AD, we can only infer that the authors of both paintings/frescoes were contemporaries, perhaps separated only by a few decades in time.

"The use of Renaissance artists of identical details, same colors decisions, motives, general composition plans, the presence in the Pompeian frescoes of the things that emerged in the 15 to 17 century, the presence in Pompeian paintings of genre painting, which is found only in the epoch of the Renaissance, and the presence of some Christian motifs on some frescoes and mosaics suggest that Pompeian frescoes and the works of artists of the Renaissance come from the same people who have lived in the epoch. "Vitas Narvidas," Pompeian Frescoes and the Renaissance: a comparison, "Electronic Almanac" Art & Fact 1 (5), 2007."


The most important work on the extraordinary similarities between the frescoes discovered at Pompeii and the Renaissance paintings/sculptures (Raphael, Tintoretto, Da Vinci, Botticelli, Goltzius):

Видас Нарвидас. - Помпейские фрески и Ренессанс: ОЧНАЯ СТАВКА - ::Арт&Факт:: электронный журнал

English translation:

Google Translate



As late as 1688 (official chronology of history), Pompeii and Herculaneum were thriving cities:

It was in 1688, in France Experts developed new process of making Flat glass, mainly used in Mirrors. The process was pouring molten glass onto a special table and roll it flat, later when cooled it was polished using felt disks, then it is coated with reflective material to produce the Mirrors.

Forensic Interpretation of Glass Evidence


Perfectly flat window glasses at Herculaneum

POMPEII AND HERCULANEUM DEPICTED ON MAPS DATED 1725:

Wayback Machine



Here is Dr. Pfister's latest work, an extraordinary look at the history of the past four hundred years from a very different point of view (article is in English):

A new manifesto to revise prevailing history and chronology
 

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
368
Reaction score
838
Location
Langobardia
I understand what is going on, the source of your discontent: you posted two threads in the Calendars and Grand Cycles section, in which you assumed that both Dionysius and Pontiff Gregory XIII were real, historical persons. My messages make your threads null and void.
My knowledge of the English language doesn't allow me to answer like I would.
My interest is what brought me here. And your lack of sources also. I am waiting to look at the material from Nosovsky, when you will be satisfied enough to give some answers instead of posting thousands of articles which don't prove any of your points.
In fact what I found doesn't go against nothing of what Nosovsky says. It goes probably against your opinions, so I will patiently wait for the sources and for some serious proof, other then the overused "nothing exists and we all live inside a box". You will not mind if I ask again where Nosovsky delves into this matter. Just to see with my eyes where his research stops and where your opinions begin.
Thank you


By the way, I also posted this Expansion Tectonics, which clearly shows in an instant how the flat earth hypotesis is what it is
 
Last edited:

sandokhan

Active member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
163
Reaction score
199
Location
EU
I have proven each and every one of my points:

- the Gizeh pyramid was covered by sea water for months after it was built
- The 1582 Gregorian calendar reformation is a hoax
- Advanced calculus was used to construct the Gizeh pyramid (extended arctangent series)
- No axial precession of the Earth can be documented from Hipparchus to Kepler


By the way, I also posted this Expansion Tectonics, which clearly shows in an instant how the flat earth hypotesis is what it is
Not even a joke.

You MUST have a symmetrically perfect ellipsoid (or geoid) or there will be a clear and direct DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.

Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).


"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."


The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.

At present, the RE has an unequal distribution of mass: the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.


For the Pangeea continent the situation is much worse: such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth.

BASIC NEWTONIAN PHYSICS: we have a center of gravity which is located ABOVE THE EQUATOR, given the fact that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere. Then, the accepted law of universal gravitation tells us that the Earth should revolve facing the Sun with its North Pole.
 

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
368
Reaction score
838
Location
Langobardia
Again. I've learned that you are not serious. I don't care anymore of what you try to prove using ad-hoc material from respected authors. I only want to know the source from which you took Nosovsky's analysis. I hope you can give at least that. I would like to see with my eyes where the work of Nosovsky stops and your fictional world begins.


And by the way, here you can SEE that the earth is round and well Expansion Tectonics, enjoy it;)
 

sandokhan

Active member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
163
Reaction score
199
Location
EU
5. Mozart, Bach, Haydn, Da Vinci, Euler, ancient empires

Fibonacci sequences and equations were used to invent the music ascribed to Bach, Vivaldi, Haydn, Mozart.

Exploding the myth of Mozart:

Exploding The Myth Of Mozart


Wayback Machine

Each and every one Mozart's piano sonatas are based on Fibonacci numbers sequences/formulas.


Evidence suggests that classical music composed by Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach embraces phi.

Fibonacci Numbers and The Golden Section in Art, Architecture and Music


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258507180_THE_MATHEMATICAL_ARCHITECTURE_OF_BACH'S_''THE_ART_OF_FUGUE''


http://people.sju.edu/~rhall/proposal.pdf (page 5 for an example of Bach's use of mathematics in creating music)


http://www.limelightmagazine.com.au/Article/356061,deconstructing-the-genius-of-bach.aspx


http://www.ncurproceedings.org/ojs/index.php/NCUR2012/article/view/151 (An Examination of J.S. Bach's compositions using the golden ratio and Fibonacci Sequence) - you can access the pdf version there


http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://whosemusicisit.blogspot.ro/2009/07/fibonacci-sequence-in-music-is-music.html


Evidence suggests that classical music composed by Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach embraces phi.


In a 1996 article in the American Scientist, for example, Mike Kay reported that Mozart’s sonatas were divided into two parts exactly at the Golden Mean point in almost all cases. Inasmuch as Mozart’s sister had said that Amadeus was always playing with numbers and fascinated by mathematics, it appears that this was either a conscious choice or an intuitive one. Meanwhile, Derek Haylock noted that in Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony (possibly his most famous one), the famous opening “motto” appears in the first and last bars, but also at the Golden Mean point (0.618) of the way through the symphony, as well as 0.382 of the way (i.e., the Golden Mean squared). Again, was it by design or accident? Keep in mind that Bartók, Debussy, Schubert, Bach and Satie may have also deliberately used the Golden Mean in their music.


Biography of Claudio Monteverdi:

http://www.answers.com/topic/claudio-monteverdi


Relationship between Galileo Galilei and Monteverdi:

Monteverdi and Galileo were exact contemporaries and near the end of their lives Galileo arranged for Monteverdi to procure a beautiful Cremonese violin (probably built by Nicolo Amati) for his nephew Alberto Galilei, the son of Galileo’s brother Michelangelo who composed the lute solo in the first half of our program.
http://www.ljms.org/Performances-and-Tickets/Program-Notes/Tafelmusik.html



The correct dating of the Council of Nicaea, the fact that both Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed at least after 1700 AD by the volcano Vesuvius, and that even in the official chronology there was no Vulgata as late as 1546 AD (Council of Trent) - see for example the extraordinary work The Pauline Epistles by E. Johnson), prove that the biographies of Martin Luther and J.S. Bach were falsified after 1750 AD.

M. Luther and J.S. Bach in the official chronology:

J.S. Bach and Martin Luther:

http://www.baroquemusic.org/bqxjsbach.html

MTI Front Page Online Hotel Reserveren in Utrecht


G.F. Handel and S. Calvisius:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3366025


Calvisius, Seth (1650): Opus Chronologicum; Frankfurt und Emden, pg. 459:

Doch Calvisius zum Beispiel setzt die Eruption nicht auf das heute
gängige Datum „24. August“, sondern auf die Kalenden des Novembers,
also den 15. November. Und danach habe Rom drei Tage lang
gebrannt (Calvisius, 459 f.).

But such is the eruption dated by Calvisius not on the day
common date "24 August", "but on the Kalends of November",
So the 15th November. (Calvisius, 459 f.).

S. Calvisius dates the eruption of the volcano Vesuvius which destroyed Pompeii in the year 79 AD, thus his work was falsified at least after 1750 AD, as were the works attributed to Handel.


J.S. Bach about Handel:

Bach eventually complimented Handel and his music saying that Handel was "the only person I would wish to be, were I not Bach."

http://www.personadigitalstudio.com/Bach/

J. Haydn about Handel:

Upon hearing the 'Hallelujah Chorus' from Messiah, Joseph Haydn is said to have "wept like a child" and exclaimed:

"He is the master of us all."

W.A. Mozart about Handel:

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is said to have remarked,

"Handel understands effect better than any of us -- when he chooses, he strikes like a thunderbolt... though he often saunters, in the manner of his time, this is always something there."


How the works/biography of Albrecht Haller were fabricated at the end of the 18th century/19th century:

Google Traducere (translation from German to English)

(the painting allegedly made at Gottingen: Yesterday and Today - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen )

Haller's monumental manuscripts are even more voluminous than those attributed to Euler (in the official chronology Euler and Haller even exchanged letters).


The first mathematicians we can believe in are Cauchy, Gauss and Weierstrass, with some minor modifications of their dates of birth, and the first musicians who really lived in the XIXth century are Schumann, Wagner and Brahms.


The music attributed to Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven was actually created using special formulas requiring Fibonacci numbers and number sequences...


Now the most precise proof that the works attributed to Euler were created well after 1750 AD.


In Euler's time, Russia still used the Julian calendar. His correspondents in the rest of Europe mostly used the newer Gregorian calendar, so when it was November 12, 1739, it was already November 23 in Berlin. Eighteenth century mail services were much better than most people would expect, so occasionally it was possible for a letter to seem to be answered before it had been written! We make note of these calendar problems whenever they arise.


However, when Pope Gregory XIII decreed that the day after October 4, 1582 would be October 15, 1582, the Catholic countries of France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy complied. Various Catholic German countries (Germany was not yet unified), Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland followed suit within a year or two, and Hungary followed in 1587.



How could Leonhard Euler's calculations(1748) have been so disastrously wrong?



It is clear, then, that the people who fabricated the works attributed to Euler, Newton, Lagrange, Fermat... offered to the public false Easter rules, not having at their disposal Gauss' Easter formula.


No European country or astronomer (Euler included) 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):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1461577.html#msg1461577

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1447025.html#msg1447025


Archimedes' Palimpsest was also forged after 1750 AD.

Martin Luther states that Pompeii was destroyed in the year 79 (Supputation Annorum Mundi, 1541, official chronology), therefore his works were also falsified well after 1700 AD.

When J.S. Bach was eight years old he went to the old Latin Grammar School, where Martin Luther had once been a pupil; he was taught reading and writing, Latin grammar, and a great deal of scripture, both in Latin and German.

MTI Front Page Online Hotel Reserveren in Utrecht

This is how precise astronomical dating allows us to discover and point out how the official chronology was forged.


Douglas Webster boldly stated over fifty year ago: “Mozart’s piano sonatas have all been analyzed; and almost all show that they have golden mean form, certainly in sonata form movements”

Wayback Machine

But in fact, even in the official chronology, Mozart's early work (not to mention many other works attributed to him) was in fact not composed by him:


http://rense.com/general45/mozrt.htm

For instance, it has now been acknowledged that "Mozart as a spontaneous artist who composed music in his head and wrote it down without a second thought is a romantic fiction"








Great Wall of China, constructed after 1900 AD:


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

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

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


http://de.geschichte-chronologie.de...-part-1&catid=2:2008-11-13-21-58-51&Itemid=90 (section Glorious Chinese History is a Fake) - on google search with eugen gabowitsch a historical analysis )


Mycobacterium avium (known as Covid-19) is connected to the 2016 Mercury solar transit/comet Encke periodic encounters in my opinion, as it takes a couple of years for the bacteria to reach the surface of the Earth from the stratosphere. The 2019 Mercury solar transit/comet Encke meteor showers relation to a future pandemic outbreak is yet to be determined.

Only in the new radical chronology of history (which is directly related to flat earth theory) can we infer why the passenger virus (SARS-Cov-2) which is secondary to an underlying bacterial or mycobacterial cause (M. avium) came from comet Encke: we are approaching the end of a world age, and these pandemics happen before such an end:



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1726000#msg1726000 (2019 prediction, November)


https://cosmictusk.com/wickramasinghe-predicted-coronavirus-pandemic-in-november-2019/

On November 25th, 2019, Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe made the following stark warning, weeks before the coronavirus emerged.

On the basis of this data, there appears to be a prima facie case for expecting new viral strains to emerge over the coming months and so it would be prudent for Public Health Authorities the world over to be vigilant and prepared for any necessary action. We need hardly to be reminded that the spectre of the 1918 devastating influenza pandemic stares us in the face from across a century.

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Current Science, November 25, 2019
 

Whitewave

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2020
Messages
150
Reaction score
512
@Silveryou and @sandokhan:
Unlike most discussions of round(ish) vs. flat earth, I've enjoyed the tet a tet between you two.

Nosovsky doesn't explicitly say that the earth is flat.

My understanding of what Sandokhan is saying is that due to everything else Nosovsky relayed, he must have believed the earth was flat although he didn't specifically say so. With the authors quoted and referenced by Nosovsky, he couldn't have failed to notice the mathematical discrepancies in the official narrative. At least that is how I interpret sandokhans presentation. I'm not afraid to be proven wrong as I have no dog in this fight even though I've researched and written an article about the calendar conundrum.

Several other people have weighed in on this subject, all presenting good arguments and evidence.

I see a few logical fallacies in sandokhans arguments but I'll leave it to better researchers to hash it out amongst themselves as I find the whole subject of FE vs RE bordering on religious zealotry.
 

msw141

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
77
Reaction score
244
I think we can all agree that the earth is round, and that discs are also round. it's square earthers that need to be shunned.
 

sandokhan

Active member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
163
Reaction score
199
Location
EU
If you want the Earth to be spherical, you better explain how four trillion billion liters of water (oceans, seas, rivers, lakes) stay in place on the outer surface of a sphere. You know what you have to do: prove that gravity is attractive (using gravitons) or prove that matter affects spacetime (TGR). You won't be able to.

Nosovsky proved that the works attributed to Copernicus, were actually written by the same group of people who concocted the works signed Johannes Kepler (History: Fiction or Science? volume III).

Da Vinci and ball lightning techniques:


6. 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."






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..."

Astrophysics and Space Science 16 (1972) 179-200


Each and every astronomical recording supposedly made in the period 700 BC - 1000 AD is proven to be false.

In the new radical chronology of history, each and every astronomical recording supposedly made in the period 1000 AD - 1750 AD is also proven to be false.


When was Ptolemy's Star Catalogue in 'Almagest' Compiled in Reality? Statistical Analysis:

Wayback Machine


A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating

Appendix 2. When Was Ptolemy's Star Catalogue Really Compiled? Variable Configurations of the Stars and the Astronomical Dating of the Almagest Star Catalogue:

pages 346 - 375



The Dating of Ptolemy's Almagest Based on the Coverings of the Stars and on Lunar Eclipses:

Wayback Machine


A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating

pages 376 - 381


Wayback Machine (section 3: The Dating of the Lunar Eclipses and Appendix 2: The Table of the Almagest's Lunar Eclipses)


A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 382 - 389)


I see a few logical fallacies
Go ahead and make my day.
Post automatically merged:

7. Comets' tails dating

Isotopes vs comets

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:

History, Fiction Or Science?

chapter 1, sections 15 and 16

Isotopic dating: science or fiction?

CARBON 14 AND POTSSIUM-ARGON DATING


Thermochronology/geochemical analysis errors:

More Bad News for 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


Halley's Comet, official astrophysics information

15 kilometers long, 8 kilometers wide and perhaps 8 kilometers thick.

Based strictly on this data, we have the following results:

Comet Halley, as well as other comets, may have only been orbiting in its present orbit for only a few thousand years.

Comet Halley may have been in its current orbit for as little as 3,000 years (http://creation.com/comets-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system )



That is, the age of the entire solar system cannot be more than 2,500-3,000 years old - an extraordinary agreement with the results of the facts that can be deduced from the new chronology subject.


However, as we have seen, the size of the Sun/Moon/planets/comets in the fixed flat earth context (see the proofs using the Solar ISS transit videos/Antarctica photographs) is much smaller than in the assumed heliocentric framework.

In the full fixed flat earth context, a comet has only some 20-30 meters in diameter: thus the dissipation rate of the material in a comet's tail (Halley's comet for example) does prove that Halley's comet has pursued its present orbit for only a few hundred years (another proof for the new radical chronology theory).
 
Last edited:

sandokhan

Active member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
163
Reaction score
199
Location
EU

  • · The Paul figure was a literary invention from the 1500's
  • · The purportedly early Church Father writings were literary inventions of the 1500's
  • · Eusebius' Church History was written in the 1500's.
  • · The Gospels were written in the 1500's.
  • · No Cathedrals are ancient; they are from the early part of the modern period, such as 1400.
 

sandokhan

Active member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
163
Reaction score
199
Location
EU
The complete demolition of the Eratosthenes myth: new radical chronology comes to the rescue.

Erdmessung eng

Uwe Topper, one of the best European new chronologists:

"In school we learned that Eratosthenes (276-194 B.C.), director of the great library at Alexandria, was the first to determine the size of the earth. Yet his alleged method does not convince me at all.
The following procedure is described: He assumed that Alexandria and Syene (now Assuan on the Nile before the first cataract) are situated on the same meridian and are exactly 5000 stades distant from each other. The latitudinal difference is given as 7°12' which is accurate. But these towns don't lie on the same meridian - Alexandria is 30° eastern longitude and Syene is 33°. The difference of 3° amounts to more than 300 km. We don't know how Eratosthenes determined these towns are 5000 stades distant (which is close enough). From these data Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of our planet to be 252,000 stades, which is astonishingly correct. The stade used in Egypt is 157,5 m, and thus the earth's circumference 39,690 km which is fairly correct (today a bit more than 40,000). It means roundabout 110 km distance between two parallels (today 111 km).

The latitudinal difference between Alexandria and Syene, 7°12', is exactly a 50th part of the whole circumference. If this had been applied correctly in the calculation, the circumference would have come to 250,000 stades, or 2000 stades short of what Eratosthenes assumed. This suggests he knew the outcome in advance and only looked for measures that let to the right result.

My doubts are reinforced if we consider the length of the stade: 40,000 stades make the radius of the earth, and 1° of the earth's circumference equals exactly 700 stades. Thus I conclude the stade is a measure deducted from the size of the earth. If Eratosthenes applied it to measure and calculate the earth, he used the knowledge that people had used before him. And he had to twist his mathematical elaboration a bit to arrive at the same result.


Then came Eratosthenes. His books are not preserved, only some contents of the "Book of Dimensions" are quoted in Galen, and other parts mentioned in the "Geographica" of Strabo. Although Eratosthenes divides the circumference into 60 parts, he does not use this calculation, but transforms his measures into stades (see also Harley and Woodward, vol.I, p.155). One 60th of the circumference amounts to exactly 4200 stades, 42 being the typical sacred number of the Egyptians. The tropic given by Eratosthenes is situated 16,800 stades from the equator, that is 4/60th of the circle, which we would today describe as 24° northern latitude.

In order to get more exact results, Eratosthenes applied two more manipulations.
First, a group of royal geodesists measured the distance from Syene to Meroe in the Sudan (today: Dar Shendy on the Nile), which came to 5000 stades. In this case the longitudinal difference is only 2°, but it is not negligible. And how could they really measure this great distance (about 800 km) over very rough mountainous surface? Only trigonometry would have served the job, but its use is denied by Miller (p.24). He talks about measuring by steps or with a rod or a rope, always reducing the outcome to the meridian. Let us assume that this might be probable. This suggests Syene is the center of Egyptian geodetics.

The third improvement need not be taken seriously: Sailors told him that the distance between Rhodes and Alexandria is about 4000 to 5000 stades. That was not an improvement at all. We know that it is nearly impossible to determine the distance a ship has sailed. Eratosthenes neglected the longitudinal difference of 2° and probably used measurements of latitude when he implied a distance of 3750 stades, as Miller says (p.27). Posidonius, who died about 150 years later, chose 4000 stades and arrived at a similarly exact result.

Again, this tells me the result was there first, and the way of obtaining it was a pure guess.
According to Miller (p.16) recent scholars take this view. They speak of Eratosthenes as "unconsciously" arriving at his results, or borrowing them from another learned culture.

For me the question remains: where did Eratosthenes get his knowledge? That he himself was not learned is highlighted by other data given in his texts (Miller p.5): the diameter of the sun is three times that of the earth, its distance is 51 diameters of the earth, and the moon is 19,5 earth-radii away. All figures are far wrong.

So if he could not estimate himself, not even nearly, how did he arrive at an exact result for the earth's circumference?

The problem of the incorrect data used by Eratosthenes, especially the 3° difference in longitude, is brushed aside by Miller's remarks (p.6 and p.25), that they are corrected by giving the latitudinal difference between Alexandria and Syene as 7° 1/7 . This is not said in the Greek text, but only surmised by Miller defending Eratosthenes. Miller says Eratosthenes was able to correct his wrong longitudes by the inexact difference of the latitudes and thus find the real circumference of the earth. Committing two mistakes and arriving at the correct result means that he knew the result in advance."



THE RESTORATION OF ANCIENT HISTORY (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)
 

sandokhan

Active member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
163
Reaction score
199
Location
EU
We can also predict with accuracy what is going to happen in the future (geologically/astronomically) using the new radical chronology of the past.

Before the end of a world age, the following events will take place: pandemics, asteroids (the fall of an asteroid can also be faked using modern technology), geological upheavals.

Pandemics: Nibiru/Mercury/Typhon - mycobacterium avium, bacillus anthracis, enterica serovar typhi / Venus - poxviridae

M. avium is accompanied by influenza (SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-3, or passenger viruses).

Sequences from SARS-CoV, called SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-3, were studied as early as 2008:


That is, Covid-19 was going to happen anyway, as the end of a world age approaches:

 
Last edited:

SonofaBor

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
315
Reaction score
677
A very interesting thread. And is the case with all works devoted to this subject, quite stupefying in its scope and implications.

So, I'll venture a simple question:

Do you have any thoughts on the American Revolution of 1776?
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
A France, Egypt, Rome and Comet (chronology) Wars and Conflicts 0
Safranek Annunaki Files: Chronology of the origin of Man, Genetics, DNA, Races, and a theory of Resets General 21
freygeist Chronology of Architecture General 11
A The chronology of the world Wars and Conflicts 0
KD Archive SH Archive Chronology: of the World, of Rome, of Christ... General 28
KD Archive SH Archive Pompeiigate Scandal: Chronology Issues General 0
Archive SH Archive Supporting evidence for Fomenko's New Chronology General 0
Archive SH Archive Fomenko's Chronology Volume 6 Investigation Requests 0
Archive SH Archive A New Chronology for Britain General 0
Archive SH Archive My thoughts on Chronology 1 by Anatoliy Fomenko Books and Comics 0
KD Archive SH Archive The New Chronology by Fomenko and Nosovskiy Books and Comics 0
Silveryou Hidden History: Russian past in the Middle East. Famous Personalities 9
Will Scarlet The Decolonisation of History General 8
dreamtime Stolen History - Lifting the Veil of Deception (Part 1) Announcements 31
pushamaku Our Subverted History by Asha Logos (video series) Folklore, Psychology, Art and Myths 4
A History of Britain - a new version Folklore, Psychology, Art and Myths 13
B Alexander Koltypin research on ancient human history General 11
MgvdT Cracks in history: Leaning Tower of Nevyansk General 3
B Alternative history of agriculture (a must see documentary) Folklore, Psychology, Art and Myths 4
SonofaBor The Battle of the Gods: Stolen History in Reports from inside the American Revolt General 183
torgo A Celtic/Basque Civilization Erased from History? General 28
liqouriceandhorses The Church stole much of our History. General 12
ParadigmThreat "I never cared much for studying Human History until I realized it was all lies" Alternative History Community 16
Z A brief history of Variolation and Vaccination methods of inoculation Historic Epidemics 5
6079SmithW History of the Bicycle Investigation Requests 39
SonofaBor Letters to History Teachers: An Open Invitation General 12
Coulness Scottish history, part of the persecution General 48
JWW427 Hidden History of the Vatican General 7
H Hello! I want to give you the real topics about the Bible and Bulgarian history Famous Personalities 1
Tetrahedra The Making-of our HIStory General 66
A The Bible - History of the Balkans (end of imperors) (part 8) Fires and Earthquakes 1
JWW427 History of the Swastika Symbology 13
JWW427 Is mainstream academia finally coming to terms with forbidden history? General 23
Archive SH Archive Doppelgangers throughout History Unmatched 3
Archive SH Archive The history of monsters. Ulisse Aldrovandi Bologna, 1642 Unmatched 0
Archive SH Archive The dark history of the mask General 0
Archive SH Archive St. Catherine's Hill, Winchester - has a strange history ? Buildings and Structures 0
Archive SH Archive Magnetism through History General 0
Archive SH Archive Personal Airships, The History of Balloons, and the First US Air Mail Delivery General 0
H Some Criticisms and Questions I Have Regarding Alternative History Theories/Theorists Ask an Expert 103
Catalyst History of alternative energy: Fireplace (by tech_dancer) (tart-aria.info mirror) General 21
feralimal Stolen History research, KorbenDallas (KD) focus. General 204
JWW427 History of Time General 4
F Pliny's Natural History General 10
Archive SH Archive Do we really learn from the history? (And plans of TPTB) General 3
Archive SH Archive Local History Investigation Requests 1
Archive SH Archive Coping with the Truth Of Antiquity / Stolen History / Lost History / Lost World General 0
Archive SH Archive High Strangeness of Fossil Fuel Formation & Consumption: Part One: Does history even exist??? General 3
Timeshifter SH Archive Archaeology shock: Ancient settlement discovery in Florida changes course of US history General 0
JWW427 SH Archive Unprecedented World Heatwave Reveals Ancient History in Britain General 0

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Top