The Dodwell Data now out!!!!!

[dad]

His conclusion that something dramatic must have happened ~4300 years ago was based off the assumption that prior to this happening the tilt of the earth's axis was 0, unless I read it incorrectly (which I might have).

You love pointing out assumptions and how they ruin a theory, Dad. I'm surprised you didn't catch that. Or are you not so great at catching real assumptions?
I think taking already established theories based on established theories based on real observations and calling that an assumption is more your thing, no?

His conclusions were based on data. Observations over time of changes in the axis of the earth. It was a pattern that required a starting impact, or event, to create the wobble. Unless I have it wrong..?

 

[brinny]

"As he pondered the data, a decision was made to graph the measurements recorded by the ancients and compare them to what modern astronomers suppose they should have been, based upon reverse projections from present-day planetary alignments and motions. When Dodwell did so, he found that the ancient measurements formed a distinct pattern of increasing discrepancy with modern projections as one went further back in time. The data also fit a curve with which Dodwell was quite familiar. It was the curve of recovery for a spinning top that is struck by an outside force.

..
When George Dodwell sought to solve the mysterious discrepancy between historical records and modern astronomy, he reached some startling conclusions. Earlier it was pointed out that he made a graph of the solstice shadow-length observations recorded by the ancients. When he constructed a mathematical curve to fit the observations, he made some important discoveries.
First, the curve had a point of origin dating at about 2345 B.C. He concluded that something dramatic must have occurred at that time."


It's A Young World After All

goodgoogaloogamooga! *eyes get big as saucers*

 

[thatbusfromspeed]

His conclusions were based on data. Observations over time of changes in the axis of the earth. It was a pattern that required a starting impact, or event, to create the wobble. Unless I have it wrong..?

Unless I have it wrong I'm pretty sure you said he used 66 data points, no? Well in almost any real statistical study 66 is an incredibly low sample size. Furthermore didn't he take data which he interpreted hundreds or thousands of years after they had been taken? Isn't it also true that the initial data was taken using completely unsophisticated technology which can in no way be trusted?

Alright I admit it now, the earth is young.

 

[dad]

Unless I have it wrong I'm pretty sure you said he used 66 data points, no? Well in almost any real statistical study 66 is an incredibly low sample size. Furthermore didn't he take data which he interpreted hundreds or thousands of years after they had been taken? Isn't it also true that the initial data was taken using completely unsophisticated technology which can in no way be trusted?

Alright I admit it now, the earth is young.

Great. So you admit it. Having so many data points over time is more than enough to plot a curve. The points are not 2000 years apart. But mere centuries, etc. We can plot a data curve for 4400 years that way. Just use your calculator, and divide 4400 by 66!

 

[Nostromo]

First, the curve had a point of origin dating at about 2345 B.C. He concluded that something dramatic must have occurred at that time."

This is why is asked "how do we know?". There are many different curves that could fit the data. Drawing an exponential curve over the data and then saying that it shows something must have happened because you can make that curve fit is disingenuous at best.

That aside, the only thing that makes this data set anomalous with regard to modern observations is the first point (Karnak, 25° 9’ 55”).

Near the bottom of Chapter 8, below the temple plan, it states:

Using the values given above for height, latitude, and azimuth, Mr. Richards calculated that the declination of the sun, corresponding with the orientation of the original axis of the temple, was 25° 9’ 55”. He then states, “This then is the necessary declination of the sun, or what is the same thing, the Obliquity of the Ecliptic for the sun to shine down the temple axis.”

Nowhere does it state how he came to the figure of 25° 9’ 55”. I've used the numbers given in the description of the temple and came out with 24° 26', which is much closer to Lockyer's calculated value of 24° 18' (Lockyer, J. Norman (1894) Dawn of Astronomy. p.119).

 

[Mike Elphick]

Having so many data points over time is more than enough to plot a curve. The points are not 2000 years apart. But mere centuries, etc. We can plot a data curve for 4400 years that way. Just use your calculator, and divide 4400 by 66!

Nonsense! Look at the graph and you'll see that only TWO points make it into a curve, the rest fall more-or-less on a straight line. Furthermore these two points are claimed to come from the same 'observatory' (Karnak) and are separated from the linear portion, not by "mere centuries", but by 470 and 945 years respectively. As I said, exclude these two points and all the others fall on a straight line which becomes more scattered the further you go back in time, suggesting the older measurements are less accurate than the more modern ones.

 

[dad]

This is why is asked "how do we know?". There are many different curves that could fit the data. Drawing an exponential curve over the data and then saying that it shows something must have happened because you can make that curve fit is disingenuous at best.

So you suggest that this data might better be served with another curve??? Care to provide one, or are you just blowing smoke here?

That aside, the only thing that makes this data set anomalous with regard to modern observations is the first point (Karnak, 25° 9’ 55”).

Say what? Modern records?? What does that mean..same state decay based so called dating? Do tell. I think we have your number.

Near the bottom of Chapter 8, below the temple plan, it states:

Nowhere does it state how he came to the figure of 25° 9’ 55”. I've used the numbers given in the description of the temple and came out with 24° 26', which is much closer to Lockyer's calculated value of 24° 18' (Lockyer, J. Norman (1894) Dawn of Astronomy. p.119).

So which should I look to here..? What is stated nowhere, or what a government astronomer, and math whiz calculates..? You serious??

 

[dad]

Nonsense! Look at the graph and you'll see that only TWO points make it into a curve, the rest fall more-or-less on a straight line. Furthermore these two points are claimed to come from the same 'observatory' (Karnak) and are separated from the linear portion, not by "mere centuries", but by 470 and 945 years respectively. As I said, exclude these two points and all the others fall on a straight line which becomes more scattered the further you go back in time, suggesting the older measurements are less accurate than the more modern ones.

Well, having less measurements seems to mean there are less measurements, not that each measure is inaccurate..?! So, have you any reason to exclude these reference points?? No? I didn't think so. I would say that all records tend to get more sparse as we near the point of the dawn of history itself. But you can't just wave away the data, sorry. I would say sparse trumps nothing, which is all the data you have for a same state. But I do take note of your point that the data points were not every few centuries all the way to the split.

 

[Nostromo]

So you suggest that this data might better be served with another curve??? Care to provide one, or are you just blowing smoke here?

Draw yourself whatever fits. Make it a shallow sine curve Just because it's heading in one direction doesn't mean it has to do so continuously.

So which should I look to here..? What is stated nowhere, or what a government astronomer, and math whiz calculates..? You serious??

Surely Mr Richard's calculations assume a same state past

Given the information in Chapter 8 you could do the calculations yourself.

What I don't understand is that for this absolutely critical part of the paper, where the figures show the obliquity to be far wide of predictions, there is no calculation shown, and no explanation of how the figure 25 deg 9 mins was obtained. Particularly odd when others have done the same calculation and achieved very different answers.

 

[Tielec]

Not to mention this Dodwell guy seems to think the world is at least ~9000 years old Dad, which is a conclusion you presumably don't accept?

"From the curve, we see that the obliquity, which is now (in 1954) 23º 26' 43", is gradually decreasing to a minimum of 22º 30' about 13,000 A.D.; and that it was at its last maximum, 24º 12', about 7000 B.C."

 

[Mike Elphick]

Well, having less measurements seems to mean there are less measurements, not that each measure is inaccurate..?! So, have you any reason to exclude these reference points?? No? I didn't think so. I would say that all records tend to get more sparse as we near the point of the dawn of history itself. But you can't just wave away the data, sorry. I would say sparse trumps nothing, which is all the data you have for a same state. But I do take note of your point that the data points were not every few centuries all the way to the split.

My point was that:

1. Only two points make what is otherwise a more-or-less linear relationship into a curve.

2. Excluding these points we see a wider and wider scatter of points as we go further into the past.

3. The two points that make it into a curve are the oldest, and from the data-trend therefore probably the least accurate, and they are also from the same site.

I'm not saying we should ignore any data, but that no scientist I know would accept such conclusions based on only two (suspect) data points.

I would go on and ask you what the force was that tilted the Earth's axis. This would have had to have been a massive tangential impact from some extra-terrestrial object. I would also like to know how you claim this "leads right to the scene of the universe state change crime", when it relates only to the tilt of the Earth's axis and not the rest of the universe?

 

[Nostromo]

1. Only two points make what is otherwise a more-or-less linear relationship into a curve.

It's only really one point. If you look at the graph (figure 2 in chapter 1) the second point is marked "interpolated value", i.e. they calculated the first value for Karnak, and then slotted in another one that matches that result.

The temple hasn't been moved to accommodate the changing sunset position, so you're only ever going to get one value of the obliquity when working from it. Therefore the second value has been fabricated to fit whatever pattern Dodwell wanted to see.

 

[Mike Elphick]

It's only really one point. If you look at the graph (figure 2 in chapter 1) the second point is marked "interpolated value", i.e. they calculated the first value for Karnak, and then slotted in another one that matches that result.

The temple hasn't been moved to accommodate the changing sunset position, so you're only ever going to get one value of the obliquity when working from it. Therefore the second value has been fabricated to fit whatever pattern Dodwell wanted to see.

That's an absolute disgrace! I saw the mention of 'interpolated' and did not really understand what that meant, especially as the graph is titled "Curve of Observations" and there is nothing in the Data Table about how this value was arrived at.

 

[dad]

Draw yourself whatever fits. Make it a shallow sine curve Just because it's heading in one direction doesn't mean it has to do so continuously.

I agree. Apparently Dodwell had a staring point, where something big happened. Which is the point.

Surely Mr Richard's calculations assume a same state past

Who is Mr Richard? If he assumes a same state past, we agree. So do I. As long as there is evidence it existed. As it happens I see no credible evidence at all beyond 2345 BC. Long as this guy stops where the evidence stops, he can assume a present state.

Given the information in Chapter 8 you could do the calculations yourself.

What I don't understand is that for this absolutely critical part of the paper, where the figures show the obliquity to be far wide of predictions, there is no calculation shown, and no explanation of how the figure 25 deg 9 mins was obtained. Particularly odd when others have done the same calculation and achieved very different answers.

So, where exactly is this mentioned?

 

[dad]

That's an absolute disgrace! I saw the mention of 'interpolated' and did not really understand what that meant, especially as the graph is titled "Curve of Observations" and there is nothing in the Data Table about how this value was arrived at.

So, rather than draw a nice curve that fits with all other observations, what, he should swing it wildly off to the left for no apparent reason? It has to head toward the rest of the observations..no?

 

[Nostromo]

All the information mentioned is referenced in my last few posts if you care to actually read them.

 

[dad]

It's only really one point. If you look at the graph (figure 2 in chapter 1) the second point is marked "interpolated value", i.e. they calculated the first value for Karnak, and then slotted in another one that matches that result.

The temple hasn't been moved to accommodate the changing sunset position, so you're only ever going to get one value of the obliquity when working from it. Therefore the second value has been fabricated to fit whatever pattern Dodwell wanted to see.

Really? It seems that figures 3 and four also exist on that page.

"
These oscillations, in a magnified form, are shown in Figure 4. They point to an inter-action of the earlier precessional forces, affecting the earth's axis in its former nearly upright position [see note from Barry Setterfield], with those later predominating ones associated with its new and greater inclination. The curve of oscillations may thus be regarded as the resultant of these forces, the latter tending to retard, and the former to hurry the precession. The curve, which is a harmonic sine curve, with diminishing amplitudes, is in harmony with the consequences of the disturbance of a spinning body. The oscillations are accounted for by the inertia of the rotating body, alternately retarding and hurrying the precession (4). The rule is stated thus:

i. Hurry the precession, the top rises. (5)
ii. Retard the precession, the top falls."




....


The relationship of the horizontal and vertical co-ordinates is then such that, if pairs of lines, horizontal and vertical, are drawn on the graph from points indicated by the table above, each pair will meet exactly on the observational curve.
Thus, they all agree completely in showing that the curve which fits the ancient, mediaeval, and recent observations between 2345 B.C., and 1850 A.D., is none other than an exact logarithmic sine curve.
This type of curve is illustrated in J. Edwards' Differential Calculus 1896, p. 102. It is a curve of recovery, with restoration to equilibrium after a disturbance; and it shows with certainty that a disturbance of the earth's axis occurred at the date 2345 B.C., corresponding to the 0º end of the curve; and that its restoration to equilibrium was completed by the year 1850 A.D., corresponding to the 90º end of the curve.

The exact coincidence of the mean curve of the observations with a logarithmic sine curve, combined with the simple scale relationship just pointed out, enables us to obtain a numerical formula for this curve of the residuals.
The formula is:

d1 ε = 75’ x (10.0000000 – log sin (T1 x 2.14592 º) (see note)
where d1 ε = the difference between Newcomb’s Formula and any point on
the Mean Curve of observations, and
T1 = the number of centuries after 2345 B.C.
​

This formula enables us to calculate the Mean Curve value for any date between 2345 B.C., and 1850 A.D."

​

In Figure 3 the top horizontal line shows the scale of dates from 3000 B.C. to 2000 A.D. On the extreme left, in the vertical column, degrees and minutes of the vertical scale are shown, reading vertically downwards from 0º to 2º 35'. The residuals, (i.e., differences between Newcomb's Formula and the observed values), are plotted with reference to these two scales, and the mean curve connecting them is drawn, as shown in the Figure. It will be seen by inspection that when the curve is produced downwards, it tends to become vertical about the date 2345 B.C. Continuing the curve upwards, it becomes completely horizontal about the date 1850 A.D. This curve is a logarithmic one. It corresponds exactly to a curve of “logarithmic sines." The reader who is well acquainted with mathematical curves can at once recognize this by inspection.
It may also be shown in a graphical way (see Fig. 3). To do this we write beneath the date scale of B.C. and A.D. centuries, in the top horizontal line, a scale of degrees from 0º to 90º. The beginning of this degree scale, 0, is at 2345 B.C., where the curve is vertical; and the end of the degree scale, 90º, is at 1850 A.D., where the curve is completely horizontal. The full period covered by the curve is thus 4194 years, and each degree of the scale corresponds to 46.6 years."


----


So, it seems like the curve is based on stuff. Each degree of the curve corresponds to 46,6 years, so I see no reason why the curve would not be as it is, and head to meet the other data points? If it fits with the other Karnak data point, along the way, great.

​

 

[dad]

My point was that:

1. Only two points make what is otherwise a more-or-less linear relationship into a curve.

2. Excluding these points we see a wider and wider scatter of points as we go further into the past.

3. The two points that make it into a curve are the oldest, and from the data-trend therefore probably the least accurate, and they are also from the same site.

I'm not saying we should ignore any data, but that no scientist I know would accept such conclusions based on only two (suspect) data points.

I would go on and ask you what the force was that tilted the Earth's axis. This would have had to have been a massive tangential impact from some extra-terrestrial object. I would also like to know how you claim this "leads right to the scene of the universe state change crime", when it relates only to the tilt of the Earth's axis and not the rest of the universe?

Ah, that's the juicy part. First, I just wanted to establish that something big did happen at the time of the universe state change, in the days of Peleg, 2345 BC.


Here is the conclusion Mr Setterfield reched.

"

In the years he took to research the measurements of the obliquity of the eclipitic, or tilt of the earth's axis, going back in time as far as possible, he found undeniable evidence that something happened to the tilt of the earth's axis in 2345 B.C. The measurements actually taken differed from Newcomb's curve of the mathematically figured obliquity (based on current earth movement) to a greater and greater degree the further back he looked. Thinking this might be due to early astronomical error, he checked each of these measurements for necessary corrections regarding parallax the semi-diameter of the sun and then against one another. The latitude at which the observations were made is inherent in the data. The latitude can be checked. When this check is performed, it turns out the latitude of the observations was completely accurate. He was impressed with their accuracy. The differences from Newcomb's Curve were real.​

He studied some of the ancient temple/observatories. Their orientation towards summer and winter solstices were also 'off' by the amount the ancient observations showed. His conclusion, and the conclusion we find we also must draw, is that there was a sudden change in the tilt of the axis of the earth in or about 2345 B.C.​

Interestingly, this appears to correlate exactly with a number of disruptions of cultures in the world:.. "

 

[dad]

Not to mention this Dodwell guy seems to think the world is at least ~9000 years old Dad, which is a conclusion you presumably don't accept?

"From the curve, we see that the obliquity, which is now (in 1954) 23º 26' 43", is gradually decreasing to a minimum of 22º 30' about 13,000 A.D.; and that it was at its last maximum, 24º 12', about 7000 B.C."

Well, is Dodwell also named Stockwell?

"This formula, Stockwell says, enables us to obtain the numerical values of the Obliquity during all past and future ages. From the curve, we see that the obliquity, which is now (in 1954) 23º 26' 43", is gradually decreasing...."

 

[Nostromo]

So, it seems like the curve is based on stuff...

How does that in any way change the fact that the second point was simply made up to fit the curve?

The reason you might not add the second point is that you're giving the impression that more data fits your curve than actually does. The rest roughly fit a straight line, and normally you might wonder why you have such an anomaly and try find out if something isn't correct.

Also, we still have no idea how they came up with that first figure, or why it doesn't match the results of other calculations done on the same data.