Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
And Dad once again unilaterally declares Victory! He continues to be Undefeated in his own mind.
Upvote
0
The Dodwell Data now out!!!!!
- Thread starter dad
- Start date
And Dad once again unilaterally declares Victory! He continues to be Undefeated in his own mind.
The errors of ancient observations?? I suggest the error is with you. Could that be? Now, aside from Karnak, which is too far back have a good date for, for the purposes of this discussion, what errors are proven in the rest??
Upvote
0
This is so funny. You post a link to Dodwell and his dates including Karnak and then say that Karnak is too far back for a good date. As I pointed out more than than year ago you have refuted yourself on this thread.
Upvote
0
Not at all. I actually think Dodwell was close in accepting the Karnak date. But, due to the weakness of modern science to be able to confirm or deny, I simply omit it from the graph. I am being generous.
Now...deal with all the rest of the data points all diverging from the old age dream claims of so called science???
Upvote
0
I have taken an interest in the creation-evolution debate for many years now, but I have not come across this argument before. I have to confess that I have not read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been said before.
I have plugged Dodwell's figures into a spreadsheet, subtracted the expected obliquity (from the Newcomb formula that Dodwell gives in part 1), and plotted the natural log of that against the date and as Dodwell says, there does seem to be a pretty straight line of divergence up to around the seventeen hundreds, when it levels off as it approaches the expected.
My spreadsheet curve fitting indicated (using the first 60 datapoints only)
ln(deviation) = -0.001002Y - 1.21151 (where Y is the year)
R^2 = 0.93
That looks like a pretty reasonable regression to me. So far so good.
I had a look at the Wiki article (called "Axial tilt"; apparently I am not allowed to include links until I have made fifty posts); Newcomb's formula has now been abandoned in favour of a sine-like equation, but it looks as though the values are pretty similar of the range of interest (so a predicted 23.75 around the time of Karnak, compared to Dodwell's 25+).
Assuming Dodwell is accurately reporting the hostorical data, it does look like there is an effect here. Is there a real effect here? Have real, modern astronmers looked at it?
There are two things that puzzle me, however. Where does his asymptote comes from. My graph gives no hint of such a thing, and I cannot see how that is possible given the equation I derived above (which seems to be the relationship he was arguing for); where does Dodwell get this from?
Also, how can he offer the year 2345 BC with such certainty? It would appear to me that a slight deviation in the curve he draws will have a dramatic effect of where (and indeed, if) the asymptote will appear. It is remarkable that he feels more certain about when this changed happened that he is of the date of his first (and arguably most important, given its isolation) data point.
I have plugged Dodwell's figures into a spreadsheet, subtracted the expected obliquity (from the Newcomb formula that Dodwell gives in part 1), and plotted the natural log of that against the date and as Dodwell says, there does seem to be a pretty straight line of divergence up to around the seventeen hundreds, when it levels off as it approaches the expected.
My spreadsheet curve fitting indicated (using the first 60 datapoints only)
ln(deviation) = -0.001002Y - 1.21151 (where Y is the year)
R^2 = 0.93
That looks like a pretty reasonable regression to me. So far so good.
I had a look at the Wiki article (called "Axial tilt"; apparently I am not allowed to include links until I have made fifty posts); Newcomb's formula has now been abandoned in favour of a sine-like equation, but it looks as though the values are pretty similar of the range of interest (so a predicted 23.75 around the time of Karnak, compared to Dodwell's 25+).
Assuming Dodwell is accurately reporting the hostorical data, it does look like there is an effect here. Is there a real effect here? Have real, modern astronmers looked at it?
There are two things that puzzle me, however. Where does his asymptote comes from. My graph gives no hint of such a thing, and I cannot see how that is possible given the equation I derived above (which seems to be the relationship he was arguing for); where does Dodwell get this from?
Also, how can he offer the year 2345 BC with such certainty? It would appear to me that a slight deviation in the curve he draws will have a dramatic effect of where (and indeed, if) the asymptote will appear. It is remarkable that he feels more certain about when this changed happened that he is of the date of his first (and arguably most important, given its isolation) data point.
Upvote
0
Thanks. Interesting.
OK
I had a look at the Wiki article (called "Axial tilt"; apparently I am not allowed to include links until I have made fifty posts); Newcomb's formula has now been abandoned in favour of a sine-like equation, but it looks as though the values are pretty similar of the range of interest (so a predicted 23.75 around the time of Karnak, compared to Dodwell's 25+).
I think he needed Karnak to nail a precise year.
Upvote
0
Yes, I get that - and I have to say that the Karnak figure fits very well with the data, so I am inclined to accept it. My point is about accuracy. The Karnak point is not a precise year, so it seems strange that he can pinpoint this event to a precise year.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The problem with Karnak is not the date. The problem is that Dodwell used the wrong solstice.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7447827-29/#post54599929
When the correct solstice is used the Karnak value falls right on the Newcombe Curve. X marks the correct spot in the attachment.
Attachments
Upvote
0
No. This is belief related speculation.
For lurkers I will provide a few interesting facts related to the Karnak area.
First of all, my position has been that I accept the flood was likely around the KT layer (subject to evidence, in other words I will change my current ideas if evidence demands it).
I also deduce from the bible mostly, and also some history, that a great change in nature and laws took place after the flood. My current estimate is about 110 years after the flood. It would be after this that man started to live closer to modern life spans rather than nearly 1000 years. Naturally if Egypt was here at that time, death would be a major concern, and a lot of tombs would be needed in a way that man had never before seen!
So far, so good.
Now, a look at the facts about the area where Karnak is. If anyone wants to add something feel free.
------------------------____________
King Hatshepsut built a new temple to Amon-Re-who-hears-the-prayers exactly
on the same axis but open to the east, this therefore being the first structure at Karnak actually to be orientated towards sunrise at the winter solstice (see Table 1).
A passage of the Petrie stela concerning two obelisks erected before one of the temples of the Karnak complex reports on the erection of these obelisks one on each way between which my father rises, in di -cat ing that Amon is clearly identified with Re, and that we are dealing with some sort of solar alignment
http://webs.um.es/bussons/arqueoastronomia.pdf
[so the very early stuff seems to be oriented toward the sunrise...if I read this right]
Looking at the geology of the site we see different formations meeting.
Google Image Result for http://ars.sciencedirect.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0305440311001944-gr2.jpg
However, one large fault (P1, Fig. 4a), on the NW side of the valley, is dominantly strike-slip (and left-lateral), whereas others are oblique-slip (left-normal, or right-normal). Although the five faults that we measured are not enough to be statistically significant, they are mutually compatible (Fig. 4b). For the bulk deformation, the principal extension is NE-SW, the principal shortening is vertical, and the intermediate axis is NW-SE. This deformation could have accumulated under a uniform state of stress, where the greatest compression was NW-SE and the least compression was NE-SW - provided some of the faults had formed previously. Such a state of stress is similar to the one that is causing earthquakes today, and may indeed reflect collision between Africa and Eurasia, as well as opening of the Red Sea.
Geological Society - Faults of the Pharaohs
So, I also have said that I suspect that the rapid separation of continents (possible without the great heat in the former state) was after the flood. Here we see that the area was near a collision point apparently.
[So we have the flood.....then a lot of uplift for the hillls.....]
Many thousands of years ago, the Nile Valley was an area of dynamic geology, where fluctuating ocean levels resulted in the Mediterranean Sea repeatedly covering the lower lying land, including much of what we call Egypt. Occasionally, the ocean stretched as far south as present day Aswan.
This resulted in three distinct sedimentary rock formations which we refer to as the Dakhla chalk, Esna shale and Theban limestone,
.....The geology of the Thebes necropolis was further affected by geological uplifting during the late Tertiary Period,
Egypt: The Geography and Geology of the Valley of the Kings on the West Bank at Thebesz
For the novice geology folks, this means a time after the KT!
We see then the KT just before this time!
Geologic Time - EnchantedLearning.com
So, there indeed was a lot going on about this time, and there is no way that one should merely grasp at some winter poultice scheme, to re date the site. There may have been no hills when the earliest temple was built for example, if the uplift was long after the flood!? So what we have could be something like a scrambling to readjust to the new realities and orientations?
Amazing.
Upvote
0
You need to read the site again and consider the caption to figure 6
Two significant structures of the Amon complex at Karnak related to sunrise at the winter solstice. Above
(a), the so-called high room of the sun, accessible from the Festival Hall of Thutmosis III. From this holy place, it was possible to observe the rising of the sun at the winter solstice through a window (in the centre of the image) located in the appropriate direction. Opposite (b), an image of the innermost chapel of the temple of Amon-Re-who-hears-the-prayers, erected by Hatshepsut, and orientated originally towards the open horizon to the place where her father rises. It is highly probable that this huge temple complex was built at a place where this signifi cant direction (the same direction as that of the main axis) was actually perpendicular to the Nile. This would be a splendid example of combined astronomy and topography.
(a), the so-called high room of the sun, accessible from the Festival Hall of Thutmosis III. From this holy place, it was possible to observe the rising of the sun at the winter solstice through a window (in the centre of the image) located in the appropriate direction. Opposite (b), an image of the innermost chapel of the temple of Amon-Re-who-hears-the-prayers, erected by Hatshepsut, and orientated originally towards the open horizon to the place where her father rises. It is highly probable that this huge temple complex was built at a place where this signifi cant direction (the same direction as that of the main axis) was actually perpendicular to the Nile. This would be a splendid example of combined astronomy and topography.
Your are not reading it right. As I said read the site again. The viewing window is oriented to the winter solstice as Hawkins pointed out.
The Tertiary ended 1.8 million years ago. Events occuring then affected the geology of the area but have certainly not changed the orientation of the temples since they were built. If anything did it would make all the measurements irrelevant and they would no correlation with anything.
65 million years ago is hardly just before this time.
There was a lot going on over the last several million years but it doesn't affect this argument. You refuted yourself many posts ago and nothing has changed that fact.
Upvote
0
So, somewhere between the 4th and 8th dynasties of Ancient Egypt and around the time of the early Akkadian Empire in Sumeria. There were also flourishing civilizations in Europe, India and China. It was a world-wide flood that no one really noticed.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Millions of imaginary years have no meaning. Seems like there was an early building on the site...and later ones. As I said the early one may have been close to the time of the nature change. My concern would be on the original one.
With the continental separation and uplift of mountains and hills, I think we should be careful in assuming that all things were exactly in the same placement in the earliest times in Karnak.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You really want to hide under the skirt of the king lists? Or have you other sources for your dynasty data?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
