• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The Dodwell Data now out!!!!!

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.
Look at Newcomb's curve. Most of the data poits are right up there, near the divergance area, where the 2 curves depart from each other. So we know the direction that the data is leading. So, what are you squawking about? You don't like intersecting the first Karnak point on the way to the final one?? Like it makes a diff?? How else are you going to get to the known Karnak point?? The data has to meet, not like earth suddenly became another planet and we can draw the curve with some imaginary big diversion, before it gets to the Karnak point..?? What makes better sense than interpolation for one point, that is between the other points?? Long as the curcve follows the data.

Mr Setterfield seems to agree, that the conclusion must be drawn.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What I'm squawking about is that we have no idea where the first Karnak point came from. Why does it not seem to mesh with other calculations using the same data? Why doesn't he show how he came to that figure?
No? It seems he does mention it somewhat.

"
A remarkable confirmation of the obliquity in the year 2045 B.C. is given by the oriented solar Temple of Amen Ra at Karnak, Egypt, the largest temple that has ever been built. This is described in Chapter 8. Hieroglyphic inscriptions, engraved in granite, show that the ancient Egyptians took great pains to orient their solar temples. The rays of the rising or setting sun, on certain important dates, then shone straight down the long central avenue, or temple axis, into the darkened sanctuary and illuminated the image of the sun-god within it.
In the great Solar Temple at Karnak, this occurred at sunset on the day of the summer solstice. It will be shown that in 2045 B.C., the foundation date of the Temple, the sun's solstitial declination, or maximum distance from the celestial equator, was 25 degrees, 9 minutes, 55 seconds. This value is in exact agreement with the prolongation of the curve of the ancient observations, and exceeds Newcomb's value for that date by 1 degree 14 minutes."



"

In ancient times Egypt was pre-eminently a centre of Sun-worship. Many of its temples were dedicated to the sun gods Ra, Amen Ra, Horus, Osiris, etc. Among these were the famous temple of the Sun at Heliopolis, Karnak and Abu Simbel. Sir Norman Lockyer, who describes their astronomical purposes in his book The Dawn of Astronomy, also mentions the Solar Temples at Abydos, Kasr Kerun, Memnonia (Avenue of Sphinxes), and Erment, in addition to the group of temples at Karnak which were solstitially oriented
A special feature of the Egyptian Solar Temples was the long central Avenue, or Axis, through which the beams of the rising or setting sun shone upon the altar in the darkened sanctuary, or “Holy of Holies” at the farther end of the Axis. The shining of the sun, with its long horizontal beam of light traversing the Axis and illuminating the image of the sun-god, [which was] placed in the sanctuary, was called by the Egyptians “The Manifestation of Ra.” A detailed account of this is given in Sir Norman Lockyer’s book, The Dawn of Astronomy.
It is well known that the temples of Egypt were also astronomical observatories; and the priests were the astronomers and philosophers of their time.
The needs of common life, and the daily routine and annual festivals of the temples demanded a reliable calendar, and subdivision of time, which could only be provided by astronomical observations. The priests became astronomers, and at a surprisingly early date the opening of the year was fixed by the heliacal rising of Sirius.
(G.E. Hale, Beyond the Milky Way, 1926, p. 5)
Strabo says that “their astronomical documents, or registers of observations, made during long centuries, have remained celebrated.” (Strabo, Geography, Book 17. Chapter 1, section 29)"


....

For the great Solar Temple of Amen Ra at Karnak, however, we have all the necessary information, thanks to the pioneering work of Sir Norman Lockyer, supplemented by the more recent exact survey and re-measurement of this temple, made by the Survey Department of Egypt.

.....


The mean date, taken from a number of recent Egyptological works (Cambridge Ancient History, Breasted, Budge, etc.) places the commencement of the XII Dynasty at about 2050 B.C., and I have adopted 2045 B.C. as the date of the foundation of the earliest part of the Karnak Temple of Amen Ra.

The rise of the religion of Amen Ra dates from this time, and the Kings of the XII Dynasty were the first to incorporate the name of Amen in their accession names, Amen-Emhat meaning “Amen is at the head.” (J. Capart and M. Werbrouk, Thebes, 1926, p. 61)
 
Upvote 0

Nostromo

Brian Blessed can take a hike
Nov 19, 2009
2,343
56
Yorkshire
✟25,338.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It will be shown that in 2045 B.C., the foundation date of the Temple, the sun's solstitial declination, or maximum distance from the celestial equator, was 25 degrees, 9 minutes, 55 seconds.
And where is it actually shown? This is what I'm asking.
 
Upvote 0

BananaSlug

Life is an experiment, experience it!
Aug 26, 2005
2,454
106
41
In a House
✟25,782.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
What does the axis of the earth have to do with a "different state" past?

Secondly, if the "different state" past changed over to the "present state" around 2345 B.C., why was there no mention of this in China? Or in the Egyptian Old Kingdom (the supposed date of the "split" is around the 6th dynasty)? You would think such a drastic change in the laws of physics would be mentioned in every civilization that had created a writing system at the time.
 
Upvote 0

BananaSlug

Life is an experiment, experience it!
Aug 26, 2005
2,454
106
41
In a House
✟25,782.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
He also seems to have ignored John Playfair's "Remarks on the astronomy of the Brahmins", in which his analysis of Hindu observations show them to have calculated the obliquity of the ecliptic at 24 degrees some time prior to 3000BC.

I actually think I may have mentioned that to him before... We'll see how he handwaves it away.
 
Upvote 0

Tielec

Organisational Psychologist
Feb 26, 2010
214
17
Perth
✟22,942.00
Faith
Atheist
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...."

:)

Yes, this formula that STOCKWELL devises is slightly modified by NEWCOMBE and forms the bedrock assumption that chapter 1 is built on, here are two quick examples:

"If we now combine Newcomb's Formula with the Mean Logarithmic Sine Curve, and with the Curve of Oscillations, we get the Final Curve of Obliquity, which combines these various movements, between the years 2345 B.C., and 1850 A.D., (Figure 5). It will be seen at a glance how closely the observations, in general, agree with this Final Curve"

"The results obtained with the gnomon are so well within the limits of error required for the present investigation that the observations made with it in ancient times are worthy of close attention. They show that the large divergences from Newcomb's Formula are not simply due to errors of observation, but indicate another factor, which calls for explanation. After due allowance is made for all sources of error, the mediaeval and ancient observations of the obliquity are found to lie consistently on a curve, shown in Figure 2, which is in agreement with Newcomb's Formula in modern times, but differs greatly from it 2000 or 3000 years ago."

So dad, to repeat the question, do you agree with Dodwell's bedrock assumption that the world is AT LEAST 9000 years old ?
For the sake of transparency, I think if you don't accept this fundamental assumption of this chapter, then nothing that follows should be accepted, ie, building a house on sand not rock ;)
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, this formula that STOCKWELL devises is slightly modified by NEWCOMBE and forms the bedrock assumption that chapter 1 is built on, here are two quick examples:

"If we now combine Newcomb's Formula with the Mean Logarithmic Sine Curve, and with the Curve of Oscillations, we get the Final Curve of Obliquity, which combines these various movements, between the years 2345 B.C., and 1850 A.D., (Figure 5). It will be seen at a glance how closely the observations, in general, agree with this Final Curve"

"The results obtained with the gnomon are so well within the limits of error required for the present investigation that the observations made with it in ancient times are worthy of close attention. They show that the large divergences from Newcomb's Formula are not simply due to errors of observation, but indicate another factor, which calls for explanation. After due allowance is made for all sources of error, the mediaeval and ancient observations of the obliquity are found to lie consistently on a curve, shown in Figure 2, which is in agreement with Newcomb's Formula in modern times, but differs greatly from it 2000 or 3000 years ago."

So dad, to repeat the question, do you agree with Dodwell's bedrock assumption that the world is AT LEAST 9000 years old ?
For the sake of transparency, I think if you don't accept this fundamental assumption of this chapter, then nothing that follows should be accepted, ie, building a house on sand not rock ;)
So, I see 2, and 3000 years mentioned..and 2345 B.C., and 1850 A.D. So, why must Dodwell accept 9000 years? I sure don't.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Planetary orbital axis shifting is a natural phenomena. Lol

23 references proving God created the earth six thousand years ago? Lol papers over a single molecule have more peer review and references.

The oscillations recorded in the window mentioned, ending in 1850 are normal?
 
Upvote 0

Tielec

Organisational Psychologist
Feb 26, 2010
214
17
Perth
✟22,942.00
Faith
Atheist
So, I see 2, and 3000 years mentioned..and 2345 B.C., and 1850 A.D. So, why must Dodwell accept 9000 years? I sure don't.

"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 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."

So 7000 + 1945 = 8945
Also if you look at the graph above the line I quoted, you can see it goes back to 60000bc. Dodwell doesn't criticise or disagree with the graph in any way, except to say that it was improved upon slightly by Newcombe. I don't think Dodwell would have used equations that were designed to predict obliquity in a time he didn't believe existed.
This makes me think that Dodwell must have believed the Earth was at least ~ 9000 years old, and probably thought it was older than 62000.

It's a minor point, but I would say to you if you don't agree that the earth is at least 9000 years old, then you disagree with a fundamental assumption made in this paper. This means that every argument that follows on from this flawed assumption is probably untrue, unless of course I am misinterpreting the paper.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"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 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."

So 7000 + 1945 = 8945
Also if you look at the graph above the line I quoted, you can see it goes back to 60000bc. Dodwell doesn't criticise or disagree with the graph in any way, except to say that it was improved upon slightly by Newcombe. I don't think Dodwell would have used equations that were designed to predict a time he didn't believe existed.
This makes me think that Dodwell must have thought the Earth was at least ~ 9000 years old, and probably thought it was older than 62000.

It's a minor point, but I would say to you if you don't agree that the earth is at least 9000 years old, then you disagree with a fundamental assumption made in this paper. This means that every argument that follows on from this flawed assumption is probably untrue, unless of course I am misinterpreting the paper.

OK, so Newcombe and Stockwell imagined a time when the lines they cooked up that fit the present data well, woulda coulda shoulda been somewhere in a certain imaginary date, they may have thought was real. Dodwell apparently didn't diagree enough to correct them, so maybe he didn't know, or maybe he assumed these guys were right. We don't know. But we do know Dodwell believed in the flood. Better? But let's face it, we are concerned with the data here. Not where the data might intersect the field of dreams.

The starting point for the wiggley wobbley stuff that lasted from 2450 BC till 1850 AD was in this state. We need not concern ourselves with anything else. Unless the whole thing depended on the imaginary dates....
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Has anybody pointed out yet that this guy's just done a crap job of detecting axial precession?
Nope. You wanna try? I might point out that the curve here differs from the Newcomb curve, more and more as we go back.

Detecting the axial precession is best done with actual data, I would think. George did that. Do you?
 
Upvote 0

Orogeny

Trilobite me!
Feb 25, 2010
1,599
54
✟24,590.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Nope. You wanna try?
Yes: All this gent has done is thoroughly muck up detecting axial precession.

I might point out that the curve here differs from the Newcomb curve, more and more as we go back.
Yes: The Newcomb curve, as described in the text deals only with axial obliquity. If I am mistaken, please point out in the text where he corrects for axial precession.

Detecting the axial precession is best done with actual data, I would think. George did that.
That's essentially what I just said. Except that I said he did a poor job of it.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Ignoring posts does not make them go away.
The curve doesn't depend on the side bar Karnak point. The fact is, that it diverges from the same state curve of Newcomb in a very clear pattern, that is pregnant with data points.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes: All this gent has done is thoroughly muck up detecting axial precession.
Noope. It points to a time after the flood, where some great change happened to earth. Nothing slight about that!


Yes: The Newcomb curve, as described in the text deals only with axial obliquity. If I am mistaken, please point out in the text where he corrects for axial precession.


That's essentially what I just said. Except that I said he did a poor job of it.
Newcomb had a certain basis for his projections. It failed to align with actual observations. Why. It seems clear that his premise was wrong.
 
Upvote 0