The Dodwell Data now out!!!!!

[Nostromo]

The obliquity was observed to be 24 degrees a thousand years prior to Dodwell's first data point, on the off chance you genuinely missed it the first time of saying.

 

[Orogeny]

Noope. It points to a time after the flood, where some great change happened to earth. Nothing slight about that!

This does not correspond to or refute any point in my post. Where did it come from?

Newcomb had a certain basis for his projections. It failed to align with actual observations. Why. It seems clear that his premise was wrong.

So what? His premise was wrong. If his premise was that the oblique is the only motion of the axis of the earth, then that was certainly wrong, and we can agree on that.

The problem here is, Dad, that you still haven't shown me where the curve is corrected for the effects of axial precession. Mr. Dodwell only compares his curve to that of axial obliquity, which is an inaccurate comparison. Unless he corrects the theoretical curve for axial precession and orbital eccentricity, then this curve will naturally differ from the observed.

So: Have Dodwell's and Newcomb's curves been corrected for axial precession? If so, show me where in the manuscript this is done. If not, then I submit that this 'difference from the curve of obliquity' is merely a lack of correction for the effects of axial precession. Problem solved.

 

[BananaSlug]

This does not correspond to or refute any point in my post. Where did it come from?



So what? His premise was wrong. If his premise was that the oblique is the only motion of the axis of the earth, then that was certainly wrong, and we can agree on that.

The problem here is, Dad, that you still haven't shown me where the curve is corrected for the effects of axial precession. Mr. Dodwell only compares his curve to that of axial obliquity, which is an inaccurate comparison. Unless he corrects the theoretical curve for axial precession and orbital eccentricity, then this curve will naturally differ from the observed.

So: Have Dodwell's and Newcomb's curves been corrected for axial precession? If so, show me where in the manuscript this is done. If not, then I submit that this 'difference from the curve of obliquity' is merely a lack of correction for the effects of axial precession. Problem solved.

This is going to get good!

 

[dad]

The obliquity was observed to be 24 degrees a thousand years prior to Dodwell's first data point, on the off chance you genuinely missed it the first time of saying.

So let's look at that. The point, he thought was 2345 BC. So you are saying thatsomeone observed it in 3345 BC!! Before the flood, in other words. Back at the time Adam was still here, I woukld think!! Excellent. Tell us all about them! Don't forget to show the basis for the dates, now

 

[dad]

This does not correspond to or refute any point in my post. Where did it come from?



So what? His premise was wrong. If his premise was that the oblique is the only motion of the axis of the earth, then that was certainly wrong, and we can agree on that.

The problem here is, Dad, that you still haven't shown me where the curve is corrected for the effects of axial precession. Mr. Dodwell only compares his curve to that of axial obliquity, which is an inaccurate comparison. Unless he corrects the theoretical curve for axial precession and orbital eccentricity, then this curve will naturally differ from the observed.

So: Have Dodwell's and Newcomb's curves been corrected for axial precession? If so, show me where in the manuscript this is done. If not, then I submit that this 'difference from the curve of obliquity' is merely a lack of correction for the effects of axial precession. Problem solved.

"In astronomy, axial precession is a gravity-induced, slow and continuous change in the orientation of an astronomical body's rotational axis. In particular, it refers to the gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation,"


In astronomy, axial tilt (also called obliquity) is the angle between an object's rotational axis, and a line perpendicular to its orbital plane.

So, you want to correct actually observed positions, that Dodwell used, with gravity induced, SLOW, and continuous change in earth's axis!!?? Good luck with that! How are you going to basically correct the known and observed, with some imagined same state curve??? Really? I'd like to see that in action. It seems you have an over active imagination.

 

[Nostromo]

So let's look at that. The point, he thought was 2345 BC. So you are saying thatsomeone observed it in 3345 BC!! Before the flood, in other words. Back at the time Adam was still here, I woukld think!! Excellent. Tell us all about them! Don't forget to show the basis for the dates, now

Playfair quotes the work of Jean Sylvain Bailly as his source for the work in Indian astronomy, and there is a link to it here, but unsurprisingly it's all in French, so it's a bit of a hard slog to get through it. (Unless some friendly French speakers want to run through it?)

The general idea of the work is shown in this passage:

The following is an answer to those men of science who might suspect that our Astronomy was carried to India and communicated to the Hindus by our Missionaries. 1st. Hindu astronomy has its own peculiar forms, characterized by their originality; if it had been our astronomy translated, great skill and knowledge would have been needed to disguise the theft. 2nd. When adopting the mean movement of the moon, they would have adopted also the inclination of the ecliptic, the equation of the sun’s centre, the length of the year; these elements differ completely from ours, and are remarkably accurate as applying to the epoch of 3102; while they would be exceedingly erroneous if they had been calculated for last century. 3rd, finally, our missionaries could not have communicated to the Hindus in 1687 the tables of Cassini, which were not then in existence; they could have known only the mean motions of Tycho, Riccioli, Copernicus, Bouilland, Kepler, Longomontanus, and those of the tables of Alphonso. I will now give a tabular view of these mean motions for 4383 years and 94 days: —

Table. —————————————— Mean Motion. — Difference from Hindu.

Alphonso ..............9d 7h 2m 47s ... - 0h 42m 14s
Copernicus .......... 9d 6h 2m 13s .... - 1h 42m 48s
Tycho .................. 9d 7h 54m 40s .. + 0h 9m 39s
Kepler ................. 9d 6h 57m 35s .. - 0h 47m 26s
Longomontanus ... 9d 7h 2m 13s .... - 0h 42m 48s
Bouilland ............. 9d 6h 48m 8s .... - 0h 58m 53s
Riccioli ................ 9d 7h 53m 57s .. + 0h 8m 56s
Cassini ................ 9d 7h 44m 11s ... - 0h 0m 50s
Indian .................. 9d 7h 45m 1s

None of these mean motions, except Cassini’s, agrees with that of the Hindus, who therefore, did not borrow their mean motions, since their figures agree only with those of Cassini, whose tables were not in existence in 1687. This mean motion of the moon belongs, therefore, to the Hindus, who could only have obtained it by observation.” — Bailly’s “Traite de l’Astronomie Indienne et Orientale.”

The whole book is several hundred pages of similar observations.

 

[Orogeny]

"In astronomy, axial precession is a gravity-induced, slow and continuous change in the orientation of an astronomical body's rotational axis. In particular, it refers to the gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation,"


In astronomy, axial tilt (also called obliquity) is the angle between an object's rotational axis, and a line perpendicular to its orbital plane.

Oh look, it found Wikipedia! Which means, most likely, that it knew nothing about axial precession until I brought it up, and now only knows what it read from the Wikipedia introduction. Which essentially means it won't be able to make a reasonable argument, but it will likely try anyway.

So, you want to correct actually observed positions, that Dodwell used, with gravity induced, SLOW, and continuous change in earth's axis!!??

Surprise! I was right.

Yes. I want him to plot his data points against the ACTUAL OBSERVED CURVE, which would include the effects of orbital eccentricity, axial precession, and axial obliquity, instead of just plotting it against axial obliquity alone. One curve is correct because it accounts for all factors, and the other is not, because it does NOT account for all factors. Mr. Dodwell chose the latter, which renders his 'coclusions' incorrect as well.

If you disagree, please show me why, scientifically, it is more accurate for Dodwell to use the incomplete curve that he did, rather than the complete one.

Good luck with that! How are you going to basically correct the known and observed, with some imagined same state curve??? Really? I'd like to see that in action. It seems you have an over active imagination.

This is just a babbling misunderstanding of my point and of the data. Congratulations Dad, you fail at science once again, and have against all odds managed to make your 'different state' theory look even more ridiculous than before. Maybe from now on just claim it outright instead of trying to make it match with science, because that will never, EVER work.

 

[Nostromo]

Maybe from now on just claim it outright instead of trying to make it match with science, because that will never, EVER work.

^This. If it's faith based why not just keep it that way instead of trying to retrofit it with real data.

When the data matches it makes no difference because you already agreed with it's conclusions, and when it doesn't match you'll deny it anyway due to some inadequacy of modern methods and/or possible satanic influence.

 

[dad]

Playfair quotes the work of Jean Sylvain Bailly as his source for the work in Indian astronomy, and there is a link to it here, but unsurprisingly it's all in French, so it's a bit of a hard slog to get through it. (Unless some friendly French speakers want to run through it?)

The general idea of the work is shown in this passage:
The whole book is several hundred pages of similar observations.

Does it also happen to have a point? Preferably in English?

 

[dad]

Oh look, it found Wikipedia! Which means, most likely, that it knew nothing about axial precession until I brought it up, and now only knows what it read from the Wikipedia introduction. Which essentially means it won't be able to make a reasonable argument, but it will likely try anyway.


Surprise! I was right.

Thanks for telling us all about you, and your inward hunches, and for patting yourself on the back. Guess we all can't be as knowledgeable.

Yes. I want him to plot his data points against the ACTUAL OBSERVED CURVE, which would include the effects of orbital eccentricity, axial precession, and axial obliquity, instead of just plotting it against axial obliquity alone. One curve is correct because it accounts for all factors, and the other is not, because it does NOT account for all factors. Mr. Dodwell chose the latter, which renders his 'coclusions' incorrect as well.

Well, when 'all the factors' includes imagining stuff, I think we might just as well try to include actual data. That sort of seems to give a curve value. You know, actually basing it on stuff.

Why don't you bring your knowledge that you apparently have, or think you have, to bear here? Show us the other curve, and the precise basis. Then, perhaps the lurkers and I can decide if it is so all important and well founded, that we can ignore actual data, so we can try to line all things up to it!

Failing that, you poinyt is mooted, something fierce.

Just do it. If you dare..

 

[Nostromo]

Does it also happen to have a point? Preferably in English?

I quoted you a passage in English.

When adopting the mean movement of the moon, they would have adopted also the inclination of the ecliptic, the equation of the sun’s centre, the length of the year; these elements differ completely from ours, and are remarkably accurate as applying to the epoch of 3102;

..the Hindus, who could only have obtained it by observation.

The data in the Indian texts was too accurate to have been back-calculated. Their methods were known and would have produced significant errors over even a short space of time. They must have been there to witness the astronomical events of 3102BC, pre-flood.

These observations just happen to match with the best calculations of the time, provided by Cassini, showing that everything was working the same way in 3102BC.

 

[dad]

I quoted you a passage in English.

Can you show us a point, then?

The data in the Indian texts was too accurate to have been back-calculated. Their methods were known and would have produced significant errors over even a short space of time. They must have been there to witness the astronomical events of 3102BC, pre-flood.

These observations just happen to match with the best calculations of the time, provided by Cassini, showing that everything was working the same way in 3102BC.

Ah..OK. So, tell us what puts the observations, exactly, in that year? How is the date arrived at?

 

[Nostromo]

It's the start of the Kali-yuga, the current age, in the Hindu calendar. The observations mark the start of that age, on Feb 18th 3102BC

 

[Orogeny]

Thanks for telling us all about you, and your inward hunches, and for patting yourself on the back. Guess we all can't be as knowledgeable.

I guess not!

Well, when 'all the factors' includes imagining stuff, I think we might just as well try to include actual data.

Oh I agree. Imaginary data, with its imaginary conclusions, should be thrown out. So get rid of your Dodwell mess. He for some reason imagines that obliquity is the only motion of Earth's axis, and is mistaken. It also precesses and follows an eccentric orbit. These motions are not imaginaru, and have been known of since the Mayans. The fact that you now know of the reality of these motions, yet still trumpet your incomplete data set shows just how desperate you are to fit your so-called theory to real science.

Do you agree that if Dodwell used an incomplete data set, it would negatively affect the reliability his conclusions?

That sort of seems to give a curve value. You know, actually basing it on stuff.

Incomplete stuff. Right? If not, show me scientifically why correction for precession and eccentricity is unnecessary. Because you support Dodwell's conclusions, the burden of proof is on you. So prove it.

Why don't you bring your knowledge that you apparently have, or think you have, to bear here? Show us the other curve, and the precise basis. Then, perhaps the lurkers and I can decide if it is so all important and well founded, that we can ignore actual data, so we can try to line all things up to it!

Here are the curves for eccentricity, tilt (obliquity), and precession, as well as a composite of the three. Note that Dodwell compared his 'curve' to obliquity only. Then note how strikingly different the composite curve is. If Dad wants his, and Mr. Dodwell's, 'science' to be valid, the 'data' that Mr. Dodwell used must be plotted against the composite curve, rather than the curve for obliquity only. Understand?

 

[dad]

It's the start of the Kali-yuga, the current age, in the Hindu calendar. The observations mark the start of that age, on Feb 18th 3102BC

In your dreams maybe. Prove it. Show the basis of the so called date..

 

[dad]

I guess not!

Indeed, if you do say so yourself.

Oh I agree. Imaginary data, with its imaginary conclusions, should be thrown out. So get rid of your Dodwell mess. He for some reason imagines that obliquity is the only motion of Earth's axis, and is mistaken. It also precesses and follows an eccentric orbit. These motions are not imaginaru, and have been known of since the Mayans. The fact that you now know of the reality of these motions, yet still trumpet your incomplete data set shows just how desperate you are to fit your so-called theory to real science.

The reality of the other curve, is what we want to look at here. I plan to dash it and thrash it to threads, by the way. So support it already, if you want to rely on it. You mention the Mayans, and then act as if you just made the perfect case. No. You have not even begun. The Mayans saw stuff. When? And what?

Do you agree that if Dodwell used an incomplete data set, it would negatively affect the reliability his conclusions?

Of course he used an incomplete set. He had to work with the known, and observed, that is limited! yet, the pattern seems clear. The observations and actual data part ways with your concepts more and more as time gets reversed.

Here are the curves for eccentricity, tilt (obliquity), and precession, as well as a composite of the three. Note that Dodwell compared his 'curve' to obliquity only. Then note how strikingly different the composite curve is. If Dad wants his, and Mr. Dodwell's, 'science' to be valid, the 'data' that Mr. Dodwell used must be plotted against the composite curve, rather than the curve for obliquity only. Understand?

What is the data in the picture of curves based on, precisely? ..

 

[Nostromo]

In your dreams maybe. Prove it. Show the basis of the so called date..

The Hindu calendar...

 

[Orogeny]

The reality of the other curve, is what we want to look at here. I plan to dash it and thrash it to threads, by the way.

Ok. Quit yapping and do it then.

So support it already, if you want to rely on it.

What exactly is there to support? I've shown that these two factors (eccentricity and precession) exist (you admitted as much in posting their definitions in an earlier post), that they should be included, and that Dodwell did not do this. Quit trying to skirt the issue and admit that Mr. Dodwell used an incomplete and inaccurate curve.

You mention the Mayans, and then act as if you just made the perfect case. No. You have not even begun. The Mayans saw stuff. When? And what?

They saw that the Earth's axis precessed, and corrected for it in their measurements. I said that. Oh, and I was mistaken; it's been known about since the Babylonians.

Stop trying to shift the focus off of the incompleteness of Mr. Dodwell's calculations. Show SCIENTIFICALLY that correction for precession and eccentricity is not necessary, or cede the debate. Those are your options; chose one and do it in your next post, because I'm not going to run in circles with you while you frantically shift the goalposts.

Of course he used an incomplete set.

Good! Then you admit that his conclusion is invalidated.

He had to work with the known, and observed, that is limited!

The known and observed include eccentricity and precession. I won't say it again, because I know that you are aware of this and are (dishonestly) ignoring it because it is detrimental to your views.

yet, the pattern seems clear. The observations and actual data part ways with your concepts more and more as time gets reversed.

You've got that backwards.

What is the data in the picture of curves based on, precisely? ..

Ugh. The curves in the figure are based on orbital eccentricity, orbital obliquity, orbital precession, and a composite of the 3. You know this, because it has already been pointed out.

Look, padre. Everybody here can see that you're simply trying to worm your way out of this one. You won't be able to. But I'll give you a path; it is the ONLY path by which you'll get out of this:

Admit that Dodwell's curve is incomplete and inaccurate because it does not take into account all known motions of the earth's axis. Then re-plot his data against a curve that DOES take all factors into account.

Otherwise, you can continue to ignore the reality of eccentricity and precession and move those goalposts some more, which simply lets everyone know that you are unable to recognize or perform actual science, and that you are intellectually dishonest.

Your task is clear. Accept it or admit defeat.

 

[dad]

The Hindu calendar...

Great. So you offer some also ran calendar for actual dates? That is no basis. You need to show us where they got the date from, precisely.

 

[dad]

Ok. Quit yapping and do it then.

Can't wait. Soon as you present it, and the basis for it, on the table. If you can't do that, why talk at all?

What exactly is there to support? I've shown that these two factors (eccentricity and precession) exist (you admitted as much in posting their definitions in an earlier post), that they should be included, and that Dodwell did not do this. Quit trying to skirt the issue and admit that Mr. Dodwell used an incomplete and inaccurate curve.

Nonsense. I posted definitions for myself, and the lurkers, to be clear on what you were going on about. Dodwel's stuff, we know was based on data. The other curve is what you need to defend, and prove is well grounded in fact, and worthy of all of us needed to align anything else with.

They saw that the Earth's axis precessed, and corrected for it in their measurements. I said that. Oh, and I was mistaken; it's been known about since the Babylonians.

Stop trying to shift the focus off of the incompleteness of Mr. Dodwell's calculations. Show SCIENTIFICALLY that correction for precession and eccentricity is not necessary, or cede the debate. Those are your options; chose one and do it in your next post, because I'm not going to run in circles with you while you frantically shift the goalposts.

When you offer up some curve and claim that we all need to gather round and accept it, as a big important curve, that needs to have an actual data curve cowtow to it, it is not I changing goal posts!

The known and observed include eccentricity and precession. I won't say it again, because I know that you are aware of this and are (dishonestly) ignoring it because it is detrimental to your views.

You've got that backwards.

If you want to pile on things to the actual observed data of Dodwell, and claim they are observed as well, show us. Or you just will look like you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ugh. The curves in the figure are based on orbital eccentricity, orbital obliquity, orbital precession, and a composite of the 3. You know this, because it has already been pointed out.

Say what?? Is this your other curve here, and the so called proof it is good stuff? Hint... Who saw the orbit when....

Admit that Dodwell's curve is incomplete and inaccurate because it does not take into account all known motions of the earth's axis. Then re-plot his data against a curve that DOES take all factors into account.

We need to re plot nothing at all, especially stuff based on actual observations, to your imaginary lines! Pony up.

Otherwise, you can continue to ignore the reality of eccentricity and precession and move those goalposts some more, which simply lets everyone know that you are unable to recognize or perform actual science, and that you are intellectually dishonest.

You have not yet provided us anything to ignore! Let's see this so called actual science, and basis for this silly imaginary curve you want to make us stumble over, like a little god in an Indian market?

Your task is clear. Accept it or admit defeat.

My task is clear, accept your unconitional and immediate surrender, and be happy. I am not even in the mood to do that. Careful, I might let you stew in your claims for a while, unless you fess up quicky.