Gauss' Easter Formula Applied To The Chronology Of History: Dating The Council Of Nicaea

[sandokhan]

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.

"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."

Dr. G. Nosovsky, Easter Issue:

Easter, also known as Pascha, the Feast of the Resurrection, the Sunday of the Resurrection, or Resurrection Day, is the most important religious feast of the Christianity, observed between late March and late April by the Western and early April to early May in Eastern Christianity.
It is assumed that the First Ecumenical Nicaean Council (Nicaea is a town in Bythinia, Asia Minor) had compiled and sanctioned a church calendar in the year 325 AD. The Christian church has deemed this Easter Book (in the West), also known as Paschalia (in the East), to be of the greatest importance ever since.

The British Encyclopaedia names Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) and his follower Dionysius Petavius (1583 – 1652) as the founders of consensual chronology. This chronology stands on two pillars – the date of Jesus Christ’s Nativity and the date of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, which is usually referred to as “The Nicaean Council”.

Scaliger’s version of chronology is based on the datings of Christ’s birth and the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea to a great extent, since it was primarily compiled as that of ecclesial history. Secular chronology of the ancient times was represented in his works as derivative, based on synchronisms with ecclesial events.

We shall give here a detailed account of why one of these ground laying dates, that is the date of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea is definitely wrong.

The principal method of the research we are relating here is that of computational astronomy. However, the understanding of the issue does not require a profound knowledge of astronomy or other special scientific issues.

The founder of chronology Joseph Justus Scaliger considered himself a great mathematician. Pity, but his demonstrations were quite wrong – for instance, he boasted that he had solved the classical “ancient” mathematical ‘Quadrature of Circle’ problem that was subsequently proven insoluble.

Calendarian issues are a part of chronology. The chronology belonged to the paradigm of mathematics and astronomy. This was the case in the XVI-XVII centuries, when the consensual Scaliger-Petavius version of chronology was created.

Since then, the perception of chronology has changed, and in the XVIII century already, chronology was considered humanity. As its essence cannot be changed, it remains a subdivision of applied mathematics to this day.

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.

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE NICAEAN COUNCIL TODAY

No deeds or acts of this Council have reached our time, but the historians report: “...the opuses of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Socrates, Eusebius of Caesarea, Sozomenus, Theodoritus, and Rufinus contain enough details for us to get a good idea of the Council together with the 20 rules and the Council’s vigil… The Emperor (Constantine the Great – Auth.) arrived in Nicaea on the 4th or the 5th of July, and the next day the Council was called in the great hall of the Emperor’s palace… the council had solved the problem of determining the time of Easter celebration… and set forth the 20 rules… After the Council, the Emperor had issued a decree for convincing everyone to adhere to the confession proclaimed by the council.”

[988], tome 41, pages 71-72.

It is thus assumed that together with the proclamation of the united Orthodox-Catholic confession that got split up later, the Nicaean council had also determined the way Easter should be celebrated, or, in other words, developed the Paschalia Easter Book.

Despite the fact that no original Easter edicts of the Nicaean council remain, it is said that the Council issued its edicts in the alleged year 325 AD, when the “the actual methods of calculating the Easter dates had already been well developed”, and the Easter date table “that had been used for centuries” had been compiled. The latter is quite natural, since “every 532 years, the Christian Easter cycle repeats from the very start… the Paschalian tables for each year of 532 were in existence” [817], page 4.

Thus, the calculation of the new 532-year Easter table really comes down to a simple shift of the previous one by 532 years. This order is still valid: the last Great Indiction began in 1941 and is the shifted version of the previous Great Indiction (of the years 1409-1940), which, in its turn, is derived from the Great Indiction of the years 977-1408, etc. So, when we move the modern Easter table by an applicable factor divisible by 532, we should get exactly the same table as was introduced by the Nicaean council.

Ergo, the primary form of the Paschalia Easter Book can be easily reconstructed, and we will show the reader how earliest possible date of compilation of Paschalia Easter Book can be deduced from it.

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.

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.

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).
 

https://www.scribd.com/document/74886881/Easter-Issue

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.

 

Here is another proof:

Byzantine historian Leo Diaconus (ca. 950-994), as he observed the total eclipse of 22 December 968 from Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey). His observation is preserved in the Annales Sangallenses, and reads:

"...at the fourth hour of the day ... darkness covered the earth and all the brightest stars shone forth. And is was possible to see the disk of the Sun, dull and unlit, and a dim and feeble glow like a narrow band shining in a circle around the edge of the disk".

"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.

http://www.mreclipse.com/Special/quotes2.html


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. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, sandokhan said:

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.

What?

The Gregorian calendar was adopted by Spain, Portugal, France, Poland, Italy, Catholic Low Countries, Luxemburg, and some others in 1582. It has since been adopted by most countries, most recently Turkey in 1926.

If you were right, 1900 would have been a leap year (it wasn't) and today's date would be the 28th March.

!

Moderator Note

This clearly does not belong in Mathematics. We don't have a History section, but as you start off by asserting that historical facts are untrue, I have moved it to Speculations. Please note that this requires you to provide evidence to support your claims. Specifically, you need to provide documentary evidence that the Gregorian calendar reform never happened.

 

[sandokhan]

The Council of Nicaea could not possibly have taken place before the year 784 AD. Therefore, the claim made in the papal bull by Gregory XIII,  it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council  is completely false.

Here are more proofs, using of course Gauss' Easter formula.

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. Nosovsky went even further with his research into the falsified chronology of history: using Gauss' Easter formula he was able to show that the FIRST EASTER conditions, stipulated by Exiguus, WERE SATISFIED ONLY IN THE YEAR 1095 AD (Saturday, March 24, Paschal Moon).

http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img408.pdf
http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img409.pdf
http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img410.pdf
http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img411.pdf

This means that the biography of Dionysius Exiguus, the central pillar of modern chronology, was falsified at least after 1400 AD (anybody in the period 1095 + 300 = 1395 AD, could have used the Metonian cycle to verify that the conditions were fulfilled in the year 1095 AD), during the Renaissance.

Dr. G. Nosovsky:

We don’t have to observe the sky or perform astronomical calculations every time; compiling a table of March and April full moons for any given period of 19 years should suffice for further reference. The reason is that the phases of the moon recur every 19 years in the Julian calendar, and the recurrence cycle remains unaltered for centuries on end – that is, if the full moon fell on the 25th March any given year, it shall occur on the 25th of March in 19 years, in 38 (19 x 2) years, etc.

The malfunctions in the cycle shall begin after 300 years, which is to say that if we cover 300 years in 19-year cycles, the full moon shall gradually begin to migrate to its neighbouring location in the calendar. The same applies to new moons and all the other phases of the moon.

 

 

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=o6-8BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=galileo+galilei+gregorian+calendar&source=bl&ots=ORPJHVLJB5&sig=MMjwonnPkIE6XYnFrcMCS3Yow20&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=UStiVO3mFY2zaczhgMAN&ved=0CB4Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=galileo%20galilei%20gregorian%20calendar&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).

As we have seen, in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

 

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.

Edited April 10, 2019 by sandokhan

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

Here are more proofs, using of course Gauss' Easter formula.

It is not clear what you are attempting to prove.

But you can't disprove historical facts (1900 was not a leap year) using mathematics.

[sandokhan]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

If you were right, 1900 would have been a leap year (it wasn't) and today's date would be the 28th March.

You are using the heliocentrical setting/context and the conventional calendar (365.24219 days + 1 leap day every four years).

In the geocentrical setting, the chronology of history is much shorter: the new radical chronology of history.

That is, history is much shorter than we have been led to believe. 

Did you know that modern astronomy agrees that the interval of assured reliability for Newton's equations of gravitational motion, as they apply to planetary orbits, is at most three hundred years?

Dr. Robert W. Bass

Ph.D. (Mathematics) Johns Hopkins University, 1955 [Wintner, Hartman]
A. Wintner, world's leading authority on celestial mechanics
Post-Doctoral Fellow Princeton University, 1955-56 [under S. Lefschetz]
Rhodes Scholar
Professor, Physics & Astronomy, Brigham Young University

Dr. W.M. Smart

Regius Professor of Astronomy at Glasgow University
President of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1949 to 1951


Dr. E.W. Brown

Fellowship, Royal Society
President of the American Mathematical Society
Professor of Mathematics, Yale University
President of the American Astronomical Society


Dr. Bass' basic discovery:

In a resonant, orbitally unstable or "wild" motion, the eccentricities of one or more of the terrestrial planets can increase in a century or two until a near collision occurs. Subsequently the Principle of Least Interaction Action predicts that the planets will rapidly "relax" into a configuration very near to a (presumably orbitally stable) resonant, Bode's-Law type of configuration. Near such a configuration, small, non-gravitational effects such as tidal friction can in a few centuries accumulate effectively to a discontinuous "jump" from the actual phase-space path to a nearby, truly orbitally stable, path. Subsequently, observations and theory would agree that the solar system is in a quasi-periodic motion stable in the sense of Laplace and orbitally stable. Also, numerical integrations backward in time would show that no near collision had ever occurred. Yet in actual fact this deduction would be false."

"I arrived independently at the preceding scenario before learning that dynamical astronomer, E. W. Brown, president of the American Astronomical Society, had already outlined the same possibility in 1931."

Dr. Robert Bass, Stability of the Solar System:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120916174745/http://www.innoventek.com:80/Bass1974PenseeAllegedProofsOfStabilityOfSolarSystemR.pdf

The astronomers who rely upon Nekhoroshev's theorem regarding the stability of the solar system, must understand that the threshold value of the small parameter ε obtained from various statements of the theorem provide values which, when applied to Solar System dynamics, are very small, and can be hardly compared to the existent perturbations.

Unfortunately, most attempts of application of Nekhoroshev results have turned to frustration. Indeed it is very hard to check if the conditions for the application of Nekhoroshev theorem are  fulfilled (in particular the one imposing the non-integrability parameter to be small enough), and to compute analytically the value of the stability time. The results are often unrealistic. 

Moreover, any computer-assisted program designed to aid in the verification of Nekhoroshev's theorem does not take into account Professor Bass' basic discovery: observations and theory would agree that the solar system is in a quasi-periodic motion stable in the sense of Laplace and orbitally stable. Also, numerical integrations backward in time would show that no near collision had ever occurred. Yet in actual fact this deduction would be false.

D.G. Saari's theorem (1971) on the collisions in Newtonian gravitational systems suffers from a basic flaw: its very hypothesis stipulates that inverse square law of attractive gravitation plays a crucial role in the proof of the result. 

A single counterexample to the attractive model (the Allais effect, the DePalma spinning ball experiment, the Kozyrev gyroscope experiment, the Biefeld-Brown effect) is sufficient to prove that the assertion that the force of gravity is attractive is false.

Moreover, we have the quote from Principia:

Two bodies are pulled to each other by an external pressure.

Let's see how Newton describes this force in the Principia:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A

PRESSURE = PUSHING FORCE

ATTRACTION = PULLING FORCE

Newton's clear description again:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail

https://books.google.ro/books?id=VW_CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=isaac+newton+In+attractions,+I+briefly+demonstrate+the+thing+after+this+manner.+Suppose+an+obstacle+is+interposed+to+hinder+the+meeting+of+any+two+bodies+A,+B,+attracting+one+the+other&source=bl&ots=eRsq4NaOYt&sig=ACfU3U3NMCiW4fsquNSq0t25is5H6aobrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipgr6fw6fgAhWnAGMBHXZMAlQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20In%20attractions%2C%20I%20briefly%20demonstrate%20the%20thing%20after%20this%20manner.%20Suppose%20an%20obstacle%20is%20interposed%20to%20hinder%20the%20meeting%20of%20any%20two%20bodies%20A%2C%20B%2C%20attracting%20one%20the%20other&f=false

 

Of course, much more has to be added on the subject of the falsification of history:

-both Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed by the eruption of the Vesuvius volcano in the 18th century, and not in the first century AD

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by sandokhan

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, sandokhan said:

-both Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed by the eruption of the Vesuvius volcano in the 18th century, and not in the first century AD

What is your point?

Historical accounts put the eruption at 79 AD.  Radioisotope dating corroborates that date.  So it would seem that your assertion that Pompeii was destroyed in the 18th century is not correct, which would mean that the 'Gauss' Easter Formula' you used must not be correct (or you made a mistake in your calculations). 

Edited April 10, 2019 by Bufofrog

[Strange]

1 hour ago, sandokhan said:

You are using the heliocentrical setting/context and the conventional calendar (365.24219 days + 1 leap day every four years).

No I'm not. (I don't even know that that gibberish is supposed to mean).

I am just pointing out the historical fact that 1900 was not a leap year and therefore we are now using the Gregorian calendar. The Julian calendar had 1 leap day every four years. Our current calendar does not. Therefore your claim that "Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD" is false.

 

The rest of your post is increasingly deranged and incoherent, but ends with this joke:

1 hour ago, sandokhan said:

Of course, much more has to be added on the subject of the falsification of history:

-both Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed by the eruption of the Vesuvius volcano in the 18th century, and not in the first century AD

You have missed April Fools day by more than a week.

 

1 hour ago, sandokhan said:

Two bodies are pulled to each other by an external pressure.

Let's see how Newton describes this force in the Principia:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A

PRESSURE = PUSHING FORCE

ATTRACTION = PULLING FORCE

Are you trying to drag some sort of insane theory of "push gravity" into this as well now?

You clearly have severe problems understanding what you read. That paragraph does not say that the two bodies are pushed towards each other. It says that the fact that they are pulling on each other will result on pressure on an object in between them. Try lying on the floor with a large rock on top of you: you will experience pressure as the Earth and and the rock pull on each other.

 

Unless you can make a clear (one or two sentence) statement of the purpose of this thread I will request that it is closed. 

 

[Bufofrog]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Try lying on the floor with a large rock on top of you: you will experience pressure as the Earth and and the rock pull on each other.

Safety comes first!  So a quick safety tip, make sure to choose a rock weighs less than 500 kg when doing this experiment.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

Safety comes first!  So a quick safety tip, make sure to choose a rock weighs less than 500 kg when doing this experiment.

Sssshhhh!

 

4 hours ago, sandokhan said:

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

Please provide evidence that this is "the most accurate astronomical dating tool at our disposal".

This might be a challenge because it is not an astronomical dating tool. It is used calculates the date of Easter, which is set by convention not by the movement of celestial bodies. 

[sandokhan]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Unless you can make a clear (one or two sentence) statement of the purpose of this thread I will request that it is closed. 

The purpose of the thread is as follows: to prove, using Gauss' celebrated Easter formula, that the council of Nicaea could not possibly have taken place before the year 876-877 AD.

This much was proven.

You, then, brought up the leap year argument, while I pointed out that this sort of explanation makes sense only within the heliocentrical context. However, there are other explanations available, such as the geocentrical setting.

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

That paragraph does not say that the two bodies are pushed towards each other. It says that the fact that they are pulling on each other will result on pressure on an object in between them.

Newton states clearly what he means.

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A
 

He even offers more details in another famous passage, the letter to R. Boyle:

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.

Two bodies are pulled to each other by an external pressure.

But, as you said, this is not the subject of this thread.

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Try lying on the floor with a large rock on top of you: you will experience pressure as the Earth and and the rock pull on each other.

The Earth is not pulling at all on the rock. The pressure of the ether is exerting a force upon the rock. Certainly there is much more to be said on this very subject, but this is not the place.

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have missed April Fools day by more than a week.

Fine.

Abraham Ortelius was the finest map maker of the Renaissance.

Yet, on his 1570 map Neapoletanum Regnum, Pompeii is featured as thriving city:

Here are the maps drawn by Giovanni Mascolo, 1633:

Here is the map dated 1725, again both Pompeii and Herculaneum featured as cities in full activity:

http://halsema.org/people/theleonardifamily/history/mapsof15-18thcentitaly/images/fullsize/3.jpg
 

The water conduit built by the architect/engineer Domenico Fontana starting with 1592 A.D. (official chronology), which runs EXACTLY through Pompeii:

The water conduit passes through Via de Nocere, Pompeii:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilya.it%2Fchrono%2Fpages%2Fpompejidt.htm&edit-text=



The Fontana water conduit built while POMPEII WAS A CITY IN FULL ACTIVITY:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_sc5PfjuCqQ#t=0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=koKNBC-t51c#t=0

Two remarcable documentaries, signed A. Tschurilow, which take the viewer on a journey through Pompeii, street by street, and demonstrates that the water conduit built by D. Fontana was constructed while Pompeii was a city in full activity.

Perfectly flat window glasses at Herculaneum:

 

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.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=jXgnnCpz22QC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=flat+window+glass+first+obtained+at+st.+gobain+1688&source=bl&ots=kADb-hHyu9&sig=CZw5-KyF8ZGQDxyrtHnG2SA7b90&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=Spw3VbvTNcWmsgHgsIDgCg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=flat%20window%20glass%20first%20obtained%20at%20st.%20gobain%201688&f=false


"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.

Archaeomagnetic dating of the artifacts at Pompeii:

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=ro&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://new.chronologia.org/volume6/tur_vez79.html

Dating events "Vesuvius Eruption '79" paleomagnetic characteristics of artifacts

All the artifacts tested belong to the 17TH century (including a fresco attributed to "antiquity").

Figure 5. Dating event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79" calibration curve SIVC (AnTyur). Detail of the calibration curve SIVC (AnTyur) shown in magenta. Red circle shows the average value of the paleomagnetic parameters artifacts. The numbers near the points characterizing paleomagnetic parameters artifacts of Pompeii and Herculaneum, the samples correspond to the numbers in Table 1.

Paleomagnetic parameters of the artifacts found at Pompeii and Herculaneum:

Table 1: Paleomagnetic samples parameters characterizing the event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79" 


https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=ro&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://new.chronologia.org/volume6/tur_vez79.html


Paleomagnetic parameters, Southern Italy, 1600 - 2000 AD:

Figure 1. The actual data describing the evolution of the parameters of the geomagnetic field of Southern Italy in the last 400 years [Tanguy, 2005]. The results of instrumental measurements of vector direction of the geomagnetic field, represented in the form of the path of movement of the North Magnetic Pole, shows dark yellow line. Black circles show the direction of the residual magnetization vectors of samples of lava eruptions of Etna (E) and Vesuvius (V). The size of the circle corresponds to the measurement error. Digit near the circle - the year of the eruption. Blue line shows the path of movement of the North Magnetic Pole, estimated by paleomagnetic product parameters volcanoes Etna and Vesuvius.


The data coincide perfectly: the artifacts found at Pompeii and Herculaneum belong to the 17th century
 

You still think it's a joke? 

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

 

Paleomagnetic parameters, Southern Italy, 1600 - 2000 AD:

Figure 1. The actual data describing the evolution of the parameters of the geomagnetic field of Southern Italy in the last 400 years [Tanguy, 2005]. The results of instrumental measurements of vector direction of the geomagnetic field, represented in the form of the path of movement of the North Magnetic Pole, shows dark yellow line. Black circles show the direction of the residual magnetization vectors of samples of lava eruptions of Etna (E) and Vesuvius (V). The size of the circle corresponds to the measurement error. Digit near the circle - the year of the eruption. Blue line shows the path of movement of the North Magnetic Pole, estimated by paleomagnetic product parameters volcanoes Etna and Vesuvius.


The data coincide perfectly: the artifacts found at Pompeii and Herculaneum belong to the 17th century
 

You still think it's a joke? 

I have no idea what you think you are proving here. Vesuvius has erupted many times, including in 1707 and 1767 (V1701 is apparently mislabeled. If it was 1701 it should overlap with the arrow pointing to 1700). These are obviously what the diagram is pointing to, and in no way precludes an eruption in AD79

"Vesuvius entered a new phase in December 1631, when a major eruption buried many villages under lava flows, killing around 3,000 people. Torrents of lahar were also created, adding to the devastation. Activity thereafter became almost continuous, with relatively severe eruptions occurring in 1660, 1682, 1694, 1698, 1707, 1737, 1760, 1767, 1779, 1794, 1822, 1834, 1839, 1850, 1855, 1861, 1868, 1872, 1906, 1926, 1929, and 1944."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Vesuvius#Later_eruptions_from_the_3rd_to_the_19th_centuries

[Bufofrog]

14 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

You still think it's a joke?

Yes, but it is not funny.

The window glass in the picture you supplied is clearly not perfectly flat and has a fairly large variation in thickness.  Perfectly with in the capability of the first century AD.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

The purpose of the thread is as follows: to prove, using Gauss' celebrated Easter formula, that the council of Nicaea could not possibly have taken place before the year 876-877 AD.

This much was proven.

I have no idea whether you have managed to prove that or not. I doubt it (given the innacurcay of the rest of the information in your post). I'm not going to try and wade through the incoherent, rambling nonsense to find out.

6 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

You, then, brought up the leap year argument, while I pointed out that this sort of explanation makes sense only within the heliocentrical context. However, there are other explanations available, such as the geocentrical setting.

"Heliocentric or geocentric context" are irrelevant. It is a calendar. Get one for 1900 (you could probably find one on eBay) and you will see that 1900 was not a leap year. That is a  historical fact and is not changed by geocentrism.

11 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

Newton states clearly what he means.

And you are unable to understand it.

11 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A

Yes:the "obstacle" the thing in between A and B.

A and B are pulled together by the force of gravity. They exert pressure on the obstacle.

But I don't know why you are dragging arguments against Newtonian gravity into this. How is it relevant?

12 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

The Earth is not pulling at all on the rock. The pressure of the ether is exerting a force upon the rock. Certainly there is much more to be said on this very subject, but this is not the place.

This is very obviously wrong for a great many reasons. It was rejected hundreds of years ago (but maybe that means last week in your parallel universe).

But if you want to embarrass yourself further, feel free to start a thread on it.

14 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

Yet, on his 1570 map Neapoletanum Regnum, Pompeii is featured as thriving city:

"Thriving city"? You can tell that from a. small red blob, can you?

17 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

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.

Do you actually think no one knew how to make panes of glass before then? Sheesh. The Romans made sheets of glass from at least the beginning of the first century.

18 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

You still think it's a joke? 

I was being polite. 

[sandokhan]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

That is a  historical fact and is not changed by geocentrism.

But it is changed within the context of geocentrim, which is linked to the new radical chronology of history.

Let me explain.

The new chronology of history: history does not exist beyond 1000 AD, everything was forged/falsified after 1500 AD.

The new radical chronology of history: history does not exist beyond 1660 AD, everything (including the Bible) was forged/falsified in the period 1780-1800 AD. Christ was crucificied/resurrected much more recently than we have been led to believe, while the crucifixion itself took place in Constantinople, and not Jerusalem (plenty of proofs for this one too).

You are listing a historical "fact" which is valid only within the heliocentrical setting.

What you have to deal with is the proof, using Gauss' Easter formula, that the council of Nicaea could not possibly have taken place before the year 876-877 AD.

Moreover, you have to deal with the absolute proof that Dionysius Exiguus' biography was forged during the Renaissance.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

"Thriving city"? You can tell that from a. small red blob, can you?

The maps I have provided show Pompeii and Herculaneam as cities listed on contemporary maps (1570, 1633, 1725). 

Now, imagine this scene: Ortelius, pondering whether to include Pompeii on his Neapoletanum Regnum map as a practical joke, while his assistants quietly point out to him that Pompeii was buried by the Vesuvius eruption some 1500 years earlier. But Ortelius, nonetheless, proceeds to draw Pompeii on the map. Imagine the scandal throughout southern Italy, the uproar from the other map makers of the day, not to mention the loss of potential clients who would not have been amused at all to find more practical jokes of the same sort for the maps they ordered from Ortelius.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

The Romans made sheets of glass from at least the beginning of the first century.

Not the kind of glass featured at St. Gobain, as an example. The perfectly flat glass from Herculaneum necessitated the use of technology which was available only in the 17th century.

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejigallerydt.htm

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom13.jpg

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom14.jpg

In the window of the museum can be seen a lot of glass products, including bottles, flasks for perfumes, multicolored glass of different shades. Particularly noteworthy are absolutely transparent thin glass vases. The same glass vases are shown on Pompeian frescoes. 

Then, at the mid point of the 15th century, Angelo Barovier produced what was to become known as vetro cristallo or cristallo veneziano. This was a pure, bright, completely transparent crystal glass.

An early example of Venetian cristallo glass dating from 1580

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.

On the way from Naples to the south to Torre Annunziata, 15 kilometers from Naples, one can see a monument on the façade of the Villa Pharao Mennela, an epitaph for the victims of the eruption of Vesuvius in 1631, on two stone slabs with the text in the Latin language , On one of these are the towns of Pompeii and Herculaneum, as well as Resina and Portici, in the list of destroyed cities.

AT O 
VIII ET LX POST ANNO XVII CALEND (AS) IANUARII 
PHILIPPO IV REGE 
FUMO, FLAMMIS, BOATU 
CONCUSSO CINERE ERUPTIOHE 
HORRIFICUS, FERUS SI UNQUAM VESUVIUS 
NEC NOMEN NEC FASCES TANTI VIRI EXTIMUIT QUIPPE, EXARDESCENTE CAVIS SPECUBUS IGN, IGNITUS, FURENS, IRRUGIA, 
EXITUM ELUCTANS. COERCITUSAER, IACULATUS TRANS HELLESPONTUMDISIECTO VIOLENTER MONTISCULMINE, 
IMMANI ERUPIT HIATU POSTRIDGE, 
CINEREM 
PONE TRAFFIC AD EXPLENDAM VICEM PELAGUS IMMITE PELAGUS 
FLUVIOS SULPHUREOS FLAMMATUM BITUMEN, 
FOETAS ALUMINE CAUTES, 
INFORME CUIUSQUE METALLI RUDUS, 
MIXTUM AQUARUM VOIURINIBUS IGNEM 
FEBRVEM (QUE) UNDANTE FUMO CINEREM 
SESEQ (UE) FUNESTAMQ (UE) COLLLUVIEM 
IUGO MONTIS EXONERANS 
POMPEIOS HERCULANEUM OCTAVIANUM, PERSTRICTIS REАTINA ET PORTICU, 
SILVASQ (UE), VILLASQ (UE), (UE) 
MOMENTO STRAVIT, USSIT, DIRUIT 
LUCTUOSAM PRAEA SE PRAEDAM AGENS 
VASTUMQ (UE) TRIUNPHUM. 
PERIERAT HOC QUOQ (UE) MARMORALTE SEPQLUM CONSULTISSIMI NO MONUMENTUM PROREGIS. 
NE PEREAT 
EMMAHUEZL FONSECA ET SUNICA COM (ES), 
MONT IS RE (GIS) PROR (EX), 
QUA ANIMI MAGNITUDINE PUBLICA CALAMITATI EA PRIVATAE CONSULUIT 
EXTRACTUM FUNDITUS GENTIS SUI LAPIDEM. 
COELO RESTITUIT, VIAM RESTAURAVIT, 
FUMANTE ADHUC ET INDIGNANTE VESEVO. 
AN (NO) SAL (UTIS) MDCXXXV, 
PRAEFECTO VIARUM 
ANTONIO SUARES MESSIA MARCHI (ONE) VICI.

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom01.jpg

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom35.jpg

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom36.jpg

Pompeii Grafitti, gladiators with helmets which feature mobile visors, a XVth century invention (official chronology of history):

1 hour ago, Strange said:

A and B are pulled together by the force of gravity. They exert pressure on the obstacle.

Would you care to explain to your readers how objects A and B exert A PRESSURE (PUSHING FORCE) on the obstacle? By what mechanism? You want to use gravitons? Newton has other ideas:

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.

Two bodies are pulled to each other by an external pressure.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

But if you want to embarrass yourself further, feel free to start a thread on it.

Perhaps I will. But then you are going to have to deal with the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox, with the Allais effect, with the precise explanation of how the telluric ether forces affect an object gravitationally, the fact that physicists cannot explain why a simple bathroom scale does not record/register the weight of the corresponding column of air (2,000 pounds), then I would bring the definite proofs in favor of ether drift: the Galaev experiments, the new formula for the Sagnac effect, the Podkletnov effect and much more... while all the while disproving the attractive mechanism.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Vesuvius has erupted many times, including in 1707 and 1767 (V1701 is apparently mislabeled. If it was 1701 it should overlap with the arrow pointing to 1700). These are obviously what the diagram is pointing to, and in no way precludes an eruption in AD79

You can find the entire theory of the paleomagnetic dating of the artifacts from Pompeii/Herculaneum here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683846#msg1683846

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1685184#msg1685184

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1690028#msg1690028

Too much material to post here.

As for the word "flat", please remember that the explosion at Tunguska (7:10 am, June 30, 1908) was seen, instantaneously from London, Stockholm, Antwerp, Berlin, over a supposed curvature corresponding to a distance of some 5,200 km, while at the same time we are told that the light from the Sun could not reach London at that point in time due to the curvature of the Earth.

Edited April 10, 2019 by sandokhan

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

You are listing a historical "fact" which is valid only within the heliocentrical setting.

Nope. 1900 was not a leap year. There is documentary evidence of that fact. It can't be changed by heliocentric.

6 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

The new radical chronology of history: history does not exist beyond 1660 AD, everything (including the Bible) was forged/falsified in the period 1780-1800 AD. Christ was crucificied/resurrected much more recently than we have been led to believe, while the crucifixion itself took place in Constantinople, and not Jerusalem (plenty of proofs for this one too).

Is this serious? Or a bizarre attempt at satire?

Either way, I am going to suggest this thread is closed: it has no science and an increasingly shaky basis in reality.

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

 You can find the entire theory of the paleomagnetic dating of the artifacts from Pompeii/Herculaneum here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683846#msg1683846

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1685184#msg1685184

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1690028#msg1690028

Too much material to post here.

Sorry, crackpot sites aren't going to cut it.

Quote

As for the word "flat", please remember that the explosion at Tunguska (7:10 am, June 30, 1908) was seen, instantaneously from London, Stockholm, Antwerp, Berlin, over a supposed curvature of some 5,200 km, while at the same time we are told that the light from the Sun could not reach London at that point in time due to the curvature of the Earth.

I hope you come to realize that not being able to see the sun and being able to see an explosion are not necessarily in conflict. It's fairly simple geometry.

 

Also, I am dismayed by your tactic of expanding the discussion with increasingly tenuous claims. "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" isn't going to cut it.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

The maps I have provided show Pompeii and Herculaneam as cities listed on contemporary maps (1570, 1633, 1725). 

And they still appear on contemporary maps. What does that prove?

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

And they still appear on contemporary maps. What does that prove?

Google maps, just now

 

[sandokhan]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nope. 1900 was not a leap year. There is documentary evidence of that fact.

Again, you are dealing with the conventional calendar of 365.24219 days + one leap day added every four years. 

In the geocentrical context, you have to deal with the new radical theory of chronology, exactly what I have been trying to point out to you so far.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Either way, I am going to suggest this thread is closed: it has no science and an increasingly shaky basis in reality.

Gauss' Easter formula is very scientific. 

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Sorry, crackpot sites aren't going to cut it.

Yes, I knew you'd say this, but I could not post all of that material over here; you seemed to be interested to find out more details.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

I hope you come to realize that not being able to see the sun and being able to see an explosion are not necessarily in conflict. It's fairly simple geometry.

But they are in conflict over a distance of 5,200 km.

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.  It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.  An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.  The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year.  I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

Yours faithfully, 
Katharine Stephen. 
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.



A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'

On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'


The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation:


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat. 



Manotskov decided that the 1908 object, on the other hand, had a far slower entry speed and that, nearing the earth, it reduced its speed to "0.7 kilometers per second, or 2,400 kilometers per hour" - less than half a mile per second.

375 miles = 600 km, or 15 minutes of flight time, given the speed exemplified above


I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).
 

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

A few formulas of interest.

CURVATURE

C = R(1 - cos[s/(2R)]) - angle measured in radians

R = 6378,164 km

s = distance

VISUAL OBSTACLE

BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h²]^1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R


BD = visual obstacle

h = altitude of observer
 

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

And they still appear on contemporary maps. What does that prove?

It proves that those cities were recognized to be living, thriving places in the years listed on the maps: 1570, 1633, 1725. You should remember that both Pompeii and Herculaneum were supposed to be buried under many meters of ash some 1500 years before Ortelius.

[DrP]

11 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

: history does not exist beyond 1000 AD, everything was forged/falsified after 1500 AD.

I have coins that date back way before then.  Did they put false dates on them to trick us or something?   What utter rot.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Sorry, crackpot

 

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

Again, you are dealing with the conventional calendar of 365.24219 days + one leap day added every four years. 

Nope. I am dealing with the calendar year 1900. It has exactly 365 days. 

3 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

Gauss' Easter formula is very scientific. 

What you are doing with it is ... how can I put this politely? Odd.

4 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

Yes, I knew you'd say this, but I could not post all of that material over here; you seemed to be interested to find out more details.

No one intelligent wants to find out more about the crackpot ideas of flat earth's.

 

6 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

You do know that light doesn't always travel in straight lines, don't you? (Actually, perhaps you don't. You don't seem fully acquainted with reality.)

[sandokhan]

2 minutes ago, DrP said:

I have coins that date back way before then.

Numismatic dating problems:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=fomenko+history&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixoYyC18XhAhXGpIsKHVvIC4QQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&q=fomenko history&f=false

pages 90 - 93

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I am dealing with the calendar year 1900. It has exactly 365 days. 

In the geocentrical setting, the year has 364 days, however, the duration of a single day is a bit longer.

You are describing the year as 1900, based on the conventional calendar of history. However, you have already seen that the claim made by Gregory XIII (10 extra days) is completely false.

Fine. 

Here are more proofs.

D" PARAMETER: MOON'S ELONGATION PARADOX

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."

https://web.archive.org/web/20120323153614/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/dsec.htm

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:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120531060430/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton2.htm

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Land. A. 276, 99-110 (1974)


Dr. Robert Newton, Astronomical Evidence Concerning Non-Gravitational Forces in the Earth-Moon System:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120531054411/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton1.htm

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:

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)

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

You are describing the year as 1900, based on the conventional calendar of history.

Correct. Therefore it is a Gregorian calendar. Otherwise it would have had 366 days. It didn't and therefore your opening sentence (and pretty much everything after it, is nonsense).

Fomenko is another crackpot, so anything supported by quoting him is, by definition, wrong. Or is that what all this is based on? You fell for Fomenko's lies and BS and now you are trying to delude others? I didn't release it was a cult. Or is it a contagion?

[DrP]

7 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

Numismatic dating problems:

some of my coins are from the Kushan empire... which was set up before Christ.   And ancient Greece and Rome. They have pictures of Constantine, Claudius etc.. on them.  Are they made up too?

[swansont]

37 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

Yes, I knew you'd say this, but I could not post all of that material over here; you seemed to be interested to find out more details.

I'm sure you've heard it before, and yes I am interested in details, if they are reliable. Your links are not reliable.

Quote

But they are in conflict over a distance of 5,200 km.

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

 

Why are they in conflict? You could, for example, see the moon if it were overhead a point 5200 km away.

Quote

 

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

You seem to be asserting that a large explosion will not send any material upward, and ignores the possibility of reflection off of clouds.

IOW, you seem to be assuming that line-of-sight to the blast itself is the only way for the sky to get bright. Which is bollocks.