Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors
Web Links

May 6, 2024, 11:55 am UTC    
 In:  The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic
 Goto:  Forum List  •  Create A New Profile  •  Log In
  Ancient History •  Ancient Egypt •  Laboratory •  Humanities •  Apocalypse •  Paper Lens •  Coffee Shop
  Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals •  Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Stephen Tonkin
August 12, 2001 04:41PM
<HTML>Bent wrote:

> Yet, if you take the point of Aires, as given by your
> software, Beta Virgo (11hrs 50' 46" ) or 177* from the
> present point of Aries (vernal equinox) the sun has only
> covered 148* of the ecliptic in 12450 yrs, which is clearly
> impossible. What is wrong here? Care to have a go?

I am unclear as to what you are doing. The 177 deg is entirely consistent. I don't see how the Sun can be considered to 'cover' the ecliptic as the ecliptic <i> by definition </i> moves with the Sun, i.e. the ecliptic longitude of the Sun at any vernal equinoxis 0.000.</HTML>
Reply Quote
Subject Author Posted

To S. Tonkin or Dave Moore

Bent August 11, 2001 06:27PM

Re: To S. Tonkin or Dave Moore

Bent August 11, 2001 06:29PM

Re: To S. Tonkin or Dave Moore

Stephen Tonkin August 12, 2001 02:46AM

Re: To S. Tonkin or Dave Moore

Dave Moore August 12, 2001 06:54AM

Re: To S. Tonkin or Dave Moore

Bent August 12, 2001 02:40PM

Re: To S. Tonkin or Dave Moore

Dave Moore August 12, 2001 02:54PM

Re: To S. Tonkin or Dave Moore

Bent August 12, 2001 03:01PM

Re: To S. Tonkin or Dave Moore

Stephen Tonkin August 12, 2001 04:41PM

Re: To S. Tonkin or Dave Moore

Bent August 12, 2001 05:09PM

Re: To S. Tonkin or Dave Moore

Dave Moore August 12, 2001 05:44PM

Re: To S. Tonkin or Dave Moore

Bent August 12, 2001 06:07PM

Re: To S. Tonkin or Dave Moore

Stephen Tonkin August 13, 2001 01:29AM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login