> The standard for our quantity 'time' is (or better
> was*) related to the rotation of the earth.
> The mechanics of the Earth-Moon(-Sun) system are
> very complicated and still not fully understood by
> science.

Let's see. I know some rocket scientists who might debate that. In fact, they have to--otherwise they couldn't send anything out past Earth's gravitational fields. Heck, we know the mechanics well enough to send things to Saturn.


> Gravitational and non-gravitational forces are
> acting within the system. Non-gravitational forces
> like tidal friction can not be quantified good
> enough. The existing theories of tidal friction
> are still inadequate.

For what, exactly, are they inadequate?
>
> Observations of the rotation of the earth have
> shown that earth is slowing down (at the same time
> the rotation of the Moon is accelerating).
>
> Delta-T is defined as the difference between
> Terrestrial Dynamic Time and Universal Time
> (Delta-T = TDT – UT) and as such is a measure of
> the rotation of the Earth.
> If Earth’s rotation would be uniform, than Delta-T
> would be a constant. But it is not!

So?
>
> Now how do we know how fast the Earth rotated in
> let’s say 1758 or in 1832?

We had clocks. And in the 18th C we were using observatories?


> From his analyses R.R. Newton concluded that some
> behaviour of the celestial system before ca. 700
> CE seemed to be different from the present.
>
> Newton’s proposal to solve the problem was a
> hypothetical ‘square wave’ in the accelerations
> that lasted from about 700 to 1300 CE. (During
> that timeperiod the accelerations differed from
> those before and after by a factor 5). ^)

Why does he think this? Square waves are not normally found in nature, BTW.

> Fomenko came up with a whole different explanation
> of the data. He claimed that all dating before
> 1300 CE must be seriously wrong!
>
> As far as the physics are concerned this is a
> valid proposal! It solves the detected problem.
> But the next thing is: how do you prove it right!

There IS no detected problem.

>
> This is were the pseudoscience begins, because he
> has to turn over a lot of what is known about the
> history of antiquity and the Middle Ages!
>
> To do so he heavily leans on complicated
> statistics to show that all dynasties / kinglists
> from the antiquities and Middle Ages really are
> reflections of later ones.
>
> The statistics are formidable! (Like I said
> before: he is a brilliant mathematician.)
> But he seems to mess around a lot with the
> datasets: ignoring rulers, combining rulers into
> one, reversing the sequence of rulers and such.
>
> And he has to claim that almost all of the ancient
> records are falsifications and he denies the
> validity of dating methods such as C14 and
> dendrochonology.


Someone needs to see if he is behind this work of genius: [www.timecube.com]

Either this guy took too many pills, or he's in serious need of some heavy-duty drugs.