| May 22, 2024, 7:33 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 |
| October 03, 2001 04:19AM |
<HTML>R. Avry Wilson wrote:
>
> Mike....
>
> (You quoted Dave Moore as follows):
>
> "Bauval on p. 261 of Keeper of Genesis/Message of the Sphinx
> (Figure 66) has the Sun rising 14 degrees south of East in
> 10500 BC, to the east of Regulus (Alpha Leonis). This is
> aligned with the angle of one of the causeways, which is also
> aligned 14 degrees south of East. This is one of the major
> planks of his "Giza complex was planned in 10500 BC"
> hypothesis.
>
> However, when I went and checked this out, I got the Sun
> rising only 11
> degrees to the south of East (and to the West of Regulus)."
> [sic]
>
> Dave, Dave, Dave. You too, Mike. I politely ask that you have
> another look at those words, and tell me what's wrong with
> them. Thanks.
>
> Oh, and this one's for Dave Moore: Still don't know how to
> make sense of the software, do you?
>
> Avry
Ah, same old Avry: "never mind the facts, just mind the ego".
Frankly, Avry, for someone who acts like he thinks he knows something about astronomy - it is obvious that you know very little.
Let's look at Keeper of Genesis:
RB & GH claim the14 degrees offset in the cross-quarter sunrise at 10500 BC match the alignment of one of the causeways. Fair enough. At first glance, this seems like a good plank to support their hypothesis.
<B>However</B>
The diagram displayed on p. 261 of Keeper of Genesis has been generated using Skyglobe.
However, Skyglobe fails to take into account the long term changes in the obliquity of the Earth's axis over a period of 41,000 years which results in the extent ("depth") of the Ecliptic in the sky changing cyclically over this time from about 21 degrees to 25 degrees. This wobbling can can seen in just about any other astronomical software (e.g. Skymap Pro 7, Redshift 3, Skychart III, indeed it can actually be seen in a diagram in Keeper of Genesis a couple of pages before p. 261 [1]).
What this means is that at 10500 BC, the Ecliptic, instead of passing just to the south of Regulus as shown by Skyglobe, actually passed to the north of Regulus. It moved. The offset was not 14 degrees but 11-12 degrees.
<I>Therefore GH & RB's claim that the causeway alignment is the same as the cross-quarter sunrise offset in 10500 BC is erroneous.</I>
Best Regards,
Dave
[1] So we have the situation where in one part of the book the offset can be seen to be <B>not</B> 14 degrees, yet in another part of the book, it is claimed that the offset is indeed 14 degrees. <I>Eh?</I>.</HTML>
>
> Mike....
>
> (You quoted Dave Moore as follows):
>
> "Bauval on p. 261 of Keeper of Genesis/Message of the Sphinx
> (Figure 66) has the Sun rising 14 degrees south of East in
> 10500 BC, to the east of Regulus (Alpha Leonis). This is
> aligned with the angle of one of the causeways, which is also
> aligned 14 degrees south of East. This is one of the major
> planks of his "Giza complex was planned in 10500 BC"
> hypothesis.
>
> However, when I went and checked this out, I got the Sun
> rising only 11
> degrees to the south of East (and to the West of Regulus)."
> [sic]
>
> Dave, Dave, Dave. You too, Mike. I politely ask that you have
> another look at those words, and tell me what's wrong with
> them.
Thanks.>
> Oh, and this one's for Dave Moore: Still don't know how to
> make sense of the software, do you?
>
> Avry
Ah, same old Avry: "never mind the facts, just mind the ego".
Frankly, Avry, for someone who acts like he thinks he knows something about astronomy - it is obvious that you know very little.
Let's look at Keeper of Genesis:
RB & GH claim the14 degrees offset in the cross-quarter sunrise at 10500 BC match the alignment of one of the causeways. Fair enough. At first glance, this seems like a good plank to support their hypothesis.
<B>However</B>
The diagram displayed on p. 261 of Keeper of Genesis has been generated using Skyglobe.
However, Skyglobe fails to take into account the long term changes in the obliquity of the Earth's axis over a period of 41,000 years which results in the extent ("depth") of the Ecliptic in the sky changing cyclically over this time from about 21 degrees to 25 degrees. This wobbling can can seen in just about any other astronomical software (e.g. Skymap Pro 7, Redshift 3, Skychart III, indeed it can actually be seen in a diagram in Keeper of Genesis a couple of pages before p. 261 [1]).
What this means is that at 10500 BC, the Ecliptic, instead of passing just to the south of Regulus as shown by Skyglobe, actually passed to the north of Regulus. It moved. The offset was not 14 degrees but 11-12 degrees.
<I>Therefore GH & RB's claim that the causeway alignment is the same as the cross-quarter sunrise offset in 10500 BC is erroneous.</I>
Best Regards,
Dave
[1] So we have the situation where in one part of the book the offset can be seen to be <B>not</B> 14 degrees, yet in another part of the book, it is claimed that the offset is indeed 14 degrees. <I>Eh?</I>.</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.