The earths axial tilt - presenting evidence for it being much larger 4000 years ago

Originally posted by DM8954

reply to post by tauristercus

 

I had another problem with some of the graphs used to analyze the data. The information is good and I follow you all the way to the part about how the red line curves away from the green line. You only begin to lose me at the graphs which show the asymptotes. They're good to note on their own and they don't seem erroneous but the next set of graphs might be off base, if I'm reading them right.

It seems like you're trying to find a repeating pattern (by zooming out) on the same set of data, which varies between 0 and 3 degrees. You show a repeating cycle with the data from the column in the chart that shows the difference between Lieske and Observation.

Trying to find a repeating pattern was not a deliberate intention on my part.
I was basically trying to re-evaluate Dodwell's original claims and hypothesis and it was only later on after having done so, that I decided to experiment and extend the date range along the x-axis. It was at this point that I noticed that where the original data date range seemed to indicate that the graph tended to an asymptotic value along the x-axis, this was actually not so. Simply by extending the x-axis date range sufficiently, it was clear that this apparent asymptote along the x-axis would eventually begin to rise once again and quite quickly become a vertical asymptote instead and completing a what I call a 'cycle'.
Increasing the date range even further then produced many more standalone 'cycles' both in the future as well as in the past.

Obviously the 'current cycle' that contains the data points used in the Dodwell analysis are valid and therefore I have to assume that the entire 'current cycle' graph shape is also valid, I have to admit that I have no idea what physical interpretation regarding the degree of axial tilt can be attributed to other 'complete cycles' further in the past or further in the future. Perhaps they're meaningful ... perhaps they're just 'artifacts' or 'echoes' of the current cycle and data points within that cycle.

But then again, you can create a simple sine wave graph from a minimum of data points over a minimum range and still have full confidence that no matter how far to the left or right that you then additionally extend that range and resultant sine wave graph, that you can have complete confidence that every point along that potentially infinite sine wave graph is legitimate and meaningful.


[edit on 29/7/10 by tauristercus]

reply to post by tauristercus

To reiterate; there are two problems with the Karnak data point.
1) The assumption that it is meant to align with the summer solstice. Possible? Yes. No doubt about it? No.
2) The construction of the structures postdates the 2045 date by several hundred years. If at the time of its earliest surviving construction it was meant to align with the solstice, the data point must be moved to the right, significantly away from Dodwell's curve. The curve must become much steeper in order for the data point to hit it.

Yes, wrong about Stonehenge. Dodwell:

Nevertheless, the extensive archaeological work which has been carried out at Stonehenge in recent times has made it clear that while there was an earlier blue stone circle at Stonehenge, dating back to the Bronze Age, probably about 1800 B.C., the much later great Sarsen Circle was a grand reconstruction, replacing the earlier one, but incorporating its blue stones in a new and larger design, at a time not greatly before the Romano-British period, which commenced in the 1st Century B.C., and it is probably safe to ascribe it to ancient Druid times, say between 300 and 400 B.C., when the Druids were at the height of power and influence in Britain.

The first bluestones were placed much earlier than 1800 BC, more like 2600 BC. The great sarsen stones were placed at about 2500BC, this has been determined by carbon dating. Some bluestone is incorporated in the sarsen circle but there is no indication that the great sarsen stones were "adjusted" at any time after they were placed and certainly not a late as 320BC.

Sorry, I thought you would have used Lieske to calculate the obliquity in 2500BC. I used a spreadsheet available here to calculate it.
jqjacobs.net...
To get a value of 23.9752 (23º58'30")

Yes, Lockyer's use of archeoastonomy was wildly inaccurate in the case of Karnak and the case of Stonehenge. But at least with Stonehenge there is no doubt that an alignment with the solstice was intended. In this case archeoastronomy (using more accurate calculations) backs up archeology.

While we have that calculator handy, let's look at a couple of other data points.
For 1100BC we get 23º49'32". From the Chinese we get two quite different values for the same date; 23º 54'04" and 24º13'56" for some reason you chose not to use the former which is only 5' away from the calculated value.

The 521AD Nanking observation (with a 9 foot gnomon), off by only 3'.
579, China, off by 4'.
629, China, off by 3'.
829, Bagdad; off by 25". Dang!
880, Syria; off by 50". Woohoo!
829-1019, "numerous Arab observations"; off by 1'.
The Persians and Arabs seemed to be pretty damned good. Why didn't you include them? By doing so, it would further necessitate changing Dodwell's curve.

It seems that there's a good chance that all we are seeing is improving technology. I know that Dodwell claims otherwise but is it reasonable to think that Chinese technology and/or skills did not improve over a span of 1800 years?

I don't buy it.

[edit on 7/29/2010 by Phage]

There are a couple of factors that also skew any data from measures taken from ancient sites as they sit today. Continental drift and elevation change has altered their positions in some cases significantly, not only in just relation to north/south/east/west but to perpendicular as well.

I remembered about where I had read about the Earth's axis changing and it had to do with preccession of the equinoxes.

I haven't sourced anything about the epihelion/perihelion orbit dates mainly because I'm prepairing for vacation tomorrow. So if you are Canadian Happy Civic Holiday!

Talk to you next week.

reply to post by tauristercus


Hi tauristercus

Fantastic thread as usual, I wish ATS had a warning system that you could add members to to get a warning when they post a new thread. It seems I have missed a few of yours...

I wish I had time to read and think about your post properly at the moment and I may be missing the point but what immediately came to mind was this:

The polynomial used to calculate the angle is likely only accurate within a certain range because the data is cyclic. I am surprised that a polynomial is still used and that a better formula hasn't been implemented.

So your premise could still stand and the tilt could have been much greater but I wouldn't make comparisons with the polynomial.

Could you post your data somewhere so we can download it and have a fiddle ourselves? (If I ever have any time)

reply to post by tauristercus

reply to post by tauristercus

suggested reading: WORLDS IN COLLISION , Velikovsky ; PATH OF THE POLES, Hapgood; CATASTROPHISM AND THE OLD TESTAMENT, Patten; CATACLYSYM- COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF A COSMIC CATASTROPHE IN 9500 B.C.; the beautiful payoff of reading these books is more understanding of the implications of books like WHERE TROY ONCE STOOD, Wilkens; or THE BALTIC ORIGINS OF HOMER'S EPIC TALES-THE ILIAD,THE ODYSSEY,AND THE MIGRATION OF MYTH, Felice Vinci. Fascinating stuff! Velikovsky perhaps would have been better received if he had useD a book title like: WORLD-SIZED MAGNETS IN COLLISION.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by boxturtle]

reply to post by tauristercus

suggested reading: WORLDS IN COLLISION , Velikovsky ; PATH OF THE POLES, Hapgood; CATASTROPHISM AND THE OLD TESTAMENT, Patten; CATACLYSYM- COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF A COSMIC CATASTROPHE IN 9500 B.C.; the beautiful payoff of reading these books is more understanding of the implications of books like WHERE TROY ONCE STOOD, Wilkens; or THE BALTIC ORIGINS OF HOMER'S EPIC TALES-THE ILIAD,THE ODYSSEY,AND THE MIGRATION OF MYTH, Felice Vinci. Fascinating stuff! Velikovsky might have been more accepted if he had used the title WORLD-SIZED MAGNETS IN COLLISION.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by boxturtle]

[edit on 29-7-2010 by boxturtle]

[edit on 29-7-2010 by boxturtle]

reply to post by Kulkulkan


Although it wouldnt make much difference given the short timeframes involved, continental movement is another factor Dodwell was unaware of. Not sure he was aware of the other milankovitch cycles which may also be a factor.

Originally posted by tauristercus
Trying to find a repeating pattern was not a deliberate intention on my part.
I was basically trying to re-evaluate Dodwell's original claims and hypothesis and it was only later on... that I decided to experiment and extend the date range along the x-axis. ...

Obviously the 'current cycle' that contains the data points used in the Dodwell analysis are valid and therefore I have to assume that the entire 'current cycle' graph shape is also valid ... Perhaps they're meaningful ... perhaps they're just 'artifacts' or 'echoes' of the current cycle and data points within that cycle. ....

I fully understand that your original intent did not involve searching out a repeating pattern. You simply 'zoomed out' to see what else the data might tell you. The problem is the disconnect between the data being graphed and the meaning behind it. The data involved is how far the new data deviates from observation. You plot the points and try and find an equation that maps the best curve through that data.

[Are you using a program to help you figure this out? I'm assuming so, and that's a good thing, I think. I'm certainly not saying your computer is wrong.]

Once the best equation is chosen, you can draw the rest of the graph to any range and find a value. However, the data itself is information about how one data set deviates from another, so there's no reason to suspect that 120 cycles ago, before humans existed, the data from one column would once again match another column or that, in the future of the current cycle, inaccuracy will increase. The formula that best fits the data within the range we're looking at just happens to continue repeating for ranges beyond what we're looking at.

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by Phage
.... I was just wondering if, should these 2 points prove to be invalid, does that in your opinion invalidate the remaining 69 data points and the associated analysis ? Even if the Karnak data point was removed from the logsine graph, we would still have the identically same shaped graph rapidly descending and converging on circa 2345 B.C. ....

I disagree. The graph would not be identical if the Karnak point was removed. It stand alone at the far end of the graph and does much to shape the curve. I fully expect that by removing that one point, a much shallower curve will result. It doesn't invalidate any of the other points but it would change the final results to some degree. Please do just that. Remove the Karnak point (and Stonehenge, if you want) and show us the resulting graph. I expect the graph to be similar and show a major divergence from the green line... but I doubt the date of 2345 B.C. will still be as significant.

I don't think this change would detract from the significance of the graph but if you can be more accurate, you should. I'm curious to see what really happens to the graph.

I'd like to make another humble request. In addition to re-graphing without the Karnak point, can you please also regraph the red and green lines together again with the scale expanded?


I also don't agree with your assertion that it doesn't matter which pharaoh corresponds with the dating of the site. An accurate written record is important in verifying if the formula is correct. The on-site observations can only prove the tilt of the Earth at the time each monument was constructed. The date of the site uses the angle of tilt in the formula we're examining. Getting a result from inputting numbers into a forumla doesn't prove that the formula is right. When the output of the graph matches known accurate data, can it be assumed correct.

You can't discredit the work of one scientist in the list without discrediting the others because they're all using the same formula. It's the formula, not the data, that is in question here.

...continued

Originally posted by tauristercus
...you can create a simple sine wave graph from a minimum of data points over a minimum range and still have full confidence ... that every point along that potentially infinite sine wave graph is legitimate and meaningful.

This is true, only if the points selected have a high degree of accuracy. If the axis measurement is off by half a degree or the construction of the site is off by 500 years, then you're running the sine wave through a point that's not where it's supposed to be. That will certainly distort the wave in such a way that would introduce inaccuracies, which are amplified further down the x-axis, especially. In this case, we're relatively certain the axis determinations are pretty close to perfect. As you said in the OP, it's a simple tool and a relatively simple process. If, however, our estimates for the dating of the site are wrong by several hundred years [and our uncertainty increases with time] then the curve that fits the data will be skewed accordingly.

If we had a trustworthy written record to say that on exactly 20 June 2601B.C., the final stone version of a gnomon was set into place at a given site and the subsequent solstices were permanently marked at exactly noon, we would be able to fix that point in history with certainly. We could then use our own highly accurate measurements for the current tilt of the Earth as another fixed point. If we had a third extremely accurate point between the two, then yes, we could plot the sine wave graph and trust it with a high degree of certainty to match up with all other valid observations.

On the other hand, if the third point was completely inaccurate (1920AD, 45 degree tilt, for example) then the sine wave would have no hope of being close to correct.

Instead, we have an obvious situation between those two extremes. We can figure out the tilt of the Earth for a given site quite accurately but we have only an estimated range for the age of each site. This makes it plausible that the frequency of the wave could be wrong by 1% or even 10%. It's especially difficult to verify the true accuracy since as we go back in time, the date ranges get wider. (more estimate, less certainty) It also doesn't help that all our data points are on a single portion of the curve. At least if we had a point on the previous crest or trough of the wave, we could be more confident about it.


By the way, I didn't use the 3100BC dates for Stonehenge because these were supposedly built with wood posts, which are no longer on the site and, therefore, weren't used in measuring the alignment of the site at the time we're trying to determine.

This is a key point to understand. The only date that matters is the date when the axis was measured; the date in which the current alignment of the site matched the previously measured tilt of the axis. That could be the day they laid the foundation stone or, if the site underwent reconstruction, it could be sometime in the middle of the history of the site.


By the way, I didn't join this discussion to become a debunker or make you look foolish in some way (and I don't think you do), I just want a better understanding of what this data can and does show. I actually expected to (eventually) be backing you up when I started posting. I guess we'll see what happens, after the graphs are updated with the corrected data. I'm not trying to be on any 'side' here.

Originally posted by Aristophrenia
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Axis tilt and shifting is well understood and has been taken into consideration when dealing with global warming - James Hansen discusses its effect in Storms of My Grand Children - nothing new here what so ever - all this thread represents is a lack of understanding of where modern science is at - perhaps people should do some reading before they present amazing "INSIGHTS" that are already well and truly understood, accepted and have been part of the calculations regarding global warming - read the book.

He is the worlds leading climatologist - planetologist - and was the head of NASA and advisor to several presidents - he the worlds foremost authority on the issue.

Please - just read the book.

www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com...


www.amazon.com...

Just in case people have missed this -
here it is again - nothing new in this thread at all which has not already been well and truly taken into account.

Sorry - but I understand that when you are ignorant about science when you discover something you did not know before you are sure to think it is new information or something which has not been considered - but it has been thoroughly discussed - again read the book.

Originally posted by PuterMan
Just a thought - and this is something the climatologists could not take into account previous poster - it is a known fact that severe earthquakes can affect the rotational speed, and severe impacts could as well, including perhaps affecting the tilt?

Could changes have been made by severe earthquakes and/or impacts?

@aristophrenia

He is the worlds leading climatologist - planetologist - and was the head of NASA and advisor to several presidents - he the worlds foremost authority on the issue.

And that makes him right? Not in my book it doesn't and there are very good reasons why he might (does) have an agenda. In fact re-reading your post I think you do the OP a disservice and your attitude to the OP is extremely condescending. A myopic attitude to a subject will not enable you become enlightened.


[edit on 28/7/2010 by PuterMan]

Instead of getting worked up and undermining the reality of my post by subverting someone who is universally considered the worlds leading authority on this issue - by MILES - perhaps - FOR ONCE - actually read the book and find out what is actually been said and discussed in the global scientific community.

Severe impact could shift the axis however there has been no severe impact for several million years - including the Tunguska Event - earth quakes such as Arche one did indeed shift the earths orbit by fractions of fractions - however my point is that these are well and truly understood and covered.

The primary fluctuations of earths climate are either carbon subduction, carbon emission, variations in earths orbit, variations in earths rotation within that orbit - well defined, well accepted, well understood facts from the global scientific community which have been discussed and considered for decades - if you bother to read science that is - instead of simply dismissing science as a global conspiracy of vested interests - which is absurd.

a Question to Taur and Phage

as both of you see only the old world Stonehenge & Egypt's Pyramids etc..

how about the New World say Tiwanaku ! ?


The Mysterious Origin of Man Clip
(please go to the 3.00 mark cant wait? go to 4.40 mark please ) ! of this clip


Solstice Markers of Tiwanaku were thought were wrong until they rechecked the date to 17,000 year ago and showed perfect alignment ... wow ! goes with the tilt theory.... as it shows n this clip...

reply to post by Wolfenz

The use of archeoastronomy to date the site is problematic. There has been much reconstruction since its discovery and it is likely that the Gateway was originally located in a different part of the city altogether.

The Gate of the Sun is a stone gateway constructed by the Tiwanaku culture. It is located near Lake Titicaca at about 3,825 m above sea level in La Paz, Bolivia. The gate is approximately 9.8 ft (3.0 m) tall and 13 ft (4.0 m) wide. It was originally constructed by a single piece of stone. The weight is estimated to be 10 tons.

When the gate was originally found, it was lying face down and had a large crack. It stands in the place where it was found, although it is believed that this was not its original location.

www.crystalinks.com...


[edit on 7/29/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Aristophrenia


Perhaps you should contribute to the discussion using data from said book rather than dismissing posters as ignorant and telling them to go buy a book.

It can be fun to work things out for yourself and it is prudent to check others work whatever their status. The two presidents you mention obviously valued his opinion - look at the sweeping countermeasures they have taken lol.

After all Einstein didnt stop thinking about gravity because the great Newton had worked it out first.

[edit on 30/7/2010 by LightFantastic]

reply to post by Phage


Phage you Know that the Whole temple is a astronomical clock right ?
not just the Gateway of the Sun there's the gateway of the Moon (lunar)

also Phage ! the Archway of the Temple ! Kalasasaya
NOT The GATEWAY of the SUN

was the Study of the Measurements

in my Previous Post i did NOT say anything about the Gateway of the Sun

what i said was Solstice Markers but i didn't say where... as i hope that you would of caught on.. in the video if you have watched it ..

the First day of Spring The Sun was at the center through the Archway of the Temple Listen Carefully at the 3.50 min mark..

a pic of The temple Archway Entrance showing the Markers
The stone steps Kalasasaya - Tiwanaku, Bolivia


The Back side of the Archway Entrance



Ill Admit it was a Cruddy drawing/painting they used for reference to explain the Alignment probably during the making of the documentary they did have a good graphics technician on NBC in 1996.. but did not use one

www.tiwy.com...
www.atlantisquest.com...




if the Gateway of the Sun was on the ground
whats the deal with this drawing ? Erected?
if it holds any ground ...

"Gateway of the Sun", Tiwanaku, drawn by Ephraim Squier in 1877.
www.world-mysteries.com...


[edit on 30-7-2010 by Wolfenz]

Originally posted by LightFantastic
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Hi tauristercus

Could you post your data somewhere so we can download it and have a fiddle ourselves? (If I ever have any time)

Thanks for the words of encouragement ... always appreciated

Regarding your request for the data, here it is plus the graphs derived from the data.
If you'd prefer, I can send you the full data set as a word doc ... just U2U me.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/218c6e5aa530.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's the Observation data as a graph:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f323ec45bb49.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's the Lieske data as a graph:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d0ed2906cb83.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's the combined Observed and Lieske data:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/28bf2c19957f.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's the logsine graph based on the Difference data:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f4f3ccd2b90f.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Sorry, I thought you would have used Lieske to calculate the obliquity in 2500BC. I used a spreadsheet available here to calculate it.
jqjacobs.net...
To get a value of 23.9752 (23º58'30")

It would appear that the spreadsheet you're using isn't particularly accurate. It gave a close value but using the actual Lieske equation gives a value of 23º 58' 45" ... a difference of +15".

Yes, Lockyer's use of archeoastonomy was wildly inaccurate in the case of Karnak and the case of Stonehenge.

Really ?? According to who and based on who's expert evidence and analysis ?

While we have that calculator handy, let's look at a couple of other data points.
For 1100BC we get 23º49'32".

Nope ... correct value is 23º 49' 40" ... a difference of 8".
As I mentioned above, your spreadsheet doesn't appear to be particularly accurate.

The 521AD Nanking observation (with a 9 foot gnomon), off by only 3'.
579, China, off by 4'.
629, China, off by 3'.
829, Bagdad; off by 25". Dang!
880, Syria; off by 50". Woohoo!
829-1019, "numerous Arab observations"; off by 1'.

I'm not sure what your point is by referencing the above.
Those differences are all contained in the data set and taken out of context (as you have done) from the entire data set ... are by themselves not telling us much.

Interestingly enough, you didn't go any further than 521 A.D. If you had, then we'd immediately be seeing some extremely interesting differences between observed data and calculated data ... and these differences are not just 3 or 4 minutes.

Here, let me show what you failed to mention started happening immediately after you stopped your examples with the 521 A.D. Nanking observation.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c8dbe3d6f80.jpg[/atsimg]

Why didn't you include them? By doing so, it would further necessitate changing Dodwell's curve.

Without noticing, I had originally uploaded a shorter version of the entire data set.
A full data set table has been supplied in my post to LightFantastic
with associated graphs.

It seems that there's a good chance that all we are seeing is improving technology. I know that Dodwell claims otherwise but is it reasonable to think that Chinese technology and/or skills did not improve over a span of 1800 years?
I don't buy it.

What are you talking about ? "improving technology" ? How the heck do you improve on a wooden rod stuck into the ground ? After all, that is basically ALL that a gnomon consists of and is what was used for millennia to determine the obliquity of the ecliptic.
So what was improved do you think ? Perhaps the Greek, Chinese, Hindu, Arab, Persian, etc ability to measure how long a piece of wood was and how long the shadow cast by that piece of wood on the ground was ? Measure the shadow, measure the length of pole, then do some very simple geometry to obtain an angle ... all within easy capability of all those civilizations. After all, the Babylonians were quite capable of sophisticated mathematics millennia ago and had no problems solving quadratic equations and wouldn't be stumped by measuring a length of shadow and pole.

So how would you say that the wooden pole "technology" improved between say the Chinese observation in 1120 BC (+24' 06" difference from expected) and the Chinese observation in 521 AD (+4' 11" difference from expected) that you used as an example earlier of "potentially improved measuring technology" ?

Anyway, I'm more than certain that all those past civilizations were quite capable of working out how long a shadow or piece of wood was and coming up with very accurate determinations of the axial tilt for their era.

reply to post by tauristercus


What are you talking about ? "improving technology" ? How the heck do you improve on a wooden rod stuck into the ground ?

Use a metal rod???

Only joking mate..Great thread and its a shame some posters just try to argue BS little bits without really discussing the actual concept.
Small man syndrome. Next it will be your spelling

reply to post by tauristercus


The 'improved technology' was the discovery of precession and that earth tilts on its axis - something not known to those who erected earlier gnomons. Thus they became more accurate.


btw how do we know the exact angle and position to which an ancient gnomon was set? Or do we presume it was set to the angle necessary to fit our hypothesis?

And does stonehenge fit with 350BC because it was re-erected incorrectly by the Victorians