Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: Markus Kuhn
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 14:53:25 -0500
mlyle@scvnet.com wrote:
> >> pascal - Pa (newtons per square meter pressure, 100 kPa is very
> >> close to typical sea level athmospheric pressure)
> OK, the above is true, but _why_ is the abbreviation "Pa" instead of "P"?
There is the prefix "peta" = "P" = 10^15.
> It seems that the SI, which is a quest for consistant units, has
> really dropped the ball when it comes to abbreviations. The
> selection of names with the same first letters (Henry, Hertz,
> Watt, Weber) increases the chance of error. Yes, it's nice to
> honor scientists, but not by making everyone's lives more difficult!
When the SI was created and improved, CGPM tried to honor existing
practice in the old metric system, which was already used in most
countries over hundred years before. Therefore, there are a number of
minor inconsistencies (e.g., that KILOgram is a base unit and that both
meter and milli are abbreviated as "m" are probably the most important
ones), that are justified by over hundred of years usage in almost all
countries of the world.
Yes, there are a few tiny things in the SI that could be improved from a
very academic point of view, but I assure you that these do not present
a problem in daily live. In constrast to popular believe in the U.S.,
the SI was not intended as an academic design of pure beauty, but as a
very practical set of definitions for daily usage in industry, trade and
science. Therefore, backwards compatibility with the widely used metric
units was a major design point, and only where fundamental design
principles of the SI were violated, the metric system practice has been
changed. For example: the old metric unit "bar" for pressure was not
consistent with the base units, therefore the pascal was introduced to
replace the bar in the SI. Similarly, the old metric kilopond (force of
one kilogram on Earth at sea level) was replaced by the Newton and
degrees Celsius were replaced by the new SI base unit kelvin (in a way
that makes conversion between degrees Celsius and kelvin very easy).
The main design goal of the SI was that there are no conversion units
necessary when you calculate with SI base and derived units, which is
VERY convenient when you do physics and engineering calculations. You
just convert everything into Si base and derived units without prefixes
and then drop all units, insert the value into the formula and get the
result again in an SI unit.
This allows you to write down formulas without having to think about
which units have to be used, i.e. you write "F = m*a" instead of
"F [in N] = m [in kg] * a [in m/s^2]". I am always amazed how
often I see the second form of formula, which is given together with the
units that have to be used, in U.S. engineering text books. Writing down
a formula in a way that depends on the units that are used is a somewhat
ridiculous concept for someone like me who has learned very early in
highschool how elegant work with a congruent system of Units like SI is
(or even like cgs, another coherent system of units, that isn't used
today any more, except in U.S. physics textbooks, where the authors
still think for some strange reasons that you can't explain
electro-magnetic fields nicely in SI units). May be, the advantage of a
coherent system of units is just difficult to grasp for authors who have
grown up in the inch-pound world, where you always have to worry about
lots of conversion factors and can't simply look at a formula without
considerung the units that have to be used.
Markus
--
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science grad student, Purdue
University, Indiana, US, email: kuhn@cs.purdue.edu
Subject: Re: Speculation on Intelligence. (was: Re: Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?)
From: Michael Martin-Smith
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:42:15 +0000
In article , Peter Kwangjun Suk
writes
>[Post responses to rec.arts.sf.science only. See below.]
>
>In article <55u8pq$1qi@lace.colorado.edu>, fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU
>(Frank Crary) wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> Peter Kwangjun Suk wrote:
>> >> Given the fact
>> >> that I've encountered a homo sapien who wouldn't pass the Turing
>> >> test, I don't think it's a useful means of identifying intelligent
>> >> life. Another species is likely to think and communicate in
>> >> very different ways, so it could easily be intelligent but not
>> >> seem intelligent to a human observer.
>>
>> >We don't yet have any "xenological examples" to establish what is
>> >"universal" to intelligence and what is not. And until we know more about
>> >intelligence, we have to rely on such data.
>>
>> Bad methodology. It's better to say, "we don't know" than to make
>> inaccurate predictions based on a sample of one intelligent species.
>
>Oh brother! Why does everyone on Usenet assume that you are a
>mall-mentality moron? Is everyone so hip to correct you that they
>automatically interpret what you say in the stupidest possible manner?
>Please read the post. I *am* saying "we don't know," but also: "let's
>just speculate for the hell of it." (All you "scientists" out there, when
>you hypothesize about someone's low intelligence, let's see some attempt
>to prove the null hypothesis! Or are all of you so eager to get your
>"demand rigor" merit badges that it interferes with your reading
>comprehension?)
>
>> >...But this is
>> >rec.arts.sf.science, so we can speculate. What do you folks think of the
>> >items on this list (as regards to being or not being universal attributes
>> >of intelligence):
>>
>> > 1) Language with syntax
>>
>> Doubtful. Syntax is variable and subject to exceptions, even in
>> human, written languages. In spoken language, I don't know anyone
>> whose syntax is always correct, and quite a few people who rarely
>> speak sentence with correct or consistent syntax.
>
>But they use *some* kind of syntax. And what the heck is "correct" syntax
>anyways? For many decades, "Black English" was considered to be
>degenerate, and carried a "lower-class" cachet. (Still.) However, a
>careful analysis reveals that its syntax reflects that of some African
>languges. It's just a different syntax, and not in any way inherently
>inferior. (i.e. You can be just as stupid speaking like a Harvard grad.)
>
>> > 2) A concept of "self" / Self Awareness
>>
>> Good, but difficult to measure. The only easily measured indicator of
>> this is the use of a personal name, and that might be an instinct
>> rather than a sign of intelligence.
>
>And who cares about measurement right now? Not I. Who mentioned it? Not
>I. Did someone posit this stuff as "a rigorous set of criteria for
>determining intelligence"? Not I. Is someone trying to unilaterally
>impose a context which puts them in the position of "corrector of poor
>unwashed dolt on Usenet?" Let me guess...
>
>A lot of these things will be unmeasurable for now, until we understand
>more about intelligence. Right now, let's just engage in some pure
>sophistry. Just like folks did way back when they speculated about the
>composition of stars. (After all, Kafka gave that as an example of
>something we'd *never* be able to determine empirically. Who knows?)
>
>> > 4) Is a social organism
>>
>> Reasonable, but it would also give false positives: Ants are socially
>> organized but not intelligent.
>
>Yes, but is it a requisite? Is it necessary? How could it arise in a
>non-social organism? Could it arise in a unique organism? (Only one of
>it's kind.) Or could an enitre species could become collectively
>intelligent? It's hard to imagine how, without the kind of evolutionary
>arms race likely to occur in social animals, but is it necessarily
>impossible? Is it even remotely possible that participation in a
>collective intelligence would increase the likelihood that certain genes
>would be passed on?
>
>> > 6) Curiosity
>>
>> Why? Homo sapien is, but what makes that a universal property of
>> intelligent life?
>
>But why would an organism with no curiosity at all do any
>intellectualizing? Perhaps it would excercise its intelligence only in
>response to threats. It could even do this in a long-term fashion,
>carrying on active "research" about remembered threats.
>
>...I see now that there are perhaps too many cross-posts in the header.
>Please post replies to rec.arts.sf.science only. (Oh well, so I came
>recklessly into the middle of a thread again.)
>
>To Frank: You're much more knowledgeable than I about much of this stuff.
>Peace.
>
>--PKS
>
Actually, it is very hard to define "Intelligence", but one point of
interest is that the Universe is intelligible at all; this seems to
imply that the Universe itself is some kind of Academy or interactive
learning game. One sign of intelligence might be the diascovery that
another race was also interacting with the Universe in a way that
suggested they have come to a similar conclusion; this need not
necessarily be the presence of Hard science or technology, but could be
Spirituality or Art .
However, given the recent discoveries in the area of asteroid
mass extinctions, and probable Oort clouds as a feature of planetary
systems formations, it is doubtful if any enduring civilised
Intelligence can exist without forming a Kardashev type 2 civilisation -
or, at least, any which have elected not to colonise Space would be
self-evidently myopic, and dangerous for us to copy!
We should therefore look for evidence of Kardashev type two
civilisations. Any races that have not yet got there are at best only 2-
3 generations ahead of us, and probably have little to teach us. And now
I wait for the brickbats!!
Michael Martin-Smith
--
Michael Martin-Smith
Subject: Re: REDSHIFT ??
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 01:20:02 GMT
Dan Crispin Matthew Brown (dcb124@mail.usask.ca) wrote:
: [...]
: : BG> [...]
: : BG> It can be shown that as a light photon propogates from a dense to
: : BG> a less dense medium, it will experience a gravitationl redshift
: : BG> proportional to the density difference between its pt of emission
: : BG> and pt of observation. Assumeing a Big Bang Cosmological model it
: : BG> must be remembered that LIGHT FROM DISTANT GALAXIES ORIGINATED IN
: : BG> THE PAST WHEN THE DENSITY OF THE UNIVERSE WAS GREATER THAN
: : BG> TODAY.
: : In describing our Universe, astronomers use general relativity. From
: : GR, one can show how the Universe's density changes with time *and*
: : show how more distant objects have higher redshifts. In short, any
: : such effect would be incorporated already into the expression for the
: : cosmological redshift.
: Question: Assuming that the universe is constantly expanding, where is the
: center? I've been told by numerous people (my prof included) that since
: the universe is infinite, it has no center irregardless of it's expansion.
: However, if the Big Bang model of the universe is correct, then at t=0 the
: universe was at its center and it expanded from there. Someone mentioned
: to me however that since at t=0 the universe was at its center, because it
: expanded the center expanded as well. Therefore the universe is its own
: center.
The universe has no center because it is not the material that makes up
the universe expanding into a pre-existing space but the spacetime of the
universe itself expanding and taking all the particles in it allong for
the ride.
: In my original post (Quasar controversy), I mentioned the cosmological
: expansion process (and since no one bothered to correct me, I assume it
: was correct). So if points A and B near the start of the universe are
: like so:
:
: A B
: and BOOM, suddenly the universe expands. Relative to a third stationary
: observer C these two points would be receding from each other at Z
: recessional velocity.
: A - - - - B
: C
: Wouldn't these two points appear to be at rest when viewed from either
: point? THe Z redshift measured would measure the rate at which the
: universe is expanding, not the rate at which they are moving away from
: each other. Points A and B are still at the same distance from the other,
: they will never become farther apart. According to C however, these two
: points are expanding. WOuld it not be concluded then that the redshift is
: not due to any true velocity, but due to the physics of space
: "stretching"?
It actually makes no difference if spacetime is expanding or objects are
moving through spacetime, because the effects are identicle.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: SJI's Sky and Space Update - 11/08/96
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 03:45 UT
SAN JUAN INSTITUTE'S SKY AND SPACE UPDATE
Provides adults and youths with summary information about the night sky
and recent findings and events in solar system exploration and science.
Updated weekly.
LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY NOVEMBER 8, 1996
Prepared by: Dr. Bruce Betts
OBJECTS TO LOOK FOR IN THE NIGHT SKY (MID-NORTHERN LATITUDES)
JUPITER, the brightest natural object in the evening sky other than the
Moon, is low in the southwest around sunset, looking like a very bright
star. The MOON is to the upper right of Jupiter on Nov. 14.
SATURN is in the southeast shortly after sunset and high in the south
by mid-evening. It looks like a fairly bright yellowish star, and is the
brightest object in that part of the sky.
VENUS is in the east before dawn, looking like an extremely bright
star. It is the brightest natural object in the sky besides the Sun and the
Moon.
MARS rises around midnight and is visible in the south before dawn,
looking like a reddish-yellowish star.
THE MOON
New Moon occurs November 10 at 8:16 p.m. PDT (UT-7 hours).
PLANETARY SPACECRAFT UPDATE
The Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft was successfully launched on
Nov. 7, beginning its voyage to Mars. MGS is an orbiter carrying six
scientific instruments to study the atmosphere, surface, and interior of
Mars. It will go into orbit around Mars in September 1997, and will then
begin a series of aerobraking and thruster maneuvers over the months that
follow that will bring it into its circular, nearly polar mapping orbit.
For more information on Mars Global Surveyor, see http://mgs-www.jpl.nasa.gov/.
The Galileo orbiter completed its first close pass (1100 km or 680 mi)
by Jupiter's moon Callisto on Nov. 4. Several instruments obtained data for
Callisto and also Europa, Io, and Jupiter. Data will be transmitted back
from the encounter over the next several weeks. For more on the Galileo
mission, including some recent visible and near-infrared images of Io, see
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo.
SPECIAL: EUROPA OCEAN CONFERENCE
San Juan Institute will host Europa Ocean: An International Conference
on Nov. 12-14, 1996. This NASA and NSF sponsored science conference will
bring together scientists from around the world to explore ideas related to
Europa's possible ocean, submarine volcanism, and possible exobiologic
implications. Europa is one of the four large Galilean satellites of
Jupiter. Data and theory have suggested (though not proven) that Europa may
have an ocean of liquid water beneath its icy crust. Europa undergoes tidal
heating similar to that driving the spectacular volcanism on the Jovian moon
Io, and this heating may have been sufficient to melt the ice and maintain
an ocean.More on the conference can be found at:
http://www.sji.org/conf/europa.html.
SPACE SHUTTLE UPDATE:
Launch of the Space Shuttle Columbia on mission STS-80 was postponed
from Nov. 8 until at least Nov. 15 to give managers more time to fully
evaluate irregular erosion found on one Reusable Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM)
nozzle after the last Shuttle mission. There will be a Nov. 11 Flight
Readiness Review which should firm up the launch date.
During the planned 16-day STS-80 mission, Columbia's astronauts will
deploy and retrieve two science satellites and two of the astronauts will
conduct a pair of space walks to fine-tune techniques which will be used
during the assembly of the International Space Station.
More information on the Space Shuttle can be found at
http://shuttle.nasa.gov and more information on Shuttle-Mir activities
including John Blaha's continued activities on board Mir can be found at:
http://shuttle-mir.nasa.gov.
THIS WEEK IN SPACE HISTORY
Nov. 12, 1966: Astronauts on board Gemini 12, the last flight of the
Gemini program, viewed a Solar eclipse from space.
Nov. 12, 1980: Voyager 1 flew past Saturn.
Nov. 13, 1971: Mariner 9 became the first spacecraft to go into orbit
around Mars, and eventually map the entire surface of the planet.
RANDOM SPACE FACT
Europa, covered with mostly water ice, has the smoothest surface of any
large object in the solar system. This satellite of Jupiter has a mostly
flat surface, with no discovered topographic relief larger than 1 km (0.6
mi) in height, even though Europa has an intricate set of cracks
criss-crossing its icy surface.
********************************************************************
The San Juan Institute (SJI) is a non-profit corporation headquartered
in San Juan Capistrano, CA with divisions there and in Tucson, AZ. SJI
carries out research and education in planetary science, Earth science, and
astronomy, with funding provided by NASA and other government grants, as
well as private donations, which are always needed. Partial funding for
SJI's Sky and Space Update has been provided by NASA's Solar System
Exploration Division.
San Juan Capistrano Research Institute Ph: 714-240-2010, Fax: 714-240-0482
31872 Camino Capistrano Email: educate@sji.org
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Web site: http://www.sji.org
Subject: Re: Thermodynamic definition of life (was Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?)
From: Phillip Bigelow
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 20:02:31 -0800
David L Evens wrote:
> Actually, the most common argument I've seen against considering viri to
> be alive is that they MUST have living hosts to reproduce. There exist
> no possible set of natural environmental conditions that would allow
> isolated viri to reproduce.
Some biochemists have defined viruses as rogue chemical messagers.
As such, they are probably best left defined as:
"Not alive, yet acting as life".
There are no rules in the rulebooks that say we can't define
intermediates. Perhaps new nomenclature will eventually
be necessary:
"Psudo-life", "semi-life", "proto-life", "para-life".
For the "purists" out there, this, of course, is an abomination.
For me, it just makes individual case-studies so much easier
to understand. Similarly, if we remove the handcuffs from our
present "only One" definition of life, we also remove one more
undesirable piece of baggage from the definition, that being the
traditional religious overtones that convey an over-blown
specialness to life. After all, life is just another prosaic part of
nature; it is not separate from it.
So, instead of getting a headache trying to fit "A" definition for
"life", just cheat a little, and define new words.
I'm not sure I fully understand this thread on the entropy-definition
for "life", so I won't comment much, except to say this:
When one casts a over-sized net for fish, he/she may wind-up
with more garbage than fish. We may be including irrelevant
phenomena as "garbage" in our search for life, if we define life
so broadly.
For instance, since planet Earth has an atmosphere that is
not in chemical equilibrium with it's hydrosphere and lithosphere,
Gaia proponents claim that that dis-equilibrium is evidence of life.
Which I agree with. But could not the Earth, itself, also be considered
a single life-form under this defintion? Since everything
interacts with everything else inside this system, what components
of the planet are explicitly NOT associated with life?
I would be hesitant to answer this question with any conviction! :-)
Subject: Re: "Historically Incorrect" ancient eclipses: A count down
From: kayjail@aol.com
Date: 11 Nov 1996 04:49:03 GMT
ASTROCHRONOLOGY:
THE SCIENCE OF ECLIPSE DATING AND
ESTABLISHING "HISTORICAL CORRECTNESS"
The recent advent of electronic eclipse canons has led to
some interesting discoveries with regard to many of the
eclipses currently used to help establish important
ancient Biblical historical dates. The book "Aid to
Bible Understanding" (WBTS, 1971, p. 330) under the
subheading "ASTRONOMICAL CALCULATIONS" summarizes the
significance of accurately identified eclipses for the
purpose of what is commonly referred to as "absolute
dating." It says:
"The claim is made that "astronomical confirmations
can convert a relative chronology [one that merely
establishes the sequence of events] into an
absolute chronology, specifically, a system of
dates related to our calendar." (*The Old Testament
World* by Martin Noth, p. 272). While the
celestial bodies are the means provided by man's
Creator for human astronomical data with human
measurement of time, nevertheless the correlation
of astronomical data with human events in the past
is subject to various factors and human
interpretations allowing for error."
But just how much ERROR are we talking about? Well, the
following is a list of eleven eclipses used to date the
Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Greco-Persian periods and
one eclipse commonly used to date Herod's death.
How many of them do you think are HISTORICALLY CORRECT?
That is, how many can be dismissed just based upon
historical mismatch or contradiction? The following
review demonstrates that nine out of eleven are
"historically incorrect." That is, incorrect based upon
the specific historical information provided in the
actual historical document or record that recorded the
eclipse event.
Here are the eclipses. The first nine are taken
directly from the list provided in "The Mysterious
Numbers of the Hebrew Kings" by E.R. Thiele under
Appendix II: ECLIPSES ESTABLISHING THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE
ANCIENT NEAR EAST. To this are added two additional
well-known historical eclipses.
DATE OF ECLIPSE(BCE) YEAR OF KING
1. 15 June 763 10th year of Ashur-dan III
2. 19 March 721 1st year of Mardokempados
3. 8 March 720 2nd year of Mardokempados
4. 1 Sept 720 2nd year of Mardokempados
5. 22 April 621 5th year of Nabopolassar
6. 4 July 568 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar
7. 16 July 523 7th year of Cambyses
8. 19 Nov. 502 20th year of Darius
9. 25 April 491 31st year of Darius
ADDITIONAL ECLIPSES
10. 28 May 585 BCE Lydian-Median Truce (Herodotus)
11. 13 March 4 BCE Date of Herod's death
DISMISSING PTOLEMY'S ECLIPSES:
The "Aid Book" again notes under the sub-heading
"Ptolemy's Canon" on page 327:
"Due to the lack of information from Babylonian
sources, modern historians base their chronology
for the Neo-Babylonian Empire largely upon what is
known as the canon of Ptolemy. Claudius Ptolemy
lived in Egypt during the second century C.E. or
over 600 years after the close of the Neo-
Babylonian period... Ptolemy was not a historian
and is known primarily for his works on astronomy
and geography. As E.R. Thiele states: "Ptolemy's
canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not
historical, purposes. It did not pretend to give a
complete list of all the rulers of either Babylon
or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the
beginning of their reigns, but it was a device
which made possible the correct allocation into a
broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical
data which were then available." --*The Mysterious
Numbers of the Hebrew Kings*, 1951, p. 293, ftn."
In other words, what Ptolemy did was to superimpose the
best history he had available six centuries later over
his canon of eclipses thus using kings to date his
eclipses instead of eclipses to date his kings.
Out of the first nine eclipses listed only #1, #6 and #7
can be excluded as not belonging exclusively to Ptolemy
and thus we can dismiss the other six eclipses right of
the bat. Why?
Because these are not "observed eclipses" from the Neo-
Babylonian or Assyrian periods, they are just predicted
eclipses matched with the contemporary secular dating
available, revised or otherwise.
To emphasize how ridiculous it is to consider Ptolemy for
"absolute dating" purposes, you need only check on the
one solar eclipse he reports on: April 22, 621 B.C. in
the 5th year of Nabopolassar. If you run this eclipse
through your electronic eclipse canon you'll discover
that it is a total solar eclipse that began near Hong
Kong and crossed over the Pacific ending around Chicago
(USA). That's right. It didn't even occur in Babylonia!
So why is it even in this list?
A review of historical astronomy will reveal further that
even though the time of solar eclipses could be
predicted, where they would occur (on the earth) could
not, as this obviously shows. So what does the eclipse
of 621 B.C. occurring over Hawaii have to do with
Nabopolasser? Absolutely nothing; which is the whole
point. Ptolemy can thus be dismissed as generally
"historically incorrect" for any serious absolute dating,
along with six of the above eclipses (#'s 2, 3, 4, 5, 8,
9).
Six down: Five to go.
ECLIPSE #10:
DISMISSING THE ECLIPSE OF MAY 28, 585 B.C.
This is an easy one. This is the common dating for the
eclipse which is mentioned in Herodotus which caused a
peace negotiation between the Lydians and the Medes.
However, it is HISTORICALLY INCORRECT in 585 B.C. because
Herodotus reports that this peace agreement was
negotiated by none other than Nabonidus, the last Neo-
Babylonian king to rule before Cyrus conquered Babylon
(Herodotus: "Persian Wars," Book I, 74). Of course, 585
B.C. is just two years after the destruction of Jerusalem
currently datd in 587 B.C., which would be in the middle
of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar II. A clear
historical mismatch. So this eclipse can be dismissed as
HISTORICALLY INCORRECT.
Of note, however, is that the Bible suggests a much
longer period for the Neo-Babylonian period following the
destruction of Jerusalem, that is 70-74 years including
a 70-year exile of the Jews. Since Nabonidus is reported
to have only ruled for 17 years, the historical
information in association with this eclipse would tend
to agree with the Bible that this period was longer and
that some years have been cut from the Neo-Babylonian
period. That's because the rulership of Cyrus began with
the overthrow of Astyages some twenty years before he
became king in Babylon (current dating: 559-539 BCE),
which exceeds Nabonidus' 17 years. However, reliable
Biblical chronology inserts a 6-year reign of "Darius,
the Mede" immediately after the overthrow of Babylon, but
before the beginning Cyrus' reign in Babylon. This would
thus push the 17-year rule of Nabonidus back far enough
to have negotiated this truce between the Medes and the
Lydians before Cyrus conquered the Medes (Astyages) since
it allows for a three year margin prior to this event.
(17+6=23; 23-20=3). Not to say that all of this history
isn't quite controversial anyway.
Furthermore, archaeological records indicate that
Nabonidus did not appoint his son Belshazzar to the
throne until his third year, and most chronologists
assign these last 17 years of the Neo-Babylonian empire
interchangeably to Belshazzar or Nabonidus. Thus if the
17 years specifically were the actual years Belshazzar
reigned, then we can add at least two additional years to
the sole rulership of Nabonidus which would now give us
a potential 5-year window during which he could have
negotiated this truce before Cyrus overthrew Astyages,
and 20 years before he became king of Babylon after
conquering it six years earlier. But regardless of these
assumptions, I'm afraid that this eclipse also bites the
dust as far as HISTORICAL CORRECTNESS. OUT!
Seven down: Four to go.
----------------------------------
CONTINUED - PART 2
ECLIPSE #10:
DISMISSING THE ECLIPSE OF MARCH 13, 4 B.C.
This eclipse is widely used to establish Herod's death in
4 B.C. which conflicts with the Bible's dating for the
birth of Jesus in 2 B.C. But this eclipse is easily
dismissed as HISTORICALLY INCORRECT since Josephus
indicates that a FAST occurred during the month of this
eclipse. (*Antiquities of the Jews* Book 17, 164). The
Jews only had four annual fasts. They were in the
fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months. March 13, 4
B.C. would have fallen in the 12th month, thus dating
this event in that month makes it HISTORICALLY INCORRECT.
(Well, that was quick!)
Needless to say, there was an eclipse (Tebet 14) and a
Fast (Tebet 10) in 1 B.C. which, if applied to this
event, could date Herod's death in 1 A.D. The Bible
indicates that Jesus was about 30 in 29 C.E. and thus
would have been born in 2 B.C.E. Thus Jesus would have
been over one year old at the time of the eclipse and
fast in Tebet, 1 B.C. This is consistent with the
context of the events immediately surrounding Herod's
death, that is, that he first attempted to kill babies in
Bethlehem 2 years or younger before dying a quick death.
But whether or not anyone sees clear to confirm this
historical eclipse event as effective in dating Herod's
death in 1 A.D., which is the date most consistent with
Biblical chronology, this eclipse event remains
HISTORICALLY INCORRECT in 4 B.C.
Eight down: Three to go.
ECLIPSE #7:
DISMISSING THE ECLIPSE OF JULY 16, 523 B.C.
This is a VERY CRITICAL ECLIPSE since it is one of the
few cuneiform eclipse documents that have come down to us
from the Neo-Babylonian period that contains enough
information to exclude all but one absolute date in a
200-year period from 500 to 700 BCE. (To be discussed in
another scientific article).
In "A History of Astronomy" by A. Pannekoek (1961), he
says of this cuneiform text: "The OLDEST document of such
scientific astronomy is the later copy of a text dated
year 7 of Cambyses (523 B.C.)." This is also an
important eclipse record because it is matches with the
eclipse for this same date and year mentioned in
Ptolemy's canon and is generally believed to quite
conclusively matched in 523 B.C.
HOWEVER...when this eclipse was researched by the
Biblical Astrochronology Research Service, it was
discovered that though reviewed by Neugebauer (historical
eclipse expert) and mentioned as a positive reference for
the dating of Cambyses 7th year in 523 BCE by Jehovah's
witnesses in their comprehensive reference volumes
("Insight Volumes, Vol. 1, under "Chronology"),
apparently neither of these chronologists saw the entire
document. Certainly Professor Neugebauer did not because
he only reviewed the first eclipse, when in fact there
are two recorded in this document. As an astronomer, he
certainly would have attempted to match the "pair" of
eclipses to 523 B.C. and discovered they are inconsistent
with the eclipses of 523 B.C. but easily matched to
almost identical eclipses of 541 B.C.
The Witnesses reported on the second eclipse in their
research ("Insight Book", WBTS) but also likely didn't
see the entire document either; otherwise, they could
have dismissed this sighting, not on astronomical
criteria, but on historical inconsistency, as you will
see.
The following demonstrates just how comprehensive the
astronomical information was provided in this very
important ancient document. The following is the entire
document as reported by Pannekoek:
"Year 7, V 22 Jupiter in W. of Virgin hel. setting;
VI 22 in E. of Virgin hel. rising; X 27 in W. of
Balance, station; Year 8, II 25 in the midst of
Virgin station; VI 4 in E. of Balance hel. setting.
Year 7, III 10 Venus in head of Lion evening-
setting; III 27 in Cancer morning-rising; XII 7 in
the midst of Fishes morning-setting; Year 8, I 13
in the Chariot [the Bull's horns] evening-rising.
Year 7, VI 3 Saturn in midst of Virgin hel.
setting; VII 13 in E. of Virgin hel. rising; Year
8, V 29 setting. Year 7, II 28 Mars in W. of Twins
hel. setting; VI 13 in feet of Lion hel. rising;
Year 8, V 12 station; Year 9, II 9 in e. of Lion
hel. setting... Year 7, VI 24 Venus greatest
elongation; VII 23 at dawn Jupiter 3 *ammat* E. of
Moon; VII 29 at dawn Venus 2 *ub* N. of Jupiter;
VII 12 Saturn I *ammat* W. of Jupiter... Year 7, IV
14, 14 1-2/3 *beru* after beginning of night lunar
eclipse, extended over N. half; X 14 2-1/2 *beru*
toward morning Moon eclipsed, entirely visible,
extended over N. and S. part..."
If you will note, the lunar eclipses just compose the
last four lines. But we are not comparing the
astronomical accuracy of this information (at this time),
just the "historical" information. Thus, you will note
quite plainly that there are calculations in both the 8th
and 9th years of this unnamed Neo-Babylonian (Persian?)
king's reign. Cambyses only reigned for 7 years. Thus
these calculations don't belong to his reign but to
another king's. Therefore, we must dismiss this eclipse
record as HISTORICALLY INCORRECT. Of course, as
mentioned, it is "astronomically incorrect" as well. Be
that as it may.....
Nine down: Two to go.
THE LAST TWO ECLIPSES:
Eclipse #1: The solar eclipse of 15 JUNE 763 B.C.E.
mentioned in the Assyrian eponym list and used to date
the entire Assyrian period remains for the moment but
does not specifically describe the eclipse observed, thus
alternative dating for this eclipse has a few potential
variables. But it doesn't make the historically
incorrect list, so it remains a viable dating event for
the moment.
Eclipse #6: 4 JULY 568 B.C.E.
This eclipse is apparently based upon an astronomical
text in the British Museum. The actual translation was
not available to this researcher at the time of this
writing for a comprehensive historical or astronomical
comparison, but unlike Eclipse #1, apparently this is a
single LUNAR eclipse, which means it can fit practically
anywhere historically.
The closest this researcher came to confirming or
dismissing the accuracy of this eclipse was an
untranslated book of cuneiform texts from the British
Museum which in it's Table of Contents listed four
"astronomical texts" reporting lunar eclipses; three in
the month of "Sivan" and one in the month of "Iyyar."
One of the eclipses in Sivan repeats the cuneiform
equivalent of the number "37" several times, but this is
an amateur reading and cannot be confirmed to relate to
"Year 37". If this is the same British Museum document
used to date the above eclipse, however, then this
eclipse as well can be dismissed for 568 B.C. since July
4th is too late in the year to fall in Sivan or Iyyar
(the month preceding Sivan), as July 4th falls only on
the 14th of the following month, Tammuz. (Note: Lunar
eclipses only occur on the 14th of the month: the 14th of
Tammuz can fall generally anywhere from June 23 to July
23; the 14th of Sivan falls from May 23 to June 23, etc.
Compare eclipse #7 above of July 16, 523 on Tammuz 14th).
Thus this eclipse as well is potentially dismissible
pending further research. Furthermore, single lunar
eclipses are quite frequent in any given month and though
this document likely certainly belongs to the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar II, it can fit practically anywhere. For
instance, for the 68-year period from 568 B.C. to 500
B.C. there were thirty eclipses occurring in either June
or July, and it was common knowledge even in ancient
times that similar eclipses repeat themselves about every
18 years.
Thus the "historical" dating of this particular eclipse
document to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar likely had
more to do with the historical reference in the eclipse
to "Year 37" than to any specific astronomical
correlation to 563 BCE. That's because no other Neo-
Babylonian king reigned that long, and thus it cannot be
arbitrarily assigned to another Neo-Babylonian or Persian
king. (Note: It was not the custom to actually name the
kings in ancient astronomical texts from Babylon, only to
give the year of the king's reign.)
THE FINAL SCORE:
So the final score for HISTORICAL CORRECTNESS for eleven
eclipses listed as supporting current Biblical chronology
is that nine were found to be absolutely HISTORICALLY
INCORRECT! Only two remain to be investigated further.
Thus the current score:
NINE DOWN: TWO TO GO.......and counting!
That is, we can effectively rule out nine of the above
eleven eclipses as HISTORICALLY INCORRECT for purposes of
any absolute dating of the events or periods they are
currently assigned to. This is more of a reflection on
developing "field" of astrochronology and relative
inexperience of amateur astrochronologists than the
applied science itself, which, when competently applied,
has proven very effective in establishing a few
significant "absolute dates."
Prepared by:
Biblical Astrochronology Research Service
(BARS)