Jump to content


Photo

Cataclysmic Event Recorded In 2345 Bc?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
32 replies to this topic

#1 Glenn Williams

Glenn Williams

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ashburn, Va.

Posted 21 January 2011 - 02:28 AM

I thought this would be interesting to bring to the forum even if it does not garner much rebuttal. But for those of you who are not familiar with the works of George Dodwell you might be interested to read his manuscript at http://www.setterfie...nuscript_1.html. My short synopsis follows:

Scientists know that the earth has an axial tilt of about 23.5° as it rotates about the sun. What many do not know is that there is a shift in the tilt from about 22 to 24.5° which occurs over a 41,000 year period as the earth slowly oscillates from one extreme to the other. This is a well-established scientific fact calculated by people like Stockwell and Newcomb. In the early 1930s a fellow named George Dodwell began a series of experiments to measure against this obliquity of the elliptical. With his experimentation he also began to include known measurements done for thousands of years by those whose purpose was to establish the summer solstice using basic instruments like a gnomon which is nothing more than a vertically placed stick. There are at least 71 of these well-established measurements. You might recognize some of them by names like Stonehenge or Karnak. George's experiments turned up an amazing result as he found out that as he went back in time using the established measurements that there began to be a divergence from the established tilt of the earth. This diversion grew to about 3° and settled out in the year 2345 BC. Apparently something dramatic and catastrophic occurred nearly 4400 years ago. Something powerful enough to shift the entire earth by 3° and it occurred during the time that the Bible says that a man named Noah walked the earth. ;)

#2 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 22 January 2011 - 01:18 AM

I thought this would be interesting to bring to the forum even if it does not garner much rebuttal. But for those of you who are not familiar with the works of George Dodwell you might be interested to read his manuscript at http://www.setterfie...nuscript_1.html.  My short synopsis follows:

Scientists know that the earth has an axial tilt of about 23.5° as it rotates about the sun. What many do not know is that there is a shift in the tilt from about 22 to 24.5° which occurs over a 41,000 year period as the earth slowly oscillates from one extreme to the other. This is a well-established scientific fact calculated by people like Stockwell and Newcomb. In the early 1930s a fellow named George Dodwell began a series of experiments to measure against this obliquity of the elliptical. With his experimentation he also began to include known measurements done for thousands of years by those whose purpose was to establish the summer solstice using basic instruments like a gnomon which is nothing more than a vertically placed stick. There are at least 71 of these well-established measurements. You might recognize some of them by names like Stonehenge or Karnak.  George's experiments turned up an amazing result as he found out that as he went back in time using the established measurements that there began to be a divergence from the established tilt of the earth.  This diversion grew to about 3° and settled out in the year 2345 BC.  Apparently something dramatic and catastrophic occurred nearly 4400 years ago. Something powerful enough to shift the entire earth by 3° and it occurred during the time that the Bible says that a man named Noah walked the earth.    :wacko:

View Post


Apparently Dodwell assumes that the axis was vertical before the flood as noted from what is written at the link you provided.

note from Barry Setterfield:  Dodwell has assumed here that the original axis tilt of the earth, before 2345 B.C., was nearly upright.  For that reason, he supposed a very strong impact was necessary to jolt the earth from that position to its current 23.5 degree tilt.  This is why a number of astronomers have rejected Dodwell’s work in this area.  However, if the axis tilt was greater than its current axis tilt before 2345 B.C., then an impact of much less force would have been required to restore the earth to a slightly more upright position.  The evidence for this greater axis tilt may be seen in the evidence of the ice age which covered most of Europe prior to 2345 B.C.


And then from a creationist site this idea is noted as one that creationists should not use, using in part what is written in the Bible as a reason.

‘Earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood.’  There is no basis for this claim. Seasons are mentioned in  Genesis 1:14 before the Flood, which strongly suggests an axial tilt from the beginning. Some creationists believe that a change in axial tilt (but not from the vertical) started Noah’s Flood. But a lot more evidence is needed and this idea should be regarded as speculative for now. Furthermore, computer modelling suggests that an upright axis would make temperature differences between the poles and equator far more extreme than now, while the current tilt of 23.5° is ideal. The Moon has an important function in stabilizing this tilt, and the Moon’s large relative size and the fact that its orbital plane is close to the Earth’s (unlike most moons in our solar system) are design features.


Creationist opposition to idea

#3 Glenn Williams

Glenn Williams

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ashburn, Va.

Posted 22 January 2011 - 07:13 AM

Just a point of clarification for the record I never assumed that the earth was nearly upright, were you implying this? Regardless of what he believed in regard to his work in that area, here is a summary of what he was able to measure:

In the years he [George Dodwell] took to research the measurements of the obliquity of the eclipitic, or tilt of the earth's axis, going back in time as far as possible, he found undeniable evidence that something happened to the tilt of the earth's axis in 2345 B.C. The measurements actually taken differed from Newcomb's curve of the mathematically figured obliquity (based on current earth movement) to a greater and greater degree the further back he looked. Thinking this might be due to early astronomical error, he checked each of these measurements for necessary corrections regarding parallax the semi-diameter of the sun and then against one another. The latitude at which the observations were made is inherent in the data. The latitude can be checked. When this check is performed, it turns out the latitude of the observations was completely accurate. He was impressed with their accuracy. The differences from Newcomb's Curve were real.


I believe that an impact is assumed. No one knows what caused the earth to tilt. George’s experiments simply proved that it did.

It is also refreshing that you point out that other scientists are backing up George's work which zero in during the time in which Noah lived.

#4 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 22 January 2011 - 09:48 AM

Just a point of clarification for the record I never assumed that the earth was nearly upright, were you implying this?    Regardless of what he believed in regard to his work in that area, here is a summary of what he was able to measure:
I believe that an impact is assumed.  No one knows what caused the earth to tilt.  George’s experiments simply proved that it did.

It is also refreshing that you point out that other scientists are backing up George's work which zero in during the time in which Noah lived.

View Post


I didn't notice where you were making any such claim for the axis, but George Dodwell made such a claim of a vertical axis in the work that you linked.

I also don't know where I pointed out that any scientist is backing this work. I have no knowledge that this is in fact the case. As far as I can determine in a five minute search just now the only backing for his work is by non-scientists in the creationist movement, and as I posted earlier some creationists are in opposition to using his work in support of creationism.

#5 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 22 January 2011 - 10:01 AM

In the early 1930s a fellow named George Dodwell began a series of experiments to measure against this obliquity of the elliptical. With his experimentation he also began to include known measurements done for thousands of years by those whose purpose was to establish the summer solstice using basic instruments like a gnomon which is nothing more than a vertically placed stick. There are at least 71 of these well-established measurements. You might recognize some of them by names like Stonehenge or Karnak. 


Unfortunately, Dodwell did not take into account the height of the hills at Karnak, which led to an inaccurate measurement and placement of the temple by the Egyptian builders (not a true horizon)...the actual declination was 24° 18'. This in turn, throws off his whole curve and restores the 41,000 year nutation which is the current standard model.

The Dawn of Astronomy by Sir Norman Lockyer

Taking the orientation as 26°, and taking hills and refraction into consideration, we find that the true horizon sunset amplitude would be 27° 30'. This amplitude gives us for Thebes a declination of 24° 18'.


...Something powerful enough to shift the entire earth by 3° and it occurred during the time that the Bible says that a man named Noah walked the earth.


There actually was not a 3° shift.

Peace

#6 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 22 January 2011 - 10:04 AM

I also don't know where I pointed out that any scientist is backing this work.

View Post



I was about to make the same point, but you beat me to the punch.LOL :wacko:

Peace

#7 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 January 2011 - 10:07 AM

When did you get unbanned scanman???

#8 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 22 January 2011 - 10:11 AM

Unfortunately, Dodwell did not take into account the height of the hills at Karnak, which led to an inaccurate measurement and placement of the temple by the Egyptian builders (not a true horizon)...the actual declination was 24° 18'. This in turn, throws off his whole curve and restores the 41,000 year nutation which is the current standard model.

The Dawn of Astronomy by Sir Norman Lockyer
There actually was not a 3° shift.

Peace

View Post


The Earth spins around an axis that is tilted from perpendicular to the plane in which the Earth orbits the Sun. This tilt causes the seasons. At the height of the Northern Hemisphere winter the North Pole is tilted away from the Sun, while in the summer it is tilted toward the Sun. The angle of the tilt varies between 22° and 24.5° on a cycle of 41,000 years. When the tilt angle is high, the polar regions receive less solar radiation than normal in winter and more in summer.


Standard model

#9 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 22 January 2011 - 10:12 AM

When did you get unbanned scanman???

View Post


I was the persistent widow and I kept asking nicely for amnesty. Jubilee!

I am very happy to be back.

I had been reading the forum almost everyday...

Peace

#10 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 22 January 2011 - 10:15 AM

Standard model

View Post


Geode,

Thanks for the link...visually helpful...better than a dull sinusoidal wave chart.

Peace

#11 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 22 January 2011 - 10:23 AM

Somehow I'm the only non-creationist conservative to be found here.


As believers, we are all actually 'creationist'....we believe that God did it!...where we differ, is in how he did it. :wacko:

PS...you are not alone anymore!

Peace

#12 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 22 January 2011 - 10:26 AM

Somehow I'm the only non-creationist conservative to be found here.


As believers, we are all actually 'creationist'....we believe that God did it!...where we differ, is in how he did it. :wacko:

PS...you are not alone anymore!

Peace

View Post


Some months ago I also posted in reply to the tagline that I am a non-creationist conservative.

#13 Glenn Williams

Glenn Williams

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ashburn, Va.

Posted 22 January 2011 - 02:20 PM

Unfortunately, Dodwell did not take into account the height of the hills at Karnak, which led to an inaccurate measurement and placement of the temple by the Egyptian builders (not a true horizon)...the actual declination was 24° 18'. This in turn, throws off his whole curve and restores the 41,000 year nutation which is the current standard model.


Why do you say that when he uses that same book as and appears familiar with his work?

I also don't know where I pointed out that any scientist is backing this work.


The evidence for this greater axis tilt may be seen in the evidence of the ice age which covered most of Europe prior to 2345 B.C.


Reading further: "Work by Dr. Benny Pieser of the Cambridge Conference Group and Dr. Moe Mandelkehr have shown that in period around 2345 B.C. climate, geological and archaeological changes occurred in which some important civilizations were destroyed -- it appears the first Intermediate Period in Egypt occurred at this time. "

This is work done by different experts that converge to the same time period.

Finally how do you say, "This in turn, throws off his whole curve"? He did not base his work on one measurement.

#14 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 22 January 2011 - 06:10 PM

Reading further: "Work by  Dr. Benny Pieser of the Cambridge Conference Group and Dr. Moe Mandelkehr have shown that in period around 2345 B.C. climate, geological and archaeological changes occurred in which some important civilizations were destroyed  -- it appears the first Intermediate Period in Egypt occurred at this time. "

This is work done by different experts that converge to the same time period.

View Post


The work done by these two seems completely independent of studies of axis tilt, with instead a tie in to meteors and not a flood.

Hundreds of years after the event, a cuneiform collection of "prodigies," omen predictions of the collapse of Akkad, preserved the record that "many stars were falling from the sky" (Bjorkman 1973:106). Closer to the event, perhaps as early as 2100 BC, the author of the Curse of Akkad alluded to 'flaming potsherds raining from the sky' (Attinger 1984). Davis (1996) has reminded us of Clube and Napier's impact theory, and asked "Where is the archaeological and geological evidence for the role of their 'Taurid Demons' in human history?" The abrupt climate change at 2200 BC, regardless of an improbable impact explanation, situates hemispheric and social collapse in a global, but ultimately cosmic, context."


Taurid Demons

#15 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 22 January 2011 - 07:25 PM

Finally how do you say, "This in turn, throws off his whole curve"?  He did not base his work on one measurement.


If you look at Dodwell writing, you will see that the derived curve of residuals (Figure 3) is utilizing the Karnak measurements for angles greater then the standard obliquity of the ecliptic.

Peace

#16 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 23 January 2011 - 01:29 AM

I also don't know where I pointed out that any scientist is backing this work.


The evidence for this greater axis tilt may be seen in the evidence of the ice age which covered most of Europe prior to 2345 B.C.

View Post


The quote was from Barry Setterfield, whose site you linked. This idea appears to just be conjecture on his part and is added rather apologetically (in my opinion) after comments about how scientists don't back the work because a vertical axis was assumed before the flood. Apparently many creationists reject the idea as well because it is in conflict with the Bible. If a creationist idea cannot even fit in with biblical passages I think it is probably best discarded by creationists.

I suppose Barry is a scientist of sorts, but his credentials are seriously lacking. He also does not seem to be involved in any relevant research. Is it really fair to say, taking all his comments into account, that there is any scientist accepting and using the concept presented here?

#17 Glenn Williams

Glenn Williams

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ashburn, Va.

Posted 23 January 2011 - 06:39 AM

Yes I see where George believed the following:

Dodwell has assumed here that the original axis tilt of the earth, before 2345 B.C., was nearly upright.


But I do not see where that factors into his calculations. From what I understand these were observations based against Newcomb’s formulas. Take a look at this information from George Dodwell. This is information about Karnak which I understand can be observed at the temple of Amen-Ra today. It appears that from two different ways measurement of sunset during the summer solstice that the angle of the temple is off by more than 1°

Sir Norman Lockyer had estimated the date of the foundation of the temple from his own observations, and in the light of Newcomb’s Formula, as about 3700 B.C. (Lockyer, p. 119), and his surveyor, Mr. Howard Payn, from later observations, amended this date to “a little earlier, possibly…4000 B.C.” (letter dated October 11, 1911, and published in Nature, October 19, 1911.)

For the year 4000 B.C., Mr. Richards calculated the Obliquity of the Ecliptic, from Newcomb’s Formula, to be 24°  6’  39.6”.  He then remarks, This we see differs by more than a degree from the required obliquity to make the sun shine down the axis at 4000 B.C., which is about the time of the supposed foundation of the temple.  We also see that since 4000 B.C., up to the present day, the Obliquity of the Ecliptic has only decreased by some 40’ (i.e. by Newcomb’s Formula).

Also, if the sun shone down the axis of the temple at the date of its foundation, it has since decreased by more than 100’, which would give a ridiculous date for the foundation of the temple.

He was then led to the conclusion that “Never since the great temple of Karnak was built has the sun ever shone straight down its axis”…and finally he expresses the opinion that there is “no reason to suppose that the temple of Amen Ra at Karnak was originally laid down to have any relation whatever with the position of the setting sun at the time of the summer solstice.”

Let us notice here that,, according to Stockwell’s formula for the long-period variation of the Obliquity of the Ecliptic, which is still more comprehensive and more far-reaching than Newcomb’s formula, the maximum value which the obliquity can ever reach, under the combined gravitational effects of the sun, moon and planets upon the earth is 24°  35’  38”.  The Obliquity given by the solar orientation of the Temple of Karnak, 25°  9’  55” is more than half a degree greater than this maximum.



This is the conclusion from looking at this thing from two different ways.

This is also in part why there is a conclusion that states

"he found undeniable evidence that something happened to the tilt of the earth's axis in 2345 B.C."


George Dodwell spent a considerable number of years doing this research. It is rather surprising to see it dismissed so quickly. I would think that Barry and Helen would not be recently trying to publish his work if it was full of holes.

As a sidenote the earthquake in Chile which generated a magnitude 8.8 earthquake was calculated to move the Earth’s figure axis by 2.7 milliarcseconds.

A magnitude 8.0 earthquake as the equivalent power of 6 million tons of TNT. So one can only imagine the amount of power released to move the earth 1° Perhaps someone smart enough can calculate the amount of power that would be needed.

#18 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 23 January 2011 - 11:18 AM

Yes I see where George believed the following:
But I do not see where that factors into his calculations. From what I understand these were observations based against Newcomb’s formulas. Take a look at this information from George Dodwell.  This is information about Karnak which I understand can be observed at the temple of Amen-Ra today. It appears that from two different ways measurement of sunset during the summer solstice that the angle of the temple is off by more than 1°
This is the conclusion from looking at this thing from two different ways.


After doing a little bit more reading and research, it seems that there is some controversy concerning Lockyers measurements, both at Karnak and Stonehenge.
It seems that Lockyer was not consistent in what solar setting markers he would use...

Karnak

Lockyer's date is disputed by Egyptologists as it is unclear which part of the setting sun was used as the 'setting marker' (i.e. edges, top, centre, first glimpse, last glimpse etc), an argument often used against Lockyer, who was accused of using different 'setting markers' at different sites.


Stonehenge

Sir Norman Lockyer proposed a date of 1680 BC based entirely on an incorrect sunrise azimuth for the Avenue, aligning it on a nearby Ordnance Survey trig point, a modern feature.


I would be interested in seeing more recent research into the Karnak alignment, rather then relying on calculations made over a century ago. I agree that the Lockyer dating of 3700BC is way offbase.

Another factor is that Dodwell possibly used the incorrect soltice (summer instead of winter)...at Karnak the summer soltice is blocked.

Dodwell

"The next step was to write a full account of the whole matter, together with a study of the astronomy of the Solar Temples of Egypt, especially the Great Solar Temple of Amen-Ra at Karnak, which was oriented to the setting sun at the summer solstice at the date of its foundation, about 2045 B.C."


Hawkins

In 1973, Gerald Hawkins, a British-born astronomer known, like Lockyer, for his astronomical interpretation of Stonehenge, approached the problem of the New Kingdom temple alignment more modestly. His results are more convincing. Karnak, near modern Luxor and 720 km south of Cairo, is the site of the Great Temple of Amon. The temple is huge and is but a part of a gigantic complex of temples. Construction and modification of the Great Temple of Amon continued over several centuries, but most of the important building belongs to the 18th Dynasty (1558-1303 BC). With a northwest/southeast orientation, Lockeyer believed that the temple was targeted on sunset at summer solstice. Hawkins bycontrast has shown that an alignment with sunrise at winter solstice is more likely. He associates this astronomical event with a solar sanctuary possessing a window that opened to the mid-winter sunrise in the southeast. The sanctuary’s axis is aligned with that event. And Hawkins cited some metaphorical texts to suppot the idea.
The principle of Karnak’s ‘High Room of the Sun’ is duplicated on a smaller scale 500km farther south in the rock-hewn temple of Rameses II at Abu Simbel. There the main temple appears to have been directed to the sunrise on the civil new year on the occasion of the 30-year jubilee of Rameses reign. This date coincides with 18 October in the modern calendar. A small easily ignored little chapel is situated at the north end of the main temple’s monumental façade. Architecturally this chapel resembles the High Room of the Sun, and it is skewed to the winter solstice sunrise.


Hawkins

“The axis indicates the point of sunrise at a time when its disk edge touches the hill on the horizon and when the declination of the sun, measured at its center, is – 23.87 degrees. This was the point of sunrise in the south of its position in the era of Queen Hatshepsut and Pharaoh Tuthmosis, between 2000 and 1000. BC, if we take the uncertainties induce plus or minus 0.05 degrees, according to the reported data, the direction exactly, the error is zero.


A Karnak winter soltice measurement (23.87°) is in agreement with both correct temple dating (~2050 BC) and the Newcomb curve.

Posted Image

Peace

#19 Glenn Williams

Glenn Williams

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ashburn, Va.

Posted 24 January 2011 - 12:27 PM

I really can’t say I understand how either Hawkins or Lockyer got to their conclusions. It appears to me that at least one of their disagreements is over summer or winter solstice orientation. But that still does not address the 100’ alignment problem.

From the link provided these things jump out:

Hawkins is not quite accurate … a space accident [as in outer] … shift of the earth’s axis…resulting in watching the sunrise from the altar of the temple during the winter solstice became impossible.


Same problem. The thing is out of alignment and he points to a shift in the axis.

#20 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 25 January 2011 - 11:36 PM

I really can’t say I understand how either Hawkins or Lockyer got to their conclusions.  It appears to me that at least one of their disagreements is over summer or winter solstice orientation.  But that still does not address the 100’ alignment problem.

From the link provided these things jump out:
Same problem. The thing is out of alignment and he points to a shift in the axis.

View Post


But after a space accident in 1528 BC, begins suddenly and extremely costly rebuilding of the temple, require all of Pharaoh Thutmose III, Ramses I, Seti I, Ramses II, which lasted until 1480 BC
And the only reason for the restructuring of the temple, was the shift of the earth’s axis, which occurred during the Cretan disaster, resulting in watching the sunrise from the altar of the temple during the winter solstice became impossible.


The grammar here is somewhat questionable...I don't believe that the term 'space' is a reference to outer space (he may actually mean that the temple space was damaged), because he just explained that the alignment changed due to the Santorini eruption near Crete in ~1528...after which, extensive repairs were made to the temple to restore the alignment.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users