Article - Laura Knight-Jadczyk
|
|
Article - Laura Knight-Jadczyk
|
|
|
Chapter 28 I should point out right here that if the Precession of the Zodiac was such a great way to measure time and world ages, there wouldn’t be so many opinions about when one began and another ended. As a measure of time that is so “vastly elegant,” it ought to at least work, right? Well, it doesn’t. What is more, the zodiac, as these many "experts" and occultists refer to it, was not a part of the ancient system. And even since its inception, in Greco-Roman times, it has been altered, having at various times ten signs, eleven, twelve and thirteen. So, what's the point? From this perspective, there isn't one except for an attempt to deny the possibility that the ancients meant exactly what they said. But still, using this Precession as a giant clock, with some fantastic perambulations through archaic lore, a dozen or more authors have produced as many different versions of what a “world age” is, and “when” they begin and end, and how. They then try to link these ages to all sorts of weird theories from the opening of "stargates" to galactic core explosions and the end of all life on earth. All of these ideas suffer from the chief error of a belief in linear time as measured by precession. Actually, I think the answer is a lot more simple than that. I think that those things that point us to the idea that the pole comes “unhinged” do, indeed point to the Precession. But the important thing about this Precession is that it tells us that the Earth WOBBLES. And I think that the thing the ancients are trying most desperately to point out to us in these stories is that the Earth wobbles for a REASON, and we ought to notice this wobble and ask some questions. Ark: According to the current precession-nutation model, the joint action of Moon, Sun, and in much less degree of other planets, on rigid, tilted, Earth the two major precession cycles are 26000 years and 18.6 years. Our Earth does not follow exactly the prescribed pattern, it deviates, and the deviations are being continuously monitored and published as parameters “dpsi” and “deps” by International Earth Rotation Service. The very rate of rotation of Earth around its axis is slightly uneven, as compared to the rate of atomic clocks, and this gives another continuously monitored parameter – the “length of day”. Finally our Earth wobbles and drifts. Part of this wobble is due to the action of oceans, of seasonal patterns, of Earth's internal non-rigidity. For example the wobble pattern for the time period 1962-2001 shows a major recurrence time of about 410 days:
According to the standards adopted by International Astronomical Union (IAU) the determinitation of EOP follows a two-step procedure and provides us with 5 parameters: The celestial pole offsets, (Dpsi, Depsilon) give the offsets in longitude and in obliquity of the celestial pole with respect to its position defined by the conventional IAU precession/nutation models, (x,y) measure the position of the conventional Earth's instantaneous pole of rotation in a reference frame which is defined by the adopted locations of terrestrial observatories, while the fifth parameter, denoted UT1-UTC gives us variation of the length of the day due to uneven rotation speed of the Earth. It should be stressed that the instantaneous axis of rotation is a theoretical concept – we cannot attach our isntruments to it. The only two reference frames that are accessible to our observations are: celestial reference frame determined by coordinates of quasars (or stars, but with stars we have an additional complication that they are not as stationary as quasars), and the terrestial reference frame attached to Earth’s crust (here we have to take into acccount that Earth’s crust is not so static either). We do not know what is inside our Earth, although we have theories. If Earth’s core exhibits some unusual properties (some physicists even speculate that part of it may consist of exotic matter – electrically charged elementary black holes (E.M. Drobyshevski, talk at the International Conference "AstroKazan—2001) which cause it to wobble, in response to electric, magnetic and gravitational fields, with a subdiurnal frequency, then our present methods are not sensitive enough to discover such oscillations. [Arkadiusz Jadczyk, 2002] As noted, the ideas about the precession of the zodiac are based upon a small handful of uncertain measurements, and a very short term period of observation, relatively speaking, during which time it is assumed that the conditions that prevail at present have always prevailed. Everyone who writes or talks about the Precession of the zodiac pretty much repeats the above sequence: that De Louville made an observation and compared it to Pytheas' observation and Ptolemy's observation, (must have excluded Theon's observation from the 2nd century since it got larger instead of smaller), then the assumption was made that the pole was inscribing a certain slow, spiraling circle, which is, of course true, though the reasons and permanence for this condition are highly questionable. This was followed by Newton's calculations, based not only on the shape of the earth, but also upon certain assumptions about the core of the planet, and voila! We have the birth of the "fact" of the fixed precession of the zodiac! What is more, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of theories and explanations and ideas based on this "fact." During the Renaissance, many questions about the Bible began to be asked as a result of scientific observations of the Solar system. Nicolas of Cusa [(1401-1464)], in his De docta ignorantia, denied the qualitative difference between heaven and earth. He also rejected the rest of the related propositions of Aristotelian metaphysics, claiming that the earth is not perfectly spherical and that the orbits of the planets are not perfectly circular. [Of Learned Ignorance, Transl. by Germain Heron (New Haven, 1954), Bk. II ch. XI-XII, 107-118] He claimed that heavenly motions do not nave stability as an inherent quality, and formulated the hypothesis that some statements of ancient writers may be explained by their having seen a sky different from what was seen in his time. He defined science as “learned ignorance,” because it is impossible to formulate an exact, eternal, and absolute description of the physical universe. Copernicus [(1475-1543)]wasn't quite so daring. He combined heliocentrism with the traditional conception of circular movements around the sun and a limited universe bounded by the sphere of the fixed stars. It seems strange he was opposed by the church. But, it seems that the opposition to Copernicus was due to the realization that by giving mathematical structure to the heliocentric theory he lent support to the subversion of metaphysics that had been associated with Nicolas of Cusa. Serious and applied questioning of the text of Genesis began as a result of the Copernican theory: if the Earth is nothing but a planet revolving around the sun, one may doubt that its creation was the result of a divine decree. A son-in-law of Osiander, the editor of Copernicus, uttered the first frank challenge to the divine authority of the biblical narrative: neque mibi quisquam Judaeorum fabulas objiciat“-let no one bring to me Jewish fables as arguments.” [Johannes Funck, Chronologia cum commentariis chronologic is ab initio mundi (Nürenberg, 1545)]Scholars began to doubt the idea that the universe had been created once and forever. They started to investigate ancient chronology, and laid down the foundations of geology and paleontology. Giordano Bruno [(1548-1600)], in his last and greatest work, De immenso et innumerabilibus, published just after his imprisonment, clarified his idea of the principle of indifferenza della natura. He denied the existence of a providential order in nature and hence of the stability of the solar system which is linked with the doctrine of circular movements; declared that only their imperfect astronomical observations permitted earlier scholars to believe that the heavenly bodies move in circles and in the long run return to their original position [“De vanitate circulorum et anni illius mundani phantasia platonica et aliorum.” Opera latine conscripta, Ed. by F. Fiorentino (Napoli, 1879), 1,1,367] and pointed out that astronomical movements are bound to be infinitely complex. [Differentias et singularum differentiarum irregularitatem. Op. cit., 1.1,372.] The belief in the simple and regular motion of the planets, he continued, is a delusory product of astrological thinking, laboring “under the faith or hope that nature conforms to the rules of geometry.” From the relativity of motion follows the relativity of time; since no completely regular motion can be discovered, and since we possess no records which can prove that all the heavenly bodies have taken up exactly the same positions with regard to the Earth as those previously occupied by them and that their motions are rigidly regular, no absolute motion of time can be found. [A. Corsano, II pensiero di Giordano Bruno nel suo svolgimento storico (Firenze, 1940), 249-264] Velikovsky has been viciously attacked for endeavoring to establish comparative science by combining the study of astronomy with that of geology, ancient traditions, ancient chronology, and ancient science. The fact is, up to a point, he was only following the tradition of the Renaissance scholars. Velikovsky attempted to fit the ancient history of the solar system into the Biblical chronology with only partial success. The history of the Bible is based on the dogmatic belief in the incorruptibility of the solar system. Once this has been questioned, other questions about the Bible arise, and once that happens, the death of dogma is inevitable. The new astronomy of the Renaissance brought forth a series of studies of ancient traditions and chronology, and effected the birth of interest in Egyptian and Mesopotamian science. For instance. Father Athanasius Kircher [(1601-1680)] founded the study of geology with his Mundus Subterraneus, while he initiated the study of Egyptian science with his Oedipus Aegyptiacus. And in Vicissitudo Rerum [(1600)] we find that John Norden refers to the same speculations made by Velikovsky:
Apparently, such ideas could not be allowed to continue to develop. So, along came the Reformation to the rescue. Religious apologists argued that a distinction must be made between the creation of the universe as a whole and the creation of the Earth: the biblical text referred to the latter creation. Sir Vincent Raleigh in his History of the World [(1616)] speculated on how it could be that the phases of Venus just discovered by Galileo seem to have been known to ancient authors. He listed the authorities who state that at the time of the flood of Ogyges “so great a miracle happened in the star of Venus, as never was seen before or after-times: for the colour, the size, the figure, and the course of it were changed.” The catastrophe associated with the name of Ogyges, a significant time marker for the ancient Greeks, took place simultaneously with Venus’ complete metamorphosis. This statement made by Varro, “the most learned of all the Romans,” on the authority of earlier scientists ought to have provoked interest in the time of Newton, when the working of the solar system was elevated to the state of a most exact science. But, the fact is, the exact opposite happened! During the Renaissance, studying the works of the ancient authors led to more than one important discovery in the science of astronomy. In fact, the very heliocentric theory had been advanced on the authority of Greek and Roman writers! But the great Isaac Newton took up his pen to write upon these matters and brought to an end the use of ancient sources as an inspiration for astronomical research. The notion that the solar system may have a history quite different from its current state became as sacrilegious an idea as it had been for Saint Augustine. On the eve of the imposition of Newtonian cosmology, discussion of ancient cataclysm was so common that in 1672 Molière, in his satire on noble ladies who, out of boredom and for the sake of thrills, had taken up the latest fad, astronomy, joked:
The owners and publishers
of these pages wish to state that the material presented here is the product
of our research and experimentation in Superluminal Communication. We invite
the reader to share in our seeking of Truth by reading with an Open, but skeptical
mind. We do not encourage "devotee-ism"
nor "True Belief." We DO encourage the seeking of Knowledge and Awareness in
all fields of endeavor as the best way to be able to discern lies from truth.
The one thing we can tell the reader is this: we work very hard, many hours
a day, and have done so for many years, to discover the "bottom line" of our
existence on Earth. It is our vocation, our quest, our job. We constantly seek
to validate and/or refine what we understand to be either possible or probable
or both. We do this in the sincere hope that all of mankind will benefit, if
not now, then at some point in one of our probable futures. Contact Webmaster at cassiopaea.com
You are visitor number [an error occurred while processing this directive] .
|
Most
of the wobble is pretty well understood, but details are still somewhat
puzzling. There are correlations with solar cycles, there is a drift
that is attributed to non-rigidity of the Earth interior, and which is
being taken into account not by any theory but by a purely phenomenological
correction formula. Finally, with the improvement of technology, organization,
and computing abilities, we can attempt studying subdaily patterns in
Earth orientation parameters (EOP). We can compary the data obtained
from the satellite Global Positioning System (GPS) with data obtained
from Very Large Basis Interferometry (VLBI) – a worldwide network of radio
telescopes monitoring radio signals frome 600 or so select quasars. While
a major part of these oscillations and wobblings of the Earth is due to
reasons having to do with weather and other atmospheric phenomena, there
are also patterns that are not understood. Moreover, the presently employed
method of processing VLBI data to obtain Earth rotation parameters is
not free of internal problems.