Larsguy47

ROFL! INTERESTING! I didn't see that coming. A "cubit" is an astronomical term. It measures the distance between two celestial bodies.

A cubit represents 2 degrees of distance. Thus in the concept of 360 degrees, there are 90 cubits. It is also broken down into concept of lunar times since the moon in about 30 days will complete 360 degrees.

If you divide 360 by 30 you get 12. Thus the moon would travel 12 degrees each day. Since a cubit is 2 degrees, the moon is thought to travel about 6 cubits each day. Since the day is split up between nightime and daylight, during any given night of 12 hours the moon would travel the distance of 3 cubits.

Thus 3 cubits is equivalent to 12 hours, meaning it takes 4 hours per cubit, 2 hours per "degree."

Because the visual distance between stars change from when they are near the horizon versus in mid-sky, the Babylonians assigned a specific distance of measurement between the stars. For instance, between the stars of sigma-Leonis and beta-Virginis, there are 3 cubits. If the Babylonians were measuring the lunar position in relation to these stars, regardless of where these stars were in the sky, they would always calculate the distance based upon 3 cubits.

In other words, if you had a ruler and you held it up against the sky when Virgo and Leo were close to the horizon and you adjusted the ruler so that there were say three inches between each star, measured from a certain distance from your eye, once Virgo and Leo were in midsky, when the stars are more compressed, it would seem as though there was less distance betwen the stars with the instrument held exactly the same distance from your eye. So to make this adjustment, by assigning a specific distance, you would simply adjust your instrument so that there was always consistently three inches between the stars and that would give you a consistent measurement.

A cubit was also broken into 10 "fingers" as well, so a 3-cubit distance would represent 30 fingers.

VAT4956 IMPLICATIONS: This is what makes the double-dating in the VAT4956 interesting. Because usually a planet will not move that much in one night. Sometimes you can't tell a change for days or weeks, as in the case of slow moving planets like Jupiter. Faster moving planets like Mars and Venus can be observed from day to day. But the moon, as noted, will travel about 3 cubits every night. Thus in one night, the moon would move from sigma-Leonis to beta-Virgins; 3 cubits, 12 hours.

The LUNI-SOLAR pattern where the lunar day of the month repeats on the same solar month could vary as much as 36 hours, which is a lunar distance of 9 cubits. That is even at a day and a half (24+12) you could still round down to the same DATE.

So that's what is going on with the VAT4956 as far as the lunar positions. Every 19 years, the moon was within 36 hours of its position 19 years earlier, but the observable lunar position is as little as 2 hours. So it's very easy to tell when the moon is in the wrong place once you establish the first day of the month. That's why and "error" was noted for Lines 3 and Lines 14 because the moon was over 24-36 hours "late" for a match for 568BCE, but the precise lunar position for 511BCE.

As you can see, with distances of as little as 2 hours of lunar position, to guess twice the precise location of the moon in some year by accident is not likely, not that the scribes would have guessed anyway, since if the text was not clear or broken off, they just stated that. It's far more apparent that these lunar positions were observed in 511BCE and those dates mixed in with the 568BCE tablets by intent. This provided the perfect place to "hide in plain sight" a secret reference to the original chronology.


LG47

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
Source please.

From Larsguy47:
Source please.

From Larsguy47:
360/2=180.

From Larsguy47:
Since the lunar month is shy of 30 days, actually averaging about 29.53 days, you're just juggling figures for your own purpose.

From Larsguy47:
Again, what is your source for a cubit as an angular measure?

From Larsguy47:
Absolutely not true. Your ignorance of astronomy here is as vast as your arrogance. And that's saying a lot.

From Larsguy47:
Source please

From Larsguy47:
Absolutely not true.

From Larsguy47:
No need to adjust because the perceived angual distance between stars DOES NOT CHANGE.

From Larsguy47:
Bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit

From Larsguy47:
Just like you'e hidden in plain sight your secret book about Socrates and Aristotle getting it on.

Mods, ~E~ please. This dude is becoming the Drew J of BC&H.

RED DAVE

Barbarian

That's strange. I have never encountered this usage of "cubit". I recall raging arguments about how big a cubit really is (in relation to Noah's Ark and other artifacts), and the estimates are in the range of 45 to 60 cm in general, take 50 cm, which is visible at an arc of 2 degrees from a distance of more than 14 metres. Now unless 14 metres was the usual, routine radius of astrolabes used by Babylonians - and I really doubt that it was anywhere close - then the cubit would really have been a strange choice for measuring angles. So, I would like to know where is this information about cubit-as-an-angular-unit coming from.

RED DAVE

Dollars to donuts he made it up.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

Hi Dave. You know, you folks could do a little research and look some of this basic stuff up if you wanted to, like under "ancient astronomy". Most college libraries have a the series of ancient astronomy books by Neugebauer.

What amazes me is that we're discussing the VAT4956 where the text itself mentions the term "cubit" in terms of location of the moon in relation to certain stars, yet it is supposed to be a term I made up:

Line 3: (paraphrase) 9th of Nisan [month 1], Moon was 1 cubit in front of the Rear Foot of the Lion (GIR ar sa UR-A, FOOT rear of LION).

Line 14: (paraphrase) 5th of Sivan [month 2], Moon was 1 cubit "x" [above/below] NIM BID [high, right= in front of] the bright star behind the Lion's Foot (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A, STAR BRIGHT of of BEHIND FOOT LION).

So, how is it that I just made it up?

ANGULAR UNIT? The measurement was not "angular" in terms of distance but measured in relation to the imaginary vertical and horizontal lines each heavenly body sat on. Thus given a rectangle, where sigma-Leonis was in the lower left hand corner and the moon was in the upper right hand corner, where the length of the rectangle is 2 cubits and the height is 1 cubit. Presume further that the moon is moving from right to left towards sigma-Leonis. That observation would be that the moon was 2 cubits "in front of" sigma-Leonis. Since the moon is traveling past this particular star in a parallel manner the horizontal distance is essentially equal to the time it takes for the moon to travel a certain perceived distance, which is about 4 hours every cubit. So in 2 hours, the length of the rectangle would be 2 hours shorter, that is 1/2 cubit, measuring 1.5 cubits. Thus the Moon at this point would be described as 1.5 cubits "in front of" sigma-Leonis.

It is considered "in front of" the star at this point because the zodiac is moving from Left to Right whereas the moon is moving against the direction of the zodiac from Right to Left. So in relation to the direction of the zodiac's forward motion the moon is in front of it.

When the moon reaches a point considered directly above the moon in the same vertical line, it is considered to be "LAL" to it, that is even with it, after which it is considered to be behind it as it moves away from that vertical line.

LG47

teotwin

Lars, can you describe the mechanism by which the stars are 'compressed' in the sky as they rise from the horizon?

I can start a thread in Science and Skepticism if you don't want to derail this. The emphasis will most definitely be on the Skepticism.

Barbarian

They indeed are. Atmospheric refraction raises the apparent position of celestial bodies close to the horizon, the closer the better, and if two stars are close to the horizon "one above the other", then the lower one will be raised more than the higher one, so to speak. Max. change in position is about a quarter of a cubit, though (or 34').

Larsguy47

OOPS! Thanks, Red Dave for checking this for me....

From Larsguy47:

The VAT4956 uses the term "cubit" throughout the text, in this case note Line3 and Line 14 as in the chart.

It's standard knowledge in ancient astronomy, I'll try and hunt down a net reference for you. I found this on a quick Google for "degrees cubit ancient astronomy" but couldn't access the article:

So as you notice with exact science it not exactly 1 cubit equals 2 degrees, just like the month is not precisely 30 days or the day is not precisely 24 hours. But it's rounded off as a general reference since the subjective observation would be an estimate anyway. But this would confirm the general application in ancient astronomy.


Yes, I stand corrected. I had in mind that half the circle, that is what is visible from horizon to horizon at any given point is 90 cubits, both halves combined is 180 cubits.

THUS:

ZODIAC MOVEMENT: For a given star in the zodiac, say sigma-Leonis, which takes approximately 12 hours to move from horizon to horizon, a distance of 90 cubits, 180 degrees, it would move 1 cubit every 8 minutes, the same speed as the Sun when it is close to the equinox and the days are even with the nights. Thus the sun, like the zodiac stars which are fixed objects in the sky move in the same direction in relation to the Earth's rotation.

LUNAR MOVEMENT: By contrast the moon moves in the opposite direction based on it's own orbit around the Earth. It's speed in relation to moving around the zodiac circle in 29.53 days is rounded off to 2 hours per degree or about 4 hours per cubit, generally speaking. That is, rounded to 30 days to travel 360 degrees, a full circle that amounts to 12 degrees per day, which is 6 degrees per 12 hours, 1 degree per 2 hours. If 1 cubit equals 2 degrees, then the Moon would take 4 hours to cover one degree.

Thus if you observed the moon over the period of a 12-hour night you would expect it to move in relation to the zodiac approximately 3 degrees. There are precisely 3 degrees between beta-Virginis and Sigma-Leonis and thus in one night the moon would travel the distance of these two stars.

Sorry for not being more accurate and explaining this in more lay terms, it is clear most persons likely don't know about this.

THANKS, AGAIN, RED FOR CHECKING BEHIND ME ON THIS! Hopefully the above is understandable and accurate.




ROFL! I can't believe this. You're so prejudiced against this that you're imagining I made this up? Actually, you are correct, it is not precise, I should have noted that things are rounded off to these values and are just a general reference. It's easier to found 29.53 to 30 to give the general calculation. The ancients round things off to the nearest degree, that is, the nearest 4 minutes. So I wouldn't need to make that minor adjustment for the text reference of "1 cubit", which is going to be give or take an hour either way anyway. So, sorry, not necessary, the ancients were not that precise.

Again, see above quote and the measurement is not "angular" but measured in line with the vertical and horizontal planes imagined. In other words, in the case of the moon traveling toward sigma-Leonis, it is above the star. If you imagine a vertical line going through sigma-Leonis, and a horizontal line through the moon in line with its movement, then when the moon reaches the vertical line going through sigma-Leonis, it is considered to be equal with that star, neither in front of it nor behind it. Thus the cubit measurement in terns of distance in in relation to the distance along the path of the moon and the vertical axis of the "fixed body".

Or in other words. If Venus was on the same horizontal plane as sigma-Leonis a distance of 1 cubit, and directly above Venus was the Moon in a vertical line directly above Venus, then both the Moon and Venus would be considered 1 cubit in front of sigma-Leonis. When either planet reaches the vertical axis of sigma-Leonis they would be equal to it, called "LAL". Once they pass that vertical axis then they are considered to be "behind" that star by the distance being measured from the planet to the vertical axis of that star.

From Larsguy47:

Obviously ancient Babylonian texts which list these measurements between the stars, right? These were texts were published mostly by Sachs/Hunger:

A. Sachs and H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylon (Vienna 1988-1996)

ROFL!!! You are sooo funny! Why would I make something like this up. I guess it just sounds "funny". But "fingers" is a reference in the VAT4956 text as well I believe. And in one ancient astronomy text, 30 fingers were assigned to the distance between sigma-Leonis and beta-Virginis (Absin-1). Since the distance is three cubits, it means each cubit must have been divided into ten fingers each. At least for this particular reference. ROFL!

But since you think this is such "Bullshit" you should have lots of fun just looking it up. All you do is google "ancient astronomy fingers" and you get stuff like this:

JSTOR: Studies in Ancient Astronomy. VII. Magnitudes of Lunar ...Studies in Ancient Astronomy. VII. Magnitudes of Lunar eclipses in ... In both cases, (4) If = 0;5 holds regardless of whether 24 or 30 fingers are called ...


PDF] Ancient Jewish mathematical astronomyFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
of many texts in Babylonian and ancient Indian astronomy, ... as 12 fingers. The phrase "southern shadow 72" means the noon shadow, when the ...


Thanks for this reference, but obviously it does not cover the ancient Babylonian reference to a "cubit" but deals with the use of "cubit" measurements used for building, etc. I should have cautioned you not to get confused over the two.


RED DAVE[/QUOTE]

Thanks Dave. I'm glad you're trying to follow this. It let's me know how much I take for granted that is known about ancient astronomy by the average person!

Pluse keeps me sharp!!

LG47

RED DAVE

Problem is, there's no way to determine how the cubit was used.

Using a linear device like a ruler to measure celestial distance, you encounter the problem that the measured distance varies according to the distance that the device sits from the eye. The closer the device, the shorter the distance.

That's why angular measurement is used to determine the distance between two objects.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

SORRY. My language and communication is poor here. I had in mind how a planet like the moon will appear smaller at midsky than it is near the horizon, where it can appear quite large by comparison. When I spoke of the "stars" compressing I had in mind the distance between the stars in the zodiac seeming closer together in midsky and father apart near the horizon. Thus the perceived distance between stars appear greater or less depending upon whether the observation is close to the horizon or at mid-sky.

Obviously, this is an optical illusion, so I was speaking subjectively. Obviously, the moon doesn't change its literal size just before sunset, etc.

LG47