spin

Larsguy47 persists in the delusion that Aristotle actually knew Socrates because Aristotle quotes Socrates a lot. This is despite the fact that Aristotle was born nearly 20 years after the death of Socrates. What has put this bee in Larsguy47's bonnet? He thinks that passages like:

Others hold that only what is useful is a friend, the proof being that all men actually do pursue the useful, and discard what is useless even in their own persons (as the old Socrates used to say, instancing spittle, hair and nails), and that we throw away even parts of the body that are of no use, and finally the body itself, when it dies, as a corpse is useless—but people that have a use for it keep it, as in Egypt. (2.74)

show he knew Aristotle. Hardly likely though. Aristotle tends to cite Plato's Socrates as can be seen in his Treatise on Government Bk 2 Ch 1:

it is possible that the citizens may have their wives, and children, and goods in common, as in Plato's Commonwealth; for in that Socrates affirms that all these particulars ought to be so.

Or Bk 4 Ch 4:

So that when Socrates, in Plato's Republic, says that a city is necessarily composed of four sorts of people, he speaks elegantly but not correctly

Or Bk 4 Ch 12:

In Plato's Republic, Socrates is introduced treating upon the changes which different governments are liable to

Seems strange that anyone would need to contemplate the theory that Aristotle lived at the time of Socrates purely because Aristotle cited Plato's Socrates. If I quote him, do I know him as well?!


spin

Weltall

Given your admitted lack of education in science, I find it disgusting that you feel qualified to tell professionals what they know and don't know. You're making up shit in order to make your twisting of history fit in order to justify your assumptions based on one famous philosopher quoting an earlier famous one. Why don't you ask NASA yourself if you think you're right and they're wrong. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.You claim to want to learn about real science but don't want to learn how it's done. Burden of proof is basic (we're talking 001 stuff here) and it's on you to prove your claims, not on us to disprove them.
Either put your money where your mouth is or shut up. Produce... the... damn... book.
You're talking to scholars here. If such a book existed, we would know about it. I say you're lying about having a book and your continued refusal to demonstrate otherwise only confirms it.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47: could we see the visuals of the 431 eclipse from Redshift-5, please?

RED DAVE

-Jay-

This again?

How many times does it need to be pointed out that you misinterpretted the source, and the authors of the source explicitly refute every claim you've made about the data and it's implications? (look here, for those recently joining the fun.)

What color is the sky in that little world you live in, Larsguy47?

regards,

NinJay

-Jay-

5. Radiocarbon dating of the City in Stratum IV of Tel Rehov pinpoints Shishak's campaign to 871 BCE, in direct contradiction to the conclusions of the archaeologists and other scientists who worked the dig and the subsequent analysis thereof.

regards,

NinJay

spin

Ooops, another thread that Larsguy47 has sneaked away from leaving the criticism unanswered.

This is a good reason why Larsguy47 shouldn't start new threads which only rehash the same points that have been shot down in older thread.


spin

-Jay-

I almost missed this one. Too much Easter candy...


regards,

NinJay

RED DAVE

From RED DAVE:
Still waiting. You've already started a new eclipse thread without finishing this one.

My recollection, from when you posted it before, it that the visuals don't show a classic annular eclipse, with the Moon in the center of the Sun, but one that closely resembles a partial eclipse, with the Sun appearing not as a ring but as a crescent as Thucydides describes. Correct me if I'm wrong.

This being the case, that both the eclipse of 431 and that of 402 resemble crescents, and the stars were probably not visible in either case, the 431 eclipse is strongly affirmed.

Let's recall that Thucydides refers to an eclipse on a summer afternoon, which the 431 event is. The eclipse of 402 took place on a winter morning.

Now, unless you can show some concrete evidence that Xenophon altered Thucydides in the eclipse passage, there is now absolutely no reason to favor the later eclipse, and your entire case for redating the Peloponnesian War, ridiculous as it was originally, is now doubly ridiculous.

And let's not forget your unsupported bullshit, including the famous secret book, that Socrates and Aristotle were lovers even though Aristotle was born 18 years after Socrates drank the hemlock.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

I believe I answered all the posts. If there is a particular one you wish specifically answered that I missed, let me know by e-mail or repost the link. Thanks.

Sorry, I'm realizing I presume too much about people's knowledge of astronomy. Every total or annular eclipse is only annular and total for a certain area, about 93 miles wide. That is, within that area they see the annular or total eclipse. But outside that range the eclipse appears partial, or like a crescent. In the case of my illustration, therefore, I was showing that from the specific location of Athens, how each eclipse would look. Since Athens was outside the central total eclipse track of both eclipses, some of the sun was still visible. Thus the purpose of the comparison was to show how little the crescent was in 402 BCE compared to 431BCE as viewed from Athens. Perhaps it hadn't been established the location of the observation.

At any rate, in this case, since neither is observed in the direct path of totality, one would not expect to see totality at the maximal phase, but instead what I posted. Basically this just says that the 402BCE eclipse track was much closer than the 431 BCE eclipse track.

Yes, they are both supposed to since Athens is outside the totality track. However, whether the stars could be seen in 402 vs 431, using the Redshift program, whether it's that accurate or not not sure, or that specific, it does increase to full darkness for Athens at the maximal phase, whereas for the 431BCE eclipse it does not go to full darkness. The program just has three adjustments, day, evening and night. It uses the same "night" phase for the maximal phase of the 402BCE as if the eclipse were total for that location. Whether this is actually scientific enough to still say they would have seen stars I don't know, but it does not use that degree of darkness for the 431BCE eclipse. If the program is really accurate it would indicate that indeed stars would have been seen.

And let's recall that in order to revise history and reintroduce another eclipse you have to change the details of the eclipse. He substituted his best alternative and it happened to occur in the summer, so he describes it that way. The whole reference is inserted. So his describing the timing of the eclipse is part of the insertion. There is nothing wrong here. But it doesn't contradict the winter eclipse of 402 in this context. On the other hand, this eclipse in the first year of war means the plague has to break out and thousands die in just a month. The war started in the summer. It's hard to pin down but Pericles didn't sail out until after the war was in progress for a while.

But there is a contradiction you should know about. In Plutarch the plague occurs first. Pericles is blamed for the plague and then he sets out to sail at which time an eclipse occurs. But in Thucydides, it is not until the second year of the war that the plague breaks out and then Pericles sails for the first time:

"For the plague broke out as soon as the Peloponnesians invaded Attica... But Pericles, who was still a general, held the same opinion as in the former invasion, and would not let the Athenians march out against them. However while they were still in the plain, and had not yet entered the Paralianland, he had prepared an armanment of a hundred ships for Peloponnese, and when all was ready put out to sea."

But this in Thucydides occurs in year two. The beginning of the chapter says, "Such was the funeral that took place during this winter, with which the first year of the war came to an end." (Chapter VII)

But Plutarch sets the plague and this sailing by Pericles after the plague begins. "The man resonsible for all this, his enemies said, was Pericles: because of the war he had squeezed the rustic rabble inside the city walls and then made no use whatsoever of all these men, but left them, penned up like cattle, to infect one another with death, without providng them with any diversion or relief. Since he wanted to make things better and at the same time to inflict some extra damage on the enemy, he fitted out 150 ships, put on board a sizeable and formidable force of infantry and calvary, and made everything ready for an expedition which was to fill the Athenians with high hopes and their enemies with abject fear. But just when the ships were all manned and ready, and Pericles had even boarded his own trireme, an eclipse of the sun occurred, so that darkness replaced daylight..."

So in Thucydides, the plague breaks out in the second year of the war and then Pericles sails out, but in Plutarch it happens during the first year of the war. Problem is the eclipse happens when Pericles is just about to sail after the plague breaks out. So for some reason, the plague was moved to the second year of the war in Thucydides? So you have a conflict because the eclipse has to happen during the summer of 431BCE per Thucydides, which doesn't give much time for the plague to break out and all the ravashing and deaths and everything and for Pericles to be blamed and then he finally sails out. He was to get the hopes of the people up and then the eclipse occurs.

Now the 402 BCE eclipse which happens in the winter allows plenty time for the war and for the people to crowd into the city and for the plague to start ravaging everything before he then sails out. The 431 BCE summer eclipse doesn't allow for that. Which is probably why Xenophon edited Thucydides so that the plague happens in the second year of the war. But the eclipse he found in 431BCE has to be dated then because it has to match the 1st year of the Olympic cycle. So he's trying to force the history change.

So your choice. In Thucydides the sailing of Themistocles after the plague breaks out is not associated with the eclipse which happens the previous summer. In Plutarch the sailing after the plague breaks out and ravages occurrs when Pericles finally sets sail.

But by no means let this little contradiction make you think anything was revised! The history works quite well and even though Plato wasn't born yet he still could have been consulted in either the 1st or 2nd year of the War because the Greeks had that kind of power back then.


Your case is lost because of the contradiction I forgot about. I have a note in my copy of Thucydides about it. But it's just one of many contradictions. As far as the suspicion of Thucydides being redacted, there are books on that, and this is one of the instances where they say it is clear there are problems. I'll have to try and find it, but in the meantime, just treat it as an unsubstantiated theory.

In the meantime, I'm not being unreasonable about the timing of the eclipse. Plutarch doesn't say when it was but there had to be time for the war to break out, everybody to crowd into the city and the plague to break out and ravage everything before Pericles finally sets out to sail. I don't think that happened in just a month. It couldn't have. That's likely why the plague was moved to the second year of the war in Thucydides.

Anyway, since the accounts are different you have your choice. One or the other revised their history. I've made my point.

[/QUOTE]


I told you I didn't make it up but read it in a book. I don't know about these things. I only know that Socrates would have died in 466 or 465 which is when Aristotle would have been 18 or 19, which is close to the age of "Phaedo" when Socrates died. Phaedo was Socrates' lover. Aristotle quotes Socrates right and left, it's hard to believe he wasn't his student at least, and certainly knew him. But whether they were actually lovers or not is up for grabs. I don't know where that original story came from. But obviously somebody out there also knows the chronology was revised and is keeping it secretive. So by all means don't accept it until I come up with a reference!

LG47

Larsguy47

You don't get it. These people go to lots of trouble to try to date samples from these various levels. Then the publish a book and give a chart with DATES. They provide a chart which shows you which dates are stronger than others and the strongest dating for City IV is between 874-867BCE.

As far as their error margin goes, this is what they say:

However, multiple measurements of the same sample material, including AMS on small samples, may enable the calculation of a weighted average that can result in very low standard deviations, below 10.

As you know, the single sample from Rehov was divided into seven samples so they used this method. The result was a high "relative probability" for a range of dates less than 10 years.

Note:

28 to 55 years. 2-sigma seems a better reference. But that also gives us 918-823BCE. Add 918 to 823 and you get 1741. Divide by 2 and you get 870.5, which is 871 BCE, for the very middle of this 95.4% range. 925 BCE is not in this given range. On the graph, though, the only dates higher than 95.4% are about 7 years from 874-867BCE, that is, on the "relative probability" scale from 0.0 to 1.0. Now they would not have given us a scale to measure "relative probability" in relation to the graph unless they wanted us to do precisely that. If the entire range of 918-823BCE was at 95.4% then it would have shown all those dates at the 95.4% "relative probably" level on the scale at 0.954. But they don't. Only 874-867 reach that high.



See. "RELATIVE PROBABILITY" from 0.0 to 1.0? See at the bottom those dates? This chart is meant for you to compare the two. Compare the "relative probability" with a specific date. It's not that hard. Just find where your date is on the chart and then follow that up to where the darkend shaded area stops. Then check directly across to your left horizontally to see the "relative probability".

LG47