Ptolemy vs Hipparchus chronology, reconsidered

[cjbaiget]

In the book "Vatican" (2010), authors Fomenko and Nosovsky make a wonderful analysis of the BG horoscope.

In the same chapter, the following statements are made:

A. "by dating the oldest part of Ptolemy's star catalog, we could actually date the Hipparchus catalog, compiled
before Ptolemy" (capitalized in the original text)
B. "Time of horosocope BG (1228) is true time of Ptolemy"
C. "Ptolemy = Antoninus Pius"
D. "According to precession, time between Hipparchus and Ptolemy must be 192 years"
E. "As 1228 - 192 is 1036, Hipparcos lived in the 11th century, which is supported by a reference to a revolutionary astronomer in the book 'Alexiad' by Anna Komnene"

As you may know from a previous message, I obtained a purely astronomic dating of the oldest part of Ptolemy's star catalog as belonging to 880 A.D. More recently this dating allowed its identification with copycat al-Battani.
And not only that. I've found that the main tool of chronological manipulation was the Gregorian Reform, which implies a shift of the equinox of 10º. This tool was employed mainly for the chronological alteration of horoscopes, but it also agrees perfectly with the 880 dating of the Almagest. Due the value of precession being of 72 years/degree, a shift of 10 degrees is equal to a shift of 720 years. And 880 - 720 = 160, the epoch of Ptolemy-Antoninus Pius.

I wanted to explore how B-E statements agree with that. What I have found is an interesting alternative consideration which I want to share with you.

I this new reconstruction, Hipparchus belongs to 880 AD, he is also al-Battani. Hipparchos belongs to Rodhes and Battani to Raqqa, so they share the very same geographical latitude, very convenient to explain zero observational mismatches. Note that there's also phonetic resemblance between B-attani and P-Antoni.
Maybe horoscope BG is true Ptolemy, but then time span between them is too large.
So a consideration is made, that BG horoscope is related to Ptolemy but not its true time.
Then according to -D-, Ptolemy must be of 880 + 192 = 1072 which can be the 11th century astronomer Anna Komnene talks about (-E-).
I was amazed to learn that this Ptolemy-clone astronomer actually exists.
In the precise year of 1072 chinese polymath Shen Kuo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_Kuo becomes imperial astronomer. He's a master mathematics, optics, horology and calendar reforms.
Moreover, he becomes determined to define the laws of planetary motions, ¡ends up inventing epicycles! : "Shen's hypotheses were similar to the concept of the epicycle in the Greco-Roman tradition"

So this is a new proposal for the chronology of Hipparchos and Ptolemy, which derives from claim A and the identification of Almagest being in fact al-Battani's catalog, which scaligerian chronology dates correctly and served as the basis for the forged Almagest, by decreasing star longitudes 10º exactly.

Yours sincerely,
CJ Baiget

[Орлов]

Thanks for your research! Please tell me in more detail what it means: "According to precession, time between Hipparchus and Ptolemy must be 192 years"

[Nikol]

Thanks for your research! Please tell me in more detail what it means: "According to precession, time between Hipparchus and Ptolemy must be 192 years"

It's here https://chronologia.org/vatikan/vatican01_0117.html

Итак, проведем несложный расчет. Величина смещения точки равноденствия со времен наблюдений Гиппарха до первого года Антонина Пия составила, по измерениям Птолемея, 2 и 2/3 градуса, то есть 160 минут. Поскольку истинная скорость предварения равноденствий равна 1 градусу, то есть, 60 минут за 72 года, то, следовательно, на 160 минут точка весеннего равноденствия смещается за 72 x 160 / 60 = 192 года. Вычитая 192 из 1228 года - датировки зодиака Астрономии - получим 1036 год.
Итак, полученная нами датировка жизни Гиппарха - СЕРЕДИНА XI ВЕКА.

[cjbaiget]

Thank you very much for your interest and remarks.
Of course it can also be explored the possibility of both Hipparchus and Ptolemy being two phantom reflections of 880 A.D. al-Battani. One of them with catalog, the other without it, because in fact just one was available for falsification.

The following circumstance points to this conclusion, which I really understand as a confirmation of this hypothesis.

The 10º 'correction' for ancient star longitudes (as mandated by the Gregorian Reform) can be the cause of the 720 years shift that appear not only here, but also for example in dynastic parallelism of Holly Roman Empire (SS X-XIII) and Third Roman Empire (SS IV-VI) (CHRON1, fig 6.19 p.274).

But when this 'correction' affects the solar system of the ancients, i.e. horoscopes, the shift most of the time is 1151 years (sends AD from 1152 to 1), but sometimes 1050 or others (due to retrograde motion of planets occasionally is a better match than the main one). Which of course is the Roman shift.

So an stars-only adjustment of 720 years from al-Battani created (scaligerian) Ptolemy at 880-720=160 AD. But references to the planets mandated the creation of a new fanthom, so the adjustment of 1050 years created (scaligerian) Hipparchus at 880 - 1050 = 170 BC.
The difference between them being precisely the recurrent scaligerian symptom of 170 + 160 = 330 years, or the well-known Byzantine shift.

CJBaiget

[Nikol]

But when this 'correction' affects the solar system of the ancients, i.e. horoscopes, the shift most of the time is 1151 years (sends AD from 1152 to 1), but sometimes 1050 or others (due to retrograde motion of planets occasionally is a better match than the main one). Which of course is the Roman shift.

CJBaiget, are you gonna write an article where you can explain in detail your 1152 theory? I saw your video, but it's not clear how it all synchronizes. Or maybe you've already published such an article?

[cjbaiget]

Hello again Nikol,

Thanks for your interest. I'm currently writing it but it's a long process as I want also to explain all the way to the conclusion from the very beginning. Three independent developments converge in the theory. I have a lot of duties with almost no free time and all my research is made alone at night hours at the cost of less sleep time. I'll show keys point of my theory below.

There are several reasons for this article not being published yet. The main one is that I found the *facts* so atonishing, that I felt obligated to share and explain them even before even describing the subsequent theory. Believe it or not at one time I was even worried of not being able to reach anyone who can be interested, and the facts remaing undiscovered for 400 years more.

The question is that even inside the context of NC those *facts* sound so improbable, absurd, pretentious and ignorant, they remain despised. Just like NC itself is for the learned people, it seems. Which is in fact pretty ironic. At first, I just wanted to share and discuss my discoveries, now I just hope for someone to be kind enough to explain to me why they deserve being so violently ignored.

To understand both facts and my theory, a previous reflection has to be made: we know history reformers spared no effort when changing or destroying all evidences of a previous chronology, forging or destroying chronicles, documents, art, even liturgy. We want to believe however, that regarding the HUNDREDS of publicly exposed horoscopes they just crossed their arms and hoped no one would ever take care of them, thereby easily obtaining the truth just by computing the dates they offer in plain sight. But as NC finds, horoscopes are the MAIN tool of chronology, so why are we thinking they didn't take any measures and they being so exceptionally naive?

Of course they took measures, and not only that, it is precisely the measures they took the ones that DEFINED the Scaligerian chronology. This is the main point of my theory. They redefined the common context for all of them, that is, the ZODIAC, by ROTATING it 10º. Zodiac boundaries are defined by an amount of degrees from the first point of Aries, that is the place of the equinox. And why they allowed existing horoscopes to survive, it is because they were thought to actually CONFIRM scaligerian chronology after the calendar reform.

So the following are the three main evidence-supported facts, which be it for sanity or insanity that I claim to have discovered, and converge in a unified theory explaining the who,how,why and when of the main chronological manipulation detected by NC, which is AD transposition from 1152 to 1:

-Fact_1: An implicit cycle of the solar system of the ancients, when it enters in self-synchronism for centuries and centuries. This allows for a more or less coherent displacement of all known and unknown horoscopes into the past. It was found with the appropriate search algorithm using research-grade computer astronomical libraries and the result is no more and no less than 420403 days, that is exactly 1151 julian years!. This quantity doesn't appear in the data or the code in any way, it is however the explicit result. The chronological implication is undeniable: AD transposition from 1152 to 1 was made employing this cycle, which was known to ancient chronologists even if they didn't have computers. I'll explain how in the article. How this cycle is used for chronological manipulation: you need a precise *10º shift of the equinox*, that is, you need the Gregorian Calendar Reform. To understand this, just look at the video: synchronism is almost perfect, but not the overlap. When you displace 'future' equinox 10º closer to 'ancient' equinox, this situation will improve for the faster planets. So their places against the zodiac (static, not shown) will be the most similar possible. However horoscope transposition is not perfect, so symptomatic and recurrent chronological shifts will appear when transposing lots of horoscopes.

-Fact_2: Main intention of Gregorian Reform was a shift of precisely *10º for the equinox*, all other considerations were secondary. It's the true purpose of the reform, not explicitly declared in any way. Just an implicit consequence. A complex astronomical justification with several self-contradictions was made around the measure to justify it. Prior to the reform, date of equinox ALWAYS had been 21 of March. It has always been an imperative, a matter of the most religious importance and urgency. Julian Calendar was a practical norm, which simply didn't formally described the required leap year exceptions that of course were routinely applied by authority anyways. A simple gnomon allows tracking the calendar date of the equinox for centuries, not to speak about the reliability of entire monuments made for this purpose (Vatican obelisk for example). Gregorian reform included the necessary exceptions in the protocol, but only to provide a rationale for the fraud.
The exact correction of the Gregorian year over the Julian is 3/400. So the year was defined to be 365.25-(3/400). What does this mean? That you just need 400 years of tracking the equinox to count the leap years you had to cancel (3 days), and confirm a 400 year cycle. But 1582-400 is 1182, and Julius Cesar is Andronikos-Christ. So Julian calendar was established in 1182 by Christ himself. As said, the occasional leap year cancellation was not defined in the norm, was reserved to astronomers judgement (epagomenal day). After 400 years (1582) the count was round and the amount to subtract to Julian was very well known. This was included to the reform just to reinforce is apparent scientific basis (without any necessity or advantage whatsoever). But the reference ("when equinox was on March 21") was pushed backwards with a rather twisted and in fact self-contradictory argument to create a huge temporal gap between Cesar and Gregory, needed for the chronological reform.

-Fact3: A new revolutionary approach to dating ancient stellar catalogs allows the precise dating of the Almagest to 880 A.D. al-Battani catalog with *longitudes shifted 10 degrees* becomes 880-720=160 Ptolemy's Almagest. I've read almost all scientific literature publicly available regarding the astronomic dating of the Almagest. This is the only one that doesn't rely on comparing star positions but instead computes the *signal cross correlation* of ALL stars errors and ALL stars proper motions. It's a error vs. speed metric. This makes statistical profiling of the catalog unnecessary, results are fast, very accurate and non-objectionable. This sounds preposterous and I'm aware of it so I humbly ask to anyone with good reason doubting this claim, please send me a set of computer made artificial catalogs for different epochs in ecliptic coordinates, between -1500 and 1900, I will tell you the exact year of each one. Catalogs can be distorted with random and systemic errors of the same order the Almagest suffers, and similar resolution for latitudes (10').

This is already a too long answer, so I'll stop here.
I hope having replied to your question and that you found it interesting.

CjBaiget

[Орлов]

Thank you very much, very interesting. I will think about it

[Орлов]

CJBaiget, have you read these articles? I think they are very interesting.

Astrocauses of chronoshifts
A.B. Verevkin, A.N. Nagaytsev (2001)
https://chronologia.org/verevkin/astron ... hifts1.pdf

Astrocauses of chronoshifts: continuation of the theme
Verevkin A.B (2002)
https://chronologia.org/verevkin/astron ... hifts2.pdf

[cjbaiget]

Thank you very much. I'll try to translate these articles as soon as possible.
I've just finished a new research on the same topic. I'm opening a new thread explaining the results.