From: Subject: Eclipses in Ancient Times Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 18:39:32 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://localhost:8780/pubs/journals/pensee/ivr05/20eclips.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Eclipses in Ancient Times

Eclipses in Ancient Times

Immanuel Velikovsky, John Q. Stewart

Evidence for or against "Worlds in Collision?"

The following excerpts are taken from a much longer exchange = published=20 in Harper's magazine, June, 1951, between Velikovsky and the = late=20 Princeton University astronomer, John Q. Stewart. It gains currency = owing to a=20 question posed in a letter to the editor (Pensee, fall, 1972, 44). = Copyright=20 1951 by Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co., Inc. Reprinted from = Harper's=20 magazine by special permission. Ed.

I. IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY

On the basis of ancient records of eclipses, [critics] argue, precise = calculations have established that, from the second millennium before = the=20 present era down to our time, the lunar eclipses have been retarded by = the=20 infinitesimal and almost exact interval of 1/1,000 of a second in a = century;=20 this very minute retardation is the result of tidal friction between the = Earth=20 and the Moon. The eclipses being so consistent throughout the millennia, = there=20 could have been no other changes in the rotation of the Earth nor in the = revolution of the Moon during all this time.

It is a formidable argument, if it can stand. But does it not remind = one of=20 the "pyramidal inch," the minute measurements by which a British scholar = once=20 thought to extract hidden meanings from the Pyramid of Cheops? If the=20 observations of the ancients can be fixed in time to the one-thousandth = part of=20 a second, then historical documents of the ancients must have very great = observational value. Worlds in Collision is full of = historical=20 documents. However, historical testimony should not be trusted at all, = we were=20 told, even when hundreds of documents corroborate one another, if they = are the=20 basis for revolutionary conclusions affecting astronomy. Consequently, = this=20 early argument against my book disappeared from all subsequent = criticism, to=20 reappear in a much less formidable version. An astronomer from Michigan=20 subsequently wrote: "Records of ancient eclipses go back to 2137 B.C. If = the=20 Earth's rotation had been disturbed only a fraction of the amount = Velikovsky=20 claims, these eclipses could not have taken place where and when they = were=20 recorded." A Harvard astronomer reduced the date 2137 B.C. to 1062 = B.C.

If either of them were right, it would still be a devastating attack = on the=20 theory of great perturbations and changes in the position and movements = of the=20 Earth and the Moon. However, our knowledge of ancient eclipses comes = mainly from=20 Claudius Ptolemy of the second century of the present era, and his = tables do not=20 go back much farther than the beginning of the seventh century before = the=20 present era; they are, besides, primarily the result of retrograde=20 calculations.

Wherever an eclipse or mention of a disturbance of the solar or lunar = light=20 is mentioned in any ancient document, theoretical times of eclipses are=20 consulted by modern scholars, and various candidate dates of eclipses = calculated=20 for the first or second millennium are considered. The actual dates are = not=20 known; they are fixed only with the help of modern reckoning of the time = when=20 and the place where the eclipses are supposed to have taken place. Even = for=20 historical eclipses after 700 B.C., the exact dates are not established. = Thus,=20 the date of the most famous eclipse of antiquity, foretold by Thales of = Miletus,=20 and occurring during the battle between Alyattes the Lydian and Cyaxares = the=20 Median, is still debated and referred variously to May 28, 585 B.C. and=20 September 30, 610 B.C. Earlier eclipses are arbitrarily assigned to = dates when=20 they are presumed to have happened. The last great perturbation of the = Earth=20 described in Worlds in Collision (pp. 227 ff.) took = place on=20 March 23, 687 B.C.

II. JOHN Q. STEWART

A second objection concerns the deceleration in the Earth's rotation, = amounting to an increase in the length of the day of a thousandth of a = second=20 every century, and its relationship to ancient records of eclipses. In = his=20 article in this issue of Harper's, Velikovsky clearly makes a = muddle of=20 this issue. Of course neither the ancients nor ourselves ever timed a = total=20 eclipse of the Sun to an accuracy of a thousandth of a second, or to a = whole=20 second for that matter. But because successful computation of very = ancient=20 eclipses would be proof that neither Mars nor Venus nor any other = massive bodies=20 have since come close to the Earth, the reader is invited to consider = this=20 question in greater detail.

Velikovsky is quite wrong in saying that "our knowledge of ancient = eclipses=20 comes mainly from Claudius Ptolemy." Several modern scholars (notably=20 Fotheringham) have examined Grecian, Babylonian, and Chinese records and = listed=20 passages which seem to describe solar eclipses. A brief survey of = astronomical=20 publications reveals at least three recorded total eclipses of the Sun = before=20 -687 (the supposed date of Velikovsky's last catastrophe) which have = been=20 considered by computers to fit the present motions. This evidence, = reinforced by=20 equally early records of lunar eclipses, proves or at any rate strongly = suggests=20 that no unaccountable disturbance of the motion of the Earth or Moon = occurred in=20 that year.

A solar eclipse is likely to be underscored in historical records = only if it=20 is a total eclipse, for only then is it spectacular. It is seen as total = on each=20 occasion from points on the Earth's surface lying within a band = thousands of=20 miles long and only a few score miles wide. The Moon's shadow, as it = brushes the=20 Earth from west to east, determines the band. It is enough to know from = history=20 only a very rough date- -the century, say--for as a rule total solar = eclipses=20 repeat at the same geographical locality only at long intervals. The = date merely=20 serves to identify which computed eclipse has been recorded in = a given=20 instance. The place of observation is the really important element; it=20 establishes the longitude at which the band of totality crossed a given=20 latitude. The observer knew where he was, whether or not he could = measure the=20 hour or the second.

An increase in the length of the day subsequent to the time of = ancient=20 eclipses would be shown by the fact that they were observed at points = farther=20 easterly than uncorrected computation had in retrospect suggested. The = lagging=20 behind of the rotating Earth, as compared with a perfect clock = calibrated to the=20 rate of rotation at some particular date, would increase with the square = of the=20 elapsed time as the years pass. Time lost is never made up again, while = the rate=20 of losing increases continually. This is the equivalent in rotational = motion of=20 the high-school physics principle that the distance moved by a falling = body with=20 constant acceleration increases with the square of the time.

Projected into the past, the Earth's rotation is seen to have been a = very=20 little faster than its present rate. The formula just mentioned shows = that the=20 cumulative difference is only 20 seconds as we work back the first = century, but=20 in twenty-five centuries it is the square of 25 times greater, 12,500 = seconds,=20 which is three hours and a half. This contrasts with an increase of only = 1/40=20 second in the length of the day in twenty-five centuries. In the = calculation of=20 an eclipse which took place 2,500 years ago, this difference would be = expressed=20 in a displacement of longitude. We might find that an eclipse which = would have=20 been observed in Spain if the Earth had always been turning at its = present rate=20 is actually recorded not in Spain but far to the east near the Caspian = Sea.=20 This, in effect, is what actually happens, although the whole problem is = much=20 more complicated.

The most recent catastrophe suggested by Velikovsky, in the seventh = century=20 B.C., resulted from the alleged close approach of Mars. An approach of = Mars to=20 the Earth, by increasing the planet's gravitational pull at its lessened = distance, would have disturbed the Moon's monthly motion around the = Earth, and=20 the Earth's motion in its own annual orbit. If the Moon rode at a = distance only=20 a few per cent farther away than now, for example, its angular diameter = in our=20 sky would be too small ever to hide the Sun. As Dr. Payne-Gaposchkin = says, the=20 thirty-six-day month mentioned by Velikovsky is incompatible with any = total=20 solar eclipses at all. But nearly any cosmic disturbance would be enough = to=20 render our present knowledge of Earth and Moon motions inadequate for = eclipse=20 computations before the supposed interference. The discrepancy between=20 observation and calculation would become greater the further back in = time we go.=20 Nonetheless, the variation in eclipse records described above is the = only one=20 which has been found after known "perturbations" produced by the mutual=20 gravitation of the celestial bodies have been allowed for.

The gravitational pull of the Sun and of each planet on the Earth and = Moon is=20 taken into careful account in such computations as these. The = calculations are=20 highly complex, achieving a product of successful intricacy which, in = spite of=20 the fact that it defies verbal analysis, is one of the most imposing=20 demonstrations of the validity of celestial mechanics. Some idea of the = degree=20 of "intricacy" may be conveyed by Dr. Payne-Gaposchkin's statement that = lunar=20 theory alone recognizes 155 major periodic terms and over 500 smaller = ones,=20 which must be added together in the equation for the Moon's longitude, = and about=20 half as many in that for the Moon's latitude.

III. IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY

In referring to three solar eclipses before 687 B.C., Professor = Stewart must=20 have in mind Fotheringham's lecture, "Historical Eclipses" (1921). The = dates in=20 question are 1062 B.C. in Babylonia, 776 B.C. in China, 763 B.C. in = Assyria.=20 Hundreds of eclipses obviously occurred in those countries during early=20 centuries, but only one for each country is thought to be fixed.

(a) Babylonia. "On the 26th day of the month Siwan in the = seventh=20 year the day was turned to night. Heaven in flames." The century of the=20 occurrence is still a matter of debate. Fotheringham chose 1062 B.C. = There can=20 be no solar eclipse on the 26th day of a lunar calendar month. Kugler = explains=20 the phenomenon:

The Earth was going through an immense train of small, dust-like, = and also=20 large meteorites. The meteoric dust created darkness; the larger = meteorites=20 became incandescent through friction in the atmosphere and put the sky = in=20 flames. (Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, 11, 2, 373=20 n.)

(b) China. According to the Chinese book of songs, = Shi-king,=20 the sun was obscured. The place where the observation was made is = not=20 known. The calculation 776 B.C. is made on the authority of the = astronomer=20 Y-hang who lived a generation later (Gaubil, Histoire de=20 l'astronomie chinoise, 1732, p. 81). In his day, in 721 B.C. an = expected eclipse did not take place. Y-hang informed the Emperor that = "the sky=20 changed the course of the planet Venus" (Compare Varro on change of = course and=20 form of Venus, W. in C., p. 158).

(c) Assyria. A chronicle relates: "Insurrection in the city = of=20 Ashur. In the month Siwan the sun was obscured." The place of = observation is not=20 given. Nor the day of the month. The year is named in honor of a = magistrate. By=20 retrograde calculation an eclipse should have occurred on July 15, 763 = B.C., if=20 there were no changes. Placing the eclipse in 763 B.C. on July 15 and = assigning=20 the same year to the magistrate, an Assyrian chronology was built by=20 reconstructing the lists of the magistrates. However, it required a = change of 44=20 years in Biblical chronology.

Professor Stewart believes I confuse the argument of retardation in = the=20 Earth's rotation shown by ancient eclipses. The retardation was computed = by=20 Fotheringham from eclipses reaching back only to 585 B.C. Since the last = catastrophe occurred 102 years earlier, Stewart's request that it show = an effect=20 on retardation is without justification. Dr. Payne-Gaposchkin, and not = I, wrote:=20 "A very small, steady change in the length of the day, about 1/1000 of a = second=20 a century, has been measured." Stewart also finds the complexity of = lunar motion=20 "one of the most imposing demonstrations of the validity of celestial=20 mechanics." S. Newcomb, however, on the basis of eclipses from Ptolemy = to this=20 century, found disturbing variations, and wrote:

I regard these fluctuations as the most enigmatical phenomenon = presented by=20 the celestial motions, being so difficult to account for by the action = of any=20 known causes, that we cannot but suspect them to arise from some = action in=20 nature hitherto unknown . . . It would be natural to associate them = with the=20 Sun's varying magnetic activity and the varying magnetism of the = Earth. (Royal=20 Astron. Soc. Monthly Notices, 1909.)

PENSEE Journal V

\cdrom\pubs\journals\pensee\ivr05\20eclips.htm=20