...responses that only remotely brush the subject matter in an attempt to mask your own lack of real data or change the subject altogether. But I have the very real data to always back up my claims.
You just haven't done your homework on the subject.
Let me prove, using the most precise of all astronomical tools, Gauss' Easter formula, that everything you know about ancient/medieval history is false.
Dionysius Exiguus, On Easter (translation from Latin to English)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htmExiguus assigns the date of March 24, year 563 AD, for the Passover.
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/easter/easter_text4a.htmHowever, in the year 563 AD, the Passover fell on March 25.
Dr. G.V. Nosovsky:
Ecclesiastical tradition, in accordance with the New Testament, tells that Christ was resurrected on March 25 on Sunday, on the next day after Passover, which, therefore, fell in that time on March 24 (Saturday). These are exactly the conditions used by Dionisius in his calculation of the date of the First Easter.
Dionysius supposedly conducted all these arguments and calculations working with the Easter Book. Having discovered that in the contemporary year 563 (the year 279 of the Diocletian era) the First Easter conditions held, he made a 532-year shift back (the duration of the great indiction, the shift after which the Easter Book entirely recurs) and got the date for the First Easter. But he did not know that Passover (the 14th moon) could not be shifted by 532 years (because of the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle) and made a mistake: "Dionysius failed, though he did not know that. Indeed, if he really supposed that the First Easter fell on March 25, 31 A.D., then he made a rough mistake as he extrapolated the inaccurate Metonian cycle to 28 previous cycles (that is, for 532 years: 28 x 19 = 532). In fact, Nisan 15, the Passover festival, in the year 31 fell not on Saturday, March 24, but on Tuesday, March 27!". [335, pg. 243: I.A. Klimishin, Calendar and Chronology, in Russian, Nauka, Moscow, 1985]
That is a modern reconstruction of what Dionysius the Little did in the 6th century. It would be all right, but it presupposes that near Dionysius' date of 563 A.D. the 14th moon (Passover) really fell on March 24. It could be that Dionysius was not aware of the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle and made the mistake shifting Passover from 563 to the same day of March in 31 A.D.
But he could not have been unaware of the date of Passover in the the almost contemporary year 563! To that end it was sufficient to apply the Metonian cycle to the coming 30-40 years; the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle does not show up for such intervals.
But in 563 Passover (the 14th moon) fell not on March 24, but on Sunday, March 25, that is, it coincided with Easter as determined by the Easter Book.
As he specially worked with the calendar situation of almost contemporary year 563 and as he based his calculation of the era "since the birth of Christ" on this situation, Dionysius could not help seeing that, first, the calendar situation in the year 563 did not conform to the Gospels' description and, second, that the coincidence of Easter with Passover in 563 contradicts the essence of the determination of Easter the Easter Book is based on. Therefore, it appears absolutely incredible that the calculations of the First Easter and of the Birth of Christ had been carried out in the 6th century on the basis of the calendar situation of the year 563. It was shown in Sec. 1 that the Easter Book, used by Dionysius, had not been compiled before the 8th century and had been canonized only at the end of the 9th century.
Therefore, the calculations carried out by (or ascribed to) Dionysius the Little had not been carried out before the lOth century. www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405)
Exiguus, the central pillar of the official historical chronology, could not have made such a colossal mistake UNLESS his works/biography were forged/falsified at least five centuries later in time.
In the official chronology, Bede, Syncellus, Scaliger, Blastares, and Petavius base their calculations on Exiguus' methods and data.
Dr. G.V. Nosovksy verified the interval of 100 BC - 1700 AD, using the exact conditions stipulated by Exiguus, and found that ONLY the date of 1095 AD corresponds exactly.
The complete demonstration that the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52083.0#.VGDISjSsXJcA A briefer version:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488947#msg1488947Since Exiguus' work was obviously falsified by persons who had no knowledge of Gauss' Easter formulas, it means that the entire edifice of modern historical chronology comes crashing down: we have already seen the proofs that place Pompeii and Herculaneum as cities in full activity in the 18th century.
In the official chronology of history we find one of the most perplexing mysteries.
Kepler advocated the adoption of the reformed calendar in a work entitled "Dialogue on the Gregorian Calendar" published in 1612.http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1920PA.....28...18L/0000021.000.htmlIn 1613, the Emperor Matthias asked Kepler to attend the Reichstag at Regensburg to counsel on the issue of adopting the Gregorian calendar reform in Germany. In Germany, the Protestant princes had refused to accept the calendar on confessional grounds. Kepler believed that the new calendar was sufficiently exact to satisfy all needs for many centuries. Thus, he proposed that the Emperor issue a general imperial decree to implement the calendar.Moreover, the arch enemy of the Vatican, Galileo Galilei, also agrees with the changes instituted by the Gregorian calendar.
Clavius was the senior mathematician on the commission for the reform of the calendar that led, in 1582, to the institution of the Gregorian calendar.
From his university days, Galileo was familiar with Clavius's books, and he visited the famous man during his first trip to Rome in 1587. After that they corresponded from time to time about mathematical problems, and Clavius sent Galileo copies of his books as they appeared.http://books.google.ro/books?id=o6-8BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=galileo+galilei+gregorian+calendar&source=bl&ots=ORPJHVLJB5&sig=MMjwonnPkIE6XYnFrcMCS3Yow20&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=UStiVO3mFY2zaczhgMAN&ved=0CB4Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=galileo%20galilei%20gregorian%20calendar&f=falseThesaurus Temporum, published by Joseph Scaliger, which was based almost entirely on the calculations of Dionysius Exiguus and Matthew Blastares, received criticism from Johannes Kepler.
However, it is absolutely impossible (and amazing at the same time) for Johannes Kepler to have agreed with the Gregorian calendar reform, given the fact that he was familiar with the popular work attributed to Matthew Blastares.
It would have been perfectly simple for Kepler and Galilei to show the humongous errors inherent in the Gregorian calendar reform, to publicize these results, and thus have a very solid base on which to express their opinions regarding the planetary system.
All Kepler
had to do is to refer each and every historian/astronomer/researcher of his time to the familiar quote signed Matthew Blastares:
"By about AD 1330, the medieval scholar Matthew Vlastar wrote the following about how to determine the anniversary of Christ's resurrection in the Collection of Rules of the Holy Fathers of the Church:
The rule on Easter has two restrictions: not to celebrate together with the Israelites and to celebrate after the spring equinox. Two more were added by necessity: to have the festival after the very first full Moon after the equinox and not on any day but on the first Sunday after the full Moon. All the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now, but now we often change for a later Sunday. We always count two days after the Passover [full Moon] and then turn to the following Sunday. This happened not by ignorance or inability of the Church fathers who confirmed the rules, but because of the lunar motion.In Vlastar's time, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday took place within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar knew, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.
Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722. Had Vlastar been aware of the Easter Book's AD 325 canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the real and the computed full moon in more than 1,000 years."
And yet, to the amazement and uncomprehending stupor of modern historians, no such thing happened.
Not only Kepler or Galilei, but every reader of Scaliger's works could have brought forward the quote from Blastares, and reveal the errors made by Luigi Lilio (the Gregorian reform of the calendar was carried out on the basis of the project of the
Italian "physician and mathematician" Luigi Lilio).
As we have seen, in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488947#msg1488947Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology).
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1920PA.....28...18L/0000024.000.htmlNo less a figure than Isaac Newton (1642-1727) also took an active interest in the field, publishing "The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended", a substantial monograph disputing several key conclusions in Scaliger's work.But Newton couldn't possibly have missed the work done by Blastares, and the quote attributed to the same author.
Benjamin Franklin told his readers of the Poor Richard's Almanac to enjoy the extra 11 days in bed and that losing 11 days did not worry him--after all, Europe had managed since 1582.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1920PA.....28...18L/0000024.000.htmlBut in 1752 AD, the error/discrepancy between the false Gregorian calendar reform and the real calendar would have amounted to a full 3 (three) days difference, a thing that could not have been missed by any researcher.
In 1806, Napoleon, we are told, ordered a return to the Gregorian calendar.
In accordance with the Concordat with Pope Pius VII (1742-1823), signed July 15, 1801, a decree put an end to the revolutionary calendar. On 17 Brumaire Year 14 (November 8, 1805) the Minister of Finance announced the January 1, 1806, return to the Gregorian calendar which had been outlawed in October 1793.But in 1806 AD, the error would have been at least a full 2 (two) days, and no one could have missed this huge discrepancy.
The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No RE axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.