Автор сообщения: varhun
Дата и время сообщения: 06 March 2005 at 22:19:23:
В ответ на сообщение: Я Вам задал вопрос. Жду ответ.
Это имели виду?
Если ссылка нет, это я! Читайте дальше;
Feeling more reassured by the above results let us turn to another eclipse.In the mentioned basic work of Ginzel under serial-number 33 for the AD 5 year we have an annular-total solar eclipse on the date of 28th March.In order to find this solar eclipse on the map of Espenak we should watch carefully the Amazon-Dakar area.Unfortunatelly Ginzel does not remain faithful to himself when he tries to prove that despite of its very small phase the eclipse could be seen in Rome.('Die kleine Phase konnte beim dem tiefen Stande der Sonne wahrnehmbar sein.')
Dio Cassius does not give the month and the day,he gives only the names of the consuls.And it is very right concerning a case of a solar eclipse from the long ancient past,if the author discusses the event preceding his age by 200 years.And it is also a fact that nobody used to blame on Dio that he was a specific chronologist or he usually arranged in strict chronological order his sayings.By the way Dio became a historical writer after he had a divine inspiration in his dream (I wonder from which god he received the divine gift ?).His wording is well-chosen,his manner of writing is rhetorical,and he also deviates from the subject.
The identification of this solar eclipse is very old and connected to Calvisius (1620) and Petavius (1627).Naturally not all the astronomers were satisfied with this solar eclipse running along the Amazonas-Dakar line,that is why Seyffart for example had chosen instead of it the date of 6th Febr. in AD 7.But it was not suitable also,since its total path did not contacted the surface of our globe.Why was it in the past,and why is it even today that everybody is attached to this mistaken identification ? The reason is very obvious,Dio Cassius named the consuls,and as we could have seen it at the death of Augustus Caesar,in the case of the Roman chronology the priority is always given to the consuls,when the consuls and the solar eclipses 'are fighting' each others !I have already agreed with this conception in the case of Augustus,and now I support this idea once again.But only on that condition when our source remains intact from invented additions in brackets:
Let us see,what Dio is writing:'
At this time,in the consulship of Cornelius and Valerius Messala.'
I can not see any good reason to accept the action of some people,who provided Dio with bracketed explanations as additions:'(Cn) Cornelius (Cinna) und (L.)Valerius Messala'.
'My' consuls can be put in BC 3,and their names are the followings:
Using the 198 year shift of the Hungarian Calendar it is a quite easy task to find the genuine solar eclipse,which is:
HC/CE 197 S.197.3rd of June !
This hybrid eclipse illustrated by Oppolzer and Ginzel had the track of totality moving along the line of Tunis,Crete and Cyprus,just a bit more to the south than Sicily.It can also satisfy the most fastidious tastes.And it is well visible in Rome.
Not like as for Schove,for me it is not necessary to include the road makers and the miners of southern Spain among the observers.And unfortunately for Schove, that time the Dakar-Khartum rally not yet was organized either,the participant of which really might have seen very well the solar eclipse of AD 5.
In the case of my solar eclipse the academical officials might not worry about the delta-T either,since the shadow of it has a direction of W-E.
In the system of co-ordinates of the Hungarian Calendar,this solar eclipse took place following by two years the death of Herod,or in other words,preceding by 15 years the death of Augustus,in the year of the above mentioned consuls.The orthodox year corresponding to the consular year is BC 3,and not the year of AD 5.So we can witness 1 (that is one) year of error in the system (meaning the 199 years of difference).
The specialist-scientist who are dealing with the Roman relative chronology must decide between themselves,who is to blame:was it Dio who made the mistake of one year or seven years,or they just simply muddled things up dealing with one pair of consuls.
According to the Hungarian Calendar,Dio and the solar eclipse itself the correct year is the BC 2 year.For an example,if we replace the consuls of BC 2 year with the consuls of BC 3 year,our system is becoming perfect.Another possibility would be that one pair of consuls had been left out from the time preceding BC 3.
The beauty of my argumentation is that I did not need the assistance from the lost 'Universal Chronicle' of L.Cornelius Bocchus and from Seneca either.And I did not need to create (as Schove was forced to do so) such hypothesis as 'Possibly this small eclipse had been predicted by astronomers and was noticed because it was expected'.
If somebody still doubts the convincing capacity of my explanation,then let him consider on such a way,that the error of Dio is 6 years in comparison with the Hungarian Calendar.And naturally the sceptic should read the book LV of Dio !
Anyhow,I am offering a well-observable annular solar eclipse,while the one from Ginzel is such an event which can not be observed at all in the hilly Rome at sunset.