| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The theories of A.T. Fomenko are allowed here!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


The theories of A.T. Fomenko are allowed here!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
Author
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The theories of A.T. Fomenko are allowed here!
    Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 20:41
Since you have a section for "Alternative Theories", do you allow for the discussion of the "Theories of A. T. Fomenko" or those of "Sir Isaac Newton", or "others" to be posted here?
 
Regards,
 
Ron
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2011 at 23:46
I noticed that there were no zip, nada, zed, etc. responses to my above question!  Thus I must assume that it is "all clear" on the Western Front?
 
Regards,
 
Ron
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2011 at 01:54
Of course the theory is allowed. Free speech and all that.

But don't be surprised if some of the less well attested theories are met with snickering and derision - part and parcel of passionate academic debate.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2011 at 02:00
Any kind of nonsense is allowed in this section, Opusola. For that it was specially created. Please go ahead. Smile
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2011 at 02:03
It may be all clear on the Western front now, but you can be sure that in short it will not be all quiet!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2011 at 02:32
Since the "Powers that be" have decreed that I can post outlandish, and startling postings, dismissing most all of the "histories of the World", then with "Golden Armour", I shall unleash a plethoria of missives designed to awaken the most cruel attacks upon just one person, that this site has ever seen!Clap
 
As the guy says before the two contestants began to kick the sh-t, out of their opponent, "Let's Get It On!"
 
Regards,
 
Ron
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2011 at 04:53
If you don't mind, I have made some (slightly provocative) amendments to the name of the thread. Big smile
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2011 at 14:54
I had to look it up since I know nothing of his works, Fomenko is short a few feathers from full flight.

Wiki: 

Fomenko is a supporter of drastically revising historical chronology. He has created his own revision called New Chronology, based on statistical correlations, dating of zodiacs, and by examining the mathematics and astronomy involved in chronology. Fomenko claims that he has discovered that many historical events do not correspond mathematically with the dates they are supposed to have occurred on. He asserts from this that all of ancient history (including the history of Greece, Rome, and Egypt) is just a reflection of events that occurred in the Middle Ages and that all of Chinese and Arab history are fabrications of 17th and 18th century Jesuits.

He also claims that Jesus lived in the 12th century A.D. and was crucified on Joshua's Hill; that the Trojan war and the Crusades were the same historical event; and that Genghis Khan and the Mongols were actually Russians. As well as disputing written chronologies, Fomenko also disputes more objective dating techniques such as dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating (see here for an examination of the latter criticism). His books include Empirico-statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and Its Applications and History: Fiction or Science?.

Most Russian scientists considered Fomenko's historical works to be pseudoscientific
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2011 at 14:55
Now why would this be of interest to Opus?
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2011 at 15:11
The guy should stick to manifolds and Riemann surfaces and leave history to professionals. However having had a stint with topology back at uni I can understand why he got the two mixed.
 
 
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 09 Mar 2011 at 15:13
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2011 at 16:40
Seko, thanks for the response, and thanks also to Al Jassas!
 
Perhaps you could bouy up your understanding by looking here;
 
 
Then click upon the "discussion" pages.  There you will get a more clear  impression.
 
Regards,
 
Ron
Back to Top
The Hidden Face View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1598
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Hidden Face Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2011 at 17:30
I have read the first two volumes of his 7 volume masterpiece "History: Fiction or science." long time ago. I should confess that I was really impressed with some of his ideas. But overall It was too fantastic. I support the idea that the chronology of so called "world history" should be able to be questioned. But when suggesting an alternative history, one must act logically. For instance, when Fomenko was trying to analyze ancient miniatures he associated the symbol crescent with the Turks, which is absoletely nonsense. Not only because there were also other groups that used crescent as a symbol but also I already know that when and how crescent became a symbol for the Turks is highly questionable.

So it is not that easy.

But I am not super uncomfortable with the idea that the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire was actually older than the Roman empire. And his method for searching a correlation between the ancient kingdom of Israel and the Byzantine empire is, I should say, amazing. Though I am not really thinking that Constantinople was Jarusalem.

But I appreciate the effort. At least I perfectly am aware of the Scaligerian chronology now.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2011 at 17:44
Be very careful "hidden face", you might be labeled as of having a questionable mind?Wink
I think that the critics have taken a much wider stance against the theory since the Fomanko Group or as I call them the "FG", went in so many directions and took large doses of license with word meanings or variations, thereof, and possibles, etc.!
I still remain somewhat confused about the final books, which have not as yet been published in English.  Book or Vol. VI, is the one  I most look forward to reading.
 
Thanks for the response.
 
Ron
Back to Top
The Hidden Face View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1598
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Hidden Face Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2011 at 19:01
In my experience, I noted two things;

1) What is the problem with the Scaligerian chronology (If there is any).
2) What would actually be the most accurate chronology. (If Scaliger was wrong or he manipulated something.)

For the note #1, I was really amazed with Fomenko's work. I think he shows the problems with the Scaligerian choronology quite clearly. Especially the ones about the zodiacs. And Fomenko is not the first person to question the known chronology either. 

For the note #2, I think Fomenko tries too hard to prove his version of history. Some of his ideas are still interesting though.




Edited by The Hidden Face - 09 Mar 2011 at 19:04
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 00:28
Dude this guys history is ridiculous and makes zero sense. He claims that all history as we know it happened in the past thousand years or that all history of asia and arab was made up by priests. Hes worse than David Irving and the holocaust deniers. 

Edited by Joe - 10 Mar 2011 at 00:29
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 01:45
Fomenko? I wonder when we are going to discuss Velikovsky
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 01:59
They some times hold hands!Wink  I will not fail to mention him!
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 09:48
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:


Most Russian scientists considered Fomenko's historical works to be pseudoscientific


It is important to emphasize the  historical bit. Because, he is leading specialist in topology. Look at his citation index on google scholar:

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=A+Fomenko&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on

I can excuse him the intellectual je..king about history for what he had done in mathematics :) On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with his approach in general. It would be great if historians take more seriously statistics in their work. But he went waaaay to far with his interpretation of the data.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 13:26
Look the Russians are famous (not to say notorious) for spaced out junk passing for serious science and the kindest thing that may be said of Fomenko is that he is the "Rasputin" skulking through the Court of History. Of course, with similar figures haunting the halls of historical writing such as Chomsky and the visual media ever ready to give "air" time to nonsense as calling it "history", the consequences of the Age of Mass Man have to be recognized for what they are, bunkum! Perhaps he is still upset over the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar in Russia and is madder than an Old Believer atop Mt. AthosEvil Smile!

Edited by drgonzaga - 10 Mar 2011 at 13:26
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 13:41
The number of source citations found in the seven books concerning history, number (not surprisingly) 1,492!  But, of course, it seems 1,000 of them are found only in Russian or GermanEmbarrassed
 
Regards,
 
Ron
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 13:42
PS: And the notion that contemporary historical chronology is premised upon Scaliger is an absurdity acceptable only to Wiki and dazed Calvinists still fighting the Wars of Religion. But hey, Fomenko did borrow Scaliger's attitude with regard to his own nemesis, the Society of Jesus!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 13:46
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

PS: And the notion that contemporary historical chronology is premised upon Scaliger is an absurdity acceptable only to Wiki and dazed Calvinists still fighting the Wars of Religion. But hey, Fomenko did borrow Scaliger's attitude with regard to his own nemesis, the Society of Jesus!
I believe it was based upon Scaliger and Denis Pe'tau?
 
These two men, fall into one of the Fomenko set-backs, that created an ancient duplicate.
 
The correct dating of Easter is the connecting clue.
 
 
 
Regards,
 
Ron


Edited by opuslola - 10 Mar 2011 at 13:59
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 14:20
Let's do this. How about someone jot down a few of his interpretations regarding historical events (time line and all) and we could evaluate them on our own. Right here. 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 14:21
The "year zero" is an abstraction into nothingness and even considering it is the equivalent of calculating numerical angels on the proverbial pin's head. Besides, Fomenko is as deluded as Bishop Usher in the conceptualization of Time, which after all is premised not on stasis but motion--but hey we can have a jolly good time in discussing the position of the observer in space no matter how spaced out they are.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 14:25
I tend to side with you on this matter Doc yet wonder what the pro-fomenting Fomenkocists also think about his radical interpretations of the historical account. 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 14:32
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Let's do this. How about someone jot down a few of his interpretations regarding historical events (time line and all) and we could evaluate them on our own. Right here. 
 
Cortez really was Quetzalcoatl returning to regain his throne after showing those crazy Aztecs how to organize politically.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 14:37
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

Dude this guys history is ridiculous and makes zero sense. He claims that all history as we know it happened in the past thousand years or that all history of asia and arab was made up by priests. Hes worse than David Irving and the holocaust deniers. 
 
Joe, you have comprehensively nailed that one. Congratulations.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 15:03
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Let's do this. How about someone jot down a few of his interpretations regarding historical events (time line and all) and we could evaluate them on our own. Right here. 
 
Seko, one of Fomenko's main points concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Exiguus  and Fomenko considers him, a fictitious figure, who was created, in part, to artifically lengthen the alleged history of the World.
 
Dionysius = Denis and Exiguus = Little or Petit = Pe'tau= Petavius
 
 
 
It is the result of;  "Dionysius reportedly died in 265 A.D....Dionysius Exiguus...the date of his death; around 540 A.D. or around 556 A.D.....Dionysius Petavius (1583-1652)"  You must note that the above is set in parenthesis, because it is copied from Fomenko's book!  There exist two chronological shifts, that are repeatable contained in the information above, according to Fomenko.  These shifts are about 330-333 years for Dionysius (265 A.D.) to "Dionysius the Little" (Exiguus- 540-556), and another shift of about 1050-53 years to Dionysius Petavius (1583-1652)!  The total amount of the shift proposed by Fomenko, Et.al, is there fore about 1,386 years, which is a third proposed shift.
 
Dionysius the Little, is said to have written that Jesus Christ was born about 550 years before him, and since the Fomenko theory proposes that the origial of Jesus was born in the XI century C.E. , which, if Petavius is considered as the original of these figures, then 550-600 years before the proposed death of Petavius (1652 C.E.) would would place the birth of Christ, as the XIth century C.E.!
 
OK, that is one proposal for your consideration.
 
It would be easier if you were to take a look at the on-line book, History:Fiction or Science" Vol. I, and began reading from page 359 (or earlier), where there exists a lot more explanation.
 
Another posit, would be the existance of multiple "Plato's!"
 
Regards,
 
Ron 


Edited by opuslola - 10 Mar 2011 at 15:05
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 19:46
hmmm...there were so many Dionysius in history. Thracian god to Roman monks and so on. Seems that Fomenko has issues with one in particular, Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Small) for having invented the Anno Domini era used in both Gregorian and Julian calenders, whom had issues with the predominating Diocletian tabulations at the time.

No matter the start date of those calenders and not dependent on religious affiliation, this we do know - days, and years have been a regular consistency long before their times and ours. The Earth fully revolves around the sun for 365 days - this is called a year. The Earth also rotates along its own axis every 24 hours - this is called a day. Give or take a few seconds this celestial orbiting runs its course irrespective of what we think. Whether the ancients decided to fixate their start dates for their particular calenders is of no particular importance in the grand scheme of time as we know it on earth.

How Fomenko supports a theory of time based on the manipulation of shifts according to inventions of historical figures and their respective accounts (which can be debated for authenticity and reliability) is not of much interest for me other than a few basic truths. Does his theory support the rotation of celestial bodies? Do his theories verify events recorded by known primary sources in regards to the vast amounts of events recorded in historical documents?


Edited by Seko - 10 Mar 2011 at 19:47
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 20:28
Dear respected Seko!
 
You wrote these words above;
 
"How Fomenko supports a theory of time based on the manipulation of shifts according to inventions of historical figures and their respective accounts (which can be debated for authenticity and reliability) is not of much interest for me other than a few basic truths. Does his theory support the rotation of celestial bodies? Do his theories verify events recorded by known primary sources in regards to the vast amounts of events recorded in historical documents?"
 
Me-thinks you make his theory much harder than it really is.  Celestial events, are only mentioned by the FG (Fomenko Group) when there is reason to doubt the reliability of either the source or the mathematics projected upon the positions of the celestial objects, based upon these so called sources.
 
Otherwise, for the most part, the FG merely dismisses with the wave of the hand, most every so called source, that is reportedly derived from now destroyed (or missing) original sources.  Basically the FG, presents the picture that all of these ancient dynasties, kingdoms, popes, kings, battles, etc., are mostly only made "ghostly reflections" of events that actually took place much closer to our times.
 
Thus the so called use of celestial computers to back date events, based upon what are sometimes found to be be false or misleading descriptions of these events is useless, unless one looks much closer to the present.
 
And, of course there are ancient ruins, and sometimes even ancient inscriptions, but for the most part, the FG would consider that most all of these ruins that have been declared as "very ancient", that is from BCE, times as we now consider them, as mistaken, and actually represent what is left of great cities, etc., from the Early Middle Ages, or later!
 
You must understand, that the FG considers the development of mechanical printing, made it impossible in most cases, to mistake documents, that might well have only been 200 years old, from very ancient ones, that would in most cases, have already turned to dust.
 
Of course, deliberate fraud, and mis-direction, and replicas, and forgeries, have also played a part.
 
As regards events that happened before the "timeline of Scaliger/Petavius" was finally adopted, they are "blank slates" with absolutely no reliable information to support anything other than archaeological speculation.
 
See, it is as simple as a Sunday sermon!
 
Regards,
 
Ron


Edited by opuslola - 10 Mar 2011 at 20:36
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.