Refutation of the New Chronology in Wikipedia

“History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there.” – George Santayana, American philosopher (1863-1952)

New Chronology theory developed by Dr. Prof. Fomenko et al following the input of NASA astrophysicist Dr. Robert R. Newton reduces the timeline of human civilization to 1000 years taking into account only irrefutably dated events.

Moderators-historians throw out the baby toolbox of the New Chronology mathematical, statistical, and logical methods together with the Sacro sacred Neutral Point of View (NPoV) rule of Wikipedia.

To do just that they have produced a verbose pseudo-refutation page in Wikipedia where a group (gang) of self-proclaimed “scientists”, i.e. historians of no relation to the exact sciences labels New Chronology theory based on exact sciences as pseudo-scientific (sic!).

As they presume to own history and historiography lock, stock, and barrel they condemn and label New Chronology theory as pseudo-historic. This is close enough as New Chronology denies the very definition of history as a science, which is considered a Humanity, an Art serving an agenda. Period.

The gang of moderators-historians refutes in a circular manner Fomenko on account of:

Statistical correlation of texts;

Statistical correlation of dynasties;

Astronomical evidence;

Rejection of common dating methods;

The convergence of methods in archaeological dating;

Misuse of historical sources and forced pattern matching;

Selectivity in reference to astronomical phenomena;

Magnitude and consistency of conspiracy theory;

Thereby the gang of moderators-historians violates the basic NPoV rules of Wikipedia on multiple accounts:

  • The gang lists only sources contrary to the theory of the New Chronology, but deletes sources supporting it;
  • The gang lists all conferences of historians where the New Chronology was  refuted and condemned but does let list the numerous scientific conferences where the  New Chronology was discussed by mathematicians and statisticians;
  • The gang of moderators lists historians that refute the New Chronology, but refuse to list the scientists that validate or support it, for example, Sir Isaac Newton;
  • The gang of moderators-historians brazenly distorts the conclusions of scientists that may favor the theory of New Chronology;

Example: moderators-historians present the statement about ‘tidal forces’ of late R.R Newton, chief astrophysicist of NASA who discovered index D” irregularity (one that actually started in 1973 the research of chronology by Dr. Fomenko et al) as a refutation of New Chronology in spite of Newton’s conclusion that there is no valid theory of ‘tidal forces’ to explain D” given in the very article they reference this ‘refutation’ to.

Better yet, moderators-historians claim Dr. Stephenson has destroyed the basis of New Chronology thanks to the data of eclipses from Babylonian clay tablets and antediluvian Chinese records.  The ‘destruction’ by Dr. Stephenson is fallacious per se as there is no vocabulary of Babylonian astronomical symbols produced that can be applied to clay tablets for extraction directly from unique dates of eclipses allegedly written on them.

Astronomical data therein contained is not sufficient for irrefutable non-circular dating. Either there are not enough symbols allowing for unique astronomical interpretation, or the symbols change from one clay tablet to another. The clay tablets contain data about eclipses visible in Babylon that could have taken place every 30-40 years, therefore don’t allow their exact pinpointing on the time axis.

An eclipse can easily be found for each allegedly ancient event mentioned in clay cylinder or tablet the age of which is alleged also.  Consequently, the dates of eclipses are attached to a tablet in a circular manner. On the contrary Zodiacs from Egyptian Temples contain abundant astrological, i.e. astronomical information that is sufficient for non-circular unique dating. See Contents of Part 2, vol.III.

Dr. Stephenson argues: ancient dates of Babilon eclipses coincide with dates of Babilon eclipses described in Ptolemy’s Almagest, but forgets to mention that Almagest composed in XVI cy describes events of X-XVI centuries. BTW Dr. R.R.Newton called Ptolemy “the most successful fraud in the history of science. “Circulus Vicious.

Poor astronomical data in Babylon – abundant astronomical data in Egypt

Wiki moderators-historians gang presents only arguments of the critics against conclusions of  Dr. Fomenko on Almagest star catalog and refuses to mention the fact that all arguments of some Russian and Western astronomers were completely refuted by him on a high academic level. See Contents of Part 1, vol.III.

History: Fiction or Science? New Chronology Vol.III. Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy’s Almagest. Dating Egyptian Zodiacs.

The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy Hardcover – September 1, 1977 by Professor Robert R. Newton.

Dr. Yuri Knorozov was the first to decipher in 1952  Maya script and was badly mauled for over 20 years for that. Looks like we live the same story again. Dèja vue?

A paradigm shift is going on step by step: complacency and/or marginalization, ridicule, criticism, acceptance.

Has history been tampered with?

“History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there!” – George Santayana. The”Conspiracy” section of the current article in Wikipedia is nothing more than a * ten-year-old* verbatim copy of the reaction of *just two historians*, as already proven? How is it that two persons with two 10-year-old papers can certify a “Conspiracy Theory”, and two other persons’ coherent and diligent research for 50 years cannot aspire to their theory be regarded as a “Scientific Theory” on Wikipedia? Only one reason justifies this: prejudices. Has Dr. Fomenko missed something?

POV on moderators of  Wikipedia page of a reader thereof
The “Conspiracy” section is nothing more than the point of view of just two *natural enemies* (historians), impossible impartial judges, of Fomenko’s reconstruction.
Please let me use your flawed argument to prove the opposite: “A common problem with wrong bullshit like orthodox chronology is that the experts rarely say anything about it because they are more interested in actual scholarship. We should be happy that Fomenko and Nosovsky actually looked into this. Ascribing the statements to those two would give a false impression that they are idiosyncratic.”
I will take your question of “Are they in any way controversial?” as an honest concern and not as rhetoric. In fact, lack of controversy is an indicator of dogma and corporativism. This carries obvious similarities with any religion, inside of which controversy cannot take place. Comparing historians stances on New Chronology with those from Scientists, we can check that the latter DO engage in controversial arguments regarding New Chronology, *arguments that contradict Historians’ reasons.*
Having said that, it’s worth mentioning that most Scientists attending chronology problems, even those critic with New Chronology, prove wrong the main points of Historians against New Chronology. I will only mention just three:
Florin Diacu, mathematician and astronomer, devoted a whole book (see “The Lost Millenium”) considering the mathematical and astronomical basis of New Chronology. Not a single flaw detected. The main conclusion, considering only a subset of the then-available (2005, *15 years ago*) data: Fomenko’s results are right but non-conclusive.
Albert Shiryaev, president of the International Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability Theory in 1989-1991: “[Fomenko’s book] is written in conformance to the most demanding scientific standards and is an unprecedented phenomenon in the area of international scientific literature on applied mathematical statistics, so no reader shall be left indifferent.”
-B. Lukács. President, Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Geonomy Scientific Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Co-president of the Geonomy Scientific Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Member of the Astronomical Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences: “It seems that the present best Lunar Theory is incompatible with Orthodox Chronology”
Meaning that: Purported (false and not proven) uniformity of Historians denying New Chronology is *just the result of its inherent and rampant Scientific Nihilism and Illiteracy*, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Scientific ,and comes from the FALSE DICHOTOMY of Orthodox Chronology being right if somehow Fomenko’s Chronology is wrong.
Sorry, but dissenting historians acting like the paradigm on which their works are based is correct, are contradicting NON IDIOSYNCRATIC proofs from several scientists that *have proved that Orthodox Chronology is FALSE*, and hence, any historical reconstruction based on it.
 Attending to this phenomenon, History’s apparent consensus has to be contrasted with *SCIENCE lacking it*. There’s no point in constructing conspiracy theories to explain that *a great number of mathematicians and astronomers continue to pay serious attention* to Fomenko’s mathematical and astronomical bases, impolitely *discarding Historian’s invalid reasons on why there’s no sense in doing it* because there’s a more simple, Ockham-compatible explanation for this: you are wrong and this is not, it has never been, a “fringe shit”.
Having said that, I think that Historians’ attitude to a *legitimate contender* should make them unfit to represent their opponent’s view like it happens in this tendentious article, which is seriously lacking competent and adult *scientific supervision* to the point of urgency.
I’m just trying my best to upgrade this article to the maximum achievable objectivity and reliability regarding “New-Chronology_(Fomenko)”. I’m very sorry if, as a byproduct of this process, the subject matter ceases to appear as the “fringe bullshit” it is now framed as a result of false wikipedism, but I also don’t care, because I’m on the side of Science.
 That’s why, If my suggestions are not found worthy enough to make their way to the final article, an artificially stalled article that refuses to pay attention to the *continuous developments* and *increasing social awareness* of important research which current editors seem or pretend to ignore, a research that has already been tagged by *not fringe, but current and mainstream media* and by *current, active major political figures* as valid and more crucial than nuclear weapons, which is already *proposed as the basis for a new economic era and the implication of academia* in Russia, they will at least document the arrogance and negligence betraying Wikipedia’s own spirit, when verifiable and relevant facts are being ignored systematically on behalf of unreliable and non-scientific (in this case, historical) paradigms.
 Let’s not forget that according to this *already 50 years old paradigm*, which not only refuses to die but continues to increase its influence day by day, implies that great past achievements of humankind usually attributed to occidental historical actors are not only false but were *directly plagiarized and stolen* from their oriental counterparts. Who is naive enough to think that this implication is not going to be exploited politically?, moreover if this conclusion *seems to be RIGHT* from the scientific, mathematical, astronomical, point of view?
 The question is: will Wikipedia stand to its own standards when explaining this dilemma to interested international readers looking for objective, contrastable information?

“Statistical Correlation of Dynasties” section. The method is not described, but laugh at as a parody. As any other reader can, I’ve also just checked (again) the stated source for the following claim: “An important property is the length of the rule, especially as they receive higher points, they are considered to be a more illustrious ruler of their nation.”. I’ve been unable to find this assertion on the source, the only remark about the length of the rule I’ve found is that the longer it is, the more prone to errors.

I believe that this is just a “scholar opinion” not taken from the source, but attributed to it. I believe that this is a plain *lie* acting like an *informative remark* within the article for years. But moreover, Wikipedia readers *are lead to believe* that such method involves the creation of “survey codes”, which is a verifiable, big steaming pile of shit, because “survey codes” are part of *another method* of comparing biographies, that of course, is also applicable to rulers.

It’s very uncomfortable for some “scholars” to learn that both methods don’t contradict each other and they can’t make their own to create a counterexample. All this happens because this section, like any other, *is written by a complete illiterate of the subject matter only wanting to reflect NC as a steaming pile of shit.*, betraying Wikipedia’s stated mission.

But anyway, said method is described in formal mathematical terms in the source. And after having read several “scholars” *opinions* about it being bullshit, I’ve never seen an actual *scientific analysis* from an *actual scientist* concluding that it is an erroneous development. On the other hand, I can actually quote A. N. Shiryaev, President of the *International* Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability Theory in 1989-1991, praising its robustness and “conformance to the most demanding scientific standards”.

Please provide a mathematical analysis of the method that characterizes it as the “steaming pile of bullshit” the historian scholars *just need* it to be, a proof that I’ve been searching to no avail for years now. This document is not easy to find, because contrary to the popular opinion here and between “scholars”, said method, besides in the source given, appeared previously in several scientific peer-reviewed publications, and also on the 3rd International Vilnius Conference on Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics without any opposition, then and until now, as far as I know.

There’s a known problem with this method though: it’s perfectly *reproducible* by any interested *scientist*, and obtain the *same exact results*

Biography

Dr. Anatoly T. Fomenko. Born in 1945. Full Member (Academician) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Full Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Full Member of the International Higher Education Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Professor, Head of the Moscow State University Department of Mathematics and Mechanics. Solved the Plateau s Problem from the theory of minimal spectral surfaces. Author of the theory of invariants and topological classification of integrable Hamiltonian dynamic systems. Laureate of the 1996 National Premium in Mathematics of the Russian Federation for a cycle of works on the Hamiltonian dynamic system multitude invariance theory. Author of 180 scientific publications, 26 monographs, and textbooks on mathematics, a specialist in geometry and topology, variational calculus, symplectic topology, Hamiltonian geometry and mechanics, computational geometry. Author of a number of books on the development of new empirico-statistical methods and their application to the analysis of historical chronicles as well as the chronology of antiquity and the Middle Ages.

Also by Anatoly T. Fomenko

(List is non-exhaustive)

  • Differential Geometry and Topology
  • Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1987. USA, Consultants Bureau, New York and London.
  • Variational Principles in Topology.Multidimensional Minimal SurfaceTheory
  • Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1990.
  • Topological variational problems. – Gordon and Breach, 1991.
  • Integrability and Nonintegrability in Geometry and Mechanics
  • Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1988.
  • The Plateau Problem. vols.1, 2
  • Gordon and Breach, 1990. (Studies in the Development of Modern Mathematics.)
  • Symplectic Geometry.Methods and Applications.
  • Gordon and Breach, 1988. Second edition 1995.
  • Minimal surfaces and Plateau problem. Together with Dao Chong Thi
  • USA, American Mathematical Society, 1991.
  • Integrable Systems on Lie Algebras and Symmetric Spaces. Together with V. V. Trofimov. Gordon and Breach, 1987.
  • Geometry of Minimal Surfaces in Three-Dimensional Space. Together with A. A.Tuzhilin
  • USA, American Mathematical Society. In: Translation of Mathematical Monographs. vol.93, 1991.
  • Topological Classification of Integrable Systems. Advances in Soviet Mathematics, vol. 6
  • USA, American Mathematical Society, 1991.
  • Tensor and Vector Analysis: Geometry,Mechanics and Physics. – Taylor and Francis, 1988.
  • Algorithmic and Computer Methods for Three-Manifolds. Together with S.V.Matveev
  • Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1997.
  • Topological Modeling for Visualization. Together with T. L. Kunii. – Springer-Verlag, 1997.
  • Modern Geometry. Methods and Applications. Together with B. A. Dubrovin, S. P. Novikov
  • Springer-Verlag, GTM 93, Part 1, 1984; GTM 104, Part 2, 1985. Part 3, 1990, GTM 124.
  • The basic elements of differential geometry and topology. Together with S. P. Novikov
  • Kluwer Acad. Publishers, The Netherlands, 1990.
  • Integrable Hamiltonian Systems: Geometry, Topology, Classification. Together with A. V. Bolsinov
  • Taylor and Francis, 2003.
  • Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating.
  • Vol.1: The Development of the Statistical Tools. Vol.2: The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval
  • Records. – Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Netherlands, 1994.
  • Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy’s
  • Almagest. Together with V. V Kalashnikov., G. V. Nosovsky. – CRC-Press, USA, 1993.
  • New Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Applications to Chronology. Antiquity in the Middle Ages. Greek and Bible History. Vols.1, 2, 3. – The Edwin Mellen Press. USA. Lewiston.
  • Queenston. Lampeter, 1999.
  • Mathematical Impressions. – American Mathematical Society, USA, 1990.