Last seen: November 11, 2026 11:12 pm
For our control table, using n = 1, we derived RA_1968 as: 17h 44m 41s to which we add 3m 56.56s to arrive at the deduced value corresponding to n …
What it gets us is the ability to increment the RA by a fixed amount over all six non-look-up rows. (Here, we are using Δt = t – t_1984, signed.) Its …
Let us next consider our further granted freedom, ignoring the fact that the one-day overcount is ideally accounted for as an error in deducing the ye…
Convert these deltas to letters using the A = 0, modulus 26 convention, reaching: Date / Time (UT) Solar RA Δ_1 …
Turning to the RAs, let us derive from these a pair of ‘deltas’ in the following manner, in accordance with the SLoI. Let’s treat them not as single v…
Under the “Second Level of Intention” (SLoI) proposed by Lendor we require, for some one choice of the 10 accumulated planetary columns in the table a…
3. Alphabetising using A = 0, modulus 26. Date / Time (UT) Solar RA Year ☉ ☽ ☿ ♀ …
2. Summing the sign columns, row by row. Date / Time (UT) Solar RA Year ☉ ☽ ☿ ♀ …
1. Converting signs to numbers Date / Time (UT) Solar RA Year ☉ ☽ ☿ ♀ ♂…
For this initial control set-up we have applied the deduced method of construction from our analysis of the artefact, as per the brief, without, at th…
Vagheggi Artefact Control Test Let’s do this! Vagheggi Control, base set-up Date / Time (UT) Solar RA Year …
And just to forestall the expected misunderstanding, no it is not valid nor meaningful to charge up Codex to run 10^12 different sets of random dates/…
Tired, clearly.
I will propose this one final time since it is set up to be definitive. I will add some explanatory notes to help you understand why it is so. As a …
I do not see how such cannot be said. And this, even before I remind you that we have undertaken a complete and thorough analysis of the freedoms avai…