When the Sun Went Dark E-Book

Mario Arndt

• Herausgeber: BoD - Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 131

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2026

Beschreibung

What if the astronomical events that anchor our history are an illusion? The established chronology of antiquity - from the Greeks to the Romans - relies on solar eclipses as unshakeable time-markers. "When the Sun Went Dark" is an explosive investigation into these very foundations. Mario Arndt, author of "History's Hidden Blueprint" and "History by Design", reveals how official historiography uses scientifically unjustifiable corrections (the "Delta T" value) to force ancient eclipse reports from Thucydides, Livy, or Babylon into a fabricated timeline. Arndt turns the tables: he analyzes the astronomical data without these arbitrary adjustments, searching for the real constellations. The result is revolutionary: Roman history is misdated by 781 years. The Greek "antiquity" took place over 1100 years later than we believe. Even the celebrated astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, a pillar of chronology, is exposed as a scientific fraud. This book is a meticulous astronomical proof that dismantles our forged past and uncovers humanity's true chronology. www.HistoryHacking.net

Leseprobe

The author

History analyst and author Mario Arndt writes about topics you won't find in tradi&onal history books. He's from Germany (* 1963) and now lives in Thailand. His analyses of official history reveal how the Middle Ages, the ancient world, and the associated chronologies were fabricated and forged.

His professional background in IT as a so$ware developer enables him to develop a completely new understanding of the official version of history and to discover what really happened in the past. He has published eight books since 2012.

Website: www.HistoryHacking.net

YouTube: @HistoryHacking

Contents

Chronology and Astronomy

Introduction

Problems with the official dating of eclipse reports

The solar eclipse of June 16, 364

The periodicity of eclipses

The solar eclipse according to Titus Livius in 188 BC

Falsification of official dates

The three eclipses of Thucydides in the Peloponnesian War

The problem of Delta T

What is Delta T

The change in the Earth's rotation

How are the Delta T values calculated?

An example

The first and second derivatives of Delta T

Evaluation of Stephenson's work

An alternative dating of the eclipses

Problems with an alternative dating

The alternative dating of eclipses

Amazing coincidences

Alternative dating of Mayan eclipses that has already taken place

Revisiting Greco-Roman antiquity

Change in the 12th/13th century

Roman eclipses until the end of the 4th century

Alternative dating of reliable eclipse reports

Alternative dating of further eclipse reports

The days of the week are identical after 784 years – the lunar dates are almost

The creation of the world, the Julian date and the year 784

The creation of the world, the Julian date and the year 781

Striking parallels approximately 780 years apart

No doubling of the climate catastrophe

No doubling of the plague catastrophe

Eclipses of the 5th–6th centuries

Jesus Christ and Peter on the imperial throne

The Resurrected One on the imperial throne

Peter on the imperial throne

The Star of Bethlehem

Darkness on the Day of Death

The Greek eclipses

Consequences of the alternative dating

The Astronomy of Claudius Ptolemy

Instead of an introduction

Ptolemy is part of a much larger problem

The lunar eclipses

Babylonian eclipses

The surprising discovery of Babylonian cuneiform tablets

Notable features of the Babylonian eclipses

An alternative dating of the Babylonian eclipses

The solar eclipse of 136 BC

Correlations between calendar eras

Further Babylonian eclipses with planetary data

Further Babylonian solar eclipses

Afterword

List of illustrations

Bibliography

Astronomy is also of great importance for historical chronology. The ancient historians are so careless in their chronology, and moreover, the number of different calendars used by different peoples is so great that it would be impossible to shed light on the matter unless certain celestial events, especially eclipses, were also cited, which we can still use to calculate backwards and thus obtain fixed points on which to sequence events."

Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855)

Chronology and Astronomy

Introduction

The founder of scientific chronology, Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609), already made use of astronomy and was in contact with astronomers who assisted him with his calculations, including Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), the discoverer of the laws of planetary motion.

These calculations served to link astronomical events, primarily solar and lunar eclipses, with historical events and thus with chronology. Astronomy was and is therefore an important field for establishing a valid, generally accepted chronology.

However, neither at that time nor before was there freedom of expression or free research (according to official history, with only a few exceptions, which is also highly doubtful). It is therefore completely open whether the chronology established at that time, and still valid today, with Jesus Christ at the beginning of our calendar, has anything to do with reality, with the actual past.

Fig. 1: Johannes Kepler and

Fig. 2: Joseph Justus Scaliger – The dream team of chronology

It could just as well have been decreed by the rulers of the time, e.g., in the sense of anchoring the Christian religion in history, with Jesus Christ at the center of time, just as Jerusalem was considered to be at the center of the world according to the ideas of that time.

I quote H. Fuhrmann, former president of the "Monumenta Germaniae Historica" (German Institute for Medieval Studies):

"But when a doctrine is decreed by those in power, what we know from the closed society of the Middle Ages and the totalitarianism of modern times can happen:

The search for truth is controlled. It is not the question of authenticity or inauthenticity determines the truth and significance of a text, but rather its conformity with doctrine. In George Orwell's novel "1984," one of the only four ministries of the totalitarian state is the "Ministry of Truth," which watches over knowledge and determines the truth."

[Fuhrmann 1988, preface to MGH Volume 33.I.]

Since the establishment of today's official chronology was achieved with the help of astronomy, a critique of chronology cannot lead to valid results without taking into account the most important astronomical events in this context - solar and lunar eclipses.

Astronomy therefore also plays an important role in the work of A. Fomenko, for example [Fomenko 2003]. Fomenko considers a large part of the traditional astronomical reports to be authentic and not later calculations. The entire volume 3 of his "History: Fiction or Science?" is devoted to astronomical topics.

Fig. 3: The groundbreaking work "History – Fiction or Science" by the Russian mathematician and history analyst Anatoli Fomenko

Problems with the official dating of eclipse reports

This correlation of astronomical events, especially solar and lunar eclipses, with the time scale, or chronology, as established by Scaliger, is based exclusively on traditional (and, without proof, believed to be authentic) eclipse reports, their chronological classification according to official history, and their scientifically questionable interpretation.

Fig. 4: With his work "De emendatione temporum" (1583), Joseph Justus Scaliger establishes scientific chronology

This classification is appropriate for some, but by no means all, of the traditional eclipse reports, since, in addition to the inaccuracy of the records, the proportion of retrospectively added, retroactively calculated, and literary eclipses in the traditional events is unknown. The historian A. Demandt notes:

"Of the approximately 250 reports in ancient literature about solar and lunar eclipses, over 200 are inaccurate or false." [Demandt, p. 469]

Demandt interprets "inaccurate or false" very generously, defining it as:

"This includes all reports that do not allow for a historical dating that is accurate to within a year and contain at least one error." [Demandt, p. 469]

He therefore postulates, in a rather humanities-oriented manner

"tendencies toward distortion in the transmission of ancient solar and lunar eclipses.”

The problem with assigning official history is that it only works if strong, arbitrary fluctuations in the Earth's rotation in the early Middle Ages and antiquity are included in the calculations.

These fluctuations in the Earth's rotation cause deviations in universal time from terrestrial time, known as delta T, which influence the visibility of calculated eclipses. More on this later.

Fig. 5: Geometry of a total solar eclipse

The solar eclipse of June 16, 364 AD

British historian John K. Fotheringham (1874-1936) is somewhat more precise. Regarding the solar eclipse of June 16, 364, observed by Theon of Alexandria, he writes

"the only ancient eclipse of the Sun for which an astronomically observed time is recorded" [quoted by Stephenson 1997, p. 365].

Fig. 6: The solar eclipse of June 16, 364. It can be seen that the area of total solar eclipse (blue) is in Northern Europe. However, according to the report, the solar eclipse was observed in Egypt, where the degree of coverage was only 20%.

British astronomer F. Richard Stephenson (* 1941) agrees with this assessment in relation to Europe:

"It is still the only solar eclipse for which careful measurements of time are available from ancient Europe." [1997, p. 365]

To clarify Fotheringham and Stevenson's point: not a single solar eclipse from ancient Europe has been handed down to us with time details and other information, and thus to any extent verifiable, since the observation took place in Alexandria, which is known not to be in Europe.

But did Theon actually observe this solar eclipse?

The eclipse is recorded in a commentary by Theon on Claudius Ptolemy's "Almagest." In Fig. 6, you can see that this solar eclipse was total in Northern Europe. In Alexandria, Egypt, where it was observed according to the report, the degree of obscuration was approximately 20% according to NASA calculations.

Fig. 7: The degree of obscuration of the solar eclipse of June 16, 364 in Alexandria was 20%. Source: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov

However, much of the data in the Almagest has been considered to have been calculated rather than observed since early modern times. In 1977, Robert R. Newton published his book The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy [Newton 1977]. More on Ptolemy later.

The solar eclipse of June 16, 364 belongs to the Saros cycle 91. A Saros cycle of solar eclipses comprises a series of eclipses at intervals of approximately 18 years, 11 days, and 8 hours, whose temporal successors are very similar.

Starting on April 5, 851, going backwards, a solar eclipse took place on the Nile exactly every 19,756 days (in present-day Egypt/Sudan/ Ethiopia), i.e., every third solar eclipse of the Saros cycle at intervals of approximately 54 years. These are the years 851, 797, 743, 688, 634, 580, 526, 472, 418, 364. Only the solar eclipses of 580 and 634 would probably only have been visible south of Ethiopia without targeted observation – with a degree of coverage of 30% there.

Figs. 8 & 9: The solar eclipses of July 19, 418, and August 20, 472

It would therefore come as no surprise if the solar eclipse of June 16, 364 were merely a retroactive calculation based on several successive observed solar eclipses occurring every 19,756 days, e.g., 851 => 797 => 743 => 688, always in the afternoon, 688, 743, and 797 even at almost the same time as 364.

Fig. 10: The paths of total and annular solar eclipses on the Earth's surface from 2021 to 2040

The periodicity of eclipses

Since there are no descriptions of solar eclipses with time specifications and further details for ancient Europe—often not even the exact location is known—they cannot be easily verified by back calculation. The information in the sources often leaves considerable scope for chronological classification. In many cases, the classification to the day was only made by back- calculating a solar eclipse.

Furthermore, the geographical scope is quite large, as not all solar eclipses were total at the specified or presumed observation site. However, due to the large number of eclipses, it is almost always possible to find a more or less suitable one if

1) the tolerated deviations are sufficiently large, and,

2) if you still cannot find a suitable one, you can formulate an ad hoc hypothesis.

The dates of ancient solar eclipses found by historians and astronomers to date are therefore only those that best match the sources based on the official chronology and the speculative assumption of strong, arbitrary fluctuations in the Earth's rotation in the early Middle Ages and antiquity (Delta T, more on this later). There is no verification.

Fig. 11: The solar eclipse of July 29, 1878 (drawing)

The periodicity of eclipses can be used to falsify the dates of solar eclipses [cf. Popper 1935]. There are a number of time intervals after which a solar eclipse is very likely to occur again. The path of the solar eclipse is slightly shifted geographically. Here are three brief explanations of terms:

A synodic month is the time that elapses until the same elongation (angular distance) of the moon from the sun is reached again. A draconic month is the time that elapses between two passages through the same lunar node (the intersection of the moon's orbit with the ecliptic plane). And an anomalistic month is the period between two perigee passages (closest point to Earth) of the moon.

A solar eclipse is very likely to repeat itself after a period of time that is a consistent integer multiple of synodic, draconic, and anomalistic months. In the case of draconic months, exactly half of this value is also possible; this is then the exact opposite lunar node. Such a value is, for example, 109,529 days, corresponding to 300 years minus 46 days according to the Julian calendar.

Between the two solar eclipses there are exactly 3709 synodic months (29.530589 days each) and 4025 draconic months (27.212221 days each) as well as almost exactly 3975 anomalistic months (27.554550 days each). The monthly values are current and differ slightly from those in the distant past.

Figure 1: After 300 years minus 46 days, in many cases a solar eclipse can be seen again at the same location.

Fig. 12: Astronomers observing an eclipse, painting by Antoine Caron (1571)

What is interesting here is the striking occurrence of the number 1529 with permutations.

109,529 days are 300 years of the Julian calendar (365.25 days each) – 46 days,

or 300 Egyptian years (365 days each) + 29 days,

or 12 x 9125 days (= 300 Egyptian years of 365 days each) + 29 days,

or 300 years of 360 days each + 1529 days,

or 3600 months [300 years x 12] of 29 days each + 5129 days.

This is reminiscent of the construction of the calendar eras I described in my book “History by design". It is still unclear whether there is a connection here.

Figure 2: The construction scheme of the chronologies

In many cases, after a solar eclipse occurs, another eclipse will be visible exactly 109,529 days later, provided that the path has not shifted too far north or south into the polar regions.

However, it is rare for a total eclipse to occur twice in a row at the same location. The probability of two at least partial eclipses occurring at the same location is high, however.

How can this periodicity be used to verify the correct dating?

Well, if the official dating were correct, we would expect significantly more eclipses on this date to correspond better with the records than 300 years earlier or later. In the case of a 300- year error, the same would be expected for the earlier or later date, respectively. Only if the solar eclipses were completely misdated would there be no preference for one of the (incorrect) versions.

The solar eclipse according to Titus Livius 188 BC BC.

We will now analyze an eclipse described by the ancient Roman historian Titus Livius (c. 59 BC–17 AD). This account comes from his historical work Ab urbe condita libri CXLII (From the Founding of the City – 142 Books). The corresponding solar eclipse is dated by official history to July 17, 188 BC.

Fig. 13: Titus Livius Historicus from Hartmann Schedel's World Chronicle, 1493.

Did Titus Livius really look like this?

Of course, there are also later, antiquated depictions of the historian.

The description in the source is typical of descriptions from this period. There is no exact date. It is only mentioned that Marcus Valerius Messala and Gaius Livius Salinator became consuls on the Ides of March, which allows the consular list to be used to place the event in the official chronology for that year.

The text by Livius reads as follows:

"Before the new magistrates set off for their provinces, a three-day period of prayer was proclaimed in the name of the College of Decemvirs at all the shrines on the street corners, as darkness had covered everything during the day, between the third and fourth hour. A nine-day sacrifice was also decreed because there had been a shower of stones on the Aventine Hill." [Livy XXXVIII, XXXVI.4, quote from Gautschy, p. 9]

There is only mention of darkness covering everything, so it is unclear whether it was a total solar eclipse (possibly not visible due to cloud cover).