The New chronology is a theory that I consider like fringe science because I think that this theory is problematic for many reasons. I will don't explain these reasons because that can be long.

This theory say that chronological system use today is not correct because the ancient history and the middle age is the same period.
The founder of this theory is a Russian named Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko (Russian : Анатолий Тимофеевич Фоменко) born to Donetsk in USSR (now Ukraine) in 1945.
He is a mathematician who is a member of "Russian Academy of Sciences" (Russian : Российская академия наук).

Links about this :
1.Website who defend this theory
2.New Chronology in Wikipedia
3.Biography of Fomenko in Wikipedia

viocjit wrote:The New chronology is a theory that I consider like fringe science because I think that this theory is problematic for many reasons. I will don't explain these reasons because that can be long.

You pretend this theory is problematic, but you provide the evidence to back it. Are you really trying to disprove it ?

Whether or not you consider antiquity and the Middle Ages one period is a matter of perspective.
It depends on which criteria you want to classify historical periods.
There isn't really an objective i.e. correct definition in cases like these.

*Edit. Just read the wiki page. This is pure bullshit.

Why was he suspended?

Scot Dutchy wrote:Why was he suspended?

Voila:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1745698.html?hilit=viocjit#p1745698

Viocjit suspended for 24/24 pending review of his status.

Thanks Thomas.

A temporary suspention. Never heard of that before.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Thanks Thomas.

A temporary suspention. Never heard of that before.

It's (temporary suspension) has been around a long time. When new member (typically) starts all sorts of threads in a short time span the question of spamming comes up and some research is carried out. If the person is just prolific and not intent on jamming the forum with trash the suspension is lifted.

RS

theropod wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Thanks Thomas.

A temporary suspention. Never heard of that before.

It's (temporary suspension) has been around a long time. When new member (typically) starts all sorts of threads in a short time span the question of spamming comes up and some research is carried out. If the person is just prolific and not intent on jamming the forum with trash the suspension is lifted.

RS

Oh realise its purpose but never heard of it.

BTW I thought the blue lettering...

Scot Dutchy wrote:

theropod wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Thanks Thomas.

A temporary suspention. Never heard of that before.

It's (temporary suspension) has been around a long time. When new member (typically) starts all sorts of threads in a short time span the question of spamming comes up and some research is carried out. If the person is just prolific and not intent on jamming the forum with trash the suspension is lifted.

RS

Oh realise its purpose but never heard of it.

BTW I thought the blue lettering...

Blue lettering?

I was just commenting as to what I know of the process as it used to be. I suggest any further clarifications on this be sought through more regular channels. I'm far too sick to actually give a shit either way.

RS

theropod wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

theropod wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Thanks Thomas.

A temporary suspention. Never heard of that before.

It's (temporary suspension) has been around a long time. When new member (typically) starts all sorts of threads in a short time span the question of spamming comes up and some research is carried out. If the person is just prolific and not intent on jamming the forum with trash the suspension is lifted.

RS

Oh realise its purpose but never heard of it.

BTW I thought the blue lettering...

Blue lettering?

I was just commenting as to what I know of the process as it used to be. I suggest any further clarifications on this be sought through more regular channels. I'm far too sick to actually give a shit either way.

RS

Hope you get better soon.

Fomenko seems to have an iffy understanding of historical linguistics as well. Take, for instance:

"Lüling resumes his results this way: Compared to the original Koran the modern version of the holy book of Islam is the product of total rearrangement by changing the value of the consonnants ending up in a text void of essence. The underlyeing Christian hymns have been emptied of their sense. Additional there is the damage done to Islam by the Persian culture in the time of the Abbassides. And finally, by avoiding the discussion about the Christian sources the Islamic theology has darkened itself : „The simplicity to alter the text by changing consonnants and vowels graphically ... and the artificial language (Arabic) that defines its own rules ... as well as the inflexible religious domination have made Islam a monstre that lives its proper life beyond all religions ever thought of by mankind.“"

The claim here regarding the orthography having been changed - "the original Koran the modern version of the holy book of Islam is the product of total rearrangement by changing the value of the consonnants ending up in a text void of essence" - this clearly sounds as though he thinks there was a text with symbols, and then the way hese symbols were read out loud was changed, and this divorced the text from its original meaning, and new meaning was assigned after the fact, simply to hide underlying Christian hymns. This is not very realistic a view of linguistics in any way whatsoever - and there's good evidence against it. (C.f. how older, cognate languages from which we have well-preserved writing makes this stance come off as not just ignorant, but silly!) (Also, Occam's razor is a good thing to keep in mind when trying to claim big radical artificial language changes.)

Zwaarddijk wrote:Fomenko seems to have an iffy understanding of historical linguistics as well. Take, for instance:

"Lüling resumes his results this way: Compared to the original Koran the modern version of the holy book of Islam is the product of total rearrangement by changing the value of the consonnants ending up in a text void of essence. The underlyeing Christian hymns have been emptied of their sense. Additional there is the damage done to Islam by the Persian culture in the time of the Abbassides. And finally, by avoiding the discussion about the Christian sources the Islamic theology has darkened itself : „The simplicity to alter the text by changing consonnants and vowels graphically ... and the artificial language (Arabic) that defines its own rules ... as well as the inflexible religious domination have made Islam a monstre that lives its proper life beyond all religions ever thought of by mankind.“"

The claim here regarding the orthography having been changed - "the original Koran the modern version of the holy book of Islam is the product of total rearrangement by changing the value of the consonnants ending up in a text void of essence" - this clearly sounds as though he thinks there was a text with symbols, and then the way hese symbols were read out loud was changed, and this divorced the text from its original meaning, and new meaning was assigned after the fact, simply to hide underlying Christian hymns. This is not very realistic a view of linguistics in any way whatsoever - and there's good evidence against it. (C.f. how older, cognate languages from which we have well-preserved writing makes this stance come off as not just ignorant, but silly!) (Also, Occam's razor is a good thing to keep in mind when trying to claim big radical artificial language changes.)

Thats not by far his most outrageous claim however.

Yeah, even the detailed negative reviews of his books on Amazon reveal the marvellous bullshit his theories are.