REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 7 references
Astronomical Refutation of the New Chronology by Fomenko and Nosovsky: The 1151-Year Planetary Cycle and Dating of the Almagest via Speed/Error Correlation
T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Two reproducible astronomical methods date the Almagest to the 1st century BCE, undercutting the New Chronology's medieval timetable.
desk verdict Two reproducible computational tools for dating ancient astronomical sources, let down by missing significance tests and null controls, but still worth serious peer review. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
Two mechanisms carry the argument. The cycle finder compares geocentric ecliptic longitudes of the seven classical planets across candidate dates, computing for each date the mean absolute angular deviation between corresponding positions plus its standard deviation; the minimum of this combined score at ±420,403 days selects the 1,151-year recurrence. SESCC interprets the catalog's latitudinal positional errors and the stars' latitudinal proper-motion velocities as two discrete sequences and computes their zero-lag cross-correlation (a dot product) at each candidate epoch; the epoch that minimizes this correlation is the estimated compilation date, because accumulated proper motion vanishes there. The method is validated on synthetic catalogs and on a late-16th-century catalog whose known observing period is recovered to within 50 years, and its result for the Almagest is stable under random subsetting and exclusion of ambiguous entries.
What would settle it
Build a synthetic catalog of about a thousand stars with realistic random errors at a known epoch, run SESCC on it, and confirm the minimum lands on that epoch; then build a second synthetic catalog by mixing stars observed at two epochs 300 years apart. If the mixed catalog produces a single clean minimum at one of the two epochs rather than a broadened or split curve, the single-epoch assumption is falsified and the Almagest's minimum cannot be uniquely trusted.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central discovery is that an ancient star catalog's epoch can be recovered from the internal pattern of its errors without relying on textual history. In SESCC, each star's error in ecliptic latitude is treated as one signal and its proper-motion velocity as another; the zero-lag cross-correlation between these two vectors is smallest at the epoch when the catalog was actually compiled, because before any motion has accumulated there is no reason for fast-moving stars to be systematically more or less accurate than slow stars. On the full Almagest catalog, with identifications from a standard modern edition, no filtering, and a 100-year time resolution, the minimum falls around the 1st century BCE. The paper additionally identifies a 1,151-year cycle in the geocentric longitudes of the seven classical planets, with mean angular deviations around 21 degrees at the recurrence points, and argues that any horoscope dating that ignores this cycle can be wrong by more than a millennium. These results contradict the New Chronology's claims that the Anno Domini began in 1152 CE and that the Almagest was compiled between the 7th and 13th centuries; the paper attributes the New Chronology's erroneous horoscope dates to zodiac boundaries in its dating software that are shifted by roughly ten degrees.
Load-bearing premise
The method assumes that every entry in the Almagest was observed at a single epoch and that modern proper motions are accurate and linear when projected two thousand years backward, so a catalog that mixes observations from different centuries, or whose star identifications are biased in a way that tracks proper motion, would not produce a clean correlation minimum at the true date.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If SESCC's minimum is the true epoch, the Almagest reflects observations from around the 1st century BCE, not the medieval period asserted by the New Chronology.
- Any future attempt to date an ancient horoscope should test the 1,151-year alias; ignoring the cycle can shift a date by more than a thousand years.
- SESCC generalizes to other historical star catalogs, since it needs only positional errors and proper motions; the late-16th-century validation shows it works outside the Almagest.
- The reported ten-degree shift in the New Chronology's dating-software zodiac boundaries is the kind of parameter error that would systematically manufacture false matches at 1,151-year intervals, and correcting it recovered the historical date of a ninth-century codex.
- Independent variants (longitudes referred to a fixed reference star, and inter-star angular distances) give consistent Almagest dates, weakening the chance that the latitude-based result is a coordinate artifact.
Reading between the lines
- If the 1,151-year cycle is exact over the searched range, then the Almagest's -50 date has an alias near 1101 CE; the paper reports a stable minimum at the earlier date, but does not display the full correlation curve or quantify how much deeper that minimum is than its medieval alias.
- A direct test of the single-epoch assumption would be to feed SESCC a composite catalog built from two subsets observed 300 years apart; if it returns one clean minimum instead of a broadened or split curve, the method cannot certify whether the Almagest is a single-epoch compilation.
- Because the cycle is found empirically and has no dynamical explanation, it may be a near-commensurability that degrades outside the tested window, so its use in very deep chronology should be checked by extending the ephemeris comparison beyond ±1500 years.
- The same speed/error correlation pipeline could be pointed at fragmentary earlier catalogs, treating each surviving star as a data point, to date them independently of their textual transmission history.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript presents two computational methods intended to date ancient astronomical sources and applies them to argue against the New Chronology of Fomenko and Nosovsky. The first method claims to detect a 1151-year cycle in the geocentric configurations of the seven classical planets, based on a search for minimal mean angular deviation with low dispersion. The second method, SESCC, estimates the epoch of a star catalog by correlating its positional errors with stellar proper motions in ecliptic latitude, claiming the correlation reaches a minimum at the true compilation date. Applied to the full Almagest catalog (over one thousand stars), SESCC reportedly yields a minimum around the 1st century BCE, consistent with traditional chronology and inconsistent with the New Chronology's late dating. The paper also critiques the HOROS software used by New Chronology proponents, arguing that its zodiac boundary parameters are shifted and cause systematic misdating, including a constructed 'double horoscope' that matches both 1 BCE and 1152 CE. The authors provide open-source code via GitHub and accompanying notebooks.
Significance. The paper addresses a high-stakes, nonstandard historical claim with quantitative, reproducible tools, and it explicitly provides open-source code and data for independent verification—a genuine strength. If the SESCC method were rigorously validated, its confirmation of the Almagest's ancient date would be a useful contribution to historical astronomy. The 1151-year cycle is also an intriguing empirical pattern that, if properly characterized with uncertainty estimates and null tests, could be of value. However, the current presentation is preliminary: the central dating claim rests on an untested statistic with no null hypothesis, no confidence intervals, and no sensitivity analysis, and the cycle's uniqueness is asserted rather than demonstrated. The paper's significance is therefore conditional on substantial additional statistical work.
major comments (4)
- [§4, SESCC method] The central dating claim is not supported by any null test. The paper states that SESCC is 'robust against noise, identification errors, or anomalous data points' but provides no quantitative demonstration. To establish that the observed correlation minimum is caused by the historical epoch of observation rather than by the statistic itself, the finite catalog size, or the uneven distribution of stars, the authors must run SESCC on (i) synthetic catalogs with known epochs and realistic error distributions, (ii) catalogs with shuffled or randomized positional errors, and (iii) unphysical catalogs (e.g., with latitudes randomly permuted). Without such controls, the minimum near year -50 cannot be distinguished from an artifact of the procedure.
- [§5, Application to the Almagest] The paper reports a time resolution of 100 years and no error bars or confidence intervals on the estimated epoch. The statement that SESCC 'consistently identifies a minimum around the 1st century BCE' is therefore compatible with any epoch in a range from roughly -150 to +50 CE. This resolution is insufficient to discriminate between the traditional dating of Ptolemy (2nd century CE) and many variants, and it is certainly insufficient to refute a 7th–13th century New Chronology claim if the true minimum could lie anywhere in a 200-year window. The authors need to provide an uncertainty estimate, ideally by resampling or Monte Carlo over plausible star identifications and error distributions.
- [§3, Methodology of the Cyclical Analysis] The claim that the 1151-year cycle is 'the best among all candidate cycles' and that 'no other time interval exhibited a comparable level of sustained similarity' is not backed by any statistical test. The figure of merit—mean angular deviation plus standard deviation—is ad hoc, and there is no null distribution to assess whether a minimum of approximately 21 degrees is significant. The authors should show the distribution of this figure of merit across all candidate periods, report the significance of the 1151-year minimum relative to that distribution, and test whether the minimum persists when the comparison series length or the reference date is varied systematically.
- [§4, SESCC method and star identification errors] The method assumes that ancient catalog errors are not correlated with proper motion at the true epoch. However, star identification errors in the Almagest are known to be substantial and could plausibly correlate with proper motion, because bright, fast-moving stars such as Arcturus, Aldebaran, and Procyon are the most likely to be misidentified or to carry large ancient positional uncertainties. The paper does not address this documented source of systematic error, nor does it quantify how misidentifications affect the correlation curve. A sensitivity analysis that removes or reweights high-proper-motion stars, or that uses multiple plausible identifications for uncertain entries, is needed to establish that the minimum is not driven by such effects.
minor comments (7)
- [Abstract and §1] The abstract claims the methods 'challenge key pillars of the New Chronology' and 'yield results that conflict' with it. Given the statistical limitations described above, the wording overstates the strength of the evidence; consider softening to 'suggest' or 'do not support' until the null tests and uncertainty estimates are added.
- [§3] The description of the cycle detection algorithm would benefit from a precise definition of 'mean angular deviation' and 'standard deviation of these differences' in equations, as well as an explicit statement of how the 420403-day period was identified from the scatter plot. The phrase 'Exactly 420403 days' suggests a precision that is not supported by the 100-year search grid described elsewhere.
- [§4] Figure 2 is described qualitatively but lacks axis labels and error bars. The figure should show the candidate dates on the x-axis, the normalized correlation on the y-axis, and ideally the uncertainty band around the curve.
- [§5] The statement that the method 'works without the need for filtering' and yet 'excluding ambiguous entries' also gives stable results is somewhat in tension. The authors should clarify which entries are considered ambiguous and how this subset is defined.
- [§6] The critique of HOROS would be more convincing with a systematic analysis rather than two constructed examples. The authors state that the zodiac boundaries are shifted and the tolerance is ±5°, but they do not show how often this would cause false matches across 1151-year cycles; a quantitative characterization of the parameter space would strengthen this section.
- [General] Several references are incomplete: the Skyfield and HOROS links are given only as URLs, and the '1151-Year Cycle Visualization' YouTube link is not a citable reference. The paper would benefit from a proper acknowledgment of the specific software versions and data releases used.
- [§3] The comparison to exoplanetary resonance chains is presented as suggestive but is not directly relevant to the 1151-year cycle; consider moving this to a discussion section or removing it to avoid overstating the physical significance of an empirical pattern.
Circularity Check
Minor constructed-example circularity in the HOROS illustration; central SESCC dating and 1151-year cycle detection are self-contained.
-
self definitional
[Section 6, Conclusions, paragraph beginning 'This effect was empirically confirmed...']
"This effect was empirically confirmed in the construction of a unique case: a horoscope whose planetary configuration matched both 1 BCE (traditionally considered the birthdate of Christ) and 1152 CE (the supposed birthdate of Andronicus, according to the New Chronology). When input into HOROS, both dates were returned as valid."
The example was constructed to satisfy the matching property being tested, so the 'confirmation' that HOROS returns both dates is a restatement of the construction, not an independent empirical test. It cannot by itself prove that HOROS's zodiac-boundary shift creates false 1151-year matches. The Leiden Aratea example provides independent support, and the central SESCC dating and 1151-year cycle search do not rely on this constructed horoscope, so the circularity is minor and non-load-bearing.
full rationale
The two main methods are not circular. SESCC is a well-defined estimator: at each candidate epoch it compares catalog latitudes with modern positions propagated by Hipparcos proper motions, and the minimum of the speed-error correlation is an output, not a fitted target. The Almagest date around 1st century BCE is derived from data, and validation against synthetic catalogs and Tycho Brahe's catalog supplies external anchors. The 1151-year period is likewise an output of a search over candidate intervals in ephemerides; it is not assumed as an input, and the New Chronology connection is made after the fact. The only in-scope circularity is the constructed double horoscope in Section 6, where the 'empirical confirmation' is equivalent to the construction; this is a minor illustration and does not affect the paper's central derivation chain.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (1)
- 1151-year planetary cycle period =
420403 days
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Positional errors in an ancient catalog are statistically independent of the stars' proper motions at the true catalog epoch.
- domain assumption Hipparcos-based proper motions and modern positions can be linearly propagated back roughly 2000 years for all Almagest stars.
- domain assumption The Almagest catalog was observed at a single epoch.
- ad hoc to paper The figure of merit (mean angular deviation plus standard deviation) defines which planetary cycle is best.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Astronomical Refutation of the New Chronology by Fomenko and Nosovsky: The 1151-Year Planetary Cycle and Dating of the Almagest via Speed/Error Correlation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/372CF5QV
@misc{pith2026250412962,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Astronomical Refutation of the New Chronology by Fomenko and Nosovsky: The 1151-Year Planetary Cycle and Dating of the Almagest via Speed/Error Correlation},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/372CF5QV}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12962}
}
read the original abstract
This paper introduces two astronomical methods developed through computational simulation to evaluate the historical dating of ancient astronomical sources. The first identifies a 1151-year planetary cycle based on the recurrence of visible configurations of Mercury to Saturn, including the Sun and Moon, from a geocentric perspective. The second, called SESCC (Speed-Error Signals Cross Correlation), statistically estimates the epoch of star catalogs by analyzing the correlation between positional error and proper motion in ecliptic latitude. Both methods are reproducible, data-driven, and yield results that contradict key tenets of the New Chronology proposed by Fomenko and Nosovsky, most notably the claim that the Anno Domini began in 1152 CE. Open-source code and analysis tools are provided for independent verification.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Fomenko, A. T., Kalashnikov, V. V., & Nosovsky, G. V. (2003). History: Fiction or Science? Chronology 3 . Delamere Resources LLC
work page 2003
-
[2]
Fomenko, A. T., & Nosovsky, G. V. (2012). How It Was in Reality: Reconstruction . Available at: https://chronologia.org/en/how_it_was/index.html
work page 2012
-
[3]
Toomer, G. J. (1998). Ptolemy’s Almagest. Princeton University Press
work page 1998
-
[4]
ESA. (1997). The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues . ESA SP-1200
work page 1997
-
[5]
Rhodes, B. (n.d.). Skyfield Astronomy Library. https://rhodesmill.org/ skyfield/
-
[6]
DE441 Planetary Ephemerides Kernel
JPL (2020). DE441 Planetary Ephemerides Kernel. https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/ pub/naif/generic_kernels/spk/planets/
work page 2020
-
[7]
Watch the Synchronized Dance of a 6-Planet System
NASA (2021). Watch the Synchronized Dance of a 6-Planet System. NASA Science – TESS Mission News . https://science.nasa.gov/missions/tess/discovery- alert-watch-the-synchronized-dance-of-a-6-planet-system/ 6
work page 2021
Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.