As I stated, the Magi had no interest in planetary astrology, and they were vehemently against it for a long time after works began to be translated into Pahlavi (Middle Persian) in the 3rd century CE during the reign of Shapur I. Only in the centuries just before the rise of Islam do we find any Zoroastrian astrological practices. Also worth noting, that the book of Daniel is not a historically reliable source for early Persian Empire. Nor does it connect the Magi with astrology--the LXX uses the Greek term for astrologers for another group.

@@AaronAdair Even so... Magos then meant everyone who practiced astrology/astronomy like Simon magus in Acts or when Josephus describes the magi who bring Herod gifts celebrating the completion of city Caesaria Maritime around in the Antiquities of Jews. Or you have the magi who are recorded as coming to pay homage to Nero recorded Die Cassius, Suetonis, and Pliny. There are plenty of Easter people who adored astrological omens. Since Mathew doesn't say they were Zoroastrians he can still be alright. I just find the idea that the Zoroastrians did not practiced astrology as problematic.

@@jaskitstepkit7153 it's a fact that the Zoroastrians in the beginning of the common era had no planetary astrological tradition. Instead of just saying them must have, you could look into the literature that reaches that conclusion. And no, 'magos' wasn't the general term for someone who practiced astrology; the term astrologos was more precise, or if one wanted to have an ethnic connection, a Chaldean. A magian was more commonly a term for a person connected to magic or sorcery, just like Simon Magus in the book of Acts. You should note that the magi mentioned by Josephus, Dio, Suetonius, etc., do not call them astrologers or say anything about astrology. The magi did practice interpretations of dreams and prodigies, as noted by numerous sources. They just didn't use planetary motions and positions until some time after the 3rd century CE. Lastly, there is nothing in Josephus about Magi coming to see Herod and bringing him gifts for completing Caesarea Maritima. In AJ 16.5.1 (16.140), the word 'magos' never appears, but I see that David Collins (in his Star of Bethlehem book) asserts the term 'ambassadors' was used for 'magi'. That's just him asserting things without evidence. No magi are mentioned, nor is gift-giving. Moreover, historically, this makes no sense, because Herod hated the Persian Empire, and he personally fought against them to gain the throne in Jerusalem. The Persians also caused the death of his beloved brother. There was no love between the Persians and Herod the Great, so it's not even all that plausible that an embassy was coming from the Zoroastrian priesthood to honor his building of a city.

@@AaronAdair My source is Keener The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. 2009 "Most scholars recognize that these Magi belonged to a priestly caste of Eastern astrologers. In most accounts Magi hail from Persia or Babylon (e.g., Cic. De Leg. 2.10.26; Philo Spec. 3.100; Prob. 74; Dio Chrys. Or. 36; Lucian Runaways 8; Diog. Laert. 8.1.3; Char. Chaer. 5.9.4; Philost. V.A. 1.24). The Chaldeans or Persians were known for divination (Apul. Metam. 2.12; Arrian Alex. 7.18.2, 4) and astrology (Diod. Sic. 1.81.6; 2.31.8; Juv. Sat. 6.553-64; Aul. Gel. 1.9.6; 14.1; Philo Dreams 1.53; Sib. Or. 3.227; Pesiq. R. 14:8) and the Greeks and Romans regularly associated Chaldean Magi with magical powers (Char. Chaer. 5.9.4), prediction of the future (Marc. Aur. Med. 3.3.1; Arrian Alex. 7.16.5), dream interpretation (Herod. Hist. 1.107, 127; 7.12-19; cf. Jos. Ant. 10.195-203; Cic. Divin. 1.46), or specially regarded wisdom (Diog. Laert. 8.1.3; 9.11.61; Dio Chrys. Or. 36.38-48; Lucian Runaways 8; cf. Cic. De Leg. 2.10.26; Philo Prob. 74; Spec. 3.100; Philost. V.A. 1.24). Roman officials are known to have received Magi with honor (Albright and Mann 1971: 14; Schweizer 1975: 37), and Herod was typically generous to pagan cities (see Josephus 1982: 90-93)

@@jaskitstepkit7153 Notice that Keener conflates Chaldeans and Persians. That's like conflating Iraqis and Iranians.

Found the channel due to following Dr. Kipp (an amazing follow to anyone else studying ancient Judaism, or merely having any adjacent interests)…Now subscribed and I will definitely be watching the lecture from Merriworth College, ASAP.

Hahaha, Kipp, you are very desonest, i don't Trust you after you lied about falk

@@yoshiyoshikira7326 anyone who thinks I "lied about Falk" has no idea how to read or comprehend English. I have never done anything of the sort.

Bad editing on my part. Lemme see if I can fix that...

@@AaronAdair Perfect now. I really enjoy your debunking of the Star of Bethlehem as an actual astronomical phenomenon, and the natal narritives in Matthew and Luke as historical. Thanks

Unfortunately that’s impossible. I don’t have the original file anymore, and it was low quality to begin with.

Only if you want to consider the two masses as one body. But then you won’t be able to describe the second string tension.

Fundamentally, you will do the same things: make Free Body Diagrams of each object, and then do the algebraic steps to find all of the tensions. Basically, it's the same as with two objects, but with more work.

There is Fg, one for each block. However, there is no Fn, because a normal force only exists for surfaces in contact. Had either mass been on the ground, there would have been an Fn. In this problem, tension is doing the same sort of thing that Fn does, so if you imagine tension as the same as Fn you’ll get the expected results.

Aaron Adair goated man thanks🙏

Normal force

thebread9 it takes a bit of geometry to prove it, but not that the x and y axes are perpendicular to each other, as are the horizontal push and vertical weight forces. These two sets of perpendicular vectors have the same orientation with respect to each other, so they have the same angles. It’s perhaps easier to add and subtract angles to get to the same conclusion.

@@AaronAdair Thank you for your response this should give me enough to work it out. I appreciate it. Cheers :)

Instead of setting acceleration = 0 in the equations, set it to the appropriate acceleration value (mind also the sign of the acceleration as direction matters)

,

Poop

,

,

Because it's just handing, the acceleration is zero.

Aaron Adair yes Ik, but other questions in general. They ask you about acceleration

ABDUL cherchar you would need to be given that information or else derive it from other given info (e.g., a tension force)

Aaron Adair ohhhhh. Because one of the problems, the numerator- you subtract the masses(kg) and times it by the earths mass but on the denominator, you add them. I don’t get why u add them in the denominator but u subtract them on the numerator

Same here...