PDA

View Full Version : Wandering planets



John T
2003-Nov-10, 12:31 AM
Dear Posters,

I am just asking a few humble questions in this post, in order to understand the numerous mythological texts etc that speak of close encounters with "planets" in ancient times.

Is it really possible that certain planets such as Mars, Venus....indeed, also in earlier times, Saturn and Jupiter too etc...were actually once close to the Earth, or perhaps the Earth was once close to these bodies (in a theoretical sense?)

In other words, is it really the case that the planets as we know them, have always maintained their accepted order of separation between each other since the formation of the solar system, albeit some 4.5 billion years ago?

Or perhaps, might not certain planets have roamed about from time to time (for whatever reason), causing havoc, disruption etc., within the inner solar system, which is much described and recorded within mythology?

Cheers

John T

russ_watters
2003-Nov-10, 01:31 AM
Is it really possible that certain planets such as Mars, Venus....indeed, also in earlier times, Saturn and Jupiter too etc...were actually once close to the Earth, or perhaps the Earth was once close to these bodies (in a theoretical sense?)No. Utterly impossible.
Or perhaps, might not certain planets have roamed about from time to time (for whatever reason), causing havoc, disruption etc., within the inner solar system, which is much described and recorded within mythology? Not unless everything we have ever seen and everything we think we know about gravity is spectacularly wrong.

This isn't your first time here, is it?

Jpax2003
2003-Nov-10, 05:57 AM
I am not aware of any ancient texts that detail past encounters with other planets. I am not saying they don't exist, I simply am not aware of them. However there are some theories that might work.

Many think that a mars size planet hit the earth several billion years ago and created our moon. Pluto wanders from well beyond neptune to inside neptune's orbit.

Bodes law used to have a set order of distance calculated for each planet out to uranus, I think. However when neptune was discovered it was at the wrong place. So suddenly all the planets moved around to screw up our nice theorems. leave it to neptune to cause problems. So we have the bodes law planets, and then we have that runt-of-gas-giant neptune out doing his own thing. So, yes, the planets are unpredictable.

Now we have mega comet pluto impersonating a planet and messing with bodes law again. Why can't these planets just stay where they're supposed to be!

Kebsis
2003-Nov-10, 08:33 AM
Or perhaps, might not certain planets have roamed about from time to time (for whatever reason), causing havoc, disruption etc., within the inner solar system, which is much described and recorded within mythology?

I don't mean to put words into your mouth, but it sounds like you're talking about some of those Summarian tablets the PlanetXers are always going on about. Those ideas have long been debunked, however, and you can see this for yourself on Dr.Plaits main site.

Amadeus
2003-Nov-10, 12:19 PM
Many think that a mars size planet hit the earth several billion years ago and created our moon. Pluto wanders from well beyond neptune to inside neptune's orbit.


I have heard this before and it generaly taken as fact by a lot of people.
My questions is how do they know and where is this "mars sized planet" now? Could it have been mars? Could there have been some biological transfer in the collision?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'am not mad. Or so the voices in my head tell me.

John T
2003-Nov-10, 01:25 PM
russ_watters wrote:


No. Utterly impossible. and,


Not unless everything we have ever seen and everything we think we know about gravity is spectacularly wrong.

This isn't your first time here, is it?

No, this isn't my first time here.

With regard to the gravity issue, I agree that planets just cannot wander around in such a manner utilizing the force of gravity.

Indeed, Dr. Phil Plait has said in his book that just for an exchange of "air" (with reference to a suggested fall-out of "manna" by Velikovsky), Venus would have to approach the Earth to within 600 miles of the surface!
Venus would therefore fill the entire sky for probably "days or weeks" and be incredibly illuminated.
That this event was not mentioned in ancient texts, is further proof that the event never did, nor could have, occurred.

Okay, but why then are there still many references to the planet Venus in ancient times, albeit apparently observed from a relative position not as close to the Earth as Dr. Plait has calculated, but still sufficiently dominant and noteworthy to the people of ancient times to be revered, held in awe and feared?

What are we to do with the numerous mythological references that describe Venus (Pallas Athene) as the "feathered serpent", Mars (Aries, Nergal) as the "god of war", Mercury (Hermes) as "the winged messenger, Jupiter (Zeus) "of the thunderbolt", Saturn (Kronos), "the light of seven days" etc.

As has been said many times before, what was it about our ancestors, whom for some reason (unbeknownst to me, with respect to the apparent unchanging heavens throughout millennia), actually adopted these planets as "Gods" in one way or another and similarly described them as such, all over the world?

Excepting most of the posters on this board, there are no doubt many people around today who could not accurately point out the position in the night sky any these planetary specks of light and Mercury in particular, is difficult to see with the unaided eye, even if one knows where to look.

So, why did the ancients make such a big deal out of these planets, to the point of worship etc?
Sure, they do move differently when compared with the background stars, but I can hardly see that as a valid reason to adopt these unusually moving points of light as "Gods" etc.
Further, by comparison, the sun and moon are given a very limited amount of importance in mythology, which is rather odd.
Surely, the sun and moon should have been the dominant deities of ancient times.

Even the late Carl Sagan wrote in his book 'Broca's Brain' that "...if even 20 percent of the legendary concordances that Velikovsky produces are real, there is something important to be explained".
Of course, Sagan later goes on to describe these concordances in terms of ; common observation, diffusion, brain wiring and coincidence etc.

I am not necessarily discussing Velikovsky here (I do not agree with everthing he had to say), all I am querying, is that if these myths are to be taken literally, or at least if there is a measure of truth in their understanding that does indeed refer to errant planets in ancient times, then perhaps other "unknown" forces need to be invoked or "discovered" to explain them.
Either that, or the interpretation of myth in this manner is seriously flawed.

TinFoilHat
2003-Nov-10, 02:09 PM
My questions is how do they know and where is this "mars sized planet" now?

You're standing on it. Well, part of it.

Apparantly, some of the impactor and much of the crust of the proto-earth coalesced into the moon, while the core of the impactor merged with the earth.

As for how we know - we don't, it's just that the impactor theory best fits the available evidence, including what we know about the composition of the moon from the Apollo missions.



Could there have been some biological transfer in the collision?


Moot point, any biological matter on either world would have been completely sterilized in the impact.

John T
2003-Nov-10, 02:25 PM
Kebsis wrote:


I don't mean to put words into your mouth, but it sounds like you're talking about some of those Summarian tablets the PlanetXers are always going on about. Those ideas have long been debunked, however, and you can see this for yourself on Dr.Plaits main site.

I appreciate what you have said, but I am not a follower of the Planet X theme.

What I am talking about is a conglomeration of hypotheses based mostly on ancient mythology, but without making any claims, as such.
If one interprets these myths in an almost literal manner, it would appear that certain planets may have come fairly close to the Earth in ancient times causing upheavals and catastrophes.

If this is the case, then I wonder what additional forces might be needed in order to explain the origins of these purported wanderings and close encounters.

Archer17
2003-Nov-10, 02:32 PM
...Okay, but why then are there still many references to the planet Venus in ancient times, albeit apparently observed from a relative position not as close to the Earth as Dr. Plait has calculated, but still sufficiently dominant and noteworthy to the people of ancient times to be revered, held in awe and feared?

What are we to do with the numerous mythological references that describe Venus (Pallas Athene) as the "feathered serpent", Mars (Aries, Nergal) as the "god of war", Mercury (Hermes) as "the winged messenger, Jupiter (Zeus) "of the thunderbolt", Saturn (Kronos), "the light of seven days" etc.

As has been said many times before, what was it about our ancestors, whom for some reason (unbeknownst to me, with respect to the apparent unchanging heavens throughout millennia), actually adopted these planets as "Gods" in one way or another and similarly described them as such, all over the world?

Excepting most of the posters on this board, there are no doubt many people around today who could not accurately point out the position in the night sky any these planetary specks of light and Mercury in particular, is difficult to see with the unaided eye, even if one knows where to look.

So, why did the ancients make such a big deal out of these planets, to the point of worship etc?
Sure, they do move differently when compared with the background stars, but I can hardly see that as a valid reason to adopt these unusually moving points of light as "Gods" etc.
Further, by comparison, the sun and moon are given a very limited amount of importance in mythology, which is rather odd.
Surely, the sun and moon should have been the dominant deities of ancient times.

Even the late Carl Sagan wrote in his book 'Broca's Brain' that "...if even 20 percent of the legendary concordances that Velikovsky produces are real, there is something important to be explained".
Of course, Sagan later goes on to describe these concordances in terms of ; common observation, diffusion, brain wiring and coincidence etc.

I am not necessarily discussing Velikovsky here (I do not agree with everthing he had to say), all I am querying, is that if these myths are to be taken literally, or at least if there is a measure of truth in their understanding that does indeed refer to errant planets in ancient times, then perhaps other "unknown" forces need to be invoked or "discovered" to explain them.
Either that, or the interpretation of myth in this manner is seriously flawed.I'm just touching on this, I'm sure there are many here that have a greater knowledge of ancient mythology and could go into greater detail. Basically the ancients did not possess our scientific/astronomical knowledge. For instance, they thought the Earth was flat, didn't know that we orbited the Sun, or even what the Sun was for that matter. The ancients were at the mercy of forces of nature they could not explain and attached superstitious significance to everything from auroras to thunderstorms. They noticed the motion of the planets against the fixed pattern of the stars and, not knowing what these bright lights in the sky were, assigned an obviously flawed explanation and significance to these "wanderers." In the case of Venus, lacking today's contemporary astronomical knowledge I could easily see how the ancients could be awed by this very brilliant planet. Mars distinctive ruddy color has a lot to do with why they attached it to war deities. Just remember what Mars looked like a couple months ago and imagine how the ancients felt. Remember, to them Mars wasn't a "planet" as we understand it today. You're quite right when you say that many people today could not identify the current positions of the planets but these people have a major advantage over the ancients in that most people have at least a rudimentary knowledge of science/nature and know what planets are, this planet's place in the heavens, etc. If Mr Smith sees a bright "star" in the night sky he'll probably assume it's a planet and not give it another thought whereas the ancients did not have this advantage. People tend to fear what they don't understand.

informant
2003-Nov-10, 02:59 PM
I appreciate what you have said, but I am not a follower of the Planet X theme.

What I am talking about is a conglomeration of hypotheses based mostly on ancient mythology, but without making any claims, as such.
If one interprets these myths in an almost literal manner, it would appear that certain planets may have come fairly close to the Earth in ancient times causing upheavals and catastrophes.
What texts are you referring to, exactly?

russ_watters
2003-Nov-10, 03:39 PM
Many think that a mars size planet hit the earth several billion years ago and created our moon. Pluto wanders from well beyond neptune to inside neptune's orbit.


I have heard this before and it generaly taken as fact by a lot of people.
My questions is how do they know and where is this "mars sized planet" now? Could it have been mars? Could there have been some biological transfer in the collision? If I'm not mistaken, a large part of it is still orbiting earth (the moon) and the rest is inside earth. No, it wasn't mars itself.
What are we to do with the numerous mythological references that describe Venus (Pallas Athene) as the "feathered serpent", Mars (Aries, Nergal) as the "god of war", Mercury (Hermes) as "the winged messenger, Jupiter (Zeus) "of the thunderbolt", Saturn (Kronos), "the light of seven days" etc. Study them in ENGLISH class, as they are mythology. Utterly unrelated to science/astronomy/ celestial mechanics.
As has been said many times before, what was it about our ancestors, whom for some reason (unbeknownst to me, with respect to the apparent unchanging heavens throughout millennia), actually adopted these planets as "Gods" in one way or another and similarly described them as such, all over the world? Its quite simple and there is no secret to it - they were fascinated by the night sky and were completely unable to comprehend what was going on there.
Either that, or the interpretation of myth in this manner is seriously flawed. Yeah, that one. Myths (as the name implies) are myths. You are reading WAAAAY too far into them. There isn't anything there.
Basically the ancients did not possess our scientific/astronomical knowledge. For instance, they thought the Earth was flat, didn't know that we orbited the Sun, or even what the Sun was for that matter. It wasn't quite that bad, but it was close. There were certain ancient civilizations (the Greeks for example) who most certainly did know the earth was round. And many understood enough about astronomy to use it as a calendar. As far as the physics behind it though, yeah, they were completely ignorant.

Iain Lambert
2003-Nov-10, 03:40 PM
What are we to do with the numerous mythological references that describe Venus (Pallas Athene) as the "feathered serpent", Mars (Aries, Nergal) as the "god of war", Mercury (Hermes) as "the winged messenger, Jupiter (Zeus) "of the thunderbolt", Saturn (Kronos), "the light of seven days" etc.

As has been said many times before, what was it about our ancestors, whom for some reason (unbeknownst to me, with respect to the apparent unchanging heavens throughout millennia), actually adopted these planets as "Gods" in one way or another and similarly described them as such, all over the world?

Firstly, lets start by recognising that many run-of-the-mill stars made up constellations that were also given the status of representing (or even being) "Gods" and suchlike.

Then add in to the mix the fact that a few of these lights not only shone brighter than nearly all the others, but wandered around the sky in a completely different way to the others. Its little wonder they assigned them some importance, without the need for Mercury to come and nearly collide with us.

aurora
2003-Nov-10, 06:55 PM
Pluto wanders from well beyond neptune to inside neptune's orbit.


I wouldn't use the word "wander", which implies some sort of random motion.

Pluto is actually in a synchronus orbit with Neptune. When Pluto crosses Neptune's orbit, Neptune is nowhere nearby. Get a copy of a planetarium program that includes an Orrery and run it forward and backward and see for yourself.

Pluto's orbit is really gravitationally bound to Neptune, which is another point in the "it's not a planet! Yes it is! No it isn't!" discussion (which was held here not too long ago).

Eroica
2003-Nov-10, 07:59 PM
John T, I sympathise with you. I too am very interested in explaining why the ancients held certain views about the planets. Why, for example, they regarded the tiny light called Jupiter as the King of the Gods, while the glorious Sun was but a minor minion of his. I don't know the right answer to many of these questions, but I do know that Velikovsky's answer is the wrong one.

Some things are actually easy to explain without rewriting the history books. Mars is red to the naked eye, so the god Mars is associated with war. Mercury has the shortest synodic period of the planets, so Mercury is a fleet-footed god - ideal for a divine messenger. Venus is the brightest of the planets, which might explain why she was regarded as the most beautiful of the deities.

Velikovsky may have been a very bad astronomer, but he was otherwise a fine scholar with many interesting things to say. I heartily recommend his work In the Beginning (http://www.varchive.org/itb/index.htm) to anyone interested in this sort of thing. There's a lot of BA in it, but there are also some fascinating facts about planetary mythology that may cause some posters to this thread to think again.

kanon14
2003-Nov-10, 11:44 PM
thx for the link Eroica. i'm quite interested in this subject :)

John T
2003-Nov-11, 01:16 AM
Dear Eroica

You wrote:


John T, I sympathise with you. I too am very interested in explaining why the ancients held certain views about the planets. Why, for example, they regarded the tiny light called Jupiter as the King of the Gods, while the glorious Sun was but a minor minion of his. I don't know the right answer to many of these questions, but I do know that Velikovsky's answer is the wrong one.

Some things are actually easy to explain without rewriting the history books. Mars is red to the naked eye, so the god Mars is associated with war. Mercury has the shortest synodic period of the planets, so Mercury is a fleet-footed god - ideal for a divine messenger. Venus is the brightest of the planets, which might explain why she was regarded as the most beautiful of the deities.

Velikovsky may have been a very bad astronomer, but he was otherwise a fine scholar with many interesting things to say. I heartily recommend his work In the Beginning to anyone interested in this sort of thing. There's a lot of BA in it, but there are also some fascinating facts about planetary mythology that may cause some posters to this thread to think again.
I take what you have said in your post, but I do contend about the apparent fact or indeed supposition, as to whether 'Velikovsky' was "a very bad astronomer" (as everyone seems to think or say).

Personally, on this issue, I do not think that Velikovsky was ignorant of astronomy at all!

Indeed, Velikovsky was probably way-ahead of his time (and no doubt still is today!).

His many subsequent predictions have actually rung true, but of course obviously refuted and denied by the "establishment".

Now that really is a shame.

I agree with you that Velikovsky was a "bad astronomer" (as you say), certainly in the light of the accepted mainstream astronomy of his time (1950) and indeed which is apparently still the same today.

However, Venus was found to be very hot (as Velikovsky predicted in 1950 and also that Jupiter emits "radio waves" etc.)

Previously, around 1950 and since, Venus was regarded as being just a little warmer than the Earth.

Not bad for a trained psychoanalyst, who is regarded as an apparent "bad astronomer"?

What does reign here in the higher echelons of "science" these days?

Is it jealousy, envy, complete denial (wished I had thought of that first syndrome!), or from what I have read over the years, absolute nastiness?

Thankyou for your post.

There is still much to be learned!

Cheers

John T
2003-Nov-11, 04:08 PM
informant wrote:


What texts are you referring to, exactly?

The "texts" are too numerous to mention.

However, in any well-stocked library there are probably entire shelves full of ancient mythological books and writings, some obscure, some not.
In addition to these, there are of course the Old Testament Biblical writings, particularly Exodus and the account of Joshua ben Nun (sun and moon "standing still").

For just one example, there is the mysterious destruction of Sennacherib's army, whilst camped outside Jerusalem, whereupon a "blast from heaven" charred the soldier's bodies, leaving their garments intact.
The dead numbered 185,000.
Later, Sennacherib's grandson, Ashurbanipal, recalled 'the perfect warrior' Mars, 'the lord of the storm, who brings defeat.'
On this same night, purportedly 23rd March 687 BC, the Chinese 'Bamboo Books' reveal that a disturbance of the planets caused them to go 'out of their courses. In the night, stars fell like rain. The Earth shook.'
Romans would celebrate the same occasion: "The most important role in the Roman cult of Mars appears to be played by the festival of 'Tubilustrium' on the 23rd day of March."
It is also recorded that the sun retreated by several hours.
In certain longitudes, the solar disk, which had just risen, returned below the horizon. In others, the setting sun retraced its course, rising in the sky.
The Hebrews witnessed the prolonged night of Sennacherib's destruction.
The sun's retreat, due to a ten degree tilt of the Earth's axis, corrected the axis shift of 721 BC. 'So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down' - Isaiah 38:8.

The above is just a small sample of what has been written in certain ancient texts that appear to refer to the same event.
Seems as though the planet Mars was the culprit (that little red speck in the sky) and somehow, huge bolts of lightning descended from the sky, the "blast from heaven," causing the deaths of all those soldiers.
During the same event, the axis of the Earth shifted and stars fell like rain.

My question:
Is this all a mythological 'fairy tale' (in which case we can forget all about it)?
Or if not, then what was the cause?

informant
2003-Nov-11, 04:44 PM
If one interprets these myths in an almost literal manner, it would appear that certain planets may have come fairly close to the Earth in ancient times causing upheavals and catastrophes.


What texts are you referring to, exactly?


For just one example[Ö]
I donít see what makes the planets coming close to Earth the best explanation for any of the examples you mentionÖ


there is the mysterious destruction of Sennacherib's army, whilst camped outside Jerusalem, whereupon a "blast from heaven" charred the soldier's bodies, leaving their garments intact.
Meteor shower?


On this same night, purportedly 23rd March 687 BC, the Chinese 'Bamboo Books' reveal that a disturbance of the planets caused them to go 'out of their courses. In the night, stars fell like rain. The Earth shook.'
Meteor shower and earthquake?


It is also recorded that the sun retreated by several hours.
In certain longitudes, the solar disk, which had just risen, returned below the horizon. In others, the setting sun retraced its course, rising in the sky.
The Hebrews witnessed the prolonged night of Sennacherib's destruction.
The sun's retreat, due to a ten degree tilt of the Earth's axis, corrected the axis shift of 721 BC. 'So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down' - Isaiah 38:8.
I canít imagine what these might be. But the events seem to be related to the Sun, not the planetsÖ


Seems as though the planet Mars was the culprit (that little red speck in the sky) and somehow, huge bolts of lightning descended from the sky, the "blast from heaven," causing the deaths of all those soldiers.
Why do you say that?


During the same event, the axis of the Earth shifted
How do we know that?


and stars fell like rain.
Meteor shower again?

Archer17
2003-Nov-11, 05:28 PM
John T .. I'm assuming you're basing your post(s) on Velikovsky. His Worlds in Collision has been debunked by the scientific community rather thoroughly. He bases his theories on ancient mythology, picking and choosing what jives with his pet theories and ignoring those myths that don't. His "Collective Amnesia" spiel is right up there with Nancy Leider's "White Lie" .. ever ask yourself why, if Venus was ejected from Jupiter, it wasn't trumpeted by all ancient texts the world over instead of requiring Velikovsky's unique myth-sifting "interpretation?" If Venus knocked the Earth for a loop as Velikovsky claims shouldn't it do more than generate some epics describing the sun's "retreat"? Such an event would be quite catastrophic and not everyone would be subject to "collective amnesia" regarding the devastation this would have to cause. As informant posted, a meteor shower would not be understood by the people in that time period and I would imagine any devastation wrought by Mars would not in any way be battlefield specific, nor incinerate people while leaving their garments intact! I think anyone can sift through ancient mythology and morph it into anything they want. Velikovsky, in my opinion, is right up there with Sitchin and Von Daniken when it comes to the woowoo factor.

Eroica
2003-Nov-11, 05:54 PM
His many subsequent predictions have actually rung true ... Venus was found to be very hot (as Velikovsky predicted in 1950 and also that Jupiter emits "radio waves" etc.)
It is true that several of Velikovsky's predictions turned out to be true, but usually for very different reasons than the ones he gives. This is why Venus is hot according to Velikovsky:
Worlds in Collisions[/i] p 361,]Venus experienced in quick succession its birth and expulsion [supposedly from Jupiter] under violent conditions; an existence as a comet on an ellipse which approached the sun closely; two encounters with the earth accompanied by discharges of potentials between these two bodies and with a thermal effect caused by conversion of momentum into heat; a number of contacts with Mars and probably also with Jupiter. Since all this happened between the third and the first millennia before the present era, the core of the planet Venus must still be hot. Moreover, if there is oxygen present on Venus, petroleum fires must be burning there.
In reality, Venus is hot because of a runaway greenhouse effect caused by its proximity to the Sun.

On the radio emissions from Jupiter, the reasons given by Velikovsky had nothing whatsoever to do with his catastrophist theories:
Earth in Upheaval[/i] p 247,]In Jupiter and its moons we have a system not unlike the solar family. The planet is cold, yet its gases are in motion. It appears probable to me that it sends out radio noises as do the sun and stars.

Velikovsky believed that Venus was ejected from Jupiter because in Greek mythology Athene was born from the forehead of Zeus. But this is one myth which can be, and has been, explained without recourse to catastrophism. Zeus swallowed Metis, the Goddess of Wisdom, while she was pregnant with his daughter Athene to prevent her from conceiving a son (who, it had been prophesied, would overthrow his father). When Metis's time came, Athene was born from Zeus's forehead because the head is the seat of wisdom, and Athene like her mother was a goddess of wisdom.

Dionysus, an erotic fertility god who was also given birth by Zeus, emerges from Zeus's thigh (an obvious euphemism for his ... well, you know!)

informant
2003-Nov-11, 06:14 PM
Not to mention that the Greek goddess for Venus was Aphrodite, not Athena!

John T
2003-Nov-11, 06:49 PM
Archer17 wrote:


I'm just touching on this, I'm sure there are many here that have a greater knowledge of ancient mythology and could go into greater detail. Basically the ancients did not possess our scientific/astronomical knowledge. For instance, they thought the Earth was flat, didn't know that we orbited the Sun, or even what the Sun was for that matter. The ancients were at the mercy of forces of nature they could not explain and attached superstitious significance to everything from auroras to thunderstorms. They noticed the motion of the planets against the fixed pattern of the stars and, not knowing what these bright lights in the sky were, assigned an obviously flawed explanation and significance to these "wanderers." In the case of Venus, lacking today's contemporary astronomical knowledge I could easily see how the ancients could be awed by this very brilliant planet. Mars distinctive ruddy color has a lot to do with why they attached it to war deities. Just remember what Mars looked like a couple months ago and imagine how the ancients felt. Remember, to them Mars wasn't a "planet" as we understand it today. You're quite right when you say that many people today could not identify the current positions of the planets but these people have a major advantage over the ancients in that most people have at least a rudimentary knowledge of science/nature and know what planets are, this planet's place in the heavens, etc. If Mr Smith sees a bright "star" in the night sky he'll probably assume it's a planet and not give it another thought whereas the ancients did not have this advantage. People tend to fear what they don't understand.

I cannot fault your logic by what you have said.

In fact, I once thought the same way (and still do to a certain extent).
I was quite happy with my home-made 8 -1/2 inch reflector, peacefully observing the heavens etc., not bothering anybody, when along came all this mythological stuff.

I do accept that the ancients did not regard the planets as we do and that most celestial bodies were seen as gods residing within the abode of the heavens.
In this respect, some say that mythology was the "science" of yesteryear, because this is the only way that the ancients could explain what it was they observed.
Be that as it may.

However, it seems to me that certain interpretations of mythology reveal an entirely different picture.
There is little doubt in my mind that the ancients actually built their temples and monuments to the planetary gods.
They also constructed precise charts of the heavens and detailed records of planetary movements, almost as if they were fearfully obsessed by their wanderings (Greek - planaomai -wanderer).
Further, sacrificial rites were carried out in many cultures and there were tragic lamentations amid fallen cities and destroyed institutions, all attributable to certain planets.
If these upheavals were due to geological disasters (disaster - unfavourable aspect of a star) such as local volcanoes blowing their tops, earthquakes, hurricanes etc., then the scale of these destructions must have been enormous, because they appear to have been worldwide events.
Perhaps a succession of very heavy meteor showers?
Could it be perhaps that whatever was the cause of these disasters, that because a particular planet happened to be contained within a certain revered constellation, then that planet (god), took the blame for the upheavals?

John T
2003-Nov-11, 07:22 PM
informant wrote:


Not to mention that the Greek goddess for Venus was Aphrodite, not Athena!

Actually, Venus to the Greeks was identified as both Athena and Aphrodite.

informant
2003-Nov-11, 07:30 PM
I had never heard of that, but I'll take your word for it.
Very well, then, Aphrodite was the daughter of Uranus. Why is this fact discarded as irrelevant, while Athena being Zeus' daughter is considered astronomically significant?

Mig
2003-Nov-11, 08:03 PM
John T wrote:

Or perhaps, might not certain planets have roamed about from time to time (for whatever reason), causing havoc, disruption etc., within the inner solar system, which is much described and recorded within mythology?

The reason the ancients made a distinction between the planets and the stars was because the planets do "wander". That is the derivation of the name, I believe. They "wandered" in that their journeys across the sky aren't fixed, as are the stars'. They form a pattern within the pattern. Anyone familiar with the sky, as the ancients were, would have noticed this pretty quickly. These bodies can even stop their progress and back-up. If you had to spend an extended amount of time outdoors, day and night, the sky would become pretty familiar to you, too. After recognizing this curiousity, the human mind is pretty good at creating stories to go along with it. Stories full of speculative drama, violence, love and death. Not to mention the very human attributes of sentience, personality and intent...

John T
2003-Nov-11, 08:19 PM
informant

You are correct that Aphrodite was the daughter of Uranus, but here I think the relevance purports to the birth of Venus following an attack by Cronus (Saturn) in a much earlier epoch, but nevertheless remembered.

I cannot see why as you say "this fact is discarded and irrelevant."

Also, Athena (Venus), was the daughter of Zeus.

I shall have to check this out, but the dual names given to Venus, Aphrodite and Athena, relate as I remember, to the risings and settings of the planet, as in two different cults.

Also, regarding Venus, the Roman author Pliny wrote:
'When in advance and rising before dawn it receives the name of Lucifer, as being another sun and bringing the dawn, whereas when it shines after sunset it is named Vesper as prolonging the daylight or as deputy for the Moon. This property of Venus was first discovered by Pythagoras of Samos about the 42nd Olympiad, 142 years after the founding of Rome'

(Rome was named after Mars.)

Similarly Mercury was known as a morning and evening star, being called Apollo when rising at dawn and Mercury when setting just after sunset.

R.A.F.
2003-Nov-11, 08:38 PM
Velikovsky, in my opinion, is right up there with Sitchin and Von Daniken when it comes to the woowoo factor.

I wouldn't call that an opinion, Archer17, I'd call that an established fact.

By their own writings these 3 prove that they don't understand how things actually work in reality. They're lack of scientific "rigor" in their "theorys" IS the Proof of their woo woo-ness.

John T
2003-Nov-12, 12:31 AM
R.A.F. wrote:


I wouldn't call that an opinion, Archer17, I'd call that an established fact.

By their own writings these 3 prove that they don't understand how things actually work in reality. They're lack of scientific in their "theorys" IS the Proof of their woo woo-ness.

No problem, we all have our views, opinions and indeed choices.

I can assure you that there is no scientific "rigor" (as you say) and the apparent theories that you mentioned, are not "theories" at all.

They are mere hypotheses, that is all!

Indeed, what is this "established fact" that you mentioned?
Can you quantify?

Also, may I ask you;

What is this apparent "woo woo-ness" idea that you refer to, which I suspect was coined by Dr. Phil Plait (the BA), when certain ideas and hypotheses go against the currently accepted thinking of these times?

Are we to accept that everything that was learned, is now absolute fact?

Indeed, should not the paradigm of current accepted astronomical views and opinions be questioned from time to time?

I cannot see a problem with this idea.

John T
2003-Nov-12, 01:02 AM
Eroica

You wrote:


In reality, Venus is hot because of a runaway greenhouse effect caused by its proximity to the Sun.

Really!

Also you wrote:


Velikovsky believed that Venus was ejected from Jupiter because in Greek mythology Athene was born from the forehead of Zeus. But this is one myth which can be, and has been, explained without recourse to catastrophism. Zeus swallowed Metis, the Goddess of Wisdom, while she was pregnant with his daughter Athene to prevent her from conceiving a son (who, it had been prophesied, would overthrow his father). When Metis's time came, Athene was born from Zeus's forehead because the head is the seat of wisdom, and Athene like her mother was a goddess of wisdom.

Dionysus, an erotic fertility god who was also given birth by Zeus, emerges from Zeus's thigh (an obvious euphemism for his ... well, you know!)

Actually 'Eroica' I don't know, but it is a good mythological theory!
Current alternative mythological theory (sorry hypotheses), claims that Venus was actually born out of Saturn (not Jupiter).
The remnants of this event being the most prominent but declining ring system of Saturn.

Interestingly, when one equates much of mythology with the hypothesised celestial events of those ancient times, there emerges an apparent order to the planets of the Solar System that appears to make sense.

Not for me the works of von Daniken, Sitchin etc.

Velikovsky, though much ridiculed during his time (and still is), was in my understanding on the right track (though I do not agree with all that he had to say).

The door has been opened.

Therefore, let us enter in.

Good discussion!

Cheers

John T

Jpax2003
2003-Nov-12, 01:57 AM
Pluto wanders from well beyond neptune to inside neptune's orbit.


I wouldn't use the word "wander", which implies some sort of random motion.

Pluto is actually in a synchronus orbit with Neptune. When Pluto crosses Neptune's orbit, Neptune is nowhere nearby. Get a copy of a planetarium program that includes an Orrery and run it forward and backward and see for yourself.

Pluto's orbit is really gravitationally bound to Neptune, which is another point in the "it's not a planet! Yes it is! No it isn't!" discussion (which was held here not too long ago).

I was being satirical.

I thought that would be obvious from the informal and comical caricatures portrayed in the context of the message in its entirety. Besides, the word planet is derived from the greek word meaning "wanderer" as others have already noted. The humorous aspect of my post should have highlighted this by a personification (animation, if you will) of celestial objects, and the play on words was expected to be immediately apparent.

The next time someone quotes Einstein "God does not play dice..." I will correct them, as I have it on high authority that God plays craps and always goes for sevens.

Archer17
2003-Nov-12, 02:08 AM
R.A.F. wrote:


I wouldn't call that an opinion, Archer17, I'd call that an established fact.

By their own writings these 3 prove that they don't understand how things actually work in reality. They're lack of scientific in their "theorys" IS the Proof of their woo woo-ness.

No problem, we all have our views, opinions and indeed choices.

I can assure you that there is no scientific "rigor" (as you say) and the apparent theories that you mentioned, are not "theories" at all.

They are mere hypotheses, that is all!

Indeed, what is this "established fact" that you mentioned?
Can you quantify?

Also, may I ask you;

What is this apparent "woo woo-ness" idea that you refer to, which I suspect was coined by Dr. Phil Plait (the BA), when certain ideas and hypotheses go against the currently accepted thinking of these times?

Are we to accept that everything that was learned, is now absolute fact?

Indeed, should not the paradigm of current accepted astronomical views and opinions be questioned from time to time?

I cannot see a problem with this idea.There's nothing wrong with questioning current thinking. Science, by it's very definition, is based on the need to question things. Where we differ in opinion is your citing of the texts of ancient mythologies in a literal sense. Without knowledge, even something like a meteor shower is depicted differently by the ancients. My main beef with people that promote theories (or whatever you want to call it) that rely on mythical interpretation, conveniently and all too frequently sidestep the major flaw of their argument .. namely that ancient mythological texts are based on contemporary (ignorant) interpretation of events the ancients couldn't explain with their level of knowledge. You seem to advocate the questioning of current scientific theories but curiously swallow ancient mythology 'hook-line-and sinker' without taking into consideration the limitations of the authors. With the level of knowledge available on the 'net I'm surprised you have this bias.

John T
2003-Nov-12, 02:11 AM
Archer17

You wrote:


His "Collective Amnesia" spiel is right up there with Nancy Leider's "White Lie" .. ever ask yourself why, if Venus was ejected from Jupiter, it wasn't trumpeted by all ancient texts the world over instead of requiring Velikovsky's unique myth-sifting "interpretation?"

Dear 'Archer17',

Hang on a minute!

Don't you realize that Velikovsky's "Collective Amnesia" theory (not an hypothesis!) was the culmination of all that he was about?

The theory 'Collective Amnesia,' was Velikovsky's entire message!

He was after all a trained psychoanalyst and perfectly well qualified within his profession to interpret "dreams" etc. (which is what most psychanalysts do within their profession!)

Also, Velikovsky was a noted and well-respected historian etc and within his trained profession, was also very successful in curing numerous patients who suffered from various mental ailments.
(Try reading some of his psychoanalystic papers to understand his successful method).

Who then is better qualified to interpret ancient myths (which are regarded as a sort of dream-related factor), than a trained psychoanalyst?

Never mind his other works (I suppose):

Most people have only heard of his book 'Worlds in Collision' - published in 1950 and rather astonishingly, is still relevant today.

Subsequent publications were:

'Ages in Chaos' (a reconstruction of ancient Middle-Eastern history from the start of the 18th Dynasty onwards.)

'Earth in Upheaval' (used in some colleges and universities as a geological guiding "textbook")

'Peoples of the Sea' (the mysterious Persians)
'Rameses 11 and his Time' (Rameses the Great)
'Stargazers and grave Diggers' (now there's a point!)
'Mankind in Amnesia'
'Oedipus and Akhenaten'

Also unpublished works such as:

'Jupiter of the Thunderbolt'
'Saturn and the Flood'

Including numerous papers relating to all of these theories.

Are these works really in the same category as Nancy Leider, von Daniken, Sitchin or indeed Graham Hankock etc., as you assume?

Certainly and I agree, the likes of Sitchin, Von Daniken etc are indeed existing within the realm of the "woowoo factor" as you say (courtesy no doubt of the "well-trained" BA), but surely not Velikovsky.

Gimme a break!

Cheers

John t

Archer17
2003-Nov-12, 02:31 AM
Archer17

You wrote:


His "Collective Amnesia" spiel is right up there with Nancy Leider's "White Lie" .. ever ask yourself why, if Venus was ejected from Jupiter, it wasn't trumpeted by all ancient texts the world over instead of requiring Velikovsky's unique myth-sifting "interpretation?"

Dear 'Archer17',

Hang on a minute!

Don't you realize that Velikovsky's "Collective Amnesia" theory (not an hypothesis!) was the culmination of all that he was about?

The theory 'Collective Amnesia,' was Velikovsky's entire message!

He was after all a trained psychoanalyst and perfectly well qualified within his profession to interpret "dreams" etc. (which is what most psychanalysts do within their profession!)

Also, Velikovsky was a noted and well-respected historian etc and within his trained profession, was also very successful in curing numerous patients who suffered from various mental ailments.
(Try reading some of his psychoanalystic papers to understand his successful method).

Who then is better qualified to interpret ancient myths (which are regarded as a sort of dream-related factor), than a trained psychoanalyst?

Never mind his other works (I suppose):

Most people have only heard of his book 'Worlds in Collision' - published in 1950 and rather astonishingly, is still relevant today.

Subsequent publications were:

'Ages in Chaos' (a reconstruction of ancient Middle-Eastern history from the start of the 18th Dynasty onwards.)

'Earth in Upheaval' (used in some colleges and universities as a geological guiding "textbook")

'Peoples of the Sea' (the mysterious Persians)
'Rameses 11 and his Time' (Rameses the Great)
'Stargazers and grave Diggers' (now there's a point!)
'Mankind in Amnesia'
'Oedipus and Akhenaten'

Also unpublished works such as:

'Jupiter of the Thunderbolt'
'Saturn and the Flood'

Including numerous papers relating to all of these theories.

Are these works really in the same category as Nancy Leider, von Daniken, Sitchin or indeed Graham Hankock etc., as you assume?

Certainly and I agree, the likes of Sitchin, Von Daniken etc are indeed existing within the realm of the "woowoo factor" as you say (courtesy no doubt of the "well-trained" BA), but surely not Velikovsky.

Gimme a break!

Cheers

John tMr V's "Collective Amnesia" is a cop-out. It doesn't legitimize him, it's a rather transparent excuse for why his theories and the ancient mythology he relies on don't mesh. Citing his psycho-analytical "talents" doesn't impress me too much, especially in the context of this discussion. Equating dream-interpretation and planetary mayhem is a rather lame corollary if you ask me, but .. anyway .. do you have any evidence, besides the mythology of the ancients, to legitimize Velikovsky's hocus? Velikovsky didn't .. I'm curious if you can rise above his thinking.

Celestial Mechanic
2003-Nov-12, 04:46 AM
So when does our "Collective Amnesia" of September 11 kick in? I'm still waiting for "collective amnesia" of Disco!

informant
2003-Nov-12, 12:03 PM
I cannot see why as you say "this fact is discarded and irrelevant."
My remark was in reference to something that Eroica had written:


Velikovsky believed that Venus was ejected from Jupiter because in Greek mythology Athene was born from the forehead of Zeus. But this is one myth which can be, and has been, explained without recourse to catastrophism.
Velikovsky claimed that Venus was ejected from Jupiter, and that the ancients knew about this, based on the identification of Venus with Athena, who was born of Zeus. But the Greeks also identified Venus with Aphrodite, who, according to Hesiod was born from Uranus. Itís true that Homer and others say that Aphrodite was Zeusí daughter (http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fhomepage.mac.com%2Fc parada%2FGML%2FAphrodite.html), but then again, some authors also say that Athena was Poseidonís (Neptune's) daughter (http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fhomepage.mac.com%2Fc parada%2FGML%2FAphrodite.html).
So how are we to know which version we should look at for astronomical insight? Did Velikovsky explain that?

R.A.F.
2003-Nov-12, 12:07 PM
Interestingly, when one equates much of mythology with the hypothesised celestial events of those ancient times, there emerges an apparent order to the planets of the Solar System that appears to make sense.

Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with this...would you care to list examples where Velikovski's Astronomical knowledge makes sense?


Velikovsky, though much ridiculed during his time (and still is), was in my understanding on the right track...

Velikovski was/is ridiculed because what he wrote does not describe the way things actually are. His understanding of science was seriously flawed. Perfect example...Velikovski doesn't know the difference between Hydrocarbons and Carbohydrates. He tried to use these 2 terms, interchangeably, in an attempt to "prove" one of his "points". Instead, it succeeded in making him look stupid.


(though I do not agree with all that he had to say).

Perhaps it would be a good idea if you stated where you think he's right, (Astronomically), that way we won't be wasting time agreeing where he's wrong.

John T
2003-Nov-12, 11:22 PM
R.A.F. wrote:


Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with this...would you care to list examples where Velikovski's Astronomical knowledge makes sense? R.A.F.

Sure I can, but in the meantime, alternatively speaking, could you possibly give me examples whereupon Mainstream Astronomical knowledge makes sense?

Cheers

John T

John T
2003-Nov-13, 12:35 AM
This the beauty of this site ie "Against the mainstream"

All I am talking about is a few meager innocent planets within our humble little solar system, that may have moved rather erratically, for various reasons etc., albeit of recent times.
I cannot see a problem with this line of discussion!

However, at the same time during this discussion, I am receiving remarks such as "stupid", "hocus pocus", "weird" etc.,

Okay fair enough.

But, hang on a minute!

What is so more outrageous than such "ridiculous" ideas such as Neutron stars, Black Holes, Strings (hyper or otherwise), Missing matter, Dark Matter (hot and cold), WIMPS (now we are really scratching the bottom of barrel), suggested parallel universes, multi-universes etc ...the list is seemingly endless and I must say, extremely confusing.

Even MOND... ie If the equations do not fit the observations, change the rules!

Einstein's theories of relativity are "extinct" and always have been!

With regard to the "cosmological constant" etc., a prominent scientist once said that Einstein would have been far better off spending the last thirty-odd years of his life "goin' fishing".

What is so wrong with a few wandering planets outside of their normal excepted orbits, courtesy the "Nebular Hypothesis"

Cheers

John T

Archer17
2003-Nov-13, 01:45 AM
Lighten up John T. It ain't personal, it's simply disagreeing with you and Mr Velikovsky. You obviously have problems with current "mainstream" astronomical theories and should expect resistance to what you propose. You really haven't made a case for your beliefs up to this point and shouldn't expect everyone to jump on your bandwagon.. BTW it's "hocus," not "hocus pocus." :wink:

kanon14
2003-Nov-13, 04:30 AM
What is so wrong with a few wandering planets outside of their normal excepted orbits, courtesy the "Nebular Hypothesis"

there's nothing wrong with such theory/hypothesis. the problem is how do you acquire the data/observations and how you interpret them.

i'm quite uninformed in psychology so i'll take the fact that Mr. Velikovsky is a very well-respected psychologist in the way you've described, but does that make his theory in astronomy valid? it's like saying that you believe a newspaper politics columnist could cure neuropsychosis. yes it is possible, but very unlikely. the main point is these 2 propositions, namely being a well-respected psychology and his validity in astronomy, are unrelated. so your argument is invalid thus flawed.



What is this apparent "woo woo-ness" idea that you refer to, which I suspect was coined by Dr. Phil Plait (the BA), when certain ideas and hypotheses go against the currently accepted thinking of these times?

again, the problem is not because the theory goes against current "mainstream" theories, but because how the conclusion is reached. consider the following hypothesis:

i now have a theory that all of our ancestors are aliens. my reasoning is that the most ancient chinese texts tells the stories in a way that the whole chinese race was passed down by an alien civilization (alien not as in outerspace creatures, but as in the physical appearance, such as they have 3 eyes, 4 hands, horns, etc). there was a global catastrophe in the anicent time and almost the entire alien civilization was destroyed, but a few survived and thus organized the anicent chinese race. aftre a few centries these survivors finally passed away and left what is known as china.

some chinese historians boldly suggest the above theory as they take the anicent chinese texts as literally as those biblical scholars take the bible. afterall, you can't refute that theory because no one is more qualified to interpret chinese ancient text than chinese historians, right?? :wink:

[edited to make the quotes right]

Eroica
2003-Nov-13, 08:14 AM
What is so wrong with a few wandering planets outside of their normal expected orbits?
Today the planets revolve about the Sun in nearly-circular orbits. Explain how a planet like Saturn could have ended up in such an orbit if it was close to the Earth only four or five thousand years ago.

Iain Lambert
2003-Nov-13, 04:21 PM
Indeed - provide a way to get from a "wandering" planet to a one sitting in a nice sensible orbit like they do now, and I'll be impressed.

kanon14
2003-Nov-13, 10:35 PM
...without breaking the laws of physics, or should i say without contradicting how the mainstream understand the universe today. if it happen to violate current understanding of physics, please provide a thorough argument on why the current view is flawed and yours is the way to go.

John T
2003-Nov-14, 12:11 AM
Archer17

You wrote:


Lighten up John T. It ain't personal, it's simply disagreeing with you and Mr Velikovsky. You obviously have problems with current "mainstream" astronomical theories and should expect resistance to what you propose. You really haven't made a case for your beliefs up to this point and shouldn't expect everyone to jump on your bandwagon.. BTW it's "hocus," not "hocus pocus."

To me, it is a moot point, but it was Tim Thompson (TT) who coined first the term "hocus pocus.", not me.

Because (TT) has an apparent lack of understanding within the supposition of Birkelian Currents pervading the universe, obviously he is confused.
Fair enough!

You further wrote:


You really haven't made a case for your beliefs up to this point and shouldn't expect everyone to jump on your bandwagon.. BTW it's "hocus," not "hocus pocus."

Neither has mainstream astronomy!

Cheers

John T

John T
2003-Nov-14, 01:24 AM
Dear posters,

Still on the same subject, but being perhaps more fundamental and maybe deviating slightly.

Never mind for now on this thread (so much), all the conjectures and hypotheses (Velikovsky etc), as to why certain planets in our solar system may have wandered off their courses from time to time (but which is nevertheless still very interesting)

The question to my mind is;

What was the cause for these purported disruptions from their orbital courses (if indeed they did occur)?

Surely, does not the apparent 100-odd newly discovered extra-solar "planets" offer a measure of a clue?

Why are these so-called "planets" in such close proximity to their primaries?

Indeed, many of these supposed "planets" (obviously theorised on very tentative evidence, but not observed), are apparently well within 1 AU and are assumed to be orbiting the primary in a matter of a few days?

Nebular theory?

The Nebular hypothesis does not explain these close orbiting, many Jupiter-sized hypothesised "planets."

Maybe, at the end of the day, if these suppostions are true (which I think they well could be!), then the entire subject involves the question as to whether subsequent "fissioning" of these companions, may have began our own solar system.

Fissioning as against, accretion.

Cheers

John

Archer17
2003-Nov-14, 03:12 AM
Oh nice move John T! Didn't like the way things were heading, so change directions. You like to bash mainstream astronomy but haven't exactly been forthcoming with questions/requests for elaboration. Since you started it, why don't you respond to some posters before we go down "Fission Lane". A refresher:
..Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with this...would you care to list examples where Velikovski's Astronomical knowledge makes sense?you replied with:
Sure I can, but in the meantime, alternatively speaking, could you possibly give me examples whereupon Mainstream Astronomical knowledge makes sense?This was an evasion, not an answer.
Today the planets revolve about the Sun in nearly-circular orbits. Explain how a planet like Saturn could have ended up in such an orbit if it was close to the Earth only four or five thousand years ago.You didn't answer.
Indeed - provide a way to get from a "wandering" planet to a one sitting in a nice sensible orbit like they do now, and I'll be impressed.No reply from you. kanon14 added to this request for information here:
...without breaking the laws of physics, or should i say without contradicting how the mainstream understand the universe today. if it happen to violate current understanding of physics, please provide a thorough argument on why the current view is flawed and yours is the way to go.Still no response. Notice a pattern here? Now you want to talk about exo-solar planets and a non-accretion scenario for solar system formation! Why don't you finish what you started in this solar system first?

kanon14
2003-Nov-14, 06:53 AM
To John T:

Kanon's reply:

umm... maybe my comprehsension skill is bad, but i don't exactly understand what your last post is talking about :-?

Iain Lambert
2003-Nov-14, 08:20 AM
I believe he is suggesting that our current models of planetary formation (which have little to do with the wandering planet issue) must be at fault because all of the planets we keep finding in orbit around other stars are huge Jupiter-types in close proximity to the stars.

Completely sidestepping the fact that this bound to be the case, because planets of that type are the only ones the technique used for finding them captures easily.

kanon14
2003-Nov-14, 07:28 PM
I believe he is suggesting that our current models of planetary formation (which have little to do with the wandering planet issue) must be at fault because all of the planets we keep finding in orbit around other stars are huge Jupiter-types in close proximity to the stars.

Completely sidestepping the fact that this bound to be the case, because planets of that type are the only ones the technique used for finding them captures easily.

yea the technique we use to look for extraterrestrial planets can only detect jupiter-like gas gaints. we haven't yet found terrestial planets does not mean they do not exist. it's simply we don't have the technology to do so at this moment

John T
2003-Nov-15, 12:09 AM
Dear kanon14

Precisely my point!

You wrote:


yea the technique we use to look for extraterrestrial planets can only detect jupiter-like gas gaints. we haven't yet found terrestial planets does not mean they do not exist. it's simply we don't have the technology to do so at this moment

Nor does the Nebular hypothesis bear this out!

John T
2003-Nov-15, 12:47 AM
Archer17

You wrote:


Oh nice move John T! Didn't like the way things were heading, so change directions. You like to bash mainstream astronomy but haven't exactly been forthcoming with questions/requests for elaboration. Since you started it, why don't you respond to some posters before we go down "Fission Lane". A refresher:R.A.F. wrote:
..Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with this...would you care to list examples where Velikovski's Astronomical knowledge makes sense?
you replied with: Quote:
Sure I can, but in the meantime, alternatively speaking, could you possibly give me examples whereupon Mainstream Astronomical knowledge makes sense?
This was an evasion, not an answer. Eroica wrote:
Today the planets revolve about the Sun in nearly-circular orbits. Explain how a planet like Saturn could have ended up in such an orbit if it was close to the Earth only four or five thousand years ago.
You didn't answer.Iain Lambert wrote:
Indeed - provide a way to get from a "wandering" planet to a one sitting in a nice sensible orbit like they do now, and I'll be impressed.
No reply from you. kanon14 added to this request for information here: kanon14 wrote:
...without breaking the laws of physics, or should i say without contradicting how the mainstream understand the universe today. if it happen to violate current understanding of physics, please provide a thorough argument on why the current view is flawed and yours is the way to go.
Still no response. Notice a pattern here? Now you want to talk about exo-solar planets and a non-accretion scenario for solar system formation! Why don't you finish what you started in this solar system first?

Hang on a minute!

What is so wrong with an alternative explanation as to what it is we apparently interpret?
Seems I come over in your thinking, as some kind of a wise guy...you konw...havn't answered all the quetions etc.
Okay, fair enough.

I had assume dby yout responses etc that you were as knowledgable as myself on the subject.

Obvously, in this case I am wrong>

But have you even bothered to take time-out and even read the most voluminous material that there is to be consided on this subject?

You may "strongly disagree" with anything you wish...no problem, but have you actually taken "time-out" to even consider the alternative view? (which apparently wahatt this site is all about).

If you want answers to what I have said, the answer is simple:
Read the books!

You wrote:


Indeed - provide a way to get from a "wandering" planet to a one sitting in a nice sensible orbit like they do now, and I'll be impressed.

I am not in the business of impressing anyone.

Can't you work it out for youself! (Birkeland currents, Plasma etc).
Surely it is not that difficulut!

Alternatively, stick to gravity (whatever that is)![/b]

John T
2003-Nov-15, 01:22 AM
Archer17
Further to my reply,

What else am I to say on this subject?

You wrote as previously displayed:


Oh nice move John T! Didn't like the way things were heading, so change directions. You like to bash mainstream astronomy but haven't exactly been forthcoming with questions/requests for elaboration. Since you started it, why don't you respond to some posters before we go down "Fission Lane". A refresher:R.A.F. wrote:
..Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with this...would you care to list examples where Velikovski's Astronomical knowledge makes sense?
you replied with: Quote:
Sure I can, but in the meantime, alternatively speaking, could you possibly give me examples whereupon Mainstream Astronomical knowledge makes sense?
This was an evasion, not an answer. Eroica wrote:
Today the planets revolve about the Sun in nearly-circular orbits. Explain how a planet like Saturn could have ended up in such an orbit if it was close to the Earth only four or five thousand years ago.
You didn't answer.Iain Lambert wrote:
Indeed - provide a way to get from a "wandering" planet to a one sitting in a nice sensible orbit like they do now, and I'll be impressed.
No reply from you. kanon14 added to this request for information here: kanon14 wrote:
...without breaking the laws of physics, or should i say without contradicting how the mainstream understand the universe today. if it happen to violate current understanding of physics, please provide a thorough argument on why the current view is flawed and yours is the way to go.
Still no response. Notice a pattern here? Now you want to talk about exo-solar planets and a non-accretion scenario for solar system formation! Why don't you finish what you started in this solar system first?

If you want details of the hypothesis, then I will present them to you.

Trouble is, in my humble estimation, I thought I was talking to people who were at least reasonably knowledgable on the subject!

Obviously, I was wrong.

Anyway, no matter.

I will attempt to answer all your questions in a forthright manner (and I certaintly do not need "time-off" to work them out).

In the meantime, being on this thread.

Perhaps overall, "food for thought" unless of course your mind is already made up.

Cheers

John T

Archer17
2003-Nov-15, 01:37 AM
You're the one shoveling this non-mainstream stuff John T. If you can't back up your hypotheses by answering questions, save yourself and the board some time and don't bring it up at all. You might not have noticed, but we don't share your hypothesis on "wandering planets" or solar system formation and it's time for you to "put your money where your mouth is."

John T
2003-Nov-15, 03:16 AM
Archer17

You wrote:


You're the one shoveling this non-mainstream stuff JohnT. If you can't back up your hypotheses by answering questions, save yourself and the board some time and don't bring it up at all. You might not have noticed, but we don't share your hypothesis on "wandering planets" or solar system formation and it's time for you to "put your money where your mouth is."

Well said!

Of course, I do understand why you do not understand what it is I have to say.
Indeed, I also "understand" why you, or as you have said in a most authoritively speaking manner why "we", do not share my hypotheses.

Please, who is "we?"

Anyway, please wait a miniscule minute;

Is this not the BA's "Against the Mainstream" thread! (you know...within reason, and hypothesizing, anything goes?)

What I have said is indeed against the mainstream, but I am just merely (and I trust politely, albeit in my own manner), adhering to particular thoughts and traites etc on this particular thread that is alternative to mainstream thinking.

If you are not prepared to even listen to what I have to say, then that is your problem, not mine.
Call it ridiculous or whatever, that is your choice.

Perhaps the BA should christen this site as being "Against the Mainstream... providing one does not deter too far from the norm"!

If that is to be the case, then the whole "alternative idea" is lost.

I cannot see any problem with such alternative thinking and as with all things, devoid of apparent "knowledge etc", all must be considered.

You ask me for some definitive proof and then to "put your money where your mouth is."

Okay, short of writing an entire thesis just for your own benefit, could you just for an example, possibly theorize or at least explain to me where the nearest astronomical body (albeit a large body), came from (devoid of NEO's etc)?

Here I am talking about the origin and formation of the Moon.

Now, there is a good start!

We should have a really interesting debate/discussion on this topic...unless of course, you already "know" how the Moon was formed (textbooks will assist you enormously here)

Should you reply on this subject, please do not give me the rather boring "Mars-Crunch" episode some 3.5 billion years ago, nor any other such crunching episode.

The evidence is there, alternatively speaking, in quite some proportion

You think about it!

In the meantime, I shall gather together all the questions you and other guys have previously asked and will present my answers to you within a couple of posts.

Trust this may satisfy your request and perhaps alleviate some of your ill-founded assumptions as to my theorems or regard to astronomical affairs.

Cheers

John

R.A.F.
2003-Nov-15, 03:17 AM
You may "strongly disagree" with anything you wish...no problem, but have you actually taken "time-out" to even consider the alternative view?

The "alternative view" that I find the funniest is the one where Velikovski "postulates" that Venus approached the Earth in such a way as to make the Earth's rotation STOP!!! In reality, if this were to happen, the crust of the Earth would become molten!!! Yes, that IS the funniest one. :lol:

John T
2003-Nov-15, 03:27 AM
R.A.F. wrote:


The "alternative view" that I find the funniest is the one where Velikovski "postulates" that Venus approached the Earth in such a way as to make the Earth's rotation STOP!!! In reality, if this were to happen, the crust of the Earth would become molten!!! Yes, that IS the funniest one.

I coudn't agree with you more!

Ever read about it?

John

Archer17
2003-Nov-15, 04:18 AM
John T .. knock off the long-winded diatribes that say nothing. You started this thread by espousing the thoroughly discredited theories of Velikovsky using literal interpretation of certain mythology as evidence. When presented with questions or requests for elaboration, you failed to respond. While you couldn't find it within you to answer direct queries, you, on more than one occasion, took general shots at mainstream astronomical thinking. Then you decided to go off on solar system formation, claiming the Jupiter-sized planets we discovered were evidence of flaws in the Nebular theory of solar system formation and how "fission," instead of accretion, was the way to go. :roll: (There might be flaws in our current model of solar system formation but not in the way you're going). When it was pointed out that we lack the current technology to consistently image exosolar planets much smaller than Jupiter, you cited this as a nail in the coffin of the Nebular theory when it's quite obvious that's not what was posted (ask Iain Lambert and kanon14). Following that, you respond to my posts with Fidel Castro-like long-winded tangents that really didn't say anything and just now ask me to explain the origin of the Moon in a manner to your liking while you (again) claim you'll get around to answering questions dealing with your first woowoo offering .. the Velikovsky thing. hmm.. :-k A couple posts ago you wrote:
I am not in the business of impressing anyone. I agree :wink:

Jpax2003
2003-Nov-15, 05:08 AM
Dear kanon14

Precisely my point!

You wrote:


yea the technique we use to look for extraterrestrial planets can only detect jupiter-like gas gaints. we haven't yet found terrestial planets does not mean they do not exist. it's simply we don't have the technology to do so at this moment

Nor does the Nebular hypothesis bear this out!

I disagree, I am sure we have the technology available to us now. WE don't have everything in place for the more precise imaging yet. The work into VLBI on earth or luna or space based should have better resolution into detecting smaller differences.

Another reason why smaller planets with more distant orbits have not been detected is that the periods are too long for us to calculate within timeframe currently elapsed.

Once we have larger number of astronomers to interpret data from more and higher resolution imaging equipment over a longer period of time we will have enough data for firmer conclusions. If after that time, the data supports volikovsky, then perhaps it should be examined.

If I look out my window and after 15 seconds, I don't see any cars on the road, should I conclude that every vehicle on earth suddenly malfunctioned at the same time?

russ_watters
2003-Nov-15, 06:51 AM
Gee, three pages into it and my post (the second post in the thread) is still the only one that was really necessary. Nothing at all has been accomplished since then. And nothing will be accomplished so long as John T refuses to present any actual evidence of anything he has said.

Unless he makes an arguement, there is nothing to argue against. So its pointless, guys.

kanon14
2003-Nov-15, 09:27 AM
Gee, three pages into it and my post (the second post in the thread) is still the only one that was really necessary. Nothing at all has been accomplished since then. And nothing will be accomplished so long as John T refuses to present any actual evidence of anything he has said.

Unless he makes an arguement, there is nothing to argue against. So its pointless, guys.
agree.

John T, you constantly failed to respond other's post directly but tried to distract our attention into something like how unreliable the :mainstream" views are etc. that's not really a "discussion", for which you've been looking. the purpose for this "Agaisnt the Mainstream" subgroup to exist is to discuss the theory. but so far you've failed to do so. when people disagree with your alternative view, what you should do is provide evidence and reason to support your claim, but not making vague statements like "mainstream views could be wrong" or "mainstream views are as ridiculous as the alternative ones". that's not the right way to do discussion.

again, it's nothing personal. it's just i don't agree on how you present your argument.

kilopi
2003-Nov-15, 09:30 AM
So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down' - Isaiah 38:8.
You left off the first part of that verse (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa038.html): "Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward."

That may be the first record of daylight saving time.

kanon14
2003-Nov-15, 09:41 AM
That may be the first record of daylight saving time.
good point kilopi =D>

Archer17
2003-Nov-15, 04:34 PM
Gee, three pages into it and my post (the second post in the thread) is still the only one that was really necessary. Nothing at all has been accomplished since then. And nothing will be accomplished so long as John T refuses to present any actual evidence of anything he has said.

Unless he makes an arguement, there is nothing to argue against. So its pointless, guys.Well, one thing has been accomplished .. I am now a Bad Master 8) but I agree with you, this is pointless.

russ_watters
2003-Nov-15, 05:19 PM
Gee, three pages into it and my post (the second post in the thread) is still the only one that was really necessary. Nothing at all has been accomplished since then. And nothing will be accomplished so long as John T refuses to present any actual evidence of anything he has said.

Unless he makes an arguement, there is nothing to argue against. So its pointless, guys.Well, one thing has been accomplished .. I am now a Bad Master 8) but I agree with you, this is pointless. Well then all is not quite in vain. =D>

John T
2003-Nov-16, 12:34 AM
Dear all the posters on this apparent innocuous and indeed trivial thread,

It appears quite obvious to me, on this particular subject (and its many derivatives etc), that many of you do not have a single clue what it is I have been talking about.

Okay, fair enough.

You are right, I am wrong!

Should such questions arise again, then you work it all out!

Wallo!

Subject closed.

kilopi
2003-Nov-16, 05:19 AM
It appears quite obvious to me, on this particular subject (and its many derivatives etc), that many of you do not have a single clue what it is I have been talking about.
Reconciling mythology?

Celestial Mechanic
2003-Nov-16, 05:23 AM
[Snip!]Einstein's theories of relativity are "extinct" and always have been![Snip!]

Cheers
John T
Not so fast! I wouldn't start dancing on Einstein's grave just yet! Einstein's theories are abundantly confirmed by the various ephemerides obtained by integrating the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffman equations. Do you know of something more accurate to take its place?

Our predictions of planetary positions are accurate enough that there really is no room for any "Birkeland currents" or other exotic non-gravitional effects. There is no evidence for any small effects, much less the drastic effects alleged to have occurred near the dawn of written history.

If you know of some replacement for general relativity, maybe you could tell us so that Normandy6644 won't waste his time on an "extinct" theory! :)

Oh, and BTW, I still want to know when our "collective amnesia" of September 11th will kick in! :-?

kanon14
2003-Nov-16, 05:49 AM
It appears quite obvious to me, on this particular subject (and its many derivatives etc), that many of you do not have a single clue what it is I have been talking about.

that's because you failed to explain yourself clearly so far. reading thru the forum, you should notice that for those who've participated in this thread DO have a good grasp in astronomy. if we disagree with you, it is either you failed to explain yourself, or your theory just doesn't make sense.



Okay, fair enough.
You are right, I am wrong!

again, we've never claimed we are right. it's just that we disagree with what you've said. that doesn't mean we are right.

R.A.F.
2003-Nov-16, 12:36 PM
Subject closed.

I was unaware that the "subject" was ever open.

John T, you started this thread by saying that you thought that there was "something" to this wandering Planets "theory". Fine so far, folks here asked you for evidence to "back" that up. Then, you started to "bash" Mainstream Science. That's fine too, but you still need to be able to support that reasoning. So far you've done neither.

Now, the "subject" is closed?? When you discuss ideas in this fashion, folks here will "tune you out" fairly quickly. They ARE willing to discuss any new ideas...but they are also going to demand that you explain HOW you have arrived at your conclusions. If you can't do that, it becomes a waste of time.

dgavin
2003-Nov-18, 04:34 PM
At one point the Extra Solar Planet researchers thought they may have found a so called tenth planet.

The Detection method was not the proven Star Wobble method, but it's size and distance were esitmated from unexpected changes in cometary orbits.

It lead a team of sientists to estimate there -might- be a gass giant 13 times the mass of jupiter at 25000 AU's from the sun. (or .38 Light Years distance).

Since then much work has gone into verifying the original report, the results were that the probabilty of such a planet, was downgraded from Unconfirmed to Doubtful.

Its more likely that there are some planet sized super comets in the Krupier belt that are affecting orbits, then a gas giant outside the Krupier belt.

See Extrasolar Visions Web Site, and NASA's Plaent Finder website for more information. This 10th Planet was removed from Nasa's site some time last year, as being unproven to exist.

hewhocaves
2003-Nov-18, 05:11 PM
Actually, ever so slightly off topic, I wonder what the future woould think of us if we somehow had missed an obvious 10th planet, probably, but not exclusively beyond the trans-neptunian wilderness. I suppose it would depend on a number of things: the planet's albedo, whetehr the existance of it could be extracted through means other than visual confirmation, etc...

How embarassed would you feel if some class in the 22nd century started out with the phrase: "People thought for the longest time that there were only nine planets. Of course, there are eleven..."

oh, and while I'm at it.. wouldn't the title of this thread "wandering planets" be redundant to a classical person? After all, planet itself means: wandering star.

hmmm

wandering wandering star

lets see, combine the wanderings leaves

(wandering)^2 stars.

lol.. now solve for planet x.

John

russ_watters
2003-Nov-18, 05:31 PM
There are without a doubt other objects "wandering" around the solar system that we have not yet detected. However, if any were big enough to be considered "planets," we likely would have found them by now.

And yeah, "wandering planet" is redundant. It is also a very poor word choice (as is the word "planet" itself). "Wandering" implies some randomness in the motion. The ancients named them "planets" because they THOUGHT they were wandering because they didn't understand the rules that govern their motion. But, I guess you could say as our language evolved, the word "planet" no longer means the same as the combination of its roots (obviously they aren't stars either). It may still be confusing people like John T though.

I realize this is the "against the mainstream" forum and we see this stuff all the time, but it really does mystify me why people come here with ideas such as "wandering planets." It usually seems they are not surpised by the answer, indicating they already know it. And if they already know (but reject) the answer, why even bother asking the question? Pointless, pointless, pointless.

Eroica
2003-Nov-19, 08:15 AM
Its more likely that there are some planet sized super comets in the Krupier belt that are affecting orbits, then a gas giant outside the Krupier belt.
Kuiper Belt.


planet itself means: wandering star
Actually, the word planet comes from the Greek planētēs, which simply means "wanderer." So "wandering planets" means "wandering wanderers." Perhaps they cancel each other out? :D

kanon14
2003-Nov-19, 09:32 AM
i hate to live on a wandering wander... life must be pretty dizzy up there

Iain Lambert
2003-Nov-19, 03:12 PM
Its more likely that there are some planet sized super comets in the Krupier belt that are affecting orbits, then a gas giant outside the Krupier belt.
Kuiper Belt.

Just because your collection of comets can't also deal a mean hand of poker doesn't mean we're all afflicted in the same way ;)

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Nov-25, 05:01 PM
I read once a review of Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collission" when I was about 13. Some of the ideas were intriguing, but of course my Grade 8 science teacher thoroughly demolished them (party pooper! :) )

In any case at the beginning of this discussion there was quite a heated argument about Velikovsky's claim that Venus was part of Jupiter that was expelled somehow from it (from the mythological event that Athena was born of Zeus' head) And it was claimed that Venus was identified as Athena/Aphrodite and (of course) Jupiter as Zeus. However in Greek/Roman Mythology (check this (http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/AncLit/chapters/11iverg.htm) link about that) Venus WAS the equivalent of Aphrodite and Minerva WAS the equivalent of Athena so can anyone tell me how could Venus be identified with both Athena AND Aphrodite?

Eroica
2003-Nov-28, 05:15 PM
However in Greek/Roman Mythology ... Venus WAS the equivalent of Aphrodite and Minerva WAS the equivalent of Athena so can anyone tell me how could Venus be identified with both Athena AND Aphrodite?
Velikovsky does address this issue in Worlds in Collision:
Plutarch identified Minerva of the Romans or Athene of the Greeks with Isis of the Egyptians, and Pliny identified the planet Venus with Isis.
It is necessary to recall this here because it is generally supposed that the Greeks had no deity of importance who personified the planet Venus [Aphrodite usually being identified with the Moon] and that, on the other hand, they "did not even find a star in which to place" Athene [St Augustine, City of God 7.16] ... The name Athene in Greek, according to Manetho, [means] "I came from myself." Cicero, speaking of Venus, explained the origin of the name thus: "Venus was so named ... as the goddess who 'comes' [Latin: venire, to come] to all things."

But Athene was also identified (by Plato) with Neith, a Libyan Moon goddess! Something which Velikovsky fails to mention.