More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Closer

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Closer

Unread postby everquestion » Thu May 10, 2018 9:55 am

More confirmation for the theory that the planets were much closer to each other in ancient times.
This article in Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billretherford/2018/01/31/surprise-our-solar-systems-not-like-the-others/
points out that:
1. the distant solar systems we’re seeing tend to be of the same configuration,
2. that configuration being nothing like ours,
3. and showing planets that are very close to each other.
So we see now that the ‘default’ for a solar system configuration is apparently planets that are very closely packed, just as one would surmise if one follows the line of reasoning that much of the ancient ‘mythos’ about ‘Gods’ is actually poetically written accounts of a time when the planets were very prominent in the sky, due to their being so vastly much closer to each other.
This would also seem to indicate that our solar system is the ‘odd man out.’
We are the ‘different one.’
These facts, i feel, go a long way towards proving what Talbott et al. (and Velikovsky before them) have been theorizing all these years, the idea that we live in a solar system that was ‘reconfigured’ by some type of system-wide cataclysm....at least one event, and most likely, multiple events.
....so, neat, right? More confirmation from mainstream science, despite their best efforts to the contrary.
Thoughts?
everquestion
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:38 am

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby Metryq » Fri May 11, 2018 5:26 am

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that the Solar system was very different at different times. The nebular hypothesis simply doesn't work for a variety of reasons, and is based on the assumption that things were largely the same long ago with changes taking unthinkably long periods of time to happen through evolution, erosion, etc. (i.e. The impossible or unlikely becomes "statistically" certain given enough time, a mathematical fallacy.)

However, I wouldn't lean too heavily on exoplanetary astronomy just yet. The data we've collected so far is tenuous and based on certain assumptions—such as gravity being the one and only force at work in the macroverse. That is, we see a lot of "Jupiter" type planets because they are easier to detect. What exoplanetary astronomy does tell us is that the nebular hypothesis is wrong—super-sized planets too close to their star, and things of that nature.

Systems like ours may be very common. We just don't have any data to that effect. And what data we have strains the equipment at present. For that matter, interstellar planets of all sizes may be very common, it's just hard to see them with current technology.

Even then, other star systems looking radically different from ours does not mean we once looked like them, or will look like them some day. Speculation is not science, but it has a role in science. Hard evidence that our Solar system once had a different configuration will have to be found here. EU proponents contend that such evidence is all around us. Naturally, there are differences of opinion in the scientific community. As Mel Acheson pointed out in a recent TPOD, a model can be useful, yet utterly wrong as an analog for the real world. We must be mindful of the process of science while also puzzling out the data we collect.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby D_Archer » Fri May 11, 2018 6:03 am

More likely is that the mainstream astronomers got there measurements/observations wrong.

They are not resolving actual planets, but blimps, i think they infer too much.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1133
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby everquestion » Fri May 11, 2018 9:19 am

Metryq:
Honestly couldn’t agree more,
especially regarding our attempts at placing ‘statistical’ grids over the ‘messy’ real world.
Nature doesn’t seem much interested in conforming to our lovely statistics, and I’ve long thought that we place too much value on results derived from such statistical numbers games.
And of course, it IS true that, even if we find that the vast majority of extrasolar solar systems conform to a particular layout, that’s no confirmation that ours ever followed suit.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
everquestion
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:38 am

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby everquestion » Fri May 11, 2018 9:34 am

Daniel,
Yes, as with Metryq’s comment above,
we three are in agreement that there is,
at this point in time,
far too small of a dataset, and far too much conjecture involved, for there to be a true consensus formed from the available data, yup.
...color me the eternal optimist...been studying this stuff for thirty years now, just out of simple curiosity, and any little movement towards what seems to me to be a more realistic understanding of our universe makes me giddy with joy.
...I’m a 55-year old little boy, still full of awe and wonderment when it comes to this stuff.
Thanx for your reply.
everquestion
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:38 am

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby Metryq » Sat May 12, 2018 3:56 am

everquestion wrote:especially regarding our attempts at placing ‘statistical’ grids over the ‘messy’ real world.

That's why I have to shake my head and wonder if it is worth the effort to get into a long debate with someone when the "Drake equation" is brought up. Some get all flustered and find themselves at a loss for words if I tell them the Drake equation is not science. It is a narrow-minded, a priori notion phrased as a mathematical sentence. In short, it is nothing more than speculation masquerading as science. One cannot do statistics without a data set. We have one planet, and are still learning about it.

We don't know how life began; there are numerous hypotheses that it might have started in space, which instantly puts a hole in the equation. As others have argued, we don't even know where the information in DNA came from. That is, DNA isn't just a bunch of molecules that—given enough of that magic Time—fell together into a pattern that worked (a "statistical" certainty). DNA is a code that implies a sender and receiver that understand the code. That opens a whole order of new questions that must be answered. And until a relatively short time ago, vast sections of DNA were thought to be "junk," meaningless code. Now we know about the "epigenetic code," ready-made sub-routines just waiting for the right environmental trigger. Where did all that come from?

New students of science need to know that they are not receiving final answers from on high, but a sheaf of loosely organized observations and ideas that are changing even as they learn about it.

D_Archer wrote:i think they infer too much.

Exactly! I'll grant that there may be planetary bodies out there, especially if there is some secondary (visual) confirmation of the find. But the wobbles and dimming? If such are periodic, that might "rule out" some mechanisms. But it's like the conclusion that an X-ray source must be a black hole. It couldn't be anything else! Heck, any electronics bench tech can tell you how to create X-rays, especially if they ever worked on old CRT monitors.

If a fission reactor can occur naturally, I don't see why any of the mechanisms of electronics can't.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby everquestion » Tue May 15, 2018 12:44 pm

Metryq:
...the Drake equation is not science...

...it is nothing more than speculation masquerading as science...

....thank you...nice to hear someone 'say' that 'out loud'...
....again, i find (at last from my point of view), we are in agreement on all points.
....as to where the infomation in DNA comes from, i share this link just in case you're aren't aware of this reseach, a possible answer to that question:
"DNA is a Fractal Antenna in Electromagnetic Fields"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072
everquestion
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:38 am

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby Metryq » Wed May 16, 2018 4:20 am

everquestion wrote:"DNA is a Fractal Antenna in Electromagnetic Fields"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072

That's very cool!

One of the first things to occur to me when learning about plasma cosmology is the "coincidence" of the twisted channels of a Birkeland current and the double helix of DNA. Related? It would seem so. Charge is the most fundamental aspect of all matter. Then one reads a book like Pollack's The Fourth Phase of Water, and one might almost imagine that we're on the trail of how consciousness ties into matter... but I think we still have a long way to go before we puzzle that one out.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby everquestion » Mon May 21, 2018 11:14 am

Metryq;
Double helix/Birkeland currents, riiiiight? Wondered the same thing.
Thanx for the tip on the Pollack book, hadn't noticed that one, will definitely check it out.
everquestion
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:38 am


Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests