Planet names

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

daveycreatrix
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 4:38 am
Location: Hull, UK

Re: Planet names

Unread post by daveycreatrix » Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:39 pm

Hi Nick,
I would question the sight lines as pointing to Venus. How do we know to where or to what celestial object they were pointing? It is most likely an assumption of a modern researcher. I would also be interested in learning by what method those dates were established? my hunch is that it is greatly overestimated.
Well they correspond to Venus.
The third brightest star after the sun & moon.
The light of Venus shines through the entrances onto sight lines established in Neolithic times and they still do so.
This can be still verified today, in other words they correspond to the movements of the planet Venus.
The site lines are still there and visible.
Visit at the correct times and you can see it for yourself.

Venus was considered as signifying rebirth.
This is not dependant upon any literary interpretation, but upon observation.

What dates were they established?
Well they have been carbon dated, but this is unreliable.
However bearing in mind the movements of Venus must have been established well before the sites were created, I believe this must place them around 3000 BC at the very latest.

What I am saying is that some Neolithic sites such as Bryn Celli Ddu' still retain their original orientations to Venus and they can be physically checked and verified today.
That’s not an assumption, either they check out or they don’t. They align to Venus or they don’t.

Get to ‘Bryn Celli Ddu' on your hol’s and you can see it for yourself.

Davey

User avatar
starbiter
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA
Contact:

Re: Planet names

Unread post by starbiter » Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:58 pm

Hello Davey: This obsession with Venus seems odd. I think this is the interesting, considering the insignificance of Venus today. Venus has little to do with my daily life. I can take it or leave it. Being stable seems to have been a concern for the temple builders. I guess they had lots of spare time. Lets all build a temple. If this was proposed to me i would want to know why. "I'm not goin to build no stupid temple. Why should i?"

reluctant temple builder, michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com

User avatar
nick c
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Planet names

Unread post by nick c » Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:15 pm

hi Davey,
The light of Venus shines through the entrances onto sight lines established in Neolithic times and they still do so.
Unless I am missing something, this does not make much sense. Venus is a planet, ie wandering star. It does not keep the same position over time, it moves in relation to the background stars and the seasons, it will not be in the same position today as it will be on this date a year from now. Sometimes it appears to go backward, sometimes forward, all of its movements take place in the plane of the ecliptic as do the Sun, Moon, and other visible planets. How can they know that the sightlines point at Venus when it is not in the same position at any given time of the year? Furthermore it is moving in the same basic path as the Sun, Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars (and you could probably throw Mercury in for good measure.) If Venus shines through these sightlines then all of these objects must shine through also, at some time or another. It seems to me that this alignment is to the ecliptic, the plane of the solar system and the pathway of the planets, Sun and Moon. If Venus were a comet moving in the ecliptic, it still would at some time or another shine through a sightline aligned to the ecliptic, again, the same could be said of the rest of planets.
As a sidenote, if the Earth has been gyroscopically precessing on its' axis, the alignments from neolithic times would be very far off from those of today.

Nick

User avatar
starbiter
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA
Contact:

Re: Planet names

Unread post by starbiter » Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:45 pm

Sorry Davey. If the temples are aligned to Venus, this is EU. If the temples aren't aligned to Venus, this is EU.

EU michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com

daveycreatrix
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 4:38 am
Location: Hull, UK

Re: Planet names

Unread post by daveycreatrix » Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:27 pm

Hi Starbiter,
Sorry Davey. If the temples are aligned to Venus, this is EU. If the temples aren't aligned to Venus, this is EU.
So damned if they are, damned if they're not.
Damn!
Where have I heard this before? :twisted:
Davey

daveycreatrix
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 4:38 am
Location: Hull, UK

Re: Planet names

Unread post by daveycreatrix » Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:37 pm

Hi Starbiter,
Also, I don't have a problem with EU, that's why I'm on the site.
I just think the Saturn theories are far from complete and are the weakest link.
Too much seems to depend upon subjective interpretation. However as you have suggested in other posts, before being too judgemental it is necessary to read the supporting evidence, which is what I have decided to do.
So I will get back to this after reading MiA and re-reading WiC following your suggestions.
Davey

User avatar
starbiter
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA
Contact:

Re: Planet names

Unread post by starbiter » Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:02 pm

Hi Davey: Velikovsky agreed with you.

Dr. V
http://www.varchive.org/itb/ecintro.htm
[...]
I have deliberately described the catastrophes of the second and first millennia before this era before I describe the catastrophes of the previous ages. The reason is obvious: the history of catastrophes is extremely unsettling to the historians, evolutionists, geologists, astronomers, and physicists. Therefore it is preferable to start from the better known and then proceed to the less known. For the last catastrophe caused by the contact of Mars and the Earth I could establish the year, the month, and even the day; not so for the catastrophes in which Venus and the Earth participated, when only the approximate time in the space of a definite century could be established. Still, I found it advisable to narrate the story of the second millennium first: it was possible to write the story of the contacts with Venus with a fair amount of detail. But each cataclysm is not only more remote in time from us, it is also obscured by the catastrophes that followed. As we seek to penetrate ever deeper into the past, we can see the foregoing periods through the veil of the catastrophes; dimmer and dimmer is the light behind every veil, till our eye can distinguish no more behind the veil that hangs over the period when the Earth was Moonless, though already inhabited by human life. We do not know the beginning; we can only enter the theater at what may have been the third or fourth act.

me again,
The section concerning Venus in Worlds in Collision is central to duning. Enjoy your reading.

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Planet names

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:12 pm

Saturn Phainon, shining

Jupiter Phaethon, blazing, shining

Mars Pyroeis, Fiery.

Mercury Stilbon, gleaming, glittering.

These from Cicero Nature of the Gods. Hyginus Astronomica gives Phainon and Phaeton the other way around.

Greek Lyric III Stesichorus Frag 259 (from Choroeboscus and Herodian) (trans. Campbell, Vol. Greek Lyric III) (C6th to 7th B.C.) :
"Mesonukhos (Midnight-star) the Pythagorean name for one of the seven Planetoi [Mars, or less probably Jupiter or Saturn]. Stesichorus mentions it." [From theoi.com]

Nonnus, Dionysiaca 5. 67 ff (trans. Rouse) (Greek epic C5th A.D.) :
"He [Kadmos founder of Thebes] dedicated the seven gates [of the new-founded city] to the seven planets . . . The last [seventh gate] fell to the lot of Kronos [the planet Saturn] the seventh planet."

Venus Phosphoros and Hesperos.

Aristotle doesn't say the stars/planets are gods, that's just a mantra NickC repeats on a regular basis. Aristotle said the spheres in which the planets reside are made of the same stuff as the gods, so therefore, the spheres could be accounted as gods, not the friggin planets. And given that neither the gods nor the spheres can be seen with the naked eye it follows that he's not talkng about anything physical (clue: it's in his book titled Metaphysics).
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

User avatar
nick c
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Planet names

Unread post by nick c » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:02 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:Aristotle doesn't say the stars/planets are gods, that's just a mantra NickC repeats on a regular basis.
GC...tsk, tsk, tsk. That is wrong, just plain wrong.
You can twist his words to meet your interpretation of myth as much as you like, but it does not change what Aristotle wrote, it is straight forward, it is not my "mantra," it is obvious.
Aristotle wrote:Tradition has been handed down by the ancient thinkers of very early times,
and bequeathed to posterity in the form of a myth,
to the effect that these heavenly bodies are gods,
and that the Divine pervades the whole of nature.
Furthermore, Aristotle goes on to state that all the other frills and accessories of any particular myth are mere embellishments to provide amusement to the masses, that is, those that do not realize the underlying celestial nature of myth.
The rest of their tradition has been added later in a mythological form to influence the vulgar and as a constitutional and utilitarian expedient; they say that these gods are human in shape or are like certain other animals, and make other statements consequent upon and similar to those which we have mentioned.
It is pretty straight forward: the gods of myth are the heavenly bodies, all the other stuff (gods as humans or animals) of myth have been added on later to provide amusement for the uninformed masses.

Now whether Aristotle, writing in the 4th C BCE actually subscribed to this is another matter...so maybe you can find some contradiction or complication to the above quotes elsewhere in Metaphysics, but this is irrelevant, the important element is that he is reporting a tradition "handed down by the ancient thinkers of very early times." The notion that the heavenly bodies are the gods is an ancient one, at least according to Aristotle.

Nick

hero01hero
Guest

Re: Planet names

Unread post by hero01hero » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:43 am

MOD Note: This covert spammer deleted. This post is a sample of plagiarized material posted without an attributive source link to the source; in this instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomic ... onventions[---][/---]the only thing original in this posting was the spammer's sig line containing a spam-link, and the smiley at the end. The post has been left here as an example for users to be aware of of the latest spamming methods used to circumvent normal anti-spamming controls.

The new breed of spammers, who are either self-promoting or recruited to appear as legitimate new users, also slip in a link (which is their real purpose for posting), usually in their signature line, to the web site they are promoting (usually porn, search engine optimization, link farms, various commercial exploits etc etc). Oftentimes, the post will only be one or two lines thanking (no one in particular) for the "wonderful" post or thread blah-blah-blah. Spammers may not include a link in their initial post or two but may only be setting the account up as a sleeper account for future use since most forums probably don't bother to ferret out or watch 1-or-2-count-postings or no-posting accounts that appear legit.

As mentioned, this particular spammer's sig line did contain a spam-link to a site s/he was promoting; upon account deletion the signature was auto deleted as well.

Members should be on the alert for such postings that moderators may have missed or not gotten to yet and use the forum's reporting function (the "Report this post" button in the message window) to alert us to a possible/probable spam posting.


According to the IAU, apart from a limited number of bright stars with historic names, stars do not have proper names. Where historic names exist, these names are, with a few exceptions, taken from the Arabic language due to their lead in the beginning of modern astronomy. See List of traditional star names for examples.

There are no more than a few thousand stars that appear sufficiently bright in the Earth's sky to be visible to the naked eye, so this represents the limit of the possible number of stars available to be named by ancient cultures. This limit is approximate, as it varies by the acuity of any given observer's eyes, but ten thousand stars (the naked-eye stars to visual magnitude six) seems to be an upper bound to what is physiologically possible.

Estimates of the number of stars with recognised proper names range from 300 to 350 different stars. These tend to be the brightest stars, or stars that form part of constellation patterns with the brightest stars. The number of proper names for stars is greater than the number of stars with proper names, as many different cultures named stars independently. For example, the star known as Polaris has also at various times and places been known by the names Alruccabah, Angel Stern, Cynosura, the Lodestar, Mismar, Navigatoria, Phoenice, the Pole Star, the Star of Arcady, Tramontana and Yilduz.

With the advent of the increased light-gathering abilities of the telescope, many more stars became visible, far too many to all be given names. Instead, they have designations assigned to them by a variety of different star catalogues. Older catalogues either assigned an arbitrary number to each object, or used a simple systematic naming scheme such as combining constellation names with Greek letters. Multiple sky catalogues meant that some stars had more than one designation. For example, the star with the Arabic name of Rigil Kentaurus also has the Bayer designation of Alpha Centauri.

As the resolving power of telescopes increased, numerous objects that were thought to be a single object were found to be multiple star systems that were too closely spaced in the sky to be discriminated by the human eye. These and other confusions make it essential that great care is taken in using designations. For example, Rigil Kentaurus contains three stars in a triple star system, labelled Rigil Kentaurus A, B and C respectively.

Most modern catalogues are generated by computers, using high-resolution, high-sensitivity telescopes, and as a result describe very large numbers of objects. For example, the Guide Star Catalog II has entries on over 998 million distinct astronomical objects. Objects in these catalogs are typically located with very high resolution, and assign designations to these objects based on their position in the sky. An example of such a designation is SDSSp J153259.96-003944.1, where the initialism SDSSp indicates that the designation is from the "Sloan Digital Sky Survey preliminary objects", and the other characters indicate celestial coordinates.

The star nearest to Earth, our Sun, is typically referred to simply as "the Sun" or its equivalent in the language being used (for instance, if two astronomers were speaking French, they would call it le Soleil). However, it is sometimes called by its Latin name, Sol.

Finally, there are a few stars named after people. :D

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Planet names

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:23 am

Aristotle:
"But it is necessary, if all the spheres combined are to explain the observed facts, that for each of the planets there should be other spheres (one fewer than those hitherto assigned) which counteract those already mentioned and bring back to the same position the outermost sphere of the star which in each case is situated below the star in question; for only thus can all the forces at work produce the observed motion of the planets. Since, then, the spheres involved in the movement of the planets themselves are--eight for Saturn and Jupiter and twenty-five for the others, and of these only those involved in the movement of the lowest-situated planet need not be counteracted the spheres which counteract those of the outermost two planets will be six in number, and the spheres which counteract those of the next four planets will be sixteen; therefore the number of all the spheres--both those which move the planets and those which counteract these--will be fifty-five. And if one were not to add to the moon and to the sun the movements we mentioned, the whole set of spheres will be forty-seven in number.
"Let this, then, be taken as the number of the spheres, so that the unmovable substances and principles also may probably be taken as just so many; the assertion of necessity must be left to more powerful thinkers. But if there can be no spatial movement which does not conduce to the moving of a star, and if further every being and every substance which is immune from change and in virtue of itself has attained to the best must be considered an end, there can be no other being apart from these we have named, but this must be the number of the substances. For if there are others, they will cause change as being a final cause of movement; but there cannot he other movements besides those mentioned. And it is reasonable to infer this from a consideration of the bodies that are moved; for if everything that moves is for the sake of that which is moved, and every movement belongs to something that is moved, no movement can be for the sake of itself or of another movement, but all the movements must be for the sake of the stars. For if there is to be a movement for the sake of a movement, this latter also will have to be for the sake of something else; so that since there cannot be an infinite regress, the end of every movement will be one of the divine bodies which move through the heaven.
"(Evidently there is but one heaven. For if there are many heavens as there are many men, the moving principles, of which each heaven will have one, will be one in form but in number many. But all things that are many in number have matter; for one and the same definition, e.g. that of man, applies to many things, while Socrates is one. But the primary essence has not matter; for it is complete reality. So the unmovable first mover is one both in definition and in number; so too, therefore, is that which is moved always and continuously; therefore there is one heaven alone.) Our forefathers in the most remote ages have handed down to their posterity a tradition, in the form of a myth, that these bodies are gods, and that the divine encloses the whole of nature. The rest of the tradition has been added later in mythical form with a view to the persuasion of the multitude and to its legal and utilitarian expediency; they say these gods are in the form of men or like some of the other animals, and they say other things consequent on and similar to these which we have mentioned. But if one were to separate the first point from these additions and take it alone-that they thought the first substances to be gods, one must regard this as an inspired utterance, and reflect that, while probably each art and each science has often been developed as far as possible and has again perished, these opinions, with others, have been preserved until the present like relics of the ancient treasure. Only thus far, then, is the opinion of our ancestors and of our earliest predecessors clear to us.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metap ... 2.xii.html
We argued this same mantra a few month ago:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 167#p39157
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

Forum Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:15 pm

Re: Planet names

Unread post by Forum Moderator » Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:32 am

[bump thread for mod note above regarding spam postings

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests