Anonymous quote:
"Despite the present anti-Velikovsky trend, I haven't completely discounted the effects of a 'disturbed' solar system orbital system, possibly due to a fairly recently arrived Venus, hence her multiple personalities, from dire to delectable", end of quote.
My answer:
- If the Saturn Myth is correct, the Velikovsky Society have to prove so in a scientifically way. They try to do so by referring to ancient texts, especially via "a great flood" and other seemingly catastrophic events in the past. David Talbott has, in his Saturn Myth, done a great work connecting a lots of mythological text and illustrations. They also try to illustrate their hopothesis by constructed images as one can see in the Symbols of Alient Sky. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X_jeHrJYIw
But when not understanding the mythological language and symbols, they for instants confuse the Milky Way Flood/River for being a catastrophic event in the resent history of the Earth, and they confuse the major and superior creation deities (Milky Way deities) for being minor and inferior deities connected to the planets.
How wrong and unscientifically this confusion can be, just think of these implications: By launching these hypothesis, the Velikovsky Society really claims the planet of Saturn and the planet of Venus having superior galactic power and qualifications to be THE MAJOR CREATIVE POWERS.
Cosmologically that means in the Velikovsky reversed logic's: By confusing the mythological symbols and mythological powers of the Milky Way (deities) they really and in fact, unconsciously, claims that the Planet of Saturn and the planet of Venus have created our Galaxy. Now, what kind of a scientifically argument, method and proof is that?
The genuine Saturnus is, in my opinion, the northern hemisphere Milky Way contoured Sky "god" seemingly revolving around the Earth axis Polar Center - and the genuine Venus is the southern hemisphere Milky Way contoured Sky "goddess", also seemingly revolving around the south Earth axis Polar Center (http://www.native-science.net/Forefather.Worship.htm)
Regarding "some catastrophic events" in large: You can take this for what you like, but almost every mythological telling and text all talks of a Creation that once took place in the center of our pre-galactic area. Regarding the origin of everything in our galaxy, all the texts and telling have this generally theme: "DRIVEN OUT FROM" or "ONCE ORIGINATED FROM".
Taking this statement literary as a mythological and cosmological fact, it really means that the actual movement in our Galaxy is going from within and outwards. (New stars are still being born in the center of our Galaxy) That is: "Venus" is giving birth to all life in our galaxy. And her galactic womb is centred on the southern hemisphere Milky Way "female" contours in the star constellation of Sagittarius. (http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.Spiral.htm)
Such a galactic molecular creation of presolar and pre-planetary birth out of the galactic center is of course a very cataclysmic event, but one can hardly take such a galactic birth of everything for being a catastrophic disaster in any means.
That is, again in my strange opinion: When leaving the center of our Galaxy, the presolar system of course had some major interactive collisions in the beginning, but our Solar system have had billions of years to become stabilized since it left the center of our Galaxy.
So, in a way, the Velikovsky Society is right assuming some "catastrophic collisions" which the many craters on some planets and moons evidentially shows, but they are wrong assuming that these collisions took place in the not so far past, they really took place in the very beginning. (Wich of course also refuses the strange idea of a pre-solar molecular accretion disc "that suddenly decided to collapse in itself by gravity").
- I of course know that "such a strange talk" is very far fetched compared to the theories and hypothesis of modern cosmology, but it makes very much cosmological and mythological sense to me.
What do you good people say to this?
All the Best from Ivar
Testing the Velikovski Heritage
-
SpaceTravellor
- Guest
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage
Last edited by SpaceTravellor on Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:24 am, edited 3 times in total.
-
flyingcloud
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am
- Location: Honey Brook
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage
Theory on Planetary interaction and influence
Migrating Planets May Have Kicked Asteroids Into Orbit
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... rsity.html
Gas giant planets that migrated early in the history of the solar system could have violently knocked some of the asteroid belt's denizens into their current orbits, according to a new study that aims to solve a number of enduring space rock mysteries.
The research, which uses a theory of the solar system's evolution called the Nice model, explains why the asteroids in the outer part of the belt — located between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter — are so different in composition from those in the inner part. Researchers say the model also explains other oddities in the solar system: the far-out Kuiper belt beyond Neptune; the so-called Trojan asteroids of Jupiter; and the Late Heavy Bombardment of the moon billions of years ago.
"It really is the only model we have that can explain the solar system like we see [it]," said Harold Levison, of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo., and lead author of the new study, which is detailed in the July 16 issue of the journal Nature.
The Nice model
The Nice model (pronounced like the city in France, where it was formulated), is "a model for the dynamical evolution for the orbits of the giant planets that we believe was a very violent event that happened roughly 700 million years after the solar system formed," when the solar system was in "its teenage years," Levison explained.
Models haven't been able to reproduce the formation of Uranus and Neptune in their current orbits, so Levison and other astronomers think that they formed much closer to Jupiter and Saturn, so that all the gas giants initially sat within 15 AU of the sun. (One AU, or astronomical unit, is the mean distance between Earth and the sun, about 93 million miles. Jupiter currently has a mean distance of 5.2 AU from the sun.)
"We think [the gas giant planets] formed in a much more compact configuration than what we currently see," Levison said.
A protoplanetary disk of planetesimals stretched from just beyond that 15 AU boundary to about 30 AU, the thinking goes.
While this configuration was initially stable, objects leaking out from the disk caused slow changes in the orbits of the gas giants.
According to the model, about 700 million years after the solar system formed, these changes resulted in Jupiter and Saturn hitting a resonance with each other that caused the orbits of Uranus and Neptune to destabilize. The latter two planets gravitationally scattered off each other towards Jupiter and Saturn, which pushed back, sending their smaller siblings out to their current orbits.
Like a bowling ball hitting a set of pins, Uranus and Neptune plowed into the outer protoplanetary disk, whose objects "got scattered all over the solar system," Levison told SPACE.com.
Here's where the asteroid belt comes into the picture.
Inner and outer
The asteroid belt has a "huge diversity of objects," Levison said. The inner edge consists of bodies that have been heated and lack water or other volatile components — "they're just rocks," Levison said.
"And in the outer part of the asteroid belt, we see things that are much more primitive, meaning less processed," so they posses water and organics, he added.
The original explanation for this diversity was that some rapid change in the original protoplanetary disk of the solar system must have occurred in the vicinity of the asteroid belt. But the Nice model suggests otherwise.
"Essentially what we're saying is that interpretation might not be right, that at least the really primitive objects in the outer asteroid belt probably formed much further away from the sun, and were embedded there during the violent stages we think occurred in the orbits in the planets," Levison said.
So the asteroids seen today in the outer edge of the asteroid belt originally came from much farther out in the solar system and so have retained their water ice and other signatures, while the asteroids in the inner portions were natives to the belt region.
Kuiper belt, Trojans and bombardments
The Nice model also explains some other oddities in the solar system, such as the "Trojan asteroids" of Jupiter.
These asteroids sit in the Lagrange points of Jupiter (points where gravity wells collect and hold on to detritus).
"Right now in the solar system, there's a fence around the Lagrange points; things in them can't get out and things from the outside can't get in," Levison explained. But when Jupiter and Saturn fell into resonance, "that fence, or that wall, goes away" and the planetesimals scattered by the violent planetary changes fell into the wells.
The model can match the number and placement of the Trojan asteroids. "No other model's been able to do that," Levison said.
The Nice model can also explain the structure of the Kuiper belt, which is located beyond the orbit of Neptune, Levison added.
The scattering of planetesimals all over the solar system could also be the source of the proposed Late Heavy Bombardment of the moon and Earth.
Many impact features on the moon are very old and originated much earlier in the history of the solar system when wayward rocks were more common. But as the solar system began to take shape, there were fewer of these migrants flying around. Which is why explaining impact features on the moon that appear younger was difficult — where would the impactors have come from?
The release of the planetesimals about 700 million years after the formation of the solar system roughly matches the dates given to these lunar basins of about 3.8 billion to 3.9 billion years ago (though some scientists dispute these dates).
"So the Nice model gives us that too," Levison said.
His team is working on looking for more solar system features to see if the Nice model also provides an explanation for them. The model is increasingly gaining acceptance among astronomers, but Levison encourages rigorous testing of other models as the only way to be sure that the Nice model is the best fit for the solar system.
Migrating Planets May Have Kicked Asteroids Into Orbit
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... rsity.html
Gas giant planets that migrated early in the history of the solar system could have violently knocked some of the asteroid belt's denizens into their current orbits, according to a new study that aims to solve a number of enduring space rock mysteries.
The research, which uses a theory of the solar system's evolution called the Nice model, explains why the asteroids in the outer part of the belt — located between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter — are so different in composition from those in the inner part. Researchers say the model also explains other oddities in the solar system: the far-out Kuiper belt beyond Neptune; the so-called Trojan asteroids of Jupiter; and the Late Heavy Bombardment of the moon billions of years ago.
"It really is the only model we have that can explain the solar system like we see [it]," said Harold Levison, of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo., and lead author of the new study, which is detailed in the July 16 issue of the journal Nature.
The Nice model
The Nice model (pronounced like the city in France, where it was formulated), is "a model for the dynamical evolution for the orbits of the giant planets that we believe was a very violent event that happened roughly 700 million years after the solar system formed," when the solar system was in "its teenage years," Levison explained.
Models haven't been able to reproduce the formation of Uranus and Neptune in their current orbits, so Levison and other astronomers think that they formed much closer to Jupiter and Saturn, so that all the gas giants initially sat within 15 AU of the sun. (One AU, or astronomical unit, is the mean distance between Earth and the sun, about 93 million miles. Jupiter currently has a mean distance of 5.2 AU from the sun.)
"We think [the gas giant planets] formed in a much more compact configuration than what we currently see," Levison said.
A protoplanetary disk of planetesimals stretched from just beyond that 15 AU boundary to about 30 AU, the thinking goes.
While this configuration was initially stable, objects leaking out from the disk caused slow changes in the orbits of the gas giants.
According to the model, about 700 million years after the solar system formed, these changes resulted in Jupiter and Saturn hitting a resonance with each other that caused the orbits of Uranus and Neptune to destabilize. The latter two planets gravitationally scattered off each other towards Jupiter and Saturn, which pushed back, sending their smaller siblings out to their current orbits.
Like a bowling ball hitting a set of pins, Uranus and Neptune plowed into the outer protoplanetary disk, whose objects "got scattered all over the solar system," Levison told SPACE.com.
Here's where the asteroid belt comes into the picture.
Inner and outer
The asteroid belt has a "huge diversity of objects," Levison said. The inner edge consists of bodies that have been heated and lack water or other volatile components — "they're just rocks," Levison said.
"And in the outer part of the asteroid belt, we see things that are much more primitive, meaning less processed," so they posses water and organics, he added.
The original explanation for this diversity was that some rapid change in the original protoplanetary disk of the solar system must have occurred in the vicinity of the asteroid belt. But the Nice model suggests otherwise.
"Essentially what we're saying is that interpretation might not be right, that at least the really primitive objects in the outer asteroid belt probably formed much further away from the sun, and were embedded there during the violent stages we think occurred in the orbits in the planets," Levison said.
So the asteroids seen today in the outer edge of the asteroid belt originally came from much farther out in the solar system and so have retained their water ice and other signatures, while the asteroids in the inner portions were natives to the belt region.
Kuiper belt, Trojans and bombardments
The Nice model also explains some other oddities in the solar system, such as the "Trojan asteroids" of Jupiter.
These asteroids sit in the Lagrange points of Jupiter (points where gravity wells collect and hold on to detritus).
"Right now in the solar system, there's a fence around the Lagrange points; things in them can't get out and things from the outside can't get in," Levison explained. But when Jupiter and Saturn fell into resonance, "that fence, or that wall, goes away" and the planetesimals scattered by the violent planetary changes fell into the wells.
The model can match the number and placement of the Trojan asteroids. "No other model's been able to do that," Levison said.
The Nice model can also explain the structure of the Kuiper belt, which is located beyond the orbit of Neptune, Levison added.
The scattering of planetesimals all over the solar system could also be the source of the proposed Late Heavy Bombardment of the moon and Earth.
Many impact features on the moon are very old and originated much earlier in the history of the solar system when wayward rocks were more common. But as the solar system began to take shape, there were fewer of these migrants flying around. Which is why explaining impact features on the moon that appear younger was difficult — where would the impactors have come from?
The release of the planetesimals about 700 million years after the formation of the solar system roughly matches the dates given to these lunar basins of about 3.8 billion to 3.9 billion years ago (though some scientists dispute these dates).
"So the Nice model gives us that too," Levison said.
His team is working on looking for more solar system features to see if the Nice model also provides an explanation for them. The model is increasingly gaining acceptance among astronomers, but Levison encourages rigorous testing of other models as the only way to be sure that the Nice model is the best fit for the solar system.
-
SpaceTravellor
- Guest
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage
@Flyingcloud,
Thanks for the post!
Apropos "Migrating planets" - what do you say to my answer to the Anonymous above your post where I claim that our Solar System once was born directly out of the center of our Galaxy?
All the Best from Ivar
Thanks for the post!
Apropos "Migrating planets" - what do you say to my answer to the Anonymous above your post where I claim that our Solar System once was born directly out of the center of our Galaxy?
All the Best from Ivar
-
SpaceTravellor
- Guest
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage
By the way, the NICE investigations tell of possible collisions some 3-4 billion years ago.
Surely, the Velikovsky Society, can not count back their supposed mythological evidences that long . . .
And the long time horizon maybe better could be an indication of my hypothesis of the Solar System once born directly out from the Milky Way Center?
- Unfortunately I´m not a astrophysisist or matematician, so I can´t make a possibly time-tabel for such a hypothesis of the Solar System wandering out from the MIlky Way Center and the spiralling movement out in the actual position of our Solar System.
But it would be very interesting if anyone on the Thunderbolt Forum could try to calculate such a hypothesis. Who dares?
All the Best from Ivar
Surely, the Velikovsky Society, can not count back their supposed mythological evidences that long . . .
And the long time horizon maybe better could be an indication of my hypothesis of the Solar System once born directly out from the Milky Way Center?
- Unfortunately I´m not a astrophysisist or matematician, so I can´t make a possibly time-tabel for such a hypothesis of the Solar System wandering out from the MIlky Way Center and the spiralling movement out in the actual position of our Solar System.
But it would be very interesting if anyone on the Thunderbolt Forum could try to calculate such a hypothesis. Who dares?
All the Best from Ivar
-
flyingcloud
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am
- Location: Honey Brook
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage
well good sir
I'm still fuzzy on the whole time concept
and can't have much faith in approximate age estimations considering variable constants
time is on our side however
as far as the center of the galaxy goes the jury still deliberates in my mind
I feel pretty strongly ragarding the origin of the galactic material as a constant flow
a continual recycling process in wave form with oscillating frequency generating the geometry
standing waves and the yin yang balance sort of deal
considering our current interpretations of time and distance
the outflow of materials expelled from the galactic center in relative present form
is a tough concept for me to grasp
I feel these things are torn apart and rebuilt, accelerated magnetically
and thrust out to eventually boomerang back in
I am also not certain that ours solar system isn't the result of a secndary system interaction at one or several points in history
still not convinced that companion stars to those systems aren't influencing other interactions yet to be identified
just considering quantum entanglement implications with our journy through the cosmos is quite compelling
the planetary angle of axial tilt and rotation hold some key evidence that would be helpful to determine any planetary dispersment in the past
I'm not particularly sold on any creation myth,
as a whole they certainly provide reason for contemplation of a unifying vision,
but I am not confident that it was visual imagery being translated to the rock
as much as a combination of mental manifestations conveyed
I find my own artistic creations often resemble oddities
geometric shapes and designs that I create while doodling often have no significance in my conscious realm
sory for the long winded response
I'm still fuzzy on the whole time concept
and can't have much faith in approximate age estimations considering variable constants
time is on our side however
as far as the center of the galaxy goes the jury still deliberates in my mind
I feel pretty strongly ragarding the origin of the galactic material as a constant flow
a continual recycling process in wave form with oscillating frequency generating the geometry
standing waves and the yin yang balance sort of deal
considering our current interpretations of time and distance
the outflow of materials expelled from the galactic center in relative present form
is a tough concept for me to grasp
I feel these things are torn apart and rebuilt, accelerated magnetically
and thrust out to eventually boomerang back in
I am also not certain that ours solar system isn't the result of a secndary system interaction at one or several points in history
still not convinced that companion stars to those systems aren't influencing other interactions yet to be identified
just considering quantum entanglement implications with our journy through the cosmos is quite compelling
the planetary angle of axial tilt and rotation hold some key evidence that would be helpful to determine any planetary dispersment in the past
I'm not particularly sold on any creation myth,
as a whole they certainly provide reason for contemplation of a unifying vision,
but I am not confident that it was visual imagery being translated to the rock
as much as a combination of mental manifestations conveyed
I find my own artistic creations often resemble oddities
geometric shapes and designs that I create while doodling often have no significance in my conscious realm
sory for the long winded response
-
SpaceTravellor
- Guest
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage
@Flyingcloud (@Nick C)
Flyingcloud, I´ll return to your lates post later on.
- I have to give Nick C credit for this attempt to calculate the hypothesis of a possibly Solar System being born right out of the Milky Way center - i forgot his attempt because of the administratively moving around with the tread of "Saturn Myth Confusion".
Here´s what Nick C wrote:
Flyingcloud, I don´t know if the Nick C. calculations are saying you someting, but think about it!
All the Best from Ivar
Flyingcloud, I´ll return to your lates post later on.
- I have to give Nick C credit for this attempt to calculate the hypothesis of a possibly Solar System being born right out of the Milky Way center - i forgot his attempt because of the administratively moving around with the tread of "Saturn Myth Confusion".
Here´s what Nick C wrote:
- I have given my response back to Nick C. otherwhere in this tread, so just take a browse for this.A simple back of the envelope calculation (I think my math is reasonably correct):
the solar system distance from the galactic center is approximately...
25,000 light years, or 2.365x1017 km
the Suns galactic velocity is...
150 miles/sec, converted to km= 240 km/sec....which equals:
7.568x109 km/year
then, dividing:
2.365x1017 km by 7.568x109 km/year
we get: 3.12x107 years for the solar system to have traveled from the galactic center to the present position in the Orion Cygnus arm of the Milky Way Galaxy.
That is assuming that the Sun has traveled in a straight line from the galactic center, actually the path would probably be more circuitous or spiraling, and therefore the 31.2 million year figure is probably an underestimation. The galactic velocity may not have been the same as presently observed, however any reasonable estimate of past galactic velocities is going to still come up with a figure of millions of years.
Questions:
-So how could an event that supposedly took place 31 million years ago be recounted in human myth?
-How old is the human race?
-What is the source of the knowledge of this "creation" event?
-Were humans around at the time or did someone tell them?
-If you don't agree with the time scale I have come up with, what do you propose for the time frame to get from the birth point at the center of the galaxy to the present galactic position of the solar system?
-Also, what evidence is there that stars cannot be formed in places other than the center of the galaxy and therefore why should we assume that the solar system originated there?
Flyingcloud, I don´t know if the Nick C. calculations are saying you someting, but think about it!
All the Best from Ivar
-
davesmith_au
- Site Admin
- Posts: 840
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
- Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz
- Contact:
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage
Ivar, I've noticed you use this phrase (the Velikovsky Society) on a number of occasions. There is not, to my knowledge, any such entity, though the SIS (Society for Interdisciplinary Studies) once considered this very name, it decided on a broader name to reflect the broader disciplines which would be involved in their discussions.Ivar wrote:Surely, the Velikovsky Society, can not count back their supposed mythological evidences that long . . .
If you are referring to the Thunderbolts Project, then simply say the Thunderbolts Project. Whilst Velikovsky is acknowledged for some of the ideas he entertained way back when, and catastrophism is very broadly speaking subsequent to his work, anything the Thunderbolts Project currently writes about is so far removed from V's specific ideas that any closer association other than said acknowledgement is in error.
If you are not prepared to familiarize yourself with the up-to-date work of those within the Thunderbolts Project then perhaps you are not in the best position to speak out about same. Saturn Theory is so far removed from anything Velikovsky wrote that the association you are drawing is exposing your errant knowledge of same. Dave Talbott was the first to ever suggest the Saturn Theory with Polar Configuration, and even his book The Saturn Myth is now somewhat outdated, bar perhaps as an interesting historical reference of the theory. Talbott is currently working on a video presentation to help explain where things are at today, which includes inextricable connections to Plasma Cosmology.
And whilst I'm at it, Wikipedia is probably the worst place to try to find accurate information regarding any of this, as much of it is contributed to by Leroy Ellenberger, (though anonymously), a long-time critic of both Velikovsky and Talbott. Ellenberger unfortunately bears all the hallmarks of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or staight out Psychopathic tendencies, when dealing with anything at all to do with Electric Universe, Plasma Cosmology, Velikovsky and anything else he disagrees with. This is of course my own opinion of him, drawn from many direct dealings including private communications with him, and should not be misconstrued as official opinion of the Thunderbolts Project. Any numbskull can write anything they want on Wikipedia, and often do.
Cheers, Dave.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
-
SpaceTravellor
- Guest
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage
Hi Dave S., and thanks for your reply.
I have used "the Velikovsky Society" in the broad manner without referring to anybody. I prefer this for the time being, but of course I’ll address specific issues if I feel for it. Maybe I shall use the term "Velikovsky Heritage" as in the head-topic?
My interest in this case is to look back in order to generally find out how "it all started, what was/is the background for building the different hypothesis, how is the mythologically hypothesis constructed, etc .etc." i.e. I am in a kind of research mode.
Dave, I don’t like to be told what I can speak out or not. As long as I speak out in the most polite manner, I take this for being my "freedom of speech".
- It would be interesting to know what part in The Saturn Myth "is somewhat outdated", but maybe David T. himself can elaborate on this matter. I’m familiar to the works of "Symbols of the Alien Sky".
Regarding seeking knowledge from Wikipedia or other where and regarding the judgment of other people, I’m fully capable to make up my own mind.
All the Best from Ivar
I have used "the Velikovsky Society" in the broad manner without referring to anybody. I prefer this for the time being, but of course I’ll address specific issues if I feel for it. Maybe I shall use the term "Velikovsky Heritage" as in the head-topic?
My interest in this case is to look back in order to generally find out how "it all started, what was/is the background for building the different hypothesis, how is the mythologically hypothesis constructed, etc .etc." i.e. I am in a kind of research mode.
- Do the administrators demand a totally and immediate familiarity to all Thunderbolts Projects from all other members, old as new, before they can speak out their mind?If you are not prepared to familiarize yourself with the up-to-date work of those within the Thunderbolts Project then perhaps you are not in the best position to speak out about same.
Dave, I don’t like to be told what I can speak out or not. As long as I speak out in the most polite manner, I take this for being my "freedom of speech".
- It would be interesting to know what part in The Saturn Myth "is somewhat outdated", but maybe David T. himself can elaborate on this matter. I’m familiar to the works of "Symbols of the Alien Sky".
Regarding seeking knowledge from Wikipedia or other where and regarding the judgment of other people, I’m fully capable to make up my own mind.
All the Best from Ivar
-
nick c
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
- Location: connecticut
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage
A couple of notes...
-I think Ivar is refering to various theories of planetary catastrophism in a general sense and Saturn theory, in all it's forms, when he writes "Velikovskii Society." Of course there is no official or unofficial "Velikovskii Society," so this is clearly a language or translation issue. Though most planetary catastrophists have moved in different directions, ultimately their intellectual heritage originates from Velikovsky, whether it is acknowledged or not. Perhaps a general term like "planetary catastrophists," is more appropriate, or Saturn theorists if you are refering to those that propose that the Earth is a former satellite of that body. Whatever
-In Ivar's post [@ Thu July 16, 2009, 10:05 am] he quoted my calculations. It should be noted that in the cut and paste process
the exponents have been taken out of the super position, ie 109 is 109.....so anyone looking them over should refer to my original post of the calculations not the quote.
With regard to that calculation, I was just trying to illustrate the distance and time scales involved for the solar system to have traveled from the center of the Milky Way to it's present location. It is many millions of years! So, how could humans know of this?
That is allowing for the possibility that the solar system ever was located near the center of the galaxy, there is no evidence of that being the case. We do not know where the solar system was formed, nor is there any indication that it came from the center of the galaxy. While stars are most certainly being formed there, they are also being formed elsewhere, in the arms, or in other galaxies, globular clusters, etc etc. The presently observed motion of the Sun within the galaxy gives no indication that it originated in the center of the Milky Way.
nick c
edit: spelling error corrected
-I think Ivar is refering to various theories of planetary catastrophism in a general sense and Saturn theory, in all it's forms, when he writes "Velikovskii Society." Of course there is no official or unofficial "Velikovskii Society," so this is clearly a language or translation issue. Though most planetary catastrophists have moved in different directions, ultimately their intellectual heritage originates from Velikovsky, whether it is acknowledged or not. Perhaps a general term like "planetary catastrophists," is more appropriate, or Saturn theorists if you are refering to those that propose that the Earth is a former satellite of that body. Whatever
-In Ivar's post [@ Thu July 16, 2009, 10:05 am] he quoted my calculations. It should be noted that in the cut and paste process
the exponents have been taken out of the super position, ie 109 is 109.....so anyone looking them over should refer to my original post of the calculations not the quote.
With regard to that calculation, I was just trying to illustrate the distance and time scales involved for the solar system to have traveled from the center of the Milky Way to it's present location. It is many millions of years! So, how could humans know of this?
That is allowing for the possibility that the solar system ever was located near the center of the galaxy, there is no evidence of that being the case. We do not know where the solar system was formed, nor is there any indication that it came from the center of the galaxy. While stars are most certainly being formed there, they are also being formed elsewhere, in the arms, or in other galaxies, globular clusters, etc etc. The presently observed motion of the Sun within the galaxy gives no indication that it originated in the center of the Milky Way.
nick c
edit: spelling error corrected
-
moses
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
- Location: Adelaide
- Contact:
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage
Saturn Theory is so far removed from anything Velikovsky wrote that the association you are drawing is exposing your errant knowledge of same. Dave S.
This is how close V got to a Saturn System:
http://www.varchive.org/itb/goldage.htm
But if the set of figures is not too far from what they actually were, the conclusion would be that the distance of the Earth from Saturn was but a twentieth part of what it is now; this would permit us to speculate whether the Earth could at some early period have been a satellite of Saturn.
Mo
This is how close V got to a Saturn System:
http://www.varchive.org/itb/goldage.htm
But if the set of figures is not too far from what they actually were, the conclusion would be that the distance of the Earth from Saturn was but a twentieth part of what it is now; this would permit us to speculate whether the Earth could at some early period have been a satellite of Saturn.
Mo
-
SpaceTravellor
- Guest
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage
@Nick C.,
So you have to seek this kind of natural/spiritual knowledge from Mythology and from still living native people, (or you have to open up your own spiritual channel), but when looking in to the mythological department, you still will have problems with both the symbols and the text if you dont know the real cosmological connections.
So my point here is, that if your Spirit is open for the Electric Universe energies, you still can sence the Eletric Universe as it was and as it is - and that´s just what native people have sensed - for how long time, I don´t know, but time does not really come in play because we are talking of Electric Universe energies that have "been around for eternity".
Nick, what are the cosmological implications of new stars still being created in the center of our galaxy, where there supposedly should be "a black hole" sucking everything away?
What are the cosmological implications of the barred structure in our galaxy? How can the galactic arms be "sucked in" taking a 90 degree suddenly turn on both ends of the bars? Would quite the opposite movement not be the more logical: A suddenly explosion in the rotating and swirling pre-galaxy, creating the bars from where it all once was spewed out from the ends of the bars?
Well, that is just what all global creation myths tell, believe it or not. That everything once was "driven out of from the middle of "Eden" where "the tree of Live is standing".
This images shows the outgoing matter from the galactic womb located in the female looking countours of the southern hemisphere MIlky Way located in the star constellation of Sagittarius.
This image shows the southern hemisphere Milky Way contours revolving around the celestial Earth axis Pole. The drawn swirl marks the Calactic center/the Primodial Mound/The Golden Sun/The First Light/ etc. etc. from where all things once was created in our Galaxy.
- It is on this spiritual/mythological/cosmological level one has to understand the myths - otherwise it all goes up in all kind of speculative mythological constructions - like much of the Velikovski Heritage does in my opinion.
That´s just my general point of view too, Nick. And my points can be taken by those whom it concerns as they like.Though most planetary catastrophists have moved in different directions, ultimately their intellectual heritage originates from Velikovsky, whether it is acknowledged or not.
Though, I wrote this when inserting your calculations, Nick. Sorry if I have taken something out of context.Here´s what Nick C wrote:
- I know that the Spiritual "mumbo jumbo" does not play any major role for many scholars when it come to gathering cosmological knowledge, because modern people is mentally/spiritually out of synch vith Nature and its Electric Universe energies and vibrations.With regard to that calculation, I was just trying to illustrate the distance and time scales involved for the solar system to have traveled from the center of the Milky Way to it's present location. It is many millions of years! So, how could humans know of this?
So you have to seek this kind of natural/spiritual knowledge from Mythology and from still living native people, (or you have to open up your own spiritual channel), but when looking in to the mythological department, you still will have problems with both the symbols and the text if you dont know the real cosmological connections.
So my point here is, that if your Spirit is open for the Electric Universe energies, you still can sence the Eletric Universe as it was and as it is - and that´s just what native people have sensed - for how long time, I don´t know, but time does not really come in play because we are talking of Electric Universe energies that have "been around for eternity".
I don´t say "located near the center". I say it was prematurely created out from the center.That is allowing for the possibility that the solar system ever was located near the center of the galaxy, there is no evidence of that being the case.
Nick, what are the cosmological implications of new stars still being created in the center of our galaxy, where there supposedly should be "a black hole" sucking everything away?
What are the cosmological implications of the barred structure in our galaxy? How can the galactic arms be "sucked in" taking a 90 degree suddenly turn on both ends of the bars? Would quite the opposite movement not be the more logical: A suddenly explosion in the rotating and swirling pre-galaxy, creating the bars from where it all once was spewed out from the ends of the bars?
Well, that is just what all global creation myths tell, believe it or not. That everything once was "driven out of from the middle of "Eden" where "the tree of Live is standing".
- Egypt Great Mother Goddess Nut.jpg (22.26 KiB) Viewed 11881 times
- Star Atlas.Southern Milky Way Contours.jpg (21.97 KiB) Viewed 11881 times
- It is on this spiritual/mythological/cosmological level one has to understand the myths - otherwise it all goes up in all kind of speculative mythological constructions - like much of the Velikovski Heritage does in my opinion.
-
SpaceTravellor
- Guest
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage, revolving around the Pole
@Moses,
Thanks for the link to The Golden Age of Saturn. When reading the text, this fully confirms my points of view: That Saturn(us)/Cronos was/is a Milky Way deity, revolving around the northern hemisphere celestial Earth axis Polar center, and NOT a planetary deity.
When reading the mythological qualities of this major "deity", it all points towards a gigantic and superior whitish figure on the night Sky in stead of a the rather inferior planet of Saturn, which creative powers is nothing compared to the powers of the Milky Way.
Thanks for the link to The Golden Age of Saturn. When reading the text, this fully confirms my points of view: That Saturn(us)/Cronos was/is a Milky Way deity, revolving around the northern hemisphere celestial Earth axis Polar center, and NOT a planetary deity.
- Star Atlas of the northern hemisphere Milky Way contours revolving around the Earth axis celestial Pole center
Moses, I´ll not even begin to speculate on how some hypothetical planetary positions would have looked like if so and if so. I have the mythological Saturn(us)/Cronos placed and located where "he" belongs: On the northern hemisphere as the Milky Way superior "deity", revolving around the so called "enclosed Sun" which is confused for the Earth axis Polar center.But if the set of figures is not too far from what they actually were, the conclusion would be that the distance of the Earth from Saturn was but a twentieth part of what it is now; this would permit us to speculate whether the Earth could at some early period have been a satellite of Saturn.
-
moses
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
- Location: Adelaide
- Contact:
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage
Moses, I´ll not even begin to speculate on how some hypothetical planetary positions would have looked like if so and if so. I have the mythological Saturn(us)/Cronos placed and located where "he" belongs: On the northern hemisphere as the Milky Way superior "deity", revolving around the so called "enclosed Sun" which is confused for the Earth axis Polar center.
SpaceTravellor
Hey - I'll begin to speculate on anything ! But probably like you
I have invested a lot in my theories. I'll change though. It's the
only way to truth. Enjoy your speculating.
Mo
SpaceTravellor
Hey - I'll begin to speculate on anything ! But probably like you
I have invested a lot in my theories. I'll change though. It's the
only way to truth. Enjoy your speculating.
Mo
-
SpaceTravellor
- Guest
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage
@Moses,
Point taken - enjoy your speculations too!
Point taken - enjoy your speculations too!
-
SpaceTravellor
- Guest
Re: Testing the Velikovski Heritage
These posts is copied and pasted from a wrong topic placed on:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=5&t=2014
------------------------
StevenJay
Ivar, have you checked out any of these clips yet? (The latest "Symbols of Alien Sky")
----------------
Ivar:
Oh yes, I have Steven. As soon as they was launced. And I must say: The latest videos of "Symbols of Alient Sky" left me with a feeling of being even more cosmologically and mythologically alienated . . .
Sorry, I still believe that there have been a confusion of myths taking place, taking the crescent Milky Way deity Saturnus/Chronos revolving around the Earth axis polar center, for being the planet Saturn.
----------------------------
Steven:
SpaceTravellor wrote:
Sorry, I still believe that there have been a confusion of myths taking place, taking the crescent Milky Way deity Saturnus/Chronos revolving around the Earth axis polar center[emphasis mine -SJ], for being the planet Saturn.
I'm confused with that statement, Ivar.
Due to the tilt of the earth's rotational axis, the band of the Milky Way appears to stretch across the summer skies in a roughly northeast/sowthwest orientaion. During the winter months it assumes a more north/south orientation. In other words, it appears to shift back and forth (much like the sun) depending on where Earth is in its solar orbit.
Yet, you portray it on your web site as making a 360-degree rotation around the rotational axis. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a view like that would only be possible if earth's rotational axis were basically parrallel with the galactic ecliptic - much like Neptune's.
I'm no astronomer, but having lived in the Arizona high desert for the past 12 years, I'm afforded an amazingly clear view of the night sky, which I enjoy taking full advantage of. In addition, both the towns of Flagstaff (location of the Lowel Observatory) and Sedona, are "dark skies" communities (all light pollution is kept at a minimum). So, what am I missing here?
-----------------------
Hi StevenJay,
My focus point is not to show the position of the Milky Way on a special time of the year.
By showing the animated revolving Milky Way figure on my website, I´m just emphazising the Earth axis celestial north polar center in connection to the northern Milky Way crescent contour in order to illustrate the original Saturnus/Chronos Myth:
A Milky Way "god" revolving around the polar center - in stead of the planet Saturn revolving in connection with "the enclosed sun" as it is stated in the planet Saturn Myth.
- There is a whole "world in collision" between the original myth belonging to the Milky Way and to the constructed and speculative planet Saturn Myth.
-----------------------
Steven:
So, am I to understand that the two animations on this http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.Contours.htm page are just metaphors?
--------------------------
@StevenJay - Tanks for the reply.
OBS: This answer is only dealing with the construction of the Saturn Myth itself and not with some possible indications of ancient symbols that somewhat could fit some EU or PC theories or facts.
No Steven, the animation is not to be taken as a metaphor. The animation is a describing SYMBOL for the contours of the Milky Way, and it is, as I write: The simplest lines of showing the seemingly revolving Milky Way figure, the largest observable figure on the night Sky. (For the sake of clearness, I’ve now edited the animation a little bit)
- Mythological symbols of the Milky Way come in many varieties which all have these primarily descriptions: Large; Great; Giant and Titans, all connected to the white/whitish colour of the Milky Way, of which the Greatest God and the Greatest Goddess is the most important mythological description. http://native-science.net/MilkyWay.GreatestGod.htm
As the Milky Way contours are going all around the Earth, they describes a full circle, as for instants with the symbol of Ouroboros, and, when dividing the full circle up in 2 Earth hemispheres, we have 2 major mythological figures, the northern and the southern, with the southern Milky Way contours representing the great female quality and the northern the great male quality.
Regarding the issues of the “Saturn vs. Saturnus” subject, the northern hemisphere Milky Way is mythologically showing a great male figure seemingly revolving around the Earth axis north Celestial Pole Center.
- In the book “Saturn Myth”, page 30, The Great Father Saturn, begins with this: “The lost epoch of peace and plenty was the age of the planet Saturn. Ancient myth and rites present Saturn as the God One, the First King, and the all encompassing Heaven Man”, end of quote.
That is: We have a Heaven Man; a primary deity; the First King revolving all around on the Sky.
Questions:
1. How can “a heaven man” become the Saturn planet?
2. How can an extra terrestrial planet give “peace and plenty” on Earth??
3. How can the inferior planet Saturn replace the large northern hemisphere superior Milky Way figure which mythologically is the Great Father of all things as the southern Milky Way Great Goddess is the Great Mother of all things?
4. How can a still observable an obvious crescent and seemingly revolving Milky Way figure be compared to planet Saturn?
5. How can planet Saturn mythologically become "the first King" outranking the far more important Milky Way King?
- It is this confusion between a planetary Saturn deity and the Milky Way deity of Saturnus/Chronos that is taking place in the construction of the Saturn Myth.
This confusion is excusable in a mythologically way, because the myths of the Milky Way have been long forgotten, which is a great lost because they are telling of the most important story: Our globally and common Story of Creation.
That is: The Milky Way deity is in my firmly conviction, mythologically alienated for the planet Saturn deity.
On these basics, a speculative construction is made and it is incorporated in the videos of “Symbols of the Alien Sky” whereas, if the genuine Milky Way myth was told, the term of “alien” could have been replaced with the term of “familiar” and a changed title as in “Symbols of the Familiar Milky Way Sky” which is still observable to day i.e. on a clear night, except from the midsummer periods on the both Earth hemispheres.
- No symbols or metaphors are needed regarding the white/whitish Milky Way River location and regarding the connected myths, but of course it can be difficulty for an untrained eye to imagine the different Milky Way contours giving origin for the huge variety of mythological Milky Way symbols.
As well as it can be difficult for any orthodox mythologist to recognise the many mythological qualities connected to the forgotten Milky Way Myths and their real cosmologically meanings.
All the Best from Ivar.
-------------------------------
These ill placed posts on the topic page mentioned above, caused Dave Smith to post this message in order to emphazise some rules.
See Announcement here:
http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=5&t=2104
-----------------------
My answer to Dave Smith:
Edit messageDelete messageQuote messageRules . . .
Sent at: Jul 20th, '09, 18:32
From: SpaceTravellor
To: davesmith_au
Hi Dave,
Regarding your post about the Thunderbolt Rules in connection with the topic "Symbols of Alien Sky", you are welcome to remove my posts in this tread.
The reason for me "wandering off in the wrong department" was that StevenJay asked me in this tread if I have watched the videos.
All the Best from Ivar
----------------------
END OF THIS CONFUSION . . .
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=5&t=2014
------------------------
StevenJay
Ivar, have you checked out any of these clips yet? (The latest "Symbols of Alien Sky")
----------------
Ivar:
Oh yes, I have Steven. As soon as they was launced. And I must say: The latest videos of "Symbols of Alient Sky" left me with a feeling of being even more cosmologically and mythologically alienated . . .
Sorry, I still believe that there have been a confusion of myths taking place, taking the crescent Milky Way deity Saturnus/Chronos revolving around the Earth axis polar center, for being the planet Saturn.
----------------------------
Steven:
SpaceTravellor wrote:
Sorry, I still believe that there have been a confusion of myths taking place, taking the crescent Milky Way deity Saturnus/Chronos revolving around the Earth axis polar center[emphasis mine -SJ], for being the planet Saturn.
I'm confused with that statement, Ivar.
Due to the tilt of the earth's rotational axis, the band of the Milky Way appears to stretch across the summer skies in a roughly northeast/sowthwest orientaion. During the winter months it assumes a more north/south orientation. In other words, it appears to shift back and forth (much like the sun) depending on where Earth is in its solar orbit.
Yet, you portray it on your web site as making a 360-degree rotation around the rotational axis. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a view like that would only be possible if earth's rotational axis were basically parrallel with the galactic ecliptic - much like Neptune's.
I'm no astronomer, but having lived in the Arizona high desert for the past 12 years, I'm afforded an amazingly clear view of the night sky, which I enjoy taking full advantage of. In addition, both the towns of Flagstaff (location of the Lowel Observatory) and Sedona, are "dark skies" communities (all light pollution is kept at a minimum). So, what am I missing here?
-----------------------
Hi StevenJay,
My focus point is not to show the position of the Milky Way on a special time of the year.
By showing the animated revolving Milky Way figure on my website, I´m just emphazising the Earth axis celestial north polar center in connection to the northern Milky Way crescent contour in order to illustrate the original Saturnus/Chronos Myth:
A Milky Way "god" revolving around the polar center - in stead of the planet Saturn revolving in connection with "the enclosed sun" as it is stated in the planet Saturn Myth.
- There is a whole "world in collision" between the original myth belonging to the Milky Way and to the constructed and speculative planet Saturn Myth.
-----------------------
Steven:
So, am I to understand that the two animations on this http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.Contours.htm page are just metaphors?
--------------------------
@StevenJay - Tanks for the reply.
OBS: This answer is only dealing with the construction of the Saturn Myth itself and not with some possible indications of ancient symbols that somewhat could fit some EU or PC theories or facts.
No Steven, the animation is not to be taken as a metaphor. The animation is a describing SYMBOL for the contours of the Milky Way, and it is, as I write: The simplest lines of showing the seemingly revolving Milky Way figure, the largest observable figure on the night Sky. (For the sake of clearness, I’ve now edited the animation a little bit)
- Mythological symbols of the Milky Way come in many varieties which all have these primarily descriptions: Large; Great; Giant and Titans, all connected to the white/whitish colour of the Milky Way, of which the Greatest God and the Greatest Goddess is the most important mythological description. http://native-science.net/MilkyWay.GreatestGod.htm
As the Milky Way contours are going all around the Earth, they describes a full circle, as for instants with the symbol of Ouroboros, and, when dividing the full circle up in 2 Earth hemispheres, we have 2 major mythological figures, the northern and the southern, with the southern Milky Way contours representing the great female quality and the northern the great male quality.
Regarding the issues of the “Saturn vs. Saturnus” subject, the northern hemisphere Milky Way is mythologically showing a great male figure seemingly revolving around the Earth axis north Celestial Pole Center.
- In the book “Saturn Myth”, page 30, The Great Father Saturn, begins with this: “The lost epoch of peace and plenty was the age of the planet Saturn. Ancient myth and rites present Saturn as the God One, the First King, and the all encompassing Heaven Man”, end of quote.
That is: We have a Heaven Man; a primary deity; the First King revolving all around on the Sky.
Questions:
1. How can “a heaven man” become the Saturn planet?
2. How can an extra terrestrial planet give “peace and plenty” on Earth??
3. How can the inferior planet Saturn replace the large northern hemisphere superior Milky Way figure which mythologically is the Great Father of all things as the southern Milky Way Great Goddess is the Great Mother of all things?
4. How can a still observable an obvious crescent and seemingly revolving Milky Way figure be compared to planet Saturn?
5. How can planet Saturn mythologically become "the first King" outranking the far more important Milky Way King?
- It is this confusion between a planetary Saturn deity and the Milky Way deity of Saturnus/Chronos that is taking place in the construction of the Saturn Myth.
This confusion is excusable in a mythologically way, because the myths of the Milky Way have been long forgotten, which is a great lost because they are telling of the most important story: Our globally and common Story of Creation.
That is: The Milky Way deity is in my firmly conviction, mythologically alienated for the planet Saturn deity.
On these basics, a speculative construction is made and it is incorporated in the videos of “Symbols of the Alien Sky” whereas, if the genuine Milky Way myth was told, the term of “alien” could have been replaced with the term of “familiar” and a changed title as in “Symbols of the Familiar Milky Way Sky” which is still observable to day i.e. on a clear night, except from the midsummer periods on the both Earth hemispheres.
- No symbols or metaphors are needed regarding the white/whitish Milky Way River location and regarding the connected myths, but of course it can be difficulty for an untrained eye to imagine the different Milky Way contours giving origin for the huge variety of mythological Milky Way symbols.
As well as it can be difficult for any orthodox mythologist to recognise the many mythological qualities connected to the forgotten Milky Way Myths and their real cosmologically meanings.
All the Best from Ivar.
-------------------------------
These ill placed posts on the topic page mentioned above, caused Dave Smith to post this message in order to emphazise some rules.
See Announcement here:
http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=5&t=2104
-----------------------
My answer to Dave Smith:
Edit messageDelete messageQuote messageRules . . .
Sent at: Jul 20th, '09, 18:32
From: SpaceTravellor
To: davesmith_au
Hi Dave,
Regarding your post about the Thunderbolt Rules in connection with the topic "Symbols of Alien Sky", you are welcome to remove my posts in this tread.
The reason for me "wandering off in the wrong department" was that StevenJay asked me in this tread if I have watched the videos.
All the Best from Ivar
----------------------
END OF THIS CONFUSION . . .
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests