A Case for Mistaken Identity

[MGmirkin]

(A Case for Mistaken Identity; Jun 12, 2008)

Ask anyone who has even a modest knowledge of mythology to name the Egyptian sun god and they will probably point to Ra. And why not? Is that not what we have been taught by historians and archeologists?

James Frazer spoke plainly when he echoed this dictum: "That Ra was both the physical sun and the sun-god is of course undisputed."

And yet, if one were to conduct an in-depth study of this Egyptian "physical Sun" and "sun-god" one comes to the realization that, except for the fact that Ra shone brightly in the sky, the characteristics and even motions attributed to this entity do not fit the role of the Sun.

[Read more] ...

[Muser]

I came to the site recently via a link to one of Thunderbolt's Picture of the Day items. It was relating to "A Case for Mistaken Identity".

When I read it, I was immediately wanting to question a view expressed under this picture. The view being that the sun is not in the middle of a ring.

Back in the early 1970s, BEFORE the Voyager probes took off to take in most of the outer solar system, I had been looking at the solar system and come up with my own view of this particular planetary movement which is contrary to the accepted view. The Voyager proved parts of the view are accurate. Only time will tell if the rest is also the case.

I look at the planets and see a few small bodies, close to the Sun (including earth). I then see several larger bodies, which at that time, and even more so now, suggest that these bodies are gaseous or at least of a similar form to that of our sun. Yes, these outer bodies (planets) are smaller, but they have large groups of smaller planetary bodies encircling them - mini solar systems - and now, after the Voyager probes, we know they ALL have rings around them!!

Until Voyager, we believed that only Saturn had rings. Now we know that even Jupiter has a dark ring, whilst the others have lots of rings. The outer planets are alternate "hot and cold" atmospheres, but all give off more heat than they receive. But if you step back even further you will see something even more important - our Sun also has a ring - the asteroid belt! I also believe that our Sun has a twin, much cooler than the Sun, the complementary form, similar to Jupiter and Saturn, and Neptune and Uranus! (Whilst Uranus may be similar in atmosphere to Saturn, it is Neptune which is the more volatile, "hotter" atmospherically, or so the Voyager probes showed.

I believe that on a proportionate scale, our Sun is the "hot" body and there should be an opposite "cold" body which is linked to it, only it is so far away, and we are not even considering the possibility, and therefore cannot find the "second sun".

It is also possible that the Kyper Belt is a second ring around our Sun, and maybe even the Oort Cloud could be another, but it is hard to see it. Or it may even be possible that the Oort Cloud is the ring of the twin sun?

A lot of this is speculation, but not all of it. Some of what I have seen, in patterns, in the sky, and on Earth, suggest that the proportion ratio is present in everything, if only we were prepared to look for it. Patterns exist everywhere, and we need to find that pattern, then place it on bigger schemes to get a true picture of what is out there.

The rings, suggest to me the sign of Royalty in the heavens - a strange idea but one which can fit in with many myths, and other modern ideas of civilisation. The Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, all have rings or "crowns" so are Royalty. Each of these royal bodies has a "court" surrounding it. The outer planets have lots of smaller bodies as their courts, but the Sun has a smaller number directly visible, including the Earth, but the other royal bodies also "pay fealty" to the Sun by orbiting it so are part of the Sun's "court" too. We are on a planet which is a courtier, but are placed slightly higher in the "royal bodies" system and so are slightly higher in rank than those of Jupiter, or Saturn.

I think that if our Sun were ever to go nova then the outer planets would take over the Royal duties, pulling all forms of material space bodies towards them and into their orbit. It would depend upon the size of the nova as to which of the Royal "children" took over the reigns, as it were.

Speculative, perhaps, but it is something that makes a lot of sense, and matches the idea of "as above so below". As we have royal bodies in space so we have royal beings on Earth.

We need to relook at how we view the solar system and the Sun, and then look at the way we view ourselves.

Too many publications either miss out the asteroid belt altogether or place it in a minor unimportant role. I consider it to be a lot more important than that.

[redeye]

Hey Muser. I've also considered the questions you raise. I don't see the asteroid belt as a candidate for the sun's ring system, it's simply too sparse and I believe the Gas giants ring systems are an electromagnetic phenomenon, I don't see any analogy with the asteroid belt. Then again, it's not an area of the Solar system that we have a lot of knowledge about, likewise, the Kuiper Belt, which seems to me to be a better candidate. I have often wondered if there may be other planets orbiting outside of the heliosphere as a number of Saturn's satelites are outwith it's magnetosphere.

I don't consider the Oort cloud to be a "thing", it's just a way of fixing one of the many problems associated with the mainstream explanation of comets.

As for the sun having a binary partner, I like Jupiter. If you look at the Planet's axis then there are two distinct groups (excluding Uranus and Pluto). It has been proposed that the Sun and Jupiter are partners, with Saturn being captured sometime later.

I hope this is in someway useful.

Cheers!

[Muser]

Hi Redeye

Interesting idea, but I don't think Jupiter is the partner of the Sun. Jupiter goes with Saturn, Uranus goes with Neptune.

If you ever looked at the Sun from a distance just outside the solar system you would notice it had a ring, and quite a dense one actually.

Still, I find your ideas interesting, and at least you are looking at alternatives. I have to give you a lot of credit for that.

I don't know if I am right, but I did say there would be rings around the outer planets before the Voyager probes went up, and I was proved right. I actually wrote to an astronomer who had written a book about black holes. He was very polite but told me to go and study astronomy a bit deeper. I did to a certain extent but found too many official ideas that somehow didn't make sense to me.

Do you know that back in the 1950s, people were saying that Pluto had originally been a moon of Uranus which had been thrown off? I don't think this is the case, and even today astronomers can't say too much about Pluto because they have never sent a probe out to verify or discard previous ideas.

I nevertheless want to thank you Redeye for your contribution.

[nick c]

hello Muser,

I came to the site recently via a link to one of Thunderbolt's Picture of the Day items. It was relating to "A Case for Mistaken Identity".

When I read it, I was immediately wanting to question a view expressed under this picture. The view being that the sun is not in the middle of a ring.

If you ever looked at the Sun from a distance just outside the solar system you would notice it had a ring, and quite a dense one actually.
color highlight added

The color highlighted area of your quote is the problem. The Egyptians said Ra dwelt inside a ring, they did not have the ability to look at the Sun from outside the solar system. They reported what they saw on the big screen of the sky, as viewed from their place (Egypt) on the surface of the Earth. The problem is that modern science has tried to describe what the ancients reported in terms of what we see today, and nothing makes sense when taking that approach. Any ring of debris, gases, dust, or otherwise orbiting in the plane of the ecliptic, such as the (never observed) Oort Cloud, asteroid belt, etc... would not appear to an observer in Egypt as "Ra dwelling in his circle."
Also, planetary orbits, asteroid belts, and the like are only rings if we diagram or draw their orbits, again these are not visible as rings to an observer.
The ring is only one part of the bigger issue (and the subject of the TPOD) which is with the identity of Ra, as Dwardu Cardonna barely hints at in the TPOD, descriptions of the attributes of Ra just simply do not fit what we see in the present yellow type G star we call the Sun. This despite the traditional identification by Egyptologists. Keep in mind that the TPOD is just the 'tip of the iceberg' and Cardonna is just throwing a few tidbits out to stimulate discussion. His book, [url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/resources.htm#god_star]God Star[/url2] is recommended.
Also, see:
"Saturn the Ancient Sun God"
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoth10.txt
"Saturn Theory, Overview"
http://www.kronia.com/saturn/satheory.txt

Nick

[Grey Cloud]

The Egyptians said Ra dwelt inside a ring, they did not have the ability to look at the Sun from outside the solar system.

I would disagree with that. Rene Schwaller De Lubicz would also disagree with methinks. You are assuming that the Egyptians were referring to the visible disk of the Sun. I would argue that they were referring to the inner workings of the cosmos. Why would they invent such a complex mythology just to describe something as boring as the Sun which does the same thing day in, day out and can be seen by anyone who has the wit to stick their head out the door?
I would not recommend anything written by Cardona.

[davesmith_au]

I would not recommend anything written by Cardona.

Having read both God Star and more recently Flare Star both by Cardona I would highly recommend them to anyone looking for intelligent, well-referenced, balanced and broad coverage of mythology. Dwardu explores with a depth and breadth which is admirable.

I am not saying everything he says is necessarily correct and complete, nor does he. But he does advance an hypothesis which is more understandable and scientifically sound than any other I've seen on the subject. And what we've seen of his work so far is just the tip of the iceberg. There are several more volumes to follow as the amount of information he has studied and compared will certainly not fit in a single book. I'm looking forward to the future installments of his outstanding work.

And just for the record it was with much apprehension that I outlayed the initial $60 or so for God Star. I had no such hesitation in ordering Flare Star.

Cheers, Dave Smith.