"...consider what impetuous force
Turns stars and planets in a diff'rent course.
I steer against their motions; nor am I
Born back by all the current of the sky.
But how cou'd you resist the orbs that roul
In adverse whirls, and stem the rapid pole?"-- Ovid, poet, Metamorphoses Book II: Phaeton, 8
"Have we of all mankind been deemed deserving that heaven, its poles uptorn, should overwhelm us? In our time has the last day come?" -- Lucius A. Seneca, philosopher statesman, Thyestes, 1st century
Greenland and Antarctica are currently in an ice age. But this has not always been the case. Formerly temperate green continents such as Greenland and Antarctica (see my post When Antarctica Was Green) weren't always located at the poles. So-called "ice ages" such as exist in Antarctica and Greenland today are only caused by axis shift. There was an astronomical catastrophe. Though some giants and megafauna survived, it should be called the P-H Extinction Event since it marked the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene.
Woelfli, W., and Baltensperger, W., A Link Between an Ice Age Era and a Rapid Polar Shift, Jul 2004
The striking asymmetry of the ice cover during the Last Global Maximum suggests that the North Pole was in Greenland and then rapidly shifted to its present position in the Arctic Sea. A scenario which causes such a rapid geographic polar shift is physically possible. It involves an additional planet, which disappeared by evaporation within the Holocene. This is only possible within such a short period, if the planet was in an extremely eccentric orbit and hot. Then, since this produced an interplanetary gas cloud, the polar shift had to be preceded by a cold period with large global temperature variations during several million years.Either that or maybe there really isn't a global conspiracy spanning several millenia to convince us Venus is a new planet.
"As Zeus's daughter [Venus] she'll be immortal and live in heaven with her brothers, Pollux and Castor, the heavenly twins, an extra star for ships to steer their courses by." -- Euripides, playwright, Orestes, 408 B.C.
"Then, it was then that Zeus changed the radiant paths of the stars, and the light of the sun, and the bright face of dawn; and the sun drove across the western back of the sky with hot flame from heaven's fires, while the rain-clouds went northward and Ammon's lands [Egypt] grew parched and faint, not knowing moisture, robbed of heaven's fairest showers of rain." --Euripides, playwright, Electra, 408 B.C.
"Some of the Italians called Pythagoreans say that the comet is one of the planets [Venus]." -- Aristotle, philosopher, Meteorology, 350 B.C.
"...all the comets that have been seen in our day have vanished without setting, gradually fading away above the horizon; and they have not left behind them either one or more stars. ... Democritus however, insists upon the truth of his view and affirms that certain stars [Venus] have been seen when comets dissolve." -- Aristotle, philosopher, Meteorology, 350 B.C.
"Here you see the Morning Star [Venus]. Who sees the Morning Star shall see more, for he shall be wise." -- Black Elk, medicine man, August 1930
"... the morning star [Venus] lives to give men wisdom ...." -- Black Elk, medicine man, August 1930
"In an ancient Hindu tablet of planets, attributed to the year -3012 Venus among the visible planets is absent [Delambre, J.B.J., Histoire de l'astronomie ancienne I, Page 407, 1817: 'Venus alone is not found there.']." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1950
"These four-planet systems and the inability of the ancient Hindus and Babylonians to see Venus in the sky, even though it is more conspicuous than the other planets, are puzzling unless Venus was not among the planets." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1950
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
23 comments:
"Antarctica was never on the equator. "
Oilismastery, August 19, 2009 9:29 AM
Damn close, apparently.
Jeffery,
FYI the equator is a tropical environment not a temperate environment.
"Damn close, apparently."
Mainstreamers like you think the so-called "edge" of the universe is close. Unfortunately this is a direct violation of the scientific method since there is no edge of the universe, it hasn't been observed, and it cannot possibly be observed from Earth or anywhere else in the universe.
OIM
Might be an idea to look at the Saturn Hypothesis - poles might not be what we generally think they are.
Louis,
I've been meaning to get those 3 books but haven't purchased them yet. I will do so.
OIM,
OK, and also think about Peratt's petroglyph work and the thing our ancestors saw at the South Pole during neolithic times.
I picked a quote a random and looked it up to see how you had edited it. They seem not to mention Venus. You're reading into it here, aren't you? Comets, before they get close, don't have tails, the solar wind creates the tail. So a big comet "a star" to the Greeks and Egyptians, would certainly look as if it had grown a tail.
Here they incorrectly describe an occultation of Castor or Pullox by Jupiter. It does not appear that they knew the exact nature of these objects.
An objection that tells equally against those who hold this theory and those who say that comets are a coalescence of the planets is, first, the fact that some of the fixed stars too get a tail. For this we must not only accept the authority of the Egyptians who assert it, but we have ourselves observed the fact. For a star in the thigh of the Dog had a tail, though a faint one. If you fixed your sight on it its light was dim, but if you just glanced at it, it appeared brighter. Besides, all the comets that have been seen in our day have vanished without setting, gradually fading away above the horizon; and they have not left behind them either one or more stars. For instance the great comet we mentioned before appeared to the west in winter in frosty weather when the sky was clear, in the archonship of Asteius. On the first day it set before the sun and was then not seen. On the next day it was seen, being ever so little behind the sun and immediately setting. But its light extended over a third part of the sky like a leap, so that people called it a 'path'. This comet receded as far as Orion's belt and there dissolved. Democritus however, insists upon the truth of his view and affirms that certain stars have been seen when comets dissolve. But on his theory this ought not to occur occasionally but always. Besides, the Egyptians affirm that conjunctions of the planets with one another, and with the fixed stars, take place, and we have ourselves observed Jupiter coinciding with one of the stars in the Twins and hiding it, and yet no comet was formed. Further, we can also give a rational proof of our point. It is true that some stars seem to be bigger than others, yet each one by itself looks indivisible. Consequently, just as, if they really had been indivisible, their conjunction could not have created any greater magnitude, so now that they are not in fact indivisible but look as if they were, their conjunction will not make them look any bigger.
Enough has been said, without further argument, to show that the causes brought forward to explain comets are false.
Jeffery,
"I picked a quote a random and looked it up to see how you had edited it."
You clearly didn't pick a quote at random because you deliberately ignored the Velikovsky and Black Elk quotes.
"They seem not to mention Venus."
Who is they? They is plural and would require picking more than a single quote at random. What planet do you think Euripides, the Pythagoreans, and Democritus were referring to if not Venus? Are you saying that you think the Morning Star is a planet other than Venus?
Who is they?
They? is Aristotle and the people who he was speaking about as "we."
And, yeah... I did pick that one at random. I copied a bit of it, search for the larger work, and noticed that you edited/chopped/censored it to give it the voice/perspective you wanted.
Jeffery,
I ask you again: What star do you think Euripides, the Pythagoreans, and Black Elk were referring to if not the Morning Star? What planet was Democritus referring to if not Venus? Do you think the Morning Star is something other than the planet Venus?
That paper does talk a lot about hydrostatic rebound, angular momentum, gravity and such. Are you sure its not a load of hooey in your worldview? Or is this a case of you cherry picking results again?
I largely agree with the paper, but I'd need to see more evidence in terms of simulations and some tougher math.
Also, there is evidence of impacts in that era (the North American extinction event around 12000 years ago, for example).
Could this extra-large comet have evaporated partially and broke up, with bits of it striking Earth from time to time?
I wonder if this paper is cited anywhere else?
"...the stars...fell from heaven at the time of Phaethon's downfall." -- Aristotle, philosopher, Meteorology, 350 B.C.
"The folded serpent next the frozen pole"-- Ovid, Metamorphoses Book II: Phaeton, 8
"There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, ~594 B.C.
yo b it's jay in La i lost my phone with your number please email it me ja77onatgmaildotcom
So we're in a agreement that the memory of the impact is recorded in myth/time-shrouded history.
Good.
Now let's solve for Venus.
The paper says the rogue planet is no longer around.
Let's account for that.
Jeffery,
See Van Flandern, T., Dark Matter, Missing Planets, & New Comets, 1993
From Chapter 7: Do Planets Explode?
"The astronomer Daniel Titius notices a curious fact about the spacing of ther planets: each of the six known planets is roughly twice the distance of the previous one from the Sun, with only one exception, a gap between Mars and Jupiter. The gap is just the right size to hold exactly one additional planet." -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993
"Is there other evidence that comets and minor planets originated in the 'recent' explosion of a planet? Yes, a great deal. We can study the orbits of comets, and by using the laws of gravitation we can do what amounts to tracing those orbits back in time. We find a statistical tendency of those orbits to emanate between a common point between Mars and Jupiter about 3 million years ago...." -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993
"It is intrinsically unsettling to conclude that planets can explode because, after all, we live on a planet ourselves and are totally dependent upon it for our survival." -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993
"... I must admit to my fascination with the idea that the rough correspondence between the time of the origin of man on Earth and the date of the planetary breakup event ... is perhaps not at all coincidental. Both can be approximated at about 3 million years ago. This rough coincidence begs the intellect to wonder if the two events could be causally related." -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993
Van Flandern, another gravity theorist, seems an unlikely source for your quotes.
Correction. It seems unlikely that you would trust a gravitational theorist... even one that was wrong.
Jeffery,
Van Flandern believed in pushing gravity (LeSagian gravity) which is the exact opposite of what you believe in, namely Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitation.
Van Flandern believed in pushing gravity (LeSagian gravity) which is the exact opposite of what you believe in, namely Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitation.
Isn't that what I said?
Anyway, I just note that you grab quotes and "support" from theorists whose work is not remotely tied to your thinking. It's no big deal, you're just quote mining.
Jeffery,
I've noticed you deliberately ignore every question and quote that goes against your dogmatic mythology and fairy tales. It's no big deal, you're just quote filtering.
I've noticed you deliberately ignore every question and quote that goes against your dogmatic mythology and fairy tales. It's no big deal, you're just quote filtering.
My apologies. I had wanted to discuss where this mars-sized chunk of ice in the Woelfli and Baltensperger paper went, and you responded with quotes from a gravity theorist. I didn't see them as applicable. Firstly, there isn't enough mass in between Mars and Jupiter to make a whole Mars-sized planet.
Let's assume, rather than Jupiter's gravity disallowing the formation of a planet, that one had been there until Van Flandern's 3 million years ago.
Are you suggesting it was fragments of this body that appeared to the ancients, knocked Earth aside, tilted Neptune, gave us the Carolina Bays (fascinating impact formations you could post on, BTW), ended biological diversity in North America, possibly gave rise to our species, ended Mars' life-bearing phase, resurfaced Venus (or WAS Venus?) and generally accounts for every Earth-crossing asteroid we now track with our under-funded and under-staffed sky-watchers?
If so, that doesn't jive with the age of asteroids, which show an age of 4.6 billion years.
Rogue planet from beyond local space? Now that I'd beleive, but I do not think such a body had its origin in the inner solar system. Oort cloud? Possibly. There are some pretty large cometary bodies out there.
Post a Comment