Atlantis: What is it all about?

[Birdjaguar]

They recorded it in their texts as a red-brown object, when they saw it is another matter. Sitchin thinks it came thru the solar system ~3800 BC for a number of reasons, like the beginning of the Nippurian lunar calendar and texts that talk of kingship descending from Heaven and kings lists. That would put it in the vicinity of the onset of the Younger Dryas during an earlier visit. But that would mean it came thru around 200 BC and I dont know how it was recorded. Myths of the disappearing and reappearing god are a common feature and led to the demise of the Aztec empire.

The YDs are dated at about 11,000 BCE and it seems that you are trying to associate the impact theory of the initiation of the YD with the passing of Nibiru. Nibiru is not necessary for the impact theory to be true. According to you, Nibiru passed by at 11,000 BCE, 7,400 BCE, 3800 and then at 200. In addition, you say that no one noticed those last too passing. By 3000 BCE astronomy was already well developed in the Middle East and in 164 BCE Halley's comet was noted in texts. By 600 BCE astronomical events were being recorded in Egypt, ME, India and China. But no one seemed to notice Nibiru's passing in 200. IIRC the space faring Anunnaki were active on earth until about 600 BCE.

And lest I forget, the Anunnaki engaged in nuclear war in 2024 BCE in the ME with out any discoverable residue.

The Evil Wind (i.e. radioactive cloud) blew north and eastward into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, moving from Eridu to Sippar, killing all the living things in its path and laying waste to the land. The water became poisonous and the soil became barren. People and animals alike died. The great Sumerian Civilization, the first in the world was destroyed.

The Enuma Elish describes Nibiru as a location associated with Marduk after he created Heaven and Earth from Tiamat's corpse, it refers to a crossing point which is why my link argues for the equinox. But the text he quotes says Nibiru/Marduk is a red brown object, not any object at the equinox.

But your link contradicts all of that.

I think the authors of the Enuma Elish were facing a similar dilemma as the people writing Genesis, they were dealing with an older story they used to elevate their tribal/city state gods to the role of hero. Marduk for the Babylonians, Ashur for the Assyrians and so on. Tiamat and Nibiru were the combatants but the roles of both were downplayed in Genesis and the Enuma Elish.

According to Sitchin, Marduk was still king in Babylon after the nuke war and after writing had been around for over 1000 years. So it appears that the Enuma Elish was written before the destruction of Sumer in 2024 BCE while Marduk was still king in Babylon. They had access to the the folks who lived that "older" story. The Anunnaki who still ruled the earth.

I don't know, this is not making much sense to me.

 

[Plotinus]

Here is what I quoted:

"The formula suggests that, extending outward, each planet should be approximately twice as far from the Sun as the one before."

To which I said:

"If the Earth was at the asteroid belt it would fit the formula."

I specifically left out the 'adding 4 part' because that was added to the formula to account for Earth being here instead of the asteroid belt.

I don't understand why you claim that the "adding 4 part" was added for this reason. I can see no evidence of such a motivation. The very earliest formulation of Bode's Law is by Christian Wolff, in Vernuenftige Gedanken von den Absichten der natuerlichen Dinge. He writes (p. 140 of the 1726 edition):

The planets that move around the Sun are located very far from one another. If one divides the distance of the Earth from the Sun into 10 parts, the distance of Mercury takes 4 of it up, that of Venus 7, that of Mars 15, that of Jupiter 52, that of Saturn 95. If one accordingly imagines that the centres of all planets are in one line, which is drawn from the centre of the Sun to the centre of Saturn, and the whole line is divided into 95 parts, then at the end of the fourth part is Mercury, at the end of the seventh part is Venus, at the end of the tenth is the Earth, at the end of the fifteenth is Mars, at the end of the fifty-second is Jupiter, and finally at the end of the ninety-fifth is Saturn. Thus Mercury and Venus are separated by 3 parts, Venus and the Earth also by 3, the Earth and Mars by 5, Mars and Jupiter by 37, Jupiter and Saturn by 43 parts.

The formulation of an actual law to describe these values occurred in a paragraph that was inserted into the German translation of Charles Bonnet's Contemplation de la nature. The translator was Johann Daniel Titius, and his insertion went like this (pp. 7-8 of the 1766 edition):

Take notice of the distances of the planets from one another, and recognise that almost all are separated from one another in a proportion which matches their bodily magnitudes. Divide the distance from the Sun to Saturn into 100 parts; then Mercury is separated by 4 such parts from the Sun, Venus by 4+3=7 such parts, the Earth by 4+6=10, Mars by 4+12=16. But notice that from Mars to Jupiter there comes a deviation from this so-exact progression. From Mars there follows a space of 4+24=18 such parts, but so far no planet or satellite was sighted there. But should the Lord Architect have left that space empty? Not at all. Let us therefore assume that this space without doubt belongs to the still-undiscovered satellites of Mars; let us also add that perhaps Jupiter still has around itself some smaller ones which have not been sighted yet by any telescope. Next to this for us still-unexplored space there rises Jupiter's sphere of influence at 4+48=52 parts; and that of Saturn at 4+96=100 parts. What a wonderful relation!

Bode basically stole this formulation for his work, which became the standard.

You will notice that in these original formulations of the law there is absolutely no suggestion that the planets' distance from the Sun would double each time if the Earth were moved to between Mars and Jupiter. The discrepancy that Titius tries to account for is not the position of the Earth, but the absence of any planet at all between Mars and Jupiter, which should be there according to the progression that he identifies. This was of course shortly before the discovery of Uranus (1781) and Ceres (1801), which fitted the pattern - Ceres in particular seeming to vindicate the prediction of a planet between Mars and Jupiter.

So this idea that the "adding 4 part" was added after the discovery that moving Earth to between Mars and Jupiter would yield a simpler pattern is simply false. The eighteenth-century astronomers who formulated this law had in mind only the actual locations of the planets, plus speculative additional ones - not possible alternative locations for the known planets. And really this is hardly surprising, given that astronomers at the time had no notion of the possibility of planets moving in their orbits. All of them presupposed a solar system that had been created in the form it has today by a perfectly rational Creator. The concept of planets whizzing about and knocking each other about like billiard balls would have to wait until the twentieth century and the work of Immanuel Velikovsky, which I'm somewhat surprised you haven't appealed to yet, though it can surely only be a matter of time.

So remove the Earth at 1 AU on your list and place it at the asteroid belt. The planets out to Uranus follow a 2:1 ratio.

Shifting the Earth to be twice the distance of Mars - and ignoring Ceres - yields these distances:

Mercury: 0.39
Venus: 0.72 (x 1.8 of Mercury)
Mars: 1.52 (x 2.1 of Venus)
Earth: 3.04 (x 2 of Mars)
Jupiter: 5.2 (x 1.71 of Earth)
Saturn: 9.54 (x 1.8 of Jupiter)
Uranus: 19.2 (x 2.01 of Saturn)
Neptune: 30.06 (x 1.57 of Uranus)

As you can see, none of these other than the artificially shifted Earth is twice the distance of its predecessor, though they are in that approximate ballpark. You will also note that making Earth exactly twice the distance of Mars screws up Jupiter - in other words, moving Earth to between Mars and Jupiter actually makes it fit the pattern less well than any of the other planets (other than Neptune). So in other words you're proposing an original position for the Earth to fit a pattern that doesn't really exist anyway, and to the extent that such a pattern exists, the proposed position for the Earth fits it less well than almost any other planet.

Neptune is 1.5x Uranus' distance (30 to 20 AU), maybe 10 AU is enough space (and material) to build a planet that far from the Sun and the 2:1 ratio breaks down.

As for Venus and Mercury, you're using mean distances. Mercury has a highly eccentric orbit that easily accommodates a 1:2 ratio with Venus. And Mars is .08 AU more than twice Venus' distance from the Sun, but Mars also has an eccentric orbit.

I don't understand this special pleading. Of course I'm using mean distances. If you're going to appeal to eccentric orbits, then the pattern breaks down even more, because one extreme of Mercury's orbit might fit the pattern but then the other extreme of its orbit fits it even less well than the mean does. If you're choosing one of those extremes rather than the other simply because it fits your pattern then you're manipulating the data to fit a preconceived outcome, which obviously invalidates it.

I don't understand what you're saying about Neptune. It seems to me that if you really hold to this doubling theory then you need to postulate that Neptune used to be further out and something knocked it closer in.

In other words, two out of eight planets are in completely the "wrong" positions (and the other six aren't really quite right). If you've got to postulate special circumstances for a quarter of your sample to explain why they're "wrong" then your methodology leaves a lot to be desired.

The truth is: even if you shift the Earth to be in between Mars and Jupiter, the doubling pattern doesn't match reality. Moreover, the people who formulated Bode's Law had no concept of such a doubling pattern, because they did not speculate about planets moving around. They formulated the doubling-plus-4 rule to account for the actual positions of the planets and speculated about one they couldn't see, which turned out actually to exist, assuming one takes Ceres to be a planet. So both your historical claim about how the law was formulated, and your mathematics about your proposed alternative law, are mistaken.

If you're seriously going to defend this then you need to explain why it is more reasonable to believe in a "doubling" rule, combined with the shifting of two of the planets, than it is to believe in no such rule at all. What reason do you have to think that the locations of the planets fit any pattern at all? And if you do have such a reason, what reason do you have to think that the doubling rule is to be preferred over Bode's Law, which fits their actual positions better than the doubling rule, and doesn't require the Earth to be shifted?

I said they dont orbit the Sun's equatorial plane, that does not imply they're on the same plane. That implies the solar system is tilted and it is.

That is only so if you assume that the "correct" inclination of the solar system matches the Sun's equatorial plane. But why would you assume that? Maybe it's the Sun that's tilted. Or more plausibly, neither of them is "tilted" because there is no "correct" inclination. Why should there be?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The concept of planets whizzing about and knocking each other about like billiard balls would have to wait until the twentieth century and the work of Immanuel Velikovsky, which I'm somewhat surprised you haven't appealed to yet, though it can surely only be a matter of time.

This reminded me of the scene in the original Cosmos in which Sagan mentions Velikovsky:

 

[Berzerker]

You will notice that in these original formulations of the law there is absolutely no suggestion that the planets' distance from the Sun would double each time if the Earth were moved to between Mars and Jupiter. The discrepancy that Titius tries to account for is not the position of the Earth, but the absence of any planet at all between Mars and Jupiter, which should be there according to the progression that he identifies. This was of course shortly before the discovery of Uranus (1781) and Ceres (1801), which fitted the pattern - Ceres in particular seeming to vindicate the prediction of a planet between Mars and Jupiter.

So this idea that the "adding 4 part" was added after the discovery that moving Earth to between Mars and Jupiter would yield a simpler pattern is simply false.

The adding 4 part was based on the Earth being here, not at the asteroid belt. As your link shows it was based on Earth's current distance from the Sun. But before that formula was created people noticed a 1:2 ratio in planetary distances, Mercury > Venus > Mars > --- > Jupiter > Saturn. The problem was the Earth being here didn't follow the pattern, thats why we got the adding 4 part to the equation.

The concept of planets whizzing about and knocking each other about like billiard balls would have to wait until the twentieth century and the work of Immanuel Velikovsky, which I'm somewhat surprised you haven't appealed to yet, though it can surely only be a matter of time.

I read his book, its great for comparative mythology but he thought Venus was a giant comet or something that recently (1600 BC?) acquired an orbit near the Sun. Some of the myths he found may tie in with Nibiru's orbit thru the solar system, but collisions were commonplace so I dont know why you'd mention him to discredit the current consensus. My source for ancient cosmology is Zecharia Sitchin, his interpretations of the Enuma Elish in "The 12th Planet" and Genesis are supported by the evidence. First and foremost, water preceded earth (dry land) and life.

Shifting the Earth to be twice the distance of Mars - and ignoring Ceres - yields these distances:

Mercury: 0.39
Venus: 0.72 (x 1.8 of Mercury)
Mars: 1.52 (x 2.1 of Venus)
Earth: 3.04 (x 2 of Mars)
Jupiter: 5.2 (x 1.71 of Earth)
Saturn: 9.54 (x 1.8 of Jupiter)
Uranus: 19.2 (x 2.01 of Saturn)
Neptune: 30.06 (x 1.57 of Uranus)

As you can see, none of these other than the artificially shifted Earth is twice the distance of its predecessor, though they are in that approximate ballpark. You will also note that making Earth exactly twice the distance of Mars screws up Jupiter - in other words, moving Earth to between Mars and Jupiter actually makes it fit the pattern less well than any of the other planets (other than Neptune). So in other words you're proposing an original position for the Earth to fit a pattern that doesn't really exist anyway, and to the extent that such a pattern exists, the proposed position for the Earth fits it less well than almost any other planet.

I don't understand this special pleading. Of course I'm using mean distances. If you're going to appeal to eccentric orbits, then the pattern breaks down even more, because one extreme of Mercury's orbit might fit the pattern but then the other extreme of its orbit fits it even less well than the mean does. If you're choosing one of those extremes rather than the other simply because it fits your pattern then you're manipulating the data to fit a preconceived outcome, which obviously invalidates it.

Are you manipulating the data to fit a preconceived outcome? If we consider Pluto it has an eccentric orbit that takes it out to 49 AU and it swings inside of Neptune at 29 AU - the mean is 39 AU. But it didn't get that orbit by following the mean of 39 AU or it would have a more circular orbit, it got that eccentric orbit because of an extreme. I think it came from Saturn, not only does Pluto sit on Saturn's equatorial plane near perihelion but subtracting Saturn's distance of 9.5 AU from Pluto's extremes creates a 1:2 ratio: 20 AU - 40 AU.

So we have to look at the extremes to see how much overlap they create.

Mercury .313 AU - .459 AU
Venus .718 AU - .728 AU
Mars 1.405 AU - 1.639 AU
Ceres 2.55 AU - 2.98 AU
asteroid belt 2.3 AU - 3.3 AU
Jupiter 4.95 AU - 5.45 AU
Saturn 9.04 AU - 10.12 AU
Uranus 18.28 AU - 20.09 AU

ofc this may not mean much if the planets have been migrating about but as of now there is enough overlap to accommodate a 2:1 ratio. The only one that falls a bit outside the overlap is Jupiter to Mars.

I don't understand what you're saying about Neptune. It seems to me that if you really hold to this doubling theory then you need to postulate that Neptune used to be further out and something knocked it closer in.

I said the pattern breaks down with Neptune, the material available for planet building thins out so while Jupiter and Saturn could form 5 AU apart Uranus and Neptune needed 10 AU.

Moreover, the people who formulated Bode's Law had no concept of such a doubling pattern

Sure they did, thats the first thing anyone would notice about planetary distances. Earth didn't fit the pattern so they added the 4 part.

What reason do you have to think that the locations of the planets fit any pattern at all? And if you do have such a reason, what reason do you have to think that the doubling rule is to be preferred over Bode's Law, which fits their actual positions better than the doubling rule, and doesn't require the Earth to be shifted?

Earth's water didn't form here

That is only so if you assume that the "correct" inclination of the solar system matches the Sun's equatorial plane. But why would you assume that? Maybe it's the Sun that's tilted. Or more plausibly, neither of them is "tilted" because there is no "correct" inclination. Why should there be?

Because collapsing nebulas flatten into disks, even planets and their moons. Look at the moons of the outer gas giants, most orbit very close to their parent's equatorial plane. The researchers looking for planet 9 believe the solar system is tilted and they think its a mystery. I do too...

 

[Plotinus]

But before that formula was created people noticed a 1:2 ratio in planetary distances, Mercury > Venus > Mars > --- > Jupiter > Saturn.

Which people are you talking about? Can you give a source?

I read his book, its great for comparative mythology but he thought Venus was a giant comet or something that recently (1600 BC?) acquired an orbit near the Sun. Some of the myths he found may tie in with Nibiru's orbit thru the solar system, but collisions were commonplace so I dont know why you'd mention him to discredit the current consensus.

I mention him because he's the most famous example of cherry-picking ancient myths with a weird combination of literal interpretation and disregard for context, and wrenching them about to fit a preconceived eccentric cosmology. While you may not agree with his actual theories you're basically doing exactly the same thing as him, so I'm not surprised you say he's "great for comparative mythology". Experts in mythology disagree with this assessment.

You refer to a "current consensus", but this is misleading. There is no scholarly consensus for the kind of interpretation you're giving.

Are you manipulating the data to fit a preconceived outcome? If we consider Pluto it has an eccentric orbit that takes it out to 49 AU and it swings inside of Neptune at 29 AU - the mean is 39 AU. But it didn't get that orbit by following the mean of 39 AU or it would have a more circular orbit, it got that eccentric orbit because of an extreme. I think it came from Saturn, not only does Pluto sit on Saturn's equatorial plane near perihelion but subtracting Saturn's distance of 9.5 AU from Pluto's extremes creates a 1:2 ratio: 20 AU - 40 AU.

I didn't mention Pluto at all!

So we have to look at the extremes to see how much overlap they create.

Mercury .313 AU - .459 AU
Venus .718 AU - .728 AU
Mars 1.405 AU - 1.639 AU
Ceres 2.55 AU - 2.98 AU
asteroid belt 2.3 AU - 3.3 AU
Jupiter 4.95 AU - 5.45 AU
Saturn 9.04 AU - 10.12 AU
Uranus 18.28 AU - 20.09 AU

ofc this may not mean much if the planets have been migrating about but as of now there is enough overlap to accommodate a 2:1 ratio. The only one that falls a bit outside the overlap is Jupiter to Mars.

As I said before, this isn't methodologically sound.

Suppose I eat two apples on some days and eight apples on other days. And suppose that my wife eats sixteen apples on some days and thirty apples on other days. (This is not far off how many she actually does eat.) Is it accurate to say that my wife eats twice as many apples as I do? After all, the number she eats on her lowest days is double what I eat on my highest days. Of course not, because we only get that result if we look at one extreme from my sample and a different extreme from her sample. If you look at the other extremes, she eats fifteen times as many apples as me. On average, she eats almost four times as many apples as I do.

Now suppose our neighbour eats sixty apples on some days and a hundred on others. By cherry-picking which days you count, you can say that he eats twice as many apples as my wife. Now you could claim that my wife eats twice as many apples as me, and our neighbour eats twice as many apples as her, and that therefore there is a 1:2:4 ratio between our apple-eating habits. But this would be false, because our neighbour does not eat four times as many apples as me - he eats far more than that. You get the misleading result because you're using different values for my wife depending on whether you're comparing her to me or to our neighbour.

You're doing the same thing here. If you take (say) the nearest point of Jupiter's orbit and the furthest point of Saturn's orbit, you may get the figure you want, but that's cancelled out by the fact that the furthest point of Jupiter's orbit and the nearest point of Saturn's orbit is a quite different figure. The fact that (say) Jupiter overlaps with Saturn at one extreme to yield a 2:1 ratio and overlaps with Mars at a different extreme to yield another 2:1 ratio doesn't justify you saying that a 2:1 ratio holds between all the planets, because you're calculating two different orbits for each planet.

I said the pattern breaks down with Neptune, the material available for planet building thins out so while Jupiter and Saturn could form 5 AU apart Uranus and Neptune needed 10 AU.

This doesn't make sense. By this logic, Neptune should be further out than the ratio suggests, because there's less stuff to build it out of. But Neptune is much closer in than the ratio suggests. Why would a thinning of planetary material cause this?

Sure they did, thats the first thing anyone would notice about planetary distances. Earth didn't fit the pattern so they added the 4 part.

As I indicated above, this claim is not supported by the evidence of what they actually said. There is no mention of a 2:1 ratio, or of Earth not fitting it. That's your interpretation of it.

Earth's water didn't form here

That doesn't answer my question at all. Why does the fact that Earth's water didn't form here give you a reason for thinking (a) that there's a mathematical law governing the distances of the planets from the Sun, and (b) that a 2:1 pattern, which fits at best only 75% of the planets, is to be preferred to Bode's Law, which fits 88% of them?

Because collapsing nebulas flatten into disks, even planets and their moons. Look at the moons of the outer gas giants, most orbit very close to their parent's equatorial plane. The researchers looking for planet 9 believe the solar system is tilted and they think its a mystery. I do too...

They're rough discs, though, aren't they? This is like saying that planets are spheres, and then claiming that the existence of mountains is a mystery. Why would you expect the solar system to form as a perfect disc? Nature doesn't work that way.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Suppose I eat two apples on some days and eight apples on other days. And suppose that my wife eats sixteen apples on some days and thirty apples on other days. (This is not far off how many she actually does eat.) Is it accurate to say that my wife eats twice as many apples as I do? After all, the number she eats on her lowest days is double what I eat on my highest days. Of course not, because we only get that result if we look at one extreme from my sample and a different extreme from her sample. If you look at the other extremes, she eats fifteen times as many apples as me. On average, she eats almost four times as many apples as I do.

Now suppose our neighbour eats sixty apples on some days and a hundred on others. By cherry-picking which days you count, you can say that he eats twice as many apples as my wife. Now you could claim that my wife eats twice as many apples as me, and our neighbour eats twice as many apples as her, and that therefore there is a 1:2:4 ratio between our apple-eating habits. But this would be false, because our neighbour does not eat four times as many apples as me - he eats far more than that. You get the misleading result because you're using different values for my wife depending on whether you're comparing her to me or to our neighbour.

Even if these hypothetical apples were really crabapples and not regular apples, that's too many!

 

[Plotinus]

Seriously, last weekend she and the six-year-old polished off 24 apples between them over the course of 24 hours, and had to go out and buy some more. She's addicted to apples, and I mean that quite literally, not as a way of saying she really likes them.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Seriously, last weekend she and the six-year-old polished off 24 apples between them over the course of 24 hours, and had to go out and buy some more. She's addicted to apples, and I mean that quite literally, not as a way of saying she really likes them.

I honestly can't wrap my head around that. I could understand 24 grapes. But apples...

What variety, or do they just like any kind of apple?

 

[Plotinus]

Braeburn. Though they'll accept Royal Gala if necessary.

 

[Berzerker]

Which people are you talking about? Can you give a source?

Anybody looking at the orbital distances of the planets would have seen the 2:1 ratio before inventing a formula based on the Earth's orbit. Are you saying the formula was invented without anyone noticing the 2:1 ratio?

I mention him because he's the most famous example of cherry-picking ancient myths with a weird combination of literal interpretation and disregard for context, and wrenching them about to fit a preconceived eccentric cosmology. While you may not agree with his actual theories you're basically doing exactly the same thing as him, so I'm not surprised you say he's "great for comparative mythology". Experts in mythology disagree with this assessment.

What experts? The criticisms of Velikovsky I've seen were about his cosmology. You mentioned him to rebut me with guilt by association even though I never brought him or his theory up. Hey Berz, you're wrong because Velikovsky was wrong. Next you'll be lecturing me about sound methodology

You refer to a "current consensus", but this is misleading. There is no scholarly consensus for the kind of interpretation you're giving.

The current consensus is the planets have suffered many collisions so I dont know why you were mocking Velikovsky with that bit about billiard balls. I didn't say there was a consensus on my interpretation, just a consensus that impacts were commonplace. But there is ample evidence the Earth was hit multiple times over a period about 4 bya shortly before the appearance of plate tectonics and life. Thats my interpretation.

I didn't mention Pluto at all!

I could use Mercury or Mars if you prefer, both have eccentric orbits. But Pluto illustrates the problem with your insistence on using mean distances. Pluto didn't enter that eccentric orbit by following its mean distance, it entered that orbit at one of the extremes. Maybe its just a coincidence but there is a 2:1 ratio in Pluto's extremes using Saturn's orbit as a focal point instead of the Sun and Pluto sits on Saturn's equatorial plane near one of those extremes.

As I said before, this isn't methodologically sound.

Suppose I eat two apples on some days and eight apples on other days. And suppose that my wife eats sixteen apples on some days and thirty apples on other days. (This is not far off how many she actually does eat.) Is it accurate to say that my wife eats twice as many apples as I do? After all, the number she eats on her lowest days is double what I eat on my highest days. Of course not, because we only get that result if we look at one extreme from my sample and a different extreme from her sample. If you look at the other extremes, she eats fifteen times as many apples as me. On average, she eats almost four times as many apples as I do.

Now suppose our neighbour eats sixty apples on some days and a hundred on others. By cherry-picking which days you count, you can say that he eats twice as many apples as my wife. Now you could claim that my wife eats twice as many apples as me, and our neighbour eats twice as many apples as her, and that therefore there is a 1:2:4 ratio between our apple-eating habits. But this would be false, because our neighbour does not eat four times as many apples as me - he eats far more than that. You get the misleading result because you're using different values for my wife depending on whether you're comparing her to me or to our neighbour.

You're doing the same thing here. If you take (say) the nearest point of Jupiter's orbit and the furthest point of Saturn's orbit, you may get the figure you want, but that's cancelled out by the fact that the furthest point of Jupiter's orbit and the nearest point of Saturn's orbit is a quite different figure. The fact that (say) Jupiter overlaps with Saturn at one extreme to yield a 2:1 ratio and overlaps with Mars at a different extreme to yield another 2:1 ratio doesn't justify you saying that a 2:1 ratio holds between all the planets, because you're calculating two different orbits for each planet.

The 2:1 ratio would be Saturn > Jupiter and Jupiter > Ceres/asteroid belt and there is a 2:1 ratio between Ceres and Mars and Mars > Venus and another between Venus and Mercury. There's no 'rule' that says Jupiter has to be 2x Ceres distance at the same time Saturn is 2x Jupiter.

This doesn't make sense. By this logic, Neptune should be further out than the ratio suggests, because there's less stuff to build it out of. But Neptune is much closer in than the ratio suggests. Why would a thinning of planetary material cause this?

The distance between Neptune and Uranus is 10 AU, the distance between Uranus and Saturn is 10 AU. The distance between Saturn and Jupiter is 5 AU. Why didn't Uranus and Neptune form closer to Saturn? Material thinned out requiring more space to build a planet. How much space? 10 AU, double the distance required for Jupiter and Saturn.

That doesn't answer my question at all. Why does the fact that Earth's water didn't form here give you a reason for thinking (a) that there's a mathematical law governing the distances of the planets from the Sun, and (b) that a 2:1 pattern, which fits at best only 75% of the planets, is to be preferred to Bode's Law, which fits 88% of them?

If the Earth's water didn't form here maybe the Earth didn't form here. If it formed further away where water was plentiful - between Mars and Jupiter - it creates a 2:1 ratio between the first 7 planets. What would that do to Bode's Law?

They're rough discs, though, aren't they?

No, the invariable plane is 6 degrees off while most moons orbit very close to the equatorial planes of their parent planets with 2 notable exceptions: Neptune's moon Triton (highly inclined retrograde orbit) and the Earth's moon (5+ degrees). Most moons are < 1 degree.

 

[Birdjaguar]

blah blah blah Numerology will not save your sinking ship.

 

[Berzerker]

That isn't numerology, just the observation the planets roughly follow a 2:1 ratio in their distances out to Uranus if the Earth formed at the asteroid belt. That might explain our water and why the Earth has the most inclined orbit.

"Computer simulations suggest that the original asteroid belt may have contained mass equivalent to the Earth's."

"When the asteroid belt was first formed, the temperatures at a distance of 2.7 AU from the Sun formed a "snow line" below the freezing point of water. Planetesimals formed beyond this radius were able to accumulate ice.[49][50] In 2006, a population of comets had been discovered within the asteroid belt beyond the snow line, which may have provided a source of water for Earth's oceans. According to some models, outgassing of water during the Earth's formative period was insufficient to form the oceans, requiring an external source such as a cometary bombardment.

"In 2018, a study from researchers at the University of Florida concluded the asteroid belt was created from the remnants of several ancient planets instead of a single planet."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt

Marduk and his winds killed Tiamat

https://phys.org/news/2020-05-geometry-earliest-temple-built-years.html

Spoiler :

I'm assuming those are N-S and the blue line is about 74-78 degrees. But they're starting to work another mound that could be older. This might be the tip of the iceberg, its strange that this region dates back to the time of Plato's Atlantis and possibly the Flood of Noah with disembarkment in the foothills of Ararat but if people have been recording the rare appearance of another planet we might find it in their temple structures and sighting holes. While I would expect them to focus on the eastern horizon a preponderance of southeastern alignments may be an indicator of its orbit.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Marduk and his winds killed Tiamat

According to Sitchin, Marduk was still king in Babylon after the nuke war and after writing had been around for over 1000 years.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm assuming those are N-S and the blue line is about 74-78 degrees. But they're starting to work another mound that could be older. This might be the tip of the iceberg, its strange that this region dates back to the time of Plato's Atlantis and possibly the Flood of Noah with disembarkment in the foothills of Ararat but if people have been recording the rare appearance of another planet we might find it in their temple structures and sighting holes. While I would expect them to focus on the eastern horizon a preponderance of southeastern alignments may be an indicator of its orbit.

Here is a link to the actual site overview.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbek...te_of_Göbekli_Tepe_-_main_excavation_area.png

"The layout of the complex is characterized by spatial and symbolic hierarchies that reflect changes in the spiritual world and in the social structure," Haklay explains. "In our research, we used an analytic tool—an algorithm based on standard deviation mapping—to identify an underlying geometric pattern that regulated the design."

But they ignored the fourth circle; probably because it didn't fit with their theory.

We already know that the Egyptians used the lunar calendar so the Atlantis event was early second millennium.

 

[Berzerker]

"Together with the abundant water and the lack of any inner solar system material or signatures, the above findings suggest that the material within Ryugu was stuck together (accreted) and aqueously altered very early in the outer solar system.

However, to form liquid water, from the heating of a rocky-icy body by radioactive decay, requires the body to be at least several 10's of km in size. Accordingly, Ryugu must have originally been a part of a much bigger body, termed a planetesimal."

https://phys.org/news/2022-06-solar-formation-asteroid-ryugu.html

Or part of a planet covered by water


Marduk was one of the Annunaki who became Nibiru/Marduk in the Enuma Elish. In an earlier version of the story it was Enlil who played the hero:

The Sumerians believed that, until Enlil was born, heaven and earth were inseparable.[7] Then, Enlil cleft heaven and earth in two[7] and carried away the earth[8] while his father An carried away the sky.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anunnaki

So Heaven and Earth were one and preceded Enlil (and Marduk and the hebrew God of Genesis) and Earth was carried away from the scene of the celestial battle.

Here is a link to the actual site overview.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe#/media/File:The_archaeological_site_of_Göbekli_Tepe_-_main_excavation_area.png
But they ignored the fourth circle; probably because it didn't fit with their theory.

We already know that the Egyptians used the lunar calendar so the Atlantis event was early second millennium.

I'm not sure what their theory was other than geometry at the site, I dont know that a 4th circle is relevant if they can find geometry in the 3 they're looking at.

Thera has been dated to 1625 bc I believe, Solon got the story in 590 bc, thats 1135 years so that would be well over 13,000 months. I think Solon (and/or Plato) understood the time frame and we're accumulating evidence supporting it. From Gobekli Tepe to the Younger Dryas and the climate change/sea rise record we know post ice age events dwarfed a volcano blowing up even if it did wreck the Minoan north coast.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What is it that you are saying about the Younger Dryas and how they are connected to Atlantis or Gobekli Tepe? The YD were a ~1000 year cold spell between 12,900 and 11,700 years BP that mostly impacted the norther hemisphere. Why is that important?

 

[Berzerker]

They happened around the same time, the YD ended (warmed very fast) about the time Atlantis was submerged and Gobekli Tepe was built. Now the onset of the YD is close to Sitchin's date for the Flood 13000 bp but I heard a Tlingit elder date their Flood to 14 kya, the older date is closer to a rapid burst in sea rise. Atlantis was in the northern hemisphere at sea level.

If the Sphinx was a symbolic representation of the time of the Flood then maybe the human head on the lion's body indicates the head of Virgo and the body of Leo forming the cusp of the constellations (like how we're on the cusp of Pisces to Aquarius). This is supported by the emphasis on bull worship and the transition to Aries the Ram in the time of Moses and why Jesus was the sacrificial lamb who became a fisher of men.

These cusps and transitory periods are not well-defined, even in the Bible we see Moses getting angry upon finding the people making their golden calf - the age of Taurus had ended. So the cusp of Virgo to Leo could be several centuries ranging on either side of 11000-10800 bc.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

They happened around the same time, the YD ended (warmed very fast) about the time Atlantis was submerged and Gobekli Tepe was built. Now the onset of the YD is close to Sitchin's date for the Flood 13000 bp but I heard a Tlingit elder date their Flood to 14 kya, the older date is closer to a rapid burst in sea rise. Atlantis was in the northern hemisphere at sea level.

You know there's a continent in the way of where the Tlingit were and where Atlantis supposedly was, right? The Tlingit and the various Mediterranean cultures would have had very different perceptions of geography.

If the Sphinx was a symbolic representation of the time of the Flood then maybe the human head on the lion's body indicates the head of Virgo and the body of Leo forming the cusp of the constellations (like how we're on the cusp of Pisces to Aquarius). This is supported by the emphasis on bull worship and the transition to Aries the Ram in the time of Moses and why Jesus was the sacrificial lamb who became a fisher of men.

These cusps and transitory periods are not well-defined, even in the Bible we see Moses getting angry upon finding the people making their golden calf - the age of Taurus had ended. So the cusp of Virgo to Leo could be several centuries ranging on either side of 11000-10800 bc.

So if the age of Taurus hadn't ended, Moses would have been okay with his people building an effigy of a golden calf and worshiping it?

Did the Egyptians have exactly the same mythology associated with the zodiacal constellations as the Greeks?

 

[Berzerker]

You know there's a continent in the way of where the Tlingit were and where Atlantis supposedly was, right? The Tlingit and the various Mediterranean cultures would have had very different perceptions of geography.

So if the age of Taurus hadn't ended, Moses would have been okay with his people building an effigy of a golden calf and worshiping it?

Did the Egyptians have exactly the same mythology associated with the zodiacal constellations as the Greeks?

A continent cant prevent rising seas in the Pacific and Atlantic and a cometary breakup eg could hit different places. I've read about 3 locations being considered by the Younger Dryas Impact Group, 2 small craters off the northern coast of Australia, a larger crater in the Indian Ocean, and a smaller one in Greenland. Flood myths are typically linked with celestial events. As for your last question, no. Why?

As for Moses, I dont know what he would have done if they were celebrating the ram/lamb

 

[Valka D'Ur]

As for your last question, no. Why?

OH. COME. ON.

You just went into a spiel about how all these stories are supposedly connected... using GREEK mythology. So I asked about whether the Egyptian myths and the Greek myths were the same. You say no. So why did you carry on as if they were?