First, you're assuming nobody had a telescope before the 1600s and second, you're ignoring the evidence they left us showing more that 5 planets. All you've done is repeat your assumption as if its fact.
You're trotting out your "you're just assuming" nonsense to someone who has studied astronomy for over 45 years. While lenses were known prior to the year 1600, telescopes were not. The year given for the telescope is 1608, and by 1610, Galileo had used a telescope to look at the planets. As mentioned, he discovered the four largest moons of Jupiter (Callisto, Ganymede, Europa, and Io - all of which were unseen and unknown prior to that time), he saw that the Moon has mountains, he saw that Venus has phases like the Moon has, and he also saw that the Sun itself isn't perfect - it has sunspots (looking at the Sun through a telescope is what led to Galileo's eventual blindness).
There were 9 great gods, not 5 and not 7... But the number 7 is relevant, it represented the Earth - Shulgi said the celestial 7 was 50. That refers to Enlil's rank in the Sumerian pantheon and his association with the Earth. The Earth is the 7th planet, thats why the number 7 appears in creation myth.
Berzerker said:
Valka D'Ur said:
At the time that the Marduk story was invented, nobody knew of the existence of Uranus and Neptune. The ancient Babylonians died out a long time before 1781, when Uranus was discovered.
There you go again... Ignore the evidence and argue based on an assumption.
There you go again, with your nonsense that mythology = evidence and observable science = "assumption."
WHAT PART OF "URANUS WAS DISCOVERED IN 1781" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
That's not "assumption". That's history. It happened.
They haven't found the Oort Cloud with any telescope or probe - the cloud was invented to explain long term comets.
The Oort Cloud was theorized, not inventd. Are you suggesting long-term comets are imaginary? I've seen Hale-Bopp and Hyakutake with my own eyes. I didn't imagine them.
Where do you
think long-term comets spend most of their time? Do you also doubt the existence of the Kuiper Belt? (hint: Pluto is now considered a Kuiper Belt Object, as are the other dwarf planets such as Sedna, Quaoar, and others)
If all the Earth had was a puddle we'd be incredibly lucky to find any rock that formed in water. We're having trouble finding any rock that didn't form in water. Do you understand what they mean by a wet planet? They mean water was abundant and they base that on both our oldest rocks having formed in water and meteorites that contain water. The water and the meteorites both formed at the asteroid belt - the snow line of the early solar system.
Do you understand that Earth didn't always have water? Do you understand where igneous rocks come from? Do you understand that some day Earth will no longer have water?
Wait, what evidence is there of the existence of telescopes before Galileo's and Kepler's time?
As far as I knew that's when the thing was invented - in the 1600s. Is there contradictory evidence out there?
There is no evidence of telescopes pre-1600s.
To keep insisting otherwise is irrational, not based on evidence, and makes as much sense as claiming that the ancient Babylonians had cell phones.
Okay, different track. If ancient cultures knew about Neptune and Uranus, what did they call them?
How come we have tremendous historical references to the name of the other planets but not those?
Would you still defend this theory if we had named those two planets Herschel and Leverrier?
Please don't dignify these notions with the term "theory." They're not theories, or even hypotheses. They're just notions, and very misguided and irrational ones.
They were the players in the creation from chaos, the olden gods before Heaven and Earth came to be. I gave y'all a link to the story, read it with the image of our solar system ~4 bya in chaos as planets migrate back and forth. Then read Sitchin's chapter on the Enuma Elish in his book The 12th Planet.
Okay, this is just repeating the same crap that's in those videos EltonJ posted earlier in the Ask an Atlanteologist thread. I don't need to read your "story" - I already wasted over 5 hours of my life on those dumb videos that repeat the same garbage that has not a single shred of credibility as anything scientific.
Astrologists and observational astronomers couldn't see the outer planets, so they were irrelevant to virtually everyone, they were unseen... How do you tell someone their unseen planet is rising in one of the 12 signs of the Zodiac?
You seem awfully fond of the number 12, yet you forget about the 13th zodiac sign: Ophiuchus.
Of course it's a bit inconvenient to have a prime number instead of one that's so convenient for making arbitrary divisions into groups of 2, 3, 4, and 6. And astrology hasn't caught up to what we now know about precession. Your precious astrology is like a watch that hasn't been set right for millennia.
That doesn't mean they were unknown, astrology is still based on 12 and even our system still uses it. There is some speculation Uranus could be seen by people with excellent vision and while we cant prove yet earlier telescopes existed its not a difficult invention.
You mean it's not difficult after the fact. So if there are people with such wonderful vision that they can see Uranus with the naked eye, let's have some sources. Surely these people would have an article or two about this remarkable vision.
Certainly somebody in the past looked thru a piece of glass and decided to look thru two and notice differences as they moved their hands back and forth. But it doesn't matter when telescopes were invented, somebody a very long time ago knew about the other planets and shared that information.
And thus your credibility has just been completely shot. You have just blithely dismissed the apparatus for making the observations (a fundamental part of the scientific method).
If you want to be taken seriously, you can't just dismiss these things as unimportant.
Gaga may be Pluto, VA 243 shows a small orb between the 2 larger pair of twins and the Fremont panel showing creation places a small sheep next to the last in line (Pluto actually spends time inside of Neptune's orbit).
Again: Nobody back then knew of either Neptune or Pluto. NOBODY.
The visible planets played an everyday role in the lives of people but how many creation myths refer to 5 olden gods before Heaven and Earth? I dont remember one and I've read many creation myths.
ORLY? The visible planets played an everyday role? Tell me how often you consider the visible planets in your daily life (aside from reading about mythology and typing all the nonsense you've typed in this thread).
Even I don't think about the visible planets every day.
Of course, changing the names or the definition of planet doesn't change the story.
So you're claiming that it would be perfectly normal for ancient Babylonians to know the names of the discoverers of Uranus and Neptune?
I'm waiting for pyramids and aliens to be brought up. Some good classic crankery to be had there.
Oh, aliens were brought into this nonsense several pages ago. That's how ancient Babylonians knew about discoveries that weren't made until less than 100 years ago.
Maybe the telescope was invented before writing... I dont have to prove it was, those who insist on telling me people long ago couldn't know about our solar system because they didn't have telescopes are making the assumption, not me.
WHAT???!!!
No. Literacy has been around for millennia. The telescope has only been around since ~1608. These are not assumptions. They are FACTS, borne out by primary source historical writings and archaeological evidence.
And if you insist otherwise, yes, you damn well do have to prove it. You're the one making the extraordinary claims, and it's up to you to provide the extraordinary evidence.
Rebuke? All I did was say we dont know if the telescope wasn't invented before the 1600s and thats true. I dont care when it was invented, its irrelevant. If people long ago knew about our solar system and left their records of this knowledge, telescopes dont matter one bit.
That leaves y'all with one argument, ignore the evidence and repeat "they couldn't know"... But they did, with or without telescopes.
Now that's just childish. No, it isn't true that we don't know when the telescope was invented. It's documented.
If you want to be taken remotely seriously, you need to drop the "it's irrelevant" attitude. The "it doesn't matter, they just did" is childish fantasy, not how credible science is done.
