Heaven

[Berzerker]

Is that what the aliens told them?

The article says 7 Pleiades were visible 100kya but one merged with another over time so the myth of an abducted sister was born.

@Berzerker (and Sitchin) have a story to push and they seek out data that is supporting and ignores all others data. The Cylinder seal 243 data is hilariously cherry picked. There are over 2000 cylinder seals in museums and likely many more thousands never discovered or lost to time. Many of those have astronomical symbols on them. The symbols though do not fit Berzerker’s story line so they are ignored. Here is a link to images of them. Many are quite beautiful.

My understanding is the bulk of seals convey economic or personal information. Why is that relevant to VA243?

With Cylinder seal 243 Berzerker maintains it shows the solar system: the sun, our moon and 10 planets. The extra planet is Nirbu between Mars and Jupiter. You can search for "VA243" for an image or go here to see the takedown.

Lets look at the take down:

In the discussion that follows, I will demonstrate that VA243 in no way supports Sitchin’s ideas. My reasons / lines of argument for this are:

1) The inscription on the seal (left hand and right hand sides – which are not discussed by Sitchin) says nothing about planets or any element of astronomy. Rather than offering an independent translation, I will defer to authorities on Sumerian seal inscriptions in this regard to avoid any charge of bias.

There are undoubtedly many seals with astronomical images and apparently unrelated text dealing with mundane earthly matters. How does Heiser know the star system has nothing to do with the text? Why is it there then?

2) The alleged “sun” symbol on the seal is not the sun. We know this because it does not conform to the consistent depiction of the sun in hundreds of other cylinder seals and examples of Sumero-Mesopotamian artwork.

I explained the flaw with this argument, I even sent Heiser an email about it. The sun symbols appearing elsewhere referring to the sun god Utu-Shamash wont be used to depict the Apsu. At what point in the Enuma Elish does Utu/Shamash appear in the text? Tablet V along with Nannar/Sin the Moon god. What were the Sun and Moon before tablet V? The Apsu and Qingu.

So I asked Heiser what was the symbol for the Apsu? I'd also ask what was the symbol for Qingu? Why would the Akkadians use symbols for Shamash and Sin for the Apsu and Qingu? They wouldn't.

The “sun” symbol is actually a star (which in Mesopotamian art could have six or, more commonly, eight points). Lest the modern reader retort that “well, the sun is a star, ”I offer several images where the star symbol and the sun symbol (which again, is not that in VA243) are side-by-side and distinct from one another.

Heiser is comparing VA243 to known symbols for Utu/Shamash. But that god was not the Apsu. Notice how in Genesis the Sun and Moon are given their roles after Heaven and Earth are formed. The same thing here with the Enuma Elish. Heiser can show all the solar images for Utu/Shamash he wants and it wont matter one bit, the Apsu - the begetter - is not Utu. If the Apsu had the same symbol people would confuse them.

3) If the “sun” is not the sun, then what are the dots? The dots are also stars, as is best illustrated by the Sumerian-Mesopotamian depiction of the Pleiades (seven dots together with reasonable astronomical accuracy since they are visible to the naked eye). The Pleiades are actually one of the most frequently depicted astronomical features in Sumero-Mesopotamian art.

The Earth was represented by 7 dots usually in rows of 4 and 3 just like it appears on the Incan Genesis. The Pleiades are 6 visible stars, they may have been 7 at some distant point in the past. Sitchin uncovered a text declaring Enlil as Lord of the Earth - 50 is the celestial 7. Thats his rank in the Sumerian pantheon and his planet. The number 7 is sacred, not because of the Pleiades, or because they could see the Sun, Moon and 5 planets. Earth is the 7th planet... Tiamat was the 6th planet.

There are three possibilities as to what VA243 is depictingA) It is singling out a deity or special star and associating it with other stars in some sort of zodiacal representation. I don’t consider this likely

(B) More probable is the idea that the central star stands for a deity that has some association with fertility (as in crops) since the inscription describes an offering made by a worshipper (who is named) to a seated god who is associated in the seal with fertile harvest.

I dont buy that explanation, usually the star symbol is over the deity. This star system is on the other side of the seal by the worshiper. More likely the star system over the worshiper indicates all of the gods of creation bless the gift of agriculture.

These options are admittedly subjective, but one thing is certain – the “sun” symbol does not conform to the abundantly frequent symbol for the sun in Sumero-Mesopotamian art. We are not dealing with a depiction of the solar system. Astronomer Tom van Flandern pointed this out years ago anyway, since the sizes of the “planets” around the alleged sun do not conform to the correct sizes of the planets and their distances from the pseudo-sun are not depicted in such a way as to depict elliptical (or at least varying) orbits. The link to van Flandern’s critique is on my website.

My god, its a small cylinder seal and their complaint is the solar system is not to scale? The central star is the Apsu, the begetter in the Enuma Elish. Heiser looks at the symbol for Shamash and says VA 243 cant be the sun. It can be the Apsu though.

4) There is not a single text in the entire corpus of Sumerian or Mesopotamian tablets in the world that tells us the Sumerians (or later inhabitants of Mesopotamia) knew there were more than five planets.

Most astronomical texts deal with what they could see, their creation story included information about worlds they couldn't see. VA 243 matches up with that creation story. Is Tiamat a planet? It was carved in 2 to form Heaven and Earth. Earth is a planet. Tiamat was a planet. Call them worlds, gods, planets, it dont matter.

Literally every cuneiform text that has any astronomical comment (even with respect to astrology and omens) has been translated, catalogued, indexed, and discussed in the available academic literature. The tablets are often quite detailed, even discussing mathematical calculations of the appearance of planetary bodies in the sky, on the horizon, and in relation to other stars. The field is by no means new, and is considerably developed.

Sumerian cosmology is not limited to observational astronomy. The Enuma Elish is full of astronomical commentary. Heiser makes a big deal about dots and stars and what they represent, that may depend on the practicality of adding star points onto very tiny objects.

Sumero-Mesopotamian religion often grouped the symbols for the sun god with that of the moon god (Akkadian =Sin; Sumerian = Nanna) and Ishtar (Sumerian = Inana). This isn’t surprising since they were so readily viewed. In short, they didn’t confuse the symbols and neither should we.

They were kin, part of the Enlil side of the family. But notice how Inanna/Ishtar/Venus is an 8 pointed 'star'? Venus is the 8th planet, the Earth was represented by 7 dots, and Mars was a 6 pointed star.

Of course Sitchin ignores that the seal features a plow more prominently and none of the text says anything about planets. In addition the “sun” symbol at the center of the “solar system” is not the Sumerian symbol for the sun. It lacks the wavy lines or wings used by Sumerians to designate the Sun. The symbol in the seal, a “star” shape, was used to represent a star, a planet or a god. Never the sun. Oh well. Of course, there are no known Sumerian texts that talk about more than 5 planets. Sitchin is the only source for this lie and he just made it up. From the MUL-APIN astronomy tablet:


1. Sihtu: dUdu.idim.gu.4.ud, MulNa.bu.u2 = Mercury

2. Sihtu: dUdu.idim.gu4.ud, Gu4.ud, MulNa.bu.u2, Dumu.Lugal = Mars

3. dDil.bat: MulDil.bat, dU.Dar, dIs.htar = Venus

4. Sag.me.gar: Mul dMarduk. Mul Lugal, Mul Ud.al.tar Mul Neberu = Jupiter

5. Kajam anu: dNin.urta, MulUdu.idim.sag.us, MulSag.us = Saturn

Sitchin just found one cylinder seal among the thousands that met his story needs and called it proof. I’ve added another cylinder seal below. I guess it "proves" that the Sumerians only knew of five planets?

What if you found 2 seals that matched up with the solar system and the visible planets? The Mesopotamian astronomers devoted much of their time to observing the observable, naturally they'd leave behind tablets and seals dealing with the planets they could see. But they also left us VA243 and the Enuma Elish which describes 12 celestial 'gods'. So what are these 5 planets in the Enuma Elish?

Berzerker says that “Marduk was clothed in the halos of 10 gods” implying that those are the ten planets they knew about. I looked through the EE and could not find any such a passage. The closest I found was line 13 from Tablet 7. Here are three different samples of that text. The line is part of a list "singing 50 praises" of Marduk. It is unrelated to anything else about the Marduk/Tiamat battle. If I’ve missed it, please point me to the tablet and line you are referring to. You will notice that there is no mention of the number 10. So if I just didn’t see your quote, let me know. Just so you know, I did a Marduk search on all 1000 lines looking for it. There is also no mention of planets or worlds in the entire poem.

Its line 103 of the 1st tablet, part of a lengthy description of Marduk

102 The Son, the Sun-god, the Sun-god of the gods.'
103 He was clothed with the aura of the Ten Gods, so exalted was his strength,
104 The Fifty Dreads were loaded upon him.
105 Anu formed and gave birth to the four winds,
106 He delivered them to him, "My son, let them whirl!"
107 He formed dust and set a hurricane to drive it,
108 He made a wave to bring consternation on Tia-mat.
109 Tia-mat was confounded; day and night she was frantic.

Anu is Uranus in the story, the son of Kisar and Ansar (Jupiter and Saturn). These 'winds' would be Marduk's weapons to carve up Tiamat. Like I said before, 103 is the most important line in the poem. The ten gods. Now this was a description of Marduk before he advanced on Tiamat for battle. This was before Tiamat annointed Qingu (Moon) with Anuship and before Ansar sent Kaka (Pluto) on its merry way. Thats 12 in all. Genesis describes the Lord's transforming 'weapon' as wind.

Marduk is called the sun god, wasn't that supposed to be Utu? If Marduk was the sun god, what was his symbol?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

https://phys.org/news/2020-12-world-oldest-story-astronomers-global.html

the Pleiades known as the 7 sisters have changed position over time, 100,000 years ago 7 were visible but now 6 can be seen. One has merged with a brighter star. According to the myths the Pleiades were 7 but 1 was abducted or disappeared.

And the point of this startling event is...?

Newsflash: The stars in the Milky Way are orbiting a common centre of gravity in this galaxy. Stars are moving at different velocities. What looks like a long-standing constellation to us, with our short human lifespans and mere thousands of years of recorded history, will have changed over the course of tens and hundreds of thousands of years. Given enough time, the constellations and asterisms we're familiar with won't look anything at all like they do now. And even without the fact that the stars are all on the move, there are many of the brightest ones that won't be with us after a time... because they're approaching the end of their life cycle (or are already gone and the light just hasn't reached us yet).

 

[abradley]

Joij21 said: ↑
(pg 1 of this thread)

"You have to remember, and I'm gonna be frank so here's a trigger warning. God and gods/spirits DON'T EXIST!!!!!!"

How do you explain the “Big Bang”?
https://www.big-bang-theory.com/

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Joij21 said: ↑
(pg 1 of this thread)

"You have to remember, and I'm gonna be frank so here's a trigger warning. God and gods/spirits DON'T EXIST!!!!!!"

How do you explain the “Big Bang”?
https://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Is this supposed to be some kind of impressive "GOTCHA!"?

Get back to me when you're using actual science to come up with a credible alternative.

 

[abradley]

Is this supposed to be some kind of impressive "GOTCHA!"?

If that's how you see it.

{Quote]Get back to me when you're using actual science to come up with a credible alternative.[/QUOTE]
The big bang ain't science?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The big bang ain't science?

Scientific hypothesis. It's based on evidence, but not proven.

So yes, it is science, just not a scientific theory.

But Valka asked you to use science for an alternative. Go on then.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If that's how you see it.

{Quote]Get back to me when you're using actual science to come up with a credible alternative.

The big bang ain't science?

Not when you try to pass off a Richard Dawkins/evolution-bashing, intelligent design-loving website as "science".

Dawkins may not be a likable person and he has emphatic views on some things - I agree with some of his views but not with others.

As far as "survival of the fittest" goes... in my opinion the phrase should be "survival of the most adaptable" (to get rid of the notion that 'fittest' should only mean strong and hefty and brawny, as there are some very small and delicate lifeforms that have been around for many tens, even hundreds of millions of years because they have adapted so well over that time).

So if you were trying for a "gotcha" - it didn't work.

Scientific hypothesis. It's based on evidence, but not proven.

So yes, it is science, just not a scientific theory.

But Valka asked you to use science for an alternative. Go on then.

There are different definitions for the word "theory."

There's the popular connotation of "it's just a theory" meaning "it's just an idea/notion."

Then there's the scientific method definition of theory. So far the Big Bang has met the requirements to be considered a scientific theory. We just don't know yet if it's a theory that will stand up as new information is learned.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So what are the assumptions underlying the theory of the Big Bang? I don't mean the assumptions about science itself, just the assumptions related to the BB.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The assumption is the way the event unfolded. The evidence is that all things are moving away from each other. Reverse direction and they all end up in the same spot. Simple enough.

The mechanism of the big bang itself is still very much theoretical physics. Mind you, it is supported by mathematical equations, so it's not just shooting from the hip. And the boffins can get to spectacular details around the event itself.

At 10^35 to 10^33 seconds a runaway process called "Inflation" causes a vast expansion of space filled with this energy. The inflationary period is stopped only when this energy is transformed into matter and energy as we know it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The assumption is the way the event unfolded. The evidence is that all things are moving away from each other. Reverse direction and they all end up in the same spot. Simple enough.

The mechanism of the big bang itself is still very much theoretical physics. Mind you, it is supported by mathematical equations, so it's not just shooting from the hip. And the boffins can get to spectacular details around the event itself.

OK. Isn't there also an assumption that from "nothing" there came "something"?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

OK. Isn't there also an assumption that from "nothing" there came "something"?

No, not even. The verdict is: we don't know.

The option that the universe is an eternal thing cannot be disproven either. It could be a cyclical event where the universe has crushed down to a infinitely small volume and expanded again, to shrink again, expand again. Or, the universe we experience was born from a universe from another dimension. Or it could be formed from something we are not aware of this moment.

Science doesn't make assumptions. It goes: and this is the part we don't know. Dark matter and dark energy operate the same way. We don't know what it is, only it's effect on what we see happening.

There's a lot of mass which is unaccounted for. The way mass works on a galactic scale doesn't add up using the theory of gravity and the mass we observe. But since the Theory of Gravity seems to be working really well on a smaller scale, seeing how we can sent spacecrafts to intercept asteroids and stuff, we accept that the Theory if Gravity is sound. So, the only explanation is there's more mass out there than we can see.

Same with Dark Energy. Galaxies are moving away from each other, and accelerating. While you would think the mass of the galaxies would mean expansion would slow down. Still, the theories we use in every day live stand up to scrutiny. There's no evidence to undermine them. So science says: since the theories have no better alternative, and work really well on earth and the solar system, it's the best explanation we can come up with.

We still get into airplanes, we still have satellites orbiting the earth, we even take into account the effect of mass on time itself to be able to get GPS to work. All of that isn't thrown out, because it has produced reproducible results.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No, not even. The verdict is: we don't know.

The option that the universe is an eternal thing cannot be disproven either. It could be a cyclical event where the universe has crushed down to a infinitely small volume and expanded again, to shrink again, expand again. Or, the universe we experience was born from a universe from another dimension. Or it could be formed from something we are not aware of this moment.

Science doesn't make assumptions. It goes: and this is the part we don't know. Dark matter and dark energy operate the same way. We don't know what it is, only it's effect on what we see happening.

There's a lot of mass which is unaccounted for. The way mass works on a galactic scale doesn't add up using the theory of gravity and the mass we observe. But since the Theory of Gravity seems to be working really well on a smaller scale, seeing how we can sent spacecrafts to intercept asteroids and stuff, we accept that the Theory if Gravity is sound. So, the only explanation is there's more mass out there than we can see.

Same with Dark Energy. Galaxies are moving away from each other, and accelerating. While you would think the mass of the galaxies would mean expansion would slow down. Still, the theories we use in every day live stand up to scrutiny. There's no evidence to undermine them. So science says: since the theories have no better alternative, and work really well on earth and the solar system, it's the best explanation we can come up with.

We still get into airplanes, we still have satellites orbiting the earth, we even take into account the effect of mass on time itself to be able to get GPS to work. All of that isn't thrown out, because it has produced reproducible results.

There are lots of things that cannot have not been disproven yet.

The BB and its inflation stepchild do make some assumptions: There are initial conditions required for the math to work out; the laws of physics are assumed to be universal in their application; the cosmological principle is true; a primordial singularity of infinite density and temperature is possible. In addition, adding things like string theory to the equation will change the results. I am not saying that the BB is not true, just that is is dependent on some fundamental assumptions that are generally accepted by most physicists. They work within their particular context and framework of ideas.

 

[PhroX]

Not when you try to pass off a Richard Dawkins/evolution-bashing, intelligent design-loving website as "science".

Dawkins may not be a likable person and he has emphatic views on some things - I agree with some of his views but not with others.

As far as "survival of the fittest" goes... in my opinion the phrase should be "survival of the most adaptable" (to get rid of the notion that 'fittest' should only mean strong and hefty and brawny, as there are some very small and delicate lifeforms that have been around for many tens, even hundreds of millions of years because they have adapted so well over that time).

So if you were trying for a "gotcha" - it didn't work.

I would say that even your version isn't that accurate. Better would be "survival of the fit enough" or "survival of the adaptable enough". Natural selection does not mean that the best traits are always going to be passed down. There are so many opportunities for an organism to be prevented from passing on its genes even if it has mutated a nominally excellent trait. Over a long period of time traits that increase the chance of reproduction will be more likely to survive and vice-versa, but due to the huge amount of randomness involved, a "good" adaptation can come to dominate over an "excellent" one. Even traits that actively harm a species ability to reproduce without any benefits can still be passed down unless they outright prevent it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There are lots of things that cannot have not been disproven yet.

The BB and its inflation stepchild do make some assumptions: There are initial conditions required for the math to work out; the laws of physics are assumed to be universal in their application; the cosmological principle is true; a primordial singularity of infinite density and temperature is possible. In addition, adding things like string theory to the equation will change the results. I am not saying that the BB is not true, just that is is dependent on some fundamental assumptions that are generally accepted by most physicists. They work within their particular context and framework of ideas.

It would only make assumptions if BB had said: We know this is how it happened. While the correct way to look at this is: this is how it could have happened. And the kicker is, theoretical science has multiple scenarios on the could.

How do you make assumptions if all you're talking about is possibility? It's the opposite of making assumptions. It's throwing your hands up saying: we do not know. Yet(?).

You do not know whether I'm wearing socks with penguins on it while I am writing this post. You have no way of knowing. But if you said: you could be wearing socks with penguins on them, that's not an assumption. It's true. I could be.

And for what it's worth, I do. But that is completely irrelevant to you saying there's a possibility. So where's your assumption?

 

[trader/warrior]

The assumption is the way the event unfolded. The evidence is that all things are moving away from each other. Reverse direction and they all end up in the same spot. Simple enough.

The mechanism of the big bang itself is still very much theoretical physics. Mind you, it is supported by mathematical equations, so it's not just shooting from the hip. And the boffins can get to spectacular details around the event itself.

Based on the Big Bang model, scientists predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background and a couple of decades later they found it. Looking at the CMR is literally observing the phenomenon we call the Big Bang. Using telescopes we can see to less than a billion years after the Big Bang and see the universe and elements evolving. The question of whether it was the "beginning" is theoretical, but the big bang phenomenon it self has pretty strong observational evidence beyond just the universe expanding so it must have come from a point. Calling it mostly theoretical based on equations is selling it a bit short IMO.

Edit: If we go the furthest back to the singularity, the laws of physics break down. So in a sense going by equations we should discard it if we think our understanding of the laws of physics are perfect, but the observational evidence is so strong it is unavoidable. Some only define the Big Bang as the super dense period after the laws of physics as we know them start to make sense, not the primordial singularity.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Based on the Big Bang model, scientists predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background and a couple of decades later they found it. Looking at the CMR is literally observing the phenomenon we call the Big Bang. Using telescopes we can see to less than a billion years after the Big Bang and see the universe and elements evolving. The question of whether it was the "beginning" is theoretical, but the big bang phenomenon it self has pretty strong observational evidence beyond just the universe expanding so it must have come from a point. Calling it mostly theoretical based on equations is selling it a bit short IMO

Cosmic radiation is a result of expansion. As you said, there's a lot of evidence for what happened during that. That is what I meant with spectacular details around the event.

But to what caused, triggered it? There we get into theoretical physics.

Edit: to your edit, if you define BB as the instant after the singularity, sure. Not sure whether that's right though. But not too bothered

 

[trader/warrior]

Cosmic radiation is a result of expansion. As you said, there's a lot of evidence for what happened during that. That is what I meant with spectacular details around the event.

But to what caused, triggered it? There we get into theoretical physics.

That's true. But then we go into the question of something coming out of nothing, which I don't think it's possible to even have a theory about. Explaining existence coming into existence seems impossible to me, and I've never heard of any real ideas about it (explainable to a layman at least). You have higher dimensional ideas of multiverses with cosmic foam or branes smashing into each other or whatever, but what caused the existence of that? But those are considered separate hypotheses about the cause of the big bang, not about the event of the big bang itself.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not impossible. It just means we still got a lot more work to do. More science to be had. I'll grant you beyond current understanding.

That's the advantage of conceding ignorance over unjustified certainty.

 

[trader/warrior]

Ooooh right, reading back I think your initial point about assumptions and what we don't know just sank in a little deeper for me (though I already agreed with that clearly ).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

We are totally tunneling towards each other.