It might just be that it wasn't the professional astronomers making the mistake.
In the Beginning...
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
It might just be that it wasn't the professional astronomers making the mistake.
Berzerker
Deity
They're the ones telling us the belt lacked the mass to form a planet
Yeah, it's just not making sense. You really need a diagram.
Berzerker
Deity
According to the Enuma Elish Gaga was an emissary sent out by Anshar (Saturn) to announce Marduk's supremacy. Saturn's equatorial plane points up at Pluto near perihelion. There's a couple more mathematical relationships between the two.
It's no use, even if Pluto's orbit was at the same angle to the ecliptic as Saturn's equator, that's just not how orbits work.
Enuma Elish Gaga is Pluto? Sorry I didn't watch the last couple seasons of Stargate.
Berzerker
Deity
Draw a horizontal line with the sun at left and Saturn at right
Draw a line representing Saturn's equatorial plane and extend it up and outward
Pluto will appear on the 2nd line near perihelion
Berzerker
Deity
Gaga was an emissary released by Anshar (Saturn), Pluto just happens to be found along Saturn's equatorial plane... But do tell, how do orbits work?
Ah, I'm getting it. The line to the Sun is merely so I can use wikipedia figures for Saturn's tilt.
So, the theory is that something struck pluto (whilst it was orbiting Saturn), and then knock it along the orbital plane that it was already traveling, and then once is was really far out, it got knocked again into its current orbit (in a different plane).
So, the theory is that something struck pluto (whilst it was orbiting Saturn), and then knock it along the orbital plane that it was already traveling, and then once is was really far out, it got knocked again into its current orbit (in a different plane).
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
So the earth formed at the asteroid belt. It was then split in two by ?, which formed earth and a mars size planetoid? Then later (1~2 million years) after drifting to a different orbit, they eventually "reformed" into the final earth and formed the moon in the process? If it was Nabiru/Marduk, then the first impact formed two planetoids just the same as later, when those two planetoids impacted and formed two moons. And the two moons eventually impacted and formed the final moon.
Berzerker
Deity
Using the ecliptic will work but Saturn's inclined ~2.5 degrees thereby creating a range of a few degrees, the maximum occurs when Saturn is below the ecliptic and Pluto is in opposition at perihelion.
I dont know if Pluto (as Saturn's satellite) was hit, but it does seem it and Charon form a double planet that could have originally started out as one body and was split in two (or several pieces). I dont think Pluto was hit a 2nd time after acquiring a new orbit, at some point the sun's gravity took over.
Marduk and his "winds"... The Mars sized object is believed to be Theia thereby forming the Moon. That happened much earlier, the events in Genesis came much later. I dont know how long the process took, Marduk had several encounters with Tiamat and "creation" could have lasted 100-200 million years or more.
Perfection
The Great Head.
From what I've seen of him his understanding of physics seems very limited (you can where I first encountered him). He doesn't get how orbits operate.
Acken
Deity
Why are we measuring the angle when both are in very specific place again ? And what kind of accuracy are you getting actually ?
Berzerker
Deity
I read the thread, I dont see anything supporting your assessment
We're measuring the angle to see if Saturn's rings point to Pluto. The alignment does occur when Saturn is below the ecliptic and Pluto is in opposition above the ecliptic.
Acken
Deity
What makes sense about that particular configuration/alignement ? Isn't astrology based on alignments too ? Is that the same "logic" ?
Also can't you do a drawing in mspaint with your calculus ?
Also can't you do a drawing in mspaint with your calculus ?
Perfection
The Great Head.
I haven't dug deep into his stuff. But the majority opinion is he's a crackpot with limited knowledge of physics and from the secondhand accounts I can see why.
I don't feel it's my duty to counter his claims, and I don't believe I have done much in that regard.
What I do want to know is why you're so impressed by him? What makes you think he's right? Why should I believe you in thinking he's worthwhile when many academics have stated that he isn't?
I don't feel it's my duty to counter his claims, and I don't believe I have done much in that regard.
What I do want to know is why you're so impressed by him? What makes you think he's right? Why should I believe you in thinking he's worthwhile when many academics have stated that he isn't?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I doubt you will ever get Genesis into a billion+ year timeline. Neither does saying the events happening in one account are earlier than in the other account make any sense. The two accounts seem to be from an earlier account, if you are going by critical analysis. The earth was only impacted twice else there would be more evidence no matter how long you want to date the whole process. The events in Genesis stated, In the Beginning... That is the thread title. Now in the physics of an expanding universe, most objects at the beginning were undergoing the action of "pulling apart", But the Babylonians wrote down that there was some impacts going on, and that seems evident in the final result. These impacts happened before the planets solidified else they would not have been able to re-coalesce.
Acken
Deity
Scientifically the question of a beginning is an open question. Meaning we don't even know there is a beginning of the universe. In the general sense... I guess you could always argue for a beginning of the current form of the universe and cut somewhere early enough.
And even Philosophically I'll make the argument it's also a difficult thing to imagine without the necessity to introduce some transcendental element (outside the universe). Talking about the beginning of the universe is imagining the transition between nothing and something. And already, thinking about an idea of "nothing" is an impossible task. If you put something that always was there "In the beginning there is ... and then ..." you are no longer talking about the beginning of the universe since there is something already in it (at best it is the origin of everything else). Edit : Could be argued I'm confusing origin and beginning maybe as I'm not sure if there is a significant difference between the two in that context.
Last edited:
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
What is infinity?
Berzerker
Deity
I dont know how to post one. Just draw a triangle with the sun, Saturn and Pluto at the corners. The largest angle formed by Saturn is ~26.7 degrees shy of 180...
I use to think the Bible and myth was primitive man's ignorant attempt to explain existence. Sitchin opened a door and showed me how to look outside the box. One of those academics (EC Krupp) said he was wrong but later retracted his challenge. The only criticisms I've seen from academics are over the meanings of words in ancient texts. But even if we ignore Sitchin's work, the myths still claim the world was in darkness and water.
So what research(er) says the Earth could not have formed at the asteroid belt? Thats what it all comes down to for me, the solar system is Sitchin's proof. Our water formed at the asteroid belt, and the world formed in the presence of its water, therefore the world formed at the asteroid belt.
What specifically does "in the beginning" refer to? The Babylonian epic of creation starts with "When in the heights" before Heaven and Earth were formed.
Earth is the name God gave the dry land on the 3rd day. Where was it on the 1st day? It was under water, it wasn't "Earth" (dry land) yet. But according to you, God created the dry land "in the beginning" before the 1st day. How does that work? How does God create dry land that isn't dry land? You have God creating everything before the 6 days of creation.
Similar threads
