In the Beginning...

[Berzerker]

You didn't actually understand anything he said, did you...

I understood him well enough to know he got his analogy wrong, read El Mac's post since you dont understand what he said.

So Nibiru is gibberish for a disproportionately large number of asteroids now, is it? Because that is presumed to be the LHB.

Nibiru is an elusive term that refers to the crossing place. The asteroids weren't there before the LHB, they too are the product of the collisions between Marduk and Tiamat. Once all that material was released asteroids started pelting planets and moons. We've been getting hit by rocks that were once part of our planet long ago...

Well, luckily there are plenty of folks who do that for us. See picture below. (You may note that the rings of Saturn from no viewpoint anywhere point to Pluto, whose orbit is an ellipse. Although normally anyone might surmise that a circle does never 'point' to an ellipse, I thought a nice graphical representation might clarify it for you.)

Hehe, your nice graphical representation doesn't show Pluto nor does it purport to show where Saturn's rings point... There's your audit Leo.

 

[Berzerker]

Certainly but the wording made it seem such an alignement WOULD be evidence. Its silly but you re probably right this is not the idea.

wasn't my analogy

 

[Agent327]

But thats exactly the problem. We dont know if there is a beginning to spacetime.

Actually, we do. It's done by extrapolation, however, as it is indeed impossible to literally go back. But there's no need for that.

We cannot shrink it to a singularity and find a t=0 through GR. That is an oudated idea that ignores the 3 other forces.

A singularity doesn't begin to come close to the 'point' at which the universe started. I'm a bit clueless where you get the idea from that the Big Bang theory is an 'outdated idea', as it's actually scientific fact. That's what theory means in science.

Science is still trying to work out the history (for now). Its absolutely not pointless to talk about whats before the time we actually have a solid model for. Research is actively done on that subject. Thats the point of string theory or quantum loop gravity theories for example as it tries to answer how gravity interacts with the other forces in a small space at high energy.
And as far as I understand these, the idea of a singular point being the beginning (the original idea of the big bang developped in the 50s or 60s) disappears in these theories.
This is the idea I'm trying to get across. The reality of a beginning is in question at a scale we actually try to understand. It would be weird to name "beginning" the first point in time we accurately model while we know there is something before.

The point is, we don't know. We can theorize all we might, but there simply is a limit to what we can know.

Note that it's from my understanding of the subject so if I'm sometimes inexact or imprecise I'm sorry.

Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time (excellent title) sums up all the questions you just brought up. As an introduction to cosmological questions I can highly recommend it.

Your source made the same simple mistake... He's already impressing me I read the link, I remember it from the past. You'll have to quote him, I dont know where he showed the Earth could not be the remains of a planet that formed at the asteroid belt. He knows Sitchin's theory claims the Earth is part of the junk and the relevant evidence depends on how much mass was there >4bya, not how much there is now.

Actually, the amount of 'junk' in the asteroid belt would be gaining rather over time. If anything, there would be less 'junk' 4.54 billion years ago than today. (Not that any of that matters, really.)

Marduk has disrupted the solar system in many ways. The plane of the planets is tilted a few degrees to the solar equator and the smaller stuff we see is even more inclined. Of the planets Earth has the most tilted orbit (over 7 degrees). It might also account for periodic extinctions because asteroids are still being swept out.

Interesting.

Pluto appears to be a double planet with its moon Charon, so something caused it to split in two. And something caused those rings, maybe a few moons had their orbits wrecked. The sun 'circularized' its orbit.

'Something caused those rings' is a correct statement.

The sun cant capture rogue planets?

We're not discussing one here.

Sitchin said Marduk was a still very hot planet (possibly the remnants of a nearby supernova and/or its planetary system - maybe life survived and was brought here) and the bulges formed as it spun by planets. A ball of dirt lacks mass, plasticity and spin. Thats a strange analogy.

It's not an analogy. What it is, is complete and utter nonsense. Purely scientifically speaking.

Except at the point they were not.

There's no point where heaven and earth are not physical.

You claim they did not understand what they wrote, and yet most creation stories, at the beginning. make the distinction that there was a named being before everything else existed. You make it sound like they were pretty good at putting their thought in some "printed" form, but had no idea what those thoughts were or even meant.

Seems accurate, except for the printed bit. And the claim bit.

At what point in the process do they get to pick their pre-determined size?

I don't understand the question.

On to a list of illogicalities:

Your example did not even include Pluto. And what is the deal with making the asteroid belt look like it has more mass than all the planets combined?

I have no idea why you are asking me, as I didn't say this.

Pluto's orbit is unusual, and what is trying to be said is that the orbit falls inline with the rings of Saturn as if formed from there. Pluto was pulled away, allegedly in a way that kept it's same orbital plane as Saturn's rings, but now it orbits the sun in that plane. Now there is only one point in Saturn's orbit that aligns with this plane [...]

Exactly.

[...] but that is ok, because Pluto only left once [...]

Sadly, it's not OK.

[...] and one would have to plot back in time to prove if such an alignment happened in accord to the cycle of the 3600 year wandering planet. Unfortunately or Fortunately for some skeptics, we do not have a firm date on when this planet can be successfully "mapped". However if we started at the first point of impact and calculated out every 3600 year appearance we may get some indication as to what happens every 3600 years. The problem with that is we do not know what positions were, where they were, their speeds, nor interactions. We would have to map things back from this point to find the intersection(s), taking into consideration any rate of expansion going on. Assuming that the earth has been doing it's thing for 4.6 billion years there have been 1,277,777 encounters to map out. In fact it is at .77778 meaning that it is a little over .2222 from happening again. If my math is correct 800 years. So the last appearance was 784 BC. The one before that would be 4384 BC. The one before that would be 7984 BC. The one before that would be 11584 BC.

784 was supposed to be the start of the Olympic Games, but riots and unhappiness caused the games to be delayed then and again in 780. The first games were not until 776.

In 7000 BC the English Channel formed.

In 7640 BC theorized time for impact of Tollmann's hypothetical bolide with Earth and the associated global cataclysm...

Read through this entire paragraph. What is it supposed to prove argue?

[/QUOTE]According to the link from the Smithsonian, Pluto's plane is off 17 degrees from the plane of the rest of the planets. The 3600 year wanderer may also be in this plane with Pluto, and may have been influential in why Pluto has such a long orbit.[/QUOTE]

Or it may not have been.

But we have one more paragraph left:

[/QUOTE] Saying "this close" is hardly relative when the disc first formed around the sun. Everything was closer if we are going with the Nice Model. There was some expansion that happened, which is hinted in the metaphor of splitting Tiamat. Strictly speaking Tiamat is not just the earth, but the earth as forming at the "center" of the system. Tiamat being split was not the earth, but the disc as a whole. When in fact the asteroid belt splits the outer planets from the inner planets. Earth only swapped spots with Mars, probably because it gained more density than Mars, and the attraction to the sun could have pulled it in closer. The earth swapped after the combining impact, because that is when it gained mass and the result was a higher density. The first impact was the separation of the disc. That is why no planet formed there, but the earth was far enough to gain the attributes of a gas giant. However while it was forming, there was a "counter" forming denser planet with properties of the inner planets. For the first 3600 years, they may have been at opposite points from each other. Every 3600 years, they were effected by this visitor. The inner type planet would have started to be drawn in and it's speed would have been increasing in comparison with the earth, but because there were times this wandering planet was around it influenced their eventually combining impact. After the earth forming impact the earth was getting further from the zone this visitor travels through, and that may have been when it started to influence Pluto's orbit. Now when the account speaks of winds, that may be the number of times this wanderer came for a visit? The army that Tiamat was forming was the planets and moons. It was viewed as an "assembly" to stop this "invading" wanderer.[/QUOTE]

Right. Except human mythology postdates all these cosmic events by roughly 4.5 billion years. Why would human mythology explain events no human had any knowledge of? Kind of a big hurdle to tackle first.

I understood him well enough to know he got his analogy wrong, read El Mac's post since you dont understand what he said.

You misread. Which is ironic, as that was precisely my criticism.

Nibiru is an elusive term that refers to the crossing place. The asteroids weren't there before the LHB, they too are the product of the collisions between Marduk and Tiamat. Once all that material was released asteroids started pelting planets and moons. We've been getting hit by rocks that were once part of our planet long ago...

'The asteroids weren't there before the LHB'.

Actually they were. If you wish to argue otherwise, you need some evidence to that effect.

'they too are the product of the collisions between Marduk and Tiamat'.

Wishful thinking.

Hehe, your nice graphical representation doesn't show Pluto[...]

Not sure why you are laughing at your own ignorance, but at least it betrays a sense of humour. The reason I posted that is, because

- you're obviously too lazy to post one yourself
- you're too lazy to follow the link posted just a few posts before.

At this point I'm wondering why I bothered, as you're even too lazy to recognize Pluto.

Here's the gem though:

[...]nor does it purport to show where Saturn's rings point...

No, because that would be impossible.

 

[Acken]

Actually, we do. It's done by extrapolation, however, as it is indeed impossible to literally go back. But there's no need for that.

No we truly dont. Our theories have their limit up to a point where they simply fail. Or the ones that can give a description of such early times dont yet have aquired the full status of scientific theory.

A singularity doesn't begin to come close to the 'point' at which the universe started. I'm a bit clueless where you get the idea from that the Big Bang theory is an 'outdated idea', as it's actually scientific fact. That's what theory means in science.

Jesus dude. Where did I say the Big Bang theory itself was outdated in its entirety. Its the idea that rewinding GR to t=0 being a complete model that is outdated. Please dont try to school me on what is a theory... thats not my fault you dont understand or dont know what im talking about. Its not like Im talking about some weird theory no scientist recognize. Im talking what cosmologists study today in the 21st century.
The big bang is the valid model that is not the question. The model received a lot of changes since its first proposal. The inflation for example. Talking about the BB without it is outdated.
The first instants of the big bang are still under research. If you are not aware and cannot agree to that last sentence then Im just losing my time.

Look you seem to be at least interested i the subject so it may be a misunderstanding. I may suggest reading on Hawking origin of the universe article and then look for string theory with the beginning of the universe.

The point is, we don't know. We can theorize all we might, but there simply is a limit to what we can know.

And we dont know if that limit is already reached.

Im even surprised you mention Hawking considering string theory is one of his subject of interest and is exactly at the core of what Im talking about.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, you wanted evidence that Sitchen didn't know anything about orbits and it was that author's opinion that Sitchen did not.

Clearly, Sitchin is a smart man. He weaves a complicated tale from the bits and pieces of evidence that survive from ancient Sumeria to the present day. Just as clearly, I think Sitchin is capable of academic transgressions (fracturing quotes, ignoring dissenting facts), "borrowing" of intellectual property and flights of intellectual fancy (the whole book, really). Worst of all, he seems utterly innocent of astronomy and other assorted fields of modern science that are quite germaine to his subject.

If you want to believe, that's entirely your business and clearly you're not going to be persuaded otherwise. In fact, at this point, I'm more shocked that you don't have a camera than by your persistent love of ancient aliens. (Everyone needs a hobby, after all.)

 

[Berzerker]

Well, you wanted evidence that Sitchen didn't know anything about orbits and it was that author's opinion that Sitchen did not.

If you want to believe, that's entirely your business and clearly you're not going to be persuaded otherwise. In fact, at this point, I'm more shocked that you don't have a camera than by your persistent love of ancient aliens. (Everyone needs a hobby, after all.)

Your evidence is the author's opinion? I quoted your source and showed some of his mistakes and all you can do is hypocritically complain about how I wont change my mind.

 

[Arakhor]

You didn't show anything. Am I expected to simply take your word for anything you wrote in your rebuttal?

 

[Agent327]

A little knowledge is a bad thing

The reason this thread isn't going anywhere is that we're dealing with a conspiracy theory. It's a little less than obvious, as we're not dealing with the usual suspects (CIA, Jewish world order, New World Order, Bilderberg, the Catholic church, etc etc), but with Nibiru, Marduk and - oh, surprise - Pluto - and, of course ET God. But once you recognize the premises it's pretty clear. The thing about any conspiracy theory is that its adherents are immune to any amount of facts contradicting the theory. They have no effect whatsoever. Nor does any complete lack of evidence in favour of the theory.

What tipped me off was the phrase 'I have seen the light'. In combination with the aforementioned complete immunity to factual counterevidence, the conclusion was simple.

Well, there you have it.

So, good luck to you all and sayonara.

 

[timtofly]

Your evidence is the author's opinion? I quoted your source and showed some of his mistakes and all you can do is hypocritically complain about how I wont change my mind.

The point in the past seems to be that the asteroids was "left over" material. It is still left over material. The difference would be that in the past, it was left over from a collision. That is the theory that has been passed down since the first humans took notice, ie the Babylonians? Today it is just left over, because no planet or the sun "grabbed" what is remaining. Jupiter took some moons. Saturn took some moons. You claim even Pluto and "a moon" came from there somewhere at the limit of Saturn's left over disc. Now it may seem the earth or whatever proto planet or planets also came from there. The most simple explanation is that there was a huge disc containing gas and matter, that surrounded the sun, like the rings of Saturn. Something interrupted a large chunk of the disc between the inner and outer planets, and after every one got a piece of the pie, there is some "stuff" left in the Asteroid belt. Current cosmology has Jupiter and Saturn sharing a 2:1 relationship with the sun sometime in the past, which would put even Saturn closer then, than it is now. Jupiter still has a disc, but it does not have as much material as Saturn's disc. It seems that some of both their moons came from the original sun disc, and their own disc that was formed when they stole such material from the original disc and some of that material is still in the disc around the planets. Some of the material is still in the original sun disc, and it can be found in the Asteroid belt and the other areas further out than the planets. The comets have an "orbit" from further out, and it seems if true, there is a very large object that also has a very unique orbit. Daniel 2:35

@ Agent237

There are people as you say trying to make sense of it all. They run simulation after simulation and hope that one day they will get the one that can serve as proof.

 

[Berzerker]

Nice Model and it's variants (the best computational models we have of the Solar System's formation) are very wildly inconsistent with that hypothesis.

Researchers are trying to explain our water and various ideas were offered once they decided our water probably didn't form here. After considering comets they settled on the asteroid belt where we just happen to find an expanded debris field circling the sun and dividing the snow line - the firmament placed amidst the water. The water below became our seas and the water above is still there in the form of gas, ice and liquid water in and on various asteroids planets and moons.

Those models describe a chaotic period when the migrations of gas giants depopulated the region of asteroids sending some our way. One of those models actually suggests a 5th gas giant was expelled after it crossed the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter one too many times (hmm). The Enuma Elish describes the chaos when the destinies of the gods had not been set, they moved about in their ways troubling Tiamat. Marduk came in, slew Tiamat and established order.

There's more than one way to look at the evidence... It can support different explanations up to a point. Regarding these models, they are attempts to explain the late heavy bombardment and our water. But they all have the same problem - our water is older than the LHB and older than our rock and older than the Moon. It may be even older than the planet, it was present during the accretionary phase. Do any Nice models address this problem?

 

[Berzerker]

You didn't show anything. Am I expected to simply take your word for anything you wrote in your rebuttal?

You dont have to take my word, if you disagree explain why... But your source did repeatedly argue a planet did not form at the asteroid belt because there isn't enough mass. Thats your expert on orbits...

 

[Berzerker]

Actually, the amount of 'junk' in the asteroid belt would be gaining rather over time. If anything, there would be less 'junk' 4.54 billion years ago than today. (Not that any of that matters, really.)

Do you have a link to support that?

We're not discussing one here.

Who is we? The capture of a rogue planet is exactly what we're discussing. Thats what Marduk was, a planet brought into the solar system from beyond Neptune.

It's not an analogy. What it is, is complete and utter nonsense. Purely scientifically speaking.

Analogy - 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based
2. similarity or comparability:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/analogy

Comparing a dirt clod to a spinning, molten planet is a strange analogy

You misread. Which is ironic, as that was precisely my criticism.

How did I misread what he said? I shouldn't have to keep asking you to support your criticisms.

Actually they were. If you wish to argue otherwise, you need some evidence to that effect.

But you dont need evidence? I offered evidence a planet formed at the snow line, that means the asteroids came later.

Not sure why you are laughing at your own ignorance, but at least it betrays a sense of humour. The reason I posted that is, because

- you're obviously too lazy to post one yourself
- you're too lazy to follow the link posted just a few posts before.

At this point I'm wondering why I bothered, as you're even too lazy to recognize Pluto.

Pluto does not appear on your graphic and I dont have the means to post a picture. Now whats this about a link a few posts before? Where in your image did you identify Pluto?

Here's the gem though:

No, because that would be impossible.

Why is it impossible for a planet's equatorial plane to point to something in the sky?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...range-orbit-explains-solar-eclipses-rare.html

The diagram a) and b) shows Earth's equatorial plane pointing at the Moon before it was pulled off line.

This suggests the Earth was instead hit by just a handful of large objects – perhaps even as large as the Moon itself.

The researchers estimate that around five large pieces of this early solar system debris would have been needed to produce the Moon's current tilt and could account for our planet's precious metals.

 

[timtofly]

I am not sure that "stuff" can just be added to the solar disc. It is not a closed system, and is moving through space which may contain Items that do not belong to another system, or lost momentum and was never recaptured by a solar system. Running into this "stuff" may add it. But it would not take long for the planets to stop accreting and thus not "loose" "stuff" back to the disc. If stuff could be lost, then Saturn and any other planet having a disc still in tact, would not have one. That does not mean that planets cannot swap objects, because swapping is based on the attraction of either planet. Not that a planet ejected an item back into the solar disc.

Now some claim that there was a lot more "stuff", and that is how the sun and planets grew in size. Some even claim that there were multiple earths that were even larger than the earth over the course of billions of years that the sun "ate". Do we need to fill in some time and explain the longevity of the solar system? How did the rest of the planets survive "as they were"? Why not just state that all the planets kept forming over and over again? Oh right, the earth is dated, and thus it just has to be the same from the beginning.

 

[Berzerker]

Your example did not even include Pluto.

Hehe, that was my fault, I was too lazy to recognize Pluto so he posted an image without it.

Pluto's orbit is unusual, and what is trying to be said is that the orbit falls inline with the rings of Saturn as if formed from there. Pluto was pulled away, allegedly in a way that kept it's same orbital plane as Saturn's rings, but now it orbits the sun in that plane. Now there is only one point in Saturn's orbit that aligns with this plane, but that is ok, because Pluto only left once

Yup, the alignment occurs when Saturn and Pluto are on the same side of the solar system and Pluto is near its closest approach to the sun when it actually orbits closer than Neptune.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That is the problem though with trying to use science to figure out the past.

Is there something inherently wrong with using science to figure out the past?

Honestly, at this point I'm trying to fathom how a Civ player who presumably knows the importance of research for gaining new knowledge can seem so suspicious of it in RL.

There is a thing called "fact" checking. Why bother if every fact is true?

Some "facts" are not really facts, or they're only true under certain conditions. It's important to know the difference.

The collisions at the asteroid belt, the Earth moved here with the Moon in tow... etc. etc. etc.

Berzerker, I'm not going to quote the numerous other instances where you keep repeating your notion about where Earth formed. You were asked for a link, you didn't provide one (don't bother insisting you did; that article did NOT state what I asked for, so it doesn't count), and you keep acting as though I took Lorizael by the shirt collar and dragged him here from the other forum and sat him down and ordered him to post. Nothing of the sort happened. I was actually hoping he could suggest a source that would back up your claim, because that way we could just move on. But he didn't, and in all these weeks, I've done a few searches of my own.

The result has been zip. The only one making this claim is you.

And please stop referring to him and me in derogatory ways. He's a fellow forum member on two sites, and on one of them he has a thread on cosmology. It's interesting, and that's the end of it. We're not conspiring, we're not "buddies," and his decision to post here was his own.

I dont know how to post a drawing

draw a line from the sun beyond saturn
draw another from saturn to pluto's perihelion
the angle is ~26 degrees

Find (or make) a diagram that shows what you're talking about. Copy it to your computer. Either upload it to an image-hosting site and use the link to post it here, or use the "upload a file" feature to upload it directly from your computer.

Then we can see what you're going on about.

BTW, I'm still reading that 12-year-old thread at Apolyton and I have to say, it's one of the funniest threads I've read in ages. The part where someone asked if Sedna is a real planet and someone else complained that "Quaoar" has too many vowels made me laugh (and worry that I might be laughing too loudly; wouldn't want to disturb the neighbors after midnight).

So you can draw another line from Saturn to Pluto to create a ~26 degree angle representing Saturn's equatorial plane (rings)

I know... But its basically just 2 lines, one to establish Saturn's orbit around the sun and another to extend Saturn's tilted equator up to Pluto. I used the ecliptic because those numbers were readily available. Sitchin's theory is that Pluto was a satellite of Saturn, so I put their orbits on paper and found Saturn's equatorial plane does indeed point to Pluto at/near perihelion. Both planets currently share ascending nodes and subtracting Saturn's distance from the sun (~10 au) from Pluto's extremes (~49-29 au) creates a 2:1 ratio.

If this is so simple, why don't you just draw it yourself using MS Paint, save it, and upload it?

All this "draw this/draw that" is like me trying to describe in words what my latest needlepoint project looks like ("15 blue tent stitches on the top row, then a row of red Smyrna cross stitches..."). It's just easier to post a picture.

The proto-Earth and Theia (?) formed there, they collided in a low energy impact ~4.45-5 bya and the result was the Moon. Yes, the Enuma Elish describes Heaven and Earth as two halves of a flatfish.

Oh, great. So in addition to metal bracelets scattered out there, you're saying there are fish there, too? It's amazing that none of the Pioneer or Voyager probes ran into this stuff.

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.

You do realize that there is no way the Babylonians could have known about Saturn's moons, right? That's another discovery that wasn't made until the 17th century.

I have to wonder why, in this thread, you don't mention that you're only concerned with one incident of Saturn's equatorial plane "pointing" at Pluto (seems like awfully rude behavior; didn't anyone ever teach Saturn that it's not polite to point?). You finally made it clear in that other thread.

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.

I use to think the Bible and myth was primitive man's ignorant attempt to explain existence.

The bible and myth???

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.

This may be what it all comes down to for you, but the rest of us (okay, maybe timtofly accepts your notion; it's rather difficult to tell by this point since the goalposts have been moved enough to account for a whole season of hockey) would like independent corroboration. Show us a link to ANYTHING from a reputable astronomical journal that supports your claim.

Why are we so sure that the earth was not a fifth gas giant, that combined with another planet?

You're aware that the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are not oxygen/nitrogen/trace gases, right? I hope you've noticed that we don't have an atmosphere comprised mainly of hydrocarbons, and that Earth is, in fact, not even remotely of a size to be considered a "giant" anything.

I am not sure we need Nabiru to be the first impact that caused these two planets to chase each other. However when these two did finally combine, it caused the formation of two satellites, that also chased each other and later combined to form the moon. The earth being different than the other four gas giants which actively "grabbed" satellites was "ejecting" them.

Please. Stop with this. Earth is not a gas giant, so it's just nonsense to say it was "different than the 'other' four gas giants."

What result did you get? Somebody already did the math and came up with 24.8 degrees, but they may not have measured the angle based on Saturn's position below the ecliptic. The axial tilt of Polaris would be the evidence, not Earth's...

So now we've not only got bracelets and fish littering the asteroid belt, but somehow Polaris is involved with this? Polaris is over 400 light-years from here, so why is it even relevant? Yes, I'm aware that we currently use it as a navigational aide, but it's not always going to be the pole star.

Pluto appears to be a double planet with its moon Charon, so something caused it to split in two. And something caused those rings, maybe a few moons had their orbits wrecked.

I did notice that you posted the link to a Wikipedia article about the Roche Limit. Didn't you read it?

Sitchin said Marduk was a still very hot planet (possibly the remnants of a nearby supernova and/or its planetary system - maybe life survived and was brought here) and the bulges formed as it spun by planets. A ball of dirt lacks mass, plasticity and spin. Thats a strange analogy.

IF any of that nonsense were true, where did that life come from?

At what point in the process do they get to pick their pre-determined size?

Planets don't "pick" what size they end up being. Really, they don't.

Your example did not even include Pluto. And what is the deal with making the asteroid belt look like it has more mass than all the planets combined? Pluto's orbit is unusual, and what is trying to be said is that the orbit falls inline with the rings of Saturn as if formed from there. Pluto was pulled away, allegedly in a way that kept it's same orbital plane as Saturn's rings, but now it orbits the sun in that plane. Now there is only one point in Saturn's orbit that aligns with this plane, but that is ok, because Pluto only left once, and one would have to plot back in time to prove if such an alignment happened in accord to the cycle of the 3600 year wandering planet. Unfortunately or Fortunately for some skeptics, we do not have a firm date on when this planet can be successfully "mapped". However if we started at the first point of impact and calculated out every 3600 year appearance we may get some indication as to what happens every 3600 years. The problem with that is we do not know what positions were, where they were, their speeds, nor interactions. We would have to map things back from this point to find the intersection(s), taking into consideration any rate of expansion going on. Assuming that the earth has been doing it's thing for 4.6 billion years there have been 1,277,777 encounters to map out. In fact it is at .77778 meaning that it is a little over .2222 from happening again. If my math is correct 800 years. So the last appearance was 784 BC. The one before that would be 4384 BC. The one before that would be 7984 BC. The one before that would be 11584 BC.

784 was supposed to be the start of the Olympic Games, but riots and unhappiness caused the games to be delayed then and again in 780. The first games were not until 776.

So some mythological planet is somehow responsible for something going wrong with two successive Olympic Games???

In 7000 BC the English Channel formed.

All the sources I've seen state a timeframe of 450,000 years ago. What's your source?

In 7640 BC theorized time for impact of Tollmann's hypothetical bolide with Earth and the associated global cataclysm...

Link?

Saying "this close" is hardly relative when the disc first formed around the sun. Everything was closer if we are going with the Nice Model. There was some expansion that happened, which is hinted in the metaphor of splitting Tiamat. Strictly speaking Tiamat is not just the earth, but the earth as forming at the "center" of the system. Tiamat being split was not the earth, but the disc as a whole. When in fact the asteroid belt splits the outer planets from the inner planets. Earth only swapped spots with Mars, probably because it gained more density than Mars, and the attraction to the sun could have pulled it in closer. The earth swapped after the combining impact, because that is when it gained mass and the result was a higher density. The first impact was the separation of the disc. That is why no planet formed there, but the earth was far enough to gain the attributes of a gas giant. However while it was forming, there was a "counter" forming denser planet with properties of the inner planets. For the first 3600 years, they may have been at opposite points from each other. Every 3600 years, they were effected by this visitor. The inner type planet would have started to be drawn in and it's speed would have been increasing in comparison with the earth, but because there were times this wandering planet was around it influenced their eventually combining impact. After the earth forming impact the earth was getting further from the zone this visitor travels through, and that may have been when it started to influence Pluto's orbit. Now when the account speaks of winds, that may be the number of times this wanderer came for a visit? The army that Tiamat was forming was the planets and moons. It was viewed as an "assembly" to stop this "invading" wanderer.

This is ... indescribable. Velikovsky would have been proud of you.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think this is what Berzerker is talking about. When Pluto is at its maximum height above the ecliptic, or at perihelion (not sure which as these don't coincide, so that's why I drew two Plutos), AND when it's in opposition to Saturn, then the plane of Saturn's rings intersects with Pluto.

Looking at a few numbers on Wikipedia and doing a bit of trigonometry shows that he might be right. Or at least in the right ballpark, though I'd be surprised if it's an exact match.

Unfortunately there's no evidence that this is anything other than a (not particularly massive) coincidence, nor is there any obvious orbital mechanism as to how this could signify anything anyway.

I also thought I'd google "Saturn's rings point to Pluto" and see if I could find other people talking about this and maybe drawing better diagrams. The only relevant hit I got was... Berzerker talking about the same thing 12 years ago.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So now we've not only got bracelets and fish littering the asteroid belt, but somehow Polaris is involved with this? Polaris is over 400 light-years from here, so why is it even relevant? Yes, I'm aware that we currently use it as a navigational aide, but it's not always going to be the pole star.

I'm not sure if you're joking or just being overly literal, but I don't believe he's claiming there are bracelets and fish floating in the asteroid belt, don't be silly. As for Polaris - I brought that up as an example or analogy and he's just disagreeing with me that my point was valid, nothing more.

All the sources I've seen state a timeframe of 450,000 years ago. What's your source?

He's probably talking about the land bridge between Europe and Britain disappearing around 7000 BC, which I believe is about right.

 

[Leoreth]

You dont have to take my word, if you disagree explain why... But your source did repeatedly argue a planet did not form at the asteroid belt because there isn't enough mass. Thats your expert on orbits...

Arguing with you is like using a straw to catch a rainstorm. You can try to have fun while doing it but everyone knows its not going to accomplish anything.

 

[Arakhor]

Given that Berserker has persistently failed to advance any evidence for these ideas, I see no reason to attempt to prove a widely-accepted negative. But since we're busily trading opinions, all's fair in conspiracy and war, eh?

 

[Leoreth]

No it's simple. If Berzerker claims something and you make an argument to refute his claim, he can then counter your refutation. No matter if successful or not, your refutation has been invalidated. This leaves as the only conclusion that Berzerker was right all along.

Massively parallelise this procedure across multiple people and threads of argument and you can overwhelm everyone with your gish gallop.