The Winds of God

[Berzerker]

The moment you bring Babylonian mysticism into it, you are not using science.

The OP links an article suggesting the asteroids and meteorites come from a small number of parent bodies. Thats the science... If the Babylonian creation myth claims a small number of objects - 2 planets and their moons - were involved then the science supports the myth. Thats why I started the thread.

As for this "hammered bracelet" that you claim is out there, I have to wonder why not one of the probes sent out has ever found it. Presumably it's larger than a bracelet wearable by a human, so it's not like it's a small piece of space junk like we have in orbit. It must be fairly sizable, which means someone should have noticed it by now.

The hammered bracelet is the asteroid belt

It's hilarious how you believe in this bracelet, but not in the Oort Cloud (there's another comet coming from out there and will be passing by soon; unfortunately it's not expected to be visible to the naked eye other than in extremely dark places and to people with exceptionally good vision).

No, I dont think the Oort Cloud exists. If we're surrounded by billions of comets, why dont we see more than a relative handful? They should be all over the place. The Oort Cloud was an attempt to explain long period comets, but long period comets dont need to form in a vast cloud far from the sun. They could have formed with the planets and been launched into long period orbits. The myth speaks of the dispersal of Tiamat's forces, some were even caught in Marduk's net (gravity). That might explain why some comets have retrograde orbits. I suspect whatever has tilted the solar system also has a retrograde orbit. Perhaps a planet captured about a 1/2 billion years after the sun and planets formed, debris from nearby supernova that triggered the collapse of our nebula 4.6 bya.

Your version claims that ancient space aliens gave the Babylonians telescopes so they could see Neptune (or at least you've trotted out "Well, how do you know they didn't?").

Where's the proof? Some archaeologist should have run across at least one of these ancient telescopes at some point.

My version: our ancestors claimed people from the sky were the source of their knowledge. If they came from the sky, I'm sure they knew about planets we cant see. And we have ample evidence our ancestors knew about those planets, our cosmology is not based on 5 planets, or 7 if we include the sun and moon.

The Enuma Elish lists Apsu, his companion Mummu, and Tiamat as the first 3 members. In their midst - ie between Apsu-Mummu and Tiamat - were born Lahamu and Lahmu. Thats 5 right there, sun and 4 planets. Why is Venus and Mars located between the sun and Tiamat? Because Tiamat was bathed in water and darkness at the solar system's freeze line at the asteroid belt. No Earth yet...

Then beyond the family of gods are born a second pair, Kishar and Anshar - Jupiter and Saturn - followed by a 3rd pair, Anu and Nudimmud (Ea). These were the olden gods - 9 of them. But with Marduk's arrival, Tiamat was destroyed and reborn as the smaller Earth with its oversized Moon. There's another mystery solved by the myth, the moon is big because it originally belonged to a larger planet. Pluto enters the myth and we have a total of 11 "planets" (9 and sun and moon) and Marduk - 12 is the basis of our cosmology.

The Mesoamericans also believed in a layered sky, but like the Inca to the south, they believed the creator occupied 2 levels. The Inca even depicted their creator as an ellipse joining or separating 9 'planets' (2 groups of 4 inner and 5 outer) with the sun and moon nearby. Thats 12 or 13 levels of Heaven depending on whether the creator is assigned the duality of a highly eccentric orbit.

Since gods are made-up inventions of the human imagination, any "contact" the Babylonians had with them would have been in their own minds.

Then explain how they knew the world was covered by water before land and life appeared

So Neil Degrasse Tyson is somehow the fulfillment of Babylonian prophecy because he stuck his nose in the air over how to classify Kuiper Belt Objects and small planets like Ceres?

I didn't say that or anything like it, I said Tyson led the charge to demote Pluto. Why are you calling that a prophecy? It doesn't matter if it was demoted or not, it still plays a role in the myth. Ferocitus said it didn't... It was Saturn's moon sent to inform the other gods of Marduk's supremacy. That can be tested scientifically, true? If we follow that lead and discover Pluto was a moon of Saturn, the myth was right...again.

Talking about space aliens is a conflation of current science fiction and ancient facts. Are we trying to rationalize current science fiction, or understand ancient facts?

Where does the Babylonian or any text outside of the Bible claim the text were a revelation from some alien source? Another false lead is trying to rationalize the Bible borrowed from extra biblical sources. Perhaps keeping the two unrelated text separate would help resolve a few issues?

Who were the Nephilim? Does the Bible claim to include text from an alien source? The Bible was compiled by Jews in Babylon, they had access to Mesopotamian sources and Abraham was a Sumerian, a wealthy merchant from Sumer's 3rd dynasty capital of Ur. Thats why Egyptian myth didn't become the basis of their religion, their roots were where Joshua said it was - he even said their 'fathers' served other gods in the land of the 2 rivers.

No it doesn't! This is just shoe-horning facts known only recently into a tale
of gods and sky pixies. It's like those attempts to make predictions of whackos
like Nostradamus fit more recent events.
Next you'll be telling us that the tablets also explain Mercury's orbit, the
precise number of moons orbiting each planet, and the Oort cloud!
LOL They didn't even have good estimates of the size of the Earth at that time.

I might agree if not for one important fact: Pluto shares mathematical relationships with Saturn. Saturn's rings point to Pluto at perihelion. If we were to look for Anshar's (Saturn) messenger sent to inform the other gods of Marduk's supremacy, we'd first look for objects on Saturn's equatorial plane. And there's Pluto, no shoe horn needed. If Pluto was elsewhere and we found a moon sized object on Saturn's equatorial plane, that object would become a candidate for Saturn's long lost moon. The tablets do speak a bit about Mercury, its Mummu in the myth and is the companion of Apsu (sun). During the conflict Apsu and Mummu were conspiring against the divine brothers who were responsible for the chaos.

Now that in itself is fascinating... Modern cosmologists are telling us the system was chaotic as the outer planets migrated about. Sounds just like the description of the planetary gods in the Enuma Elish. Chaos ensued and God brought order to the planets.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Next you'll be telling us that the tablets also explain Mercury's orbit, the precise number of moons orbiting each planet, and the Oort cloud!

Berzerker doesn't believe in the Oort cloud.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The Mesoamericans also believed in a layered sky, but like the Inca to the south, they believed the creator occupied 2 levels. The Inca even depicted their creator as an ellipse joining or separating 9 'planets' (2 groups of 4 inner and 5 outer) with the sun and moon nearby. Thats 12 or 13 levels of Heaven depending on whether the creator is assigned the duality of a highly eccentric orbit.

Are you talking about Pacha Kamaq, the creator?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The OP links an article suggesting the asteroids and meteorites come from a small number of parent bodies. Thats the science... If the Babylonian creation myth claims a small number of objects - 2 planets and their moons - were involved then the science supports the myth. Thats why I started the thread.

Uh-huh.

The hammered bracelet is the asteroid belt

If you want to discuss astronomy, use the term "asteroid belt." It's a bunch of rocks and some dwarf planets. It's not a "bracelet."

No, I dont think the Oort Cloud exists. If we're surrounded by billions of comets, why dont we see more than a relative handful? They should be all over the place.

You do realize that even in the solar system, space is vast and comets are small, right? And at that distance, some of them take tens of thousands of years to complete one orbit? I feel very fortunate to have seen Hale-Bopp and Hyakutake in the '90s, because nobody alive now will ever see them again, unless through a telescope, or if we finally get off this planet and can rendezvous with them.

The Oort Cloud was an attempt to explain long period comets, but long period comets dont need to form in a vast cloud far from the sun. They could have formed with the planets and been launched into long period orbits. The myth speaks of the dispersal of Tiamat's forces, some were even caught in Marduk's net (gravity). That might explain why some comets have retrograde orbits. I suspect whatever has tilted the solar system also has a retrograde orbit. Perhaps a planet captured about a 1/2 billion years after the sun and planets formed, debris from nearby supernova that triggered the collapse of our nebula 4.6 bya.

Obviously you know much more than the professional astronomers, and should write to them and correct them so they can add Babylonian myths to the textbooks.

My version: our ancestors claimed people from the sky were the source of their knowledge. If they came from the sky, I'm sure they knew about planets we cant see. And we have ample evidence our ancestors knew about those planets, our cosmology is not based on 5 planets, or 7 if we include the sun and moon.

There is no evidence at all, let alone "ample."

The Enuma Elish lists Apsu, his companion Mummu, and Tiamat as the first 3 members. In their midst - ie between Apsu-Mummu and Tiamat - were born Lahamu and Lahmu. Thats 5 right there, sun and 4 planets. Why is Venus and Mars located between the sun and Tiamat? Because Tiamat was bathed in water and darkness at the solar system's freeze line at the asteroid belt. No Earth yet...

Then beyond the family of gods are born a second pair, Kishar and Anshar - Jupiter and Saturn - followed by a 3rd pair, Anu and Nudimmud (Ea). These were the olden gods - 9 of them. But with Marduk's arrival, Tiamat was destroyed and reborn as the smaller Earth with its oversized Moon. There's another mystery solved by the myth, the moon is big because it originally belonged to a larger planet. Pluto enters the myth and we have a total of 11 "planets" (9 and sun and moon) and Marduk - 12 is the basis of our cosmology.

I didn't say that or anything like it, I said Tyson led the charge to demote Pluto. Why are you calling that a prophecy? It doesn't matter if it was demoted or not, it still plays a role in the myth. Ferocitus said it didn't... It was Saturn's moon sent to inform the other gods of Marduk's supremacy. That can be tested scientifically, true? If we follow that lead and discover Pluto was a moon of Saturn, the myth was right...again.

Nobody sent Saturn's moons anywhere. Whatever orbital changes may have taken place are due to physics, not supernatural beings.

You brought up Tyson, in an attempt to lend credibility to your notions. So don't turn that around on me.

Are there any real astronomers working on a hypothesis that Pluto was once one of Saturn's moons? If so, there must be a paper or two somewhere. Links, please.

 

[Ferocitus]

I might agree if not for one important fact: Pluto shares mathematical relationships with Saturn. Saturn's rings point to Pluto at perihelion.

The direction of Saturn's rings and Pluto's perihelion are just two numbers, and
there are innumerably many relationships between any two different numbers.

 

[Ferocitus]

Axioms and definitions are the foundation of mathematics and rigorous philosophy. With such a foundation it can go places. Without it, different tools are needed.

Depends on how you like your philosophy.
I like Wittgenstein's take:
Logic takes care of itself; all we have to do is to look and see how it does it.
and
Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the
clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were,
cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp
boundaries.
But he probably changed his tune a few times over the years.

I'm not sure where your emphasis on utility, or applicability to reality comes
from. (If I've read you wrong, I'm happy to be disabused of my assumption!)
Why should mathematicians be motivated by those factors? It is perfectly valid
IMO for mathematicians to be motivated by the beauty of symmetries. It may seem
wanky at first, but after Emmy Noether's great discovery, it was shown that
(short version) conservation laws and symmetry are intricately connected. That
is an extremely useful connection for physicists, but it was never the prime
motive for those enamoured by symmetries of numbers or equations.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Depends on how you like your philosophy.
I like Wittgenstein's take:
Logic takes care of itself; all we have to do is to look and see how it does it.
and
Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the
clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were,
cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp
boundaries.
But he probably changed his tune a few times over the years.

I'm not sure where your emphasis on utility, or applicability to reality comes
from. (If I've read you wrong, I'm happy to be disabused of my assumption!)
Why should mathematicians be motivated by those factors? It is perfectly valid
IMO for mathematicians to be motivated by the beauty of symmetries. It may seem
wanky at first, but after Emmy Noether's great discovery, it was shown that
(short version) conservation laws and symmetry are intricately connected. That
is an extremely useful connection for physicists, but it was never the prime
motive for those enamoured by symmetries of numbers or equations.

To begin, my point was all about the necessary axiomatic and definitional foundations of math, logic, reason, religion, mysticism etc. You have to start somewhere and where one chooses to begin will often determine where we end up. The beauty found in art (in all its forms) and in mathematics (in all its forms) is in the eye of the beholder to be pursued as desired and as one is capable. I don't have any issues with those that go down such a path. Utility comes into play mostly when one one is engaged in discourse with others or if one is trying to solve a problem. I tend to be of a practical sort and push the conversation towards a purpose or solution or real world understanding. Unless, of course, the topic is outside of our understanding then the imagination can play freely without constraints.

 

[Ferocitus]

To begin, my point was all about the necessary axiomatic and definitional foundations of math, logic, reason, religion, mysticism etc. You have to start somewhere and where one chooses to begin will often determine where we end up. The beauty found in art (in all its forms) and in mathematics (in all its forms) is in the eye of the beholder to be pursued as desired and as one is capable. I don't have any issues with those that go down such a path. Utility comes into play mostly when one one is engaged in discourse with others or if one is trying to solve a problem. I tend to be of a practical sort and push the conversation towards a purpose or solution or real world understanding. Unless, of course, the topic is outside of our understanding then the imagination can play freely without constraints.

Thanks for elaborating your position!
I see maths, pure more so than applied, as abstracting away practicalities and
then focussing and working with the structure of the problem.
I appreciate that those bare bones make it difficult to convey to non-nerds
what it is that I and other eggheads are doing.
Sometimes it can be a real stretch to find the closest "real" case. My current
work is with infinitely thin circular "wings" in a so-called "ideal" fluid, and
especially the flow at the wingtips. The closest practical embodiment I can think
of is a butterfly wing, or circular leaf, gliding through liquid helium.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thanks for elaborating your position!
I see maths, pure more so than applied, as abstracting away practicalities and
then focussing and working with the structure of the problem.
I appreciate that those bare bones make it difficult to convey to non-nerds
what it is that I and other eggheads are doing.
Sometimes it can be a real stretch to find the closest "real" case. My current
work is with infinitely thin circular "wings" in a so-called "ideal" fluid, and
especially the flow at the wingtips. The closest practical embodiment I can think
of is a butterfly wing, or circular leaf, gliding through liquid helium.

Yes, the chaos caused by all those Chinese, Japanese and other Asian butterflies flapping away and creating trouble in the US you leave to others to solve.

 

[timtofly]

Who were the Nephilim? Does the Bible claim to include text from an alien source? The Bible was compiled by Jews in Babylon, they had access to Mesopotamian sources and Abraham was a Sumerian, a wealthy merchant from Sumer's 3rd dynasty capital of Ur. Thats why Egyptian myth didn't become the basis of their religion, their roots were where Joshua said it was - he even said their 'fathers' served other gods in the land of the 2 rivers.

If there were two earth size planets, which became the earth and moon, out near the asteroid belt, then perhaps they both had life on them? The point is no one today thinks humans existed when this earth changing cataclysm happened. And no one after it, or the Flood could give first hand experience on what it was like. God is hardly an alien source, although forgotten, foreign, unbelievable have also been used to describe God. If you take Genesis and the original created humans, not Adam, nor any offspring, there could still be people around us in a dimension we cannot access, that can give helpful knowledge which has been attributed to "aliens". But they have always been here on earth or the other planet. Not from outer space.

Most of the OT was done way before the Babylonian exile. Perhaps the Babylonian court was interested in their sacred text, and wanted a written copy, but Joshua existed way before the exile you are referring to, and the gods would be the ones the enuma elish were referring to, but Joshua and Moses did not get their information from the Mesopotamians or Sumerians. If anything the written text of the enuma elish came from Abraham who was a friend of God. Mohammed made claims that Abraham was the first to use written language. If Joshua is your proof, he mentioned both the gods of Egypt and the ancestors of Abraham. Now the argument may be made that the Hebrew's Abraham was an imagined version of Hammurabi. Or it depends on how accurate we view what kings and rulers are from ancient texts.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Most of the OT was done way before the Babylonian exile. Perhaps the Babylonian court was interested in their sacred text, and wanted a written copy, but Joshua existed way before the exile you are referring to, and the gods would be the ones the enuma elish were referring to, but Joshua and Moses did not get their information from the Mesopotamians or Sumerians. If anything the written text of the enuma elish came from Abraham who was a friend of God. Mohammed made claims that Abraham was the first to use written language. If Joshua is your proof, he mentioned both the gods of Egypt and the ancestors of Abraham. Now the argument may be made that the Hebrew's Abraham was an imagined version of Hammurabi. Or it depends on how accurate we view what kings and rulers are from ancient texts.

Writing in the ME was "invented" around 3100 BCE in Ur. It led quickly to cuneiform not Hebrew.

 

[Berzerker]

Are you talking about Pacha Kamaq, the creator?

I dont think so, I'd have to track down the book. There was a wall sized image of the Incan "Genesis" (their cosmology showing the creator) in the Coricancha in Cuzco made mostly of gold. Naturally the Spanish melted it but an Incan redrew the image from memory and it appears in several books. The creator was depicted as an ellipse separating two groups of planets or stars numbering 4 at the bottom and 5 at the top.

The Earth was depicted in the lower left with 7 dots in 2 rows of 3 and 4 just like it shows up on Sumerian cylinder seals. For some reason these mythologies (and biblical Genesis) associated 7 with the Earth. If we include Pluto as a planet the Earth is the 7th planet as one approaches the sun and the asteroid belt is the 6th if a planet was still there. Heaven and Earth were created in 6 'days' and creation ceased on the 7th - the Earth acquired a new orbit closer to the sun. It went from covered with water and darkness to spinning (night and day) with two great lights dominating the sky. If the Earth was at the asteroid belt, the sun and moon would have been much dimmer, thats why the sun and moon appear in Genesis after other events occur first.

The temple at Chichen Itza has 9 steps (9 lords of the night) and because of the architecture, a serpent appears to climb up and down the staircase on the equinoxes - the serpent has 7 humps just like Serpent Mound in Ohio.

The direction of Saturn's rings and Pluto's perihelion are just two numbers, and there are innumerably many relationships between any two different numbers.

Does some other planet's equatorial plane point at Pluto's perihelion?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I dont think so, I'd have to track down the book. There was a wall sized image of the Incan "Genesis" (their cosmology showing the creator) in the Coricancha in Cuzco made mostly of gold. Naturally the Spanish melted it but an Incan redrew the image from memory and it appears in several books. The creator was depicted as an ellipse separating two groups of planets or stars numbering 4 at the bottom and 5 at the top.

The Earth was depicted in the lower left with 7 dots in 2 rows of 3 and 4 just like it shows up on Sumerian cylinder seals. For some reason these mythologies (and biblical Genesis) associated 7 with the Earth. If we include Pluto as a planet the Earth is the 7th planet as one approaches the sun and the asteroid belt is the 6th if a planet was still there. Heaven and Earth were created in 6 'days' and creation ceased on the 7th - the Earth acquired a new orbit closer to the sun. It went from covered with water and darkness to spinning (night and day) with two great lights dominating the sky. If the Earth was at the asteroid belt, the sun and moon would have been much dimmer, thats why the sun and moon appear in Genesis after other events occur first.

The temple at Chichen Itza has 9 steps (9 lords of the night) and because of the architecture, a serpent appears to climb up and down the staircase on the equinoxes - the serpent has 7 humps just like Serpent Mound in Ohio.



Does some other planet's equatorial plane point at Pluto's perihelion?

You appear to be obsessed with Pluto's perihelion. What mystical thing happens when it's at aphelion?

Oh, and since Pluto wasn't discovered until 1930, it's irrelevant to any Incan or Mayan stories.

 

[Berzerker]

If you want to discuss astronomy, use the term "asteroid belt." It's a bunch of rocks and some dwarf planets. It's not a "bracelet."

I'm discussing both... So you object to bracelet but belt is okay? Why did these ancient peoples liken "Heaven" to a hammered bracelet? In Genesis it became the firmament, something that was stretched out...and firm.

You do realize that even in the solar system, space is vast and comets are small, right? And at that distance, some of them take tens of thousands of years to complete one orbit? I feel very fortunate to have seen Hale-Bopp and Hyakutake in the '90s, because nobody alive now will ever see them again, unless through a telescope, or if we finally get off this planet and can rendezvous with them.

If we're surrounded by a vast cloud of comets numbering in the billions, why dont we see more than a relative handful? Space is vast and comets are small aint relevant to my question.

Obviously you know much more than the professional astronomers, and should write to them and correct them so they can add Babylonian myths to the textbooks.

The myth doesn't address the existence of the Oort Cloud.

There is no evidence at all, let alone "ample."

How many planets did the Babylonians know about?

Nobody sent Saturn's moons anywhere. Whatever orbital changes may have taken place are due to physics, not supernatural beings.

The myth anthropomorphizes celestial events, collisions, ejections, orbital changes etc.

You brought up Tyson, in an attempt to lend credibility to your notions. So don't turn that around on me.

I did not. Ferocitus said:

And they told the Babylonians that Pluto was not technically a planet, so that's
why it is absent from their cosmology.

He was blaming the Babylonians and their gods for demoting Pluto, Tyson led that movement. How does Tyson's opinion lend credibility to my notions?

Are there any real astronomers working on a hypothesis that Pluto was once one of Saturn's moons? If so, there must be a paper or two somewhere. Links, please.

I dont know. But if there are, they'll be famous. Why must there be a paper or two if an astronomer is working on it?

You appear to be obsessed with Pluto's perihelion. What mystical thing happens when it's at aphelion?

Oh, and since Pluto wasn't discovered until 1930, it's irrelevant to any Incan or Mayan stories.

There's nothing mystical about it, Saturn's rings point to Pluto when its at perihelion and someone told our ancestors about Pluto long ago.

If there were two earth size planets, which became the earth and moon, out near the asteroid belt, then perhaps they both had life on them?

The Earth-Moon system preceded life, but the impactor(s) that did hit the Earth ~4 bya may have developed life too. They might have brought life to Earth.

The point is no one today thinks humans existed when this earth changing cataclysm happened. And no one after it, or the Flood could give first hand experience on what it was like. God is hardly an alien source, although forgotten, foreign, unbelievable have also been used to describe God. If you take Genesis and the original created humans, not Adam, nor any offspring, there could still be people around us in a dimension we cannot access, that can give helpful knowledge which has been attributed to "aliens". But they have always been here on earth or the other planet. Not from outer space.

Who were the Nephilim?

Most of the OT was done way before the Babylonian exile. Perhaps the Babylonian court was interested in their sacred text, and wanted a written copy, but Joshua existed way before the exile you are referring to, and the gods would be the ones the enuma elish were referring to, but Joshua and Moses did not get their information from the Mesopotamians or Sumerians. If anything the written text of the enuma elish came from Abraham who was a friend of God. Mohammed made claims that Abraham was the first to use written language. If Joshua is your proof, he mentioned both the gods of Egypt and the ancestors of Abraham. Now the argument may be made that the Hebrew's Abraham was an imagined version of Hammurabi. Or it depends on how accurate we view what kings and rulers are from ancient texts.

Upon entering the promised land, Joshua told the Hebrews their fathers served other gods in the land of the 2 rivers. Who were their fathers? Abraham and his ancestors, the patriarchs. Where did Cain (or was it Enoch or Nimrod?) build his city? The land of the 2 rivers.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'm discussing both... So you object to bracelet but belt is okay? Why did these ancient peoples liken "Heaven" to a hammered bracelet? In Genesis it became the firmament, something that was stretched out...and firm.

Oh, please. Maybe we should compromise and call it a cowboy hat.

There's a difference between astronomers using the phrase "asteroid belt" and ancient mystics rambling on about a bracelet... and thousands of years later, you treating mysticism as though it's scientific fact.

If we're surrounded by a vast cloud of comets numbering in the billions, why dont we see more than a relative handful? Space is vast and comets are small aint relevant to my question.

There are hundreds of billions of stars and galaxies. Why do we only see a relative few?

Space is vast and even the largest known star (which is pretty damn big in comparison to our Sun) is small. Newsflash: Those science fiction movies that show pilots dodging asteroids are just make-believe. The real asteroid belt is much more spread out, and so is the Oort Cloud.

What part of "orbits that take tens of thousands of years" doesn't register? They'll get here sooner or later... but whether there's anyone around to notice them is another question. Some of them have been here already but are too faint to be seen with the naked eye.

The myth doesn't address the existence of the Oort Cloud.

Why should it? The Oort Cloud's existence wasn't known at the time the myths were made up.

How many planets did the Babylonians know about?

They would have known about the ones visible to the naked eye. That just barely could include Uranus if someone had extremely dark sky and extraordinary vision, but considering it wasn't officially discovered until 1781, it's doubtful they knew about it. At its distance and considering that it takes decades to make one orbit, it wouldn't have looked like anything but another star.

So: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn (as well as Earth, of course). The Sun is not a planet, and neither is the Moon.

Neptune and Pluto are out of the question.

I did not. Ferocitus said:

He was blaming the Babylonians and their gods for demoting Pluto, Tyson led that movement. How does Tyson's opinion lend credibility to my notions?

They don't. And my review of the thread tells me that Ferocitus was talking to Senethro. I don't think Ferocitus is actually going along with this fanciful nonsense you're spinning here.

I dont know. But if there are, they'll be famous. Why must there be a paper or two if an astronomer is working on it?

You think scientists always keep quiet about hypotheses and never utter a peep until they think they've got the definitive answer?

I've just returned from some Googling. There's not a trace in 3 pages of hits of anything even suggesting that Pluto was once a moon of Saturn. Not even any of your mythology stuff.

There's nothing mystical about it, Saturn's rings point to Pluto when its at perihelion and someone told our ancestors about Pluto long ago.

Which someone? How could they know about a planet that wasn't discovered until 1930?

And I repeat: What about Pluto at aphelion? Anything there?

 

[Berzerker]

There's a difference between astronomers using the phrase "asteroid belt" and ancient mystics rambling on about a bracelet... and thousands of years later, you treating mysticism as though it's scientific fact.

Hammered bracelet is better than asteroid belt, more descriptive of what happened according to the myth...and the science. Heating up a chunk of material and pounding it out to form a bracelet tells us how the asteroid belt formed. Thats what the myth describes... and what the science is describing. The Earth was slammed by several moon sized objects.

There are hundreds of billions of stars and galaxies. Why do we only see a relative few?

Space is vast and even the largest known star (which is pretty damn big in comparison to our Sun) is small. Newsflash: Those science fiction movies that show pilots dodging asteroids are just make-believe. The real asteroid belt is much more spread out, and so is the Oort Cloud.

What part of "orbits that take tens of thousands of years" doesn't register? They'll get here sooner or later... but whether there's anyone around to notice them is another question. Some of them have been here already but are too faint to be seen with the naked eye.

They've had 4.6 billion years. Where are they? They'll get here sooner or later?

Why should it? The Oort Cloud's existence wasn't known at the time the myths were made up.

Its existence is known now? Whether or not the Oort Cloud exists is irrelevant to the myth. Telling researchers to investigate the Enuma Elish to learn about the Oort Cloud wont help.

They would have known about the ones visible to the naked eye. That just barely could include Uranus if someone had extremely dark sky and extraordinary vision, but considering it wasn't officially discovered until 1781, it's doubtful they knew about it. At its distance and considering that it takes decades to make one orbit, it wouldn't have looked like anything but another star.

Yes, I understand you believe ancient peoples knew only about the planets that could be seen. Their myths show they knew about more planets.

So: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn (as well as Earth, of course). The Sun is not a planet, and neither is the Moon.

Neptune and Pluto are out of the question.

So 5 planets... And you have evidence ancient cosmologies were based on 5 planets? Which 5 would they be in the Enuma Elish? Are there any pantheons comprised of 5 gods? In all my study of myth, 5 is about the least significant number up to 13. Doesn't that pose a problem for your argument?

They don't. And my review of the thread tells me that Ferocitus was talking to Senethro. I don't think Ferocitus is actually going along with this fanciful nonsense you're spinning here.

Thats right, they dont... So why are you accusing me of using Tyson to lend credibility to my notions? Yes, Ferocitus was talking to someone else about my notions, and no, he's not in agreement with me.

You think scientists always keep quiet about hypotheses and never utter a peep until they think they've got the definitive answer?

Always? How about sometimes? You said papers must exist if someone is researching the subject. Why?

I've just returned from some Googling. There's not a trace in 3 pages of hits of anything even suggesting that Pluto was once a moon of Saturn. Not even any of your mythology stuff.

Dont forget where you heard it first.

Which someone? How could they know about a planet that wasn't discovered until 1930?

Their gods according to them

And I repeat: What about Pluto at aphelion? Anything there?

That would have been the point the energy producing Pluto's ejection from Saturn was overcome by gravity. To my knowledge no planet points at Pluto at aphelion, just its perihelion and thats only 1 planet - Saturn.

But there is something interesting about Pluto's aphelion, if we subtract Saturn's orbital distance from Pluto's aphelion and perihelion we get a 2:1 ratio.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Hammered bracelet is better than asteroid belt, more descriptive of what happened according to the myth...and the science. Heating up a chunk of material and pounding it out to form a bracelet tells us how the asteroid belt formed. Thats what the myth describes... and what the science is describing. The Earth was slammed by several moon sized objects.

Calling it a bracelet implies that it's a solid thing. The asteroid belt is not solid.

Does this mean you don't like my suggestion to call it a cowboy hat?

They've had 4.6 billion years. Where are they? They'll get here sooner or later?

Yes, do you have a problem with that? Why is it that the anti-science portion of the population are so impatient, and want everything NOW?

Lots of them will have come by when there was no life to see them, or at least no life that knew they were anything worth looking at. Some came by but couldn't have been seen with the naked eye. And some will have swung by when people saw them but had no idea what they were... so they made up stories with no scientific basis to them. Even in 1910, people were making up all kinds of garbage, fleecing gullible people out of the money by selling them "comet pills". Some will come by in the future, and who knows if there will be anyone here to see them?

Earth passes through the remains of comets several times a year. They're the source for the meteor showers.

Why aren't you complaining that we don't see more stars and galaxies, if there's so many of them?

Its existence is known now? Whether or not the Oort Cloud exists is irrelevant to the myth. Telling researchers to investigate the Enuma Elish to learn about the Oort Cloud wont help.

You need to learn how to recognize sarcasm. As in "Of course you should tell professional astronomers to embrace ancient Babylonian fantasies because they're more accurate than real science that's backed by observation and photographic evidence."

Yes, I understand you believe ancient peoples knew only about the planets that could be seen. Their myths show they knew about more planets.

Their myths show they made up more planets. They had no way to see the others, therefore they could not have seen them.

Of course, if you have tangible, incontrovertible proof that they did, please provide it. So far you've provided nothing but fantasy.

So 5 planets... And you have evidence ancient cosmologies were based on 5 planets? Which 5 would they be in the Enuma Elish? Are there any pantheons comprised of 5 gods? In all my study of myth, 5 is about the least significant number up to 13. Doesn't that pose a problem for your argument?

Has it really failed to penetrate that I don't give a damn about your silly myths? They're nothing but stories, made up by ancient people to explain things they didn't understand. You need modern knowledge to shoehorn into your myths to make them work, and for that you're reduced to saying "Aliensdidit."

Show us the evidence.

Always? How about sometimes? You said papers must exist if someone is researching the subject. Why?

Why not? It's an interesting question, once you take away all the mythological claptrap. If anyone is seriously researching this, why wouldn't they say something? It would get people talking, raise some questions, and possibly spark an idea that could help confirm or refute the hypothesis.

But if Pluto was once a moon of Saturn, what about the other Kuiper Belt Objects? Were they once moons of Saturn, too?

Dont forget where you heard it first.

The only place I ever heard this was here, from you. Google search doesn't appear to support your notion. If there was any credibility to it, there should have been a dozen hits on the first page. There were zero.

Their gods according to them

That would have been the point the energy producing Pluto's ejection from Saturn was overcome by gravity. To my knowledge no planet points at Pluto at aphelion, just its perihelion and thats only 1 planet - Saturn.

But there is something interesting about Pluto's aphelion, if we subtract Saturn's orbital distance from Pluto's aphelion and perihelion we get a 2:1 ratio.

Fascinating.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I dont think so, I'd have to track down the book. There was a wall sized image of the Incan "Genesis" (their cosmology showing the creator) in the Coricancha in Cuzco made mostly of gold. Naturally the Spanish melted it but an Incan redrew the image from memory and it appears in several books. The creator was depicted as an ellipse separating two groups of planets or stars numbering 4 at the bottom and 5 at the top.

The Earth was depicted in the lower left with 7 dots in 2 rows of 3 and 4 just like it shows up on Sumerian cylinder seals. For some reason these mythologies (and biblical Genesis) associated 7 with the Earth. If we include Pluto as a planet the Earth is the 7th planet as one approaches the sun and the asteroid belt is the 6th if a planet was still there. Heaven and Earth were created in 6 'days' and creation ceased on the 7th - the Earth acquired a new orbit closer to the sun. It went from covered with water and darkness to spinning (night and day) with two great lights dominating the sky. If the Earth was at the asteroid belt, the sun and moon would have been much dimmer, thats why the sun and moon appear in Genesis after other events occur first.

The temple at Chichen Itza has 9 steps (9 lords of the night) and because of the architecture, a serpent appears to climb up and down the staircase on the equinoxes - the serpent has 7 humps just like Serpent Mound in Ohio.

Here is the drawing; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_mythology

The four stars under the "window" are the southern cross. Someone with better Spanish than me can do some translating. The organization is pretty haphazard. The two rows of dots are called the eyes, not seven planets.

BTW, there are many Mayan pyramids that do not have nine levels. Finding one or even two that do, doesn't mean a thing. The fact that Chichen Itza was a late site diminishes your theory that 9 levels was important to them.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Pluto shares mathematical relationships with Saturn. Saturn's rings point to Pluto at perihelion.

I'll just leave this here:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/in-the-beginning.568762/page-84#post-14500810

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If we're surrounded by a vast cloud of comets numbering in the billions, why dont we see more than a relative handful? Space is vast and comets are small aint relevant to my question.

But that is the answer to your question...