The Winds of God

[Berzerker]

Why? You only see comets when they're near the sun. Oort cloud objects are on highly eliptical orbits with incredibly long orbital periods and only spend a tiny fraction of that orbit anywhere near the Sun. Any more frequent visitors will also be burned up faster so there are less likely to be any of those left. Basically the longer you wait, the less likely you are to see them in the sky.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/oort-cloud/in-depth/

The Oort Cloud is too far to be seen with current telescopes, so it hasn't been directly seen or discovered. However, it is scientists' best guess about where long-period comets come from. Astronomers have studied several comets believed to have come from this distant region of our solar system.

The simplest explanation is comets formed with the planets and were ejected into long period orbits - and not trillions or billions.

Tempel 1 revealed itself to be made of water ice and gas, carbonates, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, silicates, sulfides and other elements.

This mix of components does not match current models of comet dust. Some of the minerals detected require temperatures between 1,100 and 1,400 degrees Kelvin--only found as close to the sun as Mercury--as well as volatile gases such as methane that only remain stable at temperatures below 100 K. This means that there must have been some form of mixing over large distances going on in the nebula that gave birth to the sun billions of years ago.

The spectra also hint that water must have been abundant in the area where the comet formed and that Tempel 1 is not as carbon-rich as some of its peers; carbon-based materials appear to make up only 20 percent of this comet compared to as much as 50 percent of others. Nevertheless, the material in Tempel 1 matches that ejected by Comet Hale-Bopp in 1995 and that means that these comets formed in broadly similar ways, the researchers argue.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deep-impact-reveals-comet/

I think that means comets (these anyway) formed close to the sun or from larger bodies that had experienced significant heat. We've had 4.6 billion years for Oort Cloud comets to be nudged into orbits approaching the sun. Not all of them would survive of course, but with a reservoir possibly numbering in the trillions I'd expect much more activity. And comet cores are rocky so they dont burn up, they just look like asteroids when they lose their volatiles. And then there's the retrograde problem, roughly half of long period comets orbit the sun clockwise. That suggests interactions with large planets put them into long period orbits.

Can you describe exactly how you think Pluto is associated with Saturn? As established 2 years ago, all you seem to be saying is that when Pluto is in opposition to Saturn, AND this coincides with when Pluto is at aphelion (I think), then Pluto lies roughly in Saturn's equitorial plane (but many, many AU away). This doesn't seem to be aything other than a coincidence (such as, again, saying Polaris is "associated" with Earth). But really I want some sort of description of how a moon that is in orbit around a parent planet can be "perturbed" in such a way that it ends up in a completely different orbit around the Sun, 30 AU away. It would have to be something like... Pluto being in orbit around Saturn when it (gravitationally?) interracts with some other massive object that imparts it with a significant amount of kinetic energy, enought to shift it a further 30 AU away from the Sun. Then when it gets out there, it would have to have a similar interraction with another massive object to then push it into a completely different orbit that now no longer goes anywhere near Saturn's orbit and isn't related to it at all, other than Pluto's orbital plane and Saturn's equatorial plane intersect in a particular way that you find interesting.

If a Saturnian moon was ejected from an equatorial orbit, it would begin orbiting the sun once the energy driving the ejection was overcome by the sun's gravity. But it would still line up with the equatorial plane of its parent planet, Pluto does just that. Based on that scenario I'd expect more bodies to lie on that plane, like a trail of bread crumbs leading us back to Saturn. The rings of Saturn point to Pluto at its perihelion (closest approach). And I dont think its a coincidence Pluto's nearest and furthest point creates a 1:2 ratio when Saturn's distance from the sun is subtracted from Pluto's orbit.

IIRC most of the Oort cloud objects don't even get near the Sun, comets are the ones that are pulled for whatever reason - I think the idea is that it's most often gravitational interaction with stars neighboring the Sun - into very high-eccentricity orbits with part of the orbital path being quite close to the sun.

If a star passed nearby I'd expect a shower of comets to flood the system and I'd expect for a bunch of them to survive long enough on similar orbits to be seen by us. Or if not seen, detected by their craters.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If a star passed nearby I'd expect a shower of comets to flood the system and I'd expect for a bunch of them to survive long enough on similar orbits to be seen by us. Or if not seen, detected by their craters.

Why are you assuming that this would necessarily happen during the period of time that humans have been around? And what craters are you talking about? Not everything that comes in this direction actually hits us.

 

[Berzerker]

what are some good academic sources to read up on wrt babylonian/sumerian pantheon or early religions in genral? what are some good academic sources to read up on wrt similarities between abrahamic religions (esp the genesis as a text) and older religions? this is something I've been wanting to tackle for so long..

Joseph Campbell's the Masks of God series is excellent, but Zecharia Sitchin's books (like the 12th Planet) are an in depth study of Mesopotamian religions and their links to the Bible. His analysis of the Enuma Elish and Genesis are eye-opening.

So berzerker acknowledges that this is MYTH yet he's still acting the fool and playing numerology games with it?

I dont define myth as something false

If they never observed them, how did they know about them?

They were told about them... They appear in their epic of creation and on a cylinder seal VA243. These two sources corroborate each other.

I dunno. The Book of Enoch makes it pretty clear it was angels, not ET attempting to phone home, who were the sires of the Nephilim.

The sons of God who came down from the heavens and saw the daughters of man

 

[Berzerker]

Stop being willfully obtuse. Seriously, just stop it.

The word "belt" is used in several contexts in astronomy, geography, geology, and meteorology. The asteroid belt is not solid. Neither is the Van Alllen radiation belt.

I see, belts are not solid...except when they are. So which came first, the solid belt or the not solid belt?

You keep demanding that all the Oort Cloud comets should show up NOW, so we can see them NOW, or at least ALL THE TIME.

I haven't demanded that... I said if we were surrounded by a cloud of a billion or trillion comets we should see more than a relative handful.

Oh, you personally have seen the stars and galaxies that are too far away for naked-eye observation or basic telescopes? Wow, you must have extraordinary vision.

I said we see them, not me personally. And we seen them with optical aids.

And speak for yourself about the Oort Cloud, 'k? Putting on the royal "we" when you just mean yourself is...

You've seen the Oort Cloud? "We" have not seen the Oort Cloud and I'm not the only person who has never seen it.

That's not what I said. There are copious ancient writings (primary sources) regarding Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

And where are your sources claiming these 5 formed the basis of ancient cosmologies? How did we get Uranus, Neptune and Pluto to join the 5 you mentioned? Is that just another coincidence? We have copious ancient writings about them too. Thats 8 gods... The sun, Moon and Earth make 11 and that leaves us with the creator as our 12th god. I can identify several civilizations that based their cosmologies on the number 12, I cant identify any based on 5 and thats stunning given that the 5 you mention were visible. Can you explain that?

You're still not getting it. Even if someone is actively researching this and doesn't want anyone to "beat them to the discovery" there should still be some mention somewhere of a hypothesis. I couldn't find one. The only person I've ever seen who is interested in this is you.

So if I'm researching a subject I dont want others knowing about, I'd mention it somewhere because? Because why again? Sitchin wrote about the Saturn-Pluto connection and quite a few people have read his books.

Why are you assuming that this would necessarily happen during the period of time that humans have been around? And what craters are you talking about? Not everything that comes in this direction actually hits us.

I dont assume that... Comets were coming and going long before we were here. I'm talking about evidence - craters - of comet bombardments. If a star passed nearby we should see a bunch of comets enter the region of the planets afterward. Right? By dating craters we should be able to show the effect of the Oort Cloud's disruption. If it exists of course... On the other hand, if Sitchin is right and we have a '9th planet' in our system causing these phenomenon then we'd still see bombardment patterns, like the late heavy bombardment 4+ bya when the Earth was struck by several minor planets.

 

[Senethro]

OORT CLOUD TRUTH

Berz why do you think sitchens scholarship has been neglected by the scientific community?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

They were told about them... They appear in their epic of creation and on a cylinder seal VA243. These two sources corroborate each other.

Told about them by who?

 

[Lexicus]

If a star passed nearby I'd expect a shower of comets to flood the system and I'd expect for a bunch of them to survive long enough on similar orbits to be seen by us. Or if not seen, detected by their craters.

Can you tell me the basic equations of orbital mechanics?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If a Saturnian moon was ejected from an equatorial orbit, it would begin orbiting the sun once the energy driving the ejection was overcome by the sun's gravity. But it would still line up with the equatorial plane of its parent planet, Pluto does just that. Based on that scenario I'd expect more bodies to lie on that plane, like a trail of bread crumbs leading us back to Saturn. The rings of Saturn point to Pluto at its perihelion (closest approach). And I dont think its a coincidence Pluto's nearest and furthest point creates a 1:2 ratio when Saturn's distance from the sun is subtracted from Pluto's orbit.

But Saturn's equatorial plane doesn't align with its orbital plane. So no other body that orbits the sun can be orbiting in a plane that aligns with Saturn's equatorial plane all the time. Maybe I'm just not following your decription, but the claim that Pluto "lines up" with Saturn's equatorial plane doesn't seem to mean much. It only lines up with it when it's in a specific point in its orbit AND when Saturn is in a specific point in its orbit as well. But you know what, so does every other planet in the solar system at some point or another. As far as I recall we lie in Saturn's equatorial plane every 7 years or so. Like I say, you need to give some other reason as to why this is significant or how the current configuration could have evolved. Moons don't just easily migrate 30 AU away and then end up in a new orbit that doesn't intersect with the parent planet's orbit at all.

 

[Birdjaguar]

They were told about them... They appear in their epic of creation and on a cylinder seal VA243. These two sources corroborate each other.

Here is a scholarly analysis of that cylinder seal.

http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/VA243seal.pdf

It explains in great detail all the reasons Stitchin is wrong.

 

[Lexicus]

I have seen mention that some astronomers estimate that the solar system is larger than we thought, possibly by a light-year. Since the Centaurus system is so close, this would not surprise me.

Well, the size of the solar system is largely dependent on what boundary one uses to define it. The heliopause is one such possible boundary, the area where the Sun's gravity dominates over other stars is another boundary, the outermost Oort cloud objects yet another, and so on.

 

[Berzerker]

Here is the source of the problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin

And here is one of his ctitics: \]http://www.sitchiniswrong.com

I'm familiar with the 2nd site and I've even engaged the author on his criticism of Sitchin's identification of the 'star' on the cylinder seal VA243 as the sun. His evidence is Mesopotamian symbols representing the sun appear differently. The problem with his argument is he's looking at symbols representing Utu/Shamash - the deity who became associated with the sun. He's assuming every representation of the sun refers to that specific deity, ie all representations of the sun should look the same as the ones representing Utu/Shamash.

So I asked him what symbol represents the Apsu in the Enuma Elish? Instead of answering he changed the subject and started asking me unrelated questions. My point was simple: the sun appears in myth without being called Utu or Shamash. It appears in the Enuma Elish as the Apsu, not as Utu or Shamash. In fact, only Anu, Ea and Marduk are associated with the 'olden gods' from the Enuma Elish. The Apsu, Mummu, Tiamat, Lahmu, Lahamu, Kishar, Anshar, Gaga, and Kingu (Moon) all acquired different identities after creation and after they were linked to the 'flesh and blood' gods of the Mesopotamians. Astronomer EC Krupp was another Sitchin critic who argued VA243 was Sagittarius. He retracted that when challenged by Sitchin.

From what the picture says, you have ignored the words and cherry picked just the parts you like and which can be made to fit into you belief system.

I said we should look at the entire picture, you 'cherry picked' part of it. I dont ignore the words, I just dont let them obscure the picture itself. The words were added later as someone's explanation for the symbols. There are competing theories about what the picture represents.

http://ancientworldblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/

That researcher says the cross is actually at the top of the oval. Another theory says the cross is at the bottom with Orion at the top and the oval is the 'cosmic egg'. Another theory says the ellipse is the milky way.

Look at the four stars under the oval that form a cross. it says:

"Chacana en general"
"saramama" is corn mother
"cocamama" is coca mother


The chakana (or Inca Cross) is a stepped cross made up of an equal-armed cross indicating the cardinal points of the compass and a superimposed square.

The 'cross' isn't superimposed on a square nor is it properly oriented toward the oval. The cross in Christian mythology represents the crucifix upon which Jesus was executed, but the cross has a very long history and prehistory and even appears in the Enuma Elish as "Nibiru" - the crossing place. When ancient knowledge was lost or obscured by time people commonly associated those symbols with what they could see, they often adopted the older mythology into a new paradigm.

http://climb-utah.com/Misc/ninemile.htm

As you can see by that rock art, it shows a deity (the horned one 4th from the left) and a stalking warrior at far right. Between them are 5 'gods' with a small one between the last two - Pluto's perihelion is between Uranus and Neptune. The horned deity was killed and the carcass moved to a new location to its left.

The Chakana is associated with the Southern Cross stars not planets. The text on the picture says that. If those four stars represent four planets, then why is Venus shown separately?

Venus played prominent roles as evening and morning 'stars'. The Earth is one of those 4 objects yet it appears in the lower left represented by 7 dots or 'eyes'.

The "Sitchin is wrong" site deals extensively with all the ways this image is incorrectly interpreted by both you and Stitchin.

Will you quote him?

 

[Ajidica]

The sons of God who came down from the heavens and saw the daughters of man

Still not seeing any indication in the Book of Enoch -or the passing mentions they get in Genesis- that the Sons of God were secretly attempting to phone home.

 

[Lexicus]

Can you tell me the basic equations of orbital mechanics?

@Berzerker, I take it the answer to this question is no?

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: I'm starting to wonder about the usefulness of this thread beyond an artistic display of quote walls. But far be it from me to legislate content. What I would like to see is a little bit more discussion, rather than one side just lecturing, please.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I see, belts are not solid...except when they are. So which came first, the solid belt or the not solid belt?

Belts are solid when they're the kind that keep your pants up, or the kind that women wear as decorative accessories.

I haven't demanded that... I said if we were surrounded by a cloud of a billion or trillion comets we should see more than a relative handful.

You keep posting that in a petulant, demanding manner, like you want to see all those Oort Cloud comets NOW, or they don't exist.

I said we see them, not me personally. And we seen them with optical aids.

Exactly. We need optical aids to see them. We wouldn't be able to see them otherwise.

Same with Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Uranus is barely visible to people in dark-sky conditions, if they have fantastically good eyesight. But it looks like just another star, so nobody realized it was a planet. It wasn't discovered until the 18th century.

You've seen the Oort Cloud? "We" have not seen the Oort Cloud and I'm not the only person who has never seen it.

It's sad for you that you were apparently not able to see and appreciate Hyakutake and Hale-Bopp when they came to the inner solar system in the 1990s. Hale-Bopp in particular was spectacular.

So yes, even though I haven't seen the entire Oort Cloud, I have seen part of it.

And where are your sources claiming these 5 formed the basis of ancient cosmologies? How did we get Uranus, Neptune and Pluto to join the 5 you mentioned? Is that just another coincidence? We have copious ancient writings about them too. Thats 8 gods... The sun, Moon and Earth make 11 and that leaves us with the creator as our 12th god. I can identify several civilizations that based their cosmologies on the number 12, I cant identify any based on 5 and thats stunning given that the 5 you mention were visible. Can you explain that?

You do realize that the planets were named after already-made up gods, and not the other way around, right?

Going by this conversation, evidently not.

So if I'm researching a subject I dont want others knowing about, I'd mention it somewhere because? Because why again? Sitchin wrote about the Saturn-Pluto connection and quite a few people have read his books.

Sitchin is not a scientist. He's an opportunist who makes up nonsense and sells it to gullible people just as Velikovsky and von Daniken did, and as every palm reader, tea leaf reader, and astrologer still does.

I dont assume that... Comets were coming and going long before we were here. I'm talking about evidence - craters - of comet bombardments. If a star passed nearby we should see a bunch of comets enter the region of the planets afterward. Right? By dating craters we should be able to show the effect of the Oort Cloud's disruption. If it exists of course... On the other hand, if Sitchin is right and we have a '9th planet' in our system causing these phenomenon then we'd still see bombardment patterns, like the late heavy bombardment 4+ bya when the Earth was struck by several minor planets.

Just because a comet visits the inner solar system, it isn't mandatory for it to hit anything. If the physics of its orbit says it'll crash, it will. If not, it won't. It's not required to fall into step with your wishes.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

They were told about them... They appear in their epic of creation and on a cylinder seal VA243. These two sources corroborate each other.

Told about them by who?