No Sun or Moon

[littlemanpoet]

In the beginning of Middle Earth there is no sun or moon, and it is the Two Trees that give light to the world - or at least to Valinor.

My question: Where did Tolkien get this idea from? I have not read many of the HoME series: does it say anywhere in the many publications of the histories of Middle Earth?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Trees specifically, LMP? My knowledge of mythology doesn't stretch much further than Norway, but they had light before the Sun too -- it came from the original fire in the world.

Reminds me of the Ricky Gervais joke, about God creating the universe in the dark. :D

[littlemanpoet]

Well, trees are what Tolkien puts in there.

What strikes me is that there are ancient mythologies across the world that record a time before the sun was in the sky. I suppose Tolkien must have known about these?

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I do not know anything about the mythological roots of the the Trees, and I can't remember anything ever being said about them in the HoMEs/Letters I've read so far, but I do dimly recall that Tolkien was trying to portray the Sun as a flawed source of light (cf. Ecclesiastes's 'life under the sun').

[littlemanpoet]

Fascinating, Nilp. Every little tidbit of information I pick up on this adds up to some incredible stuff. There is an interdisciplinary school of thought that is researching a new paradigm about the history of our solar system, such that the earth was not always as near the sun as it is now but had other sources of light to sustain life. In it, "life under the sun" is understood as a "second best" condition after cataclysms that ruined the original situation.

[alatar]

What strikes me is that there are ancient mythologies across the world that record a time before the sun was in the sky. I suppose Tolkien must have known about these?
Like in Genesis? :eek: You (and Tolkien) may have come across this... ;)

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

But there's nothing on trees.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

As one learning Hebrew I feel I HAVE TO point out a slight mistake...

Moses in Genesis 1:3-5
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day..

Actually, the Hebrew reads "Yom Ekhad", "Day One". The rest of them are labeled 'second', 'third', 'fourth' and so on. 'One' is absolute, 'first' is comparative. :cool: <--- closests to geeky glasses...

But, yes, you are right, light came before the sun even in Genesis. Though it is not unique even amongst mesopotamian creation narratives. The root word, in Hebrew, is “אור” (Or) which means; to ‘become light’, ‘shine’, ‘be enlightened’, ‘kindle’ and ‘light’. The word is also used to mean; ‘glorious’.
The obvious question is ‘where is the light coming from?’ because we, as yet, do not have the sun. In Jewish mysticism, a lot is said about this light. Some say it is ‘the light of ultimate awareness’. It is given all sorts of attributes, such as being a thousand times brighter than the sun and allowing someone to see across time. What I find most interesting (and this is why I think it is relevant), is that the definition 'to enlighten' is expounded upon in a few writings. That this light is not like visible light, but rather, the light of knowledge. Again, I do not think this idea is restricted to Jewish Mysticism. The idea is that, before the sun, there was a time of 'enlightenment' where knowledge was abounding.

I think this ties in with the idea that there is some sort of 'Golden Age'. The time of the lamps is one that brings the trees that are like living mountains. They never appear again. The time of the Two Trees brings forth many things of beauty, not least, The Silmarills, which are never equaled. This narrative device of a Golden Age is prominent in a lot of Tolkien's work. The Sun and Moon ages are 'normal', whereas the Lamps and the Trees represent a time immemorial, where wisdom was fresh and things were different.

This idea of time before the sun is an interesting one.

[alatar]

As one learning Hebrew I feel I HAVE TO point out a slight mistake...

Actually, the Hebrew reads "Yom Ekhad", "Day One". The rest of them are labeled 'second', 'third', 'fourth' and so on. 'One' is absolute, 'first' is comparative. :cool: <--- closests to geeky glasses...
You will want to let those who collated the NIV, KJV and NKJV. The NASV states it as "one day" and "a fourth day."

And your thoughts regarding 'enlightenment are interesting. Never saw that light before.

This idea of time before the sun is an interesting one.
It comes up frequently when discussing Genesis between those that read it as a literal seven day creation and those that see it as more poetic/allegoric.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

You will want to let those who collated the NIV, KJV and NKJV. The NASV states it as "one day" and "a fourth day."

I can see why they render it 'first', editors want consistency. It also makes it look more poetic (which it is, the Hebrew is filled with alliteration, puns and rhyme). But enough of this nerd fest. :p

I read somewhere once that "Poetry is more interested with truth than history".

Anyway...

Tolkien's vision of an age without the sun fills me with intrigue. I really like the idea. Middle Earth was, presumably, quite cold, at the time, though. ;)
The Lamps raise some interesting topics, though. They are raised on mountains, yet they are fashioned by Aule. So, they are like an ultimate 'work of hands', as it were. How quickly are they thrown down? Pretty quickly. The Trees, a more 'natural' source of light, last a little longer and require Melkor to use a bit more of his cunning. The Sun is what confounds him at the last. Perhaps this is Tolkien's love of nature winning over manufacture coming through. I like to think so.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Going through the Christian beliefs, there was no sun before it was created in Genesis(duh), so the light that was there had to come from somewhere else. The Bible (to my knowledge) doesn't have any reference to what light was before the sun, but Tolkien could've gotten this particular idea from another source like was mentioned before or he could have gotten an idea from nowhere and that could have sparked his imagination to go somewhere else with it. But wherever he got the idea for the two trees, Tolkien probably had to change it somewhat...

[alatar]

This link has a huge list of creation myths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth) from all over the globe. It reminded me that in Greek mythology, the sun (Apollo) and the moon (Artemis) are not born until well after Gaia's been though some ages. Marduk fought Tiamat before making the sun and moon from its corpse. Coyolxauhqui, moon goddess, was created/born before the sun-god Quetzalcoatl.

It would seem that light before the sun and moon is somewhat common, but from trees?

*Note that the moon is not a light source but just a big reflector.

[littlemanpoet]

Like in Genesis? :eek: You (and Tolkien) may have come across this... ;) ..... But there's nothing on trees.On the contrary: there are two trees: one a tree of life, one a tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[alatar]

On the contrary: there are two trees: one a tree of life, one a tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Excellent! Right under my nose and I didn't even see it. And those trees were illuminating too - at least in some sense. :)

[littlemanpoet]

But, yes, you are right, light came before the sun even in Genesis.Not only in Genesis. It's in many myths around the world, as Alatar relates. Mesopotamian, Mesoamerican, Nordic, Oriental, Greek, Egyptian, etc.

The obvious question is ‘where is the light coming from?Indeed. Tolkien's answer was "the Two Trees". Genesis is not the only source for the tree archetype though. The Norse have Yggdrasil. There may be other myths that feature something like it, maybe not a tree..

What's fascinating is that from many myths around the world, the light before the sun comes from what is called, depending upon the ancient culture, "the great sun", "the unmoved mover", "the polar sun", and so forth. The "great sun" is always at the north pole, and it is always associated with the planet Saturn. Which begs the question, "were they all equally nuts, or was earth's sky different within human memory than it is now?"

Obviously, Tolkien didn't pick up on this Saturnian theme. On the contrary, he located his evil persona, Morgoth, in the frigid North instead.

I think this ties in with the idea that there is some sort of 'Golden Age'This again is common to all ancient myths, when the earth produced abundantly, there was no sun, and there was no extreme of hot and cold. All of these cultures' myths share so many inexplicable traits like this, yet they knew nothing of each other. It suggests, strongly, that something was going on that we have forgotten about, or perhaps ignore, calling it "superstition" while not really understanding it.

Tolkien obviously knew a lot about different myths, especially the Norse, Finnish, and Greek, and perhaps Celtic. It comes as no surprise that he incorporated much of the ideas and archetypes from them into Middle Earth.

What I do find intriguing is that in his later years he wanted to try to "correct" his early stories to fit the current structure of the solar system. I think this was a mistake because it is to presume that the solar system always was as it is now. Fact is, it's littered with shrapnel and disarray as if it has been a war zone of some cosmic kind: asteroid belt, comets, various moons and planets with striations crisscrossing them; planets rotating oddly, unstable atmospheres - all of which should not exist in a solar system unchanged for billions of years.

[Aiwendil]

What I do find intriguing is that in his later years he wanted to try to "correct" his early stories to fit the current structure of the solar system. I think this was a mistake because it is to presume that the solar system always was as it is now. Fact is, it's littered with shrapnel and disarray as if it has been a war zone of some cosmic kind: asteroid belt, comets, various moons and planets with striations crisscrossing them; planets rotating oddly, unstable atmospheres - all of which should not exist in a solar system unchanged for billions of years.


I agree that Tolkien's later attempt to "correct" his Legendarium's cosmology was a mistake, but I disagree about why.

Tolkien's concern that the story of the Trees and the flat earth was unbelievable or unrealistic (especially in light of modern science) seems to me to miss a fundamental point - his whole Legendarium was necessarily unrealistic. Of course, nowadays no educated person would believe that the sun and moon were actually the last fruit and flower of two ancient trees; similarly, no educated person would believe that there was once a magical Ring that turned its wearer invisible. Nor that Venus is in fact not a world like ours but rather a radiant gem worn on the brow of a mariner on a ship that can fly.

To attempt to make the Legendarium scientifically accurate would have been to discard the whole thing and invent an entirely new story. These things are not realistic; they cannot be made realistic save by deleting them; and they are not supposed to be realistic for these are works of fantasy. I, for one, find the late 'Myths Transformed' mythology no more believable than the earlier one, and significantly less beautiful.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Aiwendil, you bring up an interesting point there - perhaps Tolkien's mythology of decreasing beauty and power applies to himself as well?! His later revisions did not equal the power and imagination of his first sub-creative works.

[Eönwë]

Trees specifically, LMP? My knowledge of mythology doesn't stretch much further than Norway, but they had light before the Sun too -- it came from the original fire in the world.

The flame imperiahable?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Interesting thought, Eönwë. The flame imperishable was more central, though, as opposed to the fire and ice of Norse mythology. But there's another thread for that, started by Rune, which is very interesting. :)

[littlemanpoet]

I agree that Tolkien's later attempt to "correct" his Legendarium's cosmology was a mistake, but I disagree about why.... - his whole Legendarium was necessarily unrealistic. Of course, nowadays no educated person would believe that the sun and moon were actually the last fruit and flower of two ancient trees; similarly, no educated person would believe that there was once a magical Ring that turned its wearer invisible. Nor that Venus is in fact not a world like ours but rather a radiant gem worn on the brow of a mariner on a ship that can fly.Of course. These are beautiful symbols meant to convey something real.

To attempt to make the Legendarium scientifically accurate would have been to discard the whole thing and invent an entirely new story.I would distinguish between a few points here. To discard the whole thing would be tragic. To invent an entirely new story would be wonderful. In Tolkien's case, I think this would not have mattered so much considering that he kept many of his previous drafts. As to making the Legendarium scientifically accurate, this I think was a waste of time because we can't be sure to what degree current science is, in fact, an accurate representation of what is real. For example, Black Holes and neutron stars have never been proven to exist. But more significantly a 'uniformitarian' paradigm for the history of the solar system is falling apart like a house of cards the more we explore it. Yet the current scientific community writes as if they are all givens.

These things are not realistic...This is in my opinion an unfortunate word choice. If, by realistic, you mean "not accurate according to current scientific and cultural understanding", I can agree. If, however, you mean "not real", then I cannot agree on the grounds that it cannot be proven that material phenomena understood by modern humans is all that is real.

But all this deviates from the main thread I am most interested in pursuing, which is: what is Tolkien's basis for a pre-sun and moon Golden Age?

[Eönwë]

Interesting thought, Eönwë. The flame imperishable was more central, though, as opposed to the fire and ice of Norse mythology.

Remind you of anyone in the sil?

[He] is clad in ice and crownd with smoke and fire; the light of the eyes of Melkor was like a flame that withers with heat and pierces with a deadly cold

Or perhaps the lamps in BoLT (No! I just packed this book.:()

edit: sorry, Elempi, I wrote this before you said that, and just forgot to press the post button.

[Eönwë]

This link has a huge list of creation myths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth) from all over the globe.

Did you notice this? When the animals who lived up in the heavens saw how beautiful the world was, they begged Kamui to let them go and live on it, and he did. But Kamui also made many other creatures especially for the world. The first people, the Ainu, had bodies of earth, hair of chickweed, and spines made from sticks of willow. Kamui sent Aioina, the divine man, down from heaven to teach the Ainu how to hunt and to cook.
Sounds familiar....hmm....

[alatar]

Which begs the question, "were they all equally nuts, or was earth's sky different within human memory than it is now?"
Not nuts, and nor was the sky different. We looked at what we 'knew' and extrapolated that into 'how the heavens worked.' You looked up at your hut roof, and if you could hang (or even just imagine hanging) a light up there, well then a god, who was pretty much like you but just bigger, older, wiser and with greater powers, hung its lights in its hut called Earth.

This again is common to all ancient myths, when the earth produced abundantly, there was no sun, and there was no extreme of hot and cold. All of these cultures' myths share so many inexplicable traits like this, yet they knew nothing of each other. It suggests, strongly, that something was going on that we have forgotten about, or perhaps ignore, calling it "superstition" while not really understanding it.
I'm a little intrigued regarding your intended meaning. And not all myths share 'many' features; think that we just interpret them that way. Surely there'd be some overlap - all cultures lived under the sun and moon, but how they thought of these (objects, gods, vessels) differed. And I think that it's easier to talk about the olden days being Golden as many people remember the good times and forget/bottle up the bad. Think of your parents lives - everything was wonderful when they were growing up, not the 'going to the dogs' world we live in today. I'm currently gathering items to later tell my grandchildren so that they can have the same experience - Grandpap alatar lived in the golden days when you could still buy gasoline.

Anyway, what all of these stories are is science. This thought helps me when thinking of ancient writings. Those people way back when did their best to describe what they saw and how it may have worked. They might of been completely wrong, but that happens in science today as well.

While I'm warming up my rant...what really annoys me is when persons want to pick and chose the science they want to believe (which is nuts in itself - believing in the theory of gravity or not does not change the outcome of jumping from a roof). If you think that science today is wrong and the science of 2000-4000 years ago is perfect, well, that's fine with me. Just give up your cell phone and germ theory.

Sorry.

What I do find intriguing is that in his later years he wanted to try to "correct" his early stories to fit the current structure of the solar system. I think this was a mistake because it is to presume that the solar system always was as it is now. Fact is, it's littered with shrapnel and disarray as if it has been a war zone of some cosmic kind: asteroid belt, comets, various moons and planets with striations crisscrossing them; planets rotating oddly, unstable atmospheres - all of which should not exist in a solar system unchanged for billions of years.
That's sad. To me it's fine as it is; flat then round as we see that a change is made. It even makes for more mythology...like the Straight Road.


For example, Black Holes and neutron stars have never been proven to exist. But more significantly a 'uniformitarian' paradigm for the history of the solar system is falling apart like a house of cards the more we explore it. Yet the current scientific community writes as if they are all givens.
:eek: :eek: :eek:

You can find some definitive information regarding black holes (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/main/index.html) at this site. And this link (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2005/05-171.html) shows how wrong science can be as they thought this star was going to become a black hole, but it became a neutron star instead. No points for that one.

Note that these observations validate the math predicting such things. Think that Einstein's work showed that these things should exist. Not sure what your last sentence means.

Anyway, Darwin talked about a tree of life (common descent) but I don't think that this tree provided any visible light, as did Tolkien's trees did at the beginning.

[Lush]

Hey now. I'm both with lmp and alatar on this one. Anyone ever heard about Ken Wilber's ideas? I don't necessarily buy into his thinking as much as I believe that it has opened up a new door: the idea that both science and religion hold the key to understanding reality from a single perspective. Wilber believes that science as it is today is too narrow, though he also claims that narrow science is more developed than narrow religion.

I know that the moon and the sun are not magical fruits, but another part of me thinks that there is a reason why someone would believe that, and that reason goes well beyond "teh primitive peoples r primitive" meme. I think there is a lot to the universe that the human eye does not see, but that another part of us does. I think Tolkien taps into that part in a mean way.

[skip spence]

what really annoys me is when persons want to pick and chose the science they want to believe

Seconded,

I guess that's what makes a religious fundamentionalist: people not being able to acknowledge, to themselves or others, that they choose some parts of science or holy books to believe in and other parts to ignore.

Reminds me of the creationist-nuts in the US who've sexed up the old genesis-story trying to make it appear like serious science. I used to know a guy who ranted on about evolution being impossible due to the law of entropy, among other ludicrous pieces of "evidence". He was also convinced the moonlanding never happened, and that no airplanes hit the twin towers at 9/11. :rolleyes:

I've got the impression that Tolkien wanted to revise his mythology to make it more plausable as a real but ancient part of our history. Guess he figured his modern readers would find the idea of a flat earth and life without the sun quite primitive and far fetched. He himself certainly wasn't happy about it.

[littlemanpoet]

Not nuts, and nor was the sky different. We looked at what we 'knew' and extrapolated that into 'how the heavens worked.' You looked up at your hut roof, and if you could hang (or even just imagine hanging) a light up there, well then a god, who was pretty much like you but just bigger, older, wiser and with greater powers, hung its lights in its hut called Earth.How do you know that this is how myths came to be? You see, farflung cultures recorded a Golden Age followed by cataclysms that destroyed the Golden Age. They created rites (sometimes quite gruesome) that recapitulated both Golden Age and the destroying cataclysms so that (1) they would not forget them (2) they might appease the gods and "head off a repetition of the cataclysms" (which by the way always seems to have to do with comets). They intended to remember something that had been lost. If only one culture had done this, we could say that a regional conflagration of some sort occurred. That the same kind of cataclysm is described in farflung cultures, does not merely suggest, but leads a reasonable mind to ask what can be understood from the strange points of agreement from culture to culture.

I'm a little intrigued regarding your intended meaning. And not all myths share 'many' features; think that we just interpret them that way.There is a hermeneutic of comparing myths. One must take the culture's mode of expression as a given, and allow it to say what it says, suspending judgement until comprehension is as complete as it can become. The results, across many different mythologies, are striking in their similarity.

Before we get any further, let me just clarify to the moderators that this bears on Tolkien's legendarium to a great degree in that he picked up on many of these themes, but not all.

Points of similarity:

a sun god who is the benevolent universal ruler par excellence, who resided at the north pole, and is associated with the planet Saturn
an anatomically impossible dragon, sometimes bearded, or hairy, flying across the sky, wreaking destruction upon earth
a comet which is the heart of the dying sun god, which bursts forth into the heavens, and is associated with the planet Venus


These are not the only similarities from culture to culture. Tolkien does not record any comets, but does record the planet Venus, as not having always been in the sky. The universal ruler is in middle earth the evil Morgoth, residing in the northern Angband. What is intruguing to me is that Tolkien turns the "par excellence" of the benevolent deity on its head. Obviously, Tolkien has a number of dragons.

Those people way back when did their best to describe what they saw and how it may have worked.That is a fundamental part of what I'm trying to get across.

They might of been completely wrong, but that happens in science today as well.I'd like to qualify this in this way: they might have been completely wrong that they were gods, but suppose that what they were trying to describe really did occur. There is too much agreement from culture to culture to ignore that something must have happened (except that it is being ignored by and large).

While I'm warming up my rant...what really annoys me is when persons want to pick and chose the science they want to believe (which is nuts in itself - believing in the theory of gravity or not does not change the outcome of jumping from a roof). If you think that science today is wrong and the science of 2000-4000 years ago is perfect, well, that's fine with me. Just give up your cell phone and germ theory.You mis-apprehend what I'm saying. The reason I have a problem with much of modern science is that when confronted with yet more evidence that the paradigm is wrong, our scientists do not question the paradigm; instead they create yet another ad hoc theory that cannot be tested in any lab.

Regarding black holes, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a thing cannot exist with an infinite degree of any one aspect of reality, such as gravity. Black holes have, according to theory, infinite gravitational force. So either one or the other is incorrect; yet, modern science is not denying Einstein's theory, nor is it admitting that black holes cannot exist. With good science, either one or the other must be put to rest.

[Aiwendil]

That the same kind of cataclysm is described in farflung cultures, does not merely suggest, but leads a reasonable mind to ask what can be understood from the strange points of agreement from culture to culture.

Indeed - and I would say that what can be understood from this are certain facts about the human mind and human society. This explanation is quite viable and does not contradict the preponderance of scientific evidence; whereas an explanation such as "the myths are actually true" does.

a sun god who is the benevolent universal ruler par excellence, who resided at the north pole, and is associated with the planet Saturn
an anatomically impossible dragon, sometimes bearded, or hairy, flying across the sky, wreaking destruction upon earth
a comet which is the heart of the dying sun god, which bursts forth into the heavens, and is associated with the planet Venus

Are you really claiming that these are three points of similarity across all (or most) natural mythologies? I'd have to disagree. Number 1 is true of Egyptian mythology, for example, but certainly not of Greek nor Aztec nor Indian nor even really of Germanic (Odin/Woden is a sky god but not specifically a sun god). I will concede that number 2 is fairly universal - most myths have at least some kind of monster, though not necessarily a flying one. As for number 3 - though I don't doubt that you know of some mythos with this element, I confess I can think of none in which a comet is the heart of the dying sun god.

You mis-apprehend what I'm saying. The reason I have a problem with much of modern science is that when confronted with yet more evidence that the paradigm is wrong, our scientists do not question the paradigm; instead they create yet another ad hoc theory that cannot be tested in any lab.

Though I am admittedly biased, being a scientist myself, I cannot help but think that you have mis-apprehended the nature of the scientific method. When new evidence is presented that contradicts current theories, those theories are rejected in favour of new theories with which the evidence does agree. Sometimes multiple such theories are proposed and must compete with each other. The only criterion for success is that the theory agrees with the evidence. Usually, the new theories that are proposed are modelled very closely on the old, rejected theory - which makes sense if the rejected theory was reasonably succesful. Sometimes, though, when necessary, the whole conceptual framework is rejected and replaced with a new one. General relativity is a perfect example. When the evidence finally built up that Newtonian mechanics was not correct, and that no easy modifications could bring it into line with the data, its whole paradigm of absolute space and forces was rejected.

Regarding black holes, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a thing cannot exist with an infinite degree of any one aspect of reality, such as gravity. Black holes have, according to theory, infinite gravitational force. So either one or the other is incorrect; yet, modern science is not denying Einstein's theory, nor is it admitting that black holes cannot exist. With good science, either one or the other must be put to rest.

This is actually a fairly common misconception. As a matter of fact, general relativity has been put to rest in a manner of speaking. We know now that it is not a valid theory for describing phenomena like black holes, where the strength of gravity becomes as powerful as the other forces. The only trouble is we don't yet have a new theory that adequately describes both gravity (which GR does all right at in most cases) and the other forces (which are, on their own, fairly well described by quantum field theories).

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Having long been a student of mythology, I believe that one should consider the definition of "myth." One I personally prefer is stated in the Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend:

Myth: A story, presented as having actually occurred in a previous age, explaining the cosmological and supernatural traditions of a people, their gods, heroes, cultural traits, religious beliefs, etc. The purpose of myth is to explain, and, as Sir G.L. Gomme said, myths explain matters in "the science of a pre-scientific age." Thus myths tell of the creation of man, of animals, of landmarks; they tell why a certain animal has its characteristics (e.g. why the bat is blind or flies only at night), why or how certain natural phenomena came to be (e.g.why the rainbow appears or how the constellation Orion got into the sky), how and why rituals and ceremonies began and why they continue. Not all origin stories are myths, however; the myth must have a religious background in that its principal actor or actors are deities; the stories are thus systematized at least to the extent that they are related to a corpus of other stories in which the given god is the member of a pantheon. Where such interrelation does not occur, and where the gods or demigods do not appear, such stories are properly classified as folktale.

As Tolkien said that his tales were an attempt to create a mythology for England, I feel he succeeded quite well, and that any later attempt to try to make those tales more scientifically accurate was a mistake. The beauty of myth does not lie in its scientific precision, but rather in how it shows the ingenuity of the human mind, striving to understand the world in which it lives, as best it is able. In my humble opinion, of course.

That said, trees play major parts in many myths about the early world (the Tree of Life, the Tree of Knowledge, Yggdrasil, etc.) and there certainly are quite a few myths about the bringing of light and/or fire from the gods to man (Prometheus comes screaming to mind :)). I find the Two Trees a clever and elegant blend of such myths. I don't believe Tolkien was the first to invent a tree of light (I'd have to dig up some of my more esoteric mythology texts to check it out, but I seem to recall such tales in some Eastern mythologies), but he may have been the first to use it as a basis for a myth to explain the reality of the sun and moon.

Just my two cents', as ever. :D

[Lush]

lmp - I strongly suggest that you check out Ken Wilber. You don't have to be into Buddhism to get good stuff out of him. Who knows? You might really like him.

[alatar]

How do you know that this is how myths came to be?
I don't; that was one possible explanation. Another is that, as we all came from Africa, that maybe sometime earlier in time some event did happen that was remembered by the various tribes that eventually populated the world. So in that, maybe we're in agreement.

You see, farflung cultures recorded a Golden Age followed by cataclysms that destroyed the Golden Age. They created rites (sometimes quite gruesome) that recapitulated both Golden Age and the destroying cataclysms so that (1) they would not forget them (2) they might appease the gods and "head off a repetition of the cataclysms" (which by the way always seems to have to do with comets). They intended to remember something that had been lost. If only one culture had done this, we could say that a regional conflagration of some sort occurred. That the same kind of cataclysm is described in farflung cultures, does not merely suggest, but leads a reasonable mind to ask what can be understood from the strange points of agreement from culture to culture.
Again, I think that we agree. Where we may differ is in the event itself. Maybe we should define "Golden Age" that we may know it when we see it. As wonderful as the past may have been, I'm not willing to give up my current life and culture in exchange, as I don't see anything worth the trade. I have indoor plumbing, the ability to travel faster than sound, heat/cooling when I want it and that grail of grails, Google, that knows everything. ;)

There is a hermeneutic of comparing myths. One must take the culture's mode of expression as a given, and allow it to say what it says, suspending judgement until comprehension is as complete as it can become. The results, across many different mythologies, are striking in their similarity.
Again, I would assume that there would be similarities. We're all the same species, came from one place via various migrations, have the same physiology and live in similar environments (i.e. under the sun, need water and food, see the moon, etc). But to say "striking?" I'm not willing to concede that without evidence.

Here's a link to Encyclopedia Mythica (http://www.pantheon.org/) that might be helpful.

Before we get any further, let me just clarify to the moderators that this bears on Tolkien's legendarium to a great degree in that he picked up on many of these themes, but not all.
Thanks; I see myself getting censored as I'm not sure I can say what I want and keep on-topic.

Points of similarity:

a sun god who is the benevolent universal ruler par excellence, who resided at the north pole, and is associated with the planet Saturn
an anatomically impossible dragon, sometimes bearded, or hairy, flying across the sky, wreaking destruction upon earth
a comet which is the heart of the dying sun god, which bursts forth into the heavens, and is associated with the planet Venus

Not sure that Scientology has any of those.

These are not the only similarities from culture to culture. Tolkien does not record any comets, but does record the planet Venus, as not having always been in the sky. The universal ruler is in middle earth the evil Morgoth, residing in the northern Angband. What is intruguing to me is that Tolkien turns the "par excellence" of the benevolent deity on its head. Obviously, Tolkien has a number of dragons.
Regarding comets and what people believed about them, I recommend the documentation by Andrew White in Chapter 4 (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Chapter4.html) of The War of Science with Theology published in 1896.

You mis-apprehend what I'm saying. The reason I have a problem with much of modern science is that when confronted with yet more evidence that the paradigm is wrong, our scientists do not question the paradigm; instead they create yet another ad hoc theory that cannot be tested in any lab.
I thank Aiwendil for answering this. I would add that maybe the reason for friction between our two ways of seeing things it that from one side, everything that can ever be known already has been recorded, and from the other, we haven't even started knowing anything. I make no assumptions, and state this as tactfully as I can, but do you see it as having to fit observations to what you already 'know?' Science, as stated, sometimes has to throw everything out and start down a new path. It's not comfortable, yet what we want to 'be' and what 'is' are two different things, and wishing earnestly that the world conformed to how we want it to be changes how it works not one wit.

Not that I would want to know that the reason I fell in love with my wife and had four children which I adore is all due to the the Grand Equation of Everything. Even it that existed, it would make my experiences no less enjoyable and real.

Think of what science would be doing to poor Pluto, the Roman god of the dead. I understand that he wasn't named after the planet (or planetoid). In their mythology, he was a pretty important god, managing the dead and all, and with his kidnapping of Proserpina, caused winter. And he was also associated with wealth.

Science would be promoting and demoting him yearly as they decided where his place was. That, to me, is why it was mistaken of Tolkien to rewrite his works to be more scientifically correct. Science can change; a beautiful story with meaning does not have to to be great.

Regarding black holes, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a thing cannot exist with an infinite degree of any one aspect of reality, such as gravity. Black holes have, according to theory, infinite gravitational force. So either one or the other is incorrect; yet, modern science is not denying Einstein's theory, nor is it admitting that black holes cannot exist. With good science, either one or the other must be put to rest.
Maybe I was in error saying that General Relativity said thus; any errors are surely mine. But, in regards to the existence of a Black Hole, all I can say is, "and yet it removes..." :)

[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil, why the human mind and human society only?

Also, let me clarify: I am not saying "the myths are true". I'm writing fiction about that myself. I am suggesting that ancient cultures described to the best of their ability (what we choose to call mythology) something that really happened in the sky of their time, which we find almost impossible to believe because what they described is not what we see now.

As for "across all myths", I misspoke. There are ancient cultures respected for their highly accurate recordings of the night sky, namely Egypt, Mesoamerica, and Babylon, where these strange similarities crop up. These, by the way, are starting points.

The heart of the dying sun god story comes from mesoamerican cultures: Mayan and Aztec.

I understand the scientific method and what you say about theories contradicted by new evidence. What I'm talking about, however, is an entire paradigm issue by which certain theories are not even allowed to be considered by those who hold scientific power in universities. Kind of like the literati who refuse to accept Tolkien's works as good literature because it doesn't fit their narrow view of what good literature ought to be.

On general relativity, are you saying the theory has been put to rest in some cases but not others, or that it has been put to rest completely? Being a theory about general relativity, I do believe I am correct in understanding that it purports to account for all forces in relation to each other: gravity, electromageticsm, weak and strong forces (of some kind), and that in relation to each other, no force can be infinite precisely because it must BE in relation to the other forces. If that is incorrect, how?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I agree with what you say, lmp! for the ancient people their gods were real and their actions mattered to them; understanding the nature of their gods may well help them understand their own function. Or something like that...

The sky is an interesting thing. For many ancient religions, the sky was the place where the gods dwelt. The mighty Ziggurats of Mesopotamia stretch up into the Heavens and are believed to have acted as portals for the gods to ascend and descend. It is not only the Creation poem of Genesis that describes it as dividing the waters above from the waters below. It seems to act as a sort of shield against the heavenly waters. Indeed, the Hebrew word for what we call 'the firmament' actually means, literally, a 'beaten metal plate' usually armour. In some traditions (especially Egyptian), mountains are said to hold the sky up. Indeed, some Egyptian texts suggest that the sky was considered to be made of a sort of iron of which pieces often fell to earth. It is not uncommon for the sky to be made before the sun. Often the Sun is a watcher of the skies and the earth. Horus of Egypt is a good example.

I think we all need to remember that Tolkien was one who loved the myths and legends. Science and cosmology were not his forté, so we can't expect them to be his prominent motifs in Middle Earth. We can argue over how true these myths are, but in the end, will that really get us close to what is going on in Middle Earth? Tolkien said in an interview that Middle Earth was our world but at 'a different level of imagination'. I think this is the point. The human imagination is always looking for explanations for the world around us; what better way than to tell stories? We can't assume that all ancient people were just mindless idiots, they had more sense than we often think. Ideas and the progress of stories is only stopped by those greedy for power for themselves. Stories have power, and if you control the stories, you have a lot of control over people. That way tyranny lies. It is therefore interesting to look at some nomadic myths which go through lots of changes, often based on what they see and experience. Many of the tales of the Torah may well be such; Nomads' tales passed from generation to generation.

Urm... I think I'm heading off on a tangent here...

The sun is an important figure to humanity. It gives our little planet more than 90% of its energy. As it is the dominant figure in the sky, I suspect that those who looked around and saw that the world wasn't exactly perfect, made some sort of connection. Perhaps this is where the idea of a pre-sun time came from; the desire to return to a state of none-corruption.
This is mostly guesswork, you understand...

[alatar]

Also, let me clarify: I am not saying "the myths are true". I'm writing fiction about that myself. I am suggesting that ancient cultures described to the best of their ability (what we choose to call mythology) something that really happened in the sky of their time, which we find almost impossible to believe because what they described is not what we see now.
Again, I think that we agree somewhat. The science of the ancients was the best that they could do at that time; also, the writings etc that we have from those ancient days may be a subset of what was known. As far as we know, someone somewhere wrote about germ theory, but the papyri were destroyed in the drowning of Númenor (though I doubt it ;)).

As for "across all myths", I misspoke. There are ancient cultures respected for their highly accurate recordings of the night sky, namely Egypt, Mesoamerica, and Babylon, where these strange similarities crop up. These, by the way, are starting points.
It occurred to me a possible reason why 'light' is created before the sun. Those of you up and outside earlier enough in the morning (when you are waiting for the morning paper at the end of your driveway...;)) may have observed that it becomes light before the sun rises. Some maybe the ancients were just explaining what they observed, which if you assumed a flat earth...

What I'm talking about, however, is an entire paradigm issue by which certain theories are not even allowed to be considered by those who hold scientific power in universities.
Such as? Note that if there exists a scientific cabal, they have yet to allow me to join. Not saying that this is what you mean, but if you want to add 'supernatural' to the mix, then science becomes useless, though a cushy job if you can get it. Why does the moon orbit the Earth? The god created it that way, so we're done and so can go for ice cream (which sounds like a good idea). If a god, by definition, can do anything - even violate its own laws - then what's the use?

Kind of like the literati who refuse to accept Tolkien's works as good literature because it doesn't fit their narrow view of what good literature ought to be.
Not exactly. The Soviets practiced Lysenkoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) and ignored the works of Mendel. Was it just subjective opinion? Did they just prefer red to blue, or think that vanilla ice cream was capitalistic? No, using the wrong 'science' - Lysenkoism was a belief based on faith and not evidence - people starved.

On general relativity, are you saying the theory has been put to rest in some cases but not others, or that it has been put to rest completely? Being a theory about general relativity, I do believe I am correct in understanding that it purports to account for all forces in relation to each other: gravity, electromageticsm, weak and strong forces (of some kind), and that in relation to each other, no force can be infinite precisely because it must BE in relation to the other forces. If that is incorrect, how?
First, nothing in science is *ever* put to rest. One of science's strong points is that it constantly tests itself (sure, sometimes the establishment isn't too happy about the new and so tries to squash things, but doesn't this take place everywhere humans are involved?), constantly trying to disprove theories. Scientists do not assume that what's true today will be true tomorrow. Not that there won't be some carryover, as usually ideas are refined and not always thrown out, but, in the end, more information leads to more understanding.

Think that this is why people don't 'get' science. How much more comforting - even to me - to think that everything is known, all is well and someone is minding the shop. How annoying and even scary to know that what you think you know may not be how things truly are.

On the other hand, note that gravity is a theory. If, and the day will come (see below), this theory is modified or overturned, you won't go floating off into space.

Regarding Relativity and Quantum Mechanics: This site (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_home.html) should make your head hurt. At issue is how to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics. So far, much has been conjectured but nothing proven. How will it all pan out? Don't know, but what I find amusing is that, one day a thousand years from now some person will dust off a 2008 physics book and look and laugh.

"I can't believe they thought that the universe was..." :D

[littlemanpoet]

lmp - I strongly suggest that you check out Ken Wilber. You don't have to be into Buddhism to get good stuff out of him. Who knows? You might really like him.

I did check him out before you posted this. His Buddhism doesn't throw me off so much as his promotion of the sciences of supernatural phenomena. Being Christian, I think he is in dangerous waters.

Alatar, I doubt that the recordings of cataclysm go back to prehistoric humanity because (according to my limited knowledge), that which was recorded reveals a rather highly developed understanding and ability to measure the phenomena outside the earth's atmosphere, such as among Babylonians, Mesoamericans, and Egyptians. Additionally, the symbols used for recording these phenomena are quite ideosyncratic to each culture. This suggests that the events occurred within the memory of a culture, but before writing was invented.

Regarding a Golden Age, I have no interest in "going back" either; but I do wish to understand what the ancients meant to convey.

I think science NEEDS to chuck everything and start down a new path.

[alatar]

Alatar, I doubt that the recordings of cataclysm go back to prehistoric humanity because (according to my limited knowledge), that which was recorded reveals a rather highly developed understanding and ability to measure the phenomena outside the earth's atmosphere, such as among Babylonians, Mesoamericans, and Egyptians.
Yes and no. Not that I am not amazed by what they did learn and know, but show me one of these cultures that knew of the planet Neptune. And even more interestingly, why didn't the astrologers know of this and other planets, as each of these massive objects surely had some effect on the person's destiny.

Additionally, the symbols used for recording these phenomena are quite ideosyncratic to each culture. This suggests that the events occurred within the memory of a culture, but before writing was invented.
I'm sorry; I'm not sure what (or all) phenomena to which you refer. What would be amazing is a culture that knew nothing of the sun or moon.

Regarding a Golden Age, I have no interest in "going back" either; but I do wish to understand what the ancients meant to convey.
Agreed, but again I think that the message was more psychological than scientific. Some today consider the 1950's the Golden Age as you had drive-in restaurants and cars with fins. Gas was cheap, and everyone wore bobby socks (whatever they were).

I think science NEEDS to chuck everything and start down a new path.
Meaning? Science does this to some extent, but definitely not to the extent you intend. Should we give up the scientific method? Observe, assume, test, refine, repeat?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Mind you that the Sun-tree and Moon-tree featured in "Valinor", almost the first poem Tolkien wrote containing elements of his later legendarium- 1914 IIRC.

Tolkien's imagination often ran to vignettes or tableaux- scenes intensely visualized which then wound up generating tales. You can still see some of this in the LR. It's characteristic of Tolkien's pre-Somme poems that they depict static scenes- snapshots of an Otherworld which as yet has no history, indeed doesn't appear to move in Time at all (except for the characteristic sense of fading, decay and lost grandeur). It's probably fair to say that "Valinor" and other similar poems like "Habbanan" and "Earendel" predate the mythology, in that they were written without any idea of a narrative or 'historical' context: that was built up around them.

My personal theory is that the idea of the history didn't arise until, and arose because, Tolkien invented a *second* Elvish language, Gnomish/Goldogrin. To a comparative philologist, you coudn't have two related languages, descended through many sound-shifts from a common ancestor, without the populations that spoke them having becaome separated and subjected to different influences. The question immediately presents itself, Why? Tolkien's answer was the 'travail of the Noldoli,' the unwritten Gilfanon's Tale. It was of course characteristic of JRRT to envision an end-state and work towards it, but never get there (vide the Voyages of Earendil).

[littlemanpoet]

Yes and no. Not that I am not amazed by what they did learn and know, but show me one of these cultures that knew of the planet Neptune. And even more interestingly, why didn't the astrologers know of this and other planets, as each of these massive objects surely had some effect on the person's destiny.Neptune is, of course, not visible to the human eye and needed the invention of the telescope. What, in your mind, is the significance of the ancients not knowing about Neptune other than to point out that they didn't have telescopes? As to planetary effect on people's destinies, are you going tongue in cheek? I think astrology in terms of planetary influence on one's destiny is off the mark. But one must wonder why every culture has a tradition of associating disaster with comets? Please, do try to allow yourself to consider that, just maybe, it's not a matter of psychology.

I'm sorry; I'm not sure what (or all) phenomena to which you refer. What would be amazing is a culture that knew nothing of the sun or moon.Apologies. One such complex of images from culture to culture are: the bearded flying dragon; the hairy flying dragon; the flying hairy witch; (bearded Santa Claus riding from the north pole behind his flying reindeer perhaps being a remnant of this); and these dragons and witch symbols serving in these ancient cultures as the symbol for a comet; and further, this comet symbol being the same symbol used for the planet Venus. Either the mesoamericans in particular really had themselves confused, or they were describing something they were seeing in the sky. (Oh, and we can add to this the Greek mythic legend of Venus being born from the head of Jupiter). These are just some examples.

Agreed, but again I think that the message was more psychological than scientific. Some today consider the 1950's the Golden Age as you had drive-in restaurants and cars with fins. Gas was cheap, and everyone wore bobby socks (whatever they were).

Meaning? Science does this to some extent, but definitely not to the extent you intend. Should we give up the scientific method? Observe, assume, test, refine, repeat?No, I'm speaking of paradigms. Have you read the work of Thomas Kuhn? Think of the old folk tale of the 7 blind men and the elephant. One of the blind men feels the elephant's leg and concludes that it is a tree, because it feels like a tree. He even goes so far as to discover four trees! And better yet, rounding on one "side" of these four trees, he comes across a very maleable branch, and decides that he has come across a new species of tree.

Try this out: suppose that the magnetic field of the Earth, and gravity, and lightning, and sunspots, and solar wind, and the nodal tapestry of magnetic fields surrounding the sun's "face", are all directly related to each other. What might the mechanism be?

Just thought I'd lay that out there. It seems no clearer answer than that from William Cloud Hicklin will come by way of answer to my original question, and therefore I would have to say that this thread is starting to not be about Tolkien; but you asked the question, so I answered.

[mark12_30]

If I recall correctly, in one of the early versions of the two trees, the elves collected the--- water? Lamp juice?-- from the broken lamps and kept it in pools, basins, resevoirs (which glowed). THen they used this water to , er, water the trees. And the trees shone that way.

Not as nice, perhaps, as trees that shine all by themselves. I think I prefer Laurelin and Telperion having their own intrinsic glow.

If one compares them(Laurelin & Telperion) to the tree of Life and the tree of Good and Evil.... did those trees shine? or of not physically shine, did they in a sense give off revelation?

[alatar]

Neptune is, of course, not visible to the human eye and needed the invention of the telescope. What, in your mind, is the significance of the ancients not knowing about Neptune other than to point out that they didn't have telescopes?
We now can see farther. Should we base our understanding on our solar system pre- or post- telescope? Which would be a more accurate reflection of reality? When we sent a probe out of the solar system, we (not me - had nothing to do with it ;))...we had to take this planet into account. Ancient beings could be indifferent to Neptune the planet as it had no effect on them. They didn't know it was even there...like germs, the stratosphere, the motion of the planet, etc.

Neptune/Poseidon/Ulmo, however...

As to planetary effect on people's destinies, are you going tongue in cheek?
Surely you know me better than that.

I think astrology in terms of planetary influence on one's destiny is off the mark.
It's called ad hoc. Science discovers a new planet and suddenly the astrologers account for its influence. Do they state that all previous readings were in error?

But one must wonder why every culture has a tradition of associating disaster with comets?
Maybe because some comets caused disasters when their smaller cousins - meteors - smashed into the Earth. That and we are a pattern-seeking lot. Give a person a few random points and s/he will string along a very nice story.

When Julius Caesar was born/died - one of the two - supposedly a comet streaked through the sky. Is there anyone of the same importance today that we could watch that would necessitate the same heavenly signs? And with our telescopes, we have a lot more comets to pick from.

Please, do try to allow yourself to consider that, just maybe, it's not a matter of psychology.
I hope to be as open as stated in your sig. But think of the fun we can have with comets. As we know - for many of them - when they will pass by, we can ask those that believe what events will happen before the comet is here, and then see what happens when it does occur. Also, as many comets are known in history, we can see if truly any event actually occurred at that time. As I noted earlier, Andrew White wrote much about comets and what was believed about them, and, as we gained telescopes and some insight, how our beliefs turned from 'objects thrown by an angry god' to a 'big ball of ice to which we sent a probe.'

And I wonder just what the Shoemaker-Levy (http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/) comet was trying to say when it smashed into Jupiter on 22-July-1994.

Will consider the rest of your interesting post when time permits ("Santa the bearded witch dragon...hmmm, it's all starting to make sense.") ;)

[littlemanpoet]

... did they in a sense give off revelation?Hah! :) That would be opening a can of tree-worms, or worse, splitting wood. :p

We now can see farther. Should we base our understanding on our solar system pre- or post- telescope?Are you suggesting that because we have the telescope, any pre-telescope record of the solar system should be discounted or dismissed? ... or just treated with a great deal of suspicion? ... or some other tool of the skeptical mind? Alatar, let's suppose that there's a ship on the ocean on which no one has a spyglass. On the voyage, a storm of hurricane proportions passes by but just misses the ship's route. Everyone onboard ship sees it, and they bring back stories about it. Meanwhile, there was another ship on the ocean and these folks had spyglasses, but they were miles and miles farther away so that even with their spyglasses they didn't see any hurricane. They came ashore and insisted that the people on board the ship without spyglasses obviously were at a disadvantage and couldn't know that there was no hurricane.

If something cataclysmic did happen that could be seen by the naked eye from earth, within cultural memory of the ancients, and they recorded it to the best of their ability, that we have telescopes now with which to view the CURRENT make up of the solar system matters not a whit unless we admit that perhaps they DID see something we would do well to acknowledge, to help our understanding of the solar system.

There are so many signs of violent disruption throughout the solar system that to posit that nothing unusual has happened for billions of years is simply ridiculous. What happened to the planet that used to be the asteroid belt? How did the same kinds of crazy markings appear on Mars and other planets but not others? How is it that some moons and asteroids and planets have one kind of geologlical make up while another set, mixed through each other has a different geological make up? It's like two sets of pool balls had been sent flying across the pool table from different ends, bouncing every which way until they came to rest where they currently are.

[alatar]

Are you suggesting that because we have the telescope, any pre-telescope record of the solar system should be discounted or dismissed?
We hold to what is true. The earth revolves around the sun and not the converse. Regardless, as I was saying, to me the sun "rises in the east and sets in the west," and knowing that this isn't exactly accurate does not diminish its beauty, as surely the ancients thought as well.

... or just treated with a great deal of suspicion?
I treat everything with a great deal of suspicion...except my own pet theories and sacred cows. ;)

Alatar, let's suppose that there's a ship on the ocean on which no one has a spyglass. On the voyage, a storm of hurricane proportions passes by but just misses the ship's route. Everyone onboard ship sees it, and they bring back stories about it. Meanwhile, there was another ship on the ocean and these folks had spyglasses, but they were miles and miles farther away so that even with their spyglasses they didn't see any hurricane. They came ashore and insisted that the people on board the ship without spyglasses obviously were at a disadvantage and couldn't know that there was no hurricane.
I'm in. We have a boat in the Atlantic and a boat in the Pacific. Boat in the Atlantic sees a hurricane and reports said event, though only has eyewitness accounts. Boat in the Pacific, with spyglasses, does not see same hurricane. As this boat was chartered through "Alatar Cruises," and so is filled with a bunch of closed-minded wet blanket skeptics. So far so good.

If something cataclysmic did happen that could be seen by the naked eye from earth, within cultural memory of the ancients, and they recorded it to the best of their ability, that we have telescopes now with which to view the CURRENT make up of the solar system matters not a whit unless we admit that perhaps they DID see something we would do well to acknowledge, to help our understanding of the solar system.
Here are the issues:
Eyewitness accounts are unreliable.
Hearsay even less so.
People are easily fooled (i.e. illusions).
Some people do not have the knowledge/words to accurately describe an event. Sometimes we get, "It was like..." and after time we lose that it wasn't exactly that.
Information passed through and down through time has the possibility of becoming distorted.

On the other hand:
Independent observations can shore up others'. If islanders in the Atlantic also witnessed a hurricane...
Some events are common or are easily extrapolated from what is known. A storm is something that many people, from many different backgrounds and from many different observation points have witnessed. However, they may disagree to the cause. If the boat in the Atlantic had went up into the water spout and landed in the Pacific; well, this may have occurred but is not even close to the norm, and so the other ship in the Pacific would be asking for more data etc before believing that (not that they would ever believe...;)).
Storms in 10,000 BC are very similar to those we have today. There's no known reason (at least to me) to posit that they would not be otherwise. I think that you may have referred to this before as 'uniformitarian.'

There are so many signs of violent disruption throughout the solar system that to posit that nothing unusual has happened for billions of years is simply ridiculous. What happened to the planet that used to be the asteroid belt? How did the same kinds of crazy markings appear on Mars and other planets but not others? How is it that some moons and asteroids and planets have one kind of geologlical make up while another set, mixed through each other has a different geological make up? It's like two sets of pool balls had been sent flying across the pool table from different ends, bouncing every which way until they came to rest where they currently are.

I am so with you (I think), and like the analogy. Just recently in the news, a group reported its findings about an asteroid that hit the Chesapeake Bay (USA) area about 35 million years ago. Every time I look at the Gulf of Mexico, I think about how fragile our existence is here on this one planet.

Maybe we are talking about something like the Noachian flood, which even to me must have some historical basis, though what the truth is I may never learn. Surely you too wonder what these ancient people lived through, what they saw and were thinking when any interesting event happened. Why did they choose to explain certain processes in nature using 'gods?" Was it extrapolations from the 'strong leader' and anthropomorphizing of other things in their environment? Was the explanation correlated with the current technology (i.e. sun and moon are natural things, then persons riding on chariottes, and so on)?

I want to thank you for opening this up in my head, as it's given me much to think about. And sorry, still working on Santa-dragon-witch.

[littlemanpoet]

:) Okay, it's time for me to reveal my face down cards. I am of the catastrophist school of thought in regard to the solar system. I've been doing some in depth reading lately in the writings of a group of interdisciplinary thinkers who are working in (1) comparative mythology studies, (2) plasma physics (which is the study of electrical action in space) and (3) arcaeo-astronomy (which is the study of the astronomical understanding of the ancients based on the record they have left behind). Here's the website if you're interested: http://www.kronia.com/thoth.html

On the reliability of human witnesses, you will find this to be an interesting link: http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThotII06.txt

[alatar]

:) Okay, it's time for me to reveal my face down cards. I am of the catastrophist school of thought in regard to the solar system.
Thanks for the links.

In my admittedly brief review (and obvious bias against) Immanuel_Velikovsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky)'s work, "Worlds in Collision," ...well, all I can say is I wish you and those that believe and study such all the best. Show your results and change the establishment; that's what's science is all about.

What's hard for me to believe is that with all of the rearranging of the planets - Earth, Saturn, Venus - that any would have been alive to observe and record such events. As I understand this, much of the planets' re-ordering (Earth used to orbit Saturn?) was recently (~3500 BC) recorded by humans who, not only seeing signs and wonders in the heavens, also experienced cataclysmic events on Earth, and yet lived to tell of it. We read their works today, which they may have presented as what we call mythology, but this was just the language that they used to express these events.

Assume for a moment that the ancients did record these events, and that, in defiance of all of the science that the establishment holds dear (and is used successfully daily), that Velikovsky's hypotheses are true. This would not provide any proof that 'real' gods exist, and that today, we still know more about Venus than did those thousands of years ago.

I hope to have time to read more in regards to the mythology comparison as, though not a catastrophist, find the similarities (when they exist and are not read into the data) interesting.


** An aside that might help you understand where I come from - The wolves that raised me and some of my sibling wolves got together last night. One noted that our dog looked "fluffy," and innocently asked how much the dog weighed. As it's my/our dog, I stated that she weighed between 55 and 60 pounds.

This, of course, was not acceptable proof in my family. It was opinion and not admissible. Calls were made to get the bathroom scale. Me and my brother wolf made sure that the scale was somewhat accurate - it displayed the weights that we'd both expect if one of us were to step on it, and when I went to weigh the dog - I would have to hold her - our combined weights would be within the limits of the scale, as established by my heavier brother's test.

So, while trying not to get bitten :eek: (the dog was wondered what all this was about), I stood on the scale while holding her in my arms. After subtracting my weight, the dog's weight was established to be ~53 pounds.

So I was wrong, having overestimated the dog's weight. This established, we went on to discuss another topic, as I wasn't even sure why I was weighing the dog in the first place.

So maybe this will help you understand why I doubt everything - it's not you. :)

[littlemanpoet]

:) There's a reason I didn't bring up the name "Velikovsky", as it tends to have a d~~ning effect on discussions.

I find the "electrical universe" science at least as interesting as the comparative mythology stuff. Thus, what appears to be an anatomically incorrect dragon wreaking havoc upon the world is actually the electrical discharges flashing between two celestial bodies at (relatively) close proximity. And IF these things actually occurred, I for one would love to see an animated (or virtual) recreation of it to see what it might have looked like to traumatized folks looking at their chaotic sky.

Of course, this goes beyond Tolkien except to the degree that he used such archetypes in his works. So the idea of no sun or moon comes back full circle; if (big if) Saturn was at one time the only "sun" people on earth knew, it is interesting that Tolkien used that theme in his work. More than that probably cannot be said.

[Gwathagor]

In Jewish mysticism, a lot is said about this light. Some say it is ‘the light of ultimate awareness’. It is given all sorts of attributes, such as being a thousand times brighter than the sun and allowing someone to see across time. What I find most interesting (and this is why I think it is relevant), is that the definition 'to enlighten' is expounded upon in a few writings. That this light is not like visible light, but rather, the light of knowledge. Again, I do not think this idea is restricted to Jewish Mysticism. The idea is that, before the sun, there was a time of 'enlightenment' where knowledge was abounding.


Oh! This comes up in Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.

[alatar]

:) There's a reason I didn't bring up the name "Velikovsky", as it tends to have a d~~ning effect on discussions.
Regardless of what I think of his conclusions and methods, I still found his ideas interesting. What's disconcerting is that, in order to 'prove' astronomical events from the past, such as Joshua's long day, Velikovsky has to bend and twist more established science such as the Law of Angular Momentum, which, as I showed my son by having him swing a bucket of water upside down. Same simple law that keeps that water in place keeps those planets in place as well; that's what makes the Law a law, and using ad hoc arguments to placate possibly mythological events and subvert this Law makes me wonder: is this new science or old hat?

Speaking of science and angular momentum, the Voyager spacecraft has crossed over the heliosphere (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/voyager-20080703.html). Think that I would rely on an observation made 'next to the hurricane' (this hurricane is seven billion miles from the sun) than one made from earth. Even at that distance, L = r X p.

And IF these things actually occurred, I for one would love to see an animated (or virtual) recreation of it to see what it might have looked like to traumatized folks looking at their chaotic sky.
What about the aurora borealis? What I'd like to see is the night sky, not drowned out by light or air pollution - to see it like they did years ago - and wonder. :(

Of course, this goes beyond Tolkien except to the degree that he used such archetypes in his works. So the idea of no sun or moon comes back full circle; if (big if) Saturn was at one time the only "sun" people on earth knew, it is interesting that Tolkien used that theme in his work. More than that probably cannot be said.
Most people probably don't give the origin of the sun and moon much thought.

[littlemanpoet]

Regardless of what I think of his conclusions and methods, I still found his ideas interesting. What's disconcerting is that, in order to 'prove' astronomical events from the past, such as Joshua's long day, Velikovsky has to bend and twist more established science such as the Law of Angular Momentum, which, as I showed my son by having him swing a bucket of water upside down. Same simple law that keeps that water in place keeps those planets in place as well; that's what makes the Law a law, and using ad hoc arguments to placate possibly mythological events and subvert this Law makes me wonder: is this new science or old hat?Of course, a Law in science is nothing more nor less than a statement by humans about the way physical nature appears to work. And every Law of science must of necessity be considered in the context of discovered phenomena. So what seems to be a universal Law on Earth, or near Earth, may not be as universal as we think. For example, gravity as a constant, G, apparenlty is not constant at all outside our solar system; at least, that's what I've been reading lately. If G is not constant, what causes it not to be so? And how does that affect Angular Momentum? And there is also this phenomenon called plasma (named so by its discoverer because it seemed to have characteristics similar to human blood), which are fields of charged particles in space. In other words, there are fields of active electricity throughout the universe; in fact, 99.9% of the universe is made of plasma (electrically charged particles). Wherever this is the case, one will necessarily be confronted with magnetic fields (moving charged particles). Question: why are the popular descriptions of our solar system devoid of any of the effects of the magnetic fields and plasma fields that act like "veins and arteries" throughout the solar system, connecting the sun and all the planets? Why is the powerful action of these magnetic fields not factored in to our understanding of the solar system, not to mention the galaxy and the universe?

[alatar]

This thread is becoming the 'science blog.' ;)

Of course, a Law in science is nothing more nor less than a statement by humans about the way physical nature appears to work. And every Law of science must of necessity be considered in the context of discovered phenomena. So what seems to be a universal Law on Earth, or near Earth, may not be as universal as we think.
Exactly; much agreed. A 'Law' usually means that something is true in all observed instances; however, overturning a Law can and does happen (think Newton). This differs from divine revelation, which is believed to be true regardless of any negative evidence.

For example, gravity as a constant, G, apparenlty is not constant at all outside our solar system; at least, that's what I've been reading lately. If G is not constant, what causes it not to be so? And how does that affect Angular Momentum?
I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what makes it interesting. Science does not throw its hands up and says, "We can never know." It will start to chew away at that problem as it can, trying to gather data from different sources, hash out some hypotheses, and see where it goes from there. It will use the Law until an experiment shows it to be in error; better that than to start completely anew with no frame of reference.

And there is also this phenomenon called plasma (named so by its discoverer because it seemed to have characteristics similar to human blood), which are fields of charged particles in space.
You're not saying that plasma is in any way similar to blood?

In medical terminology, plasma is the liquid part of blood or lymph, as distinguished from the suspended elements.
In cosmology, plasma is an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles, as defined here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)#Definition_of_a_plasma).
Not that we're not made of "star stuff" (was that Sagan?), and not that we won't return to being stars again sometime in the future, but the only similarities between blood and plasma are that they consist of particles (but then again, isn't everything?).

In other words, there are fields of active electricity throughout the universe; in fact, 99.9% of the universe is made of plasma (electrically charged particles). Wherever this is the case, one will necessarily be confronted with magnetic fields (moving charged particles). Question: why are the popular descriptions of our solar system devoid of any of the effects of the magnetic fields and plasma fields that act like "veins and arteries" throughout the solar system, connecting the sun and all the planets? Why is the powerful action of these magnetic fields not factored in to our understanding of the solar system, not to mention the galaxy and the universe?
I don't know enough about the field (or pretty much any field) to know if these things are being factored in or not. The Chandra X-ray observatory (http://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/faq/chandra/chandra-36.html) seems to be looking into the issue regarding plasma and gravity, as indicated by these 'challenges to plasma atomic physics.'

Isn't the universe a glorious place? :D And yet we can feel something for characters created by a man who put them under a sun and moon possibly like our own.

[littlemanpoet]

This thread is becoming the 'science blog.'Not such a bad thing, eh? :)

I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what makes it interesting. Science does not throw its hands up and says, "We can never know." It will start to chew away at that problem as it can, trying to gather data from different sources, hash out some hypotheses, and see where it goes from there. It will use the Law until an experiment shows it to be in error; better that than to start completely anew with no frame of reference.What I meant be "throw everything out" was not actually to start from scratch. To ignore all the discoveries would be idiocy. The only thing (or set of things) I would like to see thrown out is the arrogance of not letting new ideas be funded and tested, even if they are 180 degrees opposite of those held by the current group in power. But it's just not like that. These things are always battles.

You're not saying that plasma is in any way similar to blood?Only by analogy. Here's the image I'm using to convey the point: plasma fields are equivalent to veins and arteries; the planets, asteroids, and moons are equivalent to pulses; the sun is equivalent to the heart; and the charged particles, electric currents, magnetic fields, and lightning strikes (that reach earth during thunderstorms for example) are equivalent to blood. The whole complex is meant to convey how the solar system (and the galaxy for that matter) is a physical unit (as the body is an organic unit) in which all phenomena affect each other.

Birkeland currents are huge electric fields that stretch across and through entire galaxies. When our solar system passes through a part of a galactic Birkeland current, it is going to have an effect on the solar system, indeed, on earth. What kind of effect? It depends upon the nature, intensity, etc., of the Birkeland current. Some physicists believe that Birkeland currents are responsible for sunspots (and thus solar wind and lightning storms on earth, which results in shifting weather patterns on earth, etc., etc.).

Isn't the universe a glorious place? :D And yet we can feel something for characters created by a man who put them under a sun and moon possibly like our own.Quite. :)

[Eönwë]

And there is also this phenomenon called plasma (named so by its discoverer because it seemed to have characteristics similar to human blood), which are fields of charged particles in space. In other words, there are fields of active electricity throughout the universe; in fact, 99.9% of the universe is made of plasma (electrically charged particles). Wherever this is the case, one will necessarily be confronted with magnetic fields (moving charged particles). Question: why are the popular descriptions of our solar system devoid of any of the effects of the magnetic fields and plasma fields that act like "veins and arteries" throughout the solar system, connecting the sun and all the planets? Why is the powerful action of these magnetic fields not factored in to our understanding of the solar system, not to mention the galaxy and the universe?

Well, if we're are going back to mythologies, don't many ancient religions talk about the "cosmic waters" and things to that effect?

[littlemanpoet]

Well, if we're are going back to mythologies, don't many ancient religions talk about the "cosmic waters" and things to that effect?Makes you wonder what they saw. The ancients believed that the sky was made of stone and that now and then a piece of it fell to earth (meteorites); and that the planets hung in their own spheres, some closer some farther away; and that Saturn was the sphere of the 7th heaven, the highest; and yes, ancient cultures do talk about the waters above; even the Bible refers to the waters above and the waters below the firmament. Wonder what they saw, to think there was so much water in the sky? And don't tell me it was just the clouds. ;)

[littlemanpoet]

Two current AP press releases bear on our topic:

1) "Scientists believe big hit split Mars: new evidence bolsters idea comet or asteroid struck 4 billion years ago". The article states that some outside object blasted away much of Mars' northern crust, creating a giant hole over 40 percent of the surface. No explanation is given for placing the event at 4 billion years in the past. I wonder if it's to keep the basic uniformitarian structure in place in spite of the evidence? And I wonder if that's because they want to keep up the illusion of safety from catastrophe in our own time?

2) "Space probes show solar system is dented: astronomers long thought it be circular". Appaerently, Voyagers 1 & 2 have reached the end of the solar wind at different distances from the sun. The solar wind is charged particles moving away from the sun in every direction. Remember, moving charged particles = a plasma field. The scientists are saying "it's like a hand pushing it in". Perhaps it's an extra-solar system plasma field (Birkeland current?) pushing it in. This is precisely what I was talking about, how the solar system is electromagnetically affected by the galaxy.

[alatar]

Makes you wonder what they saw. The ancients believed that the sky was made of stone and that now and then a piece of it fell to earth (meteorites); and that the planets hung in their own spheres, some closer some farther away; and that Saturn was the sphere of the 7th heaven, the highest; and yes, ancient cultures do talk about the waters above; even the Bible refers to the waters above and the waters below the firmament. Wonder what they saw, to think there was so much water in the sky? And don't tell me it was just the clouds. ;)
Or was it that they knew nothing of the cycling of water? And, without the evidence of big buckets rising to the heavens or the appearance of a large sprinkling can or garden hose, they just figured that all of the water must have already been up there, and periodically God or the gods opened windows and let it pour though. Not much more mysterious than that.

No explanation is given for placing the event at 4 billion years in the past. I wonder if it's to keep the basic uniformitarian structure in place in spite of the evidence? And I wonder if that's because they want to keep up the illusion of safety from catastrophe in our own time?
I've asked this question a few times in different ways to JPL's online computerized scientist (http://marsdata1.jpl.nasa.gov/DrC/), but he was clueless (next I'm going to ask him about Balrog's wings...;)) regarding the age of the impact. Probably programmed with the uniformitarian code already. My uneducated guess is that it has to do with the togography and spin of the planet. More recent craters are more 'jaggy - rough,' and spew a bunch of particulate matter into the atmosphere. The Mars impact is smooth. Also, an impact with an object the size of the planet (or planetoid) Pluto surely would make Mars wobble on its axis, which it no longer does. Guess that 3.9 billion years lets you recover from such violence.

That and there is evidence of volcanoes forming after the impact.

[littlemanpoet]

Or was it that they knew nothing of the cycling of water? And, without the evidence of big buckets rising to the heavens or the appearance of a large sprinkling can or garden hose, they just figured that all of the water must have already been up there, and periodically God or the gods opened windows and let it pour though. Not much more mysterious than that.That's a rather clever explanation. Plausible too. :)

My uneducated guess is that it has to do with the togography and spin of the planet. More recent craters are more 'jaggy - rough,' and spew a bunch of particulate matter into the atmosphere. The Mars impact is smooth. Also, an impact with an object the size of the planet (or planetoid) Pluto surely would make Mars wobble on its axis, which it no longer does. Guess that 3.9 billion years lets you recover from such violence.According to catastrophists, only a couple thousand years (or even less) is required for a planet's rotation and revolution to stabilize, because of how plasma fields and magnetic fields of the other bodies (relatively) near the planet function. For example, Venus is recorded by many ancient cultures as having been THE COMET per excellence, and now is a relatively stable planet (not a stable atmosphere mind you - that takes longer).

[alatar]

Birkeland currents are huge electric fields that stretch across and through entire galaxies. When our solar system passes through a part of a galactic Birkeland current, it is going to have an effect on the solar system, indeed, on earth. What kind of effect? It depends upon the nature, intensity, etc., of the Birkeland current. Some physicists believe that Birkeland currents are responsible for sunspots (and thus solar wind and lightning storms on earth, which results in shifting weather patterns on earth, etc., etc.).

According to catastrophists, only a couple thousand years (or even less) is required for a planet's rotation and revolution to stabilize, because of how plasma fields and magnetic fields of the other bodies (relatively) near the planet function. For example, Venus is recorded by many ancient cultures as having been THE COMET per excellence, and now is a relatively stable planet (not a stable atmosphere mind you - that takes longer).

2) "Space probes show solar system is dented: astronomers long thought it be circular". Appaerently, Voyagers 1 & 2 have reached the end of the solar wind at different distances from the sun. The solar wind is charged particles moving away from the sun in every direction. Remember, moving charged particles = a plasma field. The scientists are saying "it's like a hand pushing it in". Perhaps it's an extra-solar system plasma field (Birkeland current?) pushing it in. This is precisely what I was talking about, how the solar system is electromagnetically affected by the galaxy.
My understanding of these Birkeland currents is that they exist and could 'tie' things together like the earth and sun. But the word 'tie' and like the hand-pushing metaphor above may be misconstrued. These electrical forces, relative to local gravity, are several orders of magnitude smaller. Something the size of Venus isn't going to be slowed down/stopped by something so weak. It would be like trying to slow down billiard balls as they bounce around a table with the photons from a flashlight (torch).

Ever think that the 'dragon in the sky' and the subsequent global amnesia that all of our ancestors had was really due to a Glaurung-type flying dragon? Maybe it was just playing some nasty game, but was slain before it was able to remove the curse, as with Niënor Níniel. ;)

That's a rather clever explanation. Plausible too.
It's a pretty common reading of ancient history, and not just my sly observations, as can be read here (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm).

[Bêthberry]

Ever think that the 'dragon in the sky' and the subsequent global amnesia that all of our ancestors had was really due to a Glaurung-type flying dragon? Maybe it was just playing some nasty game, but was slain before it was able to remove the curse, as with Niënor Níniel. ;)


I've always considered Tolkien's love affair with dragons--including here his discussion of his love in OFS--as an example of how we are hard wired to fight or flee sabre toothed tigers. They may no longer exist, but we still invent them and go to great measure to fight them.

Not sure if this has anything to do with sun or moon. :)

[alatar]

I've always considered Tolkien's love affair with dragons--including here his discussion of his love in OFS--as an example of how we are hard wired to fight or flee sabre toothed tigers. They may no longer exist, but we still invent them and go to great measure to fight them.
I think that you mean 'snakes.' When was the last time you encountered a dangerous/poisonous snake? Bet that the odds are higher that you'll have a fatal encounter with a bus/lorry/motor car than with a small reptile, yet more people fear snakes than large land-roving machines.

Not sure if this has anything to do with sun or moon. :)
I'm sure that it does...;) Sabre-teeth look like sickle moons.

[littlemanpoet]

My understanding of these Birkeland currents is that they exist and could 'tie' things together like the earth and sun. But the word 'tie' and like the hand-pushing metaphor above may be misconstrued. These electrical forces, relative to local gravity, are several orders of magnitude smaller. Something the size of Venus isn't going to be slowed down/stopped by something so weak. It would be like trying to slow down billiard balls as they bounce around a table with the photons from a flashlight (torch).Please take this in the best sense, for so I mean it: could it be that you suffer from a failure of imagination? We are used to electrical currents of relatively minimal voltage. Then there is lightning. Imagine lightning strikes between planets that make lightning strikes in Earth's thunderstorms look like minor pricks. Then suppose there is electrical activity (99% of the universe is made of electrically charged particles) taking place in the formation of stars that makes lightning that flashes between planets look like static electricity shocks. Such activity would have a magnitude far exceeding that of gravity, which is in fact the weakest of the 4 known forces.

[alatar]

Please take this in the best sense, for so I mean it: could it be that you suffer from a failure of imagination?
Very probably; or at least in regards to this thread. ;) Science observes what is, not what we 'want it to be.' Keep in mind who's the poet in this discussion, and whose imagination is sparking my own. :)

We are used to electrical currents of relatively minimal voltage. Then there is lightning. Imagine lightning strikes between planets that make lightning strikes in Earth's thunderstorms look like minor pricks. Then suppose there is electrical activity (99% of the universe is made of electrically charged particles) taking place in the formation of stars that makes lightning that flashes between planets look like static electricity shocks. Such activity would have a magnitude far exceeding that of gravity, which is in fact the weakest of the 4 known forces.
Sorry; I'm too limited. Suppose there are these megalightning strikes between planets, suns, etc. Do they work in concert to maintain the orbit of the planets - some pushing one way, some pushing the opposite so that nothing moves closer or away from the sun?

And I keep tripping over that F=ma equation I learned sometime back (force = mass times acceleration). If we assume that the mass of Venus is constant, then to move it from the outer to the inner part of the solar system is going to take some big-time F to get the ball rolling, and then again to get it to stop, especially if we have only so much time to do this in. More time, and we can accelerate/decelerate more slowly, and so less force is required (if I have that right). But we have only a few thousand years. So if this big force exists, why haven't we seen any large planet-sized bodies move in the last few hundred years?

Doesn't it ever bother anyone that all of the fun miracles and myths occurred when the data resolution was less than we have today? Why do those dragons live only on the edges of maps?

[littlemanpoet]

Very probably; or at least in regards to this thread. Science observes what is, not what we 'want it to be.' Keep in mind who's the poet in this discussion, and whose imagination is sparking my own. :)Ah, but any poet worth his salt is dealing in words, which in the Greek = logos which is the same root word from which we derive logic. A good poet has to be a good logician. The same is true of a good composer. In other words, anybody with a reasonably educated intelligence can think and talk about scientific phenomena profitably. All it takes is informing oneself.

Sorry; I'm too limited. Suppose there are these megalightning strikes between planets, suns, etc. Do they work in concert to maintain the orbit of the planets - some pushing one way, some pushing the opposite so that nothing moves closer or away from the sun?Well, I misled you and myself by concentrating on the magnitude of lightning bolts. The lightning bolts themselves are only the results of things going on in plasma fields. It's all about interaction of various electrically charged bodies in space, depending upon their size, the intensity of their electrical charge, etc.

And I keep tripping over that F=ma equation I learned sometime back (force = mass times acceleration). If we assume that the mass of Venus is constant, then to move it from the outer to the inner part of the solar system is going to take some big-time F to get the ball rolling, and then again to get it to stop, especially if we have only so much time to do this in. More time, and we can accelerate/decelerate more slowly, and so less force is required (if I have that right). But we have only a few thousand years. So if this big force exists, why haven't we seen any large planet-sized bodies move in the last few hundred years?There's no doubt that it exists. The question is, why is it not being studied? We might find out a lot of things that we currently are not aware of if we were to admit that this force exists on a galactic scale. But yeah, it would be "fun" (in a strange way) if a planet-sized body was seen in a chaotic path through the sky (but I wouldn't want its journey to affect earth). Then again, there are comets. Though not so large, these are chaotic "planets" (planet = wandering star in Greek); if they were acknowledged to be, not balls of ice, but large chunks of rock with magnetic charges, what might be learned from them?

Doesn't it ever bother anyone that all of the fun miracles and myths occurred when the data resolution was less than we have today? Why do those dragons live only on the edges of maps?Yes. It does. Which is why I can't get enough of studying them.

[alatar]

Ah, but any poet worth his salt is dealing in words, which in the Greek = logos which is the same root word from which we derive logic. A good poet has to be a good logician. The same is true of a good composer. In other words, anybody with a reasonably educated intelligence can think and talk about scientific phenomena profitably. All it takes is informing oneself.
Oddly enough, last night I came upon this perfect quote from Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass" that just seemed so fitting as an answer to your previous question:
"I can't believe THAT!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's not use trying," she said: "one CAN'T believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

There's no doubt that it exists. The question is, why is it not being studied? We might find out a lot of things that we currently are not aware of if we were to admit that this force exists on a galactic scale.
The fields are being studied, but maybe not in the framework in which you use them. Maybe 'the big pushes' happen so infrequently that we have no way to capture any data, and so resources are concentrated on what is available (with an entire universe, there's a lot to do).

But yeah, it would be "fun" (in a strange way) if a planet-sized body was seen in a chaotic path through the sky (but I wouldn't want its journey to affect earth).
:eek: Me either! Think of what a 'Tunguska event' of larger magnitude would do to any city!

Then again, there are comets. Though not so large, these are chaotic "planets" (planet = wandering star in Greek); if they were acknowledged to be, not balls of ice, but large chunks of rock with magnetic charges, what might be learned from them?
But they are balls of ice (and stuff). The results of Deep Impact (http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/deepimpact/results/index.cfm) showed that these dirty snow balls are made up of frozen water with bits of dust throughout. I don't think that comets are planetoid like Pluto or even Earth in nature, i.e. no iron core.

Yes. It does. Which is why I can't get enough of studying them.
Cool on that.

To make a lame attempt in staying on topic, I hope to be able to show the kids (again) the moon via a small telescope tonight. Regardless of whether it was once part of earth, is a captured planetoid, or is the beautiful Artemis or the wayward Tilion, tis still a wonderous thing to see.

[littlemanpoet]

But they are balls of ice (and stuff). The results of Deep Impact (http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/deepimpact/results/index.cfm) showed that these dirty snow balls are made up of frozen water with bits of dust throughout. I don't think that comets are planetoid like Pluto or even Earth in nature, i.e. no iron core."And stuff". I took a look at the website. The images realize three "ice rich" areas on Tempel 1: they look like three little dots on its surface. That is not "made of ice" in any reasonable person's view. But NASA is part of the scientific establishment, and it wouldn't surprise me if their interpretation is skewed toward what they hope to find. ;)

Speaking of which:

The presence of the observed mix of materials requires efficient methods of heating the glassy materials and cooling them to crystalline material and mixing high temperature with low temperature materials over large distances in the early protosolar nebula. The evolution of the protosolar nebula was more complex than a simple homogenous gas and dusty disk heated solely by the temperature of the sun. In other words, the observers have to admit that something caused intense heating and cooling in quick succession, and that the heat of the sun can't by itself explain it. They also can't give up on their uniformitarian (early protosolar nebula) paradigm. Electrical phenomena fit the observation of intense heat followed by quick cooling.

The best test of a paradigm and theory is if it has predictive power. Too often, modern physicists are surprised by what they find in space. Those who have been developing the paradigm of an "electric universe", are not surprised by what they find; instead, what's being found is precisely what they expect. That goes a long way with me.

[alatar]

"And stuff".
I should know better - my bad (just being lazy). The "stuff" is made up of particles that have collided with the comet as it sweeps the galaxy. There are other elements present that were there since the comet was formed (by the Galactic Yeti, who rolls them and tosses them towards the sun).

What is not present is an iron or other heavy metal core.

I took a look at the website. The images realize three "ice rich" areas on Tempel 1: they look like three little dots on its surface. That is not "made of ice" in any reasonable person's view.
Those ice patches are of interest as there's not enough there to account for all of the water/ice/vapor that spews from the comet, and so it comes from inside.

And maybe it's not "made of ice." Watermelons are almost 100% water, though you may not think that they are "made of water," especially if you haven't even cut into the surface. Boil one down, and you'd see that most of its mass is from liquid water.

Same goes for comets, though they may not be as refreshing.

But NASA is part of the scientific establishment, and it wouldn't surprise me if their interpretation is skewed toward what they hope to find. ;)
That's funny. Wouldn't you think that some other government's space agency would just love to make NASA look stupid, ... , unless they too are part of the conspiracy...hmm.

What was that about the sun and moon again? ;)

[Bêthberry]

Doesn't it ever bother anyone that all of the fun miracles and myths occurred when the data resolution was less than we have today? Why do those dragons live only on the edges of maps?

hmmm. Because map makers have accepted the fight/flight view of sabre toothed tigers--which are better than snakes, as people do have some desire to meet dragons, but few desire to meet snakes--and overlooked the third option which some species show, freeze, which suggests there is some knowledge of said dragons.

As for where did the light came from, I've always liked the claim that, after all, our material bodies are, on the atomic/molecular level, really just energy. Energy produces sound, which leads to music, and growth, which leads to fecundity or physical development.

Once again, sorry to intrude upon your science versus myth debate with something aside from your points. But what can I say? Some of my best friends are scientists. ;)

[littlemanpoet]

Once again, sorry to intrude upon your science versus myth debate with something aside from your points. But what can I say? Some of my best friends are scientists. ;)Science vs. myth!?!? :eek: Au contraire madame! My point of view is that science and myth ought to join forces and recognize what the other has to offer.

As for another government trying to make NASA look stupid, look no further than the U.S. Army. There was a study done by an Army physicist and a report released, the details of which I forget but will go find when I have a better computer at my disposal than at work.

[littlemanpoet]

Here is a link to the U.S. Army disagreeing with (not necessarily NASA, but) the popularly accepted song and dance: link (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=715)

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Gee, this is getting too serious...

Considering the fact that no one had ever done any archaeological digs on the Moon in Middle-Earth, won't it be better to keep an open mind about myths and whatnots? I believe that J.R.R.T meant literally that the Moon is really a space-Maia(TM) running after another space-Maia. :cool: But Hobbits clearly had another concept about the Moon.

Perhaps after a few Ages (this being pro'lly the Seventh), Ol' Tirion had become a fossilised lump of space junk. And Arien grew to become the overweight, grumpy ball of flame due to inattention from her only mate in space...

Oh yes, Morgoth could probably be an Earth-sized Comet by now...

[alatar]

Here is a link to the U.S. Army disagreeing with (not necessarily NASA, but) the popularly accepted song and dance: link (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=715)
This person isn't the only dissenting voice, as noted here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm). I'm not sure how many scientists agreed with anything in the IPCC's report (just try to get 200+ people to write a report in which they all agree). I realized that 'something was up' as soon as I heard Vice President Al Gore say those immortal words, "The debate is over!" That's an absolutist statement, more akin to religion than science. In science, the debate may never be over; you should always question the establishment (Worlds in Collision does this, though its evidence is scant and predictions non-existent, and yet science still has 'debated' it). Whether man-made global warming (or is it climate change?) is happening or not, I think that discussion of the results and experiments is a healthy thing, regarding of where the data may lead. Those stating that it is truly man-made have the burden of proving it, just as those asserting that it's not even happening have to show the data.

Eventually the truth will win out.

To start back a few steps, that NASA probe Deep Impact sent back some snapshots (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/epoxi_transit.html) of Earth and the Moon. Can we at least agree that there are no turtles holding up the Earth? And we finally get to see what Tilion's craft looks like from the back.

[alatar]

Sorry for the double post, but if I don't set this to pen now, surely I will forget it and the thought will become lost.

Did Immanuel Velikovsky get the idea for his work, "Worlds in Collision" from the science fiction author H.G Wells? Velikovsky published WiC in 1950, though of course it was written earlier. H.G. Wells published the following works (which, thanks to the glory on the internet, you can read online) as indicated:

The Star (http://www.online-literature.com/wellshg/17/) - 1887

In the Days of the Comet (http://www.online-literature.com/wellshg/days_comet/) - 1906

The Star, a short story, described what happens when a planet cuts loose, flies by Earth, destroys most everything then dives into the sun. The ending is cute/humbling. In the Days of the Comet, a huge comet comes close to destroying Earth, but doesn't, though the tailing gases leave more than one guesses behind.

No dragons, however, though I recently spotted one that may not fit the current paradigm.