No Sun or Moon

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

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?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

... did they in a sense give off revelation?

Hah! That would be opening a can of tree-worms, or worse, splitting wood.

Originally Posted by alatar

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]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks for the links.

In my admittedly brief review (and obvious bias against) 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 (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]

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.

[littlemanpoet]

Here is a link to the U.S. Army disagreeing with (not necessarily NASA, but) the popularly accepted song and dance: link

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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 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.")