No Sun or Moon

[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]

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.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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. 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]

Originally Posted by alatar

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.'

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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.

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 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? And yet we can feel something for characters created by a man who put them under a sun and moon possibly like our own.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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]

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

[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. 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]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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

This person isn't the only dissenting voice, as noted here. 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 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 - 1887

• In the Days of the 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.