Any comments anyone?
Without actually reading the book, I doubt anyone can point out specific errors or inconsistancies or even where it may be right. On the other hand, when the cover of the book says, "A radical reinterpretation of Human History and the evolution of the solar system" well, my alternative science and/or history warning light comes on.Originally Posted by captain swoop
The blurb says: "...planets are charged bodies in space, and they have not always moved on their present orbits. Only a few thousand years ago our ancestors lived beneath an alien sky, as planets close to Earth loomed huge above them."Originally Posted by captain swoop
That's pretty ludicrous.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Without reading the book I cannot say much but it seems pretty far out to me. I would like to know how they try to prove this theory. Seems to me that is the planets were "looming" over us, then we would be subjected to intense gravitational tides, Radiation, dodging their moons etc.
I would also be interested in seeing how they attemt to explain why the planets are in far orbits.
As far as multiple cultures having similarities in their lore goes, well remember, it is threorized we all migrated out of Africa back in the day. Before we all spread out, there had to be a common belief. This beliefe had to be shared. People feared the unexplained and tried to attribute them to Gods. Some they feared, some were created to justify desires. Monotheism only came to light about 6000 years ago.
Hi skrap1r0n,Originally Posted by skrap1r0n
The entire subject concerns (essentially, in my view) the interpretation of ancient myths with respect to the present-day understanding of astronomy/cosmology and human-kinds' reactions to past world-wide calamities etc (but also contained and engendered within the human psyche, for just one example).
Interesting, for sure.
However, the book/s are yet to be published.
What you read was a somewhat condensed version of just a few chapters.
As I have mentioned to the BA on several occasions, this could be in a sense the works of present-day Velikovskianism, but not necessarily endorsing the entire theory per se (and I do in fact know this is not the case, but certainly the late Velikovsky was the inspirational motivator, of years past)
In essence, the book/s are basically an "electrical" theory of the cosmos (as opposed to the currently accepted and dominant "gravitational" theory/understanding)
Anyway, following publication (sometime this year I think), I for one look forward to comments on this site, particularly from the BA, TT and of course anyone else, including yourself!
I note the obligatory whinging about the peer review process on the "timely announcement" link:
:roll: :^oOriginally Posted by [url=http://www.thunderbolts.info/announce.htm
This would appear to be the basic premise.
The evidence suggests that only a few thousand years ago planets moved close to the earth, producing electrical phenomena of intense beauty and terror.
< snip >
Mainstream cosmologists, whether trained as physicists, mathematicians, or astronomers, consider gravity to be the controlling force in the heavens. From this assumption arose the doctrine of eons-long solar system stability--the belief that under the rule of gravity the nine planets have moved on their present courses since the birth of the solar system.
< snip >
We challenge this modern belief. We contend that humans once saw planets suspended as huge spheres in the heavens. Immersed in the charged particles of a dense plasma, celestial bodies "spoke" electrically and plasma discharge produced heaven-spanning formations above the terrestrial witnesses.
< snip >
Cosmic lightning evolved violently from one discharge configuration to another, following patterns observed in high-energy plasma experiments and only recently revealed in deep space as well.
Um...where exactly did Plato say this? Cite? I don't see anything like "The planets' orbits have changed!" mentioned here or here. As a matter of fact, Platonic astronomy seems to assume that the planets are all in stable orbits, there's no mention of them ever having been otherwise. So, where did you get that from?And why did so many ancient accounts insist that the movement of the planets once changed? That was Plato's message more than 2300 years ago.
Okay, I read all 38 pages of it, looking for a suggested mechanism whereby five planets could have been moved closer to Earth, allowing them to hang in Earth's sky for long enough to impress Ancient Man with their godlike qualities (I'm flashing on the Vogon ships here, "hanging in the sky the way a brick--doesn't"), and then moved to their present positions.
There's a lot of fine vague hand-waving about plasma and its mysterious electrical properties, but no actual nuts-and-bolts explanation of "how the thing's supposed to work". Lots of nifty graphics, though.
The closest it comes to an actual explanation is on page 31:
So I guess, umm... "Changes in the galactic currents" made it happen.If stars are formed by electrical discharge and remain the focus of discharge, we can no longer simply project current planetary motions backward into primordial times...Changes in the galactic currents powering the system can alter both stellar behavior and planetary behavior suddenly and extravagantly.
< snip >
Though orbital instability is a certainty in the long term evolution of an electrical model, it may be short-lived as electrical forces act to minimize interactions between the charged bodies.
And now I unavoidably can't help wondering whether, when the changes in the galactic currents made this happen, the Earth's magma--bobbled.
P.S. John Owens:
And I note the obligatory "They scoffed at Galileo, too!" By inference, at least.I note the obligatory whinging about the peer review process on the "timely announcement" link:
On page 12.
And, for the bottom line from http://www.kronia.com
Most of these educational materials are available only through Mikamar Publishing.
And who runs Kronia.com?
Well I'm not sure of BA's policy regarding posting public whois details about website registrants (addresses and phone No's etc.) so you will have to look them up yourself but the guy behind the operation is none other than a Talbott, David.
Originally Posted by JohnOwens
In other words, thank heavens I know longer actually have to provide any real evidence for my ideas, given they can now be accepted unthinkingly by the same people that bring you GLP! So much easier!
He sounds like Ted Holden.
Rules For Posting To This Board
All Moderation in Purple
If I had $10 for each time Iíve read that oneÖ :roll:Cross-cultural comparison reveals that different tribes and communities were telling the same story, each in its own way.
They did? All of the gods?But why did the earliest astronomical traditions identify the gods as planets?
They did?!And why did all of the ancient accounts say that the gods ruled for a time, then went away?
Color me skeptical.
That might be tricky to do, especially for Hinduism... and Shintoism... and the polynesian gods ... and native Americans... and ... (I could go on)Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
Come to think of it, not even the ones we normally call 'ancients' limited themselves enough to fit their gods to the planets. Not the Romans, not the Greek, definitely not the Egyptians. I can't really say for the Sumerians, but perhaps they didn't have enough imagination.
That is the series of big questions:Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
In ancient times, were the "gods" planets? or were the planets "gods"?
Does anyone know?
Well as far as the greek and roman gods go, if they were based on a planet for every god out there, they by counting the gods/minorgods we should have many more planets out there...
But what I'm most interested in is the propulsion technology, I mean if I can push around a mass the size of Jupiter with fancy lightening/plasma drives and place it in an orbit, what a drive system, I could enclose a whole city and fly it off the earth to alpha centari at a good clip close to c :P
Not only that, but all those planets are somehow perched on top of Mount Olympus! Except for the planets that exist underground, that is.Originally Posted by jawajedi
Just as with the Big Bang theory, neither can be proved or disproved. There is merely evidence that is either consistent or inconsistent with each theory; of course it's also possible for the consistency to be misinterpretted... if the theory is wrong.Originally Posted by skrap1r0n
Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
Originally Posted by AGN Fuel
In an ideal world, criticism of peer review would be just joke. In reality, it can fail because peers are human. Yes, it is a rare event... unless you are on the receiving end, and your work is effectively banned.
A good example is criticism of the Big Bang theory. Whether the theory is right or wrong, scientists should have the opportunity to freely and openly criticise it. This is not the case. See the article at http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=zj49j0u7
Compiler, Catastrophism CD-Rom