|
Post by maat on Feb 29, 2008 2:38:17 GMT
New posters may be unaware that Russell and I and several other posters share an interest in Zachariah Sitchin's Twelfth Planet. Some posters think we are a bit bonkers and will believe anything ... Found this in the newspaper today... STUDY PREDICTS "PLANET X" TOKYO: Scientists at a Japanese university said yesterday they believed another planet up to two-thirds the size of Earth was orbiting in the far reaches of the solar system. The researchers at Kove University in western Japan said theoretical calculations using computer simulations led them to conclude it was only a matter of time before the mysterious Planet X was found. "The possibility is high that a yet unknown, planet-class celestial body, measuring 30 per cent to 70 per cent of the Earth's mass, exists in the outer edges of the solar system," Kobe University researchers said. "If research is conducted on a wide scale, the planet is likely to be discovered in less than 10 years." The research will be published in the April issue of the Astronomical Journal. The study comes two years after scientists declared Pluto was no longer a true planet. -AFP Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 29, 2008 3:12:01 GMT
Another planet would not surprise me. But why would one suggest Planet X would necessarily equate with Sitchin's Nibiru? One might as well expect a new life form will sooner or later be discovered and suggest it must necessarily be a unicorn?
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Feb 29, 2008 3:12:18 GMT
If planet X is discovered then key tests of Sitchin's theories will be if that planet:
- passes around the sun in the opposite direction to the other planets - loops in through the solar system to pass close to the sun every few thousand years
Velikovsky's strange forecasts of Venus made in the 1950s were validated 30 years later. Perhaps Sitchin also will receive the same silent validation from the scientific fraternity
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 29, 2008 3:36:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Feb 29, 2008 3:49:03 GMT
Velikovsky's strange forecasts of Venus made in the 1950s were validated 30 years later. Perhaps Sitchin also will receive the same silent validation from the scientific fraternity What has been validated Russell? That Venus was a comet expelled out of Jupiter? That it grazed the earth and caused the plagues of Exodus by causing an increase in temperature, which caused the vermin of the plagues to multiply? That Venus is only 3500 years old? Sorry, this is all unmitigated hogwash.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Feb 29, 2008 3:55:20 GMT
Worry not, oh Goddess, it existeth not. Trouble not thy sleep, let worry crease not thy brow. The dawn will still break fair, and all will be right with creation.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Feb 29, 2008 4:00:53 GMT
>What has been validated Russell? That Venus was a comet expelled out of Jupiter?
If my memory serves Velikovsky in the 1950s predicted high surface temperatures and high concentrations of hydrocarbons in the Venus atmosphere.
These were very strange predictions at the time and dutifully howled down.
Now we know the surface is around 500 deg C and the atmosphere is 96% CO2.
So I would give him 100% on the first prediction and 50% on the second (lots of carbon but not so much hydro)
Just lucky I suppose
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 29, 2008 4:10:49 GMT
The Home Page associated with the above link begins by saying: ZetaTalk leads you through the vast amount of information being relayed by the Zetas in answer to questions posed to their emissary, Nancy. NANCY!?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Feb 29, 2008 4:14:41 GMT
In his book Worlds in Collision, he stated that Venus was a comet expelled out of the planet Jupiter 3500 years ago, and that it became a planet after grazing the earth before settling into it's present orbit. There is no getting around this. Guessing that it is hot and there is CO2? A stopped clock is right twice a day. He presented exactly no scientific evidence for his assertions.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Feb 29, 2008 4:24:28 GMT
The Home Page associated with the above link begins by saying: ZetaTalk leads you through the vast amount of information being relayed by the Zetas in answer to questions posed to their emissary, Nancy. NANCY!? Hi! I'm the emmisary from Zeta Reticuli, Nancy!!! ;D What's the saucer pilot's name, Fred?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Feb 29, 2008 4:36:10 GMT
Oh, I see. She's a contactee. Hawking DVDs and such.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 29, 2008 4:55:13 GMT
What's the saucer pilot's name, Fred? Nah! It'd have to be Bruce!
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Feb 29, 2008 5:46:59 GMT
>In his book Worlds in Collision, he stated that Venus was a comet expelled out of the planet Jupiter 3500 years ago, and that it became a planet after grazing the earth before settling into it's present orbit. There is no getting around this.
So how do we know that he was wrong in these statements?
For example is the composition of surface rocks on Venus clearly different from those of Jupiter in terms of ratios of elements?
I have not followed this for a while and would appreciate some updating
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 29, 2008 8:00:45 GMT
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 29, 2008 8:29:54 GMT
For example is the composition of surface rocks on Venus clearly different from those of Jupiter in terms of ratios of elements? Ummm, Jupiter is one of the gas planets, along with Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Feb 29, 2008 9:12:12 GMT
>Ummm, Jupiter is one of the gas planets,
If Jupiter has no solid substance then it is unlikely to have ejected a solid comet. (But I would be surprised if a planet with that high a mass and therefore gravity had no solids)
And if Jupiter and Venus have a common source then perhaps their atmospheres would be similar.
But "Jupiter's upper atmosphere is composed of about 90% hydrogen and 10% helium by number of atoms" which does not help us as Venus' gravity is too low to keep helium.
So I am still looking for evidence one way or another
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Feb 29, 2008 9:45:43 GMT
Bro Russell, I have an open mind on Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision. and am aware how ideas which have been ridiculed in the past come to be accepted, e..g. Continental drift and Plate Tectonics , or that diseases such as Cholera were water borne and not carried in the "Miasma" , that is the fog which pervaded the slum areas of cities such as London. Dr John Snow as laughed at until he proved the point by removing the handle of the local water pump and the outbreak of Cholera in that area ended quickly thereafter.
Similarly some scientists win approval, indeed in the case of Einstein are almost canonised, yet later their theories are discounted, for example Einstein's ideas are now being questioned and it has been shown that he fudged some of his calculations to make them fit, no doubt this has been discovered by the advent of modern PCs.
|
|
|
Post by willied77 on Mar 2, 2008 0:22:36 GMT
Bro Russell, I have an open mind on Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision. and am aware how ideas which have been ridiculed in the past come to be accepted, History is full of such cases. The Earth was deemed to be centre of the Universe, until the theory that the Sun is actually at the centre surfaced. What we as Freemason's should bear in mind, are the reasons why our Fraternity was underground for so long. Why our secrets were so closely guarded during this very period. And above all why we are deemed 'FREE'. To not understand these points or even to ridicule another Brothers forward thinking idea/theory, is IMO the work of those who have not seen enough 'Light'. If you ponder my ramblings, research the connection between Freemasonry and Scientific Advancment. They seem to go hand in hand.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 2, 2008 0:31:20 GMT
If you ponder my ramblings, research the connection between Freemasonry and Scientific Advancment. They seem to go hand in hand. Indeed: I repeat my opinion that Freemasonry is a rational science, which was at the forefront of the Age of Enlightenment. Any R.A. Mason will recognise John Locke's metaphor, where he said that the philosopher ought to serve as an "underlabourer in clearing the ground a little and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way of scientific knowledge" (Locke is also closely associated with the Craft's controversial Leland-Locke Manuscript). In my opinion, there is an esotericism which is appropriate in a Masonic context, but it is not one of giants, UFOs and unicorns, (which I regard as being among the rubbish to be removed), but rather one of spiritual development (indeed, in my Masonic career, I was charged to oppose superstition).
|
|
|
Post by willied77 on Mar 2, 2008 0:51:58 GMT
Tamrin,
Although we live many miles apart, we both see Life through the same pair of 'tainted lenses'.
What WE as Brethern must realise that WE no longer can be burned at the stake for our ideas, theorys and thoughts.
Once we conquer this final barrier, then our race can propell itself to the heights that our Guardians require......
|
|