Mars
Edmond Wollmann
Mars reflects the conscious ego self and its focus in physical reality
(yes the sun is the CORE energy of the ego self but Mars APPLIES it.)
It is the EFFECT of this focus. It is the last of the "rocky" planets.
The asteroid belt was once a planet. The civilization there destroyed
it.
Because of that destruction. The Earth and Mars' orbits shifted-hence
Mars atmosphere and appearance changed to its current format over time
after this. Therefore;
"It definitely will be a diminution to the ego of this civilization
when it discovers the remains of its' past, where it never learned this
lesson (integrity), in the red ruins of the ancient "God of War", Mars.
From "Mars and The State of The Ego," Original draft EW 1/95
It reflects the natural aggression associated with the desire to be a
singular idea within the expression of "All That Is". There is nothing
inherently negative in the idea of ego expression. Once again, negative
ego expression is limiting and constricting based on the fear of being
ignored. It is the child with no restraint, foresight, planning (Saturn)
or sense of perspective (Pluto).
The need psychologically of Mars is to clarify, separate and prove the
self. This motivating energy is not good or bad-it is the catalyst
neccessary in the physical world to action-the expressed energy
of conviction and trust. Anger can be positively interpreted as the
distinction between what you are and what you are not.
But it (the negative ego) does not have to know every little detail in
order to function. It must learn to incorporate the higher self
(Jupiter) and unconcious knowledge (Uranus), when this is blended action
is based on integrity. The idea that you recognoize that you are as
powerful as you need to be to create whatever you desire in your reality
without having to hurt or malign yourself or anyone else in order to
create it.
All action in integrity creates a thread of synchronous accord (actually
ALL actions create threads of probability-even the negative ones.
Negativity has its own synchronicity). All threads lead to all other
threads automatically without effort. There is no reason to "strive" or
"struggle"-it is not a battle, YOU are the creator of your reality on
all levels.
Follow what it excites you to do and all the details will fall into
place when you act in integrity. Mars is the identity definition and the
thrust to manifest-use it! Action is the reflected conviction of belief
definition. We live in a physical world and physical action is a
"spiritual" experience. Thoughts are actions.
If a particle (such as a nutrino) is a "massless" particle-then it can
be affected by anything ELSE which is massless-including consciousness.
A sense of empowerment leads to integral action.
Everything is there for a reason.
--
"To see what is right and not to do it is want of courage" Confucious
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
http://www.flex.com/~jai/astrology/info/alt.astrology.faq.html
Sherilyn
In article <34D909...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@nospam.net> writes
...
>
>The asteroid belt was once a planet.
This claim was done to death last time you made it. There is not enough
material, and not of the right composition, ever to have been a planet.
One might argue that most of the planetary material was blown away in an
explosion, but this would not explain the composition of what remains.
It's a nice tale, though. Brian Aldiss (The Eighty Minute Hour) is only
one of many science fiction writers who have become fascinated by the
subject.
--
Sherilyn| alt.astrology
Posting FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astrology/posting/
Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt
misc.predictions.registry http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/news/faq.htm
Matthew J Wilson
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <34D909...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
><woll...@nospam.net> writes
>...
>>
>>The asteroid belt was once a planet.
>...
>This claim was done to death last time you made it. There is not enough
>material, and not of the right composition, ever to have been a planet.
>One might argue that most of the planetary material was blown away in an
>explosion, but this would not explain the composition of what remains.
>It's a nice tale, though. Brian Aldiss (The Eighty Minute Hour) is only
>one of many science fiction writers who have become fascinated by the
>subject.
Although, interestingly enough, modern theory suggests that it did manage
to produce an object someshat larger than Mars, which, after a few hundred
million years or so, slammed into the Earth, tossing out enough material
to form our good friend, the Moon.
--
Matt.
Edmond Wollmann
Sher...@demon.net (named synchronistically for its inhabitants)
crossposted this off topic purposely and in violation of the
alt.astrology.metapsych charter-please remove that group from further
posts.
Thanks
--
DAVID H. SANDLIN
download my posting for-nephylim-religion, god & astrology-a start. read all
of it.
d.s.
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <34DA50...@nospam.net>...
DAVID H. SANDLIN
download my posting for-nephylim-religion, god & astrology-a start. read all
of it
d.s.
Sherilyn wrote in message ...
>In article <34D909...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
><woll...@nospam.net> writes
>...
>>
>>The asteroid belt was once a planet.
>...
>This claim was done to death last time you made it. There is not enough
>material, and not of the right composition, ever to have been a planet.
>One might argue that most of the planetary material was blown away in an
>explosion, but this would not explain the composition of what remains.
>
>It's a nice tale, though. Brian Aldiss (The Eighty Minute Hour) is only
>one of many science fiction writers who have become fascinated by the
>subject.
DAVID H. SANDLIN
download my posting for-nephylim-religion, god & astrology-a start. read all
d.s.
Matthew J Wilson wrote in message <6bdi1i$hi6$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>...
>Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>In article <34D909...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
>><woll...@nospam.net> writes
>>...
>>>
>>>The asteroid belt was once a planet.
>>...
>>This claim was done to death last time you made it. There is not enough
>>material, and not of the right composition, ever to have been a planet.
>>One might argue that most of the planetary material was blown away in an
>>explosion, but this would not explain the composition of what remains.
>
>>It's a nice tale, though. Brian Aldiss (The Eighty Minute Hour) is only
>>one of many science fiction writers who have become fascinated by the
>>subject.
>
Jedidiah Whitten
Matthew J Wilson (zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au) wrote:
:
: Although, interestingly enough, modern theory suggests that it did manage
: to produce an object someshat larger than Mars, which, after a few hundred
: million years or so, slammed into the Earth, tossing out enough material
: to form our good friend, the Moon.
There's no reason to think this planetoid that hit Earth was formed in the
asteroid belt, is there?
--
Jedidiah Whitten (jswh...@ucdavis.edu)
+------------------------------------------+
| University of California, Davis |
| http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~whitten |
| http://wwp.mirabilis.com/6569964 |
+------------------------------------------+
DAVID H. SANDLIN
my thoughts are that the earth used to be where the asteroid belt is now &
that the earth , venus & mars have been relocated to another spot in orbit.
the asteroid belt is remnants our planet after a collision. re:continental
drift, land masses were all one, & the huge hole in the pacific ocean. the
moon is from a moon of that planet or it's moons that hit us. our moon is
too large in size to be orbiting the earth naturally. our planet was once
called "tiamat" by the ancients. re: zecharia sitchen & similar authors.
d.s.
Jedidiah Whitten wrote in message <6bfgv3$34t$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
Jedidiah Whitten
DAVID H. SANDLIN (dhs...@texas.net) wrote:
: my thoughts are that the earth used to be where the asteroid belt is now &
: that the earth , venus & mars have been relocated to another spot in orbit.
Sorry, you're way off. All the planets were formed pretty much in the
same orbit they are in now. The asteroid belt is what's left of a planet
that failed to form, due to tidal forces from Jupiter.
Jeffrey Cornish
Hi Jedidiah,
Actually to say that something was 'formed in the asteroid belt' is a bit of
a misnomer.
The various planetary and planetismal bodies that orbit our Sun were likely
formed from a disc of dust and gas that shrouded it just after it's
formation. Dust is rather sticky, so protoplanetary bodies were aggregated
(read: made from the collision and combination) out of this mess.
Have you ever run a gravity simulator (or written one)? Every speck of dust
in the protoplanetary disk had an attractive force on it's neighbors
(actually on every other speck in the disk, and the Sun too). This mutual
attraction was small, but as larger and larger bodies were formed, large
gravitational interactions could occur. In plain language, gravity always
attracts, and the more mass a body has, the larger attraction.
Now, there was a very powerful attractive force in the solar system--the
Sun! The rule is, if you don't move fast enough, the Sun will pull you in.
The reason that there was all of that dust around the Sun to start with was
that it was spinning--like how a pizza crust is made. Every bit of dust had
a certain amount of velocity which let it orbit the Sun.
Some bits of dust orbited in more or less a circle, others in more of an
elliptical path. Dust that orbited in a highly elliptical manner usually
ended up colliding with some other bit of dust. Now momentum is always
conserved, so the path of the new larger particle would be less circular but
not as elliptical as the bits that it was formed of.
Fast forward thousands and millions of years. There isn't as much dust now.
Larger conglomerates of dust and rock now orbit the Sun. Large enough to
have significant gravitational attraction. Whenever two of these bodies
come near, if they don't collide, they will still deflect one another. If
you had two bodies, A and B, with A ahead of B in Solar orbit, A would tug
on B, accellerating it. With the greater velocity, B's orbit would extend
out further. However, B is dragging on A, slowing A. A's orbit ends up
lower. If A and B pass enough regularly in thier orbits (called a
resonance), thier mutual orbits can end up very distorted.
Back to the formation of the Moon. This happened early on in the Earth's
history. What likely happened, IMHO, is that the proto-planet that formed
the Moon was in a orbit near the Earth's.
Why? Because to shift the orbit of a body in the zone that we call 'the
asteroid belt' into a more elliptical orbit with a perisol (closest distance
to the Sun), you would need to slow it down. A lot.
Now when I run a gravitational simulator, I usually jack the gravitational
constant up a lot so I get more dramatic changes in orbital. What happens
in nature is that the changes in orbital velocity during a encounter between
two of these bodies isn't very spectacular--maybe dozens of meters per
second.
To deflect a body from the asteroid belt to an Earth crossing orbit would
take 1) a very large body in a 2) resonant orbit and 3) many many passes to
build up the total change in velocity need.
Watching my gravitational simulator, once in a while I'll get two bodies
that by accident end up in a spectacularly resonant orbit. On occasions I
have seen one of the bodies put into a long elliptical orbit, while the
other body dips further and further into the inner system, eventually
colliding with another body. The new body, in the inner system, ends up
with a more circular orbit--the result of the addition of the original
bodies momentum.
Just keep in mind that the early Solar system must have been a cluttered
place--compared to todays near pristine expanse of vaccuum. The proto-Earth
might have had several co-orbital planetismals that it might have interacted
with.
Hope this helps.
Jeffrey Cornish
Jedidiah Whitten wrote in message <6bfgv3$34t$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>Matthew J Wilson (zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au) wrote:
>:
>: Although, interestingly enough, modern theory suggests that it did manage
>: to produce an object someshat larger than Mars, which, after a few
hundred
>: million years or so, slammed into the Earth, tossing out enough material
>: to form our good friend, the Moon.
>
>There's no reason to think this planetoid that hit Earth was formed in the
>asteroid belt, is there?
>
Sherilyn
In article <34DA50...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@nospam.net> writes
>Sher...@demon.net (named synchronistically for its inhabitants)
>crossposted this off topic purposely and in violation of the
>alt.astrology.metapsych charter-please remove that group from further
>posts.
Actually, I have checked the charter, and it's perfectly in keeping with
the charter of a.a.m to engage in discussion on an issue raised in a
posting.
>
>Matthew J Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> >In article <34D909...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
>> ><woll...@nospam.net> writes
>> >...
>> >>
>> >>The asteroid belt was once a planet.
>> >...
>> >This claim was done to death last time you made it. There is not enough
>> >material, and not of the right composition, ever to have been a planet.
>> >One might argue that most of the planetary material was blown away in an
>> >explosion, but this would not explain the composition of what remains.
>>
>> >It's a nice tale, though. Brian Aldiss (The Eighty Minute Hour) is only
>> >one of many science fiction writers who have become fascinated by the
>> >subject.
>>
>> Although, interestingly enough, modern theory suggests that it did manage
>> to produce an object someshat larger than Mars, which, after a few hundred
>> million years or so, slammed into the Earth, tossing out enough material
>> to form our good friend, the Moon.
>>
>> --
>> Matt.
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn why do you insist on adding these groups and crossposting to
conflicting groups?
--
DAVID H. SANDLIN
i don't have any disagreements with the formation of the solar system. what
i am saying is that after the system was formed, a stray planet or a moon of
that planet, or large comet or asteroid collided with this system then
realigned everything to the existing orbital pattern. we all now know that
it is very plausible with the comet collissions with jupiter. the theory i
am proposing isn't just mine, it is becoming more & more acceptable as a
logical explanation to the fact the the earth's crust is unstable, combined
with continental drifts & the fact that the surfacerof this planet is not
all land or all water. i think it may be posssible that this planet was all
water on the surface @ one time until a collision occurred. re: also my
posting on - "nephylim-religion, god & astrology". there are other things
in this posting as well that do not apply specifically to this subject but
if you have never read these theories, they are still woth reading
regardless of wether or not you agree with any of them.
d.s.
Jedidiah Whitten wrote in message <6bg8tp$71n$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>Jeffrey Cornish (jcor...@appiangraphics.com) wrote:
>: Hi Jedidiah,
>:
>: Actually to say that something was 'formed in the asteroid belt' is a bit
of
>: a misnomer.
>
>I know all this. That's why I disputed his statement that the planetoid
>formed in the asteroid belt.
>
>[snip]
>
>: Jedidiah Whitten wrote in message <6bfgv3$34t$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>: >Matthew J Wilson (zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au) wrote:
>: >:
>: >: Although, interestingly enough, modern theory suggests that it did
manage
>: >: to produce an object someshat larger than Mars, which, after a few
>: hundred
>: >: million years or so, slammed into the Earth, tossing out enough
material
>: >: to form our good friend, the Moon.
>: >
>: >There's no reason to think this planetoid that hit Earth was formed in
Edmond Wollmann
I have asked that alt.astrology.metpsych be removed. Do you wish to
purposely create conflict?
Jedidiah Whitten wrote:
> DAVID H. SANDLIN (dhs...@texas.net) wrote:
> : my thoughts are that the earth used to be where the asteroid belt is now &
> : that the earth , venus & mars have been relocated to another spot in orbit.
> Sorry, you're way off. All the planets were formed pretty much in the
> same orbit they are in now. The asteroid belt is what's left of a planet
> that failed to form, due to tidal forces from Jupiter.
Edmond Wollmann
THIS GROUP IS FOR COUNSEL please stop crossposting to
alt.astrology.metpsych
Thanks
Jeffrey Cornish wrote:
> Hi Jedidiah,
> Actually to say that something was 'formed in the asteroid belt' is a bit of
> a misnomer.
> Jedidiah Whitten wrote in message <6bfgv3$34t$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
> >Matthew J Wilson (zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au) wrote:
> >:
> >: Although, interestingly enough, modern theory suggests that it did manage
> >: to produce an object someshat larger than Mars, which, after a few
> hundred
> >: million years or so, slammed into the Earth, tossing out enough material
> >: to form our good friend, the Moon.
> >
> >There's no reason to think this planetoid that hit Earth was formed in the
> >asteroid belt, is there?
> >
> >--
> > Jedidiah Whitten (jswh...@ucdavis.edu)
> >+------------------------------------------+
> >| University of California, Davis |
> >| http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~whitten |
> >| http://wwp.mirabilis.com/6569964 |
> >+------------------------------------------+
--
Edmond Wollmann
THOIS GROUP IS FOR COUNSEL please stop crossposting to
Edmond Wollmann
Please ask your client to stop purposely crossposting to
alt.astrology.metapsych.
Thanks
Path:
nntp.earthlink.net!news2.chicago.iagnet.net!streamer1.cleveland.iagnet.net!qual.net!iagnet.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!164.67.42.145!awabi.library.ucla.edu!128.120.8.185!mark.ucdavis.edu.MISMATCH!news.ucdavis.edu!dilbert.ucdavis.edu!not-for-mail
From:
ez04...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu (Jedidiah Whitten)
Newsgroups:
alt.astrology, sci.astro, sci.skeptic
Subject:
Re: Mars
Followup-To:
alt.astrology.metapsych, alt.astrology, sci.astro,
sci.skeptic
Date:
7 Feb 1998 00:12:41 GMT
Organization:
University of California, Davis
Lines:
30
Message-ID:
<6bg8tp$71n$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>
References:
<34D909...@nospam.net>
<xPu$MlATHi...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
<6bdi1i$hi6$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au> <6bfgv3$34t$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>
<6bg31t$95a$1...@usenet51.supernews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:
dilbert.ucdavis.edu
X-Newsreader:
TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
Xref:
nntp.earthlink.net alt.astrology:133096
sci.astro:146784 sci.skeptic:269762
Jeffrey Cornish (jcor...@appiangraphics.com) wrote:
: Hi Jedidiah,
:
: Actually to say that something was 'formed in the asteroid belt' is a
bit of
: a misnomer.
I know all this. That's why I disputed his statement that the planetoid
formed in the asteroid belt.
[snip]
: Jedidiah Whitten wrote in message <6bfgv3$34t$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
: >Matthew J Wilson (zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au) wrote:
: >:
: >: Although, interestingly enough, modern theory suggests that it did
manage
: >: to produce an object someshat larger than Mars, which, after a few
: hundred
: >: million years or so, slammed into the Earth, tossing out enough
material
: >: to form our good friend, the Moon.
: >
: >There's no reason to think this planetoid that hit Earth was formed
in the
: >asteroid belt, is there?
--
Jedidiah Whitten (jswh...@ucdavis.edu)
+------------------------------------------+
| University of California, Davis |
| http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~whitten |
| http://wwp.mirabilis.com/6569964 |
+------------------------------------------+
Jedidiah Whitten wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Cornish (jcor...@appiangraphics.com) wrote:
> : Hi Jedidiah,
> :
> : Actually to say that something was 'formed in the asteroid belt' is a bit of
> : a misnomer.
>
> I know all this. That's why I disputed his statement that the planetoid
> formed in the asteroid belt.
>
> [snip]
>
> : Jedidiah Whitten wrote in message <6bfgv3$34t$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
Edmond Wollmann
You can continue the post I may even participate but please remove
alt.astrology.metpsych WHY is that so hard and why are you insisting on
disrupting this group??
Sherilyn wrote:
>
> In article <19980207031...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, EWollmann1
> <ewoll...@aol.com> writes
> [Yet another attempt to derail the thread snipped]
> ...
> >Now HERE what astrological method or procedure would you like to discuss?
>
> I'd like to continue the thread which you started in alt.astrology and
> alt.astrology.metapsych on your ideas about the origin of the asteroid
> belt.
>
> You stated:
> "The asteroid belt was once a planet. The civilization there
> destroyed it.
> "Because of that destruction. The Earth and Mars' orbits
> shifted-hence Mars atmosphere and appearance changed to its
> current format over time after this."
>
> What evidence can you present for the above statements?
> --
> Sherilyn| alt.astrology
> Posting FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astrology/posting/
> Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt
> misc.predictions.registry http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/news/faq.htm
--
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
> In article <34DBB5...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@nospam.net> writes
> >Please ask your client to stop purposely crossposting to
> >alt.astrology.metapsych.
I didn't crosspost it to sci.astro,sci.skeptic now will you please stop?
Jedidiah Whitten
Sherilyn
In article <34DBB2...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@nospam.net> writes
>THOIS GROUP IS FOR COUNSEL please stop crossposting to
>alt.astrology.metpsych
Excuse me, Edmond. You started this thread on alt.astrology.metapsych
and alt.astrology, with a cosmological statement concerning the creation
of the asteroid belt. You can hardly complain if people wish to
continue in the same vein.
>
>> Hi Jedidiah,
>
>> Actually to say that something was 'formed in the asteroid belt' is a bit of
>> a misnomer.
>
...
EWollmann1
>From: Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>In article <34DBB2...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
><woll...@nospam.net> writes
>>THOIS GROUP IS FOR COUNSEL please stop crossposting to
>>alt.astrology.metpsych
>
>Excuse me, Edmond. You started this thread on alt.astrology.metapsych
>and alt.astrology, with a cosmological statement concerning the creation
>of the asteroid belt. You can hardly complain if people wish to
>continue in the same vein.
You are perfectly welcome to continue it in sci.skeptic. Those who wish to
continue it I am sure have the energy to trigger the small amount of nueronal
activity it takes to subscribe to sci.skeptic and post there. And if I wish to
I will do the same.
Now HERE what astrological method or procedure would you like to discuss?
--
"You don't know what it means to live and you cheat and you lie, you don't even
know how to say goodbye! It makes me want to cry, cry, cry..." Godley and Creme
"Cry"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Altair Publications/Astrological Consulting
Sherilyn
In article <34DBB5...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@nospam.net> writes
>Please ask your client to stop purposely crossposting to
>alt.astrology.metapsych.
You started the thread on a.a.m., Edmond. Taking your ball away? ;)
If you search dejanews in sci.astro for around September/October last
year, you will see that quite a lively discussion developed from the
last time you made this "asteroid belt as exploded planet" claim. Tom
Van Flandern proposed a theory of this kind back in the seventies, but
apparently hasn't been able to muster much support for it. He is
pinning his hopes on Ida having a debris field, which is predicted by
his theory (but is also predicted, IMO, by the normal "asteroid belt as
bunch of large asteroids that tend to bump into one another and fall to
bits" theory.
Sherilyn
In article <19980207031...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, EWollmann1
<ewoll...@aol.com> writes
[Yet another attempt to derail the thread snipped]
...
I'd like to continue the thread which you started in alt.astrology and
alt.astrology.metapsych on your ideas about the origin of the asteroid
belt.
You stated:
"The asteroid belt was once a planet. The civilization there
destroyed it.
"Because of that destruction. The Earth and Mars' orbits
shifted-hence Mars atmosphere and appearance changed to its
current format over time after this."
What evidence can you present for the above statements?
Jedidiah Whitten
: i am saying is that after the system was formed, a stray planet or a moon of
: that planet, or large comet or asteroid collided with this system then
: realigned everything to the existing orbital pattern. we all now know that
: it is very plausible with the comet collissions with jupiter.
No. A comet is a tiny object that will not alter the orbit of a planet in any important
way. Even the largest asteroid that exists would not change Earth's orbit noticably.
Anything larger would smash the Earth into little pieces rather than knock it from the
asteroid belt into its present orbit.
: the theory i
: am proposing isn't just mine, it is becoming more & more acceptable as a
Acceptable to whom?
: logical explanation to the fact the the earth's crust is unstable, combined
: with continental drifts & the fact that the surfacerof this planet is not
: all land or all water. i think it may be posssible that this planet was all
That is easily explained. Look up plate tectonics.
The Moon was most likely formed by a planetoid collision. But this collision did not
move Earth's orbit by much. It formed in pretty much the same place it is now.
DAVID H. SANDLIN
re: in alt.astrology ALL of my posting called-"nephylim-religion, god &
astrology"
then call me back.
i understand plate tectonics.
a moon belonging to another planet could.
re: also in alt. astrology other previous postings to this if you haven't
done so already.
i want to hear your opinion. i'm serious!
d.s.
Jedidiah Whitten wrote in message <6bh23p$qcd$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
Edwollmann
Mars reflects the conscious ego self and its focus in physical reality
(yes the sun is the CORE energy of the ego self but Mars APPLIES it.)
It is the EFFECT of this focus. It is the last of the "rocky" planets.
The asteroid belt was once a planet. The civilization there destroyed
it.
Because of that destruction. The Earth and Mars' orbits shifted-hence
Mars atmosphere and appearance changed to its current format over time
after this. Therefore;
"It definitely will be a diminution to the ego of this civilization
when it discovers the remains of its' past, where it never learned this
lesson (integrity), in the red ruins of the ancient "God of War", Mars.
From "Mars and The State of The Ego," Original draft EW 1/95
It reflects the natural aggression associated with the desire to be a
singular idea within the expression of "All That Is". There is nothing
inherently negative in the idea of ego expression. Once again, negative
ego expression is limiting and constricting based on the fear of being
ignored. It is the child with no restraint, foresight, planning (Saturn)
or sense of perspective (Pluto).
The need psychologically of Mars is to clarify, separate and prove the
self. This motivating energy is not good or bad-it is the catalyst
neccessary in the physical world to action-the expressed energy
of conviction and trust. Anger can be positively interpreted as the
distinction between what you are and what you are not.
But it (the negative ego) does not have to know every little detail in
order to function. It must learn to incorporate the higher self
(Jupiter) and unconcious knowledge (Uranus), when this is blended action
is based on integrity. The idea that you recognoize that you are as
powerful as you need to be to create whatever you desire in your reality
without having to hurt or malign yourself or anyone else in order to
create it.
All action in integrity creates a thread of synchronous accord (actually
ALL actions create threads of probability-even the negative ones.
Negativity has its own synchronicity). All threads lead to all other
threads automatically without effort. There is no reason to "strive" or
"struggle"-it is not a battle, YOU are the creator of your reality on
all levels.
Follow what it excites you to do and all the details will fall into
place when you act in integrity. Mars is the identity definition and the
thrust to manifest-use it! Action is the reflected conviction of belief
definition. We live in a physical world and physical action is a
"spiritual" experience. Thoughts are actions.
If a particle (such as a nutrino) is a "massless" particle-then it can
be affected by anything ELSE which is massless-including consciousness.
A sense of empowerment leads to integral action.
Everything is there for a reason.
--
"To see what is right and not to do it is want of courage" Confucious
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Astrological Consulting
Altair Publications
Sherilyn
In article <34DBB1...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@nospam.net> writes
>Sherilyn why do you insist on adding these groups and crossposting to
>conflicting groups?
>
To borrow one of your phrases: You question is "begging the question
fallaciousness."
Sherilyn
In article <19980207091...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Edwollmann
<edwol...@aol.com> writes
>
>The asteroid belt was once a planet. The civilization there destroyed
>it.
>Because of that destruction. The Earth and Mars' orbits shifted-hence
>Mars atmosphere and appearance changed to its current format over time
>after this.
What evidence can you offer for the above claim?
Sherilyn
In article <34DBD8...@nspam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@nspam.net> writes
...
>I didn't crosspost it to sci.astro,sci.skeptic now will you please stop?
The subject matter is relevant to sci.astro and sci.skeptic as well as
the two newsgroups to which you originally posted. Why do you find this
so difficult to understand?
Now what evidence, if any can you supply to support your statement? (to
remind you):
"The asteroid belt was once a planet. The civilization there
destroyed it.
"Because of that destruction. The Earth and Mars' orbits
shifted-hence Mars atmosphere and appearance changed to its
current format over time after this."
Sherilyn
In article <34DBD6...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@nospam.net> writes
>You can continue the post I may even participate but please remove
>alt.astrology.metpsych
Why? You clearly thought it was relevant to alt.astrology.metapsych when
you made the posting; my response was on topic and well within the
charter of the group.
> WHY is that so hard and why are you insisting on
>disrupting this group??
Au contraire, Edmond, it is your personal attacks and evasions which are
disrupting this attempt at discussion.
Now either continue the discussion or quit being a nuisance.
>
>Sherilyn wrote:
...
>>
>> You stated:
>> "The asteroid belt was once a planet. The civilization there
>> destroyed it.
>> "Because of that destruction. The Earth and Mars' orbits
>> shifted-hence Mars atmosphere and appearance changed to its
>> current format over time after this."
>>
>> What evidence can you present for the above statements?
Mike Dunford
How about if BOTH Sherilyn and Mr. Wolfman take their debate over
appropriateness of a cross-post to email, or at the very least restrict
the debate to the specific group involved.
As someone who doesn't believe in astrology to begin with, I find having
to wade through a discussion of what is appropriate on
alt.astrology.metapsych to be especially annoying when I'm reading
sci.astro.
-Mike
Edmond Wollmann
Follow ups set to alt.astrology
Mike Dunford wrote:
> How about if BOTH Sherilyn and Mr. Wolfman take their debate over
> appropriateness of a cross-post to email, or at the very least restrict
> the debate to the specific group involved.
> As someone who doesn't believe in astrology to begin with, I find
Good thing its something to know instead of believe in:-)
>having
> to wade through a discussion of what is appropriate on
> alt.astrology.metapsych to be especially annoying when I'm reading
> sci.astro.
> -Mike
EXACTLY my point, and you can thank sher...@sidaway.demon.net (named
for its inhabitants) for crossposting it thus-I have been trying to
remove such posts for the entire time he has been posting, but for some
reason he wishes to not respect anyone on either side.
Thanks
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Brant Watson
>Sher...@demon.net (named synchronistically for its inhabitants)
>crossposted this off topic purposely and in violation of the
>alt.astrology.metapsych charter-please remove that group from further
>posts.
>Thanks
I was about to write a post in which I was going to ask Sherilyn and
others why they persisted in astronomical discussions in your
newsgroup when it was not the subject of the group. I was going to
ask them to consider your repeated request.
But then, reading over the posts, I see you made the statement that
the asteroid belt was once a planet. Since this is your claim,
wouldn't you feel it was worthwhile to discuss various opinions on
that subject? If it was in any way related to astrology, I would
think you would appreciate some astronomical input, perhaps even
solicit it. If it *wasn't* on topic, then why did *you* make the
statement?
[alt.astrology.metapsych (whatever that means) added back in]
Brant
"As to Randi, I don't need to relate to the rest
of the public what our civil actions are about. You idiots do a better
job than I could do." (Earl Gordon Curley)
Greg Lynn
In article <34DBD8...@nspam.net>, woll...@nspam.net says...
>
>Sherilyn wrote:
>
>> In article <34DBB5...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
>> <woll...@nospam.net> writes
>> >Please ask your client to stop purposely crossposting to
>> >alt.astrology.metapsych.
>
>> You started the thread on a.a.m., Edmond. Taking your ball away? ;)
>
Yes you did-I am now reading this thread from sci.astro. After
attacking me so many times for being off-topic...Revenge feels so good.
now will you please stop?
No, you are simply too easy to make fun of.
Greg Lynn
In article <34DBB5...@nospam.net>, woll...@nospam.net says...
>
>Please ask your client to stop purposely crossposting to
>alt.astrology.metapsych.
What does this have to do with astronomy? GET OUT OF SCI. ASTRO!!!!!!
-Greg
Edmond Wollmann
anonym
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Greg Lynn wrote:
>
> > In article <34DBB5...@nospam.net>, woll...@nospam.net says...
>
> > >Please ask your client to stop purposely crossposting to
> > >alt.astrology.metapsych.
> > >Thanks
>
> > What does this have to do with astronomy? GET OUT OF SCI. ASTRO!!!!!!
> > -Greg
>
> Complain to demon.net sherilyn crossposted to that group not me.
Ed updates the kindergarten tactic of "Well, HE started it!" after being
told to go stand in the corner. It didn't work in kindergarten, Ed, and
it doesn't work here.
Your dog eating your homework, as well, cannot be used as an excuse as
to why you have failed to specifically explain why you quote a number to
8 significant digits when describing the complexity of astrological
factors.
Ed, get off your low horse.
Sherilyn
[follow-ups out of non-sci.* groups]
In article <6bdi1i$hi6$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>, Matthew J Wilson
<zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au> writes
>Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
...
>There is not enough
>>material, and not of the right composition, ever to have been a planet.
>>One might argue that most of the planetary material was blown away in an
>>explosion, but this would not explain the composition of what remains.
...
>
>Although, interestingly enough, modern theory suggests that it did manage
>to produce an object someshat larger than Mars, which, after a few hundred
>million years or so, slammed into the Earth, tossing out enough material
>to form our good friend, the Moon.
I wonder about that. We know the moon is nearly as old as the earth
(correct me if I'm wrong, somebody), and there is evidence for the
formation of the moon from earth material due to a collision of some
sort. If the asteroids are the remnants of an orbital system that once
included a massive body that disappeared at about the time of the
formation of the moon, then they must also be that old, not recent
formations. Is this borne out by observation? I seem to recall there
are a number of earth-crossing asteroids, suggesting that asteroids are
subject to quite heavy attrition over a period like 3 billion years,
being knocked into earth-crossing orbits and swept out by collision, and
so on. Could the asteroid belt be subject to replenishment from some
source? I searched the sci.astro FAQ but didn't find a lot about
theories of comet and asteroid formation.
Edmond Wollmann
Christine Lydon wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb , bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson) wrote:
> > Edmond Wollmann <woll...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >>Sher...@demon.net (named synchronistically for its inhabitants)
> make yourself look a bit silly by attempting some witty pun or slur on
> everyone who is signed up with a Demon account.
I don't care, look at your headers please before you crosspost this to
half of usenet.
Thanks
anonym
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Christine Lydon wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 08 Feb , bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson) wrote:
>
> > > Edmond Wollmann <woll...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > >>Sher...@demon.net (named synchronistically for its inhabitants)
>
> > Ed, Demon Internet is a large and popular UK access provider. You
> > make yourself look a bit silly by attempting some witty pun or slur on
> > everyone who is signed up with a Demon account.
>
> I don't care, look at your headers please before you crosspost this to
> half of usenet.
> Thanks
BING!
Time's up!
Ed has already lied!
He said he wouldn't discuss, but only repost until ISP's disciplined
those horrid little people who keep exposing his lies.
Well, there he is, discussing. That sure didn't last long!
But hey! I SAID the planetary alignments would prove my predictions
right! Therefore, either astrology works or Ed Wollmann is a big ol'
liar! And astrology sure don't work!
I like the defense he used, though: "I don't care"! Ranks right up there
with his famous "Well, HE started it!" defense!
Ed, I wish the Usenet was advanced enough to play an appropriate sound
everytime your name, Ed(fartsound), is typed.
You viewers at home will have to provide your own analog soundtrack; I
recommend a quick raspberry. Try it! You'll like it!
Paul Rumelhart
Jeffrey Cornish wrote in message <6bg31t$95a$1...@usenet51.supernews.com>...
snip
>Watching my gravitational simulator, once in a while I'll get two bodies
>that by accident end up in a spectacularly resonant orbit. On occasions I
>have seen one of the bodies put into a long elliptical orbit, while the
>other body dips further and further into the inner system, eventually
>colliding with another body. The new body, in the inner system, ends up
>with a more circular orbit--the result of the addition of the original
>bodies momentum.
Could someone point me to a good gravitational simulator for the i386?
TIA,
Paul Rumelhart
Terry Smith
> From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@nspam.net>
> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 19:42:26 -0800
>
> You started the thread on a.a.m., Edmond. Taking your ball
away? ;)
> I didn't crosspost it to sci.astro,sci.skeptic now will you
please
> stop? --
Your buffoonery is a suitable topic for sci.skeptic. Your
unfounded and innefectual complaints aren't. You should know
this, as you have lost access before for similar behaviour.
Isn't it annoying? - Some of us can get _you_ booted, but, even
if you had a a little justification, you can't touch me at all.
Behave yourself. You're here under sufference.
Terry
--
|WIN95 -a 32bit GUI on a 16 bit patch of an 8 bit OS from a 2 bit cracker.
Christine Lydon
On Sun, 08 Feb , bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson) wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>Sher...@demon.net (named synchronistically for its inhabitants)
Ed, Demon Internet is a large and popular UK access provider. You
make yourself look a bit silly by attempting some witty pun or slur on
everyone who is signed up with a Demon account.
>>crossposted this off topic purposely and in violation of the
>>alt.astrology.metapsych charter-please remove that group from further
>>posts.
>>Thanks
>I see you made the statement that
>the asteroid belt was once a planet. Since this is your claim,
>wouldn't you feel it was worthwhile to discuss various opinions on
>that subject? If it was in any way related to astrology, I would
>think you would appreciate some astronomical input, perhaps even
>solicit it. If it *wasn't* on topic, then why did *you* make the
>statement?
> Brant
Someone else said in this thread that the asteroid belt is a planet
which failed to form, rather than a planet which was destroyed.
I am interested in the symbolism of destruction of a planet versus
failure to create a planet. What does each scenario imply within a
symbolic interpretation of the psychology of the evolution of human
consciousness ?
Some astrologers have assigned rulership of Virgo to the asteroid
belt. I see no pupose in assigning it a rulership, because it cannot
be plotted on an astrological chart, only individual asteroids can be
plotted. What is the "meaning" of the belt as a whole ? What is its
essence, its essential nature, its esoteric significance ?
If it was ever a planet, it was presumably destroyed before life on
earth evolved. Its astrological significance lies in the way it
reflects our current perceptions and understanding. (Astronomical
discoveries herald and coincide with changes in human collective
consciousness, e.g. discoveries of the outer planets.) So discovery
of more about the origins of the asteroid belt would similarly
reflect a change in our perception of ourselves (albeit on a smaller
scale than discovery of a new planet).
If it was a planet which failed to form, is there something missing
from our solar system ? Is there a mythology of creation being
flawed from the beginning, as opposed to perfection (Eden) followed by
a fall from divine perfection ?
From Christine
--------------
Note Re cross-posts:I only read alt.astrology.
My server does not retrieve all the posts.
If I don't respond to your replies, please accept
my apologies,but I probably didn't see your post.
Please email me important replies as well as post.
Remove the letters REMOVE from email address when replying.
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Flanagan
Mike Dunford wrote:
>
> How about if BOTH Sherilyn and Mr. Wolfman take their debate over
> appropriateness of a cross-post to email, or at the very least restrict
> the debate to the specific group involved.
>
> to wade through a discussion of what is appropriate on
> alt.astrology.metapsych to be especially annoying when I'm reading
> sci.astro.
>
> -Mike
If it helps, I second the motion to try to keep postings on topic to
the groups they are posted in. Wars carried out across
multiple groups detract from all of the groups involved. I have
seen several more or less die off as a result of the above.
Thanks in advance.
Legal disclaimer: The above is my opinion, but maybe not my
employer's.
Brant Watson
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 07:56:16 GMT, www.c-zone.net/sidereal/ wrote:
>bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson) wrote:
>
>quote"On Thu, 05 Feb 1998 15:50:57 -0800, Edmond Wollmann
>quote"<woll...@nospam.net> wrote:
>quote"
>quote">Sher...@demon.net (named synchronistically for its inhabitants)
>quote">crossposted this off topic purposely and in violation of the
>quote">alt.astrology.metapsych charter-please remove that group from further
>quote">posts.
>quote">Thanks
>quote"
>quote" I was about to write a post in which I was going to ask Sherilyn and
>quote"others why they persisted in astronomical discussions in your
>quote"newsgroup when it was not the subject of the group. I was going to
>quote"ask them to consider your repeated request.
>quote"
>quote" But then, reading over the posts, I see you made the statement that
>quote"the asteroid belt was once a planet. Since this is your claim,
>quote"wouldn't you feel it was worthwhile to discuss various opinions on
>quote"that subject? If it was in any way related to astrology, I would
>quote"think you would appreciate some astronomical input, perhaps even
>quote"solicit it. If it *wasn't* on topic, then why did *you* make the
>quote"statement?
>quote"
>
>quote"
>quote" Brant
>quote"
>pete comments: brant was posting 30 to 40 anti astro tirades a day
>on alt.astrology - until he found out his wife was sleeping around
>because he was neglecting her and the kids. So, what these
>septic cultists post is pretextural spam - they are not in any
>way interested in a rational discussion - only fucking up the
>bandwidth.
>
>Pete
I see you're still saying "pretextural." What *does* that mean,
anyway?
So you don't think my post was relevant to the discussion? (It's
included above.) And you think yours is?
Or is this recent splurge of yours just a check to see who has
killfiled you? I don't have killfile capability. I still favor the
notion that you are jealous of all the attention Ed is getting for
kook of the month nominations.
[alt.astrology restored....I'll do that every time, Pete]
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
> [follow-ups out of non-sci.* groups]
follow up deleted. Alt.astrology restored
> In article <6bdi1i$hi6$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>, Matthew J Wilson
> <zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au> writes
> >Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
...
> >There is not enough
> >>material, and not of the right composition, ever to have been a planet.
> >>One might argue that most of the planetary material was blown away in an
> >>explosion, but this would not explain the composition of what remains.
...
> >Although, interestingly enough, modern theory suggests that it did manage
> >to produce an object someshat larger than Mars, which, after a few hundred
> >million years or so, slammed into the Earth, tossing out enough material
> >to form our good friend, the Moon.
I do not believe so, I believe the Moon separated from the Earth (its
mother) and in so doing was deprived of its atmosphere. This equated to
the symbol of the moon as the unconscious, when in non-physical form we
began to create the idea of a strict physically focused reality. This
separation was the equivilent of the separation of the unconscious and
suppression of unconscious material in FAVOR of the conscious mind
focus-hence the moon symbolically representing the reigning need of the
persona (through nurturance deprivation)-please see Noel Tyl,
psychological need theories, in The Priciples and Practice of Astrology.
Pangea was the remanant of the separation point and of course as the
moon moved out in orbit it slowed (also this explains why the spin is
synchronized with Earth) and Pangea then began to equalize the
continrental drift around the planet as a natural distrubution.
The moon has very little movement to have been thrust out from the Earth
from a collision. Although minutely possible, this seems highly
improbable.
Now we carry that archetypal event within our psyches because WE are of
the earth and reflect and express the nature of the system from whence
we arose-simple logic and insight. Even IF we carry remnant psychic
material from other systems and other incarnations.
Thanks for allowing me my .02 on the matter.
> I wonder about that. We know the moon is nearly as old as the earth
> (correct me if I'm wrong, somebody)
You are correct-obviously if the moon arose from its mother it would be
the SAME age.
--
EHW