the "Saturn Myth" and modern science I
Dave Talbott
The following will begin a series of posts offering an introduction to
what has been called the "Saturn Thesis," using a question and answer
format. Five successive posts will be included over the next five days.
To economize on the logistical requirements, after the five initial posts
the introduction will be continued only on the group talk.origins. If
the ideas look interesting to you, we hope to see you on talk.origins--a
site of some interesting discussion--within the next few days.
WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT MYTH?
I think there's a very good reason to care about myth, even though myth
as a whole may seem to speak a language too obscure for rational,
feet-on-the-ground folk. Myth is, I believe, a window to early human
history, a more intensely dramatic period than we've realized. The myths
have their roots in a time of celestial catastrophe, and more often than
not the appearance of confusion results from viewing myth as something
other than what it is.
In the course of cultural evolution and scientific advance, we left
behind the fabled "long ago," whose images seemed wholly out of touch
with our own world. Yet my personal conviction is that ancient myth,
when seen as a symbolic record of earth-shaking events in the sky, will
with our own world. Yet my personal conviction is that ancient myth,
when seen as a symbolic record of earth-shaking events in the sky, will
permanently change man's view of his celestial environment.
BUT YOUR CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT THOSE OF OTHERS WHO DEVOTED LIFETIMES TO THE
STUDY OF MYTH. HOW DOES YOUR APPROACH TO MYTH PRODUCE SUCH SURPRISING
CONCLUSIONS?
For many years now--22 to be exact--I've been working to solve a puzzle.
Why do ancient chronicles of celestial gods and heroes tell such similar
stories? Though the names differ, the various biographies of the gods
reveal more parallels than I had ever believed possible. And the deeper
I looked the more clear it became that ancient races around the world
recorded many identical experiences, even when they used different
symbols to tell their stories.
Many common themes run through the folklore of diverse cultures. From
ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia to the Americas, from India to China,
Scandinavia, Africa, and the Pacific Islands, one finds surprisingly
similar accounts: celestial temples and cities, a lost paradise or
"Garden of Eden," a cosmic mountain, a flaming serpent or dragon in the
similar accounts: celestial temples and cities, a lost paradise or
"Garden of Eden," a cosmic mountain, a flaming serpent or dragon in the
sky--and surprisingly similar stories of global calamity ranging from
wars of the gods, to a great flood or a devastating rain of fire and
gravel.
If we'll look at these collective memories carefully, it will change our
understanding of the past. Many of the myths concern planets, but the
accounts make no sense to us in terms of the movement of these remote
bodies today. Why did the planets, these little pinpricks of light, play
such a powerful role in the mythical "age of the gods"?
Along with others working in this field, I've come to interpret the myths
and drawings and ritual practices from a new vantage point. Here is
the conclusion in a nutshell: A few thousand years ago, the sky did not
look anything like it looks today! Planets appeared as gigantic,
sometimes terrifying bodies above the ancient stargazers. In periods of
stability this involved incredible beauty, but there were also periods of
mind-altering catastrophe--the most traumatic experiences in the history
of man.
WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THIS?
The primary evidence comes from ancient chronicles, submitted to
extensive cross-referencing. By comparing accounts from around the
world, one can begin to reconstruct the way the sky looked in ancient
times. Is it possible that the myths and pictographs recorded, in a
language unique to the starworshippers, large-scale events we've
forgotten? By keeping that possibility firmly in mind, the researcher
will begin to identify crucial themes of myth--themes found on every
continent, but pointing to an alien sky.
As one begins to see the past differently, recent space age discoveries
will take on a new significance. Our probes of other planets, such as
the Mariner explorations of Mars, the Voyager missions to Jupiter and
Saturn, and more recently the Magellan mapping of Venus, have produced
many stunning images of the planets and their moons, together with
undeniable evidence of large-scale catastrophe within the planetary
system. Taken as a whole, these stark profiles of our neighbors
challenge traditional theories claiming slow and uneventful planetary
system. Taken as a whole, these stark profiles of our neighbors
challenge traditional theories claiming slow and uneventful planetary
evolution. Moreover, a new possibility arises from a reconsideration of
the historical material: the possibility that at least some of the
horrendous scars on our planetary neighbors resulted from events
witnessed by man not all that long ago.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE STATEMENT THAT THE PLANETS
APPEARED AS "GIGANTIC" BODIES IN THE SKY?
At the core of the argument is the idea that several planets were once
joined in a spectacular gathering of planets, together with gases and
dust, smaller moons and cosmic debris. For prehistoric man--who
witnessed all of this--the effect was a massive celestial display in the
northern sky. I've called this celestial assembly "the polar
configuration" because in its stable phases it was centered on the north
celestial pole. In the beginning, the primary form was the planet
Saturn, stationary but immense in the sky. Numerous lines of evidence
suggest that Saturn once towered over man and inspired the most dramatic
leaps in human imagination the world has ever known.
Our work puts a new emphasis on the unusual celestial events reflected in
the myths. When you first dive into world mythology, all of your prior
training will tell you to dismiss the myth-makers as fabricators or
victims of hallucination. But there's another way to see the myths.
Ancient man experienced extraordinary events, then strove to remember and
to reenact them in every way possible. The result was not only a global
mythology, but entirely new forms of human expression. And the whole
range of expressions--sacrifices to the gods, wars of conquest,
monumental construction, pictographic representations, and endless
celebrations of the lost age of the gods--left us a massive reservoir of
evidence. These highly novel expressions are, in fact, the
distinguishing characteristics of the first civilizations.
BUT WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THE SKY HAS CHANGED SO DRASTICALLY?
The best I can ask for is a willingness to consider an argument. I could
show you, for example, that certain celestial images preoccupied ancient
man to the point of an obsession. A great cosmic wheel in the sky. The
pyramid of the sun. The eye of heaven. Also the ship of heaven, a
spiraling serpent, the raging goddess, and four luminous "winds" of the
sky. The problem for conventional perspectives is that these images are
far, far removed from anything we see in the heavens today. But that is
only the beginning of the theoretical challenge. As soon as you realize
that far-flung cultures, though employing different symbols, tell a
unified story, all of the previous "explanations" of myth collapse.
Of course the point will not be proven in a few sentences, and not in a
few pages. But the more you learn on this subject, the more compelling
the collective memory becomes.
SO YOU ARE CHALLENGING THE IDEA THAT THINGS HAVE
NOT REALLY CHANGED THAT MUCH WITHIN THE SOLAR
SYSTEM.
Yes, we are challenging an intellectual system as a whole. What is at
stake here are the pillars of the modern world view. How could it be
that the sky has completely changed in a few thousand years? Our
textbooks do not talk about such a thing. When instructing us on the
history of the solar system, the evolution of our planet, the birth of
man, the origins of civilization, no one speaks of an unstable solar
system, of interplanetary upheaval, or of wholesale changes in the
celestial order.
When the popular astronomer Carl Sagan presented his impressive
exposition on the nature of things, called Cosmos, he didn't ask if we
may have misunderstood our past. Rather, Sagan's expressed view--the
official view of science for many years--fits comfortably within the
textbooks on astronomy, geology, biology, anthropology, and ancient
history.
When we launched the U.S. Space program in the late 50s, then devoted
billions of dollars to exploring neighboring planets, no one thought to
ask if the planets might have followed different courses in earlier
times, whether recent disturbances of the planetary system might have
left their tell-tale marks on these remote bodies. So when our cameras
and measuring devices reached the planets Mars and Venus, and the Voyager
probes provided spectacular glimpses of Jupiter and Saturn--well, we were
left with a hundred enigmas and unanswered questions.
And yes, there's a certain irony to this. The prevailing view of myth
proclaims that, through science, man escaped the bonds of superstition
and make believe. But now, in the twentieth century--the age of science
and reason--there is every reason to believe that myth and symbol will
provide the lost key to the past, the key to a new understanding of the
solar system, of planet Earth, and of man himself.
HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH THESE IDEAS ABOUT "PLANETARY"
MYTH FROM THE IDEAS OF OTHER RESEARCHERS SUCH AS
JOSEPH CAMPBELL, CARL JUNG AND MIRCEA ELIADE?
Each of these impressive scholars came to discern certain unified layers
of myth, layers our traditional cynicism about myth never anticipated.
Perhaps the greatest contribution of these pioneers is their
acknowledgment that the common view--seeing myth as random
absurdity--will not suffice to explain the subject.
I think the late Joseph Campbell has done the most to awaken popular
interest in myth, and he is one of my own favorites too. Following a
comparative approach, Campbell brought to light quite a number of global
themes. He noted, for example, the myths of the central sun, the world
mountain, the flowering of creation through sacrifice, the birth of the
hero, the terrible goddess, and so on.
Any one of these themes, when explored in its full context, could open
the door to incredible discovery. But Campbell, like so many others,
stopped short of asking the most important question of all: if the
celestial references of the myths are absent today, is it possible that
they were present in a former time?
WHAT IS THE REAL MESSAGE OF MYTH, IN YOUR VIEW?
The mythmakers are telling us we've forgotten the very thing they
regarded as most vital--in fact, the source of all meaning to the first
starworshippers. We've forgotten the age of the gods. We've assumed
that as long as man has journeyed on our planet the world looked and
behaved almost exactly as it does today. And that is the fundamental
error of modern perception.
The answer to that error is to re-envision the past. With the help of the
ancient chroniclers, its time to bring the forgotten dramas--both the
beauty, and the nightmare scenarios--into the light of day.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Saturn thesis and many other areas of research growing out of the
pioneering work of Immanuel Velikovsky, will be the subject of an
international symposium, "Velikovsky, Ancient Myth, and Modern Science,"
November 25-27, in Portland, Oregon.
For information contact e...@pi.eai.com
Copyright 1994, David Talbott
Steven J. Crisp
[Some stuff...]
Wacko: part one.
I can't wait for the rest of the week. Indeed, I'm drooling with
anticipation.
Ladies and gentlemen, start your flamethrowers.
Steve Crisp
John McDonald
: In the course of cultural evolution and scientific advance, we left
: behind the fabled "long ago," whose images seemed wholly out of touch
: with our own world.
Key word, "fabled"
: For many years now--22 to be exact--I've been working to solve a puzzle.
: Why do ancient chronicles of celestial gods and heroes tell such similar
: stories?
Why are Roman myths just like the Greek? Rome conquered Greece, the myths
were stolen. You might also consult the theories of Carl Jung. I hope
you have run across him in 22 years...
: bodies today. Why did the planets, these little pinpricks of light, play
: such a powerful role in the mythical "age of the gods"?
Because they moved while the stars, apparently did not.
: The best I can ask for is a willingness to consider an argument. I could
: show you, for example, that certain celestial images preoccupied ancient
: man to the point of an obsession.
Which goes to prove the vast imagination of the human mind, not the
non-physical movement of planets.
: international symposium, "Velikovsky, Ancient Myth, and Modern Science,"
: November 25-27, in Portland, Oregon.
Ah, i knew his name would show up eventually...
--
Stephen Holland
->Wacko: part one.
->I can't wait for the rest of the week. Indeed, I'm drooling with
->anticipation.
->Ladies and gentlemen, start your flamethrowers.
No, ladies and gentlemen, do not start your flame throwers. A great deal of
the drivel in this group recently has been due to people flaming posts that
should have been ignored and allowed to die a natural death.
---
============================================================================
e-mail: hol...@astro.ubc.ca
www: http://www.astro.ubc.ca/~holland/holland.html
============================================================================
Paul J. Gans
: Good God man! How do you reconcile your nonsensical "gathering of
: planets" with the laws of physics?
: Bob Kolker
Having seen most of this Saturn drivel over on talk.origins, I
*strongly* suggest that you simply ignore it. Dave is out to
rile up as many people as possible. His posts are long and
voluminous and he *will* answer most criticism.
Your group is about to become innundated.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Jacques Guy
>Dave Talbott (dtal...@netcom.com) wrote:
>[Some stuff...]
Those who occasionally have roamed the depths of talk.origins
know the gem of the sequel: 6000 years ago (or was it 6000 BC?
Who cares, just yesterday, that is), the Earth was orbiting
... Saturn! Not only was it orbiting around Saturn,
but it was always presenting the same side to it so that,
under the gravitational pull of Saturn, it was egg-shaped.
(Perhaps Jonathan Swift had racial memories of this not-so-
ancient prehistory when he wrote about those famous sects
encountered by Gulliver?) The small end of this egg, pardon
me, I mean: the pointy end of our Earth, appeared to its
denizens as a *huge* (no, make that: ***HUUUUGE***) mountain.
It is known as Mount Meru.
For a more imaginative world, read "Oh, Sudannah!" by...
by... pox... not Robert Heinlein, but his son, I think,
who is also the author of "The Garbage Chronicles" (another
amusing, zany SF novel).
Robert J. Kolker
planets" with the laws of physics?
Bob Kolker
--
Conan the libertarian
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
OS/2 Now!
Ignore it, and maybe 'Saturn' will go away!
======
hol...@geop.ubc.ca wrote:
:a> In article 4...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu, py...@unity.ncsu.edu (Steven J. Crisp) writes:
:a> ->Wacko: part one.
:a> ->I can't wait for the rest of the week. Indeed, I'm drooling with
:a> ->anticipation.
:a> ->Ladies and gentlemen, start your flamethrowers.
:a> No, ladies and gentlemen, do not start your flame throwers. A great deal of
:a> the drivel in this group recently has been due to people flaming posts that
:a> should have been ignored and allowed to die a natural death.
Richard D Clark
Why isn't MST3K included in the list of newsgroups. That is the most
reasonable place for this material.
Richard Clark
r...@gas.uug.arizona.edu
Daniel A Ashlock
In article <rjk.78...@max.tiac.net>, r...@max.tiac.net (Robert J. Kolker) writes:
>Good God man! How do you reconcile your nonsensical "gathering of
>planets" with the laws of physics?
He can't.
>Bob Kolker
I advise use of kill files by those without extreme
intestinal fortitude. Not only does Talbott's crowd wave
of physics by claiming (without credible evidence) that
natural laws vary with time but they also cook up numerical
code which, after lots of hacking, disagreres with everyone
elses numberical code about how planets move.
--
Dan Ashlock
H. M. Hubey
>Robert J. Kolker (r...@max.tiac.net) wrote:
>: Good God man! How do you reconcile your nonsensical "gathering of
>: planets" with the laws of physics?
>: Bob Kolker
It may not be so difficult. There exist inexplicable statistical
data collected by statisticians over a long period of time
at the University of Sorbonne.
There exist cyclic phenomena which may may be related to gravitational
or magnetic phenomena. And this could somehow be related to the
aligning of the planets. Note that this is not a defense of
traditional or modern astrology.
--
-- Mark---
....we must realize that the infinite in the sense of an infinite totality,
where we still find it used in deductive methods, is an illusion. Hilbert,1925
Carl Fink
hu...@pegasus.montclair.edu (H. M. Hubey) wrote:
> >Robert J. Kolker (r...@max.tiac.net) wrote:
>
> >: Good God man! How do you reconcile your nonsensical "gathering of
> >: planets" with the laws of physics?
>
> >: Bob Kolker
>
>
>
> It may not be so difficult. There exist inexplicable statistical
> data collected by statisticians over a long period of time
> at the University of Sorbonne.
I'd like to point out that the previous sentence accomplishes
a difficult feat: it is both utterly meaningless, and irrelevant.
>
> There exist cyclic phenomena which may may be related to gravitational
> or magnetic phenomena. And this could somehow be related to the
> aligning of the planets. Note that this is not a defense of
> traditional or modern astrology.
>
This, on the other hand, is less impressive, in that it only
demonstrates really bad logic, along with truly amazing
vagueness.
--
"And in conclusion, I hate you all."
-- Dilbert
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com CARL.FINK (GEnie)
Stan Brown
>
>The following will begin a series of posts offering an introduction to
>what has been called the "Saturn Thesis," using a question and answer
>format. Five successive posts will be included over the next five days.
>
>To economize on the logistical requirements, after the five initial posts
>the introduction will be continued only on the group talk.origins. If
That would be true _if_ you had set the follow-up line. I suppose that's
the tie-in to alt.history.what-if ? Certainly there was no other discernible
connection in your article to the subject matter of this newsgroup.
Usenet is divided into newsgroups for a reason. Please respect the
votes of thousands of Usenetters who established separate newsgroups,
and post _only_ to the newsgroup that is appropriate for your article.
There's an article on how to pick the right newsgroup, posted
periodically to news.answers.
[many lines of Velikovskian idiocy deleted]
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems br...@Ncoast.ORG
Can't find FAQ lists? ftp to 'rtfm.mit.edu' and look in /pub/usenet
(or email me >>> with valid reply-to address <<< for instructions).
I can also send "newbie" information on Usenet--just ask if you want it.
Walter Alter
>In article <dtalbottC...@netcom.com> dtal...@netcom.com (Dave Talbott) writes:
>>
>>The following will begin a series of posts offering an introduction to
>>what has been called the "Saturn Thesis," using a question and answer
>>format. Five successive posts will be included over the next five days.
>>
>>To economize on the logistical requirements, after the five initial posts
>>the introduction will be continued only on the group talk.origins. If
>That would be true _if_ you had set the follow-up line. I suppose that's
>the tie-in to alt.history.what-if ? Certainly there was no other discernible
>connection in your article to the subject matter of this newsgroup.
>Usenet is divided into newsgroups for a reason. Please respect the
>votes of thousands of Usenetters who established separate newsgroups,
>and post _only_ to the newsgroup that is appropriate for your article.
>There's an article on how to pick the right newsgroup, posted
>periodically to news.answers.
>[many lines of Velikovskian idiocy deleted]
you self appointed race, uh...i mean, net purists are a pox. you know in
your balls that if this thread was about something that tickled yer fancy,
your reactive nervous system would be in a flat line coma and the snoring
would knock the cockroaches off your curtains. whyn't you go sponateously
direct some traffic & get it out of your system.
walter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI-CIA-KGB-NSA-BCCI-DIA-DEA-FEMA-KKK-FOIA-CONTRA-TRILAT-BATF-INS-IRS-MI5
JFK-RFK-MLK-MKULTRA-COINTELPRO-ILLUMINATI-P2
/||~)(~|~| | /|| |~)|~)(~ CFR-ADL-BLUEBIRD-OSS-ONI-SOE-BIS-MOSSAD-AIDS
|_||\ \|~|\||_|| |\ |\ \ THULE-ARTICHOKE-OTO-NSA-BILDERBERGER-40 CTTE
| || \_/|_| || ||_ |_)|_)_/ SLA-VELIKOVSKY-SDI-INSLAW-TESLA-LAROUCHE-TSS
5 0 3 6 4 1 8 5 5 4 JIM JONES-GURDJIEFF-ABSWEHR-T.4-WACO-CROWLEY
EFF-PGP-RHIC/EDOM-PANDORA-CAN-ENIGMA-BEARDEN
GHELEN-SPETZNAZ-SS-MASONS-ODESSA-TAVISTOCK-WFMH-REUCHELIN-EUGENICS-OCCULT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Erst
>Those who occasionally have roamed the depths of talk.origins
>know the gem of the sequel: 6000 years ago (or was it 6000 BC?
>Who cares, just yesterday, that is), the Earth was orbiting
>... Saturn! Not only was it orbiting around Saturn,
>but it was always presenting the same side to it so that,
>under the gravitational pull of Saturn, it was egg-shaped.
>(Perhaps Jonathan Swift had racial memories of this not-so-
>ancient prehistory when he wrote about those famous sects
>encountered by Gulliver?) The small end of this egg, pardon
>me, I mean: the pointy end of our Earth, appeared to its
>denizens as a *huge* (no, make that: ***HUUUUGE***) mountain.
>It is known as Mount Meru.
>For a more imaginative world, read "Oh, Sudannah!" by...
>by... pox... not Robert Heinlein, but his son, I think,
>who is also the author of "The Garbage Chronicles" (another
>amusing, zany SF novel).
You're thinking of Brian Herbert, son of Frank Herbert. Frank was the author
of Dune (and it's myriad sequels) and many other novels.
Robert A. Heinlein had no children. A movie based on his book "The Puppet
Masters" is being release this Friday, Oct. 21st. Don't miss it! (The book was
the also the original inspiration for "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers",
or, rather, the book "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" was a blatant rip-off of
the earlier Heinlein novel.)
- Brian "Can't tell I'm a Heinlein fan, can you?" Erst
Walter D Morris
On October 12th, in objection to Dave Talbott's discussion of The Saturn
Myth, Stan Brown wrote as follows:
"I suppose that's
the tie-in to alt.history.what-if ? Certainly there was no other
discernible
connection in your article to the subject matter of this newsgroup.
Usenet is divided into newsgroups for a reason. Please respect the
votes of thousands of Usenetters who established separate newsgroups,
and post _only_ to the newsgroup that is appropriate for your article.
There's an article on how to pick the right newsgroup, posted
periodically to news.answers.
[many lines of Velikovskian idiocy deleted]"
Mr. Talbott's article goes to the heart of the Quetzalcoatl myth (literally,
as it turns out); not to mention the origins of Venus-worship in
Mesoamerica. Would you consider this relevant to this newsgroup?
I would. And I'm sure many would agree.
(The previous post has come to you courtesy of Ev Cochrane. Thanks
to Dr. Morris for the temporary loan of his account)
--
Walter D Morris
wdmo...@iastate.edu
Bob Casanova
>From: wal...@netcom.com (Walter Alter)
>Subject: Re: the "Saturn Myth" and modern science I
>Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 02:05:17 GMT
>br...@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown) writes:
>>In article <dtalbottC...@netcom.com> dtal...@netcom.com (Dave Talbott) writes:
>>>
>>>The following will begin a series of posts offering an introduction to
>>>what has been called the "Saturn Thesis," using a question and answer
>>>format. Five successive posts will be included over the next five days.
>>>
>>>To economize on the logistical requirements, after the five initial posts
>>>the introduction will be continued only on the group talk.origins. If
>>That would be true _if_ you had set the follow-up line. I suppose that's
>>the tie-in to alt.history.what-if ? Certainly there was no other discernible
>>connection in your article to the subject matter of this newsgroup.
>>Usenet is divided into newsgroups for a reason. Please respect the
>>votes of thousands of Usenetters who established separate newsgroups,
>>and post _only_ to the newsgroup that is appropriate for your article.
>>There's an article on how to pick the right newsgroup, posted
>>periodically to news.answers.
>>[many lines of Velikovskian idiocy deleted]
>you self appointed race, uh...i mean, net purists are a pox. you know in
>your balls that if this thread was about something that tickled yer fancy,
>your reactive nervous system would be in a flat line coma and the snoring
>would knock the cockroaches off your curtains. whyn't you go sponateously
>direct some traffic & get it out of your system.
Er, exactly how do you pronounce "sponateously"? (And perhaps *your*
intellect (?) resides in your gonads, but mine doesn't.)
>walter
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> FBI-CIA-KGB-NSA-BCCI-DIA-DEA-FEMA-KKK-FOIA-CONTRA-TRILAT-BATF-INS-IRS-MI5
> JFK-RFK-MLK-MKULTRA-COINTELPRO-ILLUMINATI-P2
> /||~)(~|~| | /|| |~)|~)(~ CFR-ADL-BLUEBIRD-OSS-ONI-SOE-BIS-MOSSAD-AIDS
> |_||\ \|~|\||_|| |\ |\ \ THULE-ARTICHOKE-OTO-NSA-BILDERBERGER-40 CTTE
> | || \_/|_| || ||_ |_)|_)_/ SLA-VELIKOVSKY-SDI-INSLAW-TESLA-LAROUCHE-TSS
> 5 0 3 6 4 1 8 5 5 4 JIM JONES-GURDJIEFF-ABSWEHR-T.4-WACO-CROWLEY
> EFF-PGP-RHIC/EDOM-PANDORA-CAN-ENIGMA-BEARDEN
> GHELEN-SPETZNAZ-SS-MASONS-ODESSA-TAVISTOCK-WFMH-REUCHELIN-EUGENICS-OCCULT
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob C.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<< Good, fast, cheap! (Pick 2) >>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What the net needs is a good bus arbiter
Doug Weller
myth stuff isn't appropriate here.
(Well, more boring really, usual stuff about not having an
open mind -- I mean just because the Saturn myth has been well
aired and debunked before doesn't mean anyone has a right
to criticise it!)
It's this idea that people on the Net have no right to set up
groups to discuss certain specified topics without being disturbed
that puzzles me.
Doug
--
Doug Weller | looking after uk.education.teachers,
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk | the newsgroup for the use of the
voice +44 121 708 1254 | Internet in schools
Langley Primary School, St. Bernard's Road, Solihull UK 2:2501/405.16
Walter D Morris
On October 15th, Doug Weller wrote as follows:
"I've had some unpleasant email from Dave Talbot for suggesting that the
Saturn
myth stuff isn't appropriate here.
(Well, more boring really, usual stuff about not having an
open mind -- I mean just because the Saturn myth has been well
aired and debunked before doesn't mean anyone has a right
to criticise it!)
It's this idea that people on the Net have no right to set up
groups to discuss certain specified topics without being disturbed
that puzzles me."
As a close friend and collaborator of Dave Talbott, I doubt very much
that you have received *any* unpleasant mail from him. No doubt he
called you on criticizing something with a mere wave of the hand and
without firsthand knowledge, but who's to say since you provide no
evidence for your statement. Nor, so far as I can tell, has Dave's
letter had any influence on you: You still dismiss his carefully
researched thesis in cavalier fashion. Since you're the one who
brought it up, would you mind telling me just where "the Saturn myth
has been aired and debunked before?" I'd really like to know, since
I've never seen it and I've been following the controversy since day
one some 14 years ago.
Ev Cochrane
(On temporary loan from Walter Morris).
Jacques Guy
>You're thinking of Brian Herbert, son of Frank Herbert. Frank was the author
>of Dune (and it's myriad sequels) and many other novels.
Yes! And he wrote "Sidney's Comet", too. I still prefer "The Garbage
Chronicles" and, above all, "Oh Sudannah". The Urantia Book is not
bad either, but the author, they say, believes what's in there.
Or pretends to. But for the 20 cents I paid for it at a charity
sale, I am not complaining. The Codex Seraphinianus, of course,
takes the all-time prize, but, bound in morocco, and at close to
$300, well, it's an acquired taste. Dearly acquired.
Paul Schlyter
I'd recommend you to study some celestial mechanics -- then you'll fairly
soon see why the celestial mechanics proposed by Talbott is just
impossible. Planets simply do not move the way he suggests.
That argument alone is enough to debunk Talbotts, as well as Velikhovskys,
suggestions. If your counter-argument is "...but perhaps celestial
mechanics is inaccurate..." I'd like you to explain why celestial mechanics
can be used to predict planetary positions with such great precision as
is actually acheived.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, SAAF (Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society)
Nybrogatan 75 A, S-114 40 Stockholm, Sweden
InterNet: pau...@saaf.se p...@ausys.se
Walter D Morris
On October 15th, Paul Schlyter wrote as follows in response to a
previous post of mine:
">As a close friend and collaborator of Dave Talbott, I doubt very much
>that you have received *any* unpleasant mail from him. No doubt he
>called you on criticizing something with a mere wave of the hand and
>without firsthand knowledge, but who's to say since you provide no
>evidence for your statement. Nor, so far as I can tell, has Dave's
>letter had any influence on you: You still dismiss his carefully
>researched thesis in cavalier fashion. Since you're the one who
>brought it up, would you mind telling me just where "the Saturn myth
>has been aired and debunked before?" I'd really like to know, since
>I've never seen it and I've been following the controversy since day
>one some 14 years ago.
>
>Ev Cochrane
>(On temporary loan from Walter Morris).
>--
>Walter D Morris
>wdmo...@iastate.edu
I'd recommend you to study some celestial mechanics -- then you'll fairly
soon see why the celestial mechanics proposed by Talbott is just
impossible. Planets simply do not move the way he suggests.
That argument alone is enough to debunk Talbotts, as well as Velikhovskys,
suggestions. If your counter-argument is "...but perhaps celestial
mechanics is inaccurate..." I'd like you to explain why celestial mechanics
can be used to predict planetary positions with such great precision as
is actually acheived."
Contrary to Mr. Schlyter's suggestion, my counter-argument would be
that Talbott's model is indeed compatible with a valid model of
celestial mechanics. No doubt you'd be interested to know that
more than one professional physicist with experience in orbital
dynamics has endorsed the Saturn-thesis as entirely plausible.
More than one model has been offered, in fact, to account for the
planetary gymnastics involved, *all within standard celestial
mechanics*. In the very near future, in fact, I hope to have
one such model posted to sci.astro. No doubt we'll have more to
talk about at that time.
Ev Cochrane (aka Walter Morris)
Walter D Morris
On October 15th, Paul Schlyter wrote as follows in response to a
previous post of mine:
">As a close friend and collaborator of Dave Talbott, I doubt very much
>that you have received *any* unpleasant mail from him. No doubt he
>called you on criticizing something with a mere wave of the hand and
>without firsthand knowledge, but who's to say since you provide no
>evidence for your statement. Nor, so far as I can tell, has Dave's
>researched thesis in cavalier fashion. Since you're the one who
>brought it up, would you mind telling me just where "the Saturn myth
>has been aired and debunked before?" I'd really like to know, since
>I've never seen it and I've been following the controversy since day
>one some 14 years ago.
>
>Ev Cochrane
>(On temporary loan from Walter Morris).
>--
>Walter D Morris
>wdmo...@iastate.edu
I'd recommend you to study some celestial mechanics -- then you'll fairly
/home/wdmorris/.article (Modified) Hit Ctrl-K H for
help
soon see why the celestial mechanics proposed by Talbott is just
impossible. Planets simply do not move the way he suggests.
That argument alone is enough to debunk Talbotts, as well as Velikhovskys,
suggestions. If your counter-argument is "...but perhaps celestial
mechanics is inaccurate..." I'd like you to explain why celestial mechanics
can be used to predict planetary positions with such great precision as
is actually acheived."
Contrary to Mr. Schlyter's suggestion, my counter-argument would be
that Talbott's model is indeed compatible with a valid model of
celestial mechanics. No doubt you'd be interested to know that
more than one professional physicist with experience in orbital
dynamics has endorsed the Saturn-thesis as entirely plausible.
More than one model has been offered, in fact, to account for the
planetary gymnastics involved, *all within standard celestial
mechanics*. In the very near future, in fact, I hope to have
one such model posted to sci.astro. No doubt we'll have more to
talk about at that time.
Ev Cochrane (alter ego of Walter Morris)
Michael P Urban
Stephen Foster's song. This song contains references to mysterious
events that may indicate that the world of 1850 was very different
from the one we know today, to wit:
It rained all night the day I left,
the weather it was dry;
The sun so hot I froze to death,
Susannah don't you cry.
Meteorologists, historians, and physicists are all going to have to
revise their conventional beliefs to account for these remarkable
observations.
[silly lunch-hour mood. But I still do not represent JPL, Caltech, or
NASA. So there.]
Tom Wilmore
In article <walterCx...@netcom.com>, wal...@netcom.com (Walter Alter) writes:
|> >>>Usenet is divided into newsgroups for a reason. Please respect the
|> >>>votes of thousands of Usenetters who established separate newsgroups,
|> >>>and post _only_ to the newsgroup that is appropriate for your article.
|> >>>There's an article on how to pick the right newsgroup, posted
|> >>>periodically to news.answers.
|>
|> >>>[many lines of Velikovskian idiocy deleted]
|>
|>
|>
|> >>you self appointed race, uh...i mean, net purists are a pox. you know in
|> >>your balls that if this thread was about something that tickled yer fancy,
|> >>your reactive nervous system would be in a flat line coma and the snoring
|> >>would knock the cockroaches off your curtains. whyn't you go sponateously
|> >>direct some traffic & get it out of your system.
|>
|> >Er, exactly how do you pronounce "sponateously"? (And perhaps *your*
|> >intellect (?) resides in your gonads, but mine doesn't.)
|>
|> >>walter
|>
|>
|>
|>
|> walter
I don't care if Saturn came out of Uranus, please drop this discussion from
sci.archaeology.mesoamerican. If it is true, it doesn't belong there. If it
is false, it doesn't belong there.
--
Best Regards
Tom Wilmore Big-eyed beans from Venus,
SAS Institute Inc. Don't let anything get in between us
Austin, Texas -Don Van Vliet
sas...@unx.sas.com
Walter Alter
>>>votes of thousands of Usenetters who established separate newsgroups,
>>>and post _only_ to the newsgroup that is appropriate for your article.
>>>There's an article on how to pick the right newsgroup, posted
>>>periodically to news.answers.
>>>[many lines of Velikovskian idiocy deleted]
>>you self appointed race, uh...i mean, net purists are a pox. you know in
>>your balls that if this thread was about something that tickled yer fancy,
>>your reactive nervous system would be in a flat line coma and the snoring
>>would knock the cockroaches off your curtains. whyn't you go sponateously
>>direct some traffic & get it out of your system.
>Er, exactly how do you pronounce "sponateously"? (And perhaps *your*
>intellect (?) resides in your gonads, but mine doesn't.)
>>walter
chickenshit spelling flame. eat spew and die.
walter
Bob Casanova
>Xref: tron misc.education.science:1180 sci.anthropology:9233 sci.archaeology:13681 sci.archaeology.mesoamerican:559 sci.astro:69548 sci.skeptic:87912
>Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.history.what-if,alt.mythology,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.education.science,sci.anthropology,sci.archaeology,sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.astro,sci.skeptic,soc.history.science,soc.history
>Path: tron!uunet!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!sastjw
>From: sas...@terrier.unx.sas.com (Tom Wilmore)
>Subject: Re: the "Saturn Myth" and modern science I
>Sender: ne...@unx.sas.com (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
>Message-ID: <CxtKy...@unx.sas.com>
>Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 13:46:52 GMT
>Reply-To: Tom Wilmore <sas...@terrier.unx.sas.com>
>References: <dtalbottC...@netcom.com> <CxKD3...@NCoast.ORG> <walterCx...@netcom.com> <cas.162....@ops1.bwi.wec.com> <walterCx...@netcom.com>
>Nntp-Posting-Host: terrier.unx.sas.com
>Organization: SAS Institute Inc., Austin, Texas
>Lines: 41
>In article <walterCx...@netcom.com>, wal...@netcom.com (Walter Alter) writes:
>|> >>>Usenet is divided into newsgroups for a reason. Please respect the
>|> >>>votes of thousands of Usenetters who established separate newsgroups,
>|> >>>and post _only_ to the newsgroup that is appropriate for your article.
>|> >>>There's an article on how to pick the right newsgroup, posted
>|> >>>periodically to news.answers.
>|>
>|> >>>[many lines of Velikovskian idiocy deleted]
>|>
>|>
>|>
>|> >>you self appointed race, uh...i mean, net purists are a pox. you know in
>|> >>your balls that if this thread was about something that tickled yer fancy,
>|> >>your reactive nervous system would be in a flat line coma and the snoring
>|> >>would knock the cockroaches off your curtains. whyn't you go sponateously
>|> >>direct some traffic & get it out of your system.
>|>
>|> >Er, exactly how do you pronounce "sponateously"? (And perhaps *your*
>|> >intellect (?) resides in your gonads, but mine doesn't.)
>|>
>|> >>walter
>|>
>|>
>|>
>|> chickenshit spelling flame. eat spew and die.
>|>
>|> walter
>I don't care if Saturn came out of Uranus, please drop this discussion from
>sci.archaeology.mesoamerican. If it is true, it doesn't belong there. If it
>is false, it doesn't belong there.
>--
My apologies to the other groups; I didn't check to make sure sci.skeptic was
the only target. I'll be more careful in the future.
>Best Regards
> Tom Wilmore Big-eyed beans from Venus,
> SAS Institute Inc. Don't let anything get in between us
> Austin, Texas -Don Van Vliet
> sas...@unx.sas.com
Bob C.
Paul J. Gans
: "Contrary to Mr. Schlyter's suggestion, my counter-argument would be
: that Talbott's model is indeed compatible with a valid model of
: celestial mechanics. No doubt you'd be interested to know that
: more than one professional physicist with experience in orbital
: dynamics has endorsed the Saturn-thesis as entirely plausible.
: More than one model has been offered, in fact, to account for the
: planetary gymnastics involved, *all within standard celestial
: mechanics*. In the very near future, in fact, I hope to have
: one such model posted to sci.astro. No doubt we'll have more to
: talk about at that time."
All should know that a challenge was issued several weeks ago
in talk.origins for those pushing this idiocy to make their
model public. What was asked for, as a minimum, were the starting
positions and velocities of the planets in the "simulations"
referred to above.
No such information has been put on the net. It is very doubtful
that any ever will.
The result is obvious. It was put up or shut up. Now let's see
if they are honest enough to shut up.
The place to follow this nonsense is on talk.origins. Please
check there for further details. I have posted this to the known
world so that all may know that the bluff has (long since) been
called.
Richard A. Schumacher
>that Talbott's model is indeed compatible with a valid model of
>celestial mechanics. No doubt you'd be interested to know that
>more than one professional physicist with experience in orbital
>dynamics has endorsed the Saturn-thesis as entirely plausible.
Who. Name them. Do you want to convince us, or do you just
want worshippers?
Eli Balin
>In article <38f7vc$n...@starman.convex.com> schu...@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>
>>>dynamics has endorsed the Saturn-thesis as entirely plausible.
>
>What's this? Any relation to the Jupiter Effect?
More like the Andromeda Syndrome - a work of fiction.
--
=============================
|E.M. Balin |
|elib...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu|
=============================
Walter D Morris
On October 23rd, David Bibb wrote as follows with respect to the
Saturn-thesis defended by Dave Talbott and myself:
"Apollo and his chariot traveling across the sky didn't stay fixed.
There are also bones found in Europe which have markings upon them
which would appear to be a lunar calendar dating from before the
6000 BC period. What of such items?"
As every serious scholar of Greek religion knows, Apollo was only
identified with the sun in relatively recent times, originally having
absolutely no relation to the current sun (see here the comments of
Walter Burkert in Greek Religion and/or Karl Kerenyi's Apollo).
The Greek name for the ancient sun-god was Helios, originally a name
for the planet Saturn as Plato and various other authorities assure
us. I wonder, how would you explain this curious fact, Mr. Bibb?
As for the possibility that ancient bones preserve a lunar calender,
I would deny that any such calender exists. Prove me wrong. If you
can, there will be hundreds of archaeoastronomers out there who will
nominate you for a Nobel-prize as this would be quite a finding, if
true.
Ev Cochrane (on temporary loan from Dr. Walter Morris).
Paul Schlyter
Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> Walter D Morris <wdmo...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>
>> "Contrary to Mr. Schlyter's suggestion, my counter-argument would be
>> that Talbott's model is indeed compatible with a valid model of
>> celestial mechanics. No doubt you'd be interested to know that
>> more than one professional physicist with experience in orbital
>> dynamics has endorsed the Saturn-thesis as entirely plausible.
>> More than one model has been offered, in fact, to account for the
>> planetary gymnastics involved, *all within standard celestial
>> mechanics*. In the very near future, in fact, I hope to have
>> one such model posted to sci.astro. No doubt we'll have more to
>> talk about at that time."
>
> All should know that a challenge was issued several weeks ago
> in talk.origins for those pushing this idiocy to make their
> model public. What was asked for, as a minimum, were the starting
> positions and velocities of the planets in the "simulations"
> referred to above.
>
> No such information has been put on the net. It is very doubtful
> that any ever will.
>
> The result is obvious. It was put up or shut up. Now let's see
> if they are honest enough to shut up.
>
> The place to follow this nonsense is on talk.origins. Please
> check there for further details. I have posted this to the known
> world so that all may know that the bluff has (long since) been
> called.
I've had some email conversation with Dave Talbott, the guy who
posted those five long posts about the "Saturn myth". I just
maintained that the celestial mechanics involved was impossible.
Talbott mentioned a guy, Bob Grubaugh, who was supposed to have run a
numerical integration who confirmed the "Saturn myth". I too wanted
to know more details about that, and I received a copy of a post by
Grubaugh which contained at least a few more details (those crackpots
are certainly not clear when describing their theories!).
Anyway, here's how it appears that are trying to do it: to avoid the
problem of precession, Talbott+Grubaugh claims that the direction
Earth-Saturn is fixed relative to the stars -- in that way the
Earth's north pole could be permanently directed towards Saturn, they
claim. To try to show the feasibility of this, Grubaugh appears to
have written a numerical integration program in BASIC. Using that
program Grubaugh says he's succeeded to maintain this fixed
orientation Earth-Saturn during 1/4 orbital revolution. This Talbott
finds very exciting, however it's not very hard to find two orbits
which makes the two celestial bodies maintain rougly a stationary
mutual position for 1/4 of an orbit.
Grubaugh seems to be using a simple-minded Euler integration method,
and the accuracy of his program breaks down completely after only a
little more than one full revoultion in the orbit! I recommended
that they should obtain the DE118I orbital integration package by
Steve Moshier instead (available at any SimTel mirror in the
msdos/astronmy directory), which I've found to be robust and reliable
(its only serious limitation is that it does not allow variations in
the integration step size).
Talbott got very excited about this. I recommended that they should
look for initial conditions that maintained the stationary Earth-Saturn
configuration for hundreds of orbital revolutions. That'll probably
keep them busy for awhile...... <grin>
Dave Talbott
When people contact me by email, as quite a number have done in recent
days, I make it a policy never to mention their names in public forums
such as talk.origins.
Paul Schlyter, however, has stated on these newsgroups that we are in
communication, so I trust there will no breach of confidence in my mentioning
this correspondence as well. Paul has made some helpful suggestions, and
I believe that Grubaugh will be in communication with him as well.
Nor is Mr. Schlyter himself implicated in the scandalous recent
pronouncement by Paul Gans, from whom Schlyter quotes--
>> All should know that a challenge was issued several weeks ago
>> in talk.origins for those pushing this idiocy to make their
>> model public. What was asked for, as a minimum, were the starting
>> positions and velocities of the planets in the "simulations"
>> referred to above.
>>
>> No such information has been put on the net. It is very doubtful
>> that any ever will.
>>
>> The result is obvious. It was put up or shut up. Now let's see
>> if they are honest enough to shut up.
>>
>> The place to follow this nonsense is on talk.origins. Please
>> check there for further details. I have posted this to the known
>> world so that all may know that the bluff has (long since) been
>> called.
>
For anyone who cares about getting to the truth of these things, I cannot
imagine a more offensive posture. The statement comes from an
individual who has no knowledge of the thesis at stake, and has taken no
steps to learn about the thesis. (Though there is a pressing need for more
complete summaries or overview material, the thesis has been treated
extensively in published articles for several years) And most
outrageous of all is the suggestion that no one will provide
figures, since the statement was made *after* our message that Bob had
completed some preliminary phases on a simulation and the details would be
made available to anyone asking for them by email. Further, it has been stated
repeatedly that Bob has made arrangements to come onto the net to answer
questions.
But Paul Gans is not the only one to make such amazing statements in
recent days. Are you folks not aware that people are *saving* this stuff?
More than once, t.o debunkers have proclaimed the absolute and unequivocal
impossibility of 1) a polar Saturn, and 2) in-line positions of several
planets. But how many of these critics, after learning something about
models under consideration, are prepared to make such a declaration?
And what ever happened to patience, for heaven's sake? This idea that
Bob should be falling all over himself to accommodate every whim of
every noisy critic is getting more than a little obnoxious. The
fact is that most of the communication over the next few weeks will be
private, not public, and for damned good reason if you haven't figured this
out yet, Paul. And that communication will be with capable specialists who
have expressed an honest interest in (I DIDN'T SAY "SUPPORT FOR") the Saturn
thesis or the physical issues raised.
I can't speak for others, but for me the sight of half-trained critics
patting each other on the back, issuing pronouncements like Paul Gans', and
reassuring themselves that they are only defending the good name of
science is not only scandalous, but worse than that, is getting boring.
Dave
Footnote to Mr Schlyter: I've not said that Grubaugh has "confirmed" the
Saturn thesis, only that the work looks interesting. Since making that
statement, I've found that more than enough qualified people agree it is
theoretically interesting, so that the issue (of theoretical interest) has
been eliminated in my own mind.
Richard A. Schumacher
The lack of patience is yours, for coming breathlessly and repeatedly
into the Net with the "Saturn Myth" before bothering to make a critical
analysis of the orbit simulations. The impossibility of the dynamics
you require is so great and the errors in Grubaugh's methods are so
elementary that they are obvious even to non-experts. Any real
scientist's worst critic should be him/herself. You deserve every bit
of the flack you've recieved for this nonsense.
Dirk Terrell
>And what ever happened to patience, for heaven's sake? This idea that
>Bob should be falling all over himself to accommodate every whim of
>every noisy critic is getting more than a little obnoxious. The
not that an experiment testing some subtle area of the thesis has been proposed. These
simulations should have been done before you even convinced yourself of its validity.
I await the results and the methods of simulation.
Dirk
Dave Talbott
As readers may know, a physical model to account for the Saturn thesis
has been poposed by engineer Robert Grubaugh, and is under consideration
by several specialists, one of which is *not* schu...@convex.com
(Richard A. Schumacher), who writes--
>The impossibility of the dynamics
>you require is so great and the errors in Grubaugh's methods are so
>elementary that they are obvious even to non-experts. Any real
>scientist's worst critic should be him/herself. You deserve every bit
>of the flack you've recieved for this nonsense.
>The impossibility of the dynamics
>you require is so great and the errors in Grubaugh's methods are so
>elementary that they are obvious even to non-experts. Any real
>scientist's worst critic should be him/herself. You deserve every bit
>of the flack you've recieved for this nonsense.
It's good to see someone sticking his neck out like this Richard. Many
others have retreated dramatically from initial cavalier statements on
the subject. Perhaps you'd like to educate us dummies by telling us
exactly the mistake Bob has made.
(Incidentally, I haven't seen your name on the requests for details on Bob's
simulation.)
Dave
Paul Schlyter
Dave Talbott <dtal...@netcom.com> wrote:
Well, basically I agree with Paul Gans, although I have selected a
different path than being rude in public. Being rude in public may
silence you but it won't convince you. So instead I did point you to
the DE118I numerical integrator by Steve Moshier, a tool which I have
found to be an accurate and reliable N-body numerical integrator. I
hope this will make you learn, by your own experience (instead of
just listening to what you probably consider "ignorant
representatives for the scientific establishment" or something like
that) that the celestial mechanics of the "Saturn Myth hypothesis" is
impossible. And if the celestial mechancs is impossible, the
hypothesis must be abandoned, no matter how well it may appear to
agree with some old myth. But don't take my word for this, instead
run Moshiers integrator and find out for yourself!
> The statement comes from an individual who has no knowledge of the
> thesis at stake, and has taken no steps to learn about the thesis.
Why must there be something "at stake" at all? That will just make
prestige enter the matter, and prestige is often an effective way to
prevent yourself from seeing the truth.
Paul Schlyter
A summary of the results were posted in talk.origins. No, I don't have
access to that newsgroup (and I do not miss it!), but Dave Talbott emailed
me a copy of it, and added some comments of his own. Basically Grubaugh
did write his own numerical integrator in BASIC, and there he did get,
with siutably selected initial conditions that does NOT correspond to any
real circumstances in the current solar system, a rough constant alignment
Earth-Saturn during 1/4 revolution in the orbit. I'm not surprised about
that, it's not that difficult to select two orbits that shows this
behaviour during 1/4 revolution, but it will be increasingly difficult
to maintain the alignment after that. Anyway, the accuracy of Grubaughs
integration program broke down after a little more than one revolution
in the orbit. I recommended Talbott that they should use the DE118I
numerical integration program instead (available at any SimTel mirror in
the msdos/astronmy directory), and see if they could maintain constant
alignment not just during 1/4 revolution but during hundreds of revolutions.
It'll be a good exercise for them to do that.
Richard A. Schumacher
>It's good to see someone sticking his neck out like this Richard. Many
>others have retreated dramatically from initial cavalier statements on
>the subject. Perhaps you'd like to educate us dummies by telling us
>exactly the mistake Bob has made.
1. Using Euler's method for integration.
2. Running the simulation for only 1/4 orbit.
3. Using ad-hoc starting conditions which amount to assuming
that which you wish to prove. (How did Earth and Saturn
get into that configuration in the first place?)
Have him use a real integration method (others have even named
specific software packages) and run it for multiple orbits. Do
that, then get back to us.
Brandon Van every
>In article <38f90j$r...@umd5.umd.edu>, Jeff Bytof <jby...@astro.umd.edu> wrote:
>>In article <38f7vc$n...@starman.convex.com> schu...@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>>
>>>>dynamics has endorsed the Saturn-thesis as entirely plausible.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>What's this? Any relation to the Jupiter Effect?
>More like the Andromeda Syndrome - a work of fiction.
Was it the Andromeda Syndrome, or the Andromeda Strain? :-)
Cheers,
Brandon
--
Brandon J. Van Every |
Computer Graphics Guy | [This space intentionally left blank.]
C++ UNIX X-Windows Motif |
vane...@rbdc.rbdc.com | [Except for the bit about BA Anthro Cornell 92]
Doug Weller
dtal...@netcom.com (Dave Talbott) wrote:
Too much seeing that he stated clearly that discussion of the Saturn
myth would take place on talk.origins.
If you meant that Dave please make sure you set your followup line
correctly.
David Tonhofer
All this bull really gets on my nerves. Abian at least is funny.
-- David
David Darryl Bibb
Walter D Morris <wdmo...@iastate.edu> wrote:
"As every serious scholar of Greek religion knows, Apollo was only
identified with the sun in relatively recent times, originally having
absolutely no relation to the current sun (see here the comments of
Walter Burkert in Greek Religion and/or Karl Kerenyi's Apollo).
The Greek name for the ancient sun-god was Helios, originally a name
for the planet Saturn as Plato and various other authorities assure
us. I wonder, how would you explain this curious fact, Mr. Bibb?
True, Apollo is a late-comer but, the thread runs through many other
myths. Myths that out number the example used to back up the theory.
As for the possibility that ancient bones preserve a lunar calender,
I would deny that any such calender exists. Prove me wrong. If you
can, there will be hundreds of archaeoastronomers out there who will
nominate you for a Nobel-prize as this would be quite a finding, if
true.
Actually I couldn't accept the prize as the material has already been
discovered and published in archaeological journals. I'll look up the
reference.
Does the theory you propose also explain the Biblical refference where the
Sun stood still in the sky for 24 hours? This is not a cut, just a
question. If we are explaining ancient myth should we not bring in all
ancient myth?
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Launchpad is an experimental internet BBS. The views of its users do not
necessarily represent those of UNC-Chapel Hill, OIT, or the SysOps.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Paul Schlyter
David Darryl Bibb <David...@launchpad.unc.edu> wrote:
> Does the theory you propose also explain the Biblical refference where
> the Sun stood still in the sky for 24 hours? This is not a cut, just a
> question. If we are explaining ancient myth should we not bring in all
> ancient myth?
trouble, since many myths contradict each other. Consider for
instance the Biblical myth of the universe having been created during
7 days a few thousand years ago, and compare with the Hindu myth that
the universe is immensely older than the moment of Big Bang --- how
do you "explain" both these myths at the same time? Pretty hopeless,
even if we don't strive for scientific accuracy -- right?
While you're at it, you mighs also try to consider some feasible
mechanism by which the Earth may be transformed from a globe to a
square, since Revelation talks about "the 4 corners of the Earth" and
if THAT is to be interpreted literally.... <grin>
Thus, not even the most enthsiastic mythologist will be able to
"explain" ALL myths -- he has to select which myths he wants to try
to "explain".
Jo Walton
posting it here?