|
|
#241629 - 10/29/06 02:02 AM
Re: The Origin Of The Ancient Star Gods
[Re: Occam]
|
-----
Member
Registered: 04/01/04
Posts: 1059
Loc: Dubai, UAE
|
Offline
|
|
Howdy Occam
I'm not sure if V would have announced he was wrong. He was hit with tons of counter-arguments and didn't seem to accept any. Mr. P is doing a very cranky thing, puting up information he already knows has been refuted. The first and third item:
(1) J.B.J. Delambre, "Histoire de l'astronomie" (1817), I, 407:
(3) E.F. Weidner, "Handbuch der Babylonischen Astronomie (1915) p. 61,
Were refuted very dramatically 41 years ago by Abraham Sachs - I'm sure Mr. P is fully aware of that as it was done publicly at a debate with V there.
In two a gentlemen is stating an opinion directed as a criticism of the Hindu religion.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#241631 - 10/29/06 07:05 AM
Re: The Origin Of The Ancient Star Gods
[Re: Occam]
|
Mr.P.
Member
Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 2187
Loc: Atlanta
|
|
Offline
|
|
Ah, the usual post-"WIC", 1950s Establishment mantra PLUS propaganda smears of NON-religious me and my nation of residence. Tch, tch.
V. did NOT state that the Babylonians NEVER knew of Venus! To the contrary, he points out the EARLIEST sources of several peoples knew Venus to be absent from the planets THEN visible to the naked eye (Saturn, Mercury, Mars, and Jupiter); in the NEXT time period, the COMET Venus was viewed by peoples around the globe; ONLY in the most recent of "ancient times" - when Venus achieved it's present orbit - was the PLANET (sans tail/"beard" or "hair") referred to by those same peoples as the Morning/Evening Star.
You guys continue to intentionally mis-state and obfuscate what Velikovsky actually says in his "theories over ancient times". His earliest sources are the observation of before 1600 BCE and the latest of about 200 BC. At first, Venus didn't exist, later it appeared as a comet which twice encountered Earth, even later, it encountered Mars, and THEN it became the orbiting planet that we now know - crater and all.
The blinders of Establishment/Uniformitarian Science (which claims that the Solar System has been stable in it's present form for 2 billion or so years) force you to see only the last info because you believe that it is impossible for Venus or any other Solar body to exhibit non-current-orbital behaviors.
AND, it is NOT my contention that today's physics/astrophysics are WRONG - they use gravity and angular momentum, etc., to describe the orbital behaviors of the planets using calculated masses. The current theories are merely INSUFFICIENT because - having never observed such - they do not include the electrical forces (attraction/repulsion) or the magnetic forces which come into play when planetary-sized bodies are in close proximity. (We've long demonstrated these effects with magnets and charged spheres in lab experiments.)
P.S.: JW, I'll later post about eight or so excerpts from WIC wherein the star-watching Chinese observed large bodies careening around in the Solar System. Merry Christmas. 
P.S.: Occam, I am noble enough to stick by my conclusions drawn from logical and rational analyses, without repeatedly slurring the posters who disagree with me. While I have no need to convince you to agree with me, you certainly have the right to go to your grave or urn being wrong on these matters.
_________________________
Death must go on. We've lived longer than the dinosaurs and our extinction is past due.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#241634 - 10/29/06 08:10 AM
Re: The Origin Of The Ancient Star Gods
[Re: Mr.P.]
|
-----
Member
Registered: 04/01/04
Posts: 1059
Loc: Dubai, UAE
|
|
Offline
|
|
1. You put out as evidence information you knew was refuted forty years ago, the information is bogus. Do you want the details? I wouldn’t think you would as you already are aware of the contra-information. One has to wonder why you intentional tried to deceive with those bogus references, kinda like lying, getting desperate?
2. Venus has always been right where it was – as long as humans have been around, that is fact Mr. P. Stating otherwise just makes you look foolish, since you have no evidence of such.
3. Sorry Mr. P your electrical theory is also a non starter, it has no basis in fact or physical law. It simply doesn’t exist. This too you’ve know from decades ago. Zero scientific support.
4. If you’re talking about comets, yes the Chinese recorded comets – they also noted Venus was there and always was.
5. Mr. P, please explain why after over 50 years not a single reputable scientist, no papers and no institution accepts any aspect of V theories? Again Mr. P you personally believing something doesn't make it true.
6. Sorry again Mr. P the known physical laws really don’t care about, “establishment” views – they just work and Vs theories don’t.
7. Here is a fun question for you, why is the Moon in a nearly perfect circular orbit?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#241635 - 10/29/06 08:15 AM
Re: The Origin Of The Ancient Star Gods
[Re: -----]
|
-----
Member
Registered: 04/01/04
Posts: 1059
Loc: Dubai, UAE
|
|
Offline
|
|
Oh yes we should put up the speech by Abraham Sach, who showed the world was a limited and bias 'researcher' Velikovsky really was:
Enjoy
ADDRESS OF ABRAHAM SACHS AT BROWN UNIV. 3/15/65
Provided by Leroy Ellenberger
On March 15, 1965, Velikovsky confronted specialists in four fields at Brown University. It would be fair to say, in terms of debate, that Velikovsky bested three of them rhetorically (at least a non-specialist audience would not know the difference), but clearly Velikovsky was taken by surprise, to say the least, by the bravura performance of Abraham Sachs, a specialist in ancient mathematics who really could read cuneiform.
This address of Sachs has circulated underground for many years, even having been quoted by John North in 1976 in his review of Velikovsky Reconsidered in TLS. Steve Talbott mentioned it in Pensee VII, as did G.J. Toomer in his obituary for Sachs in JHA. The text proper was first published in Aeon 3:1 as an appendix to my memoir "Of Lessons, Legacies and Litmus Tests: A Velikovsky Potpourri". However, the original transcription, made by verifying Sachs' manuscript with a tape recording of the event, included the audience's reaction in brackets, much as Rose would later render the transcript of the AAAS discussion periods for Gould and Velikovsky. But in May 1979 when Shulamit Kogan, Velikovsky's older daughter, read this annotated transcript she was livid, thinking that I had done this in order to make fun of her father. But all I was actually trying to do was to render a historically accurate account of Sachs' address, with his extemporaneous additions to the prepared text also in brackets, as follows:
ADDRESS OF ABRAHAM SACHS:
I have spent the last 30 years [man and boy] in studying the cuneiform tablets of ancient Mesopotamia, from the first examples of this sort of writing around 3000 B.C. to the last scraps in the first century A.D. In modern times, the pioneering stage of decipherment took place in the late 1840's, and successful tests of the decipherment were made on fresh documents in the 1850's. In the century since then, more than 50,000 texts have been published, and the public and private collections all over the world are bulging with well over half a million unpublished cuneiform texts, which for the most part are not even catalogued. In searching for mathematical and astronomical texts, I myself have had the opportunity of sifting about 125,000 tablets in this country and the British Isles. As one looks back, with the advantage of hindsight, over the progress of cuneiform studies in the last century, it is evident that in the early decades, two steps forward were accompanied by one step back, in recent decades, the proportion is more like 300 to 1. In 1896, an excellent dictionary of Akkadian contained 790 pages; today, the latest torso of an Akkadian dictionary-- with only one-third of the dictionary published in 8 volumes-- already runs to more than 2500 pages. I mention all this only to underline the sad fact that anyone who, like Dr. Velikovsky, is not a student of cuneiform, runs the very high risk of finding non-existent facts, false translations, and abandoned theories that have foundered on the rocks of new textual material when he relies, as Dr. Velikovsky does, on books and articles that are 80, 50, 40, and in some cases, even 20 years old.
It occurred to me that I could perhaps serve some serious purpose here tonight if I revisited Dr. Velikovsky's works to see how well he had used cuneiform data. I have read carefully Dr. Velikovsky's _Worlds in Collision_ (1950), _Ages in Chaos_ Vol. I (1952), and an earlier work called _Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History_ (1945). I have read especially carefully those sections-- often quite lengthy-- which deal with evidence from cuneiform texts, and I have checked all the sources mentioned in the footnotes. I am happy to report that the bibliographical references in the footnotes are cited with an amazingly high accuracy. But having said this, I regret to have to add that I have reported everything that I can honestly find on the credit side of the ledger. On the negative side, in the time available, I cannot even list all the errors, misunderstandings, and false conclusions. I can only give some samples of big errors and types of mistakes.
More than 100 pages of Dr. Velikovsky's _Ages in Chaos_ (Vol. I) pursue the consequences of his theory that some five or six hundred years in the conventional historian's history of Egypt have to be eliminated, so that, for example, Egyptian kings and events which Egyptologists date to the 14th century B.C. are really to be dated in the 9th century B.C. One of these consequences is that the so-called Amarna Letters, an archive of more than 350 cuneiform texts found in Egypt about 80 years ago and comprising the international diplomatic correspondence of Egypt in a period that conventional historians date to the 14th century B.C. [are to be dated according to Dr. Velikovsky to the 9th century B.C.] Hundreds of details in _scores_ of Amarna Letters are matched up by Dr. Velikovsky with details of Biblical history of the 9th century B.C. as well as Assyrian historical texts of the same period. It takes very little blowing to collapse this house of cards. Not being a cuneiformist, Dr. Velikovsky was not aware that an Assyrian King List was excavated 30 years ago at Khorsabad. One need only add up the regnal years itemized in this King List to arrive at the middle of the 14th century B.C. for King Assuruballit of Assyria, who wrote one of the Amarna letters to the king of Egypt. This date, the middle of the 14th century B.C., is precisely the generation to which Egyptologists, on the basis of completely independent evidence, had dated the Egyptian pharaoh in question. Furthermore, not being a cuneiformist, Dr. Velikovsky was not aware that the forms of the cuneiform characters used in the 9th century B.C. are different from those used in the 14th century B.C., that the phonetic and logographic values that are applicable in texts of the 9th century B.C. do not apply in the 14th century B.C., that the orthographic practices are different, and that neither the grammar nor the vocabulary is the same. Like it or not, conventional scholarship _has_ established _some_ things beyond doubt: there are, for example, paleographical, grammatical, and lexical differences between a manuscript of Chaucer and a manuscript of Hemingway. [Laughter] More than a hundred pages of Dr. Velikovsky's historical reconstructions, when thus inspected and tested, turn out to be bubbles of self-deception. Let us proceed.
From the same 14th century B.C.-- Dr. Velikovsky says 9th [century] B.C.--, come the tablets found at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit), situated near the Mediterranean coast in North Syria. [How does Doc] how does Dr. Velikovsky know that the Ras Shamra tablets are to be dated in the 9th Century B.C.? One of the kings of Ras Shamra is called Niqmed, [Niqmed]; true enough (we need not stop to quibble over the fact that we now know that his name is Niqmad, [and] not Niqmed). [Now,] in the Annals of King Shalmaneser III of Assyria, from the middle of the 9th century B.C., the report of the king's fourth military campaign records the destruction of the city of a certain Nikdime, whose troops were pushed into the sea. Perfectly true. Now, Dr. Velikovsky says: Niqmed of Ras Shamra = Nikdime of the 9th century Annals of Shalmaneser III, [there's a very slight metathesis that no student of linguistics can live without, anyhow, so that's all right (spoken very fast, CLE)] and the sea in question is the Mediterranean. On inspecting the Annals of Shalmaneser III, however, one finds that in his fourth campaign Shalmaneser describes a military expedition to North Syria, to be sure, _but_ he adds that he then returned to his capital city Nineveh and proceeded to the land of Zamua, where, among other things, he destroyed the city of Nikdime and pushed his troops into the sea. Not being a cuneiformist, Dr. Velikovsky does not know that the land of Zamua is mentioned scores and scores of times in late Assyrian annals and is to be located, beyond any possible doubt, in Media, about 600 miles east of Ras Shamra. The sea into which Nikdime's troops were pushed is Lake Van, not the Mediterranean 600 miles to the west. Wrong century, wrong country, wrong king, wrong sea. [Laughter] [N.B.: In April 1979, Peter James told me present scholarship favors Lake Urmiah or Lake Zeribor. CLE]
I can go on all night. [Laughter] In _Worlds in Collision_, p. 161, Dr. Velikovsky says that Babylonian astronomy at one time had a four-planet system, with Venus missing. For this, he refers to a book, [quite correctly,] written in 1915. Not being a cuneiformist, Dr. Velikovsky cannot inspect the original text referred to in his 1915 source. I have read the text and I can report that it is quite true that Venus is missing in the text-- but so are the other four planets. [Laughter] Dr. Velikovsky's 1915 source mistranslated the names of four fixed stars as planets.
In the so-called Venus Tablets of Ammisaduqa, which were copied and recopied over many centuries, Dr. Velikovsky sees in the few scribal errors evidence for the irregularity of Venus and carefully avoids the rest of the text that shows a high degree of regularity indeed. Not being a cuneiformist, Dr. Velikovsky quotes the 1920 opinion of Hommel to the effect that the year-formula of King Ammisaduqa found inside these texts was inserted by a scribe of the 7th century B.C. As every cuneiformist has had to learn for himself by sad experience, Hommel was [already] senile by 1890, [Chuckles] and his condition had certainly not improved perceptibly by 1920. [Laughter]
Wherever one turns in Dr. Velikovsky's works, one finds a wasteland strewn with uncritically accepted evidence that turns to dust at the slightest probe.
[A few] more examples. [Chuckles] On pp. 274-275 of _Worlds in Collision_, Dr. Velikovsky says, [and I quote him]: "Reports concerning earthquakes in Mesopotamia in the eighth and seventh centuries [B aa cent cent 8th and 7th centuries] are very numerous and they are dated." Go to the source referred to in the footnote, and you will find that it is not the 8th-7th centuries but the fourth-third centuries.
On page 315 of the same opus, Dr. Velikovsky reports a value for the length of daylight from what he calls [quote] "the Babylonian astronomical tablets of the eighth century" [unquote] B.C. When one goes to the source, one finds that the date of the texts is 3rd century B.C., not eighth.
At various places, Dr. Velikovsky talks about Babylonian calendars and length of year and length of month. Not being a cuneiformist, Dr. Velikovsky is not aware that tens of thousands of economic texts dated in the civil calendars of ancient Mesopotamia contradict every one of his statements.
In conclusion, may I say that, God knows, I do not consider it a sin not to be a cuneiformist. [Laughter and applause] Some of my best friends are [not cuneiformists.] [Laughter and applause] I merely want to say that it's advisable to be one if you're going to write about cuneiform texts.
End Sachs. Elapsed time: 12:45 min.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#241637 - 10/29/06 11:02 AM
Re: The Origin Of The Ancient Star Gods
[Re: -----]
|
Occam
Member
Registered: 07/11/01
Posts: 1010
Loc: Auckland, New Zealand
|
|
Offline
|
|
JW, Excellent information - a keeper.
Mr P, you say:
I am noble enough to stick by my conclusions drawn from logical and rational analyses
Apparently you are not, since your conclusions are neither logical nor rational. Faith is great for dealing with the unknown and unknowable - but it is neither logical nor rational to cling to an idea or belief that is false beyond any reasonable doubt.
Have you ever heard the expression "pissing into the wind"? It's an expression of pointlessness and perfectly describes what arguing with you is like. No matter what, you will keep on blowing. But, at the risk of waxing too poetical, the truth is like the bullrush in the hurricane. Mighty oaks of belief will fall but the bullrush of truth will bend until the hurricane has blown itself out.
_________________________
This is not an idea to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#241647 - 10/29/06 08:53 PM
Re: The Origin Of The Ancient Star Gods
[Re: Occam]
|
-----
Member
Registered: 04/01/04
Posts: 1059
Loc: Dubai, UAE
|
|
Offline
|
|
Hey Occam
Have you ever noticed how he says we'll die not knowing the truth? Isn't that awfully close to what religious people threaten you with?
Hey Mr. P. when ever you talk about your rational and logical analyses, I always ask you to give us a sample but you never do, why is that? Is it secret? So Mr. P. I guess in your faith driven world, the scientific community of the entire world lacks the ability to be logical and rational, since there is zero support for the stuff you cling to like a zealot.... LOL
From Abraham Sachs (a real scholar speaking of Velikovsky a non-scholar)....a replay
"Wherever one turns in Dr. Velikovsky's works, one finds a wasteland strewn with uncritically accepted evidence that turns to dust at the slightest probe"
Moins on pense, plus on parle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#241648 - 10/29/06 08:53 PM
Re: The Origin Of The Ancient Star Gods
[Re: -----]
|
-----
Member
Registered: 04/01/04
Posts: 1059
Loc: Dubai, UAE
|
|
Offline
|
|
Oh Occam
Did you send me a private message? I received an email from the forum but couldn't find anything.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#241649 - 10/29/06 09:04 PM
Re: The Origin Of The Ancient Star Gods
[Re: -----]
|
-----
Member
Registered: 04/01/04
Posts: 1059
Loc: Dubai, UAE
|
|
Offline
|
|
A gentleman at Bad Astronomy posted this on V, it's a document from him - shows his "scientific" knowledge - hilarious
COSMOS WITHOUT GRAVITATION
ATTRACTION, REPULSION AND ELECTROMAGNETIC CIRCUMDUCTION IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM
V is explaining why gravity doesn't exist
Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
More can be found a the link above.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#241652 - 10/29/06 11:05 PM
Re: The Origin Of The Ancient Star Gods
[Re: -----]
|
Occam
Member
Registered: 07/11/01
Posts: 1010
Loc: Auckland, New Zealand
|
|
Offline
|
|
Hi JW - just spent a happy half hour reading that paper.
Astonishing.
Astonishing that so many mistakes can be made by one person.
I liked this one...
The displacement of the meteorites in the higher atmosphere. It is caused not by the winds, but by the electromagnetic effect of the ionosphere. The light of the meteorites is caused by electric discharges. Consequently, the passage of meteorites disturbs radio reception.
or this one.....
The increase of gravity over the sea as compared with that over the continent may be explained by the higher charge of salt water.
But this one takes the cake!....
If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).
Where to begin with that statement?! In fact, it is impossible for "molten masses" in space to form any shape other than a sphere. Any rotating fluid mass would naturally shed part of itself and form two spheres quite a lot like the Earth/Moon system. Depending upon the gravitational masses and angular momentum, three possible scenarios for the ejected matter are to:
a/ Remain in orbit around its parent, just like the Earth/Moon system
b/ Fall back into its parent, shedding a lot of its energy in the process - eventually one single large sphere would form
c/ The ejected matter would fly off on its own path, eventually settling into its own orbit around the sun
As if that was not enough, he indicates that because the Moon appears stationary relative to us, then it has no rotation!
I am astonished that anyone with such a poor understanding of physics would have the gall to publish such a paper. It is laughable in its ignorance.
There was, however, one tiny little snippet in this sorry paper that possibly contained a truth - though not for the reasons Velikovsky imagined. It was this...
Gravitation defies time
That, as any singularity will tell you, is axiomatic 
_________________________
This is not an idea to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#241654 - 10/30/06 04:43 AM
Re: The Origin Of The Ancient Star Gods
[Re: Occam]
|
-----
Member
Registered: 04/01/04
Posts: 1059
Loc: Dubai, UAE
|
|
Offline
|
|
I read only the first dozen paragraphs and gave up in disbelief.
I remember doing a science project in the 5th or 6th grade on clouds and why and how it rained - I guess V didn't attend such a class or if he did he stood in the back and shouted out at the teacher,
"I won't stand for this establishmental law being forced on me"!
LOL
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Darby, Phil Fiord, PsycoJoe, Rick Donaldson
|
|
|
1 registered
(1 invisible)
and 3 anonymous users online.
|
PaperMoon, chibihogoshino, Petrusko, fantastic fred, jd002
3736 Registered Users |
|
|
|
6670
Rick Donaldson
5837
Sean Osborne
4624
TheFlowerKing
4218
R.F. Burns
4154
Darby
|
3736 Members
60 Forums
15613 Topics
244029 Posts
Max Online: 253 @ 12/08/06 06:00 AM
|
|
Generated in 0.396 seconds in which 0.289 seconds were spent on a total of 19 queries. Zlib compression disabled.
Search
FAQ
