Merged Radical New Thesis on Human and Solar System Origins

[fuelair]

This one is not sci-rfi, in fact it's academically robust, but the authors claim to have created a century's worth of work for scifi and romance novel writers.


Consider the axis tilts of planets in our system. If our system had formed from a swirling disk of solar material as textbooks claim, all axial tilts should be approximately the same, that is, all near zero with all axes of the planets roughly perpendicular to the plane of orbit. The sun, Jupiter, and mercury do in fact show that. Uranus and Venus are odd cases out with their own explanations, but Neptune, Saturn, Mars, and Earth all have axis tilts of 23.4 - 27 degrees.

[qimg]http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/image010_zpsfde7dcc0.png[/qimg]

The explanation which suggests itself is as follows: Our sun, Jupiter, and Mercury, with their axes roughly perpendicular to the plane of the system, form one part of the ancient system; Uranus and Venus are odd cases with their own separate explanations; Neptune, Saturn, Mars, and Earth, with their spin axes roughly 26° to the plane of the system, comprise what once was a separate system, which must have been captured by our present sun as a group.

The normal reaction is to assume that this occurred hundreds of millions of years ago. Ancient literature says it occurred a few thousand years ago. Primitive people seeking to devise an astral religion today would end up worshiping the sun and moon, but the two chieftain gods of all antique religions were Jupiter and Saturn. Plato consistently refers to antediluvians as "Nurslings of Kronos(Saturn); the main religious festival in ancient Rome was "Saturnalia", our Sabbath is still called "Saturday". Hesiod and Ovid claim there was a golden age when Saturn/Kronos was "King of Heaven", followed by the great flood, then a brief "Silver Age" when Jupiter/Zeus was "King of Heaven", followed by the Trojan war and our present "Iron Age". In the same language, our sun is the "King of Heaven" now.

To make a long story exceedingly short, our solar system was originally in two parts: A bright part consisting of our sun, Mercury, Jupiter and its moons, and probably whatever the asteroid belt used to be; and a dark part consisting of Neptune, Saturn, Mars, and Earth. When the dark part finally flew into the Sun's orbital plane at a 26-degree angle from the South, the individual bodies peeled off and began to orbit the sun separately as they do now, but kept the ~26-d4egree angle. The How/Why of all that involves cosmic Birkeland currents and Herbig/Haro object strings.

A rocky planet (Mars, Earth) orbitting a brown dwarf star (Saturn) would do so inside the heliosphere/plasma sheath of the dark star. Life would be warm enough but the middle part of the light spectrum would be pretty much missing:

[qimg]http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/image015_zps7f29282e.jpg[/qimg]

and you'd be living in a deep purple sort of a world:

http://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-death-cult-part-1/a-timeless-age-in-a-purple-haze/

Creatures of such a world (dinosaurs, hominids) would have huge eyes, hence the huge dinosaur and Neanderthal eye sockets:

[qimg]http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/n5.gif[/qimg]
Image courtesy www.themandus.org

[qimg]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/19/science/19obdinosaurspan/19obdinosaurspan-articleLarge.jpg[/qimg]
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/science/19obdinosaurs.html?_r=0

Humans with the smallest relative eye size of higher animals could not plausibly come from such an environment. For the rest of the tale including the question of an original home for modern humans within our solar system:

http://www.cosmosincollision.com

Wow. As in wow, what a load. I guess all those years of reading about planetary formation involving massive rotational (and other) changes in planets (moons, etc.) due to very large impact energy transfers was a waste of my time. Oh, wait, of course it wasn't - this is just more blather from people who do not understand they are not - even in combination - as intelligent/capable as the persons who have put together the info we know and have investigated for a reasonably long time with pretty darn consistent results...........

 

[fuelair]

I thought it was generally accepted that the likeliest explanation of the various axial tilts was collisions with the larger bits of debris that were flying around the solar system during its formation.

Yes, yes it is as I note above. You semi-ninjaed me!!! But I am more vicious!!!

 

[fuelair]

If the sun captured planets from another star then I would expect that the orbits of the planets to be in different plains. No I suggest the idea in the OP is a complex idea where a simpler one exists.

I would use a different word there but yes. Also, in all fairness I consider the "complex" idea to be a "simple" idea if you get my drift and I think you do!!!!

 

[fuelair]

Unless, you know, something happened to those planets since then.



And yet ALL life on Earth uses the same amino acids, out of several possible combinations, and shows an obvious family resemblance, something that beings from elsewhere wouldn't.

Now, now don't get all sciencey here!!!

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm an owl and have large eyes too.
And I don't give a hoot!

I once actually attended a talk by Velikovsky.

I was amusing in that no one else there seemed to know who he was. I can only guess that the program arranger was a fan and thought Velikovsky should address a meeting of mostly computer programmers.

 

[icebear]

I guess all those years of reading about planetary formation involving massive rotational (and other) changes in planets (moons, etc.) due to very large impact energy transfers was a waste of my time.........

Pretty much.

Solar systems basically form up as Herbig/Haro object strings, basically created by cosmic Birkeland currents and the z-pinch erffect of such currents, which can agglomerate plasma into more dense bodies. The book I mentioned in the OP describes all of that.

 

[Garrison]

Pretty much.

Solar systems basically form up as Herbig/Haro object strings, basically created by cosmic Birkeland currents and the z-pinch erffect of such currents, which can agglomerate plasma into more dense bodies. The book I mentioned in the OP describes all of that.

And even if remotely accurate is irrelevant as you have persistently ignored posts pointing out that that there were later interactions that affected the orbits and axial inclinations of the planets. Why are you doing so?

 

[icebear]

And even if remotely accurate is irrelevant as you have persistently ignored posts pointing out that that there were later interactions that affected the orbits and axial inclinations....

There aren't any sort of haphazard interactions which would leave four of the planets with ~26-degree axis tilts.

 

[ctamblyn]

There aren't any sort of haphazard interactions which would leave four of the planets with ~26-degree axis tilts.

1. None of them has a 26 degree tilt (ETA: OK, Earth is close). They're all different, ranging from almost zero to almost 180 degrees.

2. How did you reach this conclusion, anyway? Detailed simulations?

 

[icebear]

1. None of them has a 26 degree tilt (ETA: OK, Earth is close). They're all different, ranging from almost zero to almost 180 degrees.

~26 Means "roughly 26". Earth, Mars, Saturn, and Neptune all have axis tilts of 24 - 27 degrees, i.e. roughly 26. Visually as per the OP, they are all the same.

 

[ctamblyn]

~26 Means "roughly 26". Earth, Mars, Saturn, and Neptune all have axis tilts of 24 - 27 degrees, i.e. roughly 26. Visually as per the OP, they are all the same.

But they are not exactly the same, and in any case you have deliberately selected an otherwise arbitrary subset after the fact.

Furthermore, the ones that you have omitted have a much wider spread in tilts (ETA so even going by tilt, there is no natural partition of the planets into two subsets), and there is also the pesky fact that the tilts can change with time for a variety of reasons (especially in the early solar system).

So, returning to the question you avoided: according to your modelling, how unlikely is the observed distribution of tilts under the mainstream hypotheses of formation?

ETA2: And given that you are hypothesising a relatively recent merger, how do you account for the planets having a common orbital plane? What probability do you calculate for that under your alternative hypothesis?

 

[ctamblyn]

Pretty much.

Solar systems basically form up as Herbig/Haro object strings, basically created by cosmic Birkeland currents and the z-pinch erffect of such currents, which can agglomerate plasma into more dense bodies. The book I mentioned in the OP describes all of that.

According to this interview with the authors of the book you mention, modern humans evolved and lived on Ganymede (a moon of Jupiter) and migrated to Earth in the recent past:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/04/RIR-130421.php

That doesn't really help their credibility.

 

[icebear]

A number of people who have investigated the thing have come to the same basic conclusion i.e. that humans would be so enormously ill adapted for conditions on this planet some 100,000 years ago that there's no reasonable way to think we originated on this planet.

Other authors saying the same thing include Lloyd Pye and Ellis Silver, look it up.

The other consideration is that Cro Magnon man appears to have arrived on this planet fully formed, with his exquisite artwork, his fancy tools and projectile weaponry and everything else fully formed from day one. That one is also a good homework exercise for budding skeptics...

That doesn't include the idea of evolving here. What you're left with is modern man was created here, or came here.

 

[icebear]

Return around mid October

Off on business tomorrow for about a week and a half, see ya.

 

[fuelair]

Pretty much.

Solar systems basically form up as Herbig/Haro object strings, basically created by cosmic Birkeland currents and the z-pinch erffect of such currents, which can agglomerate plasma into more dense bodies. The book I mentioned in the OP describes all of that.

I am sure it does (describe that) . Unfortunately for both the book and you, if it does describe it that way, it is what I like to call WRONG (as in incorrect, does not make any sense, incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, not remotely scientific, full of error..... just plain missing any element of actual research and mathematics basing). Hopefully this helps clear up this matter for you.

 

[fuelair]

According to this interview with the authors of the book you mention, modern humans evolved and lived on Ganymede (a moon of Jupiter) and migrated to Earth in the recent past:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/04/RIR-130421.php

That doesn't really help their credibility.

Actually, and surprisingly, it does help their credibility with me!!! It let's me be absolutely certain that they have none. And, by extension............

 

[Slowvehicle]

I am sure it does (describe that) . Unfortunately for both the book and you, if it does describe it that way, it is what I like to call WRONG (as in incorrect, does not make any sense, incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, not remotely scientific, full of error..... just plain missing any element of actual research and mathematics basing). Hopefully this helps clear up this matter for you.

Utterly, sincerely, wholeheartedly nommed.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/...&p=86168&sid=931c1ad30988a38ec64343efd9385b69

That explains exactly nothing.
As mentioned, photosynthesis is concentrated in both ends of the SOLAR spectrum.
With the greatest absorption peaks in the blue end for both Chlorophyll A and B.
Exactly the part of the spectrum a brown dwarf would not give off in any great extent. The plants would therefore be expending a great deal of energy in making a photopigment that is only half functional.
Unless of course they evolved in normal sunlight.

 

[MikeG]

A number of people who have investigated the thing have come to the same basic conclusion i.e. that humans would be so enormously ill adapted for conditions on this planet some 100,000 years ago that there's no reasonable way to think we originated on this planet.

If you don't bother to respond to intelligent people's posts showing large aspects of your thesis to be irrational, you are wasting everyone's time. If you drop in unsupported assertions such as the above, you are also wasting people's time. Please link to the published science papers which support your view that humans 100,000 years ago were ill adapted for life on this planet.

The other consideration is that Cro Magnon man appears to have arrived on this planet fully formed, with his exquisite artwork, his fancy tools and projectile weaponry and everything else fully formed from day one. That one is also a good homework exercise for budding skeptics...

Appears to whom? Link to a paper in a science journal please, or be prepared to be ripped to pieces by people who know an awful lot more about this than you.

That doesn't include the idea of evolving here. What you're left with is modern man was created here, or came here.

No, evolved here. It is the biggest and best idea in all science. It has been shown over and over again to be consistent with the evidence. In 200 years no-one has managed to produce any science, any evidence, which falsifies the hypothesis that humans evolved here. Why won't you answer the point raised more than once that we share 99.7% of our genes with Neanderthals? Could it be because this inconvenient fact would preclude the two species from having evolved on two different planets.

-

Either you are the victim of someone else's game playing, (in which case I hope you will read some of the serious posts that people have made in this thread), or you are trying to make us into victims of your game playing. If the latter is the case, you're going to have to improve your performance if you have a hope of outlasting us. For a start, no-one, but no-one, will take the blindest bit of notice of unsupported assertions. The link icon is the earth symbol with a paperclip in front of it, in the middle of the run of icons above the reply box. It is self-explanatory to use. If you don't use it, don't expect people to take any of the twaddle you are postulating seriously.

Mike

 

[Hokulele]

Dyaus Pitar (Jupiter) literally means "sky father", but mythologists are making a mistake in thinking that to mean "our father, the sky" as if ancients were worshiping the sky itslef. Dyaus Pitar meant "our father, IN the sky", i.e. the super planet Jupiter.

The name associations between pantheon gods and planets are primordial and universal.

Kronos meant Saturn, Baal meant Saturn, El meant Saturn, Jahveh was the same word as jove (Jupiter)...



The two chieftain gods of all ancient religions were Jupiter and Saturn.

Amaterasu would like to have a word with you.