Merged Radical New Thesis on Human and Solar System Origins

[rjh01]

Now all what it would take iis Jupiter and Saturn to collide and then maybe they might be producing a little helium.

 

[Sockor]

Rather 70 Jupiters and Saturns.

 

[rjh01]

Now all what it would take iis Jupiter and Saturn to collide and then maybe they might be producing a little helium.

Rather 70 Jupiters and Saturns.

Actually only about 10 Jupiters.

The dividing line between planets and brown dwarfs occurs with objects that have masses below about 1 percent of the mass of the Sun, or 10 times the mass of Jupiter.

Ref: http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sources/browndwarf_fg.html

So if the solar system was a little different in its initial conditions we might have had two suns in the sky (though the brown dwarf would probably be very faint).

 

[shadron]

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.

The tilt angle (technically, the obliquity) is not a fixed number for any spinning object. Very minor perturbations can and do cause major obliquity changes. The Earth happens to have a relatively stable obliquity (the Milankovic cycle mentioned by Dinwar varies the Earth's obliquity between 22° 2' and 24° 30', such stability due to the gravitational interactions with the moon, while Mars' changes between 0° and 60° over a million years.

See Axial Tilt^WP.

 

[Damien Evans]

Actually only about 10 Jupiters.


Ref: http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sources/browndwarf_fg.html

So if the solar system was a little different in its initial conditions we might have had two suns in the sky (though the brown dwarf would probably be very faint).

Brown Dwarfs don't produce significant quantities of Helium. They're not big enough to maintain fusion once they're formed. Red Dwarfs are the smallest proper stars. They're also the longest lived.

 

[Belz...]

~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.

Visually are the same ? What does that even mean ?

You can't just eyeball your way through science and fact, you know.

 

[Akhenaten]

Looks that way, doesn't it?

 

[Dinwar]

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./

Odd how none of these people ever publish in any anthropological journals or paleontological journals. Something to consider.

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.

Except that you're ignoring the fact that modern man (and Cro Magnon WAS modern) wasn't the first to use tools or create artwork. There's a pretty clear transition from earlier forms to human tools. Yes, our species has had tools as long as it has been around--for precisely the same reason as we've had eyes and noses for as long as we've been around. We inherited them.

To all; has anyone else ever feared gaseous Jupiter or Saturn might burst into flames as a star and cook us to death?

There was a sci-fi story about that at one point, I believe. Here's a few facts to consider, though.

1) Stars don't burn. They're thermonuclear reactions (fusion reactions balancing against gravity).

2) Jupiter is REALLY far away. Even if it did ignite, we'd never feel it.

3) Jupiter's composition does not, as I understand it, create the conditions necessary for combustion.

 

[Reality Check]

...
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.

What a lot of ignorance in that post, icebear !
Kronos
Baal
El
Jahveh
Saturn "was a god in ancient Roman religion and a character in myth"
Jupiter

In ancient Roman religion and myth, Jupiter (Latin: Iuppiter) or Jove is the king of the gods and the god of sky and thunder.

Jupiter and Saturn were the gods of one ancient religion.

 

[Pacal]

I recognized the vendramini pic. I always wondered what the jref thought of NPD

I have Vendramini's book and it is a good fun read. The guy is certainly a good writer and enthusiastic. However his thesis is totally bogus and he very ruthlessly cherry picks "evidence".

In fact his thesis reminds me of a H. G. Wells' short story called The Grisly folk, in which Neandertals are described has brutish, apelike fur covered, violent predators who were utterly sub-human. In the story they prey upon humans and especially like to eat human children because the flesh is soft and tender. The humans have to, in self defence, exterminate the Neandertals. Vendramini's thesis is simply an pseudoscientific updating of H. G. Wells fiction.

Vendramini's book reads like a novel and should like a novel be treated has a work of fiction.

 

[icebear]

There's a pretty clear transition from earlier forms to human tools...

That isn't what the experts say.

Danny Vendramini notes:

“The speed of the Upper Palaeolithic revolution in the Levant was also breathtaking. Anthropologists Ofer Bar-Yosef and Bernard Vandermeersch:

“Between 40,000 and 45,000 years ago the material culture of western Eurasia changed more than it had during the previous million years. This efflorescence of technological and artistic creativity signifies the emergence of the first culture that observers today would recognise as distinctly human, marked as it was by unceasing invention and variety. During that brief period of 5,000 or so years, the stone tool kit, unchanged in its essential form for ages, suddenly began to differentiate wildly from century to century and from region to region. Why it happened and why it happened when it did constitute two of the greatest outstanding problems in paleoanthropology.”

 

[icebear]

I have Vendramini's book and it is a good fun read. The guy is certainly a good writer and enthusiastic. However his thesis is totally bogus and he very ruthlessly cherry picks "evidence".

....

Vendramini is making several different claims, some of which are believable while others are not. His claim of predation by Neanderthals driving gracile hominids into a fast process of evolving into Cro Magnon man is not believable. The other approach I mentioned in the OP ( 'Cosmos in Collision') makes more sense, to me at least.

Vendramini's description of Neanderthals and his reconstructions on the other hand are based on a great deal of research and strike me as totally believable. That does in fact explain the primate conical rib cages of the Neanderthal.

I may have mentioned this... Rob Gargett notes that even if you try to draw a more human-like Neanderthal with the eyes and noses as large as the bones indicate they would have to be, what you end up with is outlandish.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RR3x4KynC...vagkM8miUc/s320/NewFrontalWithActualNares.png

In fact, he also notes that if you put the skulls of a human, a Neanderthal, and a lion together, the two which resemble eachother much are the Neanderthal and the lion:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XwfGXF4Uz.../s1600/Screen+shot+2011-11-21+at+06.09.05.png

That's certainly the conclusion you'd come to from looking at the eye sockets and nasal area.

 

[Dinwar]

That isn't what the experts say.

You'll find that this is dependent upon the experts you choose. Also, many large-scale changes happen quite rapidly. The transition from electric lights to computers was incredibly fast, pretty much instantaneous from a geological standpoint--yet there are clear transitions the entire way. And 5,000 years is more than an order of magnitude more time than the transition from gas lights to modern computers.

 

[Dinwar]

His claim of predation by Neanderthals driving gracile hominids into a fast process of evolving into Cro Magnon man is not believable.

The mere fact that he uses the term calls his credibility in serious question.

Vendramini's description of Neanderthals and his reconstructions on the other hand are based on a great deal of research and strike me as totally believable.

Except that the pictures you presented bear no resemblance to any real anthropological reconstruction I've ever seen. They were quite clearly developed based on his biases.

In fact, he also notes that if you put the skulls of a human, a Neanderthal, and a lion together, the two which resemble eachother much are the Neanderthal and the lion:

Here is a Neanderthal skull.

Here are some pictures of human skulls.

Here is a lion skull.

Just for fun, here's an American lion skull.

Note the large sagetal crest on the lions, as well as the extended rostrum. Note the shape of the back of the jaws--hominids have boxier angular processes, while cats have angular processes that stick out quite far. The location of the apex of the dome of the skull, the point where the neck joins with the skull, the zygomatic arch, the shape of the orbits--they are all quite wildly different. And that's not getting into the issues with where the individual bones join.

Anyone who says that any hominid skull is more similar to a lion's skull than that of another hominid is lying. There may be some superficial similarities in a few parts, but that's it. And if you want to take that route, I invite you to examine Heterodontosaurid teeth and horse teeth, or lion angular processes and rodent angular processes. You'll quickly find that if you look hard enough, you can find any number of animals that Neanderthal skulls "resemble" more than human skulls, provided you're extremely careful about which characters you choose to examine.

 

[wollery]

Vendramini is making several different claims, some of which are believable while others are not. His claim of predation by Neanderthals driving gracile hominids into a fast process of evolving into Cro Magnon man is not believable. The other approach I mentioned in the OP ( 'Cosmos in Collision') makes more sense, to me at least.

Vendramini's description of Neanderthals and his reconstructions on the other hand are based on a great deal of research and strike me as totally believable. That does in fact explain the primate conical rib cages of the Neanderthal.

I may have mentioned this... Rob Gargett notes that even if you try to draw a more human-like Neanderthal with the eyes and noses as large as the bones indicate they would have to be, what you end up with is outlandish.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RR3x4KynC...vagkM8miUc/s320/NewFrontalWithActualNares.png

In fact, he also notes that if you put the skulls of a human, a Neanderthal, and a lion together, the two which resemble eachother much are the Neanderthal and the lion:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XwfGXF4Uz.../s1600/Screen+shot+2011-11-21+at+06.09.05.png

That's certainly the conclusion you'd come to from looking at the eye sockets and nasal area.

Only if you cherry-pick the images you look at.

I asked before, why does Vendramini compare a Neanderthal skull to a human skull, but use the profile of a chimpanzee face for comparison rather than a chimp skull?

It's sheer dishonesty.

 

[catsmate]

That isn't what the experts say.

What experts?

Danny Vendramini notes:

Oh, that "expert".

 

[Delvo]

That isn't what the experts say.

What you quoted right after that isn't what YOU said before.

 

[Myriad]

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

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images...inosaurspan/19obdinosaurspan-articleLarge.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Changed hotlinked image to regular link. Please see Rule 5.

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

Electric Universe, is that you? What a cute disguise you've put on for Halloween! Honey, come here, you've got to see this. Bring the camera. Here, Electric, take some Milky Way bars.

But, just so you'll know next time, it's a little early.

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
I have Vendramini's book and it is a good fun read. The guy is certainly a good writer and enthusiastic. However his thesis is totally bogus and he very ruthlessly cherry picks "evidence". ....

Vendramini is making several different claims, some of which are believable while others are not. His claim of predation by Neanderthals driving gracile hominids into a fast process of evolving into Cro Magnon man is not believable. The other approach I mentioned in the OP ( 'Cosmos in Collision') makes more sense, to me at least.

Vendramini's description of Neanderthals and his reconstructions on the other hand are based on a great deal of research and strike me as totally believable. That does in fact explain the primate conical rib cages of the Neanderthal.

I may have mentioned this... Rob Gargett notes that even if you try to draw a more human-like Neanderthal with the eyes and noses as large as the bones indicate they would have to be, what you end up with is outlandish.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RR3x4KynC...vagkM8miUc/s320/NewFrontalWithActualNares.png

In fact, he also notes that if you put the skulls of a human, a Neanderthal, and a lion together, the two which resemble eachother much are the Neanderthal and the lion:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XwfGXF4Uz.../s1600/Screen+shot+2011-11-21+at+06.09.05.png

That's certainly the conclusion you'd come to from looking at the eye sockets and nasal area.

You have got to be joking a Neandertal skull resembles a human skull vastly more than it does a Lion skull.

So you think that human looking Neandertals are "outlandish". Sorry but making Neandertals look like bipedal Gorillas is what is "outlandish". certainly his fantasy reconstruction of what a Neandertal look like complete with a Gorilla / Chimpanzee like very flat nose is wrong. The skulls of Neandertals clearly show that they had a prominent, nose that jutted out much like a modern human nose. Also genetically Neandertals are vastly more closely related to us than they are to Gorillas and Chimps. In fact it appears that modern Humans and Neandertals share c. 99.7% of the same genes as against sharing c. 95% with Chimpanzees. That being the case reconstructing the appearance of Neandertals based on humans is rather obvious.

Vendramini's research is simply a rehash of late 19th century notions of bestial, hairy Neandertals. He has ignored vast amounts of research. There is no reason to take anything he says seriously.

The approach mentioned in Cosmos in Collision is of course little more than rehashed Velikovsky and the huge amount of evidence indicating that the earth has been where it is now orbiting the sun for billions of years is ignored. And of course the stunning lack of evidence for the cosmic catastropes that this notion conjures up. I suggest you look up studies of coral reefs and Swedish lake sediments all illustrating the lack of such cosmic catastrophes. Of course Ganymede being the origin planet of the human race can be dismissed as just plain silly.

His fantasy about the Neandertal being a night predator can also be dismissed. I do hope Vendramini gives credit to the fiction writer H.G. Wells for his thesis.

 

[Belz...]

In fact, he also notes that if you put the skulls of a human, a Neanderthal, and a lion together, the two which resemble eachother much are the Neanderthal and the lion:

What he notes marks him as a lunatic, then. The two look nothing alike. Have you seen them from the side ?