It is currently Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:37 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




 Page 4 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:06 am 

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:52 am
Posts: 65
Location: Portugal
Quote:
Quote: from Wallis on 6:59 am on Oct. 6, 2005
Oh, one minor correction. Kingu (our Moon) did not strike Tiamat. Kingu was born of Tiamat and was released when Tiamat was split in half. Kingu then became a satellite of Erdu (Earth). This is how Sitchin interpreted the tablets.


i wonder how the Anunnaki could have known of such events? what kind of advanced technology or science could have come up with such scenario?

question for all: is our planet considered to be half a planet or not by mainstream science?

because when one looks at what our planet would look like when removed of its oceans there is little doubt that Earth is not quite whole. how can our scientists ignore this simple fact? or do they?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:32 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
<blockquote><hr> The long resolved moon age, allegedly 75 billion years, was only one age, the most extreme age, of a number of ages derived by different methods. Why would you choose to give credibility to the most extreme age? Why would you resent that this age is rejected? Why wouldn't you inquire as to *WHY* it is rejected before first crying "foul!" about the scientific method? <hr></blockquote>

I believe you have me confused with another poster.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:32 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
<blockquote><hr> However I do not believe that Sitchin's interpretation of the Sumerian creation epic necessarily involves our moon having been the moon from the body that struck Tiamat. <hr></blockquote>

I'm pretty sure that's what he said. I don't happen to have chapter and verse in front of me.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:32 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
<blockquote><hr> ... because when one looks at what our planet would look like when removed of its oceans there is little doubt that Earth is not quite whole. how can our scientists ignore this simple fact? or do they? <hr></blockquote>

I believe that was one of the things that led to the current theory that the Moon was formed from the collision of the Earth with a Mars-sized planet. There is an article about it in a recent Scientific American -- or maybe its in Discover -- which I have, but have not read yet (busy reading books).


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:32 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
<blockquote><hr> Oh, one minor correction. Kingu (our Moon) did not strike Tiamat. Kingu was born of Tiamat and was released when Tiamat was split in half. Kingu then became a satellite of Erdu (Earth). This is how Sitchin interpreted the tablets. <hr></blockquote>

I believe that's what I said; it's certainly what I meant.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:23 am 

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:52 am
Posts: 65
Location: Portugal
Quote:
Quote: from Agnostic on 5:36 pm on Oct. 6, 2005
<blockquote><hr> ... because when one looks at what our planet would look like when removed of its oceans there is little doubt that Earth is not quite whole. how can our scientists ignore this simple fact? or do they? <hr></blockquote>

I believe that was one of the things that led to the current theory that the Moon was formed from the collision of the Earth with a Mars-sized planet. There is an article about it in a recent Scientific American -- or maybe its in Discover -- which I have, but have not read yet (busy reading books).


but can the Earth mass that is missing be filled by the Moon mass? where are the remnants of such collision? did the Earth stood in roughly the same orbit after the collision, if so where are the remnants of such collision? where is the body that struck the Earth, shouldnt its orbit be crossing our path once in a while? where did all the water in our planet come from? why doesnt the Moon have equal ammounts of water? why did the Moon form so far from the Earth and how did it acquire its current orbit? why the Moon became such a perfect sphere and the Earth stood a deformed one?

these are questions better answered by an astronomer, of course, but maybe that article can explain some of them...

(Edited by outcast at 12:25 am on Oct. 7, 2005)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:36 pm 
<blockquote><hr>
question for all: is our planet considered to be half a planet or not by mainstream science?

because when one looks at what our planet would look like when removed of its oceans there is little doubt that Earth is not quite whole. how can our scientists ignore this simple fact? or do they?
<hr></blockquote>

From my own perspective I really don't think that the the earth denuded of its oceans appears as "not quite whole".

You have to remember that for millions upon millions of years the conveyor system of plate tectonics has been recyling our planets surface. As a result there is very little rock on earth that can be found dating back to that 4.5 billion years. In fact is is quite possible and even likely that the collision with a partially formed earth began the onset of plate tectonics as a means of healing that 'wound'.

However that is a very interesting question though how these Annunaki learned of earth's origins in a collision. One has to wonder how far back their own species goes. Did they study the earth? did they measure contiental drift in eons passed, perhaps using lasers or some such technology?


  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:32 am 

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:52 am
Posts: 65
Location: Portugal
Quote:
Quote: from Tripp on 4:36 pm on Oct. 7, 2005
<blockquote><hr>
question for all: is our planet considered to be half a planet or not by mainstream science?

because when one looks at what our planet would look like when removed of its oceans there is little doubt that Earth is not quite whole. how can our scientists ignore this simple fact? or do they?
<hr></blockquote>

From my own perspective I really don't think that the the earth denuded of its oceans appears as "not quite whole".


i've once seen a rendition of how the Earth would look like devoid of its oceans. it was an enlightning image, unfortunetly i do not remember where i saw it.

<blockquote><hr>
In fact is is quite possible and even likely that the collision with a partially formed earth began the onset of plate tectonics as a means of healing that 'wound'.
<hr></blockquote>

yes, plate tectonics is quite interesting. does anyone in maintream science defend the idea that Earth could be in fact the remnants of a larger body?

<blockquote><hr>
However that is a very interesting question though how these Annunaki learned of earth's origins in a collision. One has to wonder how far back their own species goes. Did they study the earth? did they measure contiental drift in eons passed, perhaps using lasers or some such technology?<hr></blockquote>

that is an highly speculative topic, more speculative than speculating over the Anunnaki own existence. :)
oddly enough, that would be one of the things i would first ask of Sitchin. sure, the Enuma Elish could be a tale of creation explaining the formation of our solar system and the transformation of Tiamat into what is now our planet Earth, but who was there, billions of years ago, to witness these events and later recount them to us humans? one possible answer, which most of you wont accept apriori, deals with the idea that the Anunnaki had supernatural powers and esoteric knowlledge. its written in the Sumerian records that the Anunnaki employed the esoteric art of divination, of looking into the past and the future by reading the movement of oil on water. a technique later used by Nostradamus.
just a thought.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:39 am 

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:35 pm
Posts: 165
Location: Georgia
I'm REALLY rusty on the details of Sitchin, by my impression was that Ninuru "joined" the stable Solar System when Tiamat existed. Later, during one of Nib's "crossings", there was a collision between one of Nib's "moons" and Tiamat - the latter fracturing into the Asteroid belt and planet Earth, with the latter capturing the former moon of Tiamat. All relatively "recent", as opposed to billions of years ago when the Solar System first formed. Am I mis-recalling???


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:01 am 

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:52 am
Posts: 65
Location: Portugal
Quote:
Quote: from MrPP on 5:39 am on Oct. 10, 2005
I'm REALLY rusty on the details of Sitchin, by my impression was that Ninuru "joined" the stable Solar System when Tiamat existed. Later, during one of Nib's "crossings", there was a collision between one of Nib's "moons" and Tiamat - the latter fracturing into the Asteroid belt and planet Earth, with the latter capturing the former moon of Tiamat. All relatively "recent", as opposed to billions of years ago when the Solar System first formed. Am I mis-recalling???


i think thats pretty much it. i believe Sitchin said that Kingu (our moon) is a captured satellite from Nibiru as portrayed in the Enuma Elish.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:58 pm 

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:34 am
Posts: 39
This from Zecharia Sitchin's own official web site, http://www.sitchin.com in a discussion about asteroid Tempel-1. :

<blockquote><hr>Readers of my books will hardly need reminding that that planetary mother was called TIAMAT in the Sumerian Epic of Creation - a text deemed by scholars to be an allegory, a myth, a religious text -- but treated by me in The 12th Planet and Genesis Revisited as a sophisticated cosmogony dealing with the creation of our Solar System and the fate of Tiamat, a watery planet that had existed in the space between Mars and Jupiter and was destroyed in a celestial collision with an Invader-planet (Nibiru). As a result of the collision:
<ul><li> Half of Tiamat was smashed to bits and pieces to become the asteroids and short­ term comets that orbit between Mars and Jupiter;

<li> The other half was thrust closer to the Sun to become planet Earth;

<li> <b>The leading large satellite of Tiamat (“Kingu”) was carried along to become Earth’s Moon;</b>

<li> Tiamat’s other ten satellites were broken up to become comets, especially those with retrograde orbits.</ul>

Sumerian texts dealing with Nibiru explicitly state that during the collision, the life-bearing Nibiru transferred the “seed of life” - what we now call DNA and the “chemicals of life”—to the vanquished Tiamat, and thus to Earth and, we can now realize, to an asteroid called Tempel-1.

<hr></blockquote>

There are some vagueries in Sitchin's interpretation here which likely come from the Sumerian tale itself and also conflicts with known physics and Kepler's most basic orbital mechanics.

1) Nibiru is postulated to be of such substantial size and mass greater than earth that the earth would not fare well in any close interation. Reasonably, Tiamat is torn asunder and part scattered, the rest becoming earth.

2) Tiamat's moons would generally be considered to be of a size and mass reasonably smaller than earth itself, therefore any collision with earth would not leave Nibiru's moons intact. In fact Sitchin's translation of the epic describes Nibiru sending out its warriors (moons) to do battle with tiamat (primordial earth).

3) Despite Sitchin's own indication above (emboldened), I think it is hard to believe that Nibiru's moon Kingu would become largely earth's own moon given the angular momentum of Kinug around Nibiru and the forward momentum from Nibiru's own trajectory. ). I believe that even Sitchin's own work would show that he is extrapolating the cause (Kingu) to become the result (earth's new moon) and this is not indicated in the original Sumerian text itself.

Assuming the collision did occur, it is more likely that our own moon originated <b>predominantly</b> from debris from earth itself. I _believe_ there is some evidence of pelagic sediments and mafic geology on our moon, suggesting the oceans area being a primary collision area (reasonable since earth is 3/4 water surface) but i cannot find these at the moment. This collision and 'gouging' of a deep ocean area would be the likely origination of plate tectonics and "continental drift" as the planetary sphere began to 'heal' itself.

Curiously Sitchin also preceeds this discussion with looks at some Spirit Mars rover images and claims these show evidences of the relict remnants of ancient settlements on Mars (highly dubious) but one image is fascinating in showing a Mars dustdevil at ground level.

<a href="http://www.sitchin.com/imagesB/dustdevil.jpg" target="_blank">JPL/NASA ,Spirit Rover Image: Dustdevil in distance (about 2 miles away)</a>



(Edited by Tripp at 10:10 am on Oct. 10, 2005)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:14 pm 

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:52 am
Posts: 65
Location: Portugal
Quote:
Quote: from Tripp on 9:58 am on Oct. 10, 2005
Curiously Sitchin also preceeds this discussion with looks at some Spirit Mars rover images and claims these show evidences of the relict remnants of ancient settlements on Mars (highly dubious) but one image is fascinating in showing a Mars dustdevil at ground level.

<a href="http://www.sitchin.com/imagesB/dustdevil.jpg" target="_blank">JPL/NASA ,Spirit Rover Image: Dustdevil in distance (about 2 miles away)</a>


yes, the dust devil is cool. in fact i had never seen a Mars ground image showing one of those.

Sitchin should never have engaged in speculation about possible remnants or current extraterrestrial activity on Mars. i've never seen any evidence that could be safely used to present such a case and Sitchin's claims in "Genesis Revisited" are so weak as to be laughable. its very disapointing to see that he would taint his (allthough obviously still speculative) work with such claims. they lend him no credibility much to the contrary.

(Edited by outcast at 10:15 am on Oct. 10, 2005)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:32 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
<blockquote><hr>"... who was there, billions of years ago, to witness these events and later recount them to us humans?"</blockquote><hr>

Yes, this thought occured to me also. Perhaps, and I do mean perhaps, you have answered it with:

<blockquote><hr>"... the Anunnaki had supernatural powers and esoteric knowlledge. its written in the Sumerian records that the Anunnaki employed the esoteric art of divination, of looking into the past and the future by reading the movement of oil on water. a technique later used by Nostradamus."</blockquote><hr>

Their powers might not BE supernatural, just SEEM supernatural to those who don't know how they work. As you say, just a thought.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:26 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Portland
While I still have a little bit of a problem with how the Anunnaki survive on Nibiru considering how far from the sun it's orbit takes them, it could be possible that they lived through the destruction of Tiamat. It would make them a very ancient race. Being an Anunnaki historian and having to learn a billion or more years of history is a hilarious image.

A little more seriously. The composition of the lunar crust isn't even remotely close to that of earth. It is extremely doubtful they were ever part of the same larger planet. I thought that old theory went away right after the first Apollo landings. At the time, I remember all the scrambling for a replacement theory. I still haven't seen a theory I can fully support. The orbit is too circular to have been a capture and if both formed from condensing disks of matter in the earlier solar system they would be more similiar in composition, which they are not. Besides, the condensing disk theory has all kinds of holes in it.

Sometimes, we just don't have good answers, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:51 am 
<blockquote><hr> Arnik posted:

A little more seriously. The composition of the lunar crust isn't even remotely close to that of earth. It is extremely doubtful they were ever part of the same larger planet.<hr></blockquote>

well.... while it is true that the lunar crust is not remotely close to eath's crust....it is not at all extremely doubtful that they were part of the same larger planet. In fact the moon's chemistry is more like ocean crust, typically MAFIC or magnesium and iron, than continental crust, which is SIALIC or silica-aluminum.

It is very likely that the moon originated from a well differentiated earth and the moon constituent materials therefore are more representative of the earth's crust than the whole earth chemistry.

The crust of the moon is largely anorthosite and gabbro with the Marias being predominantly basalt. Anorthosite, an aluminum rich rock, covers almost the entire moon surface, Anorthosite forms when basalt magma cools slowly and the aluminum rich minerals rise and concentrate on the surface. This heat implies a long standing, continuous heat that some believe supports the heat from a fairly rapid accretion of eath ejecta debris. The Aitkin basin at the south pole is ONE 1,600 mile wide area where the surface is not aluminum rich anorthosite and is rather iron rich, indicating that the moon did indeed receive of partion or earth's iron, albeit a smaller representative percentage.

<blockquote><hr>
I thought that old theory went away right after the first Apollo landings. At the time, I remember all the scrambling for a replacement theory. I still haven't seen a theory I can fully support. The orbit is too circular to have been a capture and if both formed from condensing disks of matter in the earlier solar system they would be more similiar in composition, which they are not. Besides, the condensing disk theory has all kinds of holes in it.<hr></blockquote>

You're right in that mere condensing or sumultaneous accretion would not cover the differential chemistry and structure. However the currently favored model of impact with a roughly Mars-sized planet does tend to cover these concerns, with the moon accreting from the ejecta debris rotating around the earth.

Far more telling then the moon's circular orbit is the fact that the moon is tidally locked with the earth, with the same side always facing the earth. This tidal lock is far more likely to occur with the satellite body resulting from accreting materials in orbit which have no uniform rotational momentum, than it is to occur with the moon being merely a "captured satellite" which would have its own rotational momentum, this being a far less favored theory.

This Impact and accretion theory would also be in accord with Sitchin's interpretation of Enuma Elish.. with the exception of his insistance that our moon *IS* Kingu rather than just resulting from an impact with Kingu.


  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 4 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron