Painting of Jesus Crucifiction (1350 AD)





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcrzD0PfyPs

@MikeB

I suggest listening to the end of the You Tube video -- There are no explainations for these pictures --- Then why assume it's Little Green Men or spaceships. Anyone could make up any fanciful meaning. No way to validate for correctness means we'll never know.

Here's what I see... The 2nd image is a half cresent shape which in ancient art represents the moon. This would lead me to believe the round and radient object is therefore the sun. Many old pictures of Christ have the sun on one side and the moon on another. Also many have faces or people represented in the sun and the moon. These seem fairly mundane common items represented around the time.

UFOS? Perhaps. Somthing more akin to art around the time? What would Ockham say?

@BrianK

I did not provide a meaning, it's for yourself to decide what it means.

Nomatter, IMO it's interesting.

@MikeB

Quote:

I did not provide a meaning, it's for yourself to decide what it means. Nomatter, IMO it's interesting.

Though do note the link you included did provide a meaning. Which is what I discussed in my first paragraph.

Using my second paragraph and my meaning makes this no more or less interesting than the other art in the same era that produced the same Sun and Moon in their works.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-May-2011 at 02:38 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Though do note the link you included did provide a meaning

The video asks if this could be spaceships and mentioned some rock painting looks to be resembling spacemen.

Feel free to provide another video.

Last edited by MikeB on 01-May-2011 at 07:40 AM.

We have talked about various ancient and modern believes and religious relations to events, which seem to be related to such believes.

Let's now talk about the faith of science. The science faith is the most flexible of all other faiths. This faith can suddenly change dramatically based on new observations (or revelations by NASA/scientists).

In the ancient past there was no difference between religion and science (the priest and such were considered scientists), it was looked at as one and the same. Like science many of the believes eventually turned out to be incorrect or not in-line with a larger scale perspective.

The modern science faith became popular around the 17th century and is thus one of the youngest faiths with a considerable large following today. It is made up primarily of theories on how things could work trying to explain mainly modern observations. There are many different theories but some of them will be chosen by the educational systems (based on politics) to be taught to students as *facts*.

Modern time theories seemingly relating to Nibiru (Sumerian/Babylonian) or for example Wormwood (Bible) are the following theories:

Hyperion

In 1848 Jacques Babinet (of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babinet%27s_principle]Babinet's principle[/ur]) fame believed he had found a problem in Le Verrier's (who correctly predicted the orbit of Neptune before it as found, but did not have an answer for the irregulaties he found in the orbit of the gas giants). original mass calculations regarding the gas giants, he theorized there should be a planet with over 10 times the mass of the earth beyond Neptune and called it Hyperion and at a distance at the time of about 48 AU.

Planet X

Various astronomers searched for a Planet X with a large mass. They were so convinced they kept on searching until their death. Percival Lowell suddenly died in 1916. The discovery of Pluto and its strange orbit fueled the ideas of the existance of Planet X. Robert Sutton Harrington who was a strong believer in Nibiru, a supporter of Zecharia Sitchin work and discoverer of Pluto's main moon Charon died in 1993. 6 months before it was claimed the theory of Planet X was disproven due to new NASA estimates regarding the mass of the gas giants (even if not doctored with it does not explain Pluto's orbit one must add).

Current science theory:

Nemesis

Nemesis is a hypothetical hard-to-detect brown dwarf star orbiting the Sun at a distance of about 0.8-1.5 light-years.

In 1984, paleontologists David Raup and Jack Sepkoski published a paper claiming that they had identified a statistical periodicity in extinction rates over the last 250 million years using various forms of time series analysis.

Other reasoning:

Quote:

The extremely distant planetoid Sedna has an extra-long and unusual elliptical orbit around the Sun, well beyond Pluto, ranging between 76 and 975 AU. Sedna’s orbit is estimated to last between 10.5 and 12 thousand years. Its discoverer, Mike Brown of Caltech, noted in a Discover magazine article that Sedna’s location doesn’t make sense: "Sedna shouldn't be there," said Brown. "There's no way to put Sedna where it is. It never comes close enough to be affected by the Sun, but it never goes far enough away from the Sun to be affected by other stars." Brown postulates that perhaps a massive unseen object is responsible for Sedna’s mystifying orbit, its gravitational influence keeping Sedna fixed in that far-distant portion of space.

Tyche (Name for sister of Nemesis in mythology)

This planet was first theorized by 1999 based on a perceived bias in the points of origin for long-period comets and could possibly explain Sedna's peculiar orbit.

The planet would be several times the mass of Jupiter, but about the same volume. A so called Brown Dwarf star (like the Sumerians described Nibiru as being a very dim star). A planet with slightly more mass than Jupiter would be slightly bigger than Jupiter, but if much more massy it would be a little smaller than Jupiter due to attractive forces (gravity).

The lookout for Tyche contrinues.

My take: IMO Nibiru, Wormwood, Planet X, Hyperion, Tyche, Hercolubus, Nemesis are all believes/theories pointing towards the same direction.

IMO Nibiru does exist. There is enough ancient remnants in current culture which support this theory.

For example the dragon dances in china. Earlier I pointed out there were similar events taking place in both Egypt (river Nile became as blood) and ancient China (blood colored rain) supporting the idea a red planet similar but of more mass than Jupiter acts as a comet, parts of its atmosphere is blown due to solar wind onto earth and mars (covered by red dust).

In Chinese tradition they still have dragon dances from ancient times. A burning orb where the dragon follows. In art this is often depicted as an burning orb with two dragons following it. IMO that's a striking similarity to Nibiru, the winged brown dwarf star/planet.

Is comet ELEnin related to Nibiru? Here there is much uncertainty for me, but the signs do greatly seem to hint that it is!

Last edited by MikeB on 01-May-2011 at 11:20 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Let's now talk about the faith of science. The science faith is the most flexible of all other faiths. This faith can suddenly change dramatically based on new observations (or revelations by NASA/scientists).

Science is not a Faith.. Science is a process whereby the scientific method is applied to generate more knowledge.

Faith is the act of believing an assertion without requiring empirical evidence or logic behind that assertion. Science is the polar opposite, the act of testing that assertion through rational thought and empirical experiment and determining its validity based on that.

Science rejects hypotheses that are shown to be flawed. Faith, by its very definition, sticks to its assertions come hell or high water.

Quote:

In the ancient past there was no difference between religion and science (the priest and such were considered scientists), it was looked at as one and the same. Like science many of the believes eventually turned out to be incorrect or not in-line with a larger scale perspective.

Nonsense. The scientific method as it currently exists began in an embryonic state with Francis Bacon, Galileo, Copernicus etc. Slightly earlier, during the Islamic Golden Age, they developed a system of peer-review, but this got squashed before it really got going.

The Ancient Greeks believed that truth could be arrived at by rational thought and logical debate. Unfortunately, they didn't believe in the need for empirical experiment, so most of what they did was not science. They still got some good philosophy down, but that's a completely different kettle of fish.

Western Civilisations pre-dating the Greeks had more simplistic philosophies, but again, no empirical science. And in the East, we see a similar pattern. Really, the people inventing science during the Islamic Golden Age and the European Renaissance, who came up with the idea of testing the logical arguments with empirical experiment, were quite revolutionary.

Oh, and they didn't need space aliens to give them the idea, by the way.


Quote:

There are many different theories but some of them will be chosen by the educational systems (based on politics) to be taught to students as *facts*.

I reject this assertion in its entirety. Its nothing but the typical Creationist claptrap chucked out by the worst troglodytes in that movement to discredit public education and science both.


And now we're back to the fictional planets list!

Hyperion - didn't exist. Was thought to be necessary, but more accurate measurement of the orbits of the gas giants (Voyager I and II) removed the evidence calling for its existence.

Planet X - didn't exist. Again, better measurements of gas giant masses. Voyager II's visit to Neptune, to be precise. You say 'doctored'? What possible gain would there be to NASA of doctoring the estimates of the masses of the gas giants???

But I suppose its very convenient for you to be able to stick your fingers in your ears and yell 'conspiracy' whenever your pet theory gets challenged.

And why the hell are we still talking about Zecharia Sitchin? The man was insane, or a criminal fraud. You pick. His 'translations' have been proven completely false, made up, concocted in order to sell books.

Nemesis - doesn't exist. And there is no such periodicity in the occurrence of mass extinctions. The end-Cretaceous event *could* have been primarily caused by impact, but the Permian, Triassic, Ordovician and Devonian events have no credible impact-only hypotheses.

Tyche - might exist. It'll be detected by WISE in the coming years if it does.

Quote:

My take: IMO Nibiru, Wormwood, Planet X, Hyperion, Tyche, Hercolubus, Nemesis are all believes/theories pointing towards the same direction.

No, you totally misunderstand the whole process of science!

Nibiru is fiction by Sitchin.

God knows what Wormwood is. Perhaps you were still in fiction-mode and meant to refer to Torchwood?

Planet X was a hypothesis based on a perceived gravitational perturbance of Neptune that was later found not to exist.

Hercolubus is a load of New Age bunk about how *Barnard's Star* is actually a planet that destroyed Atlantis. Which isn't even worth the effort of debunking. Its a star. And Atlantis? Come on!

Nemesis and Tyche are similar but different hypotheses. Nemesis is the Tyche hypothesis plus a weird notion that it controls meteor impacts on Earth. These theories are based on different observations from those other ones, and therefore do not have any relation in empirical science.

Quote:

Is comet ELEnin related to Nibiru? Here there is much uncertainty for me, but the signs do greatly seem to hint that it is!

Stop capitalising the first three letters of Mr Elenin's name. Its actually a deadly insult in this culture I just invented.

Now, Comet Elenin is a comet. Not a planet. Chinese dragon dances relate to their ancient religion, not to gigantic earth-smashing planets zipping past in the geologically recent past. And your understanding of rivers and rain leaves a lot to be desired if you think that red water indicates astrological doom, rather than, for example, an algal bloom.

@T-J

Quote:

Tyche - might exist. It'll be detected by WISE in the coming years if it does

And if it exists it's most likely a brown dwarf star and logically will be orbitting the sun and not impossible humans may have encountered an orbit before.

You seem to be of the opinion that if one part of a theory is false, the whole theory must be false.

How to explain Sedna's orbit behaviour? Another large body being involved with regard to its orbittal path other than the sun is the only explanation we can think of based on modern day science.

The only thing weird about the Tyche theory is its orbit path it is believed to take . It would take 1.8 million years to orbit around the sun, which to me seems outrageously long for an orbit of a mere 15,000 AU away at its furthest point. ~0.04 km/s for a high mass object vs pluto a very low mass object moving about 74 148 times faster!

Wikipedia about Tyche: "Such a planet would orbit in a different plane in orientation to our current planet orbits". (someone asked me about this with regard to Nibiru)

That's not logical at all and by your reasoning if it does not have this extremely unbelievable type of orbit it doesn't exist at all even if it passes the earth and thus another name for this needs to be invented yet again.... (IMO please stop already!!!)

IMO if this object actually orbits the earth every couple of thousand years, let's stick to the name Nibiru instead (nomatter if all the metrics and believes of the Sumerians was 100% correct or not). Could you agree to this?

Last edited by MikeB on 01-May-2011 at 03:05 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 01-May-2011 at 01:54 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Let's now talk about the faith of science. The science faith is the most flexible of all other faiths. This faith can suddenly change dramatically based on new observations (or revelations by NASA/scientists).

T-J posted a simply and straightforward process flow difference between the two. Science is clearly not a faith. But if you want continue to hold on to this beLIEf.

Quote:

The modern science faith became popular around the 17th century and is thus one of the youngest faiths

There's definitely other faiths which are much younger. Mormonism, Scientology, Tenyriko, and Bahai come to mind. Both with a large group of followers. And of course 'New Age' which is modern people reading old texts and falsely claiming to be an old religion.

Quote:

Modern time theories seemingly relating to Nibiru (Sumerian/Babylonian) or for example Wormwood (Bible) are the following theories

It makes little sense to me that these ancient texts have been demostrated to be wrong on various ideas of the world and universe, as demonstrated in science, but this one item is perfectly correct. I'll call it the MikeB's a broken clock is right twice so trust it alway theory.

What you seem to not get yet MikeB is open and honest consideration of any hypothesis can be done under science. It cannot under a belief.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-May-2011 at 02:12 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 01-May-2011 at 02:11 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

IMO if this object actually orbits the earth every couple of thousand years, let's stick to the name Nibiru instead (nomatter if all the metrics and believes of the Sumerians was 100% correct or not). Could you agree to this?

NO.

If we detect a new object and it has the properties predicted, approaching if not 100%, then I might agree to using that name. The problem of using one of these guesses long term is it's fairly easy for the less scientifically thinking people to not do the comparison of claim to fact. If this new body is called Nibiru and it's only 10% similar the Nibiruians will jump up and down about how perfect their belief was. When in truth it wasn't. Let's not falsely empower someone's ignorance.

@BrianK

Quote:

T-J posted a simply and straightforward process flow difference between the two.

Faith: Confidence or trust in a person or thing.

Despite science proves itself that time and time again to include many wrong assumptions and thus is constantly evolving you hold onto the currently established theories as facts. I call this faith.

Quote:

It makes little sense to me that these ancient texts have been demostrated to be wrong on various ideas of the world and universe, as demonstrated in science, but this one item is perfectly correct.

If many scientific theories are proven to include mistakes in course of time IMO the same measure should be taken for other believes. So maybe there were no gods (actually according to them large Humanoids which can be evil/good and die like human beings) on Nibiru, would this disprove the Sumerians did actually encounter something extra-ordinary? IMO of course not, they would have given another meaning to their observations than we would today.

@BrianK

Quote:

If this new body is called Nibiru and it's only 10% similar the Nibiruians will jump up and down about how perfect their belief was.

Well they would be the first to name it. Maybe previous civilizations had a different name for it, but this is the oldest name we have heard about in ancient history.

The world has changed, everything can now be extremely well documented and IMO the bulk of people will understand. But if it's nearby people will be condused and angry at NASA and scientists for either being too stupid to do science or be too malicious to not share such important information with the people.

Last edited by MikeB on 01-May-2011 at 02:21 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Quote: Though do note the link you included did provide a meaning The video asks if this could be spaceships and mentioned some rock painting looks to be resembling spacemen. Feel free to provide another video.

I wasn't going to add a video as I didn't think there'd be much to gain. After a bit I thought a better approach may exist and that's to make this an educational opportunity for you to understand the logical fallacy at work. I was able to find a video that demonstrates that in a good way you could use as a learning experience.

(No individual in science has the power of a priest, bishop or pope. All their statements are subject to skepticism. But, it goes without saying some have a style that's more approachable and less harsh so that's why I choose this.)

Without further ado I present Neil Degrasse Tyson, UFOs, and the argument from ignorance .

@MikeB

Quote:

Faith: Confidence or trust in a person or thing.

Words have many meanings. There is clearly a difference in trust between science and religion. Again T-J's flow diagram explained this well. If you want to use a dictionary definition here then the one that fits best is belief that is not based on proof. As this demonstrates what T-J and I are defining this. Clearly science is not equivalent to a religion.

Quote:

The world has changed, everything can now be extremely well documented and IMO the bulk of people will understand. But if it's nearby people will be condused and angry at NASA and scientists for either being too stupid to do science or be too malicious to not share such important information with the people.

IMO the person that's angry at NASA should be angry about themselves and their lack in understanding the state of the science.

And this whole NASA consipiracy is bunk. There are lots of a telescopes in lots of countries. Have you ever gotten together with a group of amateur astronomers? They can't agree on where to go for dinner. Agreeing on conspiracy would be worse than trying to herd cats. This group wets themselves when then find something before the big universities or NASA. There's no conceivable way NASA could shutup the entire astronomical community. Your statements seem to indicate you lean towards the one big NASA consipiracy. If you do you seriously lack knowledge on how these people work in our world.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-May-2011 at 02:52 PM.

Quote:

It would take 1.8 million years to orbit around the sun, which to me seems outrageously long for an orbit of a mere 15,000 AU away at its furthest point. ~0.04 km/s for a high mass object vs pluto a very low mass object moving about 74 times faster!

A small correction. It should read about 148 times faster as a full orbit is of course about two times as long as its max distance from the sun.

He looks so intolerant and hostile, I didn't like him at all.

I suggest to watch this video instead (the first one, by a sociology expert):

http://www.wix.com/iamstillhere/sangstar1

@MikeB

Quote:

He looks so intolerant and hostile, I didn't like him at all.

In this video Tyson explained why the argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. He, and everyone, should be intolerant in lack of understanding of others. My guess on why you saw this video as hostile is the theme hit too close to home for you. Thus, that was likely a bitter pill for you to chew on as this is what your beLIEfs are bases on.

I'd say do this... View Sagan, Tyson, Dawkins and Hitchens. Using a compartive to religion, because you want to think science is the same. Sagan and Tyson are the likeable friendly local clergy types. Dawkins and Hitches are the evengelical in your face intolerant pontificating types. In the realm of debates each styling has pros and cons.

@BrianK

Quote:

IMO the person that's angry at NASA should be angry about themselves and their lack in understanding the state of the science.

I understand the state of current science and how limited it is. However many people think even amateur astronomer could easily find a brown dwarf star.

Only in 2003 we found a brown dwarf in a neighbour stellar system with very expensive equipment by experts and it took them months to figure out they were actually dealing with a binary brown dwarf system instead. Asteroids get reported by NASA just a few hours before they pass between the earth and the moon like happened last month.

Current science is nowhere near the point many people imagine it to be. Amateur astronomer will have to do with incredably less sophisticated equipment than NASA has with all the limitations there are for observations from here on earth.

@BrianK

Quote:

He, and everyone, should be intolerant in lack of understanding of others.

I don't agree, I am not intolerant to your lack of understanding. The only way it's possible I would show intolerance if you yourself present yourself to be intolerant.

And that's IMO not a constructive situation.

I respect your believes as long as you can respect those of others. Believing Nibiru (Large planet orbitting the sun not yet found by modern science) might exist isn't OK while believing Tyche (Large planet orbitting the sun not yet found by modern science) exists is OK because scientists are pondering its existance? This while there isn't that much difference between the two theories.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @BrianK Quote: He, and everyone, should be intolerant in lack of understanding of others. I don't agree, I am not intolerant to your lack of understanding. The only way it's possible I would show intolerance if you yourself present yourself to be intolerant. And that's IMO not a constructive situation. I respect your believes as long as you can respect those of others. Believing Nibiru (Large planet orbitting the sun not yet found by modern science) might exist isn't OK while believing Tyche (Large planet orbitting the sun not yet found by modern science) exists is OK because scientists are pondering its existance? This while there isn't that much difference between the two theories.

There is a whole big difference between Nibiru and Tyche. The later is a boring object very far away of unknown quality, while the former is said (by you) to be some weird 2nd sun (and dark star at the the same time) sporting planets and even intellegent live coming to earth every few 1000 years to create havoc (and enlight primitive cultures about it#'s future plans).

Or in short: Tyche makes enough sense to possibly exist, while Nibiru is just pure ####.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada