@MikeB

Its a mechanism that approximates the apparent motion of the five known planets around the object in the centre of the model, which is the Earth.

It represents that motion in circles, which is clearly the limit of their understanding, and of their ability to construct machines.

It does not and never did include anything beyond the five planets of which the Greeks were aware. Two of those 'planets' are now known to be the Sun and the Moon.

And look, its that interpretation of the Sumerian tablet again. Oh how I have missed it. Its actually not an image of the Sun. The Sumerians drew the sun as a four or eight pointed star with wavy lines radiating from its centre.

And even if it were the sun, I find it disappointing in the extreme that they'd identified all those planets, but somehow failed to appreciate that they are supposed to be on the same plane...

But let's not run over the same tired old proofs that you're wrong. Over the past thousand plus posts, if we've truly proved anything its that you simply ignore anything that contradicts what the True Prophet Sitchin has revealed unto you.

And now we're back where we started out. You are no wiser, having had a closed mind throughout. I on the other hand have been back through some basic astronomy I haven't picked up since the end of Secondary School, which was a nostalgic experience. And I've had cause to trawl through a lot of dodgy, fallacious logic and have found a number of excellent debunkings. And of course I've discovered some absolutely hilarious conspiracy theories that have gone down a treat in the pub over the past few weeks.

Thank you for the amusement, I'm only sorry we couldn't be of more help to you.

By the way - you can calculate the orbit of the moon quite handily using Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. His Third Law, to be more precise. But I'll be damned if I'm going to walk you through them after the treatment I got off you last time I extended that courtesy.

Last edited by T-J on 19-May-2011 at 11:21 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 19-May-2011 at 11:20 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Quote: The Antikythera Mechanism works based upon a Geocentric model of the solar system That's wrong. Don't you think the people who thought out this device aren't intelligent enough to figure out the planets go round the sun? Seriously do you honestly believe that?

You've yet to get that 'belief' doesn't play into this. EVIDENCE old chap EVIDENCE!

Wikipedia is a good primary starting point for you. I recommend you, yourself, do the research to understand why the fixed point being 1 on earth and the other objects orbit this fixed point is considered a geocentric system.

Now did the early people think we went around the sun? Certainly various myth and legends indicate it's the sun moving around us as Gods (you may want to call aliens) carry the sun in their chariots across the sky. Though in the question of the Antikythera Mechanism it's really unimportant to what society thinks what we see in the construct of a device is a earth bound viewer therefore geocentric model.

Also, don't forget there is 20 gears in the relic. The other 10 are one's people are assuming what is needed to get it to work properly. Now do we have that teeth count, gear count, angle, and wheel size exactly the same as over 2000 years ago? We won't know. So while we know it can be made to work it's still a question on how accurate it really was. And to that accuracy it measured eclipses by the month LINK Not by the day let alone the hour.

Sorry but the Mechanism demonstrates the Greeks knowledge of the universe was advanced but clearly not as advanced as we are at present.

Oh and it's still missing Nibiru you claim ancient societies know it existed so did they really or did the Greeks exclude it and why?

Quote:

MikeB and Lou version, hasn't been able to make ANY useable predictions

You may have more luck visiting a fortune teller...[/quote] Fortune teller or MikeB's lack of anything predictable? Sound about equivalent to me.

@MikeB

Quote:

In the above configuration Nibiru could be a little brighter than normal compared to being far away due to heating up by the sun. However most of the light hitting the earth's atmosphere is a pretty direct reflection from the Sun onto Nibiru. Due to magnetic interaction between Nibiru and the earth, this reflected light was bend around the earth's atmosphere significantly enlarging this reflection compared to reality. Light bent by magnetic field (Einstein's version would be bending space-time). The earth's atmosphere wil also have acted as a plano-concave lens, so observed position is different from actual position (yes an optical illusion, but not of the sun but of nibiru).

All guesses no evidence! (this is a serious problem for you my friend.)

How about this for a start. Let's put both your conjectures together. Above works on an object that's smaller than Jupiter in size but more distant. Take a baby step and first demonstrate that Jupiter has had this effect at any time within an earth based observation. Closer and larger it should produce an image as big as 3/4 the sun (size of the 2nd sun) if not larger. Please demonstrate evidence that other bodies have had such as an effect that you describe. (Personally I think you'll not be able to find such a creative new magnetic optics effect as you describe but I am open to valid evidence.)

@MikeB

Quote:

What's in the middle of our solar system? It's a star called the sun.

* Also from this image it appears our solar system is comprised of only 11 objects + an exploding object. Though we know this is untrue as our solar system has many objects.
* It appears the sun has a well defined 6 pointed coronal ejection at all times. We know this is untrue.
* It also appears to me that 3 objects are closer than the farthest coronal ejection. Which is also untrue.
* And 9 objects are no further from the edge of the sun than the diameter of the sun. Which perhaps why it's not true is those objects burst into flame and dust and are now gone which leaves 2 objects which is far under the number of objects in the solar system.

Quote:

First take the sun as middlepoint and use cogs of different sizes relative to the size of the orbital path. Then use different gear ratios to adapt for orbital movement speed.

Good idea but in the case of the A.M. the middle point is earth.

Quote:

Draw the design on a piece of paper and it's plain obvious they knew the planets go round the sun.

That's not clear at all. No motion nor direction is indicated in this image. What I see, just using this image, is 11 round spaceships leaving an exploding Krypton. None are orbiting they're all running away.

And it all fits! 11 objects leaving an exploding object which is why the object count doesn't match ours it's not our solar system. And we know from written material that an alien from Krypton landed here in a round escape pod/space craft object. And we all know aliens visit us all the time so that's evidence. And likely the far journey had to be done through magnetics so... QED this is true.

Last edited by BrianK on 19-May-2011 at 11:49 PM.

The device would have been worked similar to this for the planets:



This based on the summerian/babylonian knowledge and observations. The designers of this advanced piece of mechanics were great in translating this data and understandings of relationships into a wonderful mechanical relations.

The summerians had an excellent understanding of our solar system (and maybe in various regards even superior to that of modern day science).

And this device is a lot more advanced than I give it credit for here, it calculated so much for its size (the olympic games often being highlighted, but that's by far the least interesting one from a scientific perspective, I mean real science):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1CuR29OajI

We have a saying: "Storm after the silence." This means after the calm (as like nibiru nearby but opposite of the sun compared to earth) there's turmoil (as like nibiru nearby but at the same side of the sun as the earth).

Big Hurricane Season Predicted—Has U.S. Run Out of Luck?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110519-hurricanes-2011-summer-busy-predictions-science-nation-season/

@MikeB

You are wrong about the mechanism. It predicted approximately the motions of the five planets known to Greek astronomy (also the only planets known to Babylonian and Sumerian astronomy, which was really more astrology given its simplicity), and could predict very approximately solar eclipses and such.

But it seems you're just going to keep repeating your baseless assertion that it did more than that, so whatever, I give up. Believe whatever fantasy you like. Just don't tell anyone that the archaeology supports you. That would be academic fraud.



Quote:

The summerians had an excellent understanding of our solar system (and maybe in various regards even superior to that of modern day science).

Again, baseless assertions. Please stop making this claim, it is simply not true. It is based solely in the fraud perpetuated by Sitchin. You can include it as a tenet of your faith if you like, but its not backed by science or any of the evidence. The Sumerians knew of five bodies they thought were planets, and believed in a geocentric system. All of their tablets that reference astronomy, no matter how obliquely, indicate this.

Quote:

I mean real science

'Real Science', eh? So, tell me what you mean by that.

Because it seems to me that you defy the principles of Real Science as it is commonly understood, by repeatedly failing to apply any of the basic requirements of the Scientific Method to anything you've done or said so far.


And, another youtube video? Well, at least this one wasn't two hours long. Nice animation of the mechanism. Unfortunately for your space aliens theory, nothing in that mechanism is beyond the ability of human society at the time of its manufacture.

edit - sorry, forgot to add: You still haven't responded to the geological evidence against a regular Nibiru-caused cataclysm.

Last edited by T-J on 20-May-2011 at 01:10 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 20-May-2011 at 01:10 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 20-May-2011 at 01:08 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Calculate the moon's orbit around the earth and sun. I would advise to use vectors. For momentum, forces of the sun and earth on the moon and maybe other factors you would like to take into consideration

Hey, I've just had a brilliant idea.

If you're such an all-fired genius, why don't you prove it and give us a run-down of your vectors based calculation of the Earth-Moon-Sun system?

Its only fair - BrianK has given you worked examples of both gravitational and magnetic problems, Nimrod has walked you through the basic principles of electromagnetism and the simplest possible exploration of Einstein's mass-energy equivalence, and I've been kind enough to run through a small subset of the reams of geological evidence against your theory.

So its only fair you return the favour now.


Oh, and just so you don't forget - you've still got that geological evidence to refute. Can't, can you?

Last edited by T-J on 20-May-2011 at 01:31 AM.

@T-J

Quote:

'Real Science', eh? So, tell me what you mean by that.

IMO real science for example does not re-discover, like the "discovery" of the Americas by illuminati Columbus as maintained for a long time by scientists and the better knowing Papel system.

IMO real science does not come up with new unproven bogus theories with a complete lack of evidence (like dark matter) to support another unproven theory (universal gravity). IMO that's not true science. Science should be based on multiple observationary phenomena, "dark matter" is not and will never be observed.

@MikeB

Quote:

IMO real science for example does not re-discover, like the "discovery" of the Americas by illuminati Columbus as maintained for a long time by scientists and the better knowing Papel system.

?

Quote:

IMO real science does not come up with new unproven bogus theories with a complete lack of evidence (like dark matter) to support another unproven theory (universal gravity). IMO that's not true science. Science should be based on multiple observationary phenomena, "dark matter" is not and will never be observed.

Hmm, such knowledge, such foresight. And such a closed mind, barred firmly against all possibilities beyond your own hypothesis.

Again you refer to dark matter as if its mere suggestion gives your ideas credit. This reveals a certain confusion - dark matter is merely a hypothesis, which exists to be tested. We are in the process of testing it by attempting to detect what are termed Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. If it turns out that we cannot detect them, we will abandon that hypothesis and find a different one. Then we'll test that one.

If it turns out that we can detect dark matter, we'll continue to work at it and find the limitations of our developing theory. Then we'll form new hypotheses to explain those limitations and run through the flowchart again.

That is science. Real Science, you might say.

It doesn't matter if dark matter isn't real science 'in your opinion'. Opinions are irrelevant, evidence is what counts. The hypothesis going to be tested and either rejected or accepted based on the evidence. Whether you like it or not.


Now, what you're doing is coming out with an unproven bogus hypothesis about magnetism that we have shown to be false repeatedly. You then choose not to apply the Scientific Method, instead starting out by immediately accepting your hypothesis as if it were a conclusion, and then rejecting or ignoring any and all evidence running counter to that conclusion. That isn't science. Its faith.

With the weight of evidence against your hypothesis and considering the fact that you've provided no mathematical system that enables us to test any predictions based on it, we as users of the Scientific Method are forced to reject it.

Again, whether you like it or not.


You have also, by the way, again neglected to address the geological evidence against your Nibiru hypothesis. Finding it difficult?

@MikeB

I mentioned earlier it sounded to me like your understanding of science is very much out of the norm. With the latest statements on science you've illustrated to me that my statement was on the right track. You seem to have a definitional problem. If you're basing your definitions on something that the rest of the world doesn't agree on of course people will see your views as wrong.

Quote:

IMO real science does not come up with new unproven bogus theories with a complete lack of evidence (like dark matter)

It's already been explained to you that dark matter is not a theory but an unproven hypothesis. The properties surrounding it's existence or not will tell us how important, or unimportant, it is to gravity. There are other hypothesis within gravity that do not require dark matter. So dark matter isn't central to the definition (at this time). It could be Bekenstein's theory is correct, another unproven hypothesis. Or one of about a dozen other hypothesise or something even stranger we've yet to concieve.

Science is one of observe, postulate, test, analyze results and repeat forever. Coming up with 'unproven bogus' hypotheses are a requirement. We test these and observe if they are correct or incorrect and in either case we learn something. Knowing it's not X can be as valuable as knowning it is Y.

Science accepts your unproven bogus hypotheses of 'it's all magnets' we've tested here with our present knowledge and found that to be not correct. Now you still claim it to be so. Again bring valid evidence!

How's the jupiter image magnification to be as big as the sun by earth's atmosphere working out for you? Anything yet!

@MikeB

Quote:

IMO real science for example does not re-discover, like the "discovery" of the Americas by illuminati Columbus as maintained for a long time by scientists and the better knowing Papel system.

I see that we are back to the "science" of IMO, and baseless accusations. Show me Columbus' membership card of the Illuminati and I may accept it as evidence. Likewise the other staunch papists that you have cited. Newton, Darwin, and Einstein. (That would be two Protestant rectors and a Jew).
Quote:

IMO real science does not come up with new unproven bogus theories with a complete lack of evidence (like dark matter) to support another unproven theory (universal gravity). IMO that's not true science. Science should be based on multiple observationary phenomena, "dark matter" is not and will never be observed.

Allow me to tell a little story to try to explain the operation of the scientific principle. To do this I will "borrow"Lou's aliens from outer space, and simplify it to any extraterrestrial life, to fill in for "dark matter".

Lou has stated his belief that extraterrestrial life (dark matter)exists, but has not yet been able to demonstrate their actual existence. I have looked at his hypothesis and backed it up with a mathematical calculation demonstrating its very high statistical probability. At this stage it is still only a hypothesis. At some point in the future, NASA sends a probe to Mars, and test samples of rock show marks that resemble microfossils found on earth. Detractors of Lou's theory of extraterrestrial life say that the images are just tricks of light and shade. The probe drills to below the surface and detects a dormant extremophile bacterium. The theory gains more acceptance, but a decreasing band of detractors scream "contamination". Then a probe lands on the frozen surface of a water lake on Europa, drills down to liquid water and finds a bacterial soup that, from its sheer volume, cannot be the result of contamination. Lou's theory is no longer a theory but a matter of proven fact. Religious groups continue to preach that this is some kind of bogus result and not really life (dark matter).
Alternatively no life is found in the solar system, Lou's and my research is shelved pending the discovery of other corroborative evidence, and the search for knowledge continues in a different direction.

You will notice that during the story, once actual evidence was found the hypothesis turned into a theory, and that once irrefutable evidence was found the existence of extraterrestrial life became an established fact.
Dark matter is currently at the stage where, in the story, a probe was being designed. Your opinion has yet to reach the stage of being a workable hypothesis.
It doesn't work because
1. It is not visible in the night sky. (Or are all of the worlds amateur astronomers Illuminati?)
2. It has produced NO gravitational effects on other planets and their orbits.
3. The claimed effects on the landmass of the Earth have not been matched by tidal effect on the oceans of Earth.
4. Your electromotive attempt to supplant universal gravity fails to comply with known electromotive principles.
5. Your electromotive opinion has power levels which are too low by several orders of magnitude (several different orders of magnitude).
6. The geological record absolutely contradicts your claims of previous regular catastrophic bypasses of a massive object.

At the risk of sounding like the Lord High Executioner, I've got a little list. Remember?
Quote:

1. Base your conclusions on the evidence. Not vice versa. 2. Measure objectively, not guess selectively. 3. Back up statements with evidence. Claiming something to be a fact does not make it a fact. 4. Use large sample numbers for statistical analysis. 5. Use blind sampling for tests 6. Tests must include control groups. 7. Cite your sources of information. 8. Sources must be reliable, verifiable, and backed with evidence. 9. Opinion is not fact 10. No false evidence.(don't cheat)

1 and 9 definitely need to be addressed

The challenge remains for you to provide a mathematical basis for your hypothesis.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@T-J

Quote:

It predicted approximately the motions of the five planets known to Greek astronomy (also the only planets known to Babylonian and Sumerian astronomy

The Sumerian/Akkadian names for Uranus are: En-Ti-Mash, Anu
Pluto: Shu-Pa, Ga-Ga (although according to the Summerian text was originally Saturn's largest moon and was pulled away during a close Nibiru passing).
Neptune: Humba, Iru

http://volker-doormann.org/engsum.htm

I understand the facts may be disturbing to you.

Last edited by MikeB on 20-May-2011 at 10:11 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 20-May-2011 at 10:00 AM.

@MikeB
On his website Dr. Micheal Heiser quotes the academically accepted lexicon for translations of Akkadian and Sumerian texts. Quote:

Fortunately, this is possible because of the diligent work of the compilers of the well known Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, which bases its entries on exhaustive compilations of all cuneiform material known to the present day (there's a reason its taken decades to compile!).

I notice that you have not referenced a source that reputable scholars normally cite, so I took the privilege of having a look at your source.
The list that you link to has not bothered to separate the "English>Sumerian" from the "Sumerian>English" so what we are left with is an alphebetical list of terms. The list has 7118 entries (Yes, I counted them. Sometimes research is not very exciting.) and,since I am not quite that dedicated, I will assume that this equates to 3559 translations each way. Not quite decades of research here then.
I then looked at some of these "translations" and found that the "Sumerian" word Gar can mean either "Bread","Early","Make","Put", or "Set" and the "Sumerian" word Sha-mu that Sitchin translated as "Spacecraft" is listed as "Heart".
This seems to indicate that not only is this "Lexicon" not accepted by accredited scholars, but also not accepted by discredited ones.

As I keep trying to explain to you Check your sources, you can guarantee somebody else will!

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Micheal Heiser is a faithful christian, IMO view him as such. He did not dedicate 50 years of his life trying to understand the Summerian history and culture.

Note that the church doesn't like the fact that it is now widely known the bible stole its flood story from the Summerian Epic of Gilgamesh original. So make of it what you will.

Last edited by MikeB on 20-May-2011 at 01:27 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

I understand the facts may be disturbing to you.

This is not the first time I've asked you to can the arrogance, Mike.

Now, let's address those 'facts', shall we?

Your source - is it peer reviewed? Does it have third-party confirmation? Does anyone actually agree with its 'translation'?

No, no and no.

So your evidence that the Sumerians and Akkadians knew of Uranus, Pluto and Neptune is that you say the Sumerians and Akkadians knew of Uranus, Pluto and Neptune. So, this is not a fact, its your opinion. Therefore, just another hypothesis.

Let's have a look at what the archaeological evidence says about this hypothesis, shall we?

http://www.folklore.ee/Folklore/vol16/planets.pdf

Oh dear! Even at the very end of the Sumerian-Akkadian-Babylonian era, they were only aware of the six classical planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. And of course there's plenty of doubt as to how much understanding they actually had of even those.

Interestingly enough, Jupiter is most commonly associated with the God Marduk, who occasionally uses the alias 'Neberu'. So much for your tenth planet - its nothing more than an alternate name for the Sumerian god now known to be the planet Jupiter.

@MikeB

Quote:

Micheal Heiser is a faithful christian, IMO view him as such. He did not dedicate 50 years of his life trying to understand the Summerian history and culture.

Zecharia Sitchin is a madman and a fraud, IMO view him as such. He did not dedicate 50 years of his life trying to understand Sumerian history and culture, he spent it making up stories a Hollywood scriptwriter would reject for being too silly, and making money from the fear of paranoid fools.


Quote:

Note that the church doesn't like the fact that it is now widely known the bible stole its flood story from the Summerian Epic of Gilgamesh original. So make of it what you will.

There are flood stories in all mythologies. Modern geology disproves the notion of a global flood in the recent past, though, so they are just stories. Probably related to the drowning of fertile coastal plains at the end of the last ice age.

Speaking of geological evidence, you still haven't addressed any of it standing against your Nibiru cataclysm theory.

@MikeB

Quote:

Note that the church doesn't like the fact that it is now widely known the bible stole its flood story from the Summerian Epic of Gilgamesh original. So make of it what you will.

What's 'the church'? I was raised Lutheran and 'the church' to me is that organization. Which not only do they not care but they had a comparative religions class where they overlaid many myths w/ the Christian Bible. And even talked on how Genesis is two different creation stories from two different groups. And that's why Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are inconsistent. So this 'church' you're talking about is clearly not the church I'm familar with.

Not to say that some church somewhere might be upset over a stolen flood story it's simply not every Christian church in the world. Thus, you have to define what you're talking about.

@T-J

Quote:

There are flood stories in all mythologies. Modern geology disproves the notion of a global flood in the recent past

That not true, there's an overflow of evidence actually (like sea fossils in mountains). But this is certainly geologically accepted:

Quote:

The lower Tigris-Euphrates Valley, reflooding the Persian Gulf (12,000 years ago) When sea levels were low, the combined Tigris-Euphrates river flowed through a wide flat marshy landscape. The Persian Gulf today has an average depth of only 35 m.[4] During the most recent glaciation, which ended 12,000 years ago, worldwide sea levels dropped 120 to 130 metres (390 to 430 ft), leaving the bed of the Persian Gulf well above sea level during the glacial maximum.

Quote:

The Persian Gulf links up Iran (ancient Persia), Saudi Arabia and Iraq (the ancient region of Southern Mesopotamia). A map published in the Journal "Current Anthropology" shows regions of the Arabian Peninsula that were exposed as sea levels fell, and hence supposes that people of that region became environmental refugees around 8000 years ago[15].

Quote:

The Carpentaria plain (12,000 to 10,000 years ago) During glacial times, a stretch of level plain joined Australia with New Guinea and enabled humans to walk into Australia. That plain flooded to form the Gulf of Carpentaria around 12,000 to 10,000 years ago. Aboriginal Australian myth of the "dream time" includes a Great Flood[16] which is not ordinarily a recognizable feature of the Australian climate and geography, except for infrequent filling of ordinarily dry lake basins (e.g. Lake Eyre).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28prehistoric%29

It may be called prehistoric, but that's actually not that long ago and may actually be related to historically recorded events.

@BrianK

Quote:

What's 'the church'? I was raised Lutheran and 'the church' to me is that organization.

I mean the vatican/catholic church, not per se later divisions.