It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2012 - Nibiru - Constructive Onion

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
2012 is a time that will have alot of people wondering, and maybe just as many laughing, some even from relief.

As many of us put off some things to the end, I decided I was more than curious about it this time. I've read a few books by Sitchin some years back and it seemed like a cool twist on mythology. I found it interesting but didnt give it a whole lot of credit as it was counter to my beliefs. Though, as I feel all things are possible, I looked into it deeper and seen a few obvious notes about the people and the culture, and their strange beliefs. I personaly dont discredit UFOs and Aliens, but I dont have any proof of it and so I cant say that it does or doesnt exist. Here are a few snippets of what Ive found.

I credit my sources with wiki, as it's a decent "quick" refrence. The notes can be debated here, which better refrences may be found.



Nibiru (Babylonian astronomy): As the highest point in the paths of the planets, nibiru was considered the seat of the summus deus who pastures the stars like sheep, in Babylon identified with Marduk. This interpretation of Marduk as the ruler of the cosmos suggesting an early monotheist tendency in Babylonian religion by various authors.[3][4]

The corresponding constellation was in the area of Libra. The Nibiru constellation rose in the month of Tišritum, around autumnal equinox, and Nibiru was also a name for the planet Jupiter when observed in the month of Tišritum.

"Nibiru is [Marduk's] star, which he made appear in the heavens . . . [130-131] The stars of heaven, let him [Nibiru] set their course; let him shepherd all the gods like sheep."[5]

Nibiru, which is said to have occupied the passageways of heaven and earth, because everyone above and below asks Nibiru if they cannot find the passage. Nibiru is Marduk's star which the gods in heaven caused to be visible. Nibiru stands as a post at the turning point. The others say of Nibiru the post: "The one who crosses the middle of the sea (Tiamat) without calm, may his name be Nibiru, for he takes up the center of it". The path of the stars of the sky should be kept unchanged.

"When the stars of Enlil have been finished, one big star – although its light is dim – divides the sky in half and stands there: that is, the star of Marduk (MUL dAMAR.UD), Nibiru (né-bé-ru), Jupiter (MULSAG.ME.GAR); it keeps changing its position and crosses the sky."



By this, I am firmly set that what the people of this were speaking about is Jupiter. It suprises me that there were telescopes of such quality then, but perhaps a looking glass was all that was needed. I think even the Egyptians would have seen this and used the red spot as the eye of their god. We know that the Sumarians and Akkadians were interested in the stars. This is obvious. The civilization only existed 4-5000 years ago, so it seems they had a enough knowledge to build star gazing instruments as well as a civilization. Though, it was around this time that the first writings were found for us to take a look at the minds of these people.

All descriptions I see point directly to a massive planet in our solar system that had it's own set of moons, or as the Akkadians put it, "planets". Though, I find it mysterious that they thought that Jupiter helped keep the other planets in check. Maybe they were refering it it's own moons. I could also see easily how this culture seen planets as gods. It seemed that they had a pretty decent concept of space, and these bodies were much bigger... Even if they called them stars, they did, after all, reflect the suns light. So at night they would appear as such. Jupiter being the brightest and the biggest at some points.


But... Lets just say, because I also like a good mystery and "What If"....

There are theories that our sun may have a counter part. If this is true, it could show that the whole spiral dance we play around a central space as we swing around the galactic core could be just that, empty space. It could be a mini black hole, or some sort of dark star made of dark energy or something wildly imaginative. Perhaps we do swing around in this dance with a counterpart. Perhaps they dance around like a DNA helix together, or maybe even cross paths at some near interval every so many years, as we swing along this galactic arm.

Who knows, possibly 2012 symbolizes the time when our hologram or galactic shadow catches up with us. Im sure that would be something to behold, and then, perhaps our worst nightmare. I wouldnt want to be around to witness it, but it would make a hell of a movie. I could see a counter solar system slowly comming towards us. Its true that we probably wouldnt see it untill our own sun started lighting up the outtermost planets of it in our nights sky. Once it came a ways in, i'm sure that would be one hell of a war in heaven. Then some would say "gods battled gods" for the rule of the heavens. A new heaven and earth could appear. Or it could just be a passing so close that we see and feel it's effects but no damage is done. This could have always been so, save when one planet or another was taken captive upon it's travels.

It could happen. After all, we do know that it doesnt take a sun to have large bodies rotate around it. Any massive planet will do. It everything is a representation of the bigger picture, in relevance to mass and energy, then our own solar system may play a part of surrounding bodies outside of our own sight. So far, there are places we have not mapped on either side of us in the world. (why this is true, I have no idea)


Does anyone know how Sitchin seperated Jupiter from a whole diffrent solar system? What would make him think that this was not jupiter itself? After all, we do believe that one of it's moons could possibly hold life.




posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 


One more for the pile:

If it's true that Jupiter has nearly the same mass as our sun, and that there are smaller suns than ours, then its safe to say that there are very few reasons why Jupiter is not a sun itself. Could we also base a theory that the possibility exists, that jupiter has the potentual to have planitary orbits as well? We dont see evedence of this on our solar scale, but what about a distant body on another plane of axis? If not on a diffrent axis, then a very distant orbit. So instead of looking for a dark sun, shouldnt we look for the possibility of a planetary orbit around jupiter itself? Based on it's distance from us, it seems Jupiter could have a distant body who's orbit took it through the asteroid belt, or anywhere for that matter. We can only now see the distant objects from our back yard because they are too small, or too far. Something else to think about.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 


The telescope is a modern invention. It was made by Galileo around 1610.

No one saw the red spot of Jupiter before 1600. All previous astronomical observations were done with the naked eye. The ancients show no signs that they were aware of any planets other than the naked eye planets: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. There is evidence that the moons of Jupiter were spotted before 1610 by naked eye observers. The ancients did not have a good understanding of space. They did not understand the size of the planets, nor the distances to them. They did not understand that the light of the planets was reflected sunlight.

Suppose that the sun is in a binary system. The companion must be small. If it were massive, then we'd see it. If it were as massive as a black hole, then we'd expect to see the high energy events that we see around other black holes. A companion would be a brown dwarf although the chances of that are diminishing as new whole sky surveys are being performed.

It is possible that there are undiscovered planets. Gravity and whole sky surveys tell us that any undiscovered planet must be far, far away and have an orbit that never enters the orbits of the known planets.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 


Jupiter is not even close to the mass of the sun. The sun is something around 99% of mass of our entire solar system.

Solar System
sun 332,900 Earth masses
Jupiter 318 Earth masses

That makes the sun over 1000 times the mass of Jupiter.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
hey theRhenn,

Marduk, and nibiru are right up my way. I did a write-up on it a little while back.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maybe we can trade notes on our avenging arch angel. Anyway, always an interesting topic.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by theRhenn
 


The telescope is a modern invention. It was made by Galileo around 1610.

No one saw the red spot of Jupiter before 1600. All previous astronomical observations were done with the naked eye. The ancients show no signs that they were aware of any planets other than the naked eye planets: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. There is evidence that the moons of Jupiter were spotted before 1610 by naked eye observers. The ancients did not have a good understanding of space. They did not understand the size of the planets, nor the distances to them. They did not understand that the light of the planets was reflected sunlight.


The ancients did know about space and the planets. Have you ever read about them? I can't even begin to post what they knew. Do some googling on the Egyptians, Sumerians, Chinese, Aztecs and Mayans..They knew more about the planets and space than most people on Earth today.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by theRhenn
 


Jupiter is not even close to the mass of the sun. The sun is something around 99% of mass of our entire solar system.

Solar System
sun 332,900 Earth masses
Jupiter 318 Earth masses

That makes the sun over 1000 times the mass of Jupiter.


In the grand scale of things, thats not so big. Had the mass of Jupiter been much more, it would have become a sun itself.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Khaaaaaan!!
hey theRhenn,

Marduk, and nibiru are right up my way. I did a write-up on it a little while back.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maybe we can trade notes on our avenging arch angel. Anyway, always an interesting topic.


Bad link
It goes to an open post



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 



The ancients did know about space and the planets. Have you ever read about them? I can't even begin to post what they knew. Do some googling on the Egyptians, Sumerians, Chinese, Aztecs and Mayans..They knew more about the planets and space than most people on Earth today.

Yes I have read about these groups. For example, did any of these ancient civilizations know about vacuums? Did any of these ancients know about vacuums on Earth or in space? Did these ancient civilizations know about galaxies? Did these ancient civilizations recognize that the sun is a star? Most of these civilizations did not recognize that there was great depth to the universe. They saw the stars are objects on a flat background.

The ancients knew about a lot of things, but they really lacked an understanding of space. The heliocentric notions of the ancients was due to their lack of understanding of space. Seeing patterns in the movements of some dots of light in the sky does not mean that you understand space. Observing that some of the stars changed brightness over time does not mean that you understand space. Measuring the length of a year does not mean that you understand space.

To claim that they knew more about planets and space than most people on Earth today is not true. A very few people back then probably knew more about planets than the average person today. Almost everyone today knows more about space than anyone back then. Things unknown back then were the incredible distances between stars, that space is a vacuum, weightlessness, and than the planets are cold and lifeless are a few examples of things the average person knows today that was unknown back then.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 


This is what you wrote. It is completely wrong.

If it's true that Jupiter has nearly the same mass as our sun


Here is part of your response, which again is way off the mark.

Had the mass of Jupiter been much more, it would have become a sun itself.


If you took all of the other planets in the solar system and the asteroids and the Kuiper and added it to Jupiters mass it still would be far too small for Jupiter to become even a brown dwarf.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by theRhenn
In the grand scale of things, thats not so big. Had the mass of Jupiter been much more, it would have become a sun itself.


A number of exoplanets have been discovered that are significantly more massive than Jupiter and with larger radii, yet they remain planets. WASP-14b from a couple of years ago comes to mind, as does HAT-P-2b from 2007. The lower end of brown dwarfs generally have masses of around 13 Jupiters, though "sub-brown dwarfs" can be less massive. In any case, that is hardly a "sun," so your statement isn't correct.
edit on 5-12-2010 by UndeadDinosaur because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Jupiter is 2.5 times more massive than all the other planets in the Solar System Combined!

If it were about 60X more massive than it is, it would indeed be a star!. More mass would cause the planet to collapse from compression under gravity. Thermonuclear reactions would take place and Jupiter would become a star with a diameter of about 100,000 miles.

Currently it's mass is 1000 times less than the sun. When you're comparing it to all the other planets in our solar system vs the sun, it's not so small. Its not a trillion times less mass, just 1000.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 


I have already stated that there isn't enough mass in the solar system all the way out to the Oort cloud to make a star. Take all of the planets and the asteroids and the Kuiper belt and very likely all of the Oort cloud and there isn't enough mass to make a star.

There isn't enough mass. End of story.

Your claim is like saying that a glass of water has the same volume as Lake Baikal in Russia.
Your claim is like saying that a penny is about the same amount of money as the GDP of Europe.
Your claim is like saying that the length of your finger is the same as the distance to the sun.
It's laughable.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I never refuted that there wasnt enough mass in the solar system to make jupiter a star. I'm saying that it was very close. My statement wasnt objective to the point. It was relative. If you wish to hang on every word for litteral meaning, then you saying that adjectives have no purpose. It was a general description, and under circumstances, it's not untrue. Hang on these points if you like but at least stick to the main point of the OP.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 


You stated in your addition to the OP that the sun and Jupiter had similar masses. Not true at all. Not even close. The difference is so huge that there isn't enough mass available in the solar system to make Jupiter even a brown dwarf. Jupiter may be a large planet in our solar system, but it is small (in mass) compared to even brown dwarfs. It can be confusing to people that brown dwarfs with significantly more mass are only slightly larger than Jupiter. Diameter should not be linearly equated to mass.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 


Your OP suggests that the ancients saw a large planet. Where and when? If all you have to go on is Sitchin, then you probably already know that his ideas failed. Myths are not history. Sitchin followed in the footsteps of Velikovsky, but he had a slightly different game plan in which he alters the myths. Velikovsky simply provides an interpretation that is demonstrably false. Sitchin made up things such as the claim that the ancients knew of 12 planets.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


lol! Did you even read the post? I do not say anywhere that Sitchin was correct in his theory. I said nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, the original point of the post ... well, go ahead and read it yourself. I get the impression that you just jumped on this thread to argue for the sake of arguing.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 


You did mention Sitchin. You also did a fair amount of rambling with an unclear theme to the OP.

You also make a large number of mistakes in the OP:
1. telescopes in ancient times
2. the ancients understood space
3. the light from the planets is reflected light
4. the idea that the ancients mentioned a planet unknown to us
5. a companion black hole or a companion made of exotic matter

Even at the end you offer no summary although you ask a question about Sitchin.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by theRhenn
 


You did mention Sitchin. You also did a fair amount of rambling with an unclear theme to the OP.

You also make a large number of mistakes in the OP:
1. telescopes in ancient times
2. the ancients understood space
3. the light from the planets is reflected light
4. the idea that the ancients mentioned a planet unknown to us
5. a companion black hole or a companion made of exotic matter

Even at the end you offer no summary although you ask a question about Sitchin.



My exact words...




By this, I am firmly set that what the people of this were speaking about is Jupiter.


Prove my mistakes.... If you read... if you can read... you'll find that many of those points were not points at all but speculation. Other of those points, you will have to prove to me otherwise. I simply dont believe you, nor can you show me proof or reason why people who could build towering cities of closely knit stone, the pyramids and its near flawless design... could not figure out how to build a simple looking glass? Do you realise how primitive the first telescopes that we knew of, where?

If you spend as much time reading and reasearching as you do picking apart and arguing posters, you might actually learn something. You may realise then that the world isnt as narrow as your mind has become.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 



If you spend as much time reading and reasearching as you do picking apart and arguing posters, you might actually learn something. You may realise then that the world isnt as narrow as your mind has become.

If you read if you can read then you'd know the no ancient civilizations had telescopes. No ancient observations were anything other than naked eye observations. No telescopes have ever been found in ancient civilizations.

The first telescope was built 2 years before Galileo built his. In 1610 Galileo made fundamental observations that demonstrated that the Earth was not at the center of the universe. Of course there are all sorts of nonsense claims about ancients having telescopes. So where are their observations that a simple telescope could provide that a naked eye observer misses. There are none.

Of course your points were speculation, but had you done any even basic research you wouldn't had to speculation and make so many errors. That's why you posted some nonsense about Jupiter and the sun having a similar mass.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join