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.

 

Italian astronomer depicts primordial collision in Uranus, EXACTLY as told on Sumerian ENUMA ELISH.

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
The Italian astronomer Alessandro Morbidelli, of the Observatory of Côte d’Azur in Nice, France, proposed a model explaining the massive collision, which tilted Uranus in the early solar system, just as depicted in the Sumerian Genesis "ENUMA ELISH" (When on High), in the "celestial battle" started when a rogue planet called MARDUK entered the inner system clockwise. For the record: MARDUK is how is called NIBIRU before it collide with TIAMAT, which supposedly was where is the current Mars orbit.


NANTES, France—Knock, knock. That's not the start of a joke but the hard-luck history of Uranus. New research suggests that the giant planet may have suffered two massive impacts early in its history, which would account for its extreme, mysterious axial tilt.
Uranus orbits nearly on its side; its axis of rotation is skewed by 98 degrees relative to an ordinary upright orientation, perpendicular to the orbital plane. Many planetary scientists have sought to explain the odd tilt by invoking a giant impact into Uranus billions of years ago. But the giant planet has a system of moons circling its equator that would have been disrupted by such an impact.
"If Uranus is suddenly tilted, the satellites keep moving like that from north pole to south pole, and [wouldn't be] equatorial at all," Alessandro Morbidelli of the Observatory of Côte d’Azur in Nice, France, reported here Thursday at a joint meeting of the American Astronomical Society Division for Planetary Sciences and the European Planetary Science Congress. [Read more planetary news from the meeting here.] But what if the tilting was a more gradual process, caused not by one mammoth impact but by two somewhat smaller nudges? Simulations show that the two-strike mechanism appears to solve the problem, knocking Uranus sideways and allowing it to develop equatorially orbiting moons, Morbidelli said(...)

www.scientificamerican.com...



edit on 10/7/2011 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


Curiously, the Scientific American website published this article today, but the model proposed by Morbidelli is reported on Zecharia Sitchin's website since 2004...


The assertion was based on statements made to the journal by Alessandro Morbidelli, an astronomer at France’s observatory at Côte d’Azur. The Solar System, he explained, was chaotic in the beginning. There was a celestial collision involving a “supplementary planet” that had existed where the Asteroid Belt is now. It happened about 3.9 billion years ago; and those events explain the unusual long elliptical orbit of the “Phantom Planet.”

www.sitchin.com...


I wanted bring this up, because the mainstream scholars give account of Sumerian cosmogony as "anthropomorphic myths" and the usual attackers of Sitchin, call it a "sci-fi tale" or "pseudoscience". Is always interesting when a rogue scientist comes up with something unexpected that corroborates him.

www.weekendpost.co.bw...
The Celestial Battle: Nibiru meets Solaris and Tiamat

edit on 10/7/2011 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Double post.
edit on 10/7/2011 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
SNF4U

I'm going to be very interested in reading the replies to this.

Question to Phage and other well informed debunkers: What is the current scientific rational for the existence of the asteroid belt? Was it once a planet that was destroyed, or are the asteroids left over from the formation of the solar system that have not coalesced into a planet yet?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp
SNF4U

I'm going to be very interested in reading the replies to this.

Question to Phage and other well informed debunkers: What is the current scientific rational for the existence of the asteroid belt? Was it once a planet that was destroyed, or are the asteroids left over from the formation of the solar system that have not coalesced into a planet yet?


The tricky part is that the Sumerians alleged that the own ANUNNAKI told them about the formation of our solar system and the mainstream scholars don't accept this, what makes Sitchin a sitting duck target. But what happens when some astronomer corroborates Sitchin's translations???



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Double post.
edit on 10/7/2011 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 


You said star and flag for him, but I gave him a star and flag, and he only has one.

OP thank you for sharing that, I never heard of this. I am going to bookmark it and check it out later.

Star and Flag, no joke



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by OldCorp
 


You said star and flag for him, but I gave him a star and flag, and he only has one.

OP thank you for sharing that, I never heard of this. I am going to bookmark it and check it out later.

Star and Flag, no joke


Oops. My bad. Error rectified.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   


My starting point is the postulate that myths throughout the world should be taken at face value. For the recurring worldwide mythology this is almost completely obvious.

Any attempts to apply local cultural conditions and limited attitudes to mythology as a general theory, meets with failure, because of a lack of appreciation of the enormous scope of mythology throughout the world, and the constant refrain of identical themes by peoples who have remained completely foreign to each other -- who have never had cultural contact.

Any theory of mythology based on limited and local aspects will fail to translate to the hundreds of additional instances across the world. This holds for notions of ritual, of model behaviour, of allegories of nature, of personifications of the weather, and any other metaphorical meanings. All these myopic attemps fail utterly in the face of the wide diversity of meaning among languages and grammars, and not least also in the enormous cultural differences between peoples. All explanations of the origins of myths are doomed to failure when based on a limited scope of myth


Here is what really happened. This explains everything, including the tilt of Uranus.

saturniancosmology.org...
edit on 7-10-2011 by CaptChaos because: add quote



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 


I'm gonna go through the paper before I give my opinion. Although I don't know how the ENUMA ELISH could say anything about Uranus when the Sumerians didn't know about it and had no symbol for it. They also didn't have the word nibiru. That didn't come around until the Akkadians.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Star and flag...

Always love this topic. Tiamat and Niburu...funny how more people believe in Tiamat than do in Nibiru considering how the stories basically intertwine. Nibiru is the missing planet...everything points to it, just there is no concrete base for the belief. Time will soon tell though...very soon it seem.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
The Sumerians had no way of detecting Uranus's existence for one thing, another thing is that 14 to 17.5 AU distance between Uranus and the main asteroid belt, doesn't make me want to lay down smart money on this block of garbage.

Uranus was found on March 13th, 1781 by Sir William Herschel of England.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 

I don't see any corroboration.

It looks like you are combining two separate theories into one. The article Sitchin refers to seems to be completely different than the theory regarding Uranus. Judging by the work Morbidelli was doing at the time it was regarding the formation of the Kuiper belt. adsabs.harvard.edu...

Mobidelli does not believe that the asteroid belt is the result of a planetary collision. It is clear that Sitchin has completely misinterpreted what was being said in the article he's talking about, not surprising since his knowledge of astronomy was demonstratably dismal. He can't even understand a simple orbital diagram. Look at the sketch seen in the article by Sitchin.
Notice that the outer two orbits cross each other. Those planets are Pluto and Neptune.
The "phantom planet" has a perihelion at the orbit of Neptune, it gets nowhere near the inner solar system, yet Sitchin says the diagram "is exactly a copy" of his own. Never mind the minor matter of about 28 AU difference.

Sitchin's claim that the asteroid belt is result of a planetary collision is not supported. Sitchin's claim that a planet with a highly eliptical orbit which enters the inner solar system with a period of 3,600 years is not supported.
edit on 10/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


I actually forgot my initial reason for responding to OldCorp's post. The asteroid belt simply doesn't have the mass to account for a planet. Its mass is equal to about 4% of the Moon's mass.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


i also find it curious and revealing that when stitchin asked them to date the artifacts and do some dna tests, he has been denied. everyone wants to say how wrong he is but the will not run tests on his theories too prove him wrong. they just ignore and ridicule. hey reminds me of ats, alot!



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Morbidelli is often used by sitchinites.
People should check out his "Nice model", well a model he was part of creating at least.
en.wikipedia.org...




The migration of the outer planets is also necessary to account for the existence and properties of the Solar System's outermost regions.[8] Originally, the Kuiper belt was much denser and closer to the Sun, with an outer edge at approximately 30 AU. Its inner edge would have been just beyond the orbits of Uranus and Neptune, which were in turn far closer to the Sun when they formed (most likely in the range of 15–20 AU), and in opposite locations, with Uranus farther from the Sun than Neptune.[3][8]

Some of the scattered objects, including Pluto, became gravitationally tied to Neptune's orbit, forcing them into mean-motion resonances.[16] The Nice model is favoured for its ability to explain the occupancy of current orbital resonances in the Kuiper belt, particularly the 2:5 resonance. As Neptune migrated outward, it approached the objects in the proto-Kuiper belt, capturing some of them into resonances and sending others into chaotic orbits. The objects in the scattered disc are believed to have been placed in their current positions by interactions with Neptune's migrating resonances.[17]

However, the Nice model still fails to account for many of the characteristics of the distribution. It is able to produce the hot population, objects in the Kuiper belt that have highly inclined orbits, but not the low-inclination cold population.

The two populations not only possess different orbits, but different compositions; the cold population is markedly redder than the hot, suggesting it formed in a different region. The hot population is believed to have formed near Jupiter, and to have been ejected out by movements among the gas giants. The cold population, on the other hand, is believed to have formed more or less in its current position, although it may also have been later swept outwards by Neptune during its migration.[18] Quoting one of the scientific articles, the problems "continue to challenge analytical techniques and the fastest numerical modeling hardware and software


edit on 7-10-2011 by pazcat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


sitchen spent most of his life learning what he knew about ancient languages,,i am sure he translated sumerian texts to the best of his ability ,,and i am also sure his translations were spot on...as soon as one of you sitchen haters start translating cuneiform ..maybe you should read a book or two of his with an open mind...you just might learn something



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by excalibrate
 


You mean start translating cuneiform like Michael Heiser? A man who has actually studied Sumerian (among a number of other ancient languages), as opposed to Sitchin's background in economics, and he found that Sitchin had no idea what he was talking about.

Sitchin Is Wrong



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I wonder if he just saw the model or something and was just like eff it I'll give it a whirl since nothing else is making sense. Just as he did it the hair on his neck stood right up just like it always does when you receive your own truths and not that I'm saying here comes Nibiru, but the reality of the situation is fact is stranger then fiction and only time will tell wtf...



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by excalibrate
 

I just said he was a lousy astronomer, I didn't say anything about skills in translating cuneiform.
I've read some of his stuff and found it silly.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join