The Milky Way Theory

Originally posted by seek4 truth
reply to post by constantwonder

 

This is interesting first you pick out one of three as proof that the dates in our history are not the same, even though they are. Then you post a link stating there is something to do with 26,000 and 13,000 just as Mr levon said. I have read the book he has written it has many examples not just three and some are carved in stone they are so old. You need to ask yourself how come you have not learned about this stuff? How come nobody is mentioning these? This guy is no idiot and I guarantee he knows more than he is telling you.

yeah the presseion cycle of our planet will make it look like we are aligned our solar system does not move up and down across the galactic plane i really dont care whos book you've read the fact is science proves that this alignment isnt going to happen the way everyone is saying it will we cannot move up or down across the galactic plane. the pressesion cylce is long and its just a change in our visual perspective of the galaxy not a cycle where we move through the galaxy in any way other than around it in the arm we are currently in

[edit on 14-8-2008 by constantwonder]

There's a very simple way to verify this theory. You claim that this event occurs... what, every 24,000? 12,000? 36,000 years? It really doesn't matter because unless you're a Young Earth Creationist who believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old - the best estimate on the age of the Earth is in the BILLIONS of years. Even if this event occurs every 36,000 years - that means we would have passed this plane over 125,000 times before in Earth's history.

Now.... The oceans, atmosphere, even the crust of the Earth itself are not firmly attached to one another. They are resting on top of each other. The atmosphere rests above the surface. The oceans rest upon the crust. The crust rests upon the outer mantle. Each of these fluid and gaseous layers have what are called convection currents. See where I'm going? If you were to change the direction of the solid bits of Earth's rotation suddenly, these convection currents would still be driven by momentum. While they would eventually slow and reverse course, they would be in massive upheaval for quite some time. Similarly, atmospheric and oceanic convection currents would go through their own upheavals. You'd have quite the disaster - unprecedentedly large volcanic explosions, super hurricanes and tornadoes everywhere, oceans emptying onto land in tsunamis beyond imagination.

Now, I know you're predicting a catastrophic event here, so this may fit perfectly with your message. However, there's a bit of inconvenient evidence... or rather... a lack of it. With devastation on such a massive scale we should expect to see evidence of it in the geologic or fossil records. However, we see no evidence of this occurrence what-so-ever. We do have evidence of similarly devastating events in Earth's history occurring in fairly regular intervals. Ice Ages. They are well documented and extensively studied. So why not these Earth rotational changes? Where are the patterns of mass extinction? Where are the global ash layers? Where are the oceanic fossils and sediment layers? There aren't any such indications.

And that's just one of numerous other examples I could give.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic

First off, it does matter because people have lived through these events; that is why we are still here today. Also as I stated and many have verified the cycle is 26,000 years but more close to 25,800 but most sites estimate. These sea shell fossils you talk about can be found all over the world on the land we walk on.

These ice ages people talk about have one problem, they almost always leave out one simple fact. When there is a pole shift that means the area that used to be grassy may now become ice. On the other hand the area that was ice may now become grassy. Our last pole shift was when I stated, because that is what history proves, if you look. They have not changed our history books and do not expect it…

In the time I stated Egypt was fertile grassland and water was abundant. It wore down the sphinx in a way that cannot happen today. They also left us the key of life which if you know how to use it and what it is which most people don’t, you know it was part of the zodiac. You would know it fits as a key and points to the next life changing event which is the age we are getting ready to enter.

I could leave this alone if I did not find the exact information on every corner of the world all the way up until around 200 years ago. Because of this I myself do not claim the 2012 theory, but stand behind our ancestors water bearer claim. This link and video may help a little but you will never find the truth unless you look yourself.
en.wikipedia.org...

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by butchman_3
I could not help but to notice that you said you were new, welcome to ATS! I must warn you that although the sites name is above top secret and there is a lot of interesting things on here. Most of the posters are still confused as to believe everything they learn in school and the possibility of looking outside the box gets fewer stars than the first poster who contributed nothing because she was concerned about paragraphs.

Although I like to believe these are the same people who get shot at the bank when someone yells hands up or I will shot, because they wait for a second to think well does that have a comma in it??? Unfortunately you still see these same kinds of people posting again. It has been my experience so far that the most intelligent people on here almost never post. This site will give you a good start to realize there are some serious problems with our history. But once you get deep enough, the people who know get tired of wasting there time on the people who do not.

Originally posted by Brandon Levon
[These ice ages people talk about have one problem, they almost always leave out one simple fact. When there is a pole shift that means the area that used to be grassy may now become ice. On the other hand the area that was ice may now become grassy. Our last pole shift was when I stated, because that is what history proves, if you look. They have not changed our history books and do not expect it…

I think you may be a bit confused by pole shift. The movement of the earths axis is only a theoretical hypothesis, and has no evidence to prove that it has ever occured.

When most scientists speak above polar shift, the are refering to a small switch in the geographic location of the poles. Not a complete flip where somewhere near the equator ends up as a pole. I believe the correct term fo this is polar wander which has proven to have occured, unlike polar shift

en.wikipedia.org...

Some suggested that we spin counter clockwise and we do because of the gravity of our own galaxy causing it.


Well there is another reason why that's false. We are not from the Milky way. We are from the galaxy saggitarius along rod shape galazy that is attached to the outer rim of the milky way.

The galaxy only joined it, during the pre dinosaurs era, If I'm not mistaken.

What effects could this lead to our planet and entire solar system when we become more centred to the inner rims of the galaxy as we spin closer over the millions of years


Is this the reason as to why the world has gone on rapid changes in evolution, temputures, solar activity, technology advances, spiritual awakenings, global warming on earth and the rest of the solar system?

reply to post by Brandon Levon

First off, it does matter because people have lived through these events; that is why we are still here today.

Were this even the case, the entirety of human history can be summed up in the span of about 6,000-12,000 years. We have no conventional written, oral, or otherwise transmitted (through the fossil record, artifacts, etc) history before this point. If these events happen in 26,000 year cycles - then nobody in ancient Egypt or any other ancient civilization would have any indication of first hand accounts. Further, I think you put entirely too much faith in the "knowledge and wisdom" of ancient cultures who, largely, even by the best of standards only had a rudimentary grasp of orbital mechanics. Let alone galactic phenomena. Some of the most ancient accounts we have of celestial mechanics dating even further back than those of the Mayan are found in Eastern and Middle-Eastern religions - such as Judism. They believed the Earth was a flat disk covered by a "dome" - and that the stars were afixed to that dome - and that they could be "shaken lose" and fall to the Earth. They also believed that outer space was filled with water.

There's a reason why we don't teach our children "ancient wisdom" such as that except in history/anthropology courses. They were wrong. I think you would see this if you spent even a faction of the time in which you SHOULD be researching cosmology and spent it on studying ancient cultures as well. Science, understanding, and knowledge progresses. We haven't "forgotten" the lessons of ancients - we took from them what worked and discarded that we could prove false or which didn't work. For example, look to Pythagoras who lived 2,500 years ago - but he is still regarded as one of the great minds of human history.

These sea shell fossils you talk about can be found all over the world on the land we walk on.

No, they're not. While it is true that you can find ancient ocean sediment layers and fossils on the top of even mountains (some also erroneously attribute this to the flood), you only find them at very specific (and extremely long) time frames geologically. They don't appear in 24,000 year intervals, but rather they appear in the strata layer in a predictable pattern in which one would expect from the convergent boundaries in which two plates that once constituted the sea floor meet head on - pushing one up to form mountains and the other is subducted underneith.

en.wikipedia.org...

These ice ages people talk about have one problem, they almost always leave out one simple fact. When there is a pole shift that means the area that used to be grassy may now become ice.

No, they don't. These people are not stupid, and they realize that the earth has changed quite a bit over history. This is why they're hunting for, and finding, dinosaur fossils in Antarctica. However by tracing the patterns in which these (and other) fossils are found on multiple continents - they know that the Earth didn't always look like it currently does. Rather, the Earth has had several periods in which all the landmasses were connected or in close proximity to allow for speciation and migration across multiple currently widely separated continents.

I'm sure you've heard of Pangea, but did you also know about the other supercontinents in Earth's history like Ur, Rodinia, Pannotia, Laurasia, Kenorland, etc? Scientists further know that multiple super-continents were formed - not by studying ancient mythology - but by tracking the rate of lunar recession (the rate at which the moon is pushed away from the Earth) and found that it hasn't always had a constant rate of recession. The current recession rate is actually accelerated by having the continents divided across the planet rather than clumped together on one side of the Earth.

This link and video may help a little but you will never find the truth unless you look yourself.

You claim to seek the truth, and then post a link to a Wikipedia entry on a scientist who's theories and ideas have been pretty much universally discredited and shown to be demonstrably wrong? Super. Why not post a link to Immanuel Velikovsky as well? His ideas and hypothesis found in such books as Worlds in Collision, Ages of Chaos, and Earth in Upheaval were absolutely fascinating. They were demonstrably WRONG, but still fascinating.

Guess what they're subject matter was comprised of? Yup, the same junk BS as described here. Using comparative mythology to derive scenarios in celestial mechanics. As Stephen J. Gould said: "Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan — although to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong.... Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends."

[edit on 15-8-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by mind is the universe

Well there is another reason why that's false. We are not from the Milky way. We are from the galaxy saggitarius along rod shape galaxy that is attached to the outer rim of the milky way.

There's really no data to back up the notion that our solar system was deposited from another Galaxy. Our solar system's composition is exactly what we would expect to find if it had formed at it's present location within the Milky Way. Not to say that we couldn't have been, but that there's really no good reason to think that we were.

Further, if we were deposited by another Galaxy which is in the process of being consumed by the Milky Way - it would be far more likely that we were deposited by the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy which is far closer to both our own local solar system and Galactic Central point - snatching the title of the closest Galactic neighbor to the Milky Way away from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy upon it's discovery in 2003.

reply to post by Lasheic


"Velikovsky argued that electromagnetic effects play an important role in celestial mechanics." I see your point nobody believes this...

reply to post by seek4 truth


You should probably read his works before making a comment which alludes to him being "ahead of the curve".

Velikovsky conceded that the behavior of the planets in his theories are not consistent with Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation. He proposed that electromagnetic forces could be the cause of the movement of the planets

Wiki - Worlds in Collision

He broke physics and didn't even flinch.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by Lasheic]

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by seek4 truth

 

You should probably read his works before making a comment which alludes to him being "ahead of the curve".

Velikovsky conceded that the behavior of the planets in his theories are not consistent with Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation. He proposed that electromagnetic forces could be the cause of the movement of the planets

Wiki - Worlds in Collision

He broke physics and didn't even flinch.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by Lasheic]

Yeah, I will admit the theory does seem a little far fetched. But if I read right I believe was a best seller and shows the world is certain something has happened, just not sure what. I think the author here is claiming the same time line as you. He is just claiming this to be the time something happened. What is it you are claiming, we just appearered, what is your theory?


[edit on 15-8-2008 by seek4 truth]

Originally posted by RuneSpider
reply to post by Brandon Levon

 

13 isn't a sacred number to Masons.

www.associatedcontent.com...
I justed grabbed a link, have not even read it but I did so because I am sure you will notice you have missed out on points of history, very important parts at that. In case it is not mentioned it is said to be the time of the Templar slaughter.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by seek4 truth]

ok last post here becausew no one wants to listen to facts and when you use facts to refute a theory no one listens..... there is no alignment there is only the perception of this alignment due to the pressesion of stars.

The cause of the precession is the equatorial bulge of the Earth, caused by the centrifugal force of the Earth's rotation . That rotation changes the Earth from a perfect sphere to a slightly flattened one, thicker across the equator. The attraction of the Moon and Sun on the bulge is then the "nudge" which makes the Earth precess.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by constantwonder]

[edit on 15-8-2008 by constantwonder]

just a shot in the dark....but isnt it gravity that causes everything to spin? I.E. the moon spins around the earth due to? The earth rotates around the sun due to? The matter that makes up our galaxy spins around the black hole in the middle due to? Think about it, the moon and earth are a small entities, but can spin around the earth because the earth produces enough gravity. For the planets to rotate they need a larger amount of gravity, produced by the sun. What creates the most amount of gravity in the universe? Black holes....yay for gravity...this is all in theory of course

reply to post by Lasheic
I used Charles Hapgood because in 1958 he presented 458 references to prove the earth had shifted on its axis several times in the past, with the last shift being around 11,600 years ago and that was not enough. I find it interesting that as a member of what is now the CIA he would have had access to information most of us will never, not to mention he was hit by a car.

I myself have noticed a clear pattern of knowing too much and accidental death, even though that does not mean it was not an accident. But since many have gone with this timeline because of all the references and the fact that you say there is no history beyond 12,000 years ago, added to the computer in the second link, has no reason to lie.

It seems like you are really kind of helping prove all of this true, just in an argumentative state about minor differences. My whole point is that I know they know when and how these things work but are not saying because they can choose who they want to let live and who they want to let die. I think everyone here is putting a little to much faith in our masters.

reply to post by seek4 truth


Whether or not it was a best seller is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many people believe it either. Believing something is true, doesn't make it true. Belief =/= Knowledge.

Now, I don't quite understand what you mean by similar timelines. The only timeline I've referred to is the one found in the geological record - which shows absolutely no evidence of a procession of regular global disasters of the type or frequency the OP is talking about. At you referring to the difference between the actual geological evidence of disasters in comparison to Velikovsky's theories?

Further, my claim? My claim is that the OP is wrong and has apparently poorly researched even the basic fundamentals of what he's talking about.

If you want to know my views on god, do a search on my post history. There is no need to bring that discussion into this thread.

reply to post by Brandon Levon


I see. You know the truth, but it doesn't look like you do because "they" have hidden and obfuscated the evidence to suit their own simplistic and malevolent desires.

I know this is a conspiracy website, but wow... a conspiracy of fiendish geologists and paleontologists controlled by the shadow government? ...wow...

I hate to break it to you, but you are not Prometheus.

reply to post by CaptainLogic
Actually many things apply and is the reason I first posted part of the work I was working on but it was to long as I cut and pasted. Come to find out if you try to change it after it is too long, it cuts it off even more. To make people happy I tried to fix it latter but had to remove even more and was left with what appears to be a confusing mess which in a way I am glad because I appreciate all the arguments.

It makes people work better when they are angry and have something to prove plus some have pointed out things I did not realize could be so confusing. I am sure we are all learning a lot no matter if anyone wants to admit of not. I have been looking for one thing to be brought up and it has not. It has to do with forces in outer space and no one seems to notice it.

One of the most misunderstood things about this theory is that most all known forces still apply, I am just adding one to the equation that is not well understood, solar winds. But as I said this whole thing will have to be reworded and started again.

I am sorry that I have not had time to reply to you all, I am taking in your information and I do greatly appreciate it.





[edit on 15-8-2008 by Brandon Levon]

reply to post by CaptainLogic


Rather than blow you smoke and basically fluff you without providing any substance, I'll just give you an answer.

The rotation of the planets is due to the conservation of angular momentum. An easy visualization of this law is to picture an ice skater rotating. Notice how as they draw their arms and legs in closer together, they spin faster. There is no extra energy going into the spin, so why do they accelerate? It's because when they stick their arms out - it takes more of the initial energy the skater has move those arms in space. They're covering a greater distance. When the skater pulls her arms in, they travel a much shorter distance and don't take up as much energy - which translates into a faster rotation.

Now, imagine that on a cosmic scale. As gravity pulls matter clouds closer and closer together, any slight spin they might have will accelerate faster and faster as the cloud becomes smaller and more dense. Voila, rotation of a planet from a cloud of seemingly stationary matter.

In fact, without angular momentum there wouldn't be planets at all. Gravity would have just pulled everything into a central point and formed a massive star. It's the same conservation of angular momentum which makes our planet orbit the Sun as it does making the planet itself spin. Without this momentum, we wouldn't be able to escape the Sun's gravity well and would plunge into it.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by sc2099


I was not aware that posts were being graded for grammar and with all due respects I think that is why authors have editors. Not to mention since when was ideals discredited because of poor grammar? It’s a good thing that the authors of the bible knew what a paragraph was because if they didn’t who knows who or what most of the world would be worshipping.