Analysis of the cosmological concepts of the peoples of antiquity and the reconstruction of the events that took place on the basis of facts.
Part 1. Basic data. Required advance notice
The author of the article is well aware of the fact that the article is an interpretation of the facts and in no way claims to be the ultimate truth. Nevertheless, consideration of factual data will be the basis of the article, and it is precisely the acquaintance with the complex of facts that is the purpose of this article (as the author sees it; and how these facts will be built into the reader's worldview, in general, the author does not care). The author does not intend to prove anything to anyone. The right to one's own opinion is an inalienable right of every person, moreover, it appears not as a result of any guarantees from society or the state (as a result of a social contract), but upon birth. Nevertheless, the author will take great pleasure in considering valid criticism, i.e. based on verifiable evidence,including facts (references to the literature, in which only interpretations are given, will not be taken as criticism).
[Since the article was not written for the forum, the permanent members of the forum are already familiar with many facts (moreover, some of the facts were known by some of the members even before the publication). However, some of the facts given in the article will be surprising.]
* * *
At present, a considerable number of different works are known, which describe the cosmological concepts of the peoples of antiquity. The prevailing scientific paradigm denies these works scientific and calls them “myths”, “legends”, etc. … However, representatives of orthodox hypotheses and theories forget that "plausibility" is a believer's concept; it is not scientific. Science operates with facts, not hypotheses and theories; if the fact contradicts the hypothesis / theory, then not the fact, but the hypothesis / theory is not true.
The author also believes that ancient works are not any collections that describe the ultimate truth (this is from a philosophical point of view). The perception of these works, from the point of view of the author, should be produced nothing more than testimony that should be checked, evaluated, experimented, etc. to conduct practical research, not theoretical.
Promotional video:
A large number of groups and autonomous researchers of various literary works of antiquity are steadily coming to the conclusion that there was a certain primary source, from which the ideas of the ancients went, since a huge number of correlations are recorded between the ideas of various peoples, both geographically remote (including continental), and on a scale that evaluates time intervals.
When analyzing literary monuments, the question of relative dating inevitably arises, i.e., in other words, it is required to determine which work was written earlier and which later. The solution to this question is interesting in itself (moreover, it is still happening with the appearance of clarifying data from various disciplines; suffice it to mention that the study of Ancient Egypt began only after the conquest of its territory by Napoleon's troops, and is still extremely far from the end), but outside the scope of this article.
Nevertheless, there are certain advances! According to preliminary analysis (and even though it has been going on for more than 600 years), one of the most ancient works are the Vedas (completely modern civilization is not known; fragments of this work were already considered ancient in antiquity, and were compiled into separate parts, according to witnesses indications, due to the loss of the full appearance, again in antiquity). However, thanks to the practical research of a colossal number of researchers of one of the compilations of works of antiquity (the Bible), even more ancient works were found (after all, only thanks to the researchers of the Bible were found Babylon, Jericho, the city of Assyria, the city of Persia, the city of Sumer, the city of Akkad, the city of the Indus civilization, the city Middle East, etc.with their priceless monuments - a huge number of tablets with cuneiform signs, with ideographic writing, papyri with hieroglyphics, libraries - including the Ashurbanipal library - etc.; and after all, these cities were previously known to science exclusively only from references in the works of the Bible and works not included in it, but also ancient ones). One of such works is the epic of the Sumerian civilization, which has come down to us in its Babylonian version (as the most surviving one), which is called “Enuma elish” (a direct translation of all seven tablets of this work can be found partially at https://hworld.by. ru / myth / bab / bab.myth.html).and after all, these cities were previously known to science exclusively only from references in the works of the Bible and works not included in it, but also ancient ones). One of such works is the epic of the Sumerian civilization, which has come down to us in its Babylonian version (as the most surviving one), which is called “Enuma elish” (a direct translation of all seven tablets of this work can be found partially at https://hworld.by. ru / myth / bab / bab.myth.html).and after all, these cities were previously known to science exclusively only from references in the works of the Bible and works not included in it, but also ancient ones). One of such works is the epic of the Sumerian civilization, which has come down to us in its Babylonian version (as the most surviving one), which is called “Enuma elish” (a direct translation of all seven tablets of this work can be found partially at https://hworld.by. ru / myth / bab / bab.myth.html).myth.html).myth.html).
A characteristic feature of the overwhelming number of works of antiquity is that ideas (including scientific ones) are conveyed not using mathematical formulas (as is customary in the modern dominant paradigm), but using artistic techniques. According to the author, this is one of the main reasons for the rejection of what is described in the works of antiquity by people of our time. A similar situation is observed, for example, at the other end - with the acceptance of artistic monuments of antiquity as a primitive drawing, although analysis shows that these works are artistic drawings.
[Members of the portal could meet with a brief analysis of this issue in one of the topics on the forum. The author deliberately refuses to consider the issue of the legitimacy of the use of artistic techniques in describing scientific achievements, and the use of mathematical formulas in describing moral and ethical foundations (after all, this is a personal matter of each person)].
If we analyze the data of “Enuma elish”, then, according to it (within the framework of considering the epic as the transfer of knowledge using artistic techniques), Apsu / Abzu originally existed (literal translation - “abyss”; compared with the Sun) together with its “servant and messenger "Mummu / Mercury and Tiamat (literal translation -" water monster ", is compared with the Earth). Then Absu and Tiamat, mixing their "waters" (the text clearly distinguishes between "water", which we call a chemical substance and "primary waters"), gave birth to twins Lahama / Venus and Lahmu / Mars. The next act was the creation behind Tiamat of the twins Kishar / Jupiter and Anshar / Saturn (who later had the satellite Gaga / Pluto). The latter were the twins Anu / Uranus and Ea / Neptune. After a certain time, the system "invades" (Ea / Neptune was "generated";according to the text - called) the alien Marduk (the epithets of this "god" were - "shining star", "crossing the sky", etc.), one of whose satellites (the North Wind) during the first passage hit the planet Tiamat (having previously thrown into it " lightning "), dividing it into two fragments. The first fragment (which flew into a lower orbit) was later called Ki / Earth, the second fragment was split by Marduk himself into many smaller fragments and was later called the Forged Bracelet / Asteroid Belt. The text also describes the "army of Tiamat" - satellites "led" by the Kingu / Luna satellite, which "followed his mistress" after the battle, lost an independent orbit and went into a new orbit of Tiamat. The rest of the "army" was put to flight in the opposite direction from the direction of movement of Marduk.
If we analyze the Vedas, then, according to them, at the beginning of time (not at the beginning of everything, but at the beginning of time, ie when the measurement of time intervals began to be carried out), Rishis (“primordial flowing essences”), possessing irresistible force, “flowed” in the heavens … Seven of them were the Great Ancestors. The gods Rahu ("demon") and Ketu ("separated") were once a single celestial body, trying to join the gods without permission, but the God of Storms threw his fiery weapon at him and split it into two parts: Rahu (another translation "Dragon's Head"), since then incessantly roaming the heavens and thirsting for revenge, and Ketu (another translation of "Dragon's Tail"). The progenitor of the Sun Dynasty Mar-ishi gave birth to Kash-Yapu ("the one who is on the throne"). According to the Vedas, he was extremely prolific,but only ten children from Prit-Khivi ("the heavenly mother") became his heirs.
As the head of the dynasty, Kash-Yapa was also considered the ruler of the "devs" ("shining") and bore the title of Dyaus-Pitar ("shining father"). Together with his wife and ten children, he was one of the twelve Adityas, or gods, each of which had a corresponding zodiac sign and a certain celestial body. The celestial body of Kash-Yapa was a "shining star", Prit-Khivi personified the Earth (strictly speaking, Prazemlyu). Other gods were associated with the Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn (it should not be forgotten that modern astronomy does not recognize the ancient knowledge that Saturn also has planets; by the way, this leads to confusion among various orthodox researchers - they cannot agree in any way about which body is compared with such and such a "god", and for each one they sometimes select two celestial bodies).
Thus, a simple comparison is already of these ideas - and there are also data from other peoples (Hittites, Amorites, Hannats, Elamites, Maori, Hopi, Maya, Cherokee, Zulu, etc.), which most call "myths", "legends" - shows their similarity in many ways. After all, the Sumerian Marduk coincides with the Vedic Kash-Yapa / Dyaus-Pitar, the Sumerian Tiamat coincides with the Vedic Prit-Khivi, etc. … Just a coincidence or part of the same knowledge, which is simply under different names (moreover, the Vedic ideas are less complete, perhaps due to the fact that either the Vedas have not been completely preserved at the moment, or their full version has not been found, or they are simply initially less complete) appears among various peoples of antiquity?
What do the facts available to modern earthlings say about these ideas of the ancients? Is it possible to verify the testimony of the ancients? It turns out you can. This is what we will do.
* * *
1. To begin with, it is worth checking whether the ancients could have known that the Earth is not a flat body, but a spherical one (strictly speaking, the shape of the Earth's body is not a ball, but a geoid, i.e. a ball flattened at the poles; flattening is a consequence of rotation - for example, Venus, due to its weak rotation around the axis, has practically no flattening), that the solar system is heliocentric and that the earth revolves around the sun (and not vice versa), that the solar system includes more of the number of bodies than the number about which are authors of school / university textbooks trying to assure?
They could! And they not only could, but also knew!
The authors of school / university textbooks are trying to assure that the ancients believed that the Earth was either a flat body, or a hemisphere standing on whales and a turtle … Moreover, at the same time they admit that the ancients knew about the constellations of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres (they would not have recognized - after all, the presence of constellation maps, the availability of data on the angular ratios of stars, etc. are facts); that the ancients knew about the concept of horizon (and this concept automatically speaks not of a plane, but of a curved surface); that the ancients possessed excellent sighting and measuring instruments, including angular ones (they would not have recognized it yet - after all, the presence of buildings and structures very precisely oriented to the cardinal points is facts); that, for example, the division of the circle into 360 degrees came from Sumer (as a consequence of the sixagesimal system of calculation);that the Sumerians had stars grouped into constellations (moreover, like the division of the sky into three sectors - the Path of ENU LIL, the Path of ANU and the Path of ENUKI, and the concept of the Zodiac built along the Path of ANU), etc.
Something with the logic of the authors of textbooks (among whom there are candidates of sciences, and doctors of sciences, and academicians) … Or do they sincerely assume that they are knowledgeable, and the ancients de facto should be stupid, incapable of knowledge? That the ancients should be dense, and they are 300-400 years old, science illuminates the way?
The ancients knew that the Earth is a spherical body, and not flat! Moreover, they knew how to calculate both latitude and longitude (and used this knowledge in practice; only one map of Admiral Piri Reis with a note that the map was copied from an older source proves this)! If there was once an idea of the Earth as a flat body, it happened as a result of the decline of knowledge among the civilizations of the Greeks, Romans, etc. (but even they have factual data that indicate that they inherited some of the information about the structure of the system, which corresponds to the real state of affairs).
Further, the author proposes to consider an image of one of the cylindrical seals, which was found during excavations of cities.
Akkada:
Currently, it is customary in textbooks to depict the composition of the solar system in a chain, showing the relative position of the planets (not always their relative sizes). But this does not mean that such an arrangement is the only correct one. Moreover, such an arrangement is rare and most of the time the planets are located in different parts of their orbits. This image forces us to admit that the ancients knew that the solar system is heliocentric, that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice versa (provided that the central body in the given seal is the Sun, which is practically beyond doubt). What the ancients knew that the solar system includes planets not only up to Saturn, but more (according to unverified data by the author, in the Middle East section of the State Museum in Berlin there is an image of planets,including those after Saturn; the descriptions even contain the color of the planets, which was recognized by modern civilization only after the launch of research probes).
The main "argument" that the ancients could not have known about the planets after Saturn is that they did not have devices that increase the angle of view - such as telescopes, telescopes, etc. After all, it was thanks to these instruments that the modern civilization received information about such planets (first, a calculation was made, and then, to confirm the calculation, methods of the "direct observation and analysis" type were used). Moreover, it was received relatively recently. Those. The "argument" boils down to what they could not know, since we ourselves learned about this relatively recently when the appropriate tools appeared. Yes, such instruments have not yet been found (strictly speaking, instruments that are familiar to us in appearance have not been found; it is quite possible that such instruments are still gathering dust somewhere in the storerooms of museums),but that does not mean at all that they could not know. Self-use of instruments is not the only source of data.
Anyone who is interested can independently clarify in what year modern astronomy learned about the rings of Saturn and under what circumstances (for comparison, the above is a drawing of one of the cylindrical seals). And for reference, the author will give just a few facts: in July 1610, Galileo Galilei, observing Saturn, noticed something strange - on either side of the planet through a telescope, two small protrusions were visible; the protrusions disappeared (in one of his letters, Galileo wrote: "Maybe both of the smaller planets of the star turned into nothing like sunspots? Maybe Saturn swallowed up his children? Or what I and so many together with me repeatedly observed was only by delusion and deceptive illusion, with which lenses have been fooling us for so long? "), but in 1616 they appeared again … And only in 1659 Huygens found out that these were not satellites, but rings …
The fact that, for example, the Maya knew that the Pleiades included more than 400 stars (despite the fact that from 7 to 14 stars can be seen with the naked eye), in general, enters the orthodox into a stupor. There is a question no less paradoxical for the orthodox (which rarely pays attention to) - the known durations of the sidereal, synodic, anomalous and draconian lunar months. The fact is that the duration of one of them (synodic) is obtained (calculated) as a result of a simple observation of the phases of the moon (which is included in the definition). But the duration of the second (sidereal) cannot initially be obtained as a result of any calculations (a theoretical formula, of course, can be easily written, but who will check the legality of using this formula, which is so widely used; moreover, in order to count it,one must already have an idea of spherical astronomy); the value is obtained by direct measurement with reference to a measuring device - a very precise measuring device! - at least 3 stars. However, even Greek scientists (and before them both the Egyptians and the Babylonians) knew about the length of the sidereal lunar month. But that is not all! The fact is that the Moon, revolving around the Earth (moreover, it is around the Earth, and not the general center of mass), does not always return to the same point. Only after 18.6 years does such a return occur (these data are associated with the so-called draconian month, due to the fact that the line of nodes of the Moon's orbit is slowly turning towards its motion and an anomalous month due to the fact that the lunar orbit as a whole rotates in its own plane). The duration of such a cycle can also be recognized initially only as a result of direct measurement (moreover, the alignment should be carried out by at least 5 stars to reduce the error). But, again, the Greeks already knew about this cycle and its duration. And modern civilization did not specify the supposedly calculated durations (both months and a cycle), but measured modern values (which could well have changed since the last measurement in antiquity).but measured modern values (which may well have changed since the last measurement in antiquity).but measured modern values (which may well have changed since the last measurement in antiquity).
Anyone who carefully examined the above photo of a cylindrical seal with the depicted objects around an object with "rays" should have noticed that the number of objects on a cylindrical seal does not coincide with the number of bodies in the solar system known to modern science. The cylindrical seal shows thirteen, not eleven bodies. But in the works of antiquity we have already encountered twelve (about the thirteenth object - see below), and not eleven bodies! The bodies of the solar system! The Sumerians called the additional body Nibiru (strictly speaking, the term "nibiru" means the perihelion of the planet, and not the name itself; at the perihelion of its motion, the planet crosses the "four corners of the Earth" - an astronomical concept! - and becomes "crossing the sky" - the literal translation of this term), Vedas - Kash-Yapoy / Dyaus-Pitarom,the ancient Egyptians - "the planet of millions of years", etc. Moreover, in ancient times, no one doubted that this planet is part of the solar system; at that time it was a reality, its appearance in the firmament was expected and calculated (in the Babylonian tables, according to unverified data by the author, there are at least two tables with observations of this planet, stored in the British Museum, catalog numbers K.2310 and K.2894; mentioned in the comments to the observations, the "big red planet" is usually interpreted as Jupiter, but the parameters of the planet's orbit are not at all like those of Jupiter). Its images are in the form of a winged ball and a cross (perhaps, when the planet moves along its unique trajectory, it passes the nodal points at which the Moon is located between it and the Earth, i.e. an eclipse occurs,during which, due to the unique arrangement of the planets relative to each other, as well as the place of observation, the crown of the planet's glow - the "shining father" - appears in the form of "wings" extending to several radii of the Sun) are known on various cultural monuments of the ancient world, moreover, among various civilizations and peoples - on the Egyptian "sarcophagi", on the walls of buildings and structures in the cities of Akkad, Elam, Sumer, etc., on cylindrical seals, on papyri, etc.:
The Orthodox do not accept this body into the solar system only on the grounds that it is allegedly not known to modern astronomy. But astronomy is only a descriptive discipline, i.e. exists according to the type “what I see is what I sing”. Thus, not necessarily what is not currently visible does not exist. However, not all astronomers are orthodox and continue to work on the factual state of affairs. At the moment, several observatories have announced that their area of interest includes the search for planet X (both planet "ten" and planet "X"). The question of why it is not visible at the moment will be discussed below in the second part of the article. In fairness, it should be mentioned that recently began to publish reports on the observation of this planet (give photographs of an object next to the Sun,but this is just a "halo" - an optical atmospheric phenomenon), that this planet is in Google Earth Sky ("you should type 09: 47: 57,13: 16: 38 on the left in the search bar and press Enter; in the left panel, where the layers, in selected observatories, enable the overlay of IRAS infrared images”, but at the moment this object is identified as the galaxy PGC 1427054 in the constellation“Leo”), etc.
2. The author considers it appropriate to recall that in Enuma elish (when taking as a zero assumption the interpretation of this epic as a description of the sequence of events in the formation of the current appearance of the solar system), the satellite of the planet Marduk, which was named the North Wind (in the above link, the translator named this satellite is the Evil Vortex), during the first pass hit the planet Tiamat, splitting it into two fragments. The first shard was called Ki / Earth, the second shard during the second passage of the planet Marduk near Tiamat was split by Marduk himself into many smaller fragments and was later called the Forged Bracelet. Before the collision, the orbit (in ancient texts, the modern term "orbit" often goes under the term "table of destinies",which can be both a consequence of the presentation of scientific data by people of antiquity in the form of artistic devices, and as a result of an incorrect translation of the term itself) of the planet Tiamat took place at the site of the modern location of the orbits of asteroids from the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Moreover, before the moment of the collision, such a planet as Earth did not yet exist. Are there facts to verify this witness statement? Of course, there are quite a few of them.that allow verification of this evidence? Of course, there are quite a few of them.that allow verification of this evidence? Of course, there are quite a few of them.
To begin with, let's start with the fact that the planet Marduk (according to descriptions in "Enuma Elish" and other works) has an orbit that experts call retrograde (this term shows that the revolution around the power center of the solar system occurs clockwise, while everything the rest of the planets turn counterclockwise). Moreover, the planets known to modern astronomy revolve around the Sun almost in the so-called ecliptic plane. In fact, the term used is misleading many people, since this definition appeared on the basis of the plane of the Earth's orbit, i.e., in other words, the plane of revolution, for example, of the Earth does not coincide with the plane of revolution of Venus. The angle of inclination of the orbital planes to the ecliptic is insignificant (except for Pluto) fluctuate from planet to planet,therefore, the author will continue to use the already mentioned term with a "tick" about the nuances of this definition. According to the Sumerian, Akkadian and other works, the planet Marduk had a strong inclination to the plane of the ecliptic - about 30 degrees. These are very serious statements, since the angles of inclination of the orbits to the ecliptic plane of a very large number of short-period comets (have a period less than 200 years or were observed during more than one perihelion passage) and a considerable number of long-period comets (officially with a period of more than 200 years; reference books give calculated data on periods of more than a million years, which is extremely unsuitable for a descriptive discipline - these are unreasonable data) are just in the range of about 30 degrees. Moreover, a large number of comets have a retrograde orbit! Anyone who is not too lazy to look into astronomical reference books,can independently verify these facts. In addition, the angle of inclination of the equatorial plane to the orbital plane for one planet (Neptune) is 29 degrees, and for Uranus, in general, 98 degrees, i.e. "Lies on its side"! This means that a certain force center invaded the gravitational sphere of the said planets, temporarily took control of their substance and "twisted" it in the direction of its motion; the force center invaded from under the plane of the ecliptic. No other hypothesis or theory explains these facts with strange tilt angles of the rotation axis of Neptune and Uranus …that a certain force center invaded the sphere of gravity of the said planets, temporarily took control of their substance and "twisted" it in the direction of its motion; the force center invaded from under the plane of the ecliptic. No other hypothesis or theory explains these facts with strange tilt angles of the rotation axis of Neptune and Uranus …that a certain force center invaded the sphere of gravity of the said planets, temporarily took control of their substance and "twisted" it in the direction of its motion; the force center invaded from under the plane of the ecliptic. No other hypothesis or theory explains these facts with strange tilt angles of the rotation axis of Neptune and Uranus …
Astronomers have long noticed that the arrangement of planets relative to each other obeys a certain pattern, which is called the Titius-Bode rule. This rule of thumb determines the values of the radii of the orbits of planets according to a certain pattern: for any planet, the distance from it to the innermost planet (Mercury) is twice as large as the distance from the previous planet to the inner planet (in astronomy textbooks, the formulation of this rule and its mathematical expression are given with reference to an astronomical unit, i.e. reference to the Earth, but this reference, to put it mildly, is not entirely correct - the Earth is not the navel of either the Solar System or the Universe). For what reason this rule is in effect - the author does not know (there are only unverified assumptions), but the fact remains - it works (within the margin of error;the exception is the orbit of Pluto, which sharply goes beyond the limits of the rule, showing a different genesis of the formation of its orbit). But after all, in “Enuma elish” (according to the considered interpretation) it is said that the Earth (in the text goes as Ki) did not exist in the beginning (about the “genealogies” of the planets, see above). Thus, the composition of the solar system was as follows (modern names, distance from the sun): Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Tiamat, Jupiter, Saturn (together with the satellite Pluto), Uranus, Neptune. Those. there is no Earth, no asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter yet! Will the Titius-Bode rule work if we take into account the initial “balance of power”? Will be. Moreover, no less accurate … For the sake of fairness, it should be clarified that some astronomers consider this rule to be just a coincidence; in addition, the application of the rule (provided thatthat this is not a coincidence) to the situation in ancient times is possible only if the parameters of the orbits remain unchanged (relatively unchanged) (which is extremely difficult to prove or refute, to put it mildly) …
Nevertheless, the fact is that the rule works if we consider the composition of the solar system without taking into account the Earth and the asteroid belt, but taking into account the location of Tiamat at the location of the asteroid belt (there is one subtlety - according to the rule, after all, some planet should be in the place of the modern trajectory Earth; this leads to hypotheses about the Earth's twin planet).
There is one more subtlety associated with this rule. In the late XX and early XXI centuries, many objects were discovered in the outer part of the solar system, including Kwavar, Sedna and Eris (it is believed that it is "more massive" than Pluto by 27%). Eris's orbit falls under the Titius-Bode rule. The Enuma Elish describes the "consort" of Eia / Ea / Neptune (Damkin), with whom Marduk was "born". As a hypothesis (but this is only a hypothesis), the author at the moment considers Eridu as a former satellite of another planet in the solar system, which has long been gone, and the region of the fragments of this planet is the supplier of some of the asteroids and comets (this is not the first time Marduk splits planets; for this, you don't even need to come close - it is enough to enter the so-called Roche limit and one or both bodies will be torn to pieces …)
3. What should have happened as a result of Marduk's collision with the shards of Tiamat? The impact interaction of the matter of these planets should have led to a strong heating of the matter. Is there any evidence that this warm-up actually happened? This evidence may be the so-called chondrules in meteorites (they have almost 92% of all stone meteorites, almost 86% of all falls).
These formations arose as a result of some (after all, there are alternative hypotheses, and not only as a result of a collision of planets), a process of sharp heating followed by a sharp cooling. One of such possibilities (practically only a shock satisfies these conditions, therefore, only collision hypotheses are considered, both among the overwhelming majority of orthodox researchers and among the overwhelming majority of alternative researchers) is precisely the shock interaction, which sharply melted the most "low-melting" ("low-melting », Of course, relatively) the grains of the rock and when the fragments were thrown into open space, the molten areas were sharply frozen. Already the presence of chondrules in meteorites reduces the attractiveness of hypotheses about the formation of the asteroid belt as a result of spontaneous expansion ("explosion") of a hypothetical planet like Phaeton (if not to say that it puts an end to most types of this hypothesis). Orthodoxy hypotheses such as "the formation of asteroids from a gas-dust cloud" are not able to explain such formations in sufficient quality (a considerable part of these hypotheses, in general, bypasses such an "inconvenient" fact; and such a phenomenon as a "parade of planets" synchronization between the movements of parts of the system, in general, cannot be explained).bypasses such an "inconvenient" fact; and such a phenomenon as a "parade of planets", i.e. clear synchronization between the movements of parts of the system, in general, cannot be explained).bypasses such an "inconvenient" fact; and such a phenomenon as a "parade of planets", i.e. clear synchronization between the movements of parts of the system, in general, cannot be explained).
What else was going to happen? Since the amount of Tiamat substance has decreased, it is logical to expect that the linear dimensions of Ki (and, as a consequence, the volume of the substance) should decrease. Can you check this? Of course. The author offers to look at a compilation in which the continents of the planet Earth are connected by their coastlines (taking into account sections of the shelf zones). But they are connected not on the same volume of the Earth as at the present time, but on the surface of the sphere, the volume of which is less than the modern one (the compilation is borrowed from the article by A. Yu. Sklyarov "Is the fate of Phaethon awaiting the Earth?").
North America ideally connects with Eurasia along the Arctic margins, Africa with Europe along the Mediterranean, Africa with South America along the Atlantic coast, and Antarctica with Australia according to the relative position of the "plates" relative to the modern geographic longitude. This compilation was carried out by A. Yu. Sklyarov in such a way as to ensure the minimum deviation from the modern relative position of the continental "plates".
Thus, the continents perfectly (even taking into account all the errors) fit on the surface of the Earth with a smaller volume than its present value.
[By the way, the supporters of the Pangea super-continent hypothesis have seen “strange” things in some of their reconstructions - most often in school textbooks: Africa's area has been reduced by about 40%; disappeared territories of Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, Nicaragua; Europe and South America are rotated counterclockwise from the present state, Africa is rotated clockwise from the present state.]
But what should have happened next? After all, the process clearly should not have ended there.
Ki / Earth is still a part of the solar system and will continue to participate in global processes, even in a new orbit. In the process of its activity, the sun constantly destructs matter and throws out "bricks" of this substance into the surrounding space in the form of the so-called solar wind during the process of rupture of prominences (the consequence of destruction is the re-formation of hydrogen and helium isotopes in the upper layers of the solar corona; only orthodox science claims that it is they that make up the entire Sun, and an alternative point of view says that hydrogen and helium are the consequences of the destruction of matter entering the Sun; judging by the photographs from the SOHO probe located between the Earth and the Sun, and on the basis of which the forecast is the number of "magnetic storms"then boiling helium and hydrogen form formations, "strange" similar to the so-called Bennard cells; the latter have a clear pattern: the greater the thickness of the fluidized bed, the smaller the number of "cells" and the larger their size, which makes it possible to calculate the thickness of the fluidized layer of helium and hydrogen on the Sun). It has been established by direct experiments that the composition of the solar wind includes protons and electrons; no direct experiments on the detection of neutrons in the composition of the solar wind have been carried out, since the orthodox believe that the neutron lifetime is limited to short time intervals (although direct experiments show that small intervals are characteristic only of neutrons from atomic reactors). However, even taking into account only protons and electrons,then this is already enough for the formation of one of the isotopes of hydrogen - protium, by the force center of the Earth, which consists of one proton and one electron. Protium is one of the most active chemical elements; entering into reactions (both chemical and nuclear), it will increase the amount of matter on the Earth. Some of the hydrogen will be retained by the ozone layer (the reaction product will be water). The Orthodox believe that oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere is only of biogenic origin, but this is an unfounded statement, since direct measurements show that oxygen was in the composition of the ancient atmosphere of the Earth (before sedimentary rocks)! These measurements were carried out using gas analyzers connected to small gas inclusions of various rocks (basalts, granites, andesites, etc.); moreover, in addition to provingthat oxygen appears in the Earth's atmosphere not only in a biogenic way, its percentage to the entire ancient atmosphere was also determined. It turned out to be even more than in the modern atmosphere (the modern value is slightly more than 20%, the value in the composition of the ancient atmosphere is 23-28%).
The processes of the capture of matter by the Earth (by the way, according to various estimates, Jupiter intercepts approximately 20% to 40% of the total solar wind, constantly increasing, like the Earth, its amount of matter) should have led to the fact that the volume of the Earth began to increase again. Anyone who has worked with materials should remember very well that secondary fractures occur in the overwhelming majority of cases either at the place of the primary fracture or in the immediate vicinity of the primary fracture. Rocks of the Earth are no exception to this rule: with the growth of the Earth's volume, fractures began to occur in places that received the greatest damage as a result of a cosmic catastrophe. It is enough to look at the physical map of the Earth and make sure that there are huge spaces outside the continents filled with water - the oceans. Moreover, the compositions, structure,the characteristics of continental and oceanic rocks differ sharply, showing their different genesis (even according to the relative age of the Orthodox; the opinion of the author of the article regarding absolute dating will be given below in the second part of the article). Hypotheses such as "plate tectonics" have a colossal number of shortcomings; to eliminate them, the orthodox come up with additional sub-hypotheses by the type of subduction (diving "plates" under each other), etc. The author believes that there was no continental drift; the modern picture of continents was obtained as a result of the constant growth of the Earth's volume due to participation in external interactions (capture of the solar wind, capture of meteorite matter, etc.), as well as due to internal processes with redistribution of "energy"In addition to the capture of matter, erosion processes also took place with the participation of water (the composition of the underlying rocks - basalts, granites, andesites, anorthosites, etc. - contains huge quantities of quartz, which, as many know, is a piezoelectric crystal - see the table below; energy, "Released" in the process of tidal action on these volumes of piezoelectric crystals and goes to the electrochemical erosion of the underlying rocks, forming and expanding depressions, caverns, faults, etc., as well as increasing the layer of erosion products in the oceans, which at the moment is some places more than 3 kilometers). Moreover, the capture processes continue to this day; For example, if you look at the composition of materials emitted by volcanoes, you can see that hydrogen is more than enough not only for the recovery of other elementsbut it also allows you to stand out in its pure form (up to 4% in some places). The data that a large amount of cosmic material falls to the Earth, in general, has been used by some researchers to prove that a large part of the water in the world's oceans was supplied from space.
One of the weak points of the proposed theory is the somewhat different qualitative composition of the Earth's rocks (both continental and oceanic) and meteorite matter (both elemental and mineral). However, firstly, meteorites are of various origins (there are sources both near the asteroid belt, both from the asteroid belt itself, and outside the visible part of the solar system, and the data are given according to some averaged value), different qualitative composition (there are three classes: stone, iron, iron stone); secondly, most of the meteorites have a qualitative composition closer to the rocks of the Earth than to the known rocks of other bodies in the solar system (in second place are the rocks of the moon); thirdly, after all, the rocks of the Earth itself have a different qualitative composition (at least the same continental and oceanic; moreover,as in the first case, the data goes according to some averaged value); fourthly, many meteorites are discovered by chance and are designated by the term "find", in contrast to meteorites observed during the fall and called "falls" (among iron meteorites there are an order of magnitude more, among iron meteorites - 4-5 times more, among stone - 2-3 times less than among the "falls"; the data are again given according to a certain average value). This issue requires a more scrupulous analysis and many experiments / measurements using laboratories of various specializations in the presence of a wide range of rocks of both the Earth itself and rocks of other bodies available (and, despite the fact that the number of recorded meteorite falls is relatively large, in world museums and scientific institutions get only 12-15 meteorites a year);however, the available facts do not eliminate the proposed theory. Moreover, the isotopic composition of many of the studied chemical elements of meteorites turned out to be identical to the isotopic composition of the same elements of terrestrial origin.
4. For further consideration, the author considers it appropriate to give a small historical background and some set of facts.
In 1821, Alexis Bouvard published the astronomical tables of Uranus, which gave the calculated parameters of this orbit. It should be recalled that in 1821, earthly science knew only 7 planets of the solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus. Subsequent observations showed significant deviations from the data in the tables, which led astronomers to assume that some unknown celestial body so far affects the orbit of Uranus through gravitational action. In 1843, John Adams calculated the probable orbit of the eighth planet, which affects the orbit of Uranus (some critics argue that he was just doing small calculations, but could not accurately indicate the location of this planet). He sent his calculations to Astronomer Royal George Erie, who asked Adams for clarification. Adams started writing a response but never posted it. The further history of the discovery of the planet Neptune is associated with studies of the disturbance of the orbit of Uranus. On the night of September 23, 1846, Johann Gottfried Galle and Heinrich Louis d'Arrest, while observing at an observatory in Berlin, discovered the planet just one degree from the position calculated in 1846 by the French astronomer Urbain Le Verrier based on data on small disturbances in the motion of Uranus. The slightly less accurate (at twelve degrees) prediction of the English astronomer John Couch Adams met with unfounded skepticism in England, and was published only after the discovery of the planet. Ultimately, the planet received the name Neptune after the god of the sea in Roman mythology, which Le Verrier suggested immediately after the discovery (he even favored the fact that the planet was named after him; for this W. Smith, who headed the Royal Astronomical Society for some time, remarked to his colleague George Erie: "Just think how unpleasant it would be if the next planet were discovered by a German, some Buger, or Funk, or your shaggy friend Boguslavsky") It is interesting that the orbit of Neptune calculated by Le Verrier and Adams very quickly deviated from the actual orbit of the planet, and if the search had been delayed for several years, it would have been impossible to find the planet from these calculations. By the way, Le Verrier was celebrated on a grand scale in Paris and later promoted to an officer of the Legion of Honor, and John Adams refused the knighthood offered by Queen Victoria (however, later he was twice elected chairman of the Royal Astronomical Society).“Just think how unpleasant it would be if the next planet was discovered by a German, some Buger, or Funk, or your shaggy friend Boguslavsky”). It is interesting that the orbit of Neptune calculated by Le Verrier and Adams very quickly deviated from the actual orbit of the planet, and if the search had been delayed for several years, then it would have been impossible to find the planet from these calculations. By the way, Le Verrier was celebrated on a grand scale in Paris and later promoted to an officer of the Legion of Honor, and John Adams refused the knighthood offered by Queen Victoria (however, he was later twice elected chairman of the Royal Astronomical Society).“Just think how unpleasant it would be if the next planet was discovered by a German, some Buger, or Funk, or your shaggy friend Boguslavsky”). It is interesting that the orbit of Neptune calculated by Le Verrier and Adams very quickly deviated from the actual orbit of the planet, and if the search had been delayed for several years, then it would have been impossible to find the planet from these calculations. By the way, Le Verrier was celebrated on a grand scale in Paris and later promoted to an officer of the Legion of Honor, and John Adams refused the knighthood offered by Queen Victoria (however, he was later twice elected chairman of the Royal Astronomical Society).that the orbit of Neptune calculated by Le Verrier and Adams very quickly deviated from the actual orbit of the planet, and if the search had been delayed for several years, then it would have been impossible to find the planet from these calculations. By the way, Le Verrier was celebrated on a grand scale in Paris and later promoted to an officer of the Legion of Honor, and John Adams refused the knighthood offered by Queen Victoria (however, he was later twice elected chairman of the Royal Astronomical Society).that the orbit of Neptune calculated by Le Verrier and Adams very quickly deviated from the actual orbit of the planet, and if the search had been delayed for several years, then it would have been impossible to find the planet from these calculations. By the way, Le Verrier was celebrated on a grand scale in Paris and later promoted to an officer of the Legion of Honor, and John Adams refused the knighthood offered by Queen Victoria (however, later he was twice elected chairman of the Royal Astronomical Society).later he was twice elected Chairman of the Royal Astronomical Society).later he was twice elected Chairman of the Royal Astronomical Society).
These facts forced to make the assumption that there is a 9th planet in the solar system, which has a disturbing effect on the orbit of the planet Neptune. The existence of the ninth planet in 1905 was predicted by the American Percival Lowell, famous for his search for civilization on Mars. According to Lowell's calculations, another large celestial body is located beyond the orbit of Neptune, which has a direct connection with the solar system. Lowell called the object of his hypothesis Planet X, but he did not live to see its “real” discovery. Clyde William Tombaugh, a young employee of the Flagstaff Observatory in Arizona, was the first to discover the planet (this discovery is only described as “in broad daylight,” “monotonously comparing,” “by chance,” “on the tip of a pen,” etc.)The guy and the staff had to take photographs of a dimly lit object against the background of a sky strongly illuminated by the Sun for a whole year - the one who worked with photography must understand, and even compare them with each other, and, as it was found out later, the computer several times missed the difference between photos!). Tombo found it almost at the place Lowell had predicted.
After the discovery of Pluto in 1930, astronomers were firmly convinced that it was Pluto that had a disturbing effect on the orbits of Neptune and Uranus. This misconception lasted until 1978, when Pluto's moon Charon was discovered, on the basis of which it was possible to determine the true dimensions of Pluto. On June 22 of that year, Jim Christie of the Marine Observatory in Washington decided to look at images of Pluto taken at Flagstaff the month before. The purpose of the observations was rather routine - to clarify the orbit of this still poorly understood planet. Then Christie was struck by the fact that Pluto's body looks somehow strange: it seems to be stretched to one side. Mountain? But it is impossible even to think about such a gigantic peak, which would be visible for billions of kilometers, even if in the best telescope. Christie decided: satellite! A colleague of the discoverer R. Harrington took up the calculations and came to the same conclusion. At the same time, it was discovered that Pluto's moon rotates with him so that it constantly "hangs" over one point of the planet's surface. Meanwhile, in earlier photographs, Christie discovered a faint protrusion that no one had been able to make out before him. The discoverer suggested the name Charon for the satellite. Further observations and calculations led to the determination of the size of the "double planet", as it is commonly called, because the diameter of Charon was only half the diameter of Pluto. The discoverer suggested the name Charon for the satellite. Further observations and calculations led to the determination of the size of the "double planet", as it is commonly called, because the diameter of Charon was only half the diameter of Pluto. The discoverer suggested the name Charon for the satellite. Further observations and calculations led to the determination of the size of the "double planet", as it is commonly called, because the diameter of Charon was only half the diameter of Pluto.
What is the true size of Pluto and what kind of consequence could follow? In August 2006, at the World Conference of the International Astronomical Union in Prague, it was decided to exclude Pluto from the planets of the solar system. Studying the parameters of modern Pluto and its orbit, scientists have come to the conclusion that this planet is more suitable for the characteristics of a giant comet. Today Pluto is considered a secondary planet (or a giant comet), formed as a result of the collapse of a giant planet. Pluto is too far away to be effectively studied by ground-based means (images are still fuzzy). Even the size of the planet has long been a mystery. Before its real discovery, it was believedthat the "mass" of Pluto is about ten times greater than the "mass" of the Earth (the author, on the basis of facts and experiments, believes that even the value of the Earth's mass is no more than contrived, therefore he cites the term "mass" in quotation marks; the only thing that can be determined on known data and formulas - mass ratios). According to the characteristics of the orbit of Charon, it was established that the mass of Pluto is only 0.0022 of the mass of the Earth, and its diameter is one and a half times smaller than the Moon (this is the value, i.e. the ratio can be obtained using formulas).and its diameter is one and a half times smaller than the Moon (this is the value, i.e. the ratio can be obtained using formulas).and its diameter is one and a half times smaller than the Moon (this is the value, i.e. the ratio can be obtained using formulas).
So, in 1978, after determining the true dimensions of Pluto, the official science gave an unambiguous and definite answer: Pluto cannot have a disturbing effect on the orbits of Neptune and Uranus. Thus, in 2006, only 8 planets "remained" in the Solar System (Sedna, discovered on November 14, 2003 and announced by the SMO - means of mass duping - as Planet Ten, is also not a planet, since its diameter is only three quarters of Pluto) … The question remained open: what kind of celestial body is still causing disturbances in the orbits of Neptune and Uranus (and these disturbances have not disappeared to this day, despite the statements of the CMO of "authoritative experts" - the real trajectory that is still observed does not coincide with calculated)?
In 1978, Robert Harrington (as mentioned earlier - an accomplice in the discovery of Charon) and Tom van Flandern (the latter also studied the velocities of gravitation and, based on the study of pulsars, determined the velocity of gravitation as 11 orders of magnitude (!) Higher than the impulsive speed of light, which in Newton's time, Laplace, in general, was considered instantaneously acting - therefore, the speed of gravitation is not in the formulas of celestial mechanics, which work perfectly - while in one of the greatest deceivers of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, it participates in his equations and is equated to the speed of light), American experts in the field of celestial mechanics from the US Navy Observatory in Washington, received undeniable evidence that the orbits of Uranus and Neptune are undergoing distortions, most likely caused bythe gravitational effect of some unknown celestial body. Further studies and calculations showed that the mysterious celestial body must have a mass three to four times the mass of the Earth. Sophisticated computer simulations carried out by Harrington and Van Flandern suggested that Planet X, due to its gravitational influence, displaced Pluto and its satellite Charon, which were formerly satellites of Neptune, from orbits in the past. It is also possible that Planet X is an "invading planet" that has been captured by the Sun and placed in a very elongated and highly inclined orbit around it with a very long orbital period. In 1982, NASA officially confirmed the presence in the solar system of some mysterious object located far beyond the most distant planets,and suggested that this may be the mysterious Planet X. A year later, an infrared astronomical satellite (IRAS) was launched into orbit around the Earth, which discovered a huge unknown object in the depths of space. The Washington Post newspaper, in its issue of December 30, 1983, published an interview with one of the participants in the NASA project, a scientist from the California Jet Propulsion Laboratory. It, in particular, said: “A celestial body, which is possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter, and possibly located so close to the Earth that it must belong to our solar system, was discovered in the direction to the constellation Orion with the help of an orbiting telescope … "And the head of the IRAS project, Dr. Gehry Neugebauer, in response to questions from correspondents said:" We can only tell youthat we don't know what it is. " Over the next few years, little new information was available about Planet X. Scientists, however, continued to carry out mathematical modeling of its characteristics. The simulation results confirmed that the size of the planet is 3-4 times larger than the size of the Earth and that its orbit is inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, that is, the great circle of the celestial sphere, along which the apparent annual movement of the Sun occurs, by as much as 30º. In addition, it turned out that Planet X should be three times farther from the Sun than the farthest planet Pluto. In 1987, NASA made a new announcement about the possibility of Planet X. In this regard, Newsweek on July 13, 1987 reported: “At a press conference convened by NASA last week at its California research center in Ames,a strange claim was made that the hypothetical Tenth Planet may or may not belong to the solar system. Keynote speaker John Anderson, a NASA research scientist, made it clear that Planet Ten certainly exists, only it is very far from the other nine. The 7 April 2001 issue of the Science News bulletin opens with the article “The comet has a strange orbit. Perhaps due to the existence of an unknown planet. " It reports on the assumption of an international group of astronomers led by Professor Brett Gladman of the French Observatory in Nice, who are studying the new comet 2000 CR / 105, discovered a year ago. It moves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit with an orbital period of 3300 years and with the greatest distance from the star at 4.5 billion kilometers. At the closest approach to the Sun, the comet appears in the vicinity of the planet Neptune. According to scientists, “such an elongated orbit of a celestial body usually indicates that another celestial body with a large mass exerts a gravitational effect on it. Calculations show that Neptune is unlikely to be the source of such an impact. It remains to assume that the comet's orbit is formed under the influence of a yet undetected planet with a mass no less than that of Mars and at a distance of about 30 billion kilometers from the Sun.that Neptune is unlikely to be the source of such an impact. It remains to assume that the comet's orbit is formed under the influence of a yet undetected planet with a mass no less than that of Mars and at a distance of about 30 billion kilometers from the Sun.that Neptune is unlikely to be the source of such an impact. It remains to assume that the comet's orbit is formed under the influence of a yet undetected planet with a mass no less than that of Mars and at a distance of about 30 billion kilometers from the Sun.
By the way, R. Harrington also, on the basis of data on Planet X, argued that it is the gravitational effect of the force center of Planet X that is the cause of the “Pioneers' anomalies” (“anomalous acceleration of the“Pioneers”to the Sun ; this statement requires more detailed verification with accurate data, and not the ones listed by NASA on the official website), which is briefly described as follows: why the ships of the Pioneer series deviate from the course? The Pioneer-10 (launched in March 1972) and the Pioneer-11 (launched in April 1973) are the most famous devices of the series. They were the first to reach the third space speed and the first to explore deep space. On both occasions, scientists noted a strange fact: for some reason the ships deviated from the course. The deviation was small by astronomical standards (about 386 thousand km after a trip of 10 million km). Both the first and the second time it was the same (later deviations were recorded for the Cassini, Rosetta and Galileo probes). Scientists find it difficult to explain this.
To what were this historical information and facts given, especially from the perspective of the analysis of cosmological concepts? In addition to what was stated in the previous paragraphs, an excerpt from Enuma Elish was mentioned earlier, in which Anshar's “servant” - Gaga - was sent to other “gods”. According to the modeling of astrophysicists, Pluto could be (which does not mean at all that it was, and that, in general, was once a satellite - calculations by calculations, modeling by modeling, but the actual state of affairs is now, to put it mildly, problematic) a former satellite of Neptune, but Anshar is compared with Saturn … By a "strange" coincidence, Pluto's orbit differs sharply from the orbits of other planets, which has already been mentioned earlier. Moreover, again due to "strange" coincidences in 1979-1999 Pluto was inside the orbit of Neptune …
Part 2. Secondary data. Consequences and questions
In this part, the author of the article dwell on some points related to causal relationships with the main data described in the first part and are directly related to the topic under consideration.
1. Quite logical questions arise: if such phenomena and events occurred, then at what time and when will they occur next time in a cyclical process?
In the first part, the author drew the reader's attention to a special attitude to the so-called relative and absolute dating, which differs from the orthodox views, which run like a red line through almost all the educational and methodological literature of the so-called "educational" institutions.
In popular scientific articles on archeology, geology, paleontology, biology and many other disciplines, one way or another related to the reconstruction of events of the past, every now and then there are absolute dates: something happened 10 thousand years ago, something 10 million, which some 4 billion years ago, etc. In scientific publications, absolute dates are found a couple of orders of magnitude less often than in popular retellings. If the reader has a living paleontologist under his "hands", the author proposes to conduct the following experiment: tell him what you read in such and such a note, for example, about the discovery of a new species of giant crustaceans, which, according to the authors of this note, lived 300 million years ago. The result is likely to be something like this: "So when?" He will confuse you with his question,making you doubt his sanity (like, it is clearly said that "300 million years ago"). To which the paleontologist will answer that this does not tell him anything, will ask you for the year of publication of the note and will get the latest version of the so-called geochronological scale. Looking into it, he will breathe a sigh of relief, since for him everything will fall into place - the early carbon, the Visean age … At the same time, he can also add something like “they would say so right away”, again making him doubt his sanity …the Visean age … At the same time, he can also add something like "they would have said so right away", again making him doubt his sanity …the Visean age … At the same time, he can also add something like "they would have said so right away", again making him doubt his sanity …
All jokes, but on the basis of what facts can scientists, in general, assert that this or that event happened at such and such a time, plus or minus so many years?
1a. The geochronological timeline is the geological timeline of the history of the Earth, applied in geology and paleontology, to which evolutionists (including Darwinists) then refer. Currently, the orthodox representatives of these disciplines carry out the so-called circular argumentation - geologists refer to the research of paleontologists (the so-called biostratigraphic methods based on "guiding forms" - specially selected species with a global prevalence, frequent occurrence, good preservation, characteristic features and supposedly fast evolution, although the latter must first be proven), paleontologists refer to geologists, biologists to paleontologists, paleontologists to biologists, etc. The continuity of these disciplines would be pleasing, if not for a few "but" …
Historically, this circular reasoning came from geologists who use the so-called stratigraphic research methods (these are not the only methods, but the final binding is carried out precisely by stratigraphic methods). What are these strange methods, on the basis of which the orthodox so confidently assert about certain events (the author specially highlighted the root in the word “confidently”)? The first action is dismemberment - the selection and description of layers that occur in a certain sequence in a given area or even at one point (borehole). But now the most important thing in these methods - a priori it is believed that the lower layers were formed earlier than the upper ones, and those events (geological or biological), traces of which were preserved in these layers, respectively, occurred earlier (except for places with a disturbed structure,resulting from tectonic movements). This is the so-called principle of "superposition", formulated by Nikolaus Stenon over 300 years ago. In fact, this principle is nothing more than a dogma; it doesn't matter which terms to use - dogma, axiom, zero assumption, etc., in any case, these concepts are not scientific! But is it correct (considering not just places with a broken structure, which the so-called creationists like to refer to, but according to its main statement)? No one would question this dogma if the so-called "guiding forms" were located strictly horizontally.exactly what terms to use - dogma, axiom, zero assumption, etc., in any case, these concepts are not scientific! But is it correct (considering not just places with a broken structure, which the so-called creationists like to refer to, but according to its main statement)? No one would question this dogma if the so-called "guiding forms" were located strictly horizontally.exactly what terms to use - dogma, axiom, zero assumption, etc., in any case, these concepts are not scientific! But is it correct (considering not just places with a broken structure, which the so-called creationists like to refer to, but according to its main statement)? No one would question this dogma if the so-called "guiding forms" were located strictly horizontally.
The author suggests taking a look at the photo:
In this photo, a petrified, upright formation, which was once one of the types of lycopods (a relative of the club-shaped lycopodiums; the size of these formations reached about thirty meters). As you can easily see, a vertically standing formation intersects layers with an undisturbed structure (in other words, no one dug a hole and pushed this formation into the rocks; no traces of tectonic movements are visible, etc.; thus, this kind of system has been from the moment education). There are several hypotheses that can explain the existence of such systems. These hypotheses will be discussed below.
Hypothesis No. 1. Once upon a time there was a club-shaped club. And as a result of some reason, he died (the reason is not considered). And for millions of years it stood in the open air, was not exposed to fungi, algae, lichens, putrefactive bacteria, was not exposed to air erosion (it was not excised by passing grains of sand, etc.), water erosion, etc. And during these millions of years, layer by layer of erosion products accumulated around it, which again were compressed for millions of years …
Hypothesis No. 2. Once upon a time there was a club-shaped club. And as a result of the disaster (!), It was immediately (!) Covered with a layer of soil. The layered structure arose due to the fact that the suspension of rocks was settling gradually (after all, not at the same time), but not in any way over millions of years, i.e. hydrological sorting took place over time. Since it was covered at once, it was deprived of the oxygen of the air; as a result - death … It was protected from the overwhelming majority of erosion, therefore it was preserved in the form of a petrified formation (and the petrification process did not take place for millions of years, see below). Moreover, the layers are not eroded either, which should have happened at intervals of millions of years. But such objects with a vertical orientation with an undisturbed layer structure are far from being a few (the author knows several such formations in Germany, Great Britain, France, USA, Canada, Ukraine and other countries, including Russia), and some of these formations pass even through layers of coal and brown coal, turned upside down …
Hypothesis No. 3. Once upon a time there was a club-shaped club. And as a result of the disaster (!), He was pulled out of the ground. A tremendous force dragged him into the cocking of solid particles (and not just dragged, not just broke, bent, but twisted along the axis), and after destroying the reason why this huge force acted, a piece of wood that was once a plow met with his colleagues in misfortune. Met in spaces filled with water. For several years, the trunks float on the surface, but then take a vertical position - depending on which has a greater specific gravity - if the remainder of the crown has a greater specific gravity, then the direction is taken "upside down", if the remainder of the root system has a greater specific gravity, then the direction is taken as that of a growing tree. Over time, these residues sink into solid inorganic / organic / complex formations - silt, sand, etc. The water evaporates and the trees become layered upright. In practice, such processes are currently taking place for 20-30 (twenty-thirty) years - for example, after volcanic eruptions, the products of the release of which created dams on rivers and streams …
The prevailing "scientific" paradigm forces one to believe (and not check!) In hypothesis # 1, promoting it in educational institutions of various levels in a veiled form (with the help of references to so-called authoritative scientists; the result of the impact of such "educational" propaganda will be a colossal the number of parrots that will repeat lies after textbooks, as well as the inability of graduates of these "educational" institutions to think for themselves - just choose ready-made answers). Of course, faith is a personal matter of every person … But it has nothing to do with science.
Thus, in the author's opinion, the statement that if traces are found in the lower layers, then the event happened earlier is illegal.
Hypothesis # 1 creates a colossal (!) Number of problems for the Orthodox. Artifacts are found on the planet that do not fit into these orthodox ideas, so they are destroyed (absolutely seriously!), Their finds are hushed up, they are hidden in museum storerooms, they try to ridicule the mention of them, representatives of the CFR are specially hired to carry out a classic disinformation operation, etc..d. Those who wish can familiarize themselves with a huge number of such artifacts, for example, in the work of Michael Cremo and Richard Thomson "The Unknown History of Humanity" (if the author remembers correctly, in 2003 M. Cremo came to Russia to give a lecture at the State Darwin Museum in Moscow; author wants to warnthat Michael Cremo is a supporter of the correctness of the principle of "superposition" and dates artifacts millions and billions of years) and the work of Michael Baigent "Forbidden Archeology" (the author of this book is also a supporter of the correctness of the principle of "superposition").
For example, they find fossilized sombrero hats, which in no way can be more than 300 years old (since this fashion arose precisely at this time), petrified hats in New Zealand, petrified water wheels, petrified cowboy boots with legs in them (or rather, part of a leg; found in a dry river in Texas), fossilized bodies of people after burial (in 1818 a man was buried in Tennessee, and 14 years later his wife died, whom they decided to bury in the same grave; the body of a man turned to stone in 14 years, being in running water), tools in petrified rocks (in the photo below, a hammer in petrified rock), a colossal amount of jewelry and household items made of gold, silver, platinum (and you also need to know how to mine, smelt, process, etc.; in the photo below, a vessel made of zinc and silver, 12 cm high,found in coal seams in 1851) in petrified rocks and coal, footprints of shoes that crushed trilobites, still green magnolia leaves in the shale, blood in dinosaur bones, petrified closed (!) shells of mollusks on Mount Everest (and they, to put it mildly, they do not like to go to the mountains, and even after natural death, the muscles that close the shell can no longer hold the valves and the shell opens; there are places where closed petrified shells were found in layers of several meters), a petrified object suspiciously resembling a bolt, a skeleton a shark almost 24 meters long, "standing" vertically on its tail in a layer of diatomaceous earth (found in California in 1976 by employees of the Dicalcite corporation, along with trillions of skeletons of other fish),in the Carroux Formation, only by conservative estimates there are 800,000,000,000 (eight hundred billion) skeletons of various vertebrates, there are literally chalk cliffs in Dover (Great Britain), in Belgium, probably the largest cluster of iguanodon skeletons on Earth (vertical length - more than 30 meters of stone), etc.
Hypothesis # 1 also poses other problems in biological disciplines. For example, according to evolutionists, the horse had ancestors, but by a "strange" coincidence, skeletons identical to the skeletons of modern horses are found deeper (after all, according to the principle of "superposition", this means that the object of research existed earlier) than the skeletons of their alleged ancestors (these " paradoxes "- only for the orthodox - occur not only with one species). Why, before claiming that such and such a species originated from such and such, one must first prove, in general, such a phenomenon as evolution (moreover, not just microevolution, or, more simply, adaptation, but macroevolution)!
Since, in addition to stratigraphic research, a correlation is also carried out (the establishment of correspondences between the layers described in different regions of the Earth), then situations of secondary delusion arise - if the initial message is incorrect (as the initial statement is called in the theory of logic), an incorrect conclusion occurs. For example, such and such a species has a prevalence in one place of the Earth for 10 layers, in another place for 20 layers; the conclusion of the orthodox - more favorable conditions have developed that allow to multiply faster in the second place, on a larger scale (and if traces are also found in one place lower in layers than in the second, then earlier along the timeline). Everything would be fine, but the thickness of the rocks only shows the number of rocks that were washed away, and the number of fossilized organisms showsthat either animals / plants were captured by a powerful force in one place during the action of this force, or animals / plants ran away from danger and accumulated in one place, and then this force destroyed them … Their remains already show what happened out of the ordinary, since under normal conditions their remains would not have survived at all - no one has yet canceled the circulation of matter in nature …
The spore-pollen method of dating paleontology is also incorrect, since the correlation is carried out by layers, based on the assumption that these layers are of different ages (the amount of immersion in the layers of the biological residue, non-biological material depends mostly on the specific gravity, as well as the degree and duration of mixing suspension).
Further consideration of the issue of relative dating on the basis of the assumption that the stratigraphic layers are different in time is considered inappropriate by the author, since the very principle on the basis of which it is being carried out at the present time is incorrect. However, this does not mean that absolutely all developments in geology are incorrect. Initially, geology emerged as a descriptive discipline based on the principle of "what I see, so I sing"; geologists study a huge number of minerals, their composition, structure, physical characteristics, chemical characteristics and much more. The author will not consider hypothesis # 2 and hypothesis # 3 in this article either.
1b. The next question that the author will pay attention to is the question of absolute dating, i.e. when there is a statement that such and such an object existed, for example, 100 thousand years ago.
The overwhelming majority of methods of absolute dating are based on the use of isotope geochronology methods (other methods are even recognized by the orthodox as “less accurate”; for example, the salt method is based on the assumption that the waters of the World Ocean were originally fresh, sedimentation is based on the fact that marine sediments have been forming all the time with the same speed, biological on the assumption of the existence of evolution, etc.).
In principle, the author of the article could give mathematical formulas and show the illegality of their use for absolute dating, but as practice shows, the perception of information with this approach tends to zero. As a result, the author decided to give an analogy, on the basis of which the "logic" of the methods and the illegality of their use will become clear. An example will be given on the basis of radiocarbon dating, but absolutely all methods of isotope geochronology have exactly the same (with minor variations) flaws.
The physical basis of this method is based on the fact that naturally occurring carbon is present in the form of three isotopes - C12, C13 (are optionally stable, that is, under normal conditions they do not spontaneously decay) and C14 (it is no longer stable and experiences the so-called beta - decay; in principle, for the analogy, it is only important that it ceases to exist). Since these atoms are not chemically distinguishable, they participate in chemical reactions on the same basis, getting into the cells of a living organism. After death, the intake of substances containing C14 stops (although this is only an assumption; the intake really stops with food intake, but is this the only way?) And …
And then you will have to introduce this same analogy. There is a barrel, which is analogous to a cage. It receives pure water (analogue of C12 and C13) and water colored in some color (analogue of C14). Water flows out of the barrel through a hole in the bottom. Even if the researcher will determine the current rate of water entering the barrel, the current rate of water flowing out of the barrel and the pattern by which these waters flow out! It is quite possible to determine! But is it possible to calculate the initial volume of water in the barrel on the basis of these data (unless the rate of water inflow was known before the measurement)? Is it possible to calculate the initial ratio of water in a barrel (after all, there is a colossal amount of buried carbon in the form of oily liquids, methane, anthracite, brown coal, etc.)? Is it possible to say that the size of the barrel hole,through which water flows out, was equal to that measured at the present time, is it possible to assert that the rate of flow of water was the same for the entire duration of time (after all, experiments to determine the regularity of carbon decay were carried out in laboratory conditions, in buildings with concrete walls, with shielding reinforcement; after all, before Until now, the orthodox cannot explain why the decay occurs - they even call it spontaneous, and even rabbits do not reproduce spontaneously; even the revealed regularity shows a dependence on the initial amount - for the first decay there is a loss of ½ share, for the second ¼ share, for the third 1 / 16 beats, etc.)? In addition, in analogy, it is still possible to measure after the hundredth time interval,and in practice, with isotopes, after the fourth or fifth decay, there can be no question of any accuracy at all - we are talking about insignificant quantities, which are impossible to distinguish the next decay with modern registration methods (therefore, when they try to refer to the radiocarbon method and give figures over 50,000 years is an obvious and blatant lie even on the basis of incorrect premises)! In addition, the analogy of a barrel also cannot show another "paradox" - the data of this method indicate that, for example, the skin of a mammoth died 15,000 years ago, and the bone of the same mammoth 10,000 years ago! And this is called the "scientific" method ?!when they try to refer to the radiocarbon method and give figures for more than 50,000 years - this is an obvious and blatant lie, even on the basis of incorrect premises)! In addition, the analogy of a barrel also cannot show another "paradox" - the data of this method indicate that, for example, the skin of a mammoth died 15,000 years ago, and the bone of the same mammoth 10,000 years ago! And this is called the "scientific" method ?!when they try to refer to the radiocarbon method and give figures for more than 50,000 years - this is an obvious and blatant lie, even on the basis of incorrect premises)! In addition, the analogy of a barrel also cannot show another "paradox" - the data of this method indicate that, for example, the skin of a mammoth died 15,000 years ago, and the bone of the same mammoth 10,000 years ago! And this is called the "scientific" method ?!
1c. What is a "year"? In fact, this term is synonymous with the word "orbit". This is nothing more than a period of time during which the planet Earth returns to the same point in its orbit around the Sun. Only there is a small problem - it is extremely difficult to determine the moment of returning to the same point even with modern methods … In practice, the data obtained from the visible positions and the data from the bindings to conventionally stationary objects (stars) are compared. The literature provides data on the length of the year with an accuracy of seconds! This is not actual data, but calculated! Even now, earthlings do not have such instruments to measure with such accuracy. The author personally worked with topographic instruments - a tacheometer - with an accuracy of 1 arc second;this is very high accuracy for practical purposes and is used for surveying in buildings - for field surveys, an accuracy of 3 arc seconds is sufficient, since one excavator bucket is more, one less; in the case of the parameters of the Earth's position, we are talking about ten thousandths of an arc second! Yes, there are no such devices - too large a base is needed to ensure such accuracy!
What is a "day"? Distinguish between several "days" - stellar and solar. Sidereal days are equal to the time interval between two successive upper (or lower) climaxes of the vernal equinox. The duration of a sidereal day is unstable and changes continuously. Sidereal days are inconvenient for measuring time in practice, since they are inconsistent with the alternation of day and night. Therefore, in everyday life, solar days are taken, equal to the time interval between two successive upper or lower climaxes of the Sun, that is, between two successive noon or midnight. But! Is it possible to say that the speed of rotation of the Earth was constant all the time? Is it possible to arguethat the speed of orbital motion was constant all the time? In the solar system, there is an example of the illegality of such statements - the parameters of the orbit of Mercury. In the orbital segment near the perihelion, for about 8 days, the orbital velocity exceeds the rotational velocity. As a result, the Sun stops in the Mercury sky and begins to move in the opposite direction - from west to east. This effect is sometimes called the Joshua effect (Joshua, X, 12-13; in fact, this effect is also mentioned in the "myths" and "legends" of the people of South America, Australia and New Zealand). For an observer at some longitudes, the Sun rises (or sets) twice. As a result, the Sun stops in the Mercury sky and begins to move in the opposite direction - from west to east. This effect is sometimes called the Joshua effect (Joshua, X, 12-13; in fact, this effect is also mentioned in the "myths" and "legends" of the people of South America, Australia and New Zealand). For an observer at some longitudes, the Sun rises (or sets) twice. As a result, the Sun stops in the Mercury sky and begins to move in the opposite direction - from west to east. This effect is sometimes called the Joshua effect (Joshua, X, 12-13; in fact, this effect is also mentioned in the "myths" and "legends" of the people of South America, Australia and New Zealand). For an observer at some longitudes, the Sun rises (or sets) twice.
Under normal conditions, a force center that would lead to a change in the parameters of the Earth's orbit is currently not observed. But this absolutely does not mean that it never existed …
1d. The author will make a statement that to some will seem either abnormal, or banal, or surprising - earthlings do not have such an instrument that would allow them to measure time. For one simple reason - that such a time is simply not known (there are, of course, hypotheses, but these are only hypotheses). We can only measure periods of time. It is possible that to someone it will seem only verbal casuistry, but, for example, that such a space is also not known (we can measure the parameters of this space - length, width and height). The author will show additional arguments by points:
- the water clock measures the intervals of the outflow of water from the vessel (and the speed of the outflow of water from the vessel is not constant, as the popularizer of science Perelman wrote about in his books "Entertaining Physics", drawing attention to the fact that problems like pools with outflowing water in textbooks arithmetic should not be, since they are solved using the methods of higher mathematics, and they are still there);
- mechanical pendulum clocks (conditionally wall clocks) operate on the basis of the so-called isochronous oscillations of the pendulum (and their isochronism depends on a colossal number of parameters and does not always work in practice);
- mechanical balance watches (conditionally wrist watches) also work on the basis of isochronous oscillations (and their isochronism depends on the stresses in the spring and the operation of the balance bar as a synchronizer; for example, a simple mechanical balance watch uses only the middle part of the spring, since the rest of the parts will expand with a different force - by the way, accidental unclenching of these parts as a result of any mechanical action can cause the watch to "self-wind" - and in Swiss the spring is not made of one tape and its unclamping occurs more evenly, but still not strictly evenly);
- the standards of time are actually nothing more than the standards of frequency (and who would undertake to assert that everywhere and always the frequencies of vibrations of atoms are the same) …
Summing up this point of the second part of the article, the author is forced to state the fact that it is impossible to talk about any dating using the above methods.
2. In the first part, the author drew attention to the question of why the descriptive discipline of astronomy does not record objects that are described in a considerable number of antiquities (both literary, architectural and artistic).
To begin with, the author dwell on the following question: what area of the sky can, in general, be observed? If you look with the naked eye, you can see a very insignificant part of the sky (even if slightly enlarged due to atmospheric aberrations). It depends on such a colossal number of conditions that the author considers it simply inappropriate to list them, as well as to give absolute numbers for the same reason. But! Simply put, if you turn your head, you can see the entire firmament available to the view. However, with the already armed eye, the coverage area of the view is sharply narrowed (be it an optical tube or a telescope). In addition, astronomical observatories are not in vain located in the mountains (the observed viewing area immediately increases), but even in them the area accessible to direct observation is artificially narrowed (even if it turns). The bottom line of all this will be that observatories currently observe from two to eight percent of the sky (depending on conditions)! Total! Therefore, the bulk of astronomical data often comes from amateur astronomers, who increase the percentage to about fifteen (under the most favorable conditions, perhaps more, but there is simply no direct data for processing), and only then stationary observatories begin a more detailed study.and only then do stationary observatories begin a more detailed study.and only then do stationary observatories begin a more detailed study.
However, the location of this power center is roughly known, but can be observed from the Southern Hemisphere (best of all from Antarctica). On the Web, there are articles in which the authors accuse NASA of the fact that it is in this place with the help of devices that they are already detecting this object (do not forget that NASA has officially confirmed the possibility of the existence of Planet X). Critics of this point of view (and those and others also have only points of view, but not facts at all) cite official NASA data on the location of instruments for detecting neutrinos in this region of Antarctica. The author considers it inappropriate to blame NASA for the absence of facts, but he considers it right to note that the neutrino is no more thanthan a hypothesis and its existence is considered proven only in orthodox literature (the introduction of neutrinos is not at all necessary; all the effects that led to the emergence of the neutrino hypothesis can be explained without invoking the postulate of the existence of this "flying anecdote").
In addition, it should be recalled that distant objects are most often recorded not by illumination, but just by shading (the same as recording a flight, for example, of a bat, by overlapping stars at night). And a representative of one of the observatories, which announced the search for Planet X, expressed an informal point of view that "either it does not exist, or while it is moving so slowly that we cannot isolate its position, or we are looking for it in the wrong place." …
3. The author also proposes to the portal participants to consider the statement, already specific for the portal, that according to the text of “Enuma Elish” in Table IV, Marduk “tore out” the “tables of destinies” from Kingu and hid them on his chest:
“… He tore out the tables of destinies that he did not get by right, He sealed it with a seal, hid it on his chest …"
However, according to multiple correlations, the Babylonian Marduk can be compared with the Vedic Kash-Yapa / Dyaus-Pitar, Kingu with the modern Moon. The root of the word “pitar” is the word “pitr” which means “father”. According to the author, on the basis of correlations, the idea arose in theosophical / paratheosophical literature that modern man was given reason by the "lunar pitris". Moreover, they were precisely "fathers", not "mothers". According to the author (based on the descriptions of detailed genetic operations), modern man was created by the so-called genetic wave operations by the inhabitants of this object. The author in no way calls for believing (in general, does not recommend believing) in this interpretation (and this is nothing more than an interpretation, i.e. interpretation) and recognizes the right of others to their own opinion (if only it was their own,and not "spooky").
The author proposes to draw conclusions from the facts in the article independently. Indeed, by and large, no one is interested in the answer to a question that was not asked, so the author hopes that at least these questions will appear, and the correctness of this or that interpretation will be clear after a certain period of time … sesaichi "(English society) did not die due to the fact that the" government "(English government - the government) did not warn them and did not give them the opportunity to minimize the consequences of the next meeting and, in general, survive in this meeting …
Author: Ilyichev E. V.
