Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > Anything Else... > Chat > Hot topic arena

Hot topic arena As the title suggest, this sub-board is dedicated to non-astrological talks on interesting, important or controversial topics.


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #226  
Unread 01-06-2018, 10:20 PM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by david starling View Post
Seems like Christianity understands it, if you interpret "all are born in sin", as being trapped in the Karmic cycle. But Westerners refuse to abandon hope as a way out, and instead are going with "beam us up, Jesus"; or, as adherents of Materialistic Modern Science, simply reject the concept of Souls continuing to reincarnate after the death of the (illusionary) "material body".
280

I agree in principle but I think there is such a diversity among Christian belief systems, that I think there are Christian systems that see past the catholic christian stance as you prersent it.
rahu

Reply With Quote
  #227  
Unread 02-04-2018, 11:31 PM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap View Post
You are absolutely right, that article is ridiculous. Article shows several common misconceptions that are so typical and incomprehensive to a "western" mind.

First, westerners are "trained" by philosophical and religious systems to believe that there is a meaning to reality. It is hard to accept for a western mind that reality is meaningless (purposeless), that it is a game, a play, a continuous experience that will go on indefinitely (if allowed) without some goal to reach, without some point of conclusion. The only meaning reality can have is what we assign to it with our minds (thought process).

Second, eastern philosophies (where the concept of karma originated) are not materialistic at all. They fall in idealistic spectrum, saying that reality is a virtual playground created by consciousness or that it is an illusion. Illusion in a sense that it is not fundamental and objective, it is a creation of consciousness, or to be more precise, creation of the mind (the same way as dreams and imagination). So, in this sense, gravity, speed of light and all other "laws of nature" are "imagined" collectively (in a manner of speaking because apparent duality is also part of the illusion - there is only one consciousness). They are part of the "game mechanics", they cannot possibly exert influence on the mind because the mind is their originator.

And last, nothing is more misunderstood in the west than the concept of karma. Karma basically means action. It means as long as one acts in this "virtual reality system" that action will produce more action causing continuation of the experience. This action starts way before actual physical action manifests, it starts with thoughts and desires. Many thoughts and desires are so deeply rooted in vast layers of unconscious mind that they manifest into action seemingly automatically as something "normal or natural" (for example, the most obvious is desire for life experiences in general - it seems perfectly normal for majority of people that they exist in this reality, have a body and experience life). Only when the body and the mind are in actionless state (as in deep meditation) it is possible to experience and identify with one's true nature, that is timeless and and actionless consciousness. If karma is some mechanical cause and effect "law" then one could never achieve this actionless state by willing it so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60TdZApIppU
15554

HAHAHA
I was subscribed to the web site that this article was from
http://humansarefree.com/2018/01/the...ting.html#more
The Science of Karma: Cultivating Positive Change and Emotional Stability from Within

but since I posted this criticism , they have not sent me any more newsletters. I guess the all knowing eye is upon us LOL.

rahu
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Unread 02-07-2018, 07:46 PM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2018/02/outflows-from-black-holes-are-creating-new-molecules-where-there-should-only-be-destruction-2511268.html

( this article is a interesting example of current scientists being so dogmatic about a theory being true that they ignore the physical facts that show the theory is false. here the topic is black holes. though this theory is treated as a reality, even though scientist can't see a black hole, contrive computer models to substantiate their theory even as data incompatible with the theory of black hole comes in.
basically black hole gravity is so strong that nothing even light can escape. this is the basic theory .
but several years ago astronomers found massive jets of atomic particles being ejected from the north poles of the alleged black hole. this is impossible is the basic theory is true. but scientist ignored the basic fact that this evidence showed black hole don't exist as postulated. This attitude is analogous to the way darwinist refuse to look at the overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is false.rahu)
Outflows From Black Holes are Creating New Molecules Where There Should Only be Destruction
During the 1960s, scientists discovered a massive radio source (known as Sagittarius A*) at the center of the Milky Way, which was later revealed to be a Supermassive Black Holes (SMBH). Since then, they have learned that these SMBHs reside at the center of most massive galaxies. The presence of these black holes is also what allows the centers of these galaxies to have a higher than normal luminosity – aka. Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs).

In the past few years, astronomers have also observed fast molecular outflows emanating from AGNs which left them puzzled. For one, it was a mystery how any particles could survive the heat and energy of a black hole’s outflow. But according to a new study produced by researchers from Northwestern University, these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves. This theory may help explain how stars form in extreme environments.

The study recently appeared in The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society under the title “The origin of fast molecular outflows in quasars: molecule formation in AGN-driven galactic winds.” The study was conducted by Lindheimer post-doctoral fellow Alexander J Richings and assistant professor Claude-André Faucher-Giguère from Northwestern University’s Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Exploration in Astrophysics (CIERA).
For the sake of their study, Richings developed the first-ever computer code capable of modeling the detailed chemical processes in interstellar gas which are accelerated by a growing SMBH’s radiation. Meanwhile, Claude-André Faucher-Giguère contributed his expertise, having spent his career studying the formation and evolution of galaxies. As Richings explained in a Northwestern press release:


“When a black hole wind sweeps up gas from its host galaxy, the gas is heated to high temperatures, which destroy any existing molecules. By modeling the molecular chemistry in computer simulations of black hole winds, we found that this swept-up gas can subsequently cool and form new molecules.”

The existence of energetic outflows form SMBHs was first confirmed in 2015, when researchers used the ESA’s Herschel Space Observatory and data from the Japanese/US Suzaku satellite to observe the AGN of a galaxy known as IRAS F11119+3257. Such outflows, they determined, are responsible for draining galaxies of their interstellar gas, which has an arresting effect on the formation of new stars and can lead to “red and dead” elliptical galaxies.

This was followed-up in 2017 with observations that indicated that rapidly moving new stars formed in these outflows, something that astronomers previously thought to be impossible because of the extreme conditions present within them. By theorizing that these particles are actually the product of black hole winds, Richings and Faucher-Giguère have managed to address questions raised by these previous observations.
http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2018/01/what-is-quantum-gravity-do-gravitons-exist-what-scientists-think-2511185.html
What Is Quantum Gravity? Do Gravitons Exist? What Scientists Think
Gravity is one of the most perplexing of forces, and it still defies description.



Our world is ruled by four fundamental forces: the gravitational pull of massive objects, the electromagnetic interaction between electric charges, the strong nuclear interaction holding atomic nuclei together and the weak nuclear force causing unstable ones to fall apart.

Physicists have quantum theories for the last three of them that allow very precise calculations of phenomena on the smallest, subatomic scales. However, gravity does not fit into this scheme. Despite decades of research, there is no generally accepted quantum theory of gravity, which is needed to better understand fundamental aspects of our universe.

In this Q&A, Particle Physics and Astrophysics Professor Lance Dixon of Stanford University and the Department of Energy’s SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory explains one approach to developing such a theory, called quantum gravity.Quantum gravity could be key to answering fundamental questions about the universe, such as the physics near black holes.

In this illustration, turbulent winds of gas swirl around a black hole. Some of the gas is spiraling inward toward the black hole, but another part is blown away.
Quantum gravity could be key to answering fundamental questions about the universe, such as the physics near black holes. In this illustration, turbulent winds of gas swirl around a black hole. Some of the gas is spiraling inward toward the black hole, but another part is blown away.
Credit: NASA, M.Weiss/Chandra X-ray Center




What is quantum gravity?

With the exception of gravity, we can describe nature’s fundamental forces using the concepts of quantum mechanics. In these theories, which are summarized in the Standard Model of particle physics, forces are the result of an exchange of tiny quanta of information between interacting particles. Electric charges, for instance, attract or repel each other by exchanging photons – quanta of light that carry the electromagnetic force. The strong and weak forces have corresponding carriers called gluons and W and Z bosons, respectively.

We routinely use these theories to calculate the outcome of subatomic processes with extraordinary precision. For example, we can make accurate predictions for the complex proton-proton collisions at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, the most powerful man-made particle accelerator.

But gravity is different. Although Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity explains gravity on larger scales as the result of massive objects distorting the fabric of space-time, it doesn’t tell us anything about what happens to subatomic particles gravitationally. Quantum gravity is an attempt to combine Einstein’s general relativity with quantum mechanics. In analogy to the other forces, we predict gravity to be mediated by a force carrier as well, the graviton.

What questions do researchers hope to answer with quantum gravity?

Quantum gravity could help us answer important questions about the universe.

For example, quantum effects play a role near black holes – objects so massive that not even light can escape their gravitational pull when emitted from within a certain radius, the black hole’s event horizon. However, black holes are thought to be not completely black. If quantum effects near the event horizon produce pairs of particles, one of them would fall into the black hole, but the other one would escape as so-called Hawking radiation.

Researchers also hope to better understand the very first moments after the Big Bang, when the universe was an extremely hot and dense state with a tremendous amount of energy. On that energy scale, which we call the Planck scale, gravity was as strong as the other fundamental forces, and quantum gravitational effects were crucial. However, we don’t have a compelling quantum theory of gravity yet that could describe physics at those energies.

One has to realize, though, that processes on Earth occur at much smaller energy scales, with unmeasurably small quantum corrections to gravity. With the LHC, for instance, we can reach energies that are a million billion times smaller than the Planck scale. Therefore, quantum gravity studies are mostly “thought experiments,” in which we want to figure out whether we can make predictions about other interactions that might be measurable. However, it turns out that the calculations are quite complicated.

Lance Dixon, a professor for particle physics and astrophysics at Stanford and SLAC
Lance Dixon, a professor for particle physics and astrophysics at Stanford and SLAC
Credit: SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

Why is it so difficult to find a quantum theory of gravity?

One version of quantum gravity is provided by string theory, but we’re looking for other possibilities. Gravity is quite different from the other forces, for which we already have quantum theories.

First of all, gravity is extremely weak – on the order of a million billion billion billion times weaker than the weak force. In fact, the only reason why we notice gravity at all is because we feel the combined pull of a huge amount of particles in the Earth.

Gravity is also different because massive objects always attract each other. In contrast, the strong force is only attractive on very short distances, and the electromagnetic force can be either attractive or repellent.

Finally, the graviton fundamentally differs from all the other known force carriers in a particle property known as spin. It has twice the spin of the other force carriers.

How does this affect the calculations?

It makes the mathematical treatment much more difficult.

We generally calculate quantum effects by starting with a dominant mathematical term to which we then add a number of increasingly smaller terms. The number of terms, or order, we need to calculate depends on the accuracy we want to achieve. A complication is that higher-order terms sometimes become infinitely large, and we first need to get rid of these infinities, or divergences, to make meaningful predictions.

For the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces, we’ve known how to do this for decades. We have a systematic way of removing infinities for all orders, called renormalization, which allows us to calculate quantum effects very precisely. Unfortunately, due to gravity’s different nature, we haven’t found a renormalizable theory of gravity yet.

What have you learned about quantum gravity so far?

Over the past decades, researchers in the field have made a lot of progress in better understanding how to do calculations in quantum gravity. For example, it was empirically found that in certain theories and to certain orders, we can replace the complicated mathematical expression for the interaction of gravitons with the square of the interaction of gluons – a simpler expression that we already know how to calculate.

We’ve succeeded in using this discovery to calculate quantum effects to increasingly higher order, which helps us better understand when divergences occur. My colleagues and I have made calculations to fourth order in a theory called N=8 supergravity without finding any divergences. Ideally, we would like to compute to higher orders to test various predictions for infinities, but that’s very hard.

We were also involved in a recent study in which we looked at the theory of two gravitons bouncing off each other. It was shown over 30 years ago that divergences occurring on the second order of these calculations can change under so-called duality transformations that replace one description of the gravitational field with a different but equivalent one. These changes were a surprise because they could mean that the descriptions are not equivalent on the quantum level. However, we’ve now demonstrated that these differences actually don’t change the underlying physics.

How is your approach to quantum gravity different from string theory?

In the approach we’re taking, subatomic particles are described as point-like, as they are in the Standard Model. Each of these particles is associated with a fundamental field that extends throughout space and time. In string theory, on the other hand, particles are thought to be different vibrations of an extended object, similar to different tones coming from the same guitar string. In the first approach, gravitons and photons, for example, are linked to gravitational and photon fields, whereas in string theory, both are different vibrational modes of a string.

One appeal of string theory is that its way of treating particles like extended objects solves the problem of divergences. So, in principle, string theory could make predictions of gravitational effects on the subatomic level.

However, over the years, researchers have found more and more ways of making string theories that look right. I began to be concerned that there may be actually too many options for string theory to ever be predictive, when I studied the subject as a graduate student at Princeton in the mid-1980s. About 10 years ago, the number of possible solutions was already on the order of 10500. For comparison, there are less than 1010 people on Earth and less than 1012 stars in the Milky Way. So how will we ever find the theory that accurately describes our universe?

For quantum gravity, the situation is somewhat the opposite, making the approach potentially more predictive than string theory, in principle. There are probably not too many theories that would allow us to properly handle divergences in quantum gravity – we haven’t actually found a single one yet.

What would be a breakthrough in the field?

It would be very interesting if someone miraculously found a theory that we could use to consistently predict quantum gravitational effects to much higher orders than possible today. Such a theory of gravity would fit into our current picture of nature’s other fundamental forces.

SLAC is a multi-program laboratory exploring frontier questions in photon science, astrophysics, particle physics and accelerator research. Located in Menlo Park, Calif., SLAC is operated by Stanford University for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Unread 02-17-2018, 09:15 PM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

The best critique of Darwinism is “Darwin on Trial “by Philip E.Johnson, intervarsity press 1993.
Johnston is a professor of law specializing in the logic of arguments.
Though he does present paleontological evidence that discredits Darwinist, most of the book deals with the logic or illogic arguments of the Darwinist position.
Darwiist simple[y does no have empirical evidence from the fossil record to substantiate the theory(not fact) of naturistic, purposeless evolution. According to Darwin there should be many fossils of the intermediate species that elvolve into later specie. But there is not. Darwin asnsered this problem by saying that the fossil record is incomplete and in the future the evidence of these missing intermediate species will appear. But 100 years later and the fossil record has become even more indicative of the lack of these necessary intermediate specie.
There are two examples that could support Darwin.one is the famous archaeopteryx ,65 million years ago,which was a flying dinosaur with teeth and claws that does seem to fit the intermediate speciesbetween dinosaurs and birds. But newer fossils of birds have been dated, (not with out critics) to 200 million years old which would meant that archaeopteryx was a later side branch and not a direct progenitors of modern birds.
The important word here is direct as Darwin’s theory needs a single genome to directly lead back to the progenitor specie of the modern specie.
There are a collection of reptile /mammal fossils in existence but they cannot be distinguished as to which were reptile and which were proto mammal and therefore cannot give a direct line of decent.

Of the most famous fossils or those of modern man and Darwinist like to point out to the clear line of descent through 4-5 hominids. But the most recent evidence has show that these examples of hominid evolution were in many case living at the same time. So there is no line of descent rather a “bush”.
And more recent investigation has shown that many of these hominids have as much ape like characteristic as proto human characteristic. That is it looks like curtain characteristic might become human in the future. But it is all speculation and prejudice.

One of the most blatant example of Darwinist prejudice is that when one sees a diorama or a illustration of pre human hominids, they always have modern human bodies but ape like heads. This is pure propaganda

But the overwhelming picture of the fossil record is that there are no intermediate species present, only distinctly different species that appear with no progenitor.

When Darwinist are faced with evidence against Darwin’s theory, they usually revert to tautological statements. That is needless repletion of the same sense in different words or a statement that includes all logical possibilities and is therefore always true and hence meaningless for empirical investigation.
The basic concept of natural selection is a tautology. It states the fittest ibdivudauls in a popultion will leve the most offspring,but when asked what does fittest mean?,the answer is those who leave the most off spring. So this circular logic leaves no room for investigation as to it truth or falsity and is in the end meaning less empirically.

Anyways a most remarkable book that shook the Darwinist school.

rahu
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Unread 03-04-2018, 12:30 AM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

(Stephen Hawkings has gone off the deep end,at least with deductive reasoning rahu)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-ste...140733204.html

It's one of the biggest brainteasers out there: If the Big Bang created everything we know about, what the heck was around before the big bang? No one knows for sure, but everyone has a favorite theory—everyone including renowned British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, of course.
He offered his theory to Neil de Grasse Tyson in a video clip published by Popular Science on Friday. "Nothing was around before the big, big bang," Hawking begins his answer.

(this statement negates basic scientific principles such as matter can neither be destroyed or created. if nothing existed before the hypothetical big bang, then the big bang could not have happened according to the principles of science as we understand it Hawkings suffer from the Darwinian illusion that only matter exist. every thing else is illusion... such as any concept of god or morals rahu)

Entertainment Watch Stephen Hawking Explain What He Thinks Came Before the Big Bang


  • It's one of the biggest brainteasers out there: If the Big Bang created everything we know about, what the heck was around before the big bang? No one knows for sure, but everyone has a favorite theory—everyone including renowned British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, of course.


He offered his theory to Neil de Grasse Tyson in a video clip published by Popular Science on Friday. "Nothing was around before the big, big bang," Hawking begins his answer.
Stephen Hawking as seen in 2016. Niklas Halle'n/AFP/Getty Images
Trending: ‘Call of Duty: WWII’ Updates to Add Paint Shop Feature & New Uniforms
The Big Bang theory is the idea that the entire universe began as a pinprick that has been expanding ever since—essentially, that the only reason the universe feels so vast is because it's had 13.8 billion years to get that way. The idea itself has held up pretty well, although scientists still aren't quite sure what force is driving all that growth.
And of course, the theory itself doesn't do anything to explain where precisely that first dot of the universe came from in the first place, hence the brainteaser. And we do mean it when we say brainteaser—Hawking's explanation includes this excellent line:*"Ordinary real time is replaced by imaginary time, which behaves like a fourth direction of space."

But don't let that scare you off; his main point is surprisingly easy to grasp: Hawking approaches the problem by offering a detailed analogy, comparing space-time to any other continuous, curved surface, like the surface of the Earth. "There is nothing south of the South Pole," Hawking says. The same principle holds with the universe: "There was nothing around before the Big Bang."
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Unread 03-04-2018, 12:43 AM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by rahu View Post
(Stephen Hawkings has gone off the deep end,at least with deductive reasoning rahu)
820
https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-ste...140733204.html

It's one of the biggest brainteasers out there: If the Big Bang created everything we know about, what the heck was around before the big bang? No one knows for sure, but everyone has a favorite theory—everyone including renowned British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, of course.
He offered his theory to Neil de Grasse Tyson in a video clip published by Popular Science on Friday. "Nothing was around before the big, big bang," Hawking begins his answer.

(this statement negates basic scientific principles such as matter can neither be destroyed or created. if nothing existed before the hypothetical big bang, then the big bang could not have happened according to the principles of science as we understand it Hawkings suffer from the Darwinian illusion that only matter exist. every thing else is illusion... such as any concept of god or morals rahu)

Entertainment Watch Stephen Hawking Explain What He Thinks Came Before the Big Bang


  • It's one of the biggest brainteasers out there: If the Big Bang created everything we know about, what the heck was around before the big bang? No one knows for sure, but everyone has a favorite theory—everyone including renowned British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, of course.


He offered his theory to Neil de Grasse Tyson in a video clip published by Popular Science on Friday. "Nothing was around before the big, big bang," Hawking begins his answer.
Stephen Hawking as seen in 2016. Niklas Halle'n/AFP/Getty Images
Trending: ‘Call of Duty: WWII’ Updates to Add Paint Shop Feature & New Uniforms
The Big Bang theory is the idea that the entire universe began as a pinprick that has been expanding ever since—essentially, that the only reason the universe feels so vast is because it's had 13.8 billion years to get that way. The idea itself has held up pretty well, although scientists still aren't quite sure what force is driving all that growth.
And of course, the theory itself doesn't do anything to explain where precisely that first dot of the universe came from in the first place, hence the brainteaser. And we do mean it when we say brainteaser—Hawking's explanation includes this excellent line:*"Ordinary real time is replaced by imaginary time, which behaves like a fourth direction of space."

But don't let that scare you off; his main point is surprisingly easy to grasp: Hawking approaches the problem by offering a detailed analogy, comparing space-time to any other continuous, curved surface, like the surface of the Earth. "There is nothing south of the South Pole," Hawking says. The same principle holds with the universe: "There was nothing around before the Big Bang."
820
(the contradictory and narrow mindedness of scientist has lead us to the toxic nuclear Armageddon we face as a specie. but instead of realizing that maybe we need to apply morals rules to our society and not believe sheepishly in the Darwinian tenet of survival of the fittest with no moral restrictions, scientist can postulate dynamics that are outside the boundaries of scientific thought and experience.rahu)

"There is nothing south of the South Pole," Hawking says. The same principle holds with the universe: "There was nothing around before the Big Bang."
(this is a ridiculous analogy , the curve of the time/space has nothing to do with physical dimensions. for some reason the idea that the universe is eternal and has always existed ,never comes to their minds.... oh yeah I forgot Darwin proved that god or any creative force besides purposeless random change exist does not exist. but somehow Darwinist accept that the complexity of life looks like it has a master plan......but it doesn't. so random purposeless change created a system of life that looks like it was designed but it wasn't really. rahu)
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Unread 04-04-2018, 09:41 PM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

https://www.livescience.com/42933-hu...hal-genes.html
16116
The researchers discovered that about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome could be found in modern humans. Although the majority of genes inherited from Neanderthals apparently do not do anything remarkably different from their modern-human counterparts, "some of the genes are beneficial," said Vernot, who, along with Akey, detailed these findings online Jan. 29 in the journal Science.


it seems that scientist today just think up the issues they believe in.
the common sense problem here is that Neanderthal babies and modern human babies are identical until 3 years of age. that is they can not be distinguished. When the first Neanderthal babies were found they looked like modern human babies and the scientist first were trying to figure out how the Neanderthals ha adopted a human baby. but as more Neanderthal babies were discovered, it became clear that human and Neanderthal babies look exactly alike. the only difference is a slightly raised bone ridge in the inner skull. at three years old secondary physiological structures appear that separate the two. one anthropologist suggests that modern humans are simply Neanderthals that never reached puberty.

now the scientist say we only have 20% of Neanderthal DNA, but our DNA is 98% the same as chimpanzees . that simply does not make sense .

rahu
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Unread 04-04-2018, 10:21 PM
Cap's Avatar
Cap Cap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: OM
Posts: 1,298
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by rahu View Post
https://www.livescience.com/42933-hu...hal-genes.html
16116
The researchers discovered that about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome could be found in modern humans. Although the majority of genes inherited from Neanderthals apparently do not do anything remarkably different from their modern-human counterparts, "some of the genes are beneficial," said Vernot, who, along with Akey, detailed these findings online Jan. 29 in the journal Science.


it seems that scientist today just think up the issues they believe in.
the common sense problem here is that Neanderthal babies and modern human babies are identical until 3 years of age. that is they can not be distinguished. When the first Neanderthal babies were found they looked like modern human babies and the scientist first were trying to figure out how the Neanderthals ha adopted a human baby. but as more Neanderthal babies were discovered, it became clear that human and Neanderthal babies look exactly alike. the only difference is a slightly raised bone ridge in the inner skull. at three years old secondary physiological structures appear that separate the two. one anthropologist suggests that modern humans are simply Neanderthals that never reached puberty.

now the scientist say we only have 20% of Neanderthal DNA, but our DNA is 98% the same as chimpanzees . that simply does not make sense .

rahu
Yes, that doesn't sound right. I remember reading somewhere that humans and neanderthals share 99.7% DNA.

Much bigger mystery is RH-negative blood type (none of the primates on this planet have this blood type and only 10-15% of humans).

Having a type O negative blood myself, I wonder if my body has some alien DNA?!

ACCORDING TO A NEW THEORY, PEOPLE WITH RH-NEGATIVE BLOOD DON’T COME FROM EARTH


http://www.collective-evolution.com/...me-from-earth/
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Unread 04-05-2018, 06:27 AM
david starling david starling is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,695
Smile Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Reply With Quote
  #235  
Unread 04-05-2018, 06:44 AM
Oddity's Avatar
Oddity Oddity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,982
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

We are the alien lizard-dragon people, David. Your annunaki overlords.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Unread 04-05-2018, 07:22 AM
david starling david starling is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,695
Smile Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Oh. Are you Gender-fluid? This might explain the penalties for using "disrespectful" gender appellations!

Last edited by david starling; 04-05-2018 at 08:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Unread 04-05-2018, 08:42 AM
david starling david starling is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,695
Smile Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

It's ALL coming back to us, little by little--everything that's been blotted from our collective consciousness. Modern Materialistic Science is fragile, hanging by a thread.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Unread 04-05-2018, 08:59 PM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap View Post
Yes, that doesn't sound right. I remember reading somewhere that humans and neanderthals share 99.7% DNA.

Much bigger mystery is RH-negative blood type (none of the primates on this planet have this blood type and only 10-15% of humans).

Having a type O negative blood myself, I wonder if my body has some alien DNA?!

ACCORDING TO A NEW THEORY, PEOPLE WITH RH-NEGATIVE BLOOD DON’T COME FROM EARTH


http://www.collective-evolution.com/...me-from-earth/
Yes, that doesn't sound right. I remember reading somewhere that humans and neanderthals share 99.7% DNA.

no, until this article most scientist said we only shared 2 -5% of DNA with Neanderthals .
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Unread 04-06-2018, 06:00 AM
Cap's Avatar
Cap Cap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: OM
Posts: 1,298
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by rahu View Post
Yes, that doesn't sound right. I remember reading somewhere that humans and neanderthals share 99.7% DNA.

no, until this article most scientist said we only shared 2 -5% of DNA with Neanderthals .
That doesn't sound right because humans apparently share 50% of DNA with bananas.

Article from the same website:

https://www.livescience.com/1122-nea...ent-human.html

The confusion lies in the definition of "share".

https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-sha...se-explain-how

Just want to add, the existence of genes or evolution process doesn't contradict the non-material nature of reality. These are simply regularities within the reality, just like "laws of physics". Take for example dreams. In most dreams, with the exception of so called "flying dreams", you are experiencing gravity and other laws of physics even though dream is clearly a mental reality. Similarly, you could observe DNA or quantum phenomena within a dream and those patterns and regularities are obviously coming from the mind, they are not properties of the "dream matter".

Last edited by Cap; 04-06-2018 at 09:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Unread 04-06-2018, 07:03 AM
david starling david starling is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,695
Smile Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Rats and mice have some identical strands of DNA compared to humans, but the "overall" matchup is about 40%.
Reply With Quote
  #241  
Unread 04-06-2018, 08:36 PM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap View Post
That doesn't sound right because humans apparently share 50% of DNA with bananas.
16288
Article from the same website:

https://www.livescience.com/1122-nea...ent-human.html

The confusion lies in the definition of "share".

https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-sha...se-explain-how

Just want to add, the existence of genes or evolution process doesn't contradict the non-material nature of reality. These are simply regularities within the reality, just like "laws of physics". Take for example dreams. In most dreams, with the exception of so called "flying dreams", you are experiencing gravity and other laws of physics even though dream is clearly a mental reality. Similarly, you could observe DNA or quantum phenomena within a dream and those patterns and regularities are obviously coming from the mind, they are not properties of the "dream matter".
interesting contradictions among the geneticists
https://www.livescience.com/42933-hu...hal-genes.html
At least 20% of Neanderthal DNA Is in Humans

https://www.livescience.com/1122-nea...ent-human.html
Neanderthal: 99.5 Percent Human

the 99.5% seem logical based on the identical morphology of human and Neanderthal toddlers.

rahu
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Unread 04-06-2018, 11:18 PM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2018/...e-2512044.html

Dark Matter Fills 27% of the Universe, Still Mystifies Scientists, Only Reacts to Gravity
( more scientific contradictions,most estimates are up to 90% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy rahu)

There is believed to be about five times more dark matter than all the other particles understood by science, but nobody knows what it is.

(dark matter is a hypothetical concept that the cosmologist thought up to explain why the laws of gravity and relativity are not followed in the universe. instead of saying geezzz the standard model is wrong, the cosmologist came up with this idea that there is dark matter and energy that is counteracting the affects of gravity.dark matter was first proposed by fritz zwicky rahu)
https://www.decodedscience.org/the-r...z-zwicky/15456
In 1933, Zwicky proposed galaxies harbor huge quantities of unseen matter. Based on the motion of outlying galaxies in the Coma galaxy cluster, Zwicky concluded there was not enough visible matter to hold these fast-moving galaxies together. He insisted something invisible was producing additional gravity out there in the heavens. Zwicky dubbed this still unknown substance dark matter.

(the blindness of science is shown by their embrace of dark matter. when the first spiral galaxies were seen in the universe, and scientist should have realized immediately that something was wrong, because the spiral arms of a spiral galaxy cannot exist if the laws of gravity hold true. the spiral arms would be torn apart because of the extreme difference in velocity of the inner part of the spiral arm and the furthest part of the spiral arms.

what scientist are determined to ignore is what Dr Immanuel Velikovsky proposed... the universes is held together by electro magnetic forces... not gravity.

mathematically the equation for gravity are exactly the same as the mathematical equations for an electromagnetic field.in fact a astronomer cannot distinguish a red shift caused by gravity and a red shift cause by a electromagnetic field. and though astronomers have seen magnetic field that are 500 million light years long, they still ignore the electrical field of the universe as being a functional dynamic rahu)



Astronomers are back in the dark about what dark matter might be, after new observations showed the mysterious substance may not be interacting with forces other than gravity after all.
Dr Andrew Robertson of Durham University today (Friday 6 April) presented the new results at the European Week of Astronomy and Space Science in Liverpool.
Three years ago, a Durham-led international team of researchers thought they had made a breakthrough in ultimately identifying what dark matter is.
Observations using the Hubble Space Telescope appeared to show that a galaxy in the Abell 3827 cluster – approximately 1.3 billion light years from Earth – had become separated from the dark matter surrounding it.
Such an offset is predicted during collisions if dark matter interacts with forces other than gravity, potentially providing clues about what the substance might be.
Hubble Space Telescope image of the four giant galaxies at the heart of cluster Abell 3827. An almost 3-hour exposure shows the view at wavelengths visible to the human eye, and the near infrared, as used in the original 2015 study. The distorted image of a more distant galaxy behind the cluster is faintly visible, wrapped around the four galaxies

.

The chance orientation at which the Abell 3827 cluster is seen from Earth makes it possible to conduct highly sensitive measurements of its dark matter.
However, the same group of astronomers now say that new data from more recent observations shows that dark matter in the Abell 3827 cluster has not separated from its galaxy after all. The measurement is consistent with dark matter feeling only the force of gravity.

A supercomputer simulation of a collision between two galaxy clusters, similar to the real object known as the ‘Bullet Cluster’, and showing the same effects tested for in Abell 3827. All galaxy clusters contain stars (orange), hydrogen gas (shown as red) and invisible dark matter (shown as blue). Individual stars, and individual galaxies are so far apart from each other that they whizz straight past each other. The diffuse gas slows down and becomes separated from the galaxies, due to the forces between ordinary particles that act as friction. If dark matter feels only the force of gravity, it should stay in the same place as the stars, but if it feels other forces, its trajectory through this giant particle collider would be changed


Lead author Dr Richard Massey, in the Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy, at Durham University, said: “The search for dark matter is frustrating, but that’s science. When data improves, the conclusions can change.

“Meanwhile the hunt goes on for dark matter to reveal its nature.
“So long as dark matter doesn’t interact with the Universe around it, we are having a hard time working out what it is.”
A simulation of the same collision if dark matter consisted of extremely strongly ‘self-interacting’ particles that feel large forces in addition to gravity. The resulting distribution of dark matter and gas disagrees with what is observed in the real Universe – indeed, the interaction is so strong in this case that the dark matter stopped close to the point of impact. Since this is not seen in the real Universe, this enables us to rule out this particular model of dark matter.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Unread 04-20-2018, 11:31 PM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

16414

this is just a post musings

last night on cble thee was a program about tesla. they tried to recreate tesla's death ray and they tried to shw that tesla was assassinated because of this death ray.
simple enough but what I am wondering is why this program was made . why now? it ma simply be a tesal rip off for cable viewera byt it was unsettlingly because there were so many misrepresentations and mistakes that it seems something more is being attempted . hwy fud a program tha is on it's face misleading and rife with.... lies.

first tesla was 85 when he died. he mentioned the death ray at elast 20 years before his death so who why murder him now.
the program made ,multiple stupid errors considering one of people said he was a tesla expert.

I haven't figured what the coverup is that there program is trying foist but might have to do with the FBI
I did learn that in 2016 the FBI released didacted documents showing they were watching tesla... and some what I consider lies.
the main one was that the FBI said unknown persons broken into tesla safe after he dies and stole his papers o the death ray.
but al the books I have read said it was the FBI who swooped down after his deathand took tesla papers.
the the FBI documents said it was tesla's cousin that broke into the safe and took the papers back to Serbia where he established a museum for tesla. but this is blatantly false because a museum to tesla had been set up in Serbia many years before. and the museum was closed when tesla died and remains closed to this day.
so many blatant historical inconsistencies.
for instance they claimed telesla set up the electric turbine at niagara falls(true but for john Westinghouse) for the purpose of using the energy to power the death ray tower that J.P.Morgan commissioned on long island. this is so backward. the tower did not need external power as it drew power form the earth rotational energy fields.actually this was accomplished by others. the most obscure was lester hendershott. a document lester's generator on my lester headshot thread https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...ad.php?t=42141 . Charles Lindbergh's "capitalist" stole/bought lester's patent rights and then tried to kill him.

and why bring this ridiculous murder scenario....
like I said the only thing that makes sense is that the FBI is trying to coverup their involvement with stealing tesla's paper. but still why now....WTF is going on
rahu

Last edited by rahu; 04-20-2018 at 11:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Unread 05-31-2018, 12:44 AM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

16657

on page 93 of his book Ramese and His Times, dr Velikovsky wrote:

"by the same black magic that has distorted the past of mankind by 5 to 8 centuries ,this first hand material was ascribed to the wrong millennium and to the wrong people."
here is talking about the misidentified Hittite empire, but the importance is that this is the only time I had ever read dr velikovsky use the term black magic. dr velikovsky never veered off from scientific explainable cause and effect but here he was using concepts that I have used to describe the dominance and rulership of our civilization by "black magicians ".

but what purpose would the fraud of science serve, especially the fallacious counting of ancient times?
To answer this, we must start a point of irrefutable censorship or misrepresentation.
Dr Immanuel velikovsky saw that the time line of the middle east is off by 6oo-800 years. He presents the evidence both archeologically and scholarly of this archeoloogical mistake by analyzing the El Amarna cuneiform tablets of the library at Akhet-aton, the city of the 18th dynastyking,Akhnaton .
These tablets contain correspondences with the king of samaria, king of Jerusalem, 2 king of Damascus.king of cyprus and several more rulers and reference to the king of Moab. These correspondences correlate with scripture in 11kings and 11chronicle.
In addition there are other inscriptions from shalmaneser111 and form the stella of king mesha that give independent historical perspectives of the 9th century bc, the time of ankhnaten, king ahab of Israel , king Jehoshaphat of judah ,shalamanser III king of the assyrians .

The point of reference in time to begin searching the reason for the misrepresentation of the historical records begins with two scriptural references to the battle at ramoth-gilead between the alliance of king ahab and king jehoshasphat against the king of damascus who the scriptures call ben-hadad.

1 Kings 22:29-36 34………………………………. But someone drew his bow at random and hit the king of Israel between the sections of his armor. The king told his chariot driver, “Wheel around and get me out of the fighting. I’ve been wounded.” 35 All day long the battle raged, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Arameans. The blood from his wound ran onto the floor of the chariot, and that evening he died. 36 As the sun was setting, a cry spread through the army: “Every man to his town. Every man to his land!”

The discrepancy is that ahab is wounded In battle and leaves the field of combat But the next line tells of ahab staying in the field of combat and dying.
. But other sources tell of Ahab recovering and going on to live for 1-2 years after Jehoshaphat dies. This scriptural difference about ahabs death results in the next discrepancies in the scriptures.

II kings 1:17 and jehoram reigned in his(Ahaziah’s-ahabs son))stead in the second year of jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah.
Ii Kings 3:1 now jehoram the son of ahab began to reign over Israel in samaria in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat of Judah.
Jehoshaphat ruled for 25 years as stated in II chronicles 20:31.

The first version, 1:17,has jehoram reigning in samaria after the son of ahab(ahaziah) ruled for a short time after the death of ahab a few years after the death of Jehoshaphat. This places jehoram’s reign approximately 9 years after the battle at ramoth gilead.
The second version,3:1, has jehoram reign from the supposed death of ahab at the battle of ramoth gilead in the 18th years of Jehoshaphat . so here jehoram started his reign 7 years before the time given in the the first version. Dr velikovsky states that the first briefer versions is the older of the two versions.

Dr velikovsky further points out that because there is confusion about who reigned after the battle of Ramoth Gilead , after the battle ,in the scriptures, the king of Samaria is never named. Throughout the further scriptures it is stated the king of Judah was Jehoshaphat but the king of israel is never called by name. this is probably because the scribes were confused by the two versions of scripture and therefore did not know who was the king of Samaria .
The 9 year discrepancy becomes a land mark because most of the letters from the El Amarna tablets pertain to these years.

Another problem is that jehoram was Jehoshaphat’s son not ahabs son as written in 11chronicles 21:6.

Two other ancient archeological inscriptions also show that the version of Abab dying is false.
The inscriptions on black obelisk of shalmanser III records that in his 6th year he battled a coalition of Syrian and Palestinian princes at karkar.ahab had 10,000 soldiers and 2,000 chariots. In the 18th year of his reign shalmanser received tribute from jehu of the house of omni(ahabs father). This 12 years period shows that there is not enough time for ahaziah reigning 2 years and jehoram ruling 12 years and jehu ruling some unspecified time. This totals up to more than the 12 years recorded by shalmanser III between ahab and jehu.

In addition the king of moab,mesha, rebelled against Jehoshaphat and he had a stella made ,recording his conquest of samaria and Judah. Mesha’s stella says that he revolted in the middle of the reign of omni’s son,(ahab). But the false version of II kings states that mesha rebelled after ahab died in battle. clearly this is false.

Finally king ahab wrote a letter to ahknaton from the city of sidon.his wife jezebel was the daughter of the king of sidon and in his old age he left his city of gubla capital of Israel when the forces of the king of Syria were closing in on him. So there is evidence in the form of a cuneiform tablet, ahab did not die at ramoth gilead and lived to a old age though in exile.

The el amarna tablets are written in Assyro-babylonian(akkadian), so there is no confusion about what is written. In the letters from sumer-sumura-samaria ,the king’s name is Rib-Addi. kings had 5 -9 different names and some the names given in the scriptures are not even correct because many of the Hebrew kings names were given 5-6 hundred years later when the scriptures were written down. Rib-Addi means “the elder brother of the father. Ahab in Hebrew means Ah-brother Ab -father .
It is not certain that Jehoshaphat’s was the original name of the king of Jerusalem as it was probably given centuries later to commemorate Jehoshaphat’s devotion to Yahweh as it means” yahwe is the judge”.it was Jehoshaphat that sent the laws of yahwe to the princes of the city states and he also established a court for the laws of yahwe. His name in the el Amarna letters was Abdi-Hiba king of Jerusalem but as the cuneiform texts can be translate alphabetically or pictographically, there are several ways to translate the name. one method of Jehoshaphat’s name in Hebrew is ebed-tov which means good servant.other variation of abdi-hiba are puti-hiba, aradhepa or arthahepa
Akhnaton’s throne name in the letters was naphuria and hisfather, amenhotep was called nimmuria. But in none of the correspondences was the names akhnaton or amenhotep used
The tablets reveal correspondence with the king of sumura( samaria) and the king of urusalim(Jerusalem), there is no mistake. But if ankhnaton lived in the 15th century bc… then there was no city of Jerusalem, there was noof country of or samaria/israel or Judah.
In addition Hebrew loan words were used in the letters, the Hebrew used was a Syrian dialect. yet in 1500 bc the Hebrew language did not exist not did the historical Hebrews for that matter.
The el Amarna letters parallel much of the history recorded in II chronicle and II kings
In the 9th bc the kings of Palestine and Syria were vassals of the king of Egypt. the king of Egypt had governors in palaces of the kings. the exception was Jerusalem as the king there had no governor in his citythough he was too a vassal, the king had more autonomy that the other kings of the regions.
The scriptures downplay if not out right ignores the political reality of those times.
For example in II chronicles 17:14-19 Jehoshaphat’s captains are enumerated as Adnan, jehohanan ,amasiah son of zichri, eliada and jehozabad.
But these captains were beholding to the king of Egypt and 3 of them wrote directly to the pharaoh in the discussion of military matters.
Their names in the el Amarna letters were addudani for adna. A Assyrian inscriptions names ada danu as a prince of gaza(palestine).the son of zichri is called the son of zuchru in the el armarna letters. jehozabad is called iahzibada vin these letters . these were chiefs of the army but they corresponded directly with the king of Egypt ,though their expressions of obeisance to the king of Egypt show they were in a subordinate position compared to the king of Jerusalem.
Another example is from II chronicles 18:25: then the king of Israel said ,take thou micah (the prophet) and carry him back to Amon the governor of the city and to joash the king’s son.”
Here the name amon marks the man as Egyptian and it is stated he was the governor . but it is not made clear that amon was a governor appointed by the king of Egypt. In fact in this time the king of Egypt was responsible for naming the new kings after a death of a king. This is mentioned in chronicles. amon as a functionary of the king of Egypt wrote letters to the king. In these letters his name was aman-appa. Amon was for attacking the king of Damascus but the prophet micah preached to jehoshaphat against war with Damascus. This is why in the above quote(II Chronicles17:14-19 ) that micah was given to amon to carry him away to the city. Amon’s (aman-appa) seniority over the king is shown because he is named before the king’s son joash. This is another example of the fact that the kings of Palestine were vassal.the king of sumara/samaria and Jerusalem also had lessor vassal princes that brought them tribute.
Mesha king of moab was a vassal to jehoshaphat .II kings 3:4and mesha king of moab was a sheepmaster and rendered to the king of Israel a hundred thousand lambs and a hundred thousand rams with wool.
The correlations with book of chronicle and kings with the Amarna letters goes on and on.
Both speak of two invasions by the king of Damascus/Syria(ben hadad)
I Kings 20:1 and ben hadad the king of Syria gathered all his host together: and there were thirty and two kings with him.and horses and chariots
EL Amarna Letter 90 : all the major chieftains are one with Abdi-Asshirta(the scriptures call the king of syria/Damascus:ben hadad.josephus flavius quoting a older source wrote that ben hadad was the generic name for the king of Damascus. in the el Amarna letters ,it is recorded that there were two kings of Damascus mentioned adbi-ashirta/abduastarti and his son azura/hazael. But dr velikovsky pointed out that for unknown reasons the scribes of the scriptures called both kings of Damascus ben hadad. Later scriptural researchers’ labeled them ben hadad I and ben Hadad II.) .many EL Amarna letters said” hostility against sumur has become very great
I Kings 20:19 so these young men of the governors of the provinces came out of the city and the army followed them.12 and the king of Israel went out and smote the horses and chariots and slew the Syrians with a great slaughter.
Here again, the young men of the governors were the elite guards of the Egyptian governors . there were usually less than 100 men but they had the backing of the Egyptian army. when the “young men of the governors” appeared on the field of battle, the opposing forces usually ran away because they knew the forces of the pharaoh were behind them.
Letter 120” who can stand against the soldier’s of the king”(Egyptian king)
Letter 138: formerly abdi-ashirta conquered sumurri,I protected the city by my own hand. I had no garrison.but I wrote the king(ankhnaton).my , lord,and soldiers came and thy took sumuri
the king of Damascus had taken sumuri/samaria and it was with the Egyptian royal troops that the king of Damascus was driven back out of sumuri. The scriptures are written in such a way that it seems that the king of Israel /ahab, drove the Syrians back by himself but that was not the case as the el Amarna letters reveal.
A year after the previous battle the Syrians attacked again.they Syrians were defeated again
This time the king of Damascus was captured but king ahab instead of killing him, established a covenant and let the king of Damascus go free.
I Kings 20:31-34……….”the kings of the house are merciful kings..go out to the kiing of Israel……..came to the king of israel and said,thy servant ben hadad saith, I pray thee,let me live. And he said,is he yet alive? he is my brother. Now the men did diligently observe… and did hastily catch it: and they said Thy brother ben hadad.then he said go ye, bring him.then ben hadad came forth to him and he caused him to come up into the chariot. And ben hadad said unto him, the cities which my father took from thy father,I will restore: and thou shall make the streets for thee in Damascus as my father made in Samaria. And then said Ahab, I will send thee away with this covenant.so he made a covenant with him and sent him away
This incident is also recorded in the el armarna letters
:letter 117 abdi-ashirta(king of Damascus, ben hadad),with all his belongings to him,was not then taken,as I have said(Ahab)
But a prophet stopped the king and said I Kings 20-42 :….thy life shall go for his(ben hadad) life and thy people for his people .
The covenant lasted only three years II Kings 22-1:and they continued for three years without way between Syria and Israel . then hostilities began again
Further parallels occur in the Syrian wars.
Letter 81 of ahab to the king of egypt: let the king, my lord,know that powerful is the hostility of abdi-ashirta,and that he has taken all my cities to himself
Letter 85 : if one regent would make a common cause with me, then I would drive adbi-shirta out of amurri(Syria)
I Kings 22:4 and he said to jehospahat ,wilt thou go with me to battle to ramoth-gilead?
Jehosaphat and ahab had hostilities between each other previously. but now jehosaphat(a regent of the king of Egypt) agreed to unite with ahab and fight adbi-ashirta at ramoth-gilead.
Again the hand of the king of Egypt is very important here, but from reading the scriptures ,this would not become immediately apparent .
A famine later struck samaria and this event is recorded both in the scriptures and the el armarna letters .II Kings 8:1 the lord hath called for a famine and it shall also come upon the land seven years.
El armarna letter 79:give me something to feed them. I have nothing
Letter 83……give grain for my provision
Letter 85 :there is no grain for our support.what shall I say to my peasants? their sons and daughters have come to a end…send grain in ships and preserve the life of his servant and his city.

One of the most clear parallels between the scripture and the el Amarna letters concerns the rebellion of the king of moab,mesha. His name is repeated in many of the el armarna letters from ahab and mesha’s rebellion is describe in the scriptures.
II Kings 1:1, 3:5 After the defeat at ramoth gilead,moab rebelled against the king of israel
Letter 68: let the king ,my lord, know….the hostility of the sa.gaz.Mesh troops is very great against me.so let not the king, my lord, hold back from sumur that it be not annexed to the sa.gaz.mesh troops.
letter 69: behold, now they rise up day and night in rebellions against me
Here dr velikovsky had pointed out that the scholars who translated the el Amarna letters placed these letters in the 15th century bc and therefore did not translate sa.gaz. mesh or amelut-gaz-mesh accurately. Sa.gaz-mesh was translates as the sa.gaz people. Mesh is used as a noun not a adjective. And the term gaz-mesha means a man. yet the scholars dropped mesh completely and translated this as the gaz man. When if fact the correct translations is the man called mesh. That is the king of Moab, mesha .

In letter 91 the king of sumer faced defeat at the hands of the rebel mesha:why dost thou sit and hold back,so that he takes thy cities amel-saz-mesh(the rebel mesh),the dog?when he had taken sumura………….so mayest thou give a thousand minas of silver and one hundred minas of gold. Then will he depart from me. And he has taken all my cities

The ransome of gold and siver is alluded to in the scriptures also
I Kings 20: thou shalt deliver me thy siver and thy gold…..
When the king of Jerusalem was under attack: II Chronicles 20:1-3 it came to pass….that the children of moab, and the children of ammon,and with them besides the ammonites came against jehosaphat to battle.then there came some that told jehosphat,saying there cometh a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea,from Syria..and jehosaphat feared
II Chronicles20:6 o lord god of our fathers art not thou god in heaven? And rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen? And in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee.
II Chronicles 20:8-9 :and thy people dwelt therein, and I have built thee a sanctuary therein for your name saying,if, when evil cometh upon us and we cry unto thee in our affliction ,then thou wilt hear and help

The el Amarna letter were written to the king of Egypt. The king of Egypt was regarded as a living diety and the letters to the pharaoh have a similar tone as those to the god of Israel.
Letter 288: let the king care for his land. The land of the king will be lost.all if it will be taken from me:there is hostility to me as far as the lands of seeri and even gintikirmil(this is the same region as mount seir-seeri and in both sources this is the area the invaders came from). there is peace for all the regents ,but to me there is hostility.
Letter 287: verily the king has set his name upon the land of urusalim for ever.therefore he cannot abandon the lands of urusalim (Jerusalem )
The appeal to the lord of heaven and the plea to the lord of earth are of the same nature

The el armarna letters and II kings-II chronicles both talk of the plague that struck samaria ,both talk of the famine and drought that struck samaria, both talk about the rebellion of mesha and many more topics are covered in both sources,

So why have the black magicians altered the time line of history by 600-800 years?
The reason was to separate the pharaoh ankhnaton from the times of king ahab and king Jehoshaphat.
This time period is the beginning of the levite belief in one god. at this time all the ancient world was polytheistic .
Yahweh had a consort, asherah in the ninth century and throughout the early history the tribes of israel worshiped the indigenous mother goddess.but the levites wanted to establish their rule over Judah and Israel by raising Yahweh, a cult god, to the creator god and thereby supplant the indigenous mother goddess religion
Excavations in 1976 found pottery shard at Kuntillet `Ajrud with allusions to Yahweh and asherah.
http://wbs.edu/2016/09/pondering-spa...-ajrud-pithoi/
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...ptian-god-bes/
http://www.lebtahor.com/Archaeology/...scriptions.htm
Asherah is a name for the mother goddess and it is the name for the enclosure that held the sacred serpent. The sacred serpent had always been a feminine symbol until the Yahwistic editors of the torah turned the serpent into a masculine symbol . Asherah is also associated with sacred trees and groves.
How could Yahweh be a creator god when he was a consort to asherah, a mother goddess symbol.
To make Yahweh the sole creator god, the connections between king akhnaton the first monotheist In history, had to be separated from Jehoshaphat and ahab. There could be no connection between the monotheism of ankhnaton and the reign of Jehoshaphat ,who instituted the laws of Yahweh to the cities of Israel.

1 Kings 22:29-36 34 35………………………………. All day long the battle raged, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Arameans. The blood from his wound ran onto the floor of the chariot, and that evening he died. The second (accepted story of ahab) dying in battle fulfils a prophecy by Elisha that “.. dogs ‘shall lick thy blood….dogs shall eat Jezebel by the walls of jezreel.”this is a clear attempt to discredit the mother goddess religion, Belial / Beliar /Belias. The second version is a obvious attempt to rewrite history and show elisha’s prophecy to be true and to erase the influence of the mother goddess under jezebel.
As the death of ahab is fabricated, It is likely that the story of jezebel is also fabricated.king ahab reigned for about 9 more years after the event describe a ramoth gilead ,therefore it seems unlikely that jezebel could have been killed and eaten by dogs while ahab was the king.it seem again that the levites were trying to establish the validity of Yahweh and his prophet,Elisha .
The second version is a obvious attempt to rewrite history and show elisha’s prophecy to be true and to erase the influence of the mother goddess under jezebel.that this version is a fabrication is shown by the true circumstances surrounding this event that are written in the black stone obelisk of Shalamanser III, the inscribed stone stella of king mesha and the clay tablets of the archive of akhnaton. the scripture including these verses were not written down for 500-700 years after the facts.
What is clear is that the levites wrote these books to exclude the importance of the mother goddess religion, to continue their supplanting of the religious life of the Hebrew peoples with the cult god Yahweh.
This obfuscation of history continues into modern times.
It is interesting that Darwin’s theory of evolution was really formulated to replace the concept of a creator god with a purposeless, random, moral framework. This is just the moral framework that the robber barons and merchants of death needed to convince humanity that lies, deceit,greed and death by wars are the “natural” state pf humanity.

Last edited by rahu; 05-31-2018 at 01:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Unread 05-31-2018, 03:57 AM
david starling david starling is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahu View Post
16657

on page 93 of his book Ramese and His Times, dr Velikovsky wrote:

"by the same black magic that has distorted the past of mankind by 5 to 8 centuries ,this first hand material was ascribed to the wrong millennium and to the wrong people."
here is talking about the misidentified Hittite empire, but the importance is that this is the only time I had ever read dr velikovsky use the term black magic. dr velikovsky never veered off from scientific explainable cause and effect but here he was using concepts that I have used to describe the dominance and rulership of our civilization by "black magicians ".

but what purpose would the fraud of science serve, especially the fallacious counting of ancient times?
To answer this, we must start a point of irrefutable censorship or misrepresentation.
Dr Immanuel velikovsky saw that the time line of the middle east is off by 6oo-800 years. He presents the evidence both archeologically and scholarly of this archeoloogical mistake by analyzing the El Amarna cuneiform tablets of the library at Akhet-aton, the city of the 18th dynastyking,Akhnaton .
These tablets contain correspondences with the king of samaria, king of Jerusalem, 2 king of Damascus.king of cyprus and several more rulers and reference to the king of Moab. These correspondences correlate with scripture in 11kings and 11chronicle.
In addition there are other inscriptions from shalmaneser111 and form the stella of king mesha that give independent historical perspectives of the 9th century bc, the time of ankhnaten, king ahab of Israel , king Jehoshaphat of judah ,shalamanser III king of the assyrians .

The point of reference in time to begin searching the reason for the misrepresentation of the historical records begins with two scriptural references to the battle at ramoth-gilead between the alliance of king ahab and king jehoshasphat against the king of damascus who the scriptures call ben-hadad.

1 Kings 22:29-36 34………………………………. But someone drew his bow at random and hit the king of Israel between the sections of his armor. The king told his chariot driver, “Wheel around and get me out of the fighting. I’ve been wounded.” 35 All day long the battle raged, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Arameans. The blood from his wound ran onto the floor of the chariot, and that evening he died. 36 As the sun was setting, a cry spread through the army: “Every man to his town. Every man to his land!”

The discrepancy is that ahab is wounded In battle and leaves the field of combat But the next line tells of ahab staying in the field of combat and dying.
. But other sources tell of Ahab recovering and going on to live for 1-2 years after Jehoshaphat dies. This scriptural difference about ahabs death results in the next discrepancies in the scriptures.

II kings 1:17 and jehoram reigned in his(Ahaziah’s-ahabs son))stead in the second year of jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah.
Ii Kings 3:1 now jehoram the son of ahab began to reign over Israel in samaria in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat of Judah.
Jehoshaphat ruled for 25 years as stated in II chronicles 20:31.

The first version, 1:17,has jehoram reigning in samaria after the son of ahab(ahaziah) ruled for a short time after the death of ahab a few years after the death of Jehoshaphat. This places jehoram’s reign approximately 9 years after the battle at ramoth gilead.
The second version,3:1, has jehoram reign from the supposed death of ahab at the battle of ramoth gilead in the 18th years of Jehoshaphat . so here jehoram started his reign 7 years before the time given in the the first version. Dr velikovsky states that the first briefer versions is the older of the two versions.

Dr velikovsky further points out that because there is confusion about who reigned after the battle of Ramoth Gilead , after the battle ,in the scriptures, the king of Samaria is never named. Throughout the further scriptures it is stated the king of Judah was Jehoshaphat but the king of israel is never called by name. this is probably because the scribes were confused by the two versions of scripture and therefore did not know who was the king of Samaria .
The 9 year discrepancy becomes a land mark because most of the letters from the El Amarna tablets pertain to these years.

Another problem is that jehoram was Jehoshaphat’s son not ahabs son as written in 11chronicles 21:6.

Two other ancient archeological inscriptions also show that the version of Abab dying is false.
The inscriptions on black obelisk of shalmanser III records that in his 6th year he battled a coalition of Syrian and Palestinian princes at karkar.ahab had 10,000 soldiers and 2,000 chariots. In the 18th year of his reign shalmanser received tribute from jehu of the house of omni(ahabs father). This 12 years period shows that there is not enough time for ahaziah reigning 2 years and jehoram ruling 12 years and jehu ruling some unspecified time. This totals up to more than the 12 years recorded by shalmanser III between ahab and jehu.

In addition the king of moab,mesha, rebelled against Jehoshaphat and he had a stella made ,recording his conquest of samaria and Judah. Mesha’s stella says that he revolted in the middle of the reign of omni’s son,(ahab). But the false version of II kings states that mesha rebelled after ahab died in battle. clearly this is false.

Finally king ahab wrote a letter to ahknaton from the city of sidon.his wife jezebel was the daughter of the king of sidon and in his old age he left his city of gubla capital of Israel when the forces of the king of Syria were closing in on him. So there is evidence in the form of a cuneiform tablet, ahab did not die at ramoth gilead and lived to a old age though in exile.

The el amarna tablets are written in Assyro-babylonian(akkadian), so there is no confusion about what is written. In the letters from sumer-sumura-samaria ,the king’s name is Rib-Addi. kings had 5 -9 different names and some the names given in the scriptures are not even correct because many of the Hebrew kings names were given 5-6 hundred years later when the scriptures were written down. Rib-Addi means “the elder brother of the father. Ahab in Hebrew means Ah-brother Ab -father .
It is not certain that Jehoshaphat’s was the original name of the king of Jerusalem as it was probably given centuries later to commemorate Jehoshaphat’s devotion to Yahweh as it means” yahwe is the judge”.it was Jehoshaphat that sent the laws of yahwe to the princes of the city states and he also established a court for the laws of yahwe. His name in the el Amarna letters was Abdi-Hiba king of Jerusalem but as the cuneiform texts can be translate alphabetically or pictographically, there are several ways to translate the name. one method of Jehoshaphat’s name in Hebrew is ebed-tov which means good servant.other variation of abdi-hiba are puti-hiba, aradhepa or arthahepa
Akhnaton’s throne name in the letters was naphuria and hisfather, amenhotep was called nimmuria. But in none of the correspondences was the names akhnaton or amenhotep used
The tablets reveal correspondence with the king of sumura( samaria) and the king of urusalim(Jerusalem), there is no mistake. But if ankhnaton lived in the 15th century bc… then there was no city of Jerusalem, there was noof country of or samaria/israel or Judah.
In addition Hebrew loan words were used in the letters, the Hebrew used was a Syrian dialect. yet in 1500 bc the Hebrew language did not exist not did the historical Hebrews for that matter.
The el Amarna letters parallel much of the history recorded in II chronicle and II kings
In the 9th bc the kings of Palestine and Syria were vassals of the king of Egypt. the king of Egypt had governors in palaces of the kings. the exception was Jerusalem as the king there had no governor in his citythough he was too a vassal, the king had more autonomy that the other kings of the regions.
The scriptures downplay if not out right ignores the political reality of those times.
For example in II chronicles 17:14-19 Jehoshaphat’s captains are enumerated as Adnan, jehohanan ,amasiah son of zichri, eliada and jehozabad.
But these captains were beholding to the king of Egypt and 3 of them wrote directly to the pharaoh in the discussion of military matters.
Their names in the el Amarna letters were addudani for adna. A Assyrian inscriptions names ada danu as a prince of gaza(palestine).the son of zichri is called the son of zuchru in the el armarna letters. jehozabad is called iahzibada vin these letters . these were chiefs of the army but they corresponded directly with the king of Egypt ,though their expressions of obeisance to the king of Egypt show they were in a subordinate position compared to the king of Jerusalem.
Another example is from II chronicles 18:25: then the king of Israel said ,take thou micah (the prophet) and carry him back to Amon the governor of the city and to joash the king’s son.”
Here the name amon marks the man as Egyptian and it is stated he was the governor . but it is not made clear that amon was a governor appointed by the king of Egypt. In fact in this time the king of Egypt was responsible for naming the new kings after a death of a king. This is mentioned in chronicles. amon as a functionary of the king of Egypt wrote letters to the king. In these letters his name was aman-appa. Amon was for attacking the king of Damascus but the prophet micah preached to jehoshaphat against war with Damascus. This is why in the above quote(II Chronicles17:14-19 ) that micah was given to amon to carry him away to the city. Amon’s (aman-appa) seniority over the king is shown because he is named before the king’s son joash. This is another example of the fact that the kings of Palestine were vassal.the king of sumara/samaria and Jerusalem also had lessor vassal princes that brought them tribute.
Mesha king of moab was a vassal to jehoshaphat .II kings 3:4and mesha king of moab was a sheepmaster and rendered to the king of Israel a hundred thousand lambs and a hundred thousand rams with wool.
The correlations with book of chronicle and kings with the Amarna letters goes on and on.
Both speak of two invasions by the king of Damascus/Syria(ben hadad)
I Kings 20:1 and ben hadad the king of Syria gathered all his host together: and there were thirty and two kings with him.and horses and chariots
EL Amarna Letter 90 : all the major chieftains are one with Abdi-Asshirta(the scriptures call the king of syria/Damascus:ben hadad.josephus flavius quoting a older source wrote that ben hadad was the generic name for the king of Damascus. in the el Amarna letters ,it is recorded that there were two kings of Damascus mentioned adbi-ashirta/abduastarti and his son azura/hazael. But dr velikovsky pointed out that for unknown reasons the scribes of the scriptures called both kings of Damascus ben hadad. Later scriptural researchers’ labeled them ben hadad I and ben Hadad II.) .many EL Amarna letters said” hostility against sumur has become very great
I Kings 20:19 so these young men of the governors of the provinces came out of the city and the army followed them.12 and the king of Israel went out and smote the horses and chariots and slew the Syrians with a great slaughter.
Here again, the young men of the governors were the elite guards of the Egyptian governors . there were usually less than 100 men but they had the backing of the Egyptian army. when the “young men of the governors” appeared on the field of battle, the opposing forces usually ran away because they knew the forces of the pharaoh were behind them.
Letter 120” who can stand against the soldier’s of the king”(Egyptian king)
Letter 138: formerly abdi-ashirta conquered sumurri,I protected the city by my own hand. I had no garrison.but I wrote the king(ankhnaton).my , lord,and soldiers came and thy took sumuri
the king of Damascus had taken sumuri/samaria and it was with the Egyptian royal troops that the king of Damascus was driven back out of sumuri. The scriptures are written in such a way that it seems that the king of Israel /ahab, drove the Syrians back by himself but that was not the case as the el Amarna letters reveal.
A year after the previous battle the Syrians attacked again.they Syrians were defeated again
This time the king of Damascus was captured but king ahab instead of killing him, established a covenant and let the king of Damascus go free.
I Kings 20:31-34……….”the kings of the house are merciful kings..go out to the kiing of Israel……..came to the king of israel and said,thy servant ben hadad saith, I pray thee,let me live. And he said,is he yet alive? he is my brother. Now the men did diligently observe… and did hastily catch it: and they said Thy brother ben hadad.then he said go ye, bring him.then ben hadad came forth to him and he caused him to come up into the chariot. And ben hadad said unto him, the cities which my father took from thy father,I will restore: and thou shall make the streets for thee in Damascus as my father made in Samaria. And then said Ahab, I will send thee away with this covenant.so he made a covenant with him and sent him away
This incident is also recorded in the el armarna letters
:letter 117 abdi-ashirta(king of Damascus, ben hadad),with all his belongings to him,was not then taken,as I have said(Ahab)
But a prophet stopped the king and said I Kings 20-42 :….thy life shall go for his(ben hadad) life and thy people for his people .
The covenant lasted only three years II Kings 22-1:and they continued for three years without way between Syria and Israel . then hostilities began again
Further parallels occur in the Syrian wars.
Letter 81 of ahab to the king of egypt: let the king, my lord,know that powerful is the hostility of abdi-ashirta,and that he has taken all my cities to himself
Letter 85 : if one regent would make a common cause with me, then I would drive adbi-shirta out of amurri(Syria)
I Kings 22:4 and he said to jehospahat ,wilt thou go with me to battle to ramoth-gilead?
Jehosaphat and ahab had hostilities between each other previously. but now jehosaphat(a regent of the king of Egypt) agreed to unite with ahab and fight adbi-ashirta at ramoth-gilead.
Again the hand of the king of Egypt is very important here, but from reading the scriptures ,this would not become immediately apparent .
A famine later struck samaria and this event is recorded both in the scriptures and the el armarna letters .II Kings 8:1 the lord hath called for a famine and it shall also come upon the land seven years.
El armarna letter 79:give me something to feed them. I have nothing
Letter 83……give grain for my provision
Letter 85 :there is no grain for our support.what shall I say to my peasants? their sons and daughters have come to a end…send grain in ships and preserve the life of his servant and his city.

One of the most clear parallels between the scripture and the el Amarna letters concerns the rebellion of the king of moab,mesha. His name is repeated in many of the el armarna letters from ahab and mesha’s rebellion is describe in the scriptures.
II Kings 1:1, 3:5 After the defeat at ramoth gilead,moab rebelled against the king of israel
Letter 68: let the king ,my lord, know….the hostility of the sa.gaz.Mesh troops is very great against me.so let not the king, my lord, hold back from sumur that it be not annexed to the sa.gaz.mesh troops.
letter 69: behold, now they rise up day and night in rebellions against me
Here dr velikovsky had pointed out that the scholars who translated the el Amarna letters placed these letters in the 15th century bc and therefore did not translate sa.gaz. mesh or amelut-gaz-mesh accurately. Sa.gaz-mesh was translates as the sa.gaz people. Mesh is used as a noun not a adjective. And the term gaz-mesha means a man. yet the scholars dropped mesh completely and translated this as the gaz man. When if fact the correct translations is the man called mesh. That is the king of Moab, mesha .

In letter 91 the king of sumer faced defeat at the hands of the rebel mesha:why dost thou sit and hold back,so that he takes thy cities amel-saz-mesh(the rebel mesh),the dog?when he had taken sumura………….so mayest thou give a thousand minas of silver and one hundred minas of gold. Then will he depart from me. And he has taken all my cities

The ransome of gold and siver is alluded to in the scriptures also
I Kings 20: thou shalt deliver me thy siver and thy gold…..
When the king of Jerusalem was under attack: II Chronicles 20:1-3 it came to pass….that the children of moab, and the children of ammon,and with them besides the ammonites came against jehosaphat to battle.then there came some that told jehosphat,saying there cometh a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea,from Syria..and jehosaphat feared
II Chronicles20:6 o lord god of our fathers art not thou god in heaven? And rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen? And in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee.
II Chronicles 20:8-9 :and thy people dwelt therein, and I have built thee a sanctuary therein for your name saying,if, when evil cometh upon us and we cry unto thee in our affliction ,then thou wilt hear and help

The el Amarna letter were written to the king of Egypt. The king of Egypt was regarded as a living diety and the letters to the pharaoh have a similar tone as those to the god of Israel.
Letter 288: let the king care for his land. The land of the king will be lost.all if it will be taken from me:there is hostility to me as far as the lands of seeri and even gintikirmil(this is the same region as mount seir-seeri and in both sources this is the area the invaders came from). there is peace for all the regents ,but to me there is hostility.
Letter 287: verily the king has set his name upon the land of urusalim for ever.therefore he cannot abandon the lands of urusalim (Jerusalem )
The appeal to the lord of heaven and the plea to the lord of earth are of the same nature

The el armarna letters and II kings-II chronicles both talk of the plague that struck samaria ,both talk of the famine and drought that struck samaria, both talk about the rebellion of mesha and many more topics are covered in both sources,

So why have the black magicians altered the time line of history by 600-800 years?
The reason was to separate the pharaoh ankhnaton from the times of king ahab and king Jehoshaphat.
This time period is the beginning of the levite belief in one god. at this time all the ancient world was polytheistic .
Yahweh had a consort, asherah in the ninth century and throughout the early history the tribes of israel worshiped the indigenous mother goddess.but the levites wanted to establish their rule over Judah and Israel by raising Yahweh, a cult god, to the creator god and thereby supplant the indigenous mother goddess religion
Excavations in 1976 found pottery shard at Kuntillet `Ajrud with allusions to Yahweh and asherah.
http://wbs.edu/2016/09/pondering-spa...-ajrud-pithoi/
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...ptian-god-bes/
http://www.lebtahor.com/Archaeology/...scriptions.htm
Asherah is a name for the mother goddess and it is the name for the enclosure that held the sacred serpent. The sacred serpent had always been a feminine symbol until the Yahwistic editors of the torah turned the serpent into a masculine symbol . Asherah is also associated with sacred trees and groves.
How could Yahweh be a creator god when he was a consort to asherah, a mother goddess symbol.
To make Yahweh the sole creator god, the connections between king akhnaton the first monotheist In history, had to be separated from Jehoshaphat and ahab. There could be no connection between the monotheism of ankhnaton and the reign of Jehoshaphat ,who instituted the laws of Yahweh to the cities of Israel.

1 Kings 22:29-36 34 35………………………………. All day long the battle raged, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Arameans. The blood from his wound ran onto the floor of the chariot, and that evening he died. The second (accepted story of ahab) dying in battle fulfils a prophecy by Elisha that “.. dogs ‘shall lick thy blood….dogs shall eat Jezebel by the walls of jezreel.”this is a clear attempt to discredit the mother goddess religion, Belial / Beliar /Belias. The second version is a obvious attempt to rewrite history and show elisha’s prophecy to be true and to erase the influence of the mother goddess under jezebel.
As the death of ahab is fabricated, It is likely that the story of jezebel is also fabricated.king ahab reigned for about 9 more years after the event describe a ramoth gilead ,therefore it seems unlikely that jezebel could have been killed and eaten by dogs while ahab was the king.it seem again that the levites were trying to establish the validity of Yahweh and his prophet,Elisha .
The second version is a obvious attempt to rewrite history and show elisha’s prophecy to be true and to erase the influence of the mother goddess under jezebel.that this version is a fabrication is shown by the true circumstances surrounding this event that are written in the black stone obelisk of Shalamanser III, the inscribed stone stella of king mesha and the clay tablets of the archive of akhnaton. the scripture including these verses were not written down for 500-700 years after the facts.
What is clear is that the levites wrote these books to exclude the importance of the mother goddess religion, to continue their supplanting of the religious life of the Hebrew peoples with the cult god Yahweh.
This obfuscation of history continues into modern times.
It is interesting that Darwin’s theory of evolution was really formulated to replace the concept of a creator god with a purposeless, random, moral framework. This is just the moral framework that the robber barons and merchants of death needed to convince humanity that lies, deceit,greed and death by wars are the “natural” state pf humanity.
When does Velikovsky place the Exodus? Also, true monotheism requires that only one god is believed to exist. Ankhenaton considered himself a god, and the Sun-god Ra (or, Re) as well, apart from the Aton--so, not true monotheism. The Hebrew scripture refers to "no other gods before Him", not "no other gods". True monotheism begins with Christianity and Islam, and even the concept of a Trinity is somewhat suspect regarding monotheism.

Last edited by david starling; 05-31-2018 at 03:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Unread 05-31-2018, 03:17 PM
Culpeper's Avatar
Culpeper Culpeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,183
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Holy walls of text Batman! I do not really see what all this has to do with science. Contradictions of the Bible? Theology?
__________________
The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they are genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln

And the wild regrets and the bloody sweats, None knew so well as I. For he who lives more lives than one, More deaths than one must die. -- Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Unread 05-31-2018, 04:15 PM
david starling david starling is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,695
Smile Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
Holy walls of text Batman! I do not really see what all this has to do with science. Contradictions of the Bible? Theology?
History is considered science when it's backed up by archeology.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Unread 05-31-2018, 09:21 PM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by david starling View Post
When does Velikovsky place the Exodus? Also, true monotheism requires that only one god is believed to exist. Ankhenaton considered himself a god, and the Sun-god Ra (or, Re) as well, apart from the Aton--so, not true monotheism. The Hebrew scripture refers to "no other gods before Him", not "no other gods". True monotheism begins with Christianity and Islam, and even the concept of a Trinity is somewhat suspect regarding monotheism.
dr velikovsky placed the exodus at the beginning of the second intermediate period. which is about 1500 bc using his adjusted historical time line.

dr velikovsky believed that true monotheism did not begin to be conceptualized until the reign of king Hezekiah of judah
about 700 bc.

True monotheism begins with Christianity and Islam

well of course , this assumes that jesus was god which historically is not validated. the church in Jerusalem headed by his brother james did not consider jesus as a god. for that matter jesus only became a god when Constantine forced the bishops of the church to vote jesus as a god.

then Islam as early Christianity is full of lessor spirits/angels or demons/jinns.... so what exactly is monotheism?

akhnaton was the first to place one god to be worshiped to the exclusion of all others. which essentially what Christianity and Islam have done.

rahu
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rahu For This Useful Post:
david starling (06-01-2018)
  #249  
Unread 05-31-2018, 09:29 PM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
Holy walls of text Batman! I do not really see what all this has to do with science. Contradictions of the Bible? Theology?
I do not really see what all this has to do with science.

this shows that science is not an empirical, deductive system of thought but only a replacement of the religious impulse of humanity. science has become a religion not a objective parameter of society because science ignores any data that invalidates it's essentially subjective matrix.
rahu
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Unread 05-31-2018, 09:31 PM
david starling david starling is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,695
Smile Re: Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by rahu View Post
dr velikovsky placed the exodus at the beginning of the second intermediate period. which is about 1500 bc using his adjusted historical time line.

dr velikovsky believed that true monotheism did not begin to be conceptualized until the reign of king Hezekiah of judah
about 700 bc.

True monotheism begins with Christianity and Islam

well of course , this assumes that jesus was god which historically is not validated. the church in Jerusalem headed by his brother james did not consider jesus as a god. for that matter jesus only became a god when Constantine forced the bishops of the church to vote jesus as a god.

then Islam as early Christianity is full of lessor spirits/angels or demons/jinns.... so what exactly is monotheism?

akhnaton was the first to place one god to be worshiped to the exclusion of all others. which essentially what Christianity and Islam have done.

rahu
Akhnaton never renounced his own status of godhood, and continued to consider Ra a god also. But his concentration was on the Aton, as god of the horizon, which relates to the god Horus. Saying it was monotheistic is an oversimplification. He did stop worshipping Osirus, god of the Underworld.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 07:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.