Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Zarkov

Celestrial Clock

Recommended Posts

http://hometown.aol.com/MetPhys/20bodeslaw.html

 

If you knock off a mere seven days from the commonly thought value for Pluto?s orbit around the Sun of 90,727 days, you get 90,720 days. Chatelain explains that since we haven?t observed an entire orbit of Pluto yet with modern instruments, this is a perfectly excusable margin of error. When you divide this round number into the Nineveh Constant of 19.5 x 1010 or 2,268 million days, you get - are you ready? - 25,000.

 

Yes, it is true! The Great Solar Cycle is very close to being 25,000 of Earth?s years in length, and the Nineveh Cycle is exactly 25,000 of Pluto?s years!

 

....At this point, we must start to seriously question whether or not the entire Solar System itself did not haphazardly arrange into its present configuration, but was put that way."

 

From my work in the spin gravity thread, now prematurely closed, for reasons I do not understand, the whole of the Universe is a Celestial Clock.

 

Everything that occurs in this solar system is iintimately related, so related that a chance encounter of the collision kind, that supposedly created the Moon, would show up clearly in calculations.

 

From the above snipet of a "exaggerated" article, I found this number, the Nineveh number.

 

"The staggering figures on these fascinating tablets were originally ignored as the ramblings of weak - minded Sumerians obsessed with numbers. From what we are now seeing already with the sunspot cycles, we need to start giving ancient civilizations a great deal more credit than this. Chatelain’s attention was drawn to the number 195,955,200,000, and he explains in his book how this is the expression of 70 multiplied seven times by 60. [For simplicity's sake, we will shorten this number to 19.5 x 10^10.

 

I am truely amazed that a civilisation had recorded this number, as it is truely an astronomical constant, directly related to the conservation of angular momentum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Zarkov

....At this point, we must start to seriously question whether or not the entire Solar System itself did not haphazardly arrange into its present configuration, but was put that way."

 

...

 

Everything that occurs in this solar system is iintimately related, so related that a chance encounter of the collision kind, that supposedly created the Moon, would show up clearly in calculations.

 

Careful. Remember paragraph IV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dogma is no substitute for data!

 

Oh, well Sayonara, I am not out to even discuss anthing of interest on this forum. Just letting you know that from what I know, and there is good evidence in the spin gravity thread, that this understanding from the past is more than curious :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Zarkov

Dogma is no substitute for data!

No no no. Not 'rule 4', the fourth paragraph in the post as a whole :D

 

I wouldn't call any of your post 'dogma', Zark. But it does all hinge on the validity of the Nineveh Constant and a bit of mathematical sleight of hand.

 

Still, it is an interesting concept. And there a plenty of atsrological oddities that support the idea of the cosmos moving as one, if you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nineveh constant doesn't even have to be accurate, it's the concept that is important.

Whatever the conditions were, maybe 17,000 years ago, it would be hard for us to tell (the constant might have been accurate....maybe 20,000 years ago ?)

 

Yes just the concept that there was a unifying constant that coud tie all the planets together, and it's ability to be part of everything.

 

I expect it is equal to newtons universal gravitational constant, but it would take our data to prove that.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not suprised there is a mathematical order to the universe. You point out another and they are not coincidences. They are very complicated and the amazing thing is that we can see them.

The universe isn't built by chaos.

Just aman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by aman

The universe isn't built by chaos.

 

actually, it is. there are just rules.

 

oh, and zarkov, if you're going to come up with another theory. spell it right. It should be 'Celestial'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.