[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12[3]456789 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:35
Author: Larry Koler
Subject: Re: Reply To Ketch
In reply to: Mike Drake - 4 Jun 2001 's message, "Re: Reply To Ketch" on 11:17

I'm glad that you quoted what Swami Sri Yukteswar actually wrote in his introduction to his book, "The Holy Science".

Here's what is at contention: Is there a star (dark star it would have to be) that is gravitationally bound to our sun? There have been many legitimate scientific conjectures on the possibility of a 10th planet or large body beyond the orbit of Pluto. JPL scientists have even tried to use the two Pioneer probes and the Voyager probes to find it.
(just to start, see http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00793.htm - please don't write back about the period [700-1000 years] being too short -- this is preliminary and is offered to confirm that there has been such a search.)

You might ask yourself how Sri Yukteswar could postulate something like this in 1896, especially since he was relying on even earlier information from Chinese astronomers. Most stars have a dual and it just might be that we have a highly eccentric orbiting 1) large mass at a long distance or 2) a smaller planet at a shorter distance.

Then all that must be accounted for is how this planet's period -- we know the accurate precession of the equinoxes is 26,000 years not 24,000 years -- could possibly influence Earth's precession. Well, consider that many long recurring periodic influences cause "locking in" of their period to a close (a relative term) object -- for example, the moon is locked into the Earth always presenting one face to the Earth.

If this house of cards holds together, then it is possible that the angle of the Earth's axis to the ecliptic may not be a random value, but that 23 degrees (approx.) is that which causes our planets precession to lock into the period of this planet X or dark star. As I hope you know, the two important variables in precession are 1) angular momementum and 2) the angle of the equatorial bulge of the Earth to the plane of interaction.

I am fascinated by ancient knowledge. The Piri Reis map and others show things about Antarctica's coastline at the Ross Ice Shelf that have not been visible for over 4,000 years. How do these maps have this information?

This planet and our race's sojourn on it are very, very mysterious. We have to do more than act humble -- we must learn to BE humble.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.