Ilkka wrote:So if years kept changing over the "aeons" or ages then how the days and hours were fixed? Or were them days in fixed 24,som hours at the times before?

I looked for information on how many hours/day in the past, but found virtually nothing in ancient history. It appears that "hours" are an artifact of commerce and our industrial society, so you can trade your time for value. The older, agrarian societies had no need to go to work at 8am and come home at 5pm. They just did what needed to be done, when it needed to be done.

But from what we've seen in our solar system, the smaller planets tend to rotate slower (like Mars), so that would indicate as the Earth expands, the days get shorter.

Ilkka wrote:I think if the gravity and mass of the Earth is affecting to time flow then lower the mass slower the time passes, like I read from the recent paper that "day"(back then) was as long as a week nowadays. Unless it was in the gravitational lock times. However the earths mass would be affecting time flow.

It is not so much the mass, as the number of dimensions that exist in coordinate time, from the different speed ranges.

SpaceMan wrote:I had already gone over Bruce Peret's "At the Earth's Core: The Geophysics of Planetary Evolution" which, among other things, sheds light on the issue of radioactive dating being off and its resulting consequences for what most believe to be the chronology of events; however, Bruce's paper was far more conservative in its dating attempts than Daniel's. The relative conservatism is a result of putting references to the mother civilizations in in their traditional time periods which doesn't change the advent age of man nearly as much as Daniel's assertions. My personal view of the sequence of events was left far more intact after "At the Earth's Core" than the shredded and tattered remnants of my chronological view as of now.

You have to blame me for that. I've been working on a computer model of the Reciprocal System for some years, and one of the things that Nehru and I worked on for some time was trying to simulate radioactive decay. It would work for the short half-lives, but no where close to the long half-lives. We only recently discovered that the temporal explosions are not a single event, but recur over intervals, and that interval is determined by the magnetic ionization level. The higher the ionization, the quicker an atom is likely to reach the age limit and explode again. And after realizing that the magnetic ionization level of planets was initially very high, that explained the half-life errors that we encountered in the heavier particles--the decay sequence was correct, but the model was only doing a SINGLE, temporal explosion, not a series (which is being observed and measured). That led to the realization of radiometric dating being WAY off on long-term measurements.

SpaceMan wrote:how can the precession have any coherent precession? It seems as if something would always happen to disrupt the cycle, such as a change in orbit or shift of the axis, before it could be completed. In addition, what; according to RS thinking, would be the cause of the wobble of the axis?

Coherent precession would only occur under static conditions, and the Earth is far from static. (I understand that the axis shifted about 3 feet after the Japan tsunami.)

The wobble is primarily due to motion in coordinate time in the core of the planet; the same cause and reason that the planetary orbits precess, most obvious with Mercury. A couple of papers were written on the mathematics of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, using the coordinate time basis. I'm not sure if I have the papers online; if I do not, I'll see if I can scan them in, as they explain the mathematics in detail. Basically, if you're out of balance, you wobble, and the cores don't line up perfectly, nor rotate at the same rate as the mantle because of the dimensions in coordinate time. The wobble will change every time there is a core flare that changes the dimensions of the inner and outer cores.

SpaceMan wrote:but he may or may not have mentioned the Yuga cycles as well.

I would suggest you read the Surya Siddhanta (Pundit Bapu Deva Sastri), which is the origin of all these Vedic cycles. And rather than just copy the interpretation done by others, take the time to do the "math" yourself and see if the numbers you get a match to the popular values. Also note that the Surya refers to two, distinct chronologies--a mundane (material) and a divine (cosmic) one. If you put them in reciprocal relation to each other, with the mundane accounting for clock time and the divine for clock space, the resulting cycles are actually a pretty good match for daniel's chronology.

SpaceMan wrote:Revisiting the beginning of the 3rd density cycle 75,000 years ago mentioned by Daniel in a footnote on page 3.

I know Daniel believes that Ra got the 75,000 year figure correct, so it does not need adjusting. That may not have been obvious in the footnote.

daniel wrote:It is not so much the mass, as the number of dimensions that exist in coordinate time, from the different speed ranges.

So the mass wouldnt be much of a factor than the different speed ranges?
I gotta read more about them speed ranges anyways because I want to understand this sort of knowledge to some extent. Math is my weakness though, it like comes in from one ear and goes out the other. Im more like "Jack of all trades, master of none" type, knowing something basic about everything, but never too much. I studied basic (or little bit more than just basic) chemistry in "college" kind of school since school system is different in this country than that of in United States and some other countries.

However I think if one wants to get smarter one has to "play" with smarter opponents so thats why im in here, to get more knowledge and get more smarter. And gotta say thanks for the free information as it all should be free, because its all out there.

Ilkka wrote:So the mass wouldnt be much of a factor than the different speed ranges?

"Mass" is just inverse gravity, and both are a 3-dimensional, scalar speed. Larson covers this in his book Beyond Newton. Also, take Albert Einstone's famous equation, E = mc2 and put it into terms of space and time:

t/s = t3/s3 (s/t)2

E (energy) is work, which is the amount of time it takes to move something in space: t/s. c (speed of light) is a speed, s/t. The equation then makes "mass" to be "3-dimensional energy." (Gravity, s3/t3, is just 3D speed.)

When you move FTL, one of those 3 dimensions of mass gets flipped, so you no longer have t3/s3, but t2/s2 -- what was mass is now momentum. Two dimensions FTL and you're back to t/s -- energy. It is still the same "motion," but now it looks like something different, due to the motion in time.

Ilkka wrote:I gotta read more about them speed ranges anyways because I want to understand this sort of knowledge to some extent. Math is my weakness though, it like comes in from one ear and goes out the other. Im more like "Jack of all trades, master of none" type, knowing something basic about everything, but never too much. I studied basic (or little bit more than just basic) chemistry in "college" kind of school since school system is different in this country than that of in United States and some other countries.

Universe of Motion best discusses speed ranges. It is one of several concepts that is unique to the Reciprocal System and not recognized by conventional science. Larson's books are primarily textual and do not contain much math other than division, which is needed to make a reciprocal. That simplicity is one of the things that originally caught my eye.

Ilkka wrote:However I think if one wants to get smarter one has to "play" with smarter opponents so thats why im in here, to get more knowledge and get more smarter. And gotta say thanks for the free information as it all should be free, because its all out there.

Bruce and ISUS have been very helpful about putting out free papers and eBooks on Larson and his Reciprocal System, since they want to help people learn as well. I prefer "real" books, myself, as I like to write notes in the margins and highlight stuff. Yeah, you can comment on PDF, but it's just not the same. There is something more "organic" about using a pencil on paper. Books survive for centuries; PDFs survive until the next hard drive crash!

And I agree with you; you must "play smarter," particularly these days when deception seems to be the rule, and "truth" the exception.

Even if a lot of the discussion is over my head, I really appreciate this forum.

Getting back to the moon David Icke arrived at the conclusion that it is a space vehicle after reading, amongst other things,"Who built the moon" by Chrostopher Knight and Alan Butler and I do like the quote from George Bernard Shaw "I don't know if there are men in the moon, but if there are they must be using the earth as their lunatic asylum".

Also a french psychic Anne Givaudan describes in detail in her book "Alliance" her visit inside the moon.

I'm currently translating the Geochronology paper into German and noticed that the bible citations made by Velikovsky are not to be found in any of the online bible versions, neither English nor German (p.19 of the paper):

The Velikovsky Archive wrote:In Job 25:5 the grandeur of the Lord who “Makes peace in the heights” is praised and the time is mentioned “before [there was] a moon and it did not shine.” Also in Psalm 72:5 it is said: “Thou wast feared since [the time of] the sun and before [the time of] the moon, a generation of generations.”

It's not only that the exact phrase can't be found, no bible has a phrasing containing the word "before" or a similar expression for that matter. I'll try contacting Jan Sammer if I find his email address, maybe he knows which version Velikovsky was citing from.

animus wrote:It's not only that the exact phrase can't be found, no bible has a phrasing containing the word "before" or a similar expression for that matter. I'll try contacting Jan Sammer if I find his email address, maybe he knows which version Velikovsky was citing from.

Psalm 25:5

הן עד־ירח ולא
יאהיל וכוכבים
לא־זכו בעיניו׃

It seems the Hebrew ולא was translated as "before," rather than "no" (general negation). Bracketed words were added by the author to clarify context.

Most of the Bibles are just a slight rehash of the original translations to Latin and Greek, and not translated in modern context. Might want to look at the work of Mauro Biglino.

You can contact Jan through ISUS, as he is a big RS/Larson fan. Drop LoneBear a PM on Antiquatis. Let us know what you find out.

It seems the Hebrew ולא was translated as "before," rather than "no" (general negation). Bracketed words were added by the author to clarify context.

Most of the Bibles are just a slight rehash of the original translations to Latin and Greek, and not translated in modern context. Might want to look at the work of Mauro Biglino.

You can contact Jan through ISUS, as he is a big RS/Larson fan. Drop LoneBear a PM on Antiquatis. Let us know what you find out.

Damn, by this time I already wanted to speak/read Hebrew and Latin among some other languages but then your papers interrupted my langauge marathon I have more forgotten than learned in this regard this past year...
Regarding the "no", in the German versions only in Luther's 1545 it is translated with "not yet", the other translations only contain a simple "[does] not".

I looked for the keyword "moon" in Biglinos "The book that will forever change our ideas about the Bible" and it can be found several times but it isn't related to the above phrases.

animus wrote:I looked for the keyword "moon" in Biglinos "The book that will forever change our ideas about the Bible" and it can be found several times but it isn't related to the above phrases.

I did not mean the moon, specifically, but the fact that the translations of the Bible were done a very long time ago, and done in the context of that period. Biglino did a modern translation, discovering that the Bible wasn't a religious text at all, but a historical document recording the colonization of the planet by extraterrestrials. An example from his works is the Hebrew tselem, commonly translated as "image" (image of God), which for centuries, people have taken to mean a "picture"--that we physically resemble God. The modern translation is more "DNA"... we were made with the DNA of the gods.

When they translated the references to the moon, it was done in the context of the period as well... if the concepts that were being related did not fit into the societal world view, they were adjusted to be understandable to the peasant classes, to which the Bible was directed. The phrase could actually translate to something like, "Before the mothership arrived in orbit."

You referenced Mauro Biglino's work in a footnote on the first page of the paper but I haven't gotten around to read it, will definitely do though. Perhaps after I have some basic knowledge of Hebrew, although I'd be learning modern Hebrew.

Sammer replied:

Jan Sammer wrote:Regarding the Velikovsky question, it could have been his own translation, as Velikovsky was quite familiar with ancient as well as modern Hebrew. I remember I once brought him some photocopies of a study of the Isaiah scroll, and for many hours, if not days, he kept reading it, fascinated with the variant readings against the biblical Isaiah, which he mostly knew by heart.

I can probably establish the source by checking his notes, of which I have a complete set of photocopies [...] which is a matter of weeks, I will try to look this up. Problem is, most of my books and papers are currently in a store room and not easily accessible. Will get back to you on this, but I am fairly certain that for his Hebrew sources he used the original Hebrew.