My Second Attempt:

tikay

17th December 2007 - 07:40 PM

I have already done a thread on this but it was a very long time ago and I guess I shall try again.

Here is what first alerted me to the idea that Earths SUN...Had a potential TWIN SUN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLO4f2lDtQ

From the video called The Great Year.

VIDEO Added: May 02, 2007
To many ancient cultures, the answers lie in the stars. In their view, time and civilization did not progress ever forward in a strict linear path, but moved in a cyclical pattern, with human civilization and consciousness rising and falling as great ages came and went. To the ancient Mayans, we are entering the time of the Fifth Sun; Hindu and Vedic scholars spoke of the Yuga Cycle a great circular progression of ages; and in ancient Greece, Plato taught of a large cycle of time which would slowly return us to a "Golden Age". He called this cycle: The Great Year.

The Great Year investigates the common thread in these beliefs and looks back into time seeking answers to the questions that still loom over science today. How far back into history do humankind's roots really go? What did the ancients know about the stars and their movements and what can we learn from them? Why was the "Precession of the Equinox" universally revered? Many of these cultures spoke of an unseen sun that drives this movement of the stars across the sky over thousands of years and causes great ages to rise and fall. Could there be an unseen binary partner to our Sun? The Great Year examines this theory and finds growing scientific evidence to support it.

This provocative film, narrated by James Earl Jones, is accompanied by 18 minutes of animation and a moving original musical score. The message behind the film may be the beginning of a whole new way to look at time and history, and just might set off a new scientific movement to find our Sun's binary companion.

from the great year video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-mk17JyZpw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rgoC7UNKEM

Please contribute!
Thanks, Tikay

BigDumbWeirdo

17th December 2007 - 07:47 PM

QUOTE (tikay+Dec 17 2007, 02:40 PM)

While the idea may be interesting, it does not account for the orbital paths of the various planets, most notably mercury. In order for it to be true, we would have to re-write general relativity, and ignore most of the experimental evidence supporting it.

tikay

17th December 2007 - 08:00 PM

Hmmmm...well when can you get started?

tikay

17th December 2007 - 08:09 PM

Today I found this from following a link to something else and so here I am again...still asking questions...Can this be so? (That we have a twin Sun?)

http://www.ufoarea.com/pr_solartwindraco.html

BigDumbWeirdo

17th December 2007 - 08:17 PM

QUOTE (tikay+Dec 17 2007, 03:09 PM)

Today I found this from following a link to something else and so here I am again...still asking questions...Can this be so? (That we have a twin Sun?)

http://www.ufoarea.com/pr_solartwindraco.html

When astronomers refer to a "Solar Twin," they are not referring to another star in our own solar system, but to another star which is very similar to our own. The article you linked to (which was surprisingly free of conjecture, considering the hosting site) pointed this out, specifically noting that the star in question is 200 light years away in the constellation Draco.

Sapo

17th December 2007 - 08:17 PM

I don't think we have a 'twin', but I do wonder about the possibility of a very long period massive companion, but orbital mechanics and mainframe time are not mine to command.

tikay

17th December 2007 - 08:29 PM

I believe our science/physics knowledge is a bit off today, and that the science explained here is more acceptable to me as a truth, perhaps because it is written in simple lay-person terms...I think there is much truth in this post.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=292116

I know many think it is ridiculous, but I find it attuned to truth and the elements of SCIENCE within it not been dis-proved...and I sort of treat my Science like a courtroom witness, innocent (potentially Truthful) until proven quilty (as a Lie).

tikay

17th December 2007 - 08:34 PM

QUOTE (Sapo+Dec 17 2007, 01:17 PM)

I don't think we have a 'twin', but I do wonder about the possibility of a very long period massive companion, but orbital mechanics and mainframe time are not mine to command.

This is what they are talking about in the Great Year video...a long gone solar twin that is out of this world....very very far out, and may be orbiting in a masive arc...to return to our system in time. People should see the whole documentary before deciding IMHO.

thanks for answering you two!

BigDumbWeirdo

17th December 2007 - 08:54 PM

QUOTE (tikay+Dec 17 2007, 03:29 PM)

That post to which you linked is full of scientific inaccuracies, fallacies, and outright lies. Whether it was written in lay terms or complex mathematics doesn't change the fact that it is, by and large, wrong.

QUOTE

1. Power projection from anywhere to wherever one wishes to project it without the need of wires or cables. Tesla already had that scientifically perfected.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

1. Power projection from anywhere to wherever one wishes to project it without the need of wires or cables. Tesla already had that scientifically perfected.

While it is true that Tesla worked on wireless power transmission, and while it is true that he did show it to be possible, he was FAAAAAAAR from perfecting it. Even today, we are far from perfecting it, else it would be in common use.

2. The power of converting solar rays to light and power. Tesla also had that well under development. J.P. Morgan, himself, buried these things from your use—good old Bankster that he was!

A conspiracy claim that is belied every time someone looks at a solar panel on the roof of some house. To claim that it has been suppressed (and by J.P. Morgan, no less) is so far beyond ridiculous as to be indicative of mental illness. Whoever originally made these claims obviously did not realize the utter wrongness of them.

QUOTE

3. The power of transmuting one element of matter to another. Now you KNOW that you CAN do this for all you have to do is look at plain old table salt. It is just a matter of understanding physics as properly given.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Nothing about this statement is true. We cannot transform one element into another. That is the realm of Alchemy. Table salt does NOT illustrate this, as it never transforms into another element. A proper understanding of physics does NOT emerge from these baseless claims, as there is no science involved in making them.

Because of the present-day misconception of the universe, fear has been created by man which leads to war and the preying of man upon man, and is the dominant note upon which our civilization has been constructed.

Do I even need to point out what is wrong with this? He claims that modern science is responsible for all of mankind's woes, and that out society has been "constructed" upon them. Society is based upon mutual survival, and modern science has only been around for a hundred years or so, while mankind's woes have been around FAR longer.

QUOTE

Alexis Carrel was right in saying that all of man's institutions-- and these include government, industry, education and home relations-- were man-governed and out of balance with themselves and with each other and must, therefore, all be changed to obey the laws of Nature.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Mankind arises from nature. Mankind's thoughts arise from mankind. All of our institutions began as thoughts. How can something that so obviously arises from nature be as unnatural as he claims it is?

The secret of Creation lies within the light-waves of motion which gravity compresses into rings of light in which density first increases toward the outside by thrusting outward from within until the centering holes have been closed into hot spheres.

There is nothing even remotely correct about this assertion. It demonstrates nothing so much as a lack of understanding of physics on the part of anyone who takes it as fact.

QUOTE

Density then increases in the inward direction. This is accomplished by the octave-wave process which multiplies power by projecting it from the stillness of its Mind-source by dividing it into mated pairs which science calls the elements of matter.

Just like the last bit, nothing even resembling physics.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Just like the last bit, nothing even resembling physics.

The alternating sequences of compression and expansion are the very cause of motion as indicated by their sequential equally interchanging inbreathings and outbreathings.

Wrong. This doesn't even make as much logical sense as Farsight's theory. It's apparent to anyone who thinks about it that linear motion is more than just a back and forth "breathing" of matter.

QUOTE

It overlooks the fact that these action-reaction sequences are interchanges between the heat and cold of the divided spectrum of matter.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

It overlooks the fact that these action-reaction sequences are interchanges between the heat and cold of the divided spectrum of matter.

The author of this overlooks one of the most basic bits of knowledge about physics, one that has been around longer than Relativity, or Newtonian Physics, even. Cold is not a force, but rather the absence of heat, which is itself not a force, but an emergent property of motion.

Power companies can produce light and heat only by resistance to motion, which induction accomplishes. Friction, induction, and compression ARE ONE. If a man scrapes his feet on a rug and touches metal, he will produce a light only.

This one almost makes sense at first. But read that last sentence. Anyone who has ever done as it describes knows quite well that more than light is produced by rubbing your feet against a carpet. Again, this suggests nothing so much as an author who has lost touch with reality.

QUOTE

If a meteorite, or a spacecraft, springs into visible light by the friction of resistance through the atmosphere, it produces light only.

Again, this is wrong. Patently wrong. Have you ever stood outside and seen a meteor flash by within a few hundred yards of your position? I have. I HEARD it, which means it produced vibrations in the air, and I knew from every day experience that the light it produced was a product of the HEAT it generated...
There is much more wrong with that post (He repeated it elsewhere) that I simply don't have the necessary patience to point out.
Tikay, you seem like someone who is searching for wonder in the world, and understandably, it sometimes seems that those of us who believe firmly in reason and established science are trying to take wonders away from you.
But truly, it is not the wonder we wish to take away, but the misconceptions. The world is FULL of wondrous things, of which understanding only increases. I stand outside on a starry night, looking up and I find myself overcome with awe at something so seemingly simple as the vast distances between me and those stars. The possibility that life exists, on a planet orbiting one or more of those stars is even more wondrous. The movie Contact was based on a book written by a man who knew damn well what he was talking about when it came to science, and yet it still managed to induce (in me, at least) a sense of awe and wonder at the possibilities expressed. And the most beautiful thing about these sources of awe is that no-one can take them away from you, no matter what. A belief in alien abductions or Atlantis can be taken away by shoving the evidence against it in someone's face, but for the many sources of awe and wonder that truly exist out there as described by science, there is nothing that can be done to make one disbelieve, unless that person chooses to disbelieve.

tikay

17th December 2007 - 09:31 PM

Alright you appear to have some good arguments in that post. I agree that some things now seem naive in a way when you point to them individually like that.
I am interested in keeping my sense of awe as long as it is awe that is based on what is actual. i did not want to be like a baby in awe of the wonders of it's (average) mother...but more like a scholar who in their elder years, and having much knowledge, still hold a fascination for the beauty to be found in the coil of the nautilus shell...more informed awe, if you will, thanks for your energy/time expended in answering this,

t.k.

"THEY"

17th December 2007 - 09:39 PM

Hi Tikay!

It is interesting, but I just read an article similar to what your videos and links seem to talk about (but sorry, I haven't read those, just scanned this thread quickly) so I thought I would give my two cents (based on the title of the thread).

This article I somehow stumbled upon (probably doing research for this aliens and bigfoot thread I have been having fun in) was talking about finding clues to either a second sun, or Nemesis (the predicted planet X?) being found. While it was full of a bunch of garbage science, some stuff seemed to be plausible, but I didn't have time to research the legitimacy myself. But what did stick with me, is that apparently there is evidence in the soils and glaciers of high levels of chemicals that are only found in comets, and they lie at regular periods through history. This was (IMHO) the biggest "proof" they had, but they were saying this planet or brown dwarf would enter the solar system, perturb the orbits of comets and asteroids, and also that this sun/large planet would come into the solar system at least to the orbit of earth before heading back out.

Wouldn't something THAT LARGE have been found all ready?

My thoughts is that there may be a comet or asteroid that the ancient cultures saw, and called it a wandering sun or planet. If it came close enough to earth, or were large enough, it could be viewed as a traveling planet or sun. I just can't believe in a wandering sun or large planet entering into the planetary orbits...

But anyway, it will be interesting to see what science comes up with before we grow old and enter nursing homes, hay? I will see if I can read the links and watch that video tonight, if I can keep they2 off the computer long enough...

tikay

17th December 2007 - 09:43 PM

If I remember correctly the Great Year Video (complete) does speak of that THEY.
Thanks I have to get off for the little one right now...
I know what you mean, this one is literally on my back as we speak begging for her turn...thanks for the input.

BigDumbWeirdo

17th December 2007 - 09:45 PM

QUOTE (tikay+Dec 17 2007, 04:31 PM)

t.k.

It was my pleasure to do so, as it is a pleasure to see that someone with so much invested in new-age concepts would be so amenable to such an argument as I presented.

I would suggest a few other resources if you wish to see the wonders that science has given us, as well as the mysteries that yet remain.
The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. An excellent introduction to string theory, and the beauty contained therein, as well as beginning with an overview of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Anyone who reads this book and argues that string theory is either inelegant or lacking in beauty is (IMHO) incapable of appreciating beauty or elegance.
The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. It's an overview of space and time, and what the various theories say about it, along with all the hypothetical things it can do, or possibly be made to do.
Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy by Kip Thorne. This gives a good run-down of Relativity (more in-depth than in the previous two books) and shows all the outrageous things that it predicts (including why time travel is theoretically possible, under the right circumstances.)
Anything by Carl Sagan, but specifically The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. This book has Sagan turning his incredibly intellect and charisma upon the subject of pseudo-science and the beliefs of it's practitioners. It's not nearly as judgmental in it's narrative as the subject matter might indicate.
Carl Sagan is one of my favorite authors, as he not only truly understood the subjects about which he wrote, but he was a sort of "fan-boy" of science; his enthusiasm for every subject he touches on is apparent in almost every word, and his sense of wonder and awe at the mysteries that remain for us to discover in the universe is an inspiration to me.

to THEY...

QUOTE

This article I somehow stumbled upon (probably doing research for this aliens and bigfoot thread I have been having fun in) was talking about finding clues to either a second sun, or Nemesis (the predicted planet X?) being found. While it was full of a bunch of garbage science, some stuff seemed to be plausible, but I didn't have time to research the legitimacy myself. But what did stick with me, is that apparently there is evidence in the soils and glaciers of high levels of chemicals that are only found in comets, and they lie at regular periods through history. This was (IMHO) the biggest "proof" they had, but they were saying this planet or brown dwarf would enter the solar system, perturb the orbits of comets and asteroids, and also that this sun/large planet would come into the solar system at least to the orbit of earth before heading back out. Wouldn't something THAT LARGE have been found all ready?

Would it shock you to learn that a respected physicist first proposed the idea of Nemesis? Professor Richard A. Muller, PhD of the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. As interesting and outlandish as this theory seems, it is possible. It is also an EXCELLENT example of the point I was trying (succesfully, it seems) to convey to Tikay in my last post.
Check out Wikipedia - Nemesis for more information.

gnik_isrever

18th December 2007 - 12:27 AM

It is interesting to note that, in a couple of those videos, they talk about the estimated 26,000 year cycle our planet goes through.

I can explain this.

Our sun orbits a star called "Alcyone". Now, our current scientists probably do not want you to know this, so you probably have never heard of it, and they have disinformation about it, no doubt. I think you will find it "rings true" from within yourself.

We are part of the Pleiades star system. WE ARE PLEIADIANS!

We orbit our sun. Our sun orbits Alcyone. Alcyone orbits the Great Central Sun of our so-called Milky Way Galaxy. The Great Central Sun orbits around the Central Hub, if you will of the entire physical created expanse of Super Universes.

The orbit around our sun is 1 year. Our sun's orbit around Alcyone is around 26,000 years. Alcyone's orbit around the Great Central Sun is around 406,000,000 years. I have not a clue as to how long it would take for the Great Central Sun to orbit the Center of physical Creation.

2,000 years of Light. 11,000 years of darkness. =13,000 years. X2=26,000 years.

We were given ONE GREAT CYCLE ORBIT (406 million years) to reach a state of harmony and balance on this beautiful planet. Needles to say, we failed. Never the less our planet shall rid herself of negativity regardless of whether we choose to stay with her into the higher frequencies (fifth dimension) or not.

It is also paramount to notice that BOTH of those huge cycles ended on August 17th, 1987. That date is known as the Harmonic Concordance. We are now in year 21 of the "clean up" of darkness on this planet. We will now enter a new Golden Age of Light, but this time, our planet will NEVER AGAIN revert to carrying darkness.

This may explain a bit about those cycles in the videos. Nice post!

Guest00

18th December 2007 - 04:18 AM

QUOTE (gnik_isrever+Dec 18 2007, 12:27 AM)

The above post, like this whole thread as a whole, is pure nonsensical rubbish.

If you're going to post, at least be serious-- don't try to lure people into some sort of cult. Don't get me wrong, I find anthropology quite interesting and informational, but that's where it ends.

"THEY"

18th December 2007 - 10:16 PM

QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 17 2007, 01:45 PM)

to THEY...

Would it shock you to learn that a respected physicist first proposed the idea of Nemesis?

Yes, that is shocking........ I will check out the wiki link, I don't think I have read anything on Nemesis in that website before.

Even more shocking that science is still looking for it.

I thought it had been proven without a doubt to not exist.

Been wrong before, guess I am wrong this time too!

tikay

18th December 2007 - 10:16 PM

QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 17 2007, 02:45 PM)

It was my pleasure to do so, as it is a pleasure to see that someone with so much invested in new-age concepts would be so amenable to such an argument as I presented.

I have had some education, while studying to become a paralegal, in becoming an objective person, and with a thicker skin than I once had as well. I might have been offended in the past when people disagreed with me strongly, but now I am a bit more mature and see it as it is, just a differing opinion. Facts are facts and one cannot always find a stance to disagree with them...no matter how much they would like to.
The fact you have given me your suggestion as to the better books for someone like myself to read, is pretty great, and I appreciate this too.

I have a small library of books that I want to go through and give away or sell many of them, so if I can get a bookstore to trade them or buy them I do plan to buy far more of a scientific nature, and your short list will be my very own. Every time i move I move these twenty five or thirty boxes of books and I am growing sooo tired of this, while I bought them as a reference library, I have changed a bit since I have come here (to physorg) and my philosophy, surrounding the new age and self-help books has changed as well.

So that my library will change....a good analogy might be that I will still consider the acupuncture doc as my first physician, but I know he is not suited for the job if I need surgery.

Thank you again for giving me a list to read. I will read them as soon as possible!

(I have heard of a couple before, so i trust you are right about all.)

Oh! I believe yesterday was the birthdate of Carl Sagan, I had just sent him birthday wishes to his myspace page...about two/three days ago, he is my friend in myspace. (((Just one of the several reasons why I love the internet so much)))

OKAY that is wrong information, I may be friends with Carl or not, but I sent the birthday wishes to Sir Arthur C. Clark whos birthday was on the 16th, (the same day as my brother Truett) ....sorry, (my failing memory) my mistake!

http://myspace.com/hgwelles

BigDumbWeirdo

19th December 2007 - 01:13 AM

QUOTE (tikay+Dec 18 2007, 05:16 PM)

I sent the birthday wishes to Sir Arthur C. Clark whos birthday was on the 16th, (the same day as my brother Truett)

Just had to remind anyone who doesn't know that he is one of the top 3 best sci-fi authors of all time. No if's, and's or but's about it. Best. Not "best at..." just Best.

Asimov and Heinlein are the other two. Phillip K. D1ck is up there, too.
(Damn forum won't let me write his name!)
Good stuff.

gnik_isrever

19th December 2007 - 02:03 AM

What I posted is the TRUTH.

Some day, you will all find out that it is truth.
When that day comes, and you are all in awe at the world of your deteriorating "science" CULT, then you can ask me questions and I will give you answers to ease your worried minds:

gnik_isrever@yahoo.com

DROP THE SUPERIORITY-INFERIORITY THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS, FOR THEY ARE OF THE ANTI-CHRIST. I ONLY PRESENTED THE TRUTH. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.

GOOD BYE!

occidental

19th December 2007 - 02:07 AM

Good, Im sleepy. Nap time!

gnik_isrever

19th December 2007 - 02:57 AM

Oh, right, sorry...

That cycle around the Great Central Sun is not 406 million years, but 206 million years.

Just had to clear that up!

Bye-bye now!

BigDumbWeirdo

19th December 2007 - 03:13 AM

QUOTE (gnik_isrever+Dec 18 2007, 09:03 PM)

What I posted is the TRUTH.

Prove it.

QUOTE

Some day, you will all find out that it is truth.

Prove it.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Some day, you will all find out that it is truth.

Prove it.

When that day comes, and you are all in awe at the world of your deteriorating "science" CULT, then you can ask me questions and I will give you answers to ease your worried minds:

gnik_isrever@yahoo.com

Questions such as "How many anal probes have you had, lately?"
Actually, I'm kinda wondering that, now.... Dozens? Hundreds?

QUOTE

DROP THE SUPERIORITY-INFERIORITY THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS, FOR THEY ARE OF THE ANTI-CHRIST. I ONLY PRESENTED THE TRUTH. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.

Prove it, and prove it.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

DROP THE SUPERIORITY-INFERIORITY THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS, FOR THEY ARE OF THE ANTI-CHRIST. I ONLY PRESENTED THE TRUTH. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.

Prove it, and prove it.

GOOD BYE!

Don't let the door hit you in the *** on the way out!

tikay

19th December 2007 - 04:12 AM

QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 18 2007, 06:13 PM)

2001: A Space Odyssey was amazing...If I remember correctly Heinlein was pretty sex focused...Phillip I have not read.
(yeah they think "thems fighting words" I guess)

He is still writing too...Arthur C. Clark!
I have only heard of Asimov.

gnik I hope you aren't offended by me, I warble and wobble like this...it is part of being open-minded I think.

BigDumbWeirdo

19th December 2007 - 05:24 AM

QUOTE (tikay+Dec 18 2007, 11:12 PM)

Phillip wrote Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? which was adapted into the movie Bladerunner.
My girlfriend's favorite movie. (who says there's no such thing as true love

)

tikay

19th December 2007 - 07:57 AM

The first Bladerunner was such new territory at that time, really something else!
Maybe i read a little Asimov in short story form in high school, i think now...it was such a long time ago!

gski

19th December 2007 - 03:31 PM

The first video in the original post asserts that the precession of the equinox is due to the sun orbiting a common center of gravity with another unseen object. This can easily be tested using two different methods.

First test: as the precession progresses, the poles of the Earth trace a track across the sky, i.e., the pole star moves/changes. The shape of this track and the speed with which the track moves would correspond to the shape of the sun's orbit. The eccentricity of the sun's orbit would put constraints on the location and mass of the companion object.

Second test: the contention is made that the direction of the Earth's pole is constant relative to the fixed stars. Therefore the size of the sun's orbit would have to correspond to the physical distance the track appears to make. That is to say, if the physical distance from Polaris to Vega is PV, then the sun would have to travel distance PV so that the track would have the appearance that it does. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I believe PV would be many light years, further constraining the companion's mass and distance.

Note also that both tests can be used to detect a companion object apart from the precession argument.

tikay

19th December 2007 - 10:49 PM

The thread is about space, not anthropology, Guest. About the potential of binary suns or stars, and i guess now also a massive planet...and while it may have something to do with anthropology...it is mainly about the cosmos.

BigDumbWeirdo

19th December 2007 - 10:59 PM

QUOTE (tikay+Dec 19 2007, 05:49 PM)

I like the picture, so I kept it in the quote

I'm not sure if it was made clear in the link, but Nemesis is supposed to be a brown or red dwarf, a type of star.
Guest has shown some knowledge of physics before, so I pos'd him, but I disagree with his post in this thread. This thread (while not particularly scientific) is not "pure nonsensical rubbish." Take the exchange between Tikay and myself, which is an example of a two people with opposing world views discoursing civilly. I don't think that qualifies as "pure nonsensical rubbish."

tikay

19th December 2007 - 11:04 PM

I guess they don't want any of MY old books to read

"THEY"

19th December 2007 - 11:53 PM

QUOTE (tikay+Dec 19 2007, 02:49 PM)

Oooooooooooooooooooooo, PRETTY!

i STOLE IT!

tikay

20th December 2007 - 04:12 AM

It makes a fine screensaver honey! Get the big one in photobucket under "cosmos" not too far in. It is from the Urantia Book foundation.
My mom just sent me the youtube video telling that Pato Banton reads the U.B. too.
I thought that was pretty cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhFPA84rqMg

It is pronounced You-ran-tia NOT You-ron-tia !

IAMoraes

21st December 2007 - 08:12 PM

QUOTE (tikay+Dec 17 2007, 03:40 PM)

Tikay, this is fabulous as mysticism or prophecy, and I am thoroughly familiar with it. I have used it before, notably on the "The rule of one" thread, where I simply erased the planet from the map and considered only rivers and storms --that is, bodies of water-- as having a mathematical "validity" within the parameters of the given problem.

In reverse, a Famous Scientist Tikay From Waterworld would have to invent a companion planet, a Ghost Earth

to explain why there are rivers, lakes, and storms. If the subject matter were galaxies, for instance, and your newly-extended "waterverse" were now a universe, you would have a pat "explanation" for ellipticals and spirals! Rivers are spirals, and oceans are ellipticals

This IS mysticism, and I will never call it science, but that is what makes it so hauntingly beautiful!

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.