Damned / Rejected Science (Miscellaneous)

[almond13]

Wembley8 said:
Huh? My link showed fairly clearly that relativiistic effects have to be taken into account in GPS. I don;t see how anyone would claim that they would make GPS imopossible, just that they would have to be taken into account.

http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/ How many times do I have to say that he built the thing and should know about it? Why don't you read it?

 

[almond13]

Here are more Google results:

Stranded Beaches - 140 hits
Raised Beaches - over 45,000 hits

Plenty of data there, but what's it supposed to prove?
That sea levels, like the stock market, can fall as well as rise? 8)

Almond's pick'n'mix approach to scientific data is pretty cavalier, rather like an evangelist who can take any situation and then find a Biblical quote to explain or denounce it.

I can quite understand your obsession with beaches rynner. i'd like to be on one right now. Under a palm tree with a glass of scotch and a dusky maiden fanning me with a palm frond. The gentle rippling of the surf on the golden san............ 8)

 

[Jerry_B]

What I would suggest is that you abandon Dada and take up Nihilism as it seems more suited to your interests.

Nah, I lost my faith in Nihilism

I'm doing nothing about this, all you need to do is type “Velikovsky” into Google and you will find 100,000 examples.

As Stu has pointed out, the volume of hits generated by Google for any given word or term is pretty meaningless. Lazy journalists sometimes use it as an example, and I hope you're not the same So, you'd still have to show that scientists have been actively conniving and co-ordinating themselves for the past 50 years in order to discredit Velikovsky.

 

[wembley8]

How many times do I have to say that he built the thing and should know about it?

He was one of many, many people involved in the program, which is hardly the same. (Yes, you often get the odd maverick in any group...) But you have yet to say why you don't think relativistic effects are important for the GPS.

Are you denying that the adjustments are there?

 

[almond13]

What I would suggest is that you abandon Dada and take up Nihilism as it seems more suited to your interests.

Nah, I lost my faith in Nihilism

I'm doing nothing about this, all you need to do is type “Velikovsky” into Google and you will find 100,000 examples.

As Stu has pointed out, the volume of hits generated by Google for any given word or term is pretty meaningless. Lazy journalists sometimes use it as an example, and I hope you're not the same So, you'd still have to show that scientists have been actively conniving and co-ordinating themselves for the past 50 years in order to discredit Velikovsky.

This is soooooo obviously a wind-up...

 

[Jerry_B]

Not at all.

 

[eburacum]

A long, and technical dismissal of Van Flandern's ideas.

It is completely false that the design of the GPS system ignores relativity theory. Relativistic effects in the GPS system are vitally important. The total difference in the rate of atomic clocks on board a GPS satellite and the reference clock at the USNO amounts to some 38,600 nanoseconds per day. (This is mostly due to a combination of the Sagnac effect for a clock which is moving wrt the GPS receiver, and the relative gravitational time dilation between a stationary clock on the Earth's surface and a stationary clock 20,200 km above the surface, as mentioned in the above quoted paragraph from Ashby's paper; frequency shifts in clocks on the ground wrt UTC due to inhomogeneties in the shape of the Earth also play a role.) In contrast, in order to maintain the accuracies listed above, the GPS system must maintain a timekeeping synchrony within 10 nanoseconds variation per day, indefinitely! The major way in which the 38,600 nanosecond per day discrepancy due to relativistic effects is accounted for is by building into the GPS software used to keep the satellite clocks in synch with each other and to synchronize GPS time with UTC an effective downward frequency shift of 446.47 parts per trillion in the orbiting atomic clocks. In addition to this basic conversion factor, GPS receivers are programmed to take account for the fact that slight eccentricities in the satellite orbits result in tiny periodic changes in the frequency of the orbiting clocks.

Despite what Van Flandern says, the predictions of General Relativity have been confirmed by the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar, which is slowing down in accordance with GR with an accuracy of one part in 100,000,000,000,000.

As I have said, one day Relativity will be superceded; but any alternate theory must also predict such events with comparable accuracy.

 

[wembley8]

all you need to do is type “Velikovsky” into Google and you will find 100,000 examples.

"Von Daniken" gets 237,000

"Velikovsky" gets 266,000

"Flat Earth Society" gets 317,000

"Uri Geller" gets 510,000!

"Astrology" gets 41 million!!

 

[stu neville]

This is soooooo obviously a wind-up...

Not at all.

Nope, resolutely not a wind up from this side. Are you sure you're not the one trying to have us all on, Almond?

At the end of the day, however well-intentioned, Worlds in Collision is by a huge margin of opinion a load of old cobblers, and unfortunately for you the "well they would say that, wouldn't they?" line of argument doesn't keep currency for long.

I've read both sides, and I go with the mainstream on this matter. I don't always, for sure, but in this case I do.

 

[OneWingedBird]

..whereas if you type "bullshit" there are about 19,300,000.

i tried that late last night and there were 20,000,00 hits, whereas right now there are 20,400,000... i think the amount of bullshit on the internette is increasing dramatically as we speak!

Velikovsky Bullshit incidentally, gives about 8360 hits...

 

[almond13]

eburacum wrote:
Despite what Van Flandern says, the predictions of General Relativity have been confirmed by the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar, which is slowing down in accordance with GR with an accuracy of one part in 100,000,000,000,000.

I like pulsars, 13,600,000 hits for pulsar.

Although the original choice of naming is indicative of the mystery surrounding the origin of the signals, according to Martin Rees, the hypothesis that they were beacons from extraterrestrial civilizations were never taken very seriously. However, astrophysicist Peter A. Sturrock writes that "when the first regular radio signals from pulsars were discovered, the Cambridge scientists seriously considered that they might have come from an extraterrestrial civilization. They debated this possibility and decided that, if this proved to be correct, they could not make an announcement without checking with higher authorities. There was even some discussion about whether it might be in the best interests of mankind to destroy the evidence and forget it!" (Sturrock, 154) Wiki

Pulsars have come a long way since then and one site even gives a model with a cross section of the pulsar and the six or so modeled layers from crust to core, just like the earth.
When you consider that these things are only visible at radio wave lengths I find this absolutely astounding. This seems to represent an attempt to support an unproven theory with an unproven model of something that only exists in conjecture and mathematics.

The spin of pulsars is said to be an indication of age with rapid spin indicating a young age.
Pulsar PSR1937+215 rotates at 642 times per second and should be very young, but there is no remnant of the supernova that gave it birth. The magnetic field is very weak with both factors suggesting old age.

PSR1937+215 type show fast rotation (thousands per second), little slowing, no magnetic field and no supernova remnant.

JP 1953+29 appears to be spinning up.

They do strange things these pulsars.

Testing E=MC2
The mass loss was obtained at MIT by measuring the difference between the mass of the nucleus before the emission of a gamma ray and after. The mass difference was measured by comparing the cyclotron orbit frequencies of two single molecules trapped in a strong magnetic field for several weeks.
Pritchard notes that the mass of the nucleus is about 4,000 times larger than the much smaller mass difference. As a result, "determining the mass difference requires the individual masses to be measured with the incredible accuracy of one part in 100 billion -- equivalent to measuring the distance from Boston to Los Angeles to within the width of a human hair!"
Despite the results of the current test of E=mc2, Pritchard said, "This doesn't mean it has been proven to be completely correct. Future physicists will undoubtedly subject it to even more precise tests because more accurate checks imply that our theory of the world is in fact more and more complete."
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html

In 1973 the speed of light was measured by Evanson et al at 299,792.4574 +- .001 and then in 1983 it was tied to the meter length at 299,792.4575 for the sake of convenience and because so many differing results were being obtained.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... ure_c.html

The question is: How can a measurement of one part in 100 billion be made with the accuracy of the speed of light being so much less?

 

[almond13]

BlackRiverFalls wrote:
Velikovsky Bullshit incidentally, gives about 8360 hits...

There you go, it's more than a cottage industry, more like a multinational corporation.

 

[almond13]

This is soooooo obviously a wind-up...

Not at all.

Nope, resolutely not a wind up from this side. Are you sure you're not the one trying to have us all on, Almond?

At the end of the day, however well-intentioned, Worlds in Collision is by a huge margin of opinion a load of old cobblers, and unfortunately for you the "well they would say that, wouldn't they?" line of argument doesn't keep currency for long.

I've read both sides, and I go with the mainstream on this matter. I don't always, for sure, but in this case I do.

Well don't keep us dangling, tell us exactly what it was that turned you off? Consensus opinion will not do on this thread, - as they all keep telling me , “we need references”.

 

[almond13]

An interesting idea struck me. If the pulsars are shining lighthouse like beams across the galaxy and spinning at multi-second speeds, the beam, as it crosses earth's path must be moving at more than the speed of light, which is supposed to be impossible. If we invoke time dilation, then the speed of rotation must be wrong. A paradox?

42,000 for pulsar bullshit. (0.12 seconds)

 

[rynner2]

An interesting idea struck me. If the pulsars are shining lighthouse like beams across the galaxy and spinning at multi-second speeds, the beam, as it crosses earth's path must be moving at more than the speed of light, which is supposed to be impossible. If we invoke time dilation, then the speed of rotation must be wrong. A paradox?

No paradox - nothing physical (with mass/energy) is traveling faster than light.
If the beam is at Point A at one moment and Point B a nanosecond later, the photons causing the patch of light at A are not the same ones as those causing the light at point B. This applies however far apart A and B are, so the appearance of FTL travel is just that - an illusion.

 

[stu neville]

Well don't keep us dangling, tell us exactly what it was that turned you off? Consensus opinion will not do on this thread, - as they all keep telling me , “we need references”.

Well, the overall shape of his ideas for a start, firing out hypotheses with no regard at all for their likelihood or even possibility. And as for linking ancient records with his theories, whilst some do indeed mention some occurences similar to those those Velikovsky postulates, not one of them mentions a bloody planet colliding with the Earth, which they would have noticed one would think. And no, I don't think it was so traumatic that they all instantly forgot about it. Also, his interpretation of ancient mythology has a convenient flexibility about it (ie he finds what will fit, ignore the rest, and subtly change it, ignore errors and then present it as evidence.) And yes, the whole thing does completely jar with known physics, much of which is perfectly workable and accepted in all other cases but Velikovsky's.

But then, I would say that, wouldn't I?

 

[almond13]

An interesting idea struck me. If the pulsars are shining lighthouse like beams across the galaxy and spinning at multi-second speeds, the beam, as it crosses earth's path must be moving at more than the speed of light, which is supposed to be impossible. If we invoke time dilation, then the speed of rotation must be wrong. A paradox?

No paradox - nothing physical (with mass/energy) is traveling faster than light.
If the beam is at Point A at one moment and Point B a nanosecond later, the photons causing the patch of light at A are not the same ones as those causing the light at point B. This applies however far apart A and B are, so the appearance of FTL travel is just that - an illusion.

This explanation sounds, for want of a batter word, glib and my bullshit detector is bleeping like mad. There seems to be a deep logical flaw in it and i will find it and come back on this one when i have had time to think.

 

[many_angled_one]

Urmm, bullshit?? It seems perfectly logical to me.
Think of it as you holding a hose and spraying water at person A, then spinning very fast to spray person B. It may look like the same water is hitting them but it is a *different* stream of water.
*shrugs*

 

[almond13]

Well don't keep us dangling, tell us exactly what it was that turned you off? Consensus opinion will not do on this thread, - as they all keep telling me , “we need references”.

Well, the overall shape of his ideas for a start, firing out hypotheses with no regard at all for their likelihood or even possibility. And as for linking ancient records with his theories, whilst some do indeed mention some occurences similar to those those Velikovsky postulates, not one of them mentions a bloody planet colliding with the Earth, which they would have noticed one would think. And no, I don't think it was so traumatic that they all instantly forgot about it. Also, his interpretation of ancient mythology has a convenient flexibility about it (ie he finds what will fit, ignore the rest, and subtly change it, ignore errors and then present it as evidence.) And yes, the whole thing does completely jar with known physics, much of which is perfectly workable and accepted in all other cases but Velikovsky's.

But then, I would say that, wouldn't I?

For starters, there is no mention of a planet colliding with earth in any of Velikovsky's books. This makes me think that like so many others before you, that you are relying on the prepackaged misquotes that are trotted out with scant regard for the facts and that you have misunderstood or not read the book at all.
There are nonetheless, many examples of portents in the sky that fit the bill for close encounters. There are also the “original” Venus tables that have been altered to rectify the “impossible”.
The ancients were obsessed with the planetary positions and with Venus in particular and this was worldwide. To have falsified the “tables” would probably have meant a death sentence or worse for the astronomer responsible and you speak of “convenient flexibility”?
Again the science of planetary orbits and the movements of inter-orbital planets and even exchanges of orbits is not something that everything is known about by any means. As an example, the exact positions of the outer planets in their orbits has been a problem for astronomy for many years and it has been only recently that NASA has claimed to have solved the problem.

If we add to this the reaction of science to the original publication of the first book we find people who should know better deliberately misquoting and generally acting like delinquents. This has continued to the present day with emotional outburst not unlike your own from hysterical astronomers and others who have a complete disregard for the scholarship that Velikovsky displayed.

Every prediction made by Velikovsky regarding solar system astronomy has been vindicated with the possible exception of the hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of Venus. This alone should give food for thought. He unintentionally made monkeys of the astronomers of his time and they are still, to this day, angry and irrational about this fact. This is not what we expect from those who are payed by us all to be specifically rational.
Yes, there have been mistakes on both sides, but as time goes on they become markedly one sided.

 

[almond13]

Urmm, bullshit?? It seems perfectly logical to me.
Think of it as you holding a hose and spraying water at person A, then spinning very fast to spray person B. It may look like the same water is hitting them but it is a *different* stream of water.
*shrugs*

Yes, I'd already considered this. The water would create a spiral moving out from the centre. This is not the same as a micro second by micro second bullet-like scenario. Photons are not bullets.

 

[Timble2]

Actually Velikovsky does fiddle with mythology, to suit his purposes, for example in Norse mythology he misrepresents the nine world on Yggdrasil as being nine ages, when in fact they are nine contemporaneous worlds, Asgard, Migard (Middle-Earth), Nifelheim, Alfheim, Svartalfheim, Muspelheim, Hel, Jotunheim, and Vanaheim.

The only new age in Norse mythology comes after Ragnarök, the fall of the gods, and that's in the future not the past.

That's one that was easy to check, Velikosky does present such an avalanche of stuff it's hard to check...

 

[almond13]

An interesting idea struck me. If the pulsars are shining lighthouse like beams across the galaxy and spinning at multi-second speeds, the beam, as it crosses earth's path must be moving at more than the speed of light, which is supposed to be impossible. If we invoke time dilation, then the speed of rotation must be wrong. A paradox?

No paradox - nothing physical (with mass/energy) is traveling faster than light.
If the beam is at Point A at one moment and Point B a nanosecond later, the photons causing the patch of light at A are not the same ones as those causing the light at point B. This applies however far apart A and B are, so the appearance of FTL travel is just that - an illusion.

Let's use our friends hose analogy: A stream of photons is being emitted by the pulsar in the maner of a rotating hose at the rate of 20 revolutions per second. The earth is being sprayed by the stream. Let's say that the stream started at at time T1 and continued until the circle was complete T2. Given the distance between earth and the pulsar, the diameter will be completed in a time T2 that violates the speed of light. An observer at any point on the ring will see the ring form in 1/20 of a second. The photons have to be there for us to receive the signal and so we have a ring of photons with earth-pulsar radius that has formed at faster than the speed of light. This is assuming the distance to be great enough.
If we have two observers, one at each end of a diameter, the second should see his photon at 1/10 of a second after the first – not enough time for the light to travel.

 

[eburacum]

Nevertheless, it is true. Think of the light emitted by the Sun. When the Moon is half full, it is exactly the same distance from the Sun to the Moon as it is from the Sun to the Earth.
A pair of photons emitted by the Sun at the same time will strike the Earth and the Moon at the same time; but the Earth and Moon are half a light second apart. If there were a hidden planet directly opposite the Earth in its orbit, a similar pair of photons would strike at the same time on the Earth and Counter Earth, although these two planets would be sixteen light minutes apart (if they both existed).

I won't mention that simutaneity breaks down over large distances because of General Relativity.
oops- too late

 

[eburacum]

These apparently-faster-than-lght phenomena can be quite entertaining; take a look at Hubble's Variable Nebula, which is a veil like sheet of nebulosity illuminated by a single brilliant star. In close orbit around that star are some thicker clouds, which cast fast-moving shadows on the veil.

Take a look at this animation;
Hubble's Variable Nebula.

Like someone casting shadows onto a blank sheet in space, the denser clouds near the star are making shapes which span across half a light year and move much faster than light.

 

[almond13]

I won't mention that simultaneity breaks down over large distances because of General Relativity.
oops- too late

Hi eburacum
I can see where the sun and moon case would make sense, but the sun is not a pulsar. A shadow is dependent on light – photons, and these must also move at the appropriate speed to cause this. There are no shadows without light. Also, I think that the pulsar is slightly different?

 

[rynner2]

An interesting idea struck me. If the pulsars are shining lighthouse like beams across the galaxy and spinning at multi-second speeds, the beam, as it crosses earth's path must be moving at more than the speed of light, which is supposed to be impossible. If we invoke time dilation, then the speed of rotation must be wrong. A paradox?

No paradox - nothing physical (with mass/energy) is traveling faster than light.
If the beam is at Point A at one moment and Point B a nanosecond later, the photons causing the patch of light at A are not the same ones as those causing the light at point B. This applies however far apart A and B are, so the appearance of FTL travel is just that - an illusion.

This explanation sounds, for want of a batter word, glib and my bullshit detector is bleeping like mad. There seems to be a deep logical flaw in it and i will find it and come back on this one when i have had time to think.

And when you've had time to think, I hope you will have the grace to apologise for suggesting that I am speaking bullshit.

I say again, the photons (or water drops, or machine gun bullets, etc) that hit point A are not the same ones that hit point B.

Therefore NOTHING has travelled directly from A to B.

'Nothing' means 'No Thing' - which of these two words do you not understand?

 

[wembley8]

This explanation sounds, for want of a batter word, glib and my bullshit detector is bleeping like mad. There seems to be a deep logical flaw in it and i will find it and come back on this one when i have had time to think.

Your bullshit detector seems to be out of whack, i'd get that fixed if I were you

Rynner's explanation is quite correct.
This apparent paradox that a spot of light or a shadow can 'move faster than light' is an old chestnut -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow

The projected shadow may appear to have moved faster than the speed of light, but there is no actual physical manifestation moving upon the surface. The misconception is that the edge of a shadow "moves" along a wall, when in actuality the increase of a shadow's length is part of a new projection, which will propagate at the speed of light from the object of interference. Since there is no actual communication between points in a shadow (except for reflection or interference of light, at the speed of light), a shadow that projects over a surface of large distances (light years) cannot give information between those distances with the shadow's edge.

 

[wembley8]

[Every prediction made by Velikovsky regarding solar system astronomy has been vindicated with the possible exception of the hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of Venus. This alone should give food for thought.

Well, no, not that that he made many checkable predictions - how many would you say?

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/vlkovsky.htm

Velikovsky claimed, according to Ferte', that Mercury was of recent origin and was anomalously hot. Mercury is not anomalously hot, and its rotation is locked to the Sun--3 rotations for every two revolutions around the Sun. Such a rotation lock could only have arisen if Mercury had been subject to eons of tidal braking by the Sun. Mercury's day and night side temperatures are exactly what we would expect on an airless world with Mercury's rotation and distance from the Sun.

 

[stu neville]

For starters, there is no mention of a planet colliding with earth in any of Velikovsky's books.

Alright then, coming, in celestial terms, very very close indeed. The point remains valid that if another planetary body had come that close somebody, somewhere would have specifically mentioned it.

This makes me think that like so many others before you, that you are relying on the prepackaged misquotes that are trotted out with scant regard for the facts and that you have misunderstood or not read the book at all.

Scant regard for the facts.... yes, I have read the book, as it happens, a longish while ago I admit after Isaac Asimov made reference to it in "Stars in their Courses". Asimov was very kind about him, as a giant of sci-fi should be.

There are nonetheless, many examples of portents in the sky that fit the bill for close encounters. There are also the “original” Venus tables that have been altered to rectify the “impossible”.

Altered to rectify the impossible by whom?

The ancients were obsessed with the planetary positions and with Venus in particular and this was worldwide. To have falsified the “tables” would probably have meant a death sentence or worse for the astronomer responsible and you speak of “convenient flexibility”?

Yes, I do - see Timble's very apt example above. Velikovsky's recounting of Athena's emergence from the head of Zeus is a little quaint as well (and BTW Athena wasn't the Greek equivalent of Venus - that was Aphrodite.)

Again the science of planetary orbits and the movements of inter-orbital planets and even exchanges of orbits is not something that everything is known about by any means.

No, but lack of comprehensive knowledge doesn't preclude identifying the patently rubbish.

As an example, the exact positions of the outer planets in their orbits has been a problem for astronomy for many years and it has been only recently that NASA has claimed to have solved the problem.

I can't remember, but did Velikovsky come to any conclusions about this, or did he kindly leave it to NASA to pick over the bones?

If we add to this the reaction of science to the original publication of the first book we find people who should know better deliberately misquoting and generally acting like delinquents. This has continued to the present day with emotional outburst not unlike your own from hysterical astronomers and others who have a complete disregard for the scholarship that Velikovsky displayed.

Hysterical? Probably not in the sense you mean it, no.

Every prediction made by Velikovsky regarding solar system astronomy has been vindicated with the possible exception of the hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of Venus.

Have they? I'm asking this generally, as I don't pretend to be an astronomer, astrophysicist, etc, merely someone with a basic knowledge. How much did your bullshit detector set you back? Do Maplins do one?

This alone should give food for thought. He unintentionally made monkeys of the astronomers of his time and they are still, to this day, angry and irrational about this fact. This is not what we expect from those who are payed by us all to be specifically rational.

God, not another stealth tax.

Yes, there have been mistakes on both sides, but as time goes on they become markedly one sided.

At last we agree!

 

[almond13]

stuneville
One or two answers.

Venus was not mentioned by ancient astronomers until after 2000 BCE, which indicates that this planet was not to be found in it's present, prominent position prior to this time.

Venus tablets:
Lost in the debate over the chronological significance of these
early observations is the question why Venus would have
been the subject of such intense scrutiny in the first half of
the second millennium, much less why it was associated
with typically dire omens? On this subject, Abraham Sachs,
the dean of Babylonian cuneiform texts, offers nary a clue:

"The list of Venus dates, to which omen predictions were
secondarily appended, was copied and recopied for many
centuries, and, in fact, we have it only in the form of much
later copies made in the eighth and later centuries BC (and
with partly corrupt details) embedded in one of the tablets
of a standard collection of astronomical and meteorological
omens. How, when, and why omen predictions--...--were
attached to the Venus dates are questions that we cannot begin to
answer in the present state of our knowledge." ("Babylonian
observational astronomy," Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 276,
1974, pp. 43-44).http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/venus/vcycle

The following is from an article by
Lynn E. Rose from the Winter 73 issue (#III) of the Pensee Journal,
the old Student Academic Freedom Forum

"Unfortunately, nearly all treatments of groups one and three
on K. 160, and of the genuinely observational material on the
other Venus tablets that supplement K. 160, have been based on
what I call the "astronomer's dogma". The "astronomer's
dogma" is the uniformatarian attitude that the solar system
has for untold years been just as it is now, and that Venus
and Earth in particular have always been on the same orbits
they are on now, except for certain very minor perturbations
that are for most purposes entirely negligible.

"The next major study of the Venus tablets was by Langdon and
Fotheringham in 1928. Their book is important for the student
of the tablets in that they bring together a great deal of
material that is not available in any one other place;
unfortunately, however, their book is dominated and severely
handicapped by the astronomer's dogma, and they find it
necessary to scoff at much of what the tablets say was
actually seen, simply because such things are not seen today."

Indian and Central American records also show Venus moving on
an orbit other than its present one. Ginenthal cites Evan
Hadingham ("Early Man and the Cosmos):

"The Venus pages [of the Dresden Codex] bear little
resemblance to a modern astronomical table."
http://www.skepticfiles.org/neocat/ammi.htm

The accuracy and care taken by Central American astronomers is quite amazing. Their calender was more accurate than that of the west until quite recently. They too were obsessed by Venus and she had a calender all her own.

Athena Venus
Neith (also called Ath-neith, Ath-nath, or Asenath hence Athena) was originally an African goddess from Egypt. The worship of Neith was taken to the Greek islands during successive waves of migration of black colonists from the African coasts to Mediterranean islands. These migrations and subsequent contact were very important in helping to establish civilization in ancient Greece. http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/200 ... -olympics/
The main imagery of Neith as wp wA.wt was as deity of the unseen and limitless sky, as opposed to Nut and Hathor, who represented the manifested night and day skies, respectively. As the "Opener of the Sun’s paths in all her stations" refers to how the sun is reborn (due to seasonal changes) at various points in the sky, beyond this world, of which only a glimpse is revealed prior to dawn and after sunset. It is at these changing points that Neith reigns as a form of sky goddess, where the sun rises and sets daily, or at its ‘first appearance’ to the sky above and below [11]. It is at these points, beyond the sky that is seen, that her true power as deity who creates life is manifested [12]. http://www.geocities.com/skhmt_netjert/neith.html

“”How much did your bullshit detector set you back? Do Maplins do one? “2
You can order online here: http://www.bswatch.com/
“”God, not another stealth tax.””
I'm told that the budget for science is about the same as that for Scotland. :_pished: :hello: