Re: [Vo]:Dead Sea Saga
This offers an interesting twist: http://www.mondovista.com/abraham.html Terry On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ wrote: However, if - as we believe - the mother tongue of Abraham and Lot was Sumerian, and the event was first recorded not in a Semitic language but in Sumerian, an entirely different and more plausible understanding OK, at this point the discussion has wandered into *interpretations* of the events, and we are not assuming that all the words in the KJB are for-sure true exactly as written because they were dictated by an angel. Well and good; rationality has entered the discussion. However, as soon we we allow rational considerations to temper our discussion of the events in the early Old Testament, we must also admit that there was a interregnum or gap between the events and the moment when the stories were first written down which appears to have lasted some centuries. In other words, the stories were (very probably) just an oral tradition for a few centuries before they were written. Now, again assuming there was no angel dictating the stories into the ears of folks a couple centuries later in order to avoid the possibility of errors in the oral recitations, once we've come this far, we must consider the fact that oral histories are generally found to be extremely ephemeral. Events which took place much more than a century in the past tend to be almost entirely fictionalized, if not entirely forgotten, if the only means of transmission is oral traditions, unsubstantiated claims of fabulous memories among primitive peoples notwithstanding. Such is the conclusion which comes from observing a handful of cases in which a primitive society without writing had sporadic contact with an external society which kept written notes (sorry, don't have a citation handy). The society which depends on oral tradition is found to forget or mis-remember the contact events rather badly, in contrast to the society in which written records are kept. (For a bit of internal evidence, compare the first, second, and third books of Maccabees, which appear to differ primarily in how long after the fact they were formally written down -- and, note well, Maccabees dates from a period when written records were kept.) Given that, it would seem that we're forced to the conclusion that the events in the early Old Testament are very probably sufficiently inaccurately recorded that they could be reasonably described as mostly fictional, with an occasional grain of truth preserved in them. In other words, if you're going to consider possible *errors* in the text, then you need to consider the global consequences of whisper-down-the-lane effect and not just pick out one word which might have been adjusted a little. And with that conclusion one must really wonder what the point is in discussing the possible exact meaning of one particular word in one of these stories ... and that, on a mailing list devoted (more or less) to science. Like, who cares what Lot's wife is said to have turned into, since the story bopped around in the oral tradition for so long before being written down that it's quite probable that Lot wasn't named Lot, he may or may not have had a wife, his wife (if he had one) probably wasn't involved in the events to start with, and the whole thing is more likely to have come from a border dispute or other mundane event than the meltdown of an early (and secret) Iranian nuclear reactor (which seems to be where the discussion is headed). Sorry, guys, if you're not going to stick with a literal interpretation of the received text, then you're driving over a cliff in trying to interpret the minute details of a known-inaccurate history book. It just doesn't make sense to take it sort-of literally and draw far-reaching conclusions from that sort-of interpretation...
Re: [Vo]:Dead Sea Saga
Howdy Jones, One may speculate on an account of the dead sea event recorded in Gen 19. The description of the destruction of Sodom could be interpreted as an atomic explosion.. however, the wife, while looking back, became a pillar of salt. hmmm. According to Abraham's eyewitness account from his view some distance in the hill country, a smoke cloud covered the valley.. An earlier account recorded of Abraham and Lot parting of the ways described the area east as a fertile plain. This dead sea area today is anything but a fertile plain. Below sealevel could indicate a sudden collapse indicating an immense. earthquake. For sure.. sum'tin very strange happened there. Something that left an unexplainable land change that refuses to follow the rules of geology.. much less chemistry. One may also engage in pure conjecture while reading about Solomon's lost mines. Supposedly ,they were located in Opher.. whereever that was. However, since the gold was real and enough to gold plate the temple, it sure had to come from somewhere. so why not from the dead sea.. hmmm. Transmutation???. Not so unbelievable as reports outa Ole Calif during the Sutter's mill gold rush where some suggested the gold nuggets formed from bacteria in the mountain streams since no mother lode was ever found upstream. Never to be outdone by a really good story.. now the Russians are investigating creating exotic metals using bio-nuclear transmutation theory Shades of chicken little and the sky falling.. what will they comeup with next... speaking of chickens.. anyone want to hazard a guess as to why a chicken can lay an egg ( calcium shell ),.. even IF.. their food intake has NO calcium content?? Richard Quote from: http://www.matthnelson.com/nuclear_holocaust_BC.html The traditional and literal translation of the Hebrew term Netsiv melah has been 'pillar of salt,' and tracts have been written in the Middle Ages explaining the process whereby a person could turn into crystalline salt. However, if - as we believe - the mother tongue of Abraham and Lot was Sumerian, and the event was first recorded not in a Semitic language but in Sumerian, an entirely different and more plausible understanding of the fate of Lot's wife becomes possible. In a paper presented to the American Oriental Society in 1918 and in a followup article in Beitrage zur Assyriologie, Paul Haupt had shown conclusively that because the early sources of salt in Sumer were swamps near the Persian Gulf, the Sumerian term NIMUR branched off to mean both salt and vapor. Because the Dead Sea has been called, in Hebrew, The Salt Sea, the biblical Hebrew narrator probably misinterpreted the Sumerian term and wrote 'pillar of salt' when in fact Lot's wife became a 'pillar of vapor.' Mark Jordan
Re: [Vo]:Dead Sea Saga
The dead sea isnt an ocean, its a land locked sea, and the magnesium comes from local salt deposits. On a global level, sodium is more prevelant, but since the dead sea doesn't connect to the ocean, its not part of the averaging out mechanisms present in the oceans, so local differences matter. Nothing mysterious about it at all, just basic geology. Sorry. On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looking to nature for partial answers - and to 'natural' mineral content ratios (with an eye to possible transmutation by virtual neutrons) -- when we look at a dynamic environment, like the Oceans of the world, compared to a unique but stagnant environment, like the Dead Sea ... certain anomalies in mineral-ratio show up - which are difficult to explain. Ocean water generally consists of 3-4% solids of which 97% of that is sodium chloride, and less than 1% magnesium chloride. While the Dead Sea's enormously high 30% solids content is made-up of only 8% sodium chloride vs 53% magnesium chloride. Where did the sodium go? and why is there so much magnesium comparatively? The shift is ratio is very substantial. The Dead Sea also has the highest concentration of calcium in the world, and plenty of potassium to foster the calcium, perhaps (the Kervan connection). Coincidentally some of these mineral ratio anomalies fit into a pattern - the gain of a proton. This might be the expected net result of a hydrino LENR interaction, especially if some population of solar-hydrinos arrive in the solar wind and are concentrated in stagnant environments. The short half-life of a real neutron would limit them as being an alternative explanation. BTW - the mundane explanation for part of the low sodium is that crystalline halite (which is almost all NaCl) will form preferentially from mixed content, leaving behind the other minerals; but there is FAR too little halite there to make this the only mechanism for the sodium shortfall. Of course, the answer is complicated by many factors like the surrounding drainage area -- but the relative abundance in surface rocks in most any location on earth is about the same (for each atom: Na or Mg which are ubiquitous), yet magnesium wants to oxidize and bind to oxygen and stay insoluble; and sodium prefers chlorine and solubility, so sodium should always be found in much greater abundance in liquid water -- unless there is a mechanism, in addition to halite, to remove it (or transmute it). Great mystery - like Kervan, and just as controversial -- yet all we really know is that Dead Sea salt has always been prized by early civilization for many reasons - one being that it is much more nutritious than regular sea-salt (despite, ironically, the dead connotation). It costs about 20 times more per pound than NaCl. Other curiosities: • Caesar and his successors paid soldiers in Dead Sea salt salarium argentum, or salt money in Latin. This became the English word salary One of the reasons that Rome wanted to keep such tight control over the region (which did not have much else going for it economically) 2000 years ago: and that was the salt itself, which is easy to distinguish from common sea salt- and essentially served some of the same role that paper money does today ( inflation being the amount you ate) ... gBefore Rome, this variety of salt was prized by Egypt for mummification over other kinds of salt. • At more than 1300 feet below sea level, the Dead Sea is lowest place on earth leading one to wonder: could that realtive lowness and higher evaporation rate have any special relevance to a mechanism which enriches the sea in solar-derived hydrinos (assuming they percolate down through the atmosphere)? • The Dead Sea supports no plants, seaweed, or fish but some few algae will grow. This is due to the high solids content in the water and the lack of oxygen - rather than the toxicity. • BTW - you can die trying to swim in the Dead Sea, as it is too thick for that - but you can't easily drown! • Another irony - swimmers don't need suncreen as UV is almost totally filtered out. Strange place of many ironies - and it possibly harbors even stranger natural secrets - even possibly having more oil (deep petroleum rising up due to buoyancy) than anyone thinks is possible. That could be another possible source for hydrinos. All-in-all, it seems that this region's special place in World religion may be tied and connected - at some mysterious level - to its unique physics and geology. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Dead Sea Saga
MJ wrote: However, if - as we believe - the mother tongue of Abraham and Lot was Sumerian, and the event was first recorded not in a Semitic language but in Sumerian, an entirely different and more plausible understanding OK, at this point the discussion has wandered into *interpretations* of the events, and we are not assuming that all the words in the KJB are for-sure true exactly as written because they were dictated by an angel. Well and good; rationality has entered the discussion. However, as soon we we allow rational considerations to temper our discussion of the events in the early Old Testament, we must also admit that there was a interregnum or gap between the events and the moment when the stories were first written down which appears to have lasted some centuries. In other words, the stories were (very probably) just an oral tradition for a few centuries before they were written. Now, again assuming there was no angel dictating the stories into the ears of folks a couple centuries later in order to avoid the possibility of errors in the oral recitations, once we've come this far, we must consider the fact that oral histories are generally found to be extremely ephemeral. Events which took place much more than a century in the past tend to be almost entirely fictionalized, if not entirely forgotten, if the only means of transmission is oral traditions, unsubstantiated claims of fabulous memories among primitive peoples notwithstanding. Such is the conclusion which comes from observing a handful of cases in which a primitive society without writing had sporadic contact with an external society which kept written notes (sorry, don't have a citation handy). The society which depends on oral tradition is found to forget or mis-remember the contact events rather badly, in contrast to the society in which written records are kept. (For a bit of internal evidence, compare the first, second, and third books of Maccabees, which appear to differ primarily in how long after the fact they were formally written down -- and, note well, Maccabees dates from a period when written records were kept.) Given that, it would seem that we're forced to the conclusion that the events in the early Old Testament are very probably sufficiently inaccurately recorded that they could be reasonably described as mostly fictional, with an occasional grain of truth preserved in them. In other words, if you're going to consider possible *errors* in the text, then you need to consider the global consequences of whisper-down-the-lane effect and not just pick out one word which might have been adjusted a little. And with that conclusion one must really wonder what the point is in discussing the possible exact meaning of one particular word in one of these stories ... and that, on a mailing list devoted (more or less) to science. Like, who cares what Lot's wife is said to have turned into, since the story bopped around in the oral tradition for so long before being written down that it's quite probable that Lot wasn't named Lot, he may or may not have had a wife, his wife (if he had one) probably wasn't involved in the events to start with, and the whole thing is more likely to have come from a border dispute or other mundane event than the meltdown of an early (and secret) Iranian nuclear reactor (which seems to be where the discussion is headed). Sorry, guys, if you're not going to stick with a literal interpretation of the received text, then you're driving over a cliff in trying to interpret the minute details of a known-inaccurate history book. It just doesn't make sense to take it sort-of literally and draw far-reaching conclusions from that sort-of interpretation...
Re: [Vo]:Dead Sea Saga
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:16:51 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Caesar and his successors paid soldiers in Dead Sea salt salarium argentum, or salt money in Latin. This became the English word salary One of the reasons that Rome wanted to keep such tight control over the region (which did not have much else going for it economically) 2000 years ago: and that was the salt itself, which is easy to distinguish from common sea salt- and essentially served some of the same role that paper money does today ( inflation being the amount you ate) ... gBefore Rome, this variety of salt was prized by Egypt for mummification over other kinds of salt. This ties in nicely with the article on MgCl2 in the most recent edition of Nexus magazine. At more than 1300 feet below sea level, the Dead Sea is lowest place on earth leading one to wonder: could that realtive lowness and higher evaporation rate have any special relevance to a mechanism which enriches the sea in solar-derived hydrinos (assuming they percolate down through the atmosphere)? Being that low, the air pressure should be greater than 1 atm. Combine that with the water liquid crystal layer at the surface (which may be affected by the higher pressure), and perhaps you have a recipe for liquid crystal catalyzed LENR :) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Dead Sea Saga
Howdy Jones, One may speculate on an account of the dead sea event recorded in Gen 19. The description of the destruction of Sodom could be interpreted as an atomic explosion.. however, the wife, while looking back, became a pillar of salt. hmmm. According to Abraham's eyewitness account from his view some distance in the hill country, a smoke cloud covered the valley.. An earlier account recorded of Abraham and Lot parting of the ways described the area east as a fertile plain. This dead sea area today is anything but a fertile plain. Below sealevel could indicate a sudden collapse indicating an immense. earthquake. For sure.. sum'tin very strange happened there. Something that left an unexplainable land change that refuses to follow the rules of geology.. much less chemistry. One may also engage in pure conjecture while reading about Solomon's lost mines. Supposedly ,they were located in Opher.. whereever that was. However, since the gold was real and enough to gold plate the temple, it sure had to come from somewhere. so why not from the dead sea.. hmmm. Transmutation???. Not so unbelievable as reports outa Ole Calif during the Sutter's mill gold rush where some suggested the gold nuggets formed from bacteria in the mountain streams since no mother lode was ever found upstream. Never to be outdone by a really good story.. now the Russians are investigating creating exotic metals using bio-nuclear transmutation theory Shades of chicken little and the sky falling.. what will they comeup with next... speaking of chickens.. anyone want to hazard a guess as to why a chicken can lay an egg ( calcium shell ),.. even IF.. their food intake has NO calcium content?? Richard
Re: [Vo]:Dead Sea Saga
Hi Robin This ties in nicely with the article on MgCl2 in the most recent edition of Nexus magazine. Hmmm,,, Interesting looking articles in there. Looks like the Oz version of Discovery but with more tolerance for the fringe. http://www.nexusmagazine.com/ That story must have started a meme circulating worldwide, as I do not have access to it, at least not in print form. At more than 1300 feet below sea level, the Dead Sea is lowest place on earth leading one to wonder: could that realtive lowness and higher evaporation rate have any special relevance to a mechanism which enriches the sea in solar-derived hydrinos (assuming they percolate down through the atmosphere)? RvS: Being that low, the air pressure should be greater than 1 atm. Combine that with the water liquid crystal layer at the surface (which may be affected by the higher pressure), and perhaps you have a recipe for liquid crystal catalyzed LENR :) Don't really have an opinion about that - but since you mention it - wouldn't it be most interesting, if and when someone does manage to finally isolate the most common solar hydrino - i.e. the ones arriving from the megatons per second manufactured in the solar corona- to find that the effective density of this puppy were to be around 1.2 -1.3 grams per cc ? For those who do not follow the HSG - there is no real authority on what the effective density of this species is. Most of what Mills has shown (claimed to show) is compounded with alkaline metals. We do know its atomic weight would be the same as hydrogen of course-- but its volume is an inverse cubic relationship with the smaller radius, so it is most likely to be too dense to remain a gas. If that density turned out to be around 1.25 grams per cc that would mean it would sink in earth's oceans but would effectively float on the Dead Sea, where it would then be perfectly positioned to participate in some kind of surface reaction. However, as mentioned - there is almost no UV coming in to the Sea - so that might mean that even with visible light driving the reaction, sodium is transmuted into magnesium. Sounds almost too elegant in the details to be both true and (heretofore) overlooked - but truth is often stranger than fiction, as they say... ...or as my main muse sez, a bit more insightfully: Truth is stranger than fiction, but that is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Dead Sea Saga
Richard, You were probably asking that question rhetorically - but that was why I referenced Louis Kervan: Kervan, Biological Transmutations - I think he is usually credited with the suggestion that 40K, the radioactive isotope of potassium, transmutes to calcium via biological-LENR which has somehow evolved as a capability of the modern dinosaurs' ... oops chickens', metabolism... Jones Shades of chicken little and the sky falling.. what will they comeup with next... speaking of chickens.. anyone want to hazard a guess as to why a chicken can lay an egg ( calcium shell ),.. even IF.. their food intake has NO calcium content?? Richard
Re: [Vo]:Dead Sea Saga
Howdy Jones, Further to the saga of Sodom, the account recorded didn't menton an atomic explosion. It did mention raining fire and brimestone well.. err. sulfur. Hmm. down along the Texas and Lousiana coast there are numerous salt domes that are a favorite of petro geologists because of the potential for oil and gas production. There are also several large sulfur domes that are productive using the Frasch process. Now to what if's..if the socalled fertile plain mentioned in Gen 17 around ole Sodom town had an enomous salt dome underneath.. and adding to the imagination... what if there lurked a sulfur dome nearby.. and what if there just happened to be a large reservoir of natural gas trapped in the domes.. and what if.. sun'tin happened to set off an explosion?? Would the earth sink to replace the cavity that formed? It sure happened over near Sour Lake Texas some years back and stiil caving in around the area. Who's to say that New Madrid area on the Mississippi produced a earthquake near event. For sure, a bio-chem scientist could get his tenure revoked for such heresy.specially if he mentioned a bible source. Naw!... Richard Richard, You were probably asking that question rhetorically - but that was why I referenced Louis Kervan: Kervan, Biological Transmutations - I think he is usually credited with the suggestion that 40K, the radioactive isotope of potassium, transmutes to calcium via biological-LENR which has somehow evolved as a capability of the modern dinosaurs' ... oops chickens', metabolism... Jones Shades of chicken little and the sky falling.. what will they comeup with next... speaking of chickens.. anyone want to hazard a guess as to why a chicken can lay an egg ( calcium shell ),.. even IF.. their food intake has NO calcium content?? Richard No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1735 - Release Date: 10/20/2008 2:52 PM
Re: [Vo]:Dead Sea Saga
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:44:42 -0500: Hi, [snip] next... speaking of chickens.. anyone want to hazard a guess as to why a chicken can lay an egg ( calcium shell ),.. even IF.. their food intake has NO calcium content?? [snip] I think the suggestion has been put forward before, that they lose Calcium from their bones in order to create eggshells. Of course they wouldn't be able to do that for very long, but as a stopgap measure it might make evolutionary sense. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
