Enoch's Dudael

a reply to: chr0naut

wait, I AM NOT the one that separated abzu into two parts: tiamat the goddess and abzu the god. that happened in enuma elish and that's what i've been complaining about since i first realized that abzu had been redefined in enuma elish, deified, as well, and mated with his other part (tiamat). well technically, tiamat is generated when the gate is not "locked" (and so is not another part of abzu but a function of abzu), thusly why when abzu is "killed", kingu (another gate, theoretically, not on this planet) generates tiamat instead. originally, the gate and its function were combined into one thing and simply called abzu, that is, until enuma elish.

this is probably another reason why esoteric beliefs think that the first adam was a hermaphrodite (like baphomet) that was separated into 2 parts (adam and eve), just ain't so as earlier texts prove that abzu was not a god of any kind, not even sentient, for that matter. it was a device for generating wormholes. in effect, esoterica sexualized and then deified, an inanimate object and its function.

if you were an ancient person without advanced scientific knowledge and saw "beings" coming out of a watery gate, you'd think the gate was giving birth to those beings - thus one of its titles is "Gate of the Gods" or "Gate of God"

i think this is also the Nun of Ancient Egypt.

a reply to: undo

OK, from a physics point of view, the interesting looking Stargate SG1 gate is far-fetched and fictional.

A stable wormhole is a high dimensional object, not a flat circle. In three dimensions, it would appear spherical.

Assuming its spin is keeping it traversable, it would be spinning so fast (close to the speed of light at the Schwarzschild radius) that any surface features would be indistinguishable.

Additional to that, the gravitational gradient would mandate that the Schwarzschild radius would be very smooth and featureless.

Matter infalling into the wormhole would be converted to energy according to the E²=(mc²)²+(pc)² equation. That means that above the event horizon would be very bright (think atomic bomb bright, even for small masses).

This also means that hidden just inside the event horizon is all that energy, falling into the center of the wormhole frozen in time from our (external) perspective. An unbreachably hot firewall around the naked singularity.

Physical objects approaching the wormhole would be "spaghettified" as the gravitational gradient exceeds the strong nuclear force (yes, it would even pull the atoms apart). Everything consumed is disassembled.

The only way to prevent spaghettification would be to have a wormhole larger than several light-years in diameter, so that the gravitational gradient is larger and tidal forces would not tear things apart. However, black holes (from which a wormhole comes) are created by the collapse of a star. Once the initial collapse has occurred, the growth of the black hole slows to a tiny proportion of the of the mass. So, to get a super massive, fast spinning black hole required for a stable wormhole, takes a lot of stars. Probably galaxies of them.

Also, as a black hole accretes mass, it would be likely to lose rotational velocity, making it less likely to become a wormhole (because the mass adds at the event horizon in our time frame, not at the singularity).

a reply to: chr0naut

well at least that's what they say.
here's a whole page of google links on traversable wormholes (skip the first few links. there's apparently a music group with a related name)
www.google.com...

i think it would require the gate at each end to act similar to a teleportation device.

IBM'S quantum teleportation
researcher.watson.ibm.com...

originally posted by: chr0naut
In the instance of "abyzou" (from the assumed Sumerian root, the feminine 'goddess name' of saltwater 'sea'), the 'alike sounding' transliteration rule breaks down when translated into: Babylonian "tiamat" (again the feminine 'goddess name' of saltwater 'sea') or 'tamtu' ('great sea') in Akkadian or Hebrew "tehom" (the great deep) despite the fact that these societies were essentially conjugate.

Now that's interesting, may I ask of your sources?

I always saw Tiamat as the rivers of Mesopotamia as in te-yam-ot, but it never made any sense, since that would mean 'waters will' or 'Yam will', but after seeing that Tiamat and Tehom are most likely cognates of the same word, I see Tiamat could actually be "The seven seas" or the "Depths of the sea". Tehom is feminine so by adding the Hebrew plural suffix -ot you get Tehomot, meaning "the depths". That can be nothing but Tiamat. I have to look further into the mythology of Tiamat though, to be more certain. That would fit with the mythology concerning Tiamat's Hebrew/Canaanite counterpart, Yam.

And these gates in question, I agree they are not wormholes, I see them as sea ports and city gates, also straits, capes, passes, and other such bends or checkpoints you'd have to pass in order to access the world beyond. But most importantly, these stories explain how the ancients played with the rivers, digging canals and installing floodgates and cataracts. In Atrahasis the Flood was the effect of the two gods Ellil and Anu playing with the waterways, the rivers and the canals, damming up the rivers by their sources, storing vast amounts of water way upriver. Inevitably, all hell breaks loose when they open all the gates at once after first having sent disease downriver followed by seven years of "drought" enforced upon the "noisy" humans.

a reply to: chr0naut

Or maybe, there are no wormholes. One of the most long-lived myths in modern natural philosophy. Same goes with black holes and dark matter really. This Universe is a radio-station, not brickwork. This world is etheral, everything dances to the tune that the ether decree. Reality is like a song (that is of course figuratively speaking), the echo of a hum from some ridiculously huge entity passing us in a higher dimentinal complex, beyond 10 dimensional space-time. Our universe is dandruff.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

which proves my point above, that tiamat was originally a function of abzu, not mated to abzu. that it is somehow related to the following:

-the chaotic waters of creation from which 1) enki arose the e.abzu temple, 2) atum arose the mountain of creation, 3) elohim floated over in his ruach of creation

a reply to: undo

The ruach (I always mis-spell it Rauch) involved is a wind we must admit. A storm wind of epic proportion. Compare the opening words of Genesis to E=mc^2 for fun, heavy and light waters, massive explosions of divine light and power.... I somehow prefer modern science as to accuracy, but if I was to hide away the dangers of nuclear physics, I'd prefer the Bereshyt. The consequences are indeed of astronomical and divine proportions. See?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: undo

The ruach (I always mis-spell it Rauch) involved is a wind we must admit. A storm wind of epic proportion. Compare the opening words of Genesis to E=mc^2 for fun, heavy and light waters, massive explosions of divine light and power.... I somehow prefer modern science as to accuracy, but if I was to hide away the dangers of nuclear physics, I'd prefer the Bereshyt. The consequences are indeed of astronomical and divine proportions. See?

that's not what verse 2 says though (and its verse 2 that talks about the ruach of creation floating over the deep (abyss). it says the earth BECAME void and desolate, not that the earth WAS void and desolate (void and desolate=tohu and bohu). the actual hebrew there was incorrectly translated (in that it had the wrong tense of the word. it was the right word, just wrong tense was used). if the earth BECAME void and desolate, some time after its original creation which happened in verse 1 (the original creation), then in verse 2, something has happened since verse 1 and the planet is in a chaotic state. this indicates that the ruach of elohim is about to RE-create, not create for the first time.

i think where the problem for translation came in was the repetition of words that meant almost the same thing but were not, such as abzu and tiamat (abyss and tehom - one being a function of the other). chaotic waters and the deep. the vehicle of the god(s) of creation floating over the abzu/abyss. a cataclysm of chaotic proportions. it's a tangled up mess of ideas all scrunched into verse 2 and all having very similar ideas and translations. that would be very difficult to translate, even for moses, who wrote it down.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: undo

The ruach (I always mis-spell it Rauch) involved is a wind we must admit. A storm wind of epic proportion. Compare the opening words of Genesis to E=mc^2 for fun, heavy and light waters, massive explosions of divine light and power.... I somehow prefer modern science as to accuracy, but if I was to hide away the dangers of nuclear physics, I'd prefer the Bereshyt. The consequences are indeed of astronomical and divine proportions. See?

that's not what verse 2 says though (and its verse 2 that talks about the ruach of creation floating over the deep (abyss).

Ruach means wind. And after the storm, a great light. Hm. Our Soul Helios is basically a humongous sea of water (hydro- in hydrogen means water) in suspension and burning as result of itself collapsing upon itself, turning Hydrogen (Water) into Helium. Hydrogen and helium have very asimilar geometry and the dynamics of the two are somewhat opposing at surface level, making the Helium wander in oposite way from hydrogen and you have the basics of the fusion process. Helios is also Hell, and we won't be able to penetrate its surface in yet another millennium when Leviathan will check out the insides of the Sun in the skies....

it says the earth BECAME void and desolate, not that the earth WAS void and desolate (void and desolate=tohu and bohu).

So what's new? To make meself clear. Opening of Bereshyt 1 is describing a nuclear explosion as one of God's first ideas of fun before later terraforming Earth and creating and'or replicating life in the other end of the time-line. Making Uranium explode is actually easy, and you get all you need knowledge wise over at howstuffworks.com. Look at Kim Big Boom over there in N-Korea. Very clever move, bravo! -- and that last remark is ironic, it can sometmes be difficult to spot in text shape, ATS should have way to format irony inside posts.

you are ignoring the way the verses actually read.
the first verse is about creation of the universe.
the second verse is about the state of the planet earth at the time when the god(s) of creation arrive following a cataclysm. in other texts of similar account, the ruach as the vehicle of god(s) would be the equivalent of enki's e.abzu temple and atum's mountain of creation, both depicted as rising from the abyss. how does a mountain (can you say "holy mountain"?) become a wind likened to the soul or spirit? is it possible you're thinking of the whirlwind? (that's a wormhole, which LOOKS like a whirlwind. remember ezekiel seeing the hole open in the sky, associated with a whirlwind? come on, don't tell me that doesn't have wormhole stamped all over it in gigantic letters). it doesn't say heaven was opened, it says, the heavens were opened. and out of that came a fiery whirlwind, and out of the fiery whirlwind came the living creatures, who represented four constellations etc

a reply to: undo

I said the first words of Genesis 1, that would cover at least the first four days mind you. The seven days is a chain reaction. It's actually quite simple. Boom.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: undo

I said the first words of Genesis 1, that would cover at least the first four days mind you. The seven days is a chain reaction. It's actually quite simple. Boom.

no, verse 1 is aborted (as it applies to the planet earth) at the end of verse 1 by the cataclysm in verse 2. so verse 1 is only related to the idea of the creation not the idea of the creations that follow. in other words, if i said to you "today i created a bunch of salad bowls, then one of my salad bowls broke, so i had to create a new salad bowl for that salad bowl and new salad to put in the salad bowl and new gardeners to tend that salad bowl," you realize the first salad bowls are only marginally related by virtue of the concept of creation and salad bowls (planets as a metaphor here). the seven days of creation are not connected to verse 1, other than the idea that one of the planets that had been created in verse 1, was messed up and had to be "repopulated", not for the first time

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

dude...:

Rauch) involved is a wind we must admit. A storm wind of epic proportion. Compare the opening words of Genesis to E=mc^2 for fun, heavy and light waters, massive explosions of divine light and power....

while you get smashed in the face from coincidences or synchronisity, or whatever, remain blind ,- I guess this message goes for undo anyways more than the messenger:
a reply to: undo
The answer lies in the P.O.T., Rauch is actually german for smoke. You are totally on to something I feel you actually guide me a bit. But if i need to get new hints and clues on my research i go and have a look at yours...
But just as a note integrate maybe, like they were replacable people operating a device, and the elohim is a unification, not re-built, but a merger of formerly known statuses?
And about this and coincidence:

the ruach as the vehicle of god(s) would be the equivalent of enki's e.abzu temple

I'll just say: i had another thread where i said exactly this, the pool of thoughtsmash we all share is found in the bowl, we call G.O.D....

a reply to: undo

Genesis 1 refers to first chapter of Genesis, not first verse, that would be Genesis 1:1, as in Chapter/Verse, see? Now read Genesis 1 with basic paradigms in discovering and harnessing nuclear energy in mind and though unrelated, how his week commence in terraforming, before it ends in nuclear biology and cloning. Sounds familiar? It's the renaissance process.

a reply to: Peeple

well so many ideas are mixed together in these passages, some metaphorical, some not, some about the unseen spirit realm, some about the observable physical universe, it's like pulling out your arm hairs with itty bitty tweezers to filter thru it all and put each concept in its correct place.

if the ruach of elohim is the spirit, and that does appear to be how it was translated, what does it mean, when compared to similar accounts of neighboring cultures who appear to be telling the same story? how does the spirit of god(s) translate to a temple or holy mountain rising from the abyss? you'd have to forego most of the old testament info and skip directly to the new testament where the temple is defined as the body (not a building) which acts as the housing of the spirit of god.

if however, the temple building acts as the housing of the spirit (which it does apparently in old testament texts) rather than the individual, then the ruach is perhaps not a simple reference to spirit but to spirit vehicle in the shape of something artificial - like a temple building (e.abzu perhaps?)

a reply to: undo

well maybe your problem is: you're mixing layers. There is the touchable symbol, there is the symbol we use to describe it, and then we got what we are actually looking for: the containing information.
And (spoiler) just because it suits my current observations in other regards: think of ocean as space. Our atmosphere behaves like a liquid, for example. These old folks spent a lot more time watching, without judging than we do, maybe they saw more?
Also and i don't want to talk anyone into something wrong like taking any illegal substances, but if where you live it is available, give your spirit some weed, like the old folks did and see what the spirit has to tell you. Because maybe then you can figure out, what they are on all the layers, because the description surely isn't the thing and the meaning it had was an entirely different story as well, maybe...

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: undo

Genesis 1 refers to first chapter of Genesis, not first verse, that would be Genesis 1:1, as in Chapter/Verse, see? Now read Genesis 1 with basic paradigms in discovering and harnessing nuclear energy in mind and though unrelated, how his week commence in terraforming, before it ends in nuclear biology and cloning. Sounds familiar? It's the renaissance process.

oh i see what you're saying - you're applying the entire set of verses to the process of learning new info. but that's also not what it's saying. it doesn't stipulate what was created on the planets in verse 1, just that the universe was created.
ironically, the universe was created by super massive black holes while in active phase *see quasar*, which likely ties into the concept that "tiamat" (tohu???) was a creation goddess. they didn't differentiate in the texts between a wormhole, black hole or white hole or any variation inbetween.

originally posted by: undo
housing of the spirit [...] like a temple building (e.abzu perhaps?)

A heavy water reactor ("e.abzu")? Deutrium oxide (heavy water, water of Absu) falls below h2o (the waters below heaven) which is suspended between deutrium and pure hydrogen waters (the Sun and Jupiter) and boils at higher temperature and the waters of the abyss tames neutron transmission. PS: See if you find things corresponding to carbon and graphite in the texts somewhere. And notice the effects of coagulating particle emissions.

Genesis 1 is nuclear poetry

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

ah but many times the e.abzu was called a pure place.