Thunderbolts Forum For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology Skip to content * Board index < New Insights and Mad Ideas * Change font size * FAQ * Register * Login Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light? Forum rules Post a reply First unread post o 65 posts o Page 5 of 5 o 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by Lloyd » Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:28 pm LLOYD: These are my last notes and questions on God Star, so these may be the last interview questions, although there are comments from one reader at the end, that you may like to respond to. * God Star Notes and Questions Page 461--Wal considered the polar column to have been formed by a polar jet, i.e. a constant electric discharge. CARDONA: Yes--and so do I. In effect, it is really a sustained Birkeland current. LLOYD: Page 462--The so-called Snake found near the galactic center in 1991 is a vast lightning bolt. CARDONA: That is what it has been called. In effect, once again, it is yet another form of a sustained Birkeland current. LLOYD: Page 464--The magnetospheres of Solar System planets are dark current mode plasma. CARDONA: According to Donald Scott--yes. LLOYD: How's that different from plasmaspheres? CARDONA: They aren't [different]. LLOYD: Page 465--Proto-Saturn's polar ray, or column, probably lost some of its potential by the time humans evolved. CARDONA: Yes. LLOYD: Do you mean electric potential? CARDONA: Of course. LLOYD: Page 466--The Arctic Ocean contains four depressions holding large volumes of sediment. If the sediment were deposited by tidal waves, other depressions, like Hudson's Bay and the Black, Caspian and Baltic Seas, should also have filled with sediment. The Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean was caused by a tidal bulge of subcrustal magma and a collapse of the crust. CARDONA: It is the entire Arctic area that was uplifted in a tidal bulge. The Eurasian Basin itself is a *REGUINAL* collapsed area that once occupied that bulge. [color=#0000FF]LLOYD: Why didn't the magma pile up on the ocean floor and fill the Arctic Ocean? CARDONA: Because, as explained in the text on that same page, material was removed in that area from Earth's lower mantle. LLOYD: A swirling vortex of magma was detected 3,000 km under the North Pole. CARDONA: That's right. LLOYD: Page 468--The disk of a 10,000 year old star is disappearing and will be gone in about 100 years. 30 young brown dwarf stars were found at Rho Ophiuchi. CARDONA: Correct. LLOYD: And the rapidly disappearing disk disproves the Nebular Hypothesis? CARDONA: Yes, because according to mainstream astrophysics, the time required for planets to form from circumstellar disks is vastly longer than the life-time of most of these disks. See below. LLOYD: Pages 469-471--90% of young stars in the Orion nebula have so-called accretion disks, which evaporate away in a few hundred thousand years, leaving little or no time for planets to coalesce. These planetary nebulae only exist for a thousand years. McCrea and Lyttleton separately calculated in 1960 that planets could not have coalesced between Jupiter and the Sun. Joshua Roth said planet formation by accretion would take many millions of years, but disks have much shorter lifetimes. CARDONA: That's right. [color=#0000FF]LLOYD: Pages 471-476--Many [some] brown dwarfs appear to be loners, but some were found orbiting other stars. Many [some] brown dwarfs are too massive to have formed from circumstellar disks. CARDONA: I did not say "many." What I did was report Michael Liu's opinion concerning the brown dwarf orbiting 15 Sagittae. LLOYD: In 1993 Van Flandern suggested that planets and smaller stars are ejected from fast rotating parent stars and some gas giants. Arp, Alfven & Peratt considered small galaxies to be formed by ejection from large galaxies. In plasma, vortex filaments form and grow progressively larger by gathering matter. With increasing mass, they are shaped into galaxies by electric and magnetic fields and by gravity of the increasing mass. Thornhill explained that ejection will be polar or equatorial from the parent body, depending on which magnetic field is stronger. CARDONA: That is correct. LLOYD: Pages 476-477--Conventional astronomers have considered that brown dwarfs may be able to spawn planetary systems. Brown dwarfs have been found to emit intense flares, like the Sun. CARDONA: You bet. LLOYD: Wouldn't Saturn's flares have been much stronger than solar flares, if it ejected so much detritus periodically? CARDONA: Yes--discussed further in Volumes Two and Three, with much more yet to come in Volume Four. However, not all the detritus was ejected by proto-Saturn. As will be shown in forthcoming sequels, and as others already know, there were other planets involved in the Saturnian configuration. LLOYD: Page 478--Brown dwarfs were found to have disks in 2001. Matter falling onto circumstellar disks are considered to form jets. CARDONA: Or so, at least, it has been conjectured. Do, however, keep in mind that we know very little about these procedures. LLOYD: Alfven said the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn etc all have equatorial plasmoids, which, when the stored energy becomes excessive, switch to polar jets. CARDONA: That's right. LLOYD: Page 482--Comet tails are apparently scaled up astral jets. CARDONA: You bet. LLOYD: Didn't Wal say that proto-Saturn may have been a comet? CARDONA: It's been said before--sometimes as an analogy, sometimes meant as fact. It all depends what one exactly understands by "comet." LLOYD: Page 484--Jets are mainly electric currents. CARDONA: Of course. LLOYD: Page 485--Galaxies that were ejected axially have no angular momentum and remain along the original line of ejection. CARDONA: That's right. LLOYD: Is a galaxy's lack of angular momentum determined by its slow rotation? CARDONA: No--it is determined by the direction of its ejection, with no angular momentum if the ejection is poleward. Rotation, slow or fast, has nothing to do with it. LLOYD: Since the Sun has little angular momentum, was it ejected axially from something? CARDONA: As of now, we have no way of knowing. There are some astrophysicists who have recently proclaimed the Sun to be the daughter of a vaster star that went supernova. Not all physicists agree. LLOYD: Page 486--Wal's Theory is that proto-Saturn ejected planets equatorially. CARDONA: Yes--and with which I do not agree. LLOYD: And that's why some rocky planets have moderate angular momentum? CARDONA: Under Wal's scheme, that *WOULD* be the case. In mine, this moderate angular momentum would have been achieved due to the planets' dispersal from their original axial binding--in other words, when the proto-Saturnian system fell apart. LLOYD: Page 492--Stone tools similar to those in East Africa were found in 15 locations in Siberia in the Arctic Circle. Petroglyphs are found on Spitzbergen, also in the Arctic. CARDONA: And more than that in GOD STAR's sequels. LLOYD: Do you think civilization began in the Arctic? CARDONA: No. Civilization, as long as one understands what is meant by the word, evolved much farther south around what became known as Mesopotamia. At least, that's what we can tell by what has been found. LLOYD: A reader had these comments. Would you like to respond? CARDONA: Yes. QUESTION: There is also the component of the [Saturn] theory that says we were "lucky" to have survived the planetary instability and subsequent realignment. I know there isn't really an answer to this, but it does come across a little like "... and then a miracle happened". It just doesn't sit well with me right now. CARDONA: No miracle. The planetary instability and the subsequent realignment that are here spoken of were actually one and the same event. Up until realignment, the planets were quite stable. QUESTION: The human eye [is very highly tuned] to peak solar radiance at earth's surface in the visible spectrum. Chlorophyll is also equally tuned to the Sun's EM spectrum. Had we been originally in Saturn's environment this would not be possible since human eyes (cones/rods) would be adapted to a completely different spectrum under Saturn. - If we were around another star [instead of the Sun], the visible spectrum would be something else entirely. Under the Saturnian system, it would have likely been pushed toward infrared. Is it your position that entering the Solar system induced rapid evolution to achieve the response [in eyes & plants that] we currently see? I'll have to see if there is any data on this. I don't know if any ancient human genomes have been analyzed for something like this. CARDONA: I do not believe that a different spectrum would have necessitated a major physical change in human eyes. But, yes, there would have to have been some adaptations and this, in fact, is taken up in detail in Volume Four of my slowly progressing series. QUESTION: One last curiosity regarding symbol's and rock art. I have seen a few video's talking about the enclosing serpent, but there wasn't ever an interpretation of it's celestial reference. Do you know what that was? CARDONA: Oh, definitely. That involved a major event--or series of events, I should say--in the transformation of the proto-Saturnian system. It also constitutes a major portion of Volume Four, which is slowly, but surely, being stitched together. As I keep saying, there is a lot more yet to come. In fact, to use an old cliche, I can safely say that the three volumes I have so far published hardly scratch the surface of what I still need to divulge. Let's hope I live long enough. Thanks to all for your interest in my work. Dwardu Cardona Lloyd Posts: 1529 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by Orthogonal » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:29 pm Lloyd, thanks for passing along my questions. It seems Cardona is working on addressing them but isn't yet ready to fully expand on the answers. Fair enough. I may read his current works and next volume if it ever comes out, but I just browsed through the bookstore and was a bit shocked at the price for God Star/Flare Star. $69 :shock: I don't know if Cardona or Tbolts is working on it, but a cheaper ebook might be worth creating. Orthogonal Posts: 46 Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:59 pm + E-mail Orthogonal Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by Lloyd » Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:29 pm The Gods Were the Planets * Here is some of Cardona's evidence in God Star that the gods in ancient myths were primarily the planets. This should answer Grey Cloud's and Anaconda's doubts on the matter. I don't have his later books, so I don't know of much of his more detailed evidence from the myths themselves. There's more that shows that Saturn was the chief planet. I'll try to post some of that later. - 52. De Santillana and von Dechend said the ancients said "the gods are really stars, ... who are the planets." - DC says "If we restrict ourselves to the world's major myths, [their] claims can be validated." - 54. Aristotle said "A tradition has been handed down by the ancient thinkers of very early times ... to the effect that these heavenly bodies are gods...." - Lucian of Samosata said "from both Homer the poet and the epics of Hesiod we should understand that the ancients were of one mind with the astrologers.... The conjunction of Venus and Mars creates the poetry of Homer." - 56. The Polynesian god, Ta'urua, means star, as does the similar name, Tara, which is an epithet of the Indian god, Kali-Durga. - G.A.Dorsey said "The greater part of the [Pawnee] heavenly gods were identified with stars." - 59. Susan Milbrath said a "number of scholars agree that the fundamental nature of the ancient Mesoamerican pantheon is astronomical." - 61. The Indian Linga Purana says "the worship of the planets should be pursued by good men." - The Talmud defines idolatry as the "worship of stars and constellations." - Egyptians called Saturn Heru-ka-pet, meaning Horus, the Bull of Heaven. - The Pyramid Texts call Horus the Morning Star. - Sba and netru both meant star as well as god. - 62. R. Faulkner said Egypt had "a very ancient stratum of stellar religion, in which the stars were regarded as gods...." - W. Budge said much of the Pyramid Texts "refer to primitive star-worship." - The Syrian Eblaite tablets refer to a temple as both a "house of god" and a "house of the star". - N.H. Snaith said "the Mesopotamian deities ... were associated with the heavenly bodies." - 63. K. Szarzynska said "in the most archaic period ... dingir [god] was associated with astral deities only." - The cuneiform word for both god and star was an 8-pointed asterisk*. - 67. DC says the ancients had always considered the planets to be deities. - And the planets were deified, "not because they consistently followed an ordained pattern, but precisely because they did not." - 72. The Egyptian priest who talked to Solon also told him that the story of Phaethon, the inexperienced god who tried to drive the chariot of Helios, but who lost control and set the Earth on fire and then fell himself to his death, "has the fashion of a legend, but the truth of it lies in the occurrence of a shifting of bodies in the heavens which move around the Earth, and a destruction of things on Earth by fierce fire, which occurs at long intervals." Lloyd Posts: 1529 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by Lloyd » Sun Apr 03, 2011 1:59 pm Historical Evidence that Saturn was Earth's Former Sun * Here is some of Dwardu's evidence in God Star that Saturn was the former Sun for Earth, Mars and Venus. - 120. In the first century BC, Siculus said "But above all in importance, [the Chaldeans] say, is the study of the influence of the five stars known as planets[; and] the one named Cronus [Saturn] by the Greeks ... is the most conspicuous ..., which they call the star of Helios." - DC says, according to V.S. Apte, "one of the Sanskrit names of the planet Saturn [was] Grahanayakah" where grahah meant planet and nayakah meant chief or leader. - 121. The Babylonians called Saturn En-Me Sar-ra, which meant "Lord of the Law of the Universe." - According to R.C. Thompson, the Babylonians said "Mul Lu-Bat Sag-Us Mul il Samas su-u", which meant "Saturn is the star of the sun." - DC says, in the second century BC, Eratosthenes, who calculated Earth's circumference, "identified the planet Saturn as the star of the Sun", as did also other Greeks, according to A. Bouche-Leclercq. - 122. In the 6th century AD, Simplicius "also called Saturn the star of the Sun." - The Romans, including Hyginus, librarian of Paletine, also called Saturn the star of Sol, Latin for Sun. - V.S. Apte said, in Sanskrit Surya meant Sun and Suryaputrah meant "son of the Sun", which meant Saturn. - Another Sanskrit word for Saturn is Saurah, which meant solar day or month. - 123. The Babylonians often said what to expect "when Shamash stands in the halo of Sin", where Sin meant the Moon. The Sun cannot be seen in a halo of the Moon, but Saturn can. - R.C. Thompson found by 1900 that Shamash meant Saturn, but other scholars often failed to acknowledge it and have continued to call it only the Sun instead. - 124. The Babylonians distinguished between Shamash/Saturn and Shamash/Sun. - 125. M. Jastrow said they called Saturn the 'sun' both in astrological notes and by notices in classical writings. - S. Langdon spoke of the Sumerian sun-god Ninurta, as also the name of the war god planet Saturn. - 127. Nimrod is Ninurta/Saturn, because the cuneiform letters nin-ur-ta are also read nim-ru-ud. - 128. G. Rawlinson wondered "How is it possible that the dark and distant planet Saturn [was called] the luminary who irradiates the nations like the sun, the light of the gods?" - 130. Ningirsu/Saturn was called "he [who] changes darkness into light". - 131. In Sanskrit Arka meant the Sun, while Arki, Arka-putra and Arkatanayah meant Saturn. - 132. Saturn was called Brahmanyah, which meant "belonging to Brahma" - E. Moor says Brahma was called the true Sun, which meant Saturn, not the present Sun. - Although in Sanskrit Surya meant the Sun, evidence suggests it originally meant Saturn. - Saturn was called graha Surya, meaning planet Sun, and was said to occupy samanam dhama, meaning "the same place of rising and setting". - Surya was also called Suraj, meaning Saturn. - 133. James Frazer said "That Ra was both the physical sun and the sun-god is of course undisputed". - 134. But the motions and characteristics of Ra do not match the Sun. - A Ptolemaic Egyptian ostrakon identified Ra as Kronos, which was Saturn. - Samuel Mercer noticed in the Pyramid Texts that the Egyptian star, shd.w, "might have been our Saturn", though he said it was identified with Ra. - 135. The Greek poet Nonnus in Egypt said the Arabic Sun was Kronos, Saturn. - Plato, or his pupil Philip of Opus, wrote in Epinomus that the slowest planet was Helios, the Sun, though Saturn was the slowest planet known. - To Malchus Porphyry, Rhetorios and Claudius Ptolemy, Saturn was also known as Helios. - Helios also originally was derived from the Canaanite-Phoenician god, El or Elos, which Philo Byblius said was Saturn. - 137. Franz Boll concluded that Helios, Sol and Kronos, were the same god and planet, Saturn. - Even early alchemists and astrologers passed down the ancient tradition that planet Saturn was "the best sun". - 139. The Mayan book, the Popul Vuh, said the ancient sun was not the same sun we see now. - DC says regarding ancient writings "in each case where Saturn and the Sun share the same name, the name originally belonged to Saturn". - 140. He says "Mythology ... was never concerned with the [present] Sun, [but only] the Saturnian one." - If in mythology "some of the names of Saturn were bestowed on the Sun, it could only have been because the Sun supplanted Saturn ... physically". - 178. DC's first three hypotheses are: 1. According to ancient astronomical lore, Earth was once a moon of Saturn and Saturn appeared larger than the present full Moon. 2. According to the ancients, Saturn once shone like the Sun. 3. According to them, Saturn shone especially at night. Lloyd Posts: 1529 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by Lloyd » Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:58 pm More Answers from Cardona When Each Planet Was First Seen LLOYD: Here are 8 points. Are these the order in which you think the planets were first seen? 1. Saturn: You've stated that Saturn was the first planet seen, not counting Earth, and it was generally at the celestial north pole from the beginning of the Saturn Age. REPLY: Correct. LLOYD: 2. Sun: I think you stated that the Sun was first seen about 10,000 years ago from a great distance. If the Sun was visible for a time, were other stars or planets likely visible then as well? REPLY: Doubtful, since none of them would have been as close to us as the Sun was then getting to be. LLOYD: Was the Sun seen before or after Saturn's flare? REPLY: After. LLOYD: How soon did it disappear? I think you said it did not re-appear until after the Saturn System break-up. Right? If so, did the ancients know the newly visible Sun after the break-up was the same as the small star they saw millennia earlier? If not, how would they have been able to say that the small star they first saw was the later Sun? REPLY: I do not believe I ever said it disappeared again. In fact I do not believe it did. LLOYD: 3. Venus: Was Venus likely ejected from Saturn during the flare 10,000 years ago? REPLY: For the time being all I'm going to say is that Venus first APPEARED right after the light from proto-Saturn's flare-up ebbed enough for people to be able to see what was transpiring in the sky. LLOYD: Did Venus appear first as a comet that circled Saturn, forming Saturn's circular enclosure? And did Venus move from the circle to the face of Saturn after a short or long time? REPLY: No--Venus first appeared plumb in the middle of the proto-Saturnian orb. ... LLOYD: 4. Mars: Was Mars likely visible before Venus first appeared? REPLY: Definitely not. ... LLOYD: 5. Jupiter: I think you agreed that the Saturn System broke up about 4,500 years ago. Was Jupiter visible before the break-up? If so, do you know about how early Jupiter was first seen? REPLY: Good questions, but, for the time being, I cannot say. There would be no point in my pretending to have all the answers. LLOYD: 6. Moon: Did the Moon first become visible in Earth orbit after the Saturn System break-up, or before? REPLY: I would say DURING the break-up as part of it. LLOYD: 7. Mercury: Was Mercury first seen before or after Jupiter and before or after the Moon? REPLY: I'm not touching Mercury for the time being. LLOYD: 8. Other: Which moons of Jupiter or Saturn were likely visible before and after the Saturn System break-up? REPLY: The break-up was too complex for those who were watching--while running for cover--to remember all the fine details of what actually took place. I mean, good heavens, do you really think they would have taken out their note books (or clay tablets) to record it all for posterity while they were running for their lives? (LLOYD: Apparently, Dwardu wasn't thinking about Dave T's Saturn Theory, which I think stated that 7 or 9 small stars were seen around Saturn during the Golden Age. I had thought that Dwardu's theory included that as well. I'll try to ask him that later. I had assumed that the 7 or 9 small stars were moons of Saturn, but may have included our Moon, Mercury and maybe Pluto or some of Jupiter's present moons.) LLOYD: - In God Star on page 77, your second footnote is missing. Can you tell me what it should say? REPLY: Yes--it should have read as follows: H. Newton, "The Worship of Meteorites," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 3 (1897), pp. 1-14. Doubts LLOYD: * Do you have answers or comments for the following? The first five seem to be from The Saturn Problem, Peter James, http://www.sis-group.org.uk/silver/james.htm . How could the denizens of Earth have survived the separation from Saturn? REPLY: There is nothing mysterious about this, but I'm not saying why. In fact I'm not saying anything about it right now because this involves an awful lot that I have yet to divulge in forthcoming volumes of my STAR series. QUESTION: - How could people possibly have tracked and recognised a former sun [Saturn] on its journey to become a tiny star, during a time of MASSIVE upheavals when it left Earth's vicinity? REPLY: See above. QUESTION: - Apart from vague assertions that the break-up of a hypothetical polar configuration occurred in prehistoric times, what is one or more dated, geological, environmental, or archaeological items of evidence of such a catastrophe? REPLY: Same as above. All in due time. COMMENT:- The ancients only considered Saturn in an astrological manner. REPLY: If that is what one believes, it's fine with me. I can only present the evidence at my disposal and offer my own reconstructions of past events on what I see as their strength. As I have often said, and will probably be forced to say again and again, I put a gun to no one's head. COMMENT: - There is clear evidence from the very Golden Age traditions employed by the Saturnists to show that the Solar System was already in its present configuration. REPLY: Maybe other Saturnists, but not I since I have not even touched upon the Golden Age traditions yet. COMMENT: * One member says the gods were not the planets and one can read the original ancient texts themselves on the Interweb to see this. REPLY: Whoever that is has not been keeping up. Judging by the EARLIEST written records at our disposal, the heavenly bodies were considered gods since Sumerian times. If this member knows of an earlier proclamation by the ancients to contest this, let him point me to it. COMMENT: * One or more say that the polar plasma column is plausible, but the polar configuration of planets is untenable. They think the polar column and other plasma phenomena can account for the ancient myths and that the planets, or at least Saturn, were not largely involved. REPLY: What can I say? Present me with a valid argument and adequate evidence. COMMENT: * One supporter says there is an aboriginal myth that recounts the earth emerging from a "hollow log" that may be reference to the dynamic capture of the Saturnian system. REPLY: As I will be showing in a forthcoming volume, the body that was seen emerging from a hollow log was the planet Mars. COMMENT: The fact that traditions around the world speak of the creation of the earth (first dawn) tells me that humans were around to witness this capture. REPLY: As I have already indicated in papers already published, and as I will be discussing in greater detail in future volumes, the EARTH that was seen to be CREATED by ancient man was a CELESTIAL EARTH. This will be shown when the UNDERSTANDABLE mistranslation from ambiguous dead languages is taken into consideration. COMMENT: Also, making any claims on time periods is speculative in lieu of our current dating tech. http://saturniancosmology.org/files/holden/iant.txt - http://www.maverickscience.com . REPLY: Quite right. And I've stressed that more than once in my works, as, in fact, I will be stressing it again in my very next one. Dwardu Cardona Lloyd Posts: 1529 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Previous Display posts from previous: [All posts] Sort by [Post time] [Ascending.] Go _________________________________________________________________ Post a reply 65 posts o Page 5 of 5 o 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas Jump to: [New Insights and Mad Ideas......................] Go Who is online Users browsing this forum: Lloyd and 2 guests * Board index * The team o Delete all board cookies o All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group