mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

THOTH
A Catastrophics Newsletter

VOL IV, No 5
March 15, 2000

EDITOR:  Amy Acheson
PUBLISHER:  Michael Armstrong
LIST MANAGER:  Brian Stewart

CONTENTS
ON SEEING SPECTACLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  by Mel Acheson
WORLD MOUNTAIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott
PARADIGM PORTRAITS II: GALACTIC CENTER. . . . . . . by Amy Acheson
ELECTRIC SUN SKEPTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Wal Thornhill

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

ON SEEING SPECTACLES

Stephen Toulmin, in his 1961 enquiry into the aims of science
(Foresight and Understanding), likens the fundamental concepts of
science to wearing eyeglasses.  ("Fundamental concepts" are those
which are considered not to need explanation:  E.g., for
Copernicus and his predecessors, uniform circular motion was
fundamental.  For Newton and his heirs, uniform rectilinear motion
was fundamental.)

Toulmin, p. 101:  "For, though Nature must of course be left to
answer to our interrogations for herself, it is always we who
frame the questions.  And the questions we ask inevitably depend
on prior theoretical considerations.  There is only one way of
seeing one's own spectacles clearly:  that is, to take them off.
It is impossible to focus both on them and through them at the
same time.  A similar difficulty attaches to the fundamental
concepts of science."

To see both the world and how we see it we need at least two
spectacles:  With one we can examine the other.  With only one set
of fundamental concepts, we may not even be aware of them.  With
two, we can see them not as unquestionable truths but as aids to
understanding that can be selected and utilized as best fits the
immediate task.

When Amy introduced me to Velikovsky's work in 1965, I disproved
his thesis with a few calculations on the back of that ubiquitous
envelope astronomers carry for just such purposes.  It's a simple
exercise for any undergraduate in astronomy:  The orbits of Venus,
Earth, and Mars cannot be made to intersect while conserving both
energy and angular momentum.  Appeal to mythology is irrelevant
because everyone knows myths are just stories made up by ancient
shepherds before movies were invented.  Even if someone could
twist an intelligible order out of them, it would have to be
tested against the known laws of planetary dynamics.  If the
alleged ancient witness should be deemed to have witnessed
something unusual, he should be alleged to have been mistaken or
hallucinating.

Amy only replied that I hadn't actually answered the problem V.
posed:  I'd have to read the book.  But I didn't have time.

Two years passed.  My idealistic image of astronomy as a pure
search for truth was shredded by several encounters with the
politics that actually determined and preserved that truth.  I
dropped out.  I had time to read.  I picked up Worlds in Collision
and therewith acquired my second spectacles.

Toulmin again:  "We see the world through them [fundamental
concepts] to such an extent that we forget what it would look like
without them:  our very commitment to them tends to blind us to
other possibilities.  Yet a proper sense of the growth and
development of our ideas will come only if we are prepared to
unthink them."

I began unthinking everything I thought I knew.  Newton's uniform
rectilinear motion is the motion of a run-down, isolated, neutral
particle.  Newton had no concept of electrically driven,
persistently interacting, complex systems of particles.  (He, like
all of us, lived in the midst of such systems:  He just had no
concept of them.)  He didn't know about resonances in unstable,
dissipative structures.  He hadn't thought of hierarchies of order
arising from relationships of relationships of relationships.  He
never imagined evolutionary principles could explain
epistemological progress.

The run-down, isolated, neutral properties of modern cosmology
might not be fundamental to the universe:  Those properties might
rather be fundamental to Newton's spectacles.  If planetary orbits
are not the run-down remnant of an isolated system but resonant
states in an energy flux through the system, they can gain and
lose energy as the flux varies.  Conservation laws don't apply.
With Newton (as a symbol of all I thought I knew) cast into doubt,
I began to see the other possibilities.

One ancient witness could have been hallucinating.  Two ancient
witnesses could have been mistaken.  Thousands of ancient
witnesses from all around the world telling the same story
required an explanation.  But Newton's uniform rectilinear motion
couldn't explain this story:  planets aligned closely on a common
axis spitting cosmic lightning at each other.  It was more suited
to electrically driven complexes and dissipative discontinuities.

With my new spectacles, I could see a century-long development of
research into electrical phenomena that was invisible through the
other spectacles:  Birkeland discovering under auroras the rope-
like currents that were named after him.  Alfven being awarded the
Nobel Prize for formulating the principle that magnetic fields are
frozen into plasmas and spending the rest of his life trying in
vain to convince mainstream physics that he had been mistaken.
Bruce pointing out the dozens of phenomena on the sun and in
galaxies that were scaled-up lightning bolts.  Dozens of
researchers were gradually putting together the picture of a
universe steered, as Heraclitus wrote, by the thunderbolt.

Then along came Halton Arp.  His observations of connections
between quasars and low-redshift galaxies demolished the expanding
universe and the Big Bang.  Further observations of quantization
of redshifts undermined the idea of gravity as I knew it.  And his
latest findings have collapsed the universe into a couple of
superclusters centered in Virgo and Fornax.

My old spectacles shattered.

Toulmin, p. 108:  " For the business of science involves more than
the mere assembly of facts:  it demands also intellectual
architecture and construction.  Before the actual building comes
the collection of materials; before that, the detailed work at the
drawing-board; before that, the conception of a design; and,
before that even, there comes the bare recognition of
possibilities.  [T]he men who discuss speculative questions of
these kinds play an essential part in the development of science,
those who conceive new frameworks of fundamental ideas."

We seem to be living in a rare juncture between frameworks of
fundamental concepts.  It's an opportunity to become aware of our
spectacles and of the possibility for changing them.  The universe
is large, and our spectacles take in only a small part:  See what
previous spectacles have missed; guess what the current ones are
missing.

P. 110:  "There is no single, simple test of merit, and it is not
for the philosopher to impose one on science; nor can a historian
justly criticize earlier scientists for not jumping straight to
the views of 1960.  For progress can be made in science only if
men apply their intellects critically to the problems which arise
in their own times, in the light of the evidence and the ideas
which are then open to consideration."

Try on a new pair of spectacles:  Consider an electrically driven
axial alignment of four planets astounding our ancestors at the
dawn of history.

Mel Acheson
Thoth at whidbey.com
******************************************************************

WORLD MOUNTAIN
By Dave Talbott

When it comes to the model of the "polar configuration" no
complete accord should be expected, though the points of agreement
between those researching the Saturn theory far outweigh any areas
of disagreement.  This is particularly true in the case of the
mythical "world mountain," about which volumes could be written,
while only the Saturn model will account for many and varied 
themes.

Dwardu Cardona writes (in a recent issue of THOTH):
This tapering appendage has been explained in various ways. Rose
compared it to the so-called flux tube which stretches between
Jupiter and its satellite, Io.  In his own Martian, as opposed to
a Saturnian, model, Jueneman sees the axis as a colossal Rankine
vortex.  David Talbott, on the other hand, had originally
explained the polar column as a stream of debris stretching
between Saturn and Earth, but later amended this to a stream of
debris attracted from Mars toward Earth  Additionally, Wallace
Thornhill believes he has recognized this ethereal pillar as a
sustained plasma discharge in the form of Birkeland current.

Dave Talbott responds:
While acknowledging the advantages of Thornhill's "Birkeland
current" explanation of the polar column, Dwardu opts for the
vortex or "tornado"-like aspects of the column, as emphasized by
Fred Jueneman.

Amy summarizes:
Cardona then expresses his opinion that, although Thornhill's
Birkeland currents fit most of the criteria of the polar column,
they would not be able to suck material up from the earth, which
he believes the myths describe.  Cardona prefers Fred Jueneman's
proposed Rankine vortex, an interplanetary tornado, as an
explanation for the axis mundi.

Talbott:
This, I would say, puts too much emphasis on "disagreement" and a
little too much emphasis on the "tornado" aspect of the polar
column.   In fact, when I first conveyed the idea of the "world
mountain" or "world pillar" to Fred Jueneman in the fall of 1972,
I specifically used the phrase "tornado-like" to describe the
appearance of the column in its "churning", or "writhing" phase.
So I do not see later discussion of this tornado-aspect as an
alternative "explanation" for the column.  Rather, it needs to be
distinguished from the column in its more stable or undisturbed
aspect.   Many images of the cosmic pillar suggest nothing of the
violent celestial whirlwind, whirlpool, tornado, or ascending,
spiraling serpent you see in connection with a disturbance of the
system, when the World Mountain became a "churning" stake, pole,
or spear stretching along the axis.

I would not want to suggest that the tornado-aspect of the column
is an "alternative" to Wal Thornhill's explanation either. I see
the column as one of the more striking points of convergence
between the historical reconstruction and the plasma physics which
Wal has illuminated for us.  Ancient descriptions should not be
taken as explanations of physical principles.  The more violent
phases certainly did present the APPEARANCE of a "tornado"
overtaking the land of the gods.  But the dynamics of a
terrestrial tornado do not represent the situation particularly
well when you have visible gases, ice, dust, or other material
stretching BETWEEN PLANETS.  A vortex cannot exist in isolation
from the movement of a surrounding medium, while the polar column
appears as a discrete, well-focused stream or jet of material
retaining a consistent structure over a considerable distance.
This itself is most remarkable and should encourage us to look for
any analogies either in the laboratory or in other regions of the
universe, even if conventional dogma on the behavior of planets
offers no encouragement whatsoever.  What happened in ancient
times WILL find (IS finding) an explanation, as open-minded
theorists explore the emerging fields of evidence.

In fact, thanks to Wal's summaries of plasma dynamics on the one
hand, and recent revelations from the Hubble and Chandra
telescopes on the other, we now have possible analogies for the
polar column at all levels of observation.  Contrast that with the
situation only a few years ago.

A focusing of energy to transport material over great distances
and along a single path has never had any place in conventional
theory.  What, in Newtonian perspectives, would allow a jet to
retain its structure across a vacuum, spanning distances (in the
Saturn model) counted in tens of thousands of miles?   Electrical
phenomena are another matter, however.  We know that
electromagnetic frequencies ARE focused in a laser beam.  We know
that plasma focus devices DO produce well-defined jets and a flow
of electric current on a linear path.  Considering the great
volume of historical evidence suggesting highly visible electrical
phenomena in the Saturnian configuration, the electrical model is
really the hands-down winner, I would say.  The fact that a plasma
environment will produce spiraling, vortex-like phenomena through
which currents flow is also highly relevant to the dynamics of the
polar column.

Moreover, it can hardly be insignificant that astronomers have
recently discovered POLAR or AXIAL jets on a mind-boggling scale:
from "jetted stars" to massive galaxies--jets from billions of
miles to light-years in length, where the coherent linear
structure of the jets defies everything previously believed.  The
only theorists who anticipated such jets were those of the
electrical schools. By comparison, the much, much smaller-scale
axial jets in the Saturn model, where the charged bodies are
planets, seem very tame indeed.  And when you are considering the
Saturn version, please do not forget that, at the time I first
proposed these axial, interplanetary streams, I had no knowledge
of laboratory-based plasma analogies, and the distant stellar and
galactic analogies were unknown to science.

Dave
*************************************************************

PARADIGM PORTRAITS
By Amy Acheson

Gotta say WOW about this photo and the schematic that accompanies
it.  It's a view of the center of the Milky Way, shown in radio
wavelengths.  Looking at it, I feel like a mosquito perched under
the hood of a fancy racecar, confused and amazed.  What in the
universe am I looking at?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990128.html
http://rsd-www.nrl.navy.mil/7213/lazio/GC/GCSchematicscan2rot.gif

I consider myself lucky to be able to observe this from the
vantage point of two different paradigms, or, as Mel described it
in the above editorial, two sets of spectacles.  Whether the
"final answer" lies closer to the conventional interpretation, the
electric universe interpretation, or something else that won't
make sense for centuries doesn't really matter.  It's a privilege
to examine this wealth of new information in the light of more
than one viewpoint.

The title and subtitle of the story that goes with the pictures
expresses the conventional interpretation clearly:

"A Monster in the Middle:
The Chandra X-ray Observatory may have spied supermassive black
hole in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy"

The full story, with its black hole interpretations, are given
here:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast29feb_1m.htm

Now let's examine the same photographs and diagrams through a new
set of observational spectacles:

In the Electrical Universe, black holes are not necessary.  They
are viewed as a construct created by twisting gravitational math
beyond the limits of observation.  Once they calculated black
holes, astronomers searched for confirmation of their
calculations.  They believe that they have found them in galactic
cores.

But cosmic electricians disagree.  They point out that black holes
are supposed to suck everything in, but galactic cores seem to
eject large amounts of matter.  In laboratories here on earth,
plasma behaves exactly as these pictures of the galactic center
show -- twisting into a central core that ejects discrete batches
of highly charged matter.

The feature called the Arc is extremely interesting.  In the
schematic, a curl of filaments (also visible in the radio image)
connects the Arc to the bright radio source SgrA (Sagittarius A).
The filaments of the Arc itself extend beyond the bright segment
approximately twice the length of the Arc in both directions above
and below the galactic plane. Proceeding in either direction from
the Arc, these filaments are narrow for approximately half their
length, then spread out to form a bubble of filaments at each end.

According to the electric universe, these filaments may be the
ejection axis of the Milky Way galaxy.  That interpretation seems
to be reinforced by exploring another weblink discussing the gamma
ray nature of the galactic center:

http://www.astro.nwu.edu/astro/purcell/511kev_press_release/

Here they report gamma ray observations that indicate surprising
results: a gamma ray cloud in an unexpected location, above the
Milky Way's nucleus.  Although only observed in recent decades,
this cloud of gamma-ray emitting material seems to show large
variations in strength.  The conventional interpretation is that
the black hole in the center of the galaxy somehow "turns on" and
"turns off".  The electric universe interpretation would speak
instead of the building up of galactic electrical energy, followed
by its release along the spin axis in the form of an electrically
charged blob.

Near the bottom of the radio photo you will find an object called
the "Snake".  This is a one-and-a-half light-year long feature,
previously identified as an enormous lightning bolt frozen in
space.  This feature, combined with the other filaments called
threads, are interpreted by the electric universe as bright spots
on the electrical circuitry that spirals inward to charge the
galactic core.

No matter which spectacles you wear to view it, this is a
wonderful picture of the center of our Milky Way.

Amy Acheson
*************************************************************

ELECTRIC SUN SKEPTICS
By Wal Thornhill

At the beginning of the month Dave Talbott forwarded for comment
an email received from a skeptic. It takes another swipe at an
electric star model.

Skeptics puzzle me. Sir Fred Hoyle has commented that academics
generally will not read papers they disagree with. That would
explain why so many challenging papers from maverick scientists
are met with silence. Halton Arp's work on non-velocity related
redshifts is a notorious example. Skeptics, on the other hand,
seem emotionally compelled to seek out challenges from "outsiders"
and to uncritically fling every straw of orthodox theory in
response, without regard to its coherence or applicability to what
is being proposed. That results in a "straw man" which they then
set about making look ridiculous. They are those who, in the words
of the astronomer R. A. Lyttleton, "... regard the opinion of
others, especially if they occupy positions of high rank, as
providing a sound basis for their own views. It is, of course, a
form of sloth enabling them to spare themselves the hard work of
properly forming their own conclusion, and instead just take up a
ready-made one issued by the establishment free of charge, just as
one might wear a ready-made suit, however ill-fitting."

In almost every case I have seen there is no genuine attempt to
understand new ideas. That can be seen in this case where it is
obvious that no effort has been made to study the original papers
by Juergens. When the intention is clearly to not understand what
is being proposed, the exercise can finally become a waste of
time. Initially however, it can be used to re-examine one's own
assumptions and maybe express the argument better. In that spirit
I am responding ...

>From a skeptic:
The following press release, issued today, describes interesting
new results in the study of the solar wind & the sun's magnetic
field. Scientists analyzing a 38 year data set of solar wind and
solar magnetic field data have determined a 27-day 43-minute
period in the solar wind that has remained fixed over the entire
38 years, slightly more than 3 of the 11 year sunspot cycles, and
slightly less than 2 of the 22 year full magnetic field cycles.

Seen in light of current "standard" theory for the generation of
the solar wind & magnetic field, the implication is that fluid
motion inside the sun is likely less turbulent than thought, and
more dominated by some large scale regular pattern that is yet to
be described.

Comment: Wal Thornhill
There is no "standard" theory for the generation of the solar wind
& magnetic field.  In "Solar Interior and Atmosphere", 1991,
DeLuca and Gilman after discussing the present state of knowledge
about the solar "dynamo" which is supposed to drive all of the
complex phenomena in the Sun's atmosphere, write: "In closing, we
remark that, after many years through which the prevailing opinion
was that the problem of the solar dynamo was 'solved' ... new
observational and theoretical results have now overturned that
belief, leading to a stimulating new period of proliferation of
solar dynamo theories." On examination those theories have so many
assumptions and "fudge factors" built in that they are a top
contender for Langmuir's pathological science award. Poincaré has
said that above all, a physical theory should allow predictions to
be made. D. M. Rabin et al in the above volume report, "...as
DeLuca and Gilman's chapter make clear, the daunting complexity of
self-consistent dynamo models has thus far limited their role to
achieving consistency with basic features of the activity cycle
rather than making predictions at the detailed level of modern
observations." The "standard" theory has not been able to predict
anything that the new generation of solar observatories has
discovered and has had to be "adjusted" repeatedly in an effort to
cater for those observations. It cannot explain the many strange
phenomena in the Sun's atmosphere nor the acceleration of the
solar wind. It cannot explain the sunspot cycle or the totally
unexpected correlations between neutrinos, the solar wind and
sunspots.

Helioseismology, or the study of solar oscillations, has been used
to help constrain solar dynamo models. The observations have been
applied to the standard solar model in order to achieve this. So
we now have two interlocked models concerning unseen things going
on inside the Sun. And what has been said recently of the standard
solar model? In the same volume mentioned earlier, in a chapter
called "The Global Sun", J. C. Pecker writes: "...we have
difficulty in matching the observations with a theory." So we are
twice removed from reality with the solar dynamo models.

The electric star model makes the simplest assumption that nothing
is going on inside the Sun. The few neutrinos we do see are
generated in electrically mediated nuclear reactions in the
photosphere. That provides a direct connection between neutrinos,
the solar wind and sunspots. As the model name suggests, it takes
into account the fundamental electrical nature of all matter.
Unbelievably, this is ignored in the standard solar model, which
is based on the equilibrium between compression of a gaseous
sphere by gravity and the expansive force of heat in the centre.
Eddington, who is responsible for the standard model, wrote: "In
seeking a source of energy other than [gravitational] contraction
the first question is whether the energy to be radiated in future
is now hidden in the star or whether it is being picked up
continuously from outside. Suggestions have been made that the
impact of meteoric matter provides the heat, or that there is some
subtle radiation traversing space that the star picks up. Strong
objections may be urged against these hypotheses individually; but
it is unnecessary to consider them in detail because they have
arisen through a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. No
source of energy is of any avail unless it liberates energy in the
deep interior of the star. [Emphasis in original] It is not enough
to provide for the external radiation of the star. We must provide
for the maintenance of the high internal temperature, without
which the star would collapse."

So there we have it. The thermonuclear engine inside the Sun is
required principally to save the model! If we can find a reason
why the Sun is the size we see, given its mass, without requiring
internal heat then an external source of energy is possible. A few
pages earlier, Eddington seems to deal with electric charge in the
interior of a star when he invokes the Maxwell-Boltzmann
distribution law for a gas at uniform temperature in a
gravitational field. It simply says that the lighter molecules
will tend to rise to the top. He writes, "In ionized material the
electrons are far lighter than the ions and tend to rise to the
top... But this separation is stopped almost before it has begun,
because the minutest inequality creates a large electrostatic
field which stops any further diffusion." The calculated result is
"a deficiency of 1 electron in every million tons of matter. ...
The electric force, which varies in proportion to gravity in the
interior, is absurdly weak, but it stops any diffusion of the
electron outwards."

Eddington's argument is too simplistic. Thermal ionization of
hydrogen only becomes significant at a temperature of about
100,000K. So for most of the volume of a star where the gravity is
strongest, atoms and molecules will predominate. (In the electric
model that applies to the entire star). The nucleus of each atom,
which is thousands of times heavier than the electrons, will be
gravitationally offset from the centre of the atom. The result is
that each atom becomes a small electric dipole. Those dipoles
align to form a radial electric field that causes electrons to
diffuse outwards in enormously greater numbers than simple
gravitational sorting allows. That leaves positively charged ions
behind which repel one another. That electrical repulsion balances
the compressive force of gravity without the need for a central
heat source in the star. An electric star will be roughly the same
density throughout, or isodense. (An important corollary for the
electric star model is that stars cannot be compressed to form
neutron stars. The stronger the gravity the more powerful is the
electrical repulsion to balance it. Since neutron stars are the
theoretical pre-cursor of a black hole, both can be clearly seen
to be a mathematical fiction).

Do we have any evidence that our Sun is essentially isodense? Some
early work in helioseismology by Severney, Kotov and others found
dominant pulsations of the Sun which fitted the homogeneous sphere
model. They wrote in 1976, "The simplest interpretation is that we
observed purely radial pulsations. The most striking fact is that
the observed period [160 minutes] is almost precisely... the value
if the Sun were to be an homogeneous sphere. ... We have
investigated two possible solutions to this dilemma. The first
alternative is that nuclear... reactions are not responsible for
energy generation in the Sun. Such a conclusion, although rather
extravagant, is quite consistent with the observed absence of
appreciable neutrino flux from the Sun, and with the observed
abundance of Li and Be in the solar atmosphere." The second
alternative involved force fitting the data to the standard solar
model by assuming that the oscillations were not simply radial but
of a more complicated form. However, the implications were so
disturbing for theorists that the work was repeated in various
locations and all sources of error looked for.  The result in 1981
was that the original oscillation was found to be the highest peak
in the power spectrum, and "one may conclude that 160-min
oscillation shows mostly radial motion." In reporting the status
of solar oscillation observations in 1991 in "Solar Interior and
Atmosphere", F. Hill et al report on the 160-minute oscillation
without any reference to the implied homogeneous Sun. Rather, they
spend half a page casting suspicion on the extensive observations
and attempting to minimize its significance. The reason is only
thinly veiled; "Additional doubt comes from the difficulty of
theoretically describing the nature of the oscillation. ...". In
other words, we won't accept the data if it doesn't fit the
standard model!

The solar dynamo theory requires turbulence to generate the
magnetic field. The hypothetical convection zone was supposed to
provide that turbulence. But then it was realized that the field
structures would be too short-lived to explain the sunspot cycle
so the turbulence was shoved deeper into another hypothetical zone
of shearing. This 38-year pattern only makes matters far worse for
that model.

Skeptic:
It is up to someone else to see this in light of the "electric
sun/star" hypothesis. We already know that the alleged rain of
relativistic electrons responsible for the sun's surface
temperature and magnetic field, according to the "electric
sun/star" hypothesis, has as yet managed to remain undetected.

Thornhill:
By ignoring, or not troubling to find out about Juergens' model,
we have here a "straw man", built upon an unspecified model.
Juergens was at great pains to describe the model of a cathode-
less glow discharge in a plasma. That was the specific model he
chose on the basis of its match to all of the observed phenomena
we call "the Sun". That includes such things as granulation of the
photosphere, chromospheric spicules, anomalous temperatures above
the photosphere, anomalous Fraunhofer spectrum, and so on and on.

In a glow discharge, the current is carried through most of the
volume, known as the positive column region, by a slow "drift" of
electrons superimposed on their higher thermal velocity. It takes
place in a quasi-neutral plasma with a low density of ionization.
That is what we observe in interplanetary space. It is only very
close to the anode that the electric field becomes strong and
accelerates electrons to relativistic speeds. So if Thompson wants
to find them he will need to get uncomfortably close to the Sun!
Of course, we have indirect evidence for that strong electric
field in the accelerating positive ions (solar wind) heading in
the opposite direction. The solar wind is a natural outcome of the
electric Sun hypothesis. It is an embarrassment to the
thermonuclear model of the Sun.

Skeptic:
So does this mean that this rain of undetected electrons must have
all of the solar periodicities buried in it (11 years, 22 years,
27 days 43 minutes), or do we accept even in this electric
hypothesis, that these periodicities are of internal origin in the
sun? If the latter, then why do we need an electric hypothesis to
begin with? If not, then what effect imposes these periods on the
incoming flow? And why does it remain undetected?

Thornhill:
Having set up a straw man, the skeptic sets about making it look
more ridiculous. It is unnecessary for all of the observed
periodicities to be driven by the power source. Just as in
electric circuits that have inductance and capacitance and non-
linear plasma effects, there will be oscillatory modes that have
nothing to do with the power source. Also it is well documented
that the planets have an influence on the Sun which is too large
to be attributed to the conventional view of gravity. However, if
both gravity and magnetism are derived from the electrostatic
force there is a connection that could affect the Sun in a cyclic
fashion.

In the specific case of the Sun's magnetic field returning to the
same configuration  in each 11 year cycle, I consider the notion
[see below] of Dr. Marcia Neugebauer, a Distinguished Visiting
Scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. to
be supremely ad hoc: "There may be something asymmetric about the
Sun's interior, perhaps a deep-seated lump of old magnetic
field,". After 30 years astrophysicists have still not learnt
Alfvén's lesson that it is not possible to "freeze" magnetic
fields into a plasma indefinitely.

I am not required to provide an explanation for all of the
observed periodicities in order to have the electric star model
considered seriously. The standard solar model cannot do it and it
has had the full attention of hundreds of scientists for many
decades. I can, however, provide some ideas that make more sense
than that of Neugebauer.

The switch in polarity of the Sun's field is likely to be
superimposed on other rhythms by the current source that feeds the
Sun, that is the Birkeland currents that shape the galactic arms.
The relative movement of the Sun transversely across each filament
will see the Sun's local galactic magnetic field reverse polarity
roughly cyclically.

The 27 day 43 minute cycle seems to be tied to the rotation of the
Sun's core. In the standard model it is hard to imagine anything
in a fiercely hot plasma that could lend itself to a longitudinal
"memory". In the electric star model, it is likely that there is a
solid object composed of heavy elements at the centre of the Sun.
That would be much more likely to retain a longitudinal "memory".

Variability in the external power source of the Sun is evident in
the solar wind, UV and x-rays. The standard solar model has no
generally accepted way of explaining any of these phenomena, let
alone their considerable variability. None of them have any
business being there if the Sun is merely a thermonuclear heat
source, radiating into space. The standard solar model doesn't
predict any of them and the solar dynamo is simply an ad hoc
barnacle added to that theory in an unsuccessful effort to save
appearances.

Skeptic:
It does seem that the "internal" solution is more parsimonious to
me.

Comment: See Lyttleton's quote in para. 2 above. This is a
remarkable statement because there simply isn't a single coherent
"internal" solution to explain all of the complexity we see on the
Sun. And since the action is coyly taking place out of sight (as
with so many other astrophysical models), ad hoc changes can and
are being made continually to force-fit the data to ever more
models. They all argue backward from effect to cause so they
cannot predict anything. In Poincaré's terms, the theories are
almost certainly wrong. Who would be happy with "some large scale
regular pattern that is yet to be described" as an explanation?
The solar dynamo "internal" solution is only parsimonious in its
predictions, not in its assumptions.

Juergens' work, on the other hand, has a distinct advantage in
that it starts from the observations and looks for a physical
model that best fits them all. It has predictive power and does
not require a return to the drawing board with each new discovery.

Wal Thornhill

__________________________________
- begin press release -

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  February 1, 2000

THE SUN'S MAGNETIC FIELD HAS A GOOD MEMORY

By compiling all the solar wind data gathered in the space age,
NASA scientists have concluded that even though the solar magnetic
field is  constantly changing, it always returns to its original
shape and position.

"We now know that the Sun's magnetic field has a memory and
returns to approximately the same configuration in each 11- year
solar cycle," said Dr. Marcia Neugebauer, a Distinguished Visiting
Scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
"Current theories imply that the field is generated by random,
churning motions within the Sun and should have no long-term
memory. Despite this expectation, the underlying magnetic
structure remains fixed at the same solar longitude."

"It's interesting that the solar magnetic field varies in strength
and direction, but not in longitude," said Dr. Edward Smith,
senior research scientist at JPL.

The solar wind is composed of charged particles ejected from the
Sun that flow continuously through interplanetary space. The solar
wind carries part of the Sun's magnetic field into space. Before
completing this research, scientists knew that features of the
solar wind reaching the Earth tended to repeat about every 27
days, said Neugebauer. The new information pinpoints the
repetition interval at 27 days and 43 minutes and shows that the
Sun has  kept this steady rhythm, much like a metronome, for at
least 38 years.

This pattern escaped previous detection because it is a very
subtle statistical effect. There are many larger variations in the
solar wind that come and go, which largely mask the underlying
pattern. This repetitive behavior can't be  seen if these data are
examined for only a few months or years, but it
was revealed in this 38-year database.

"Why the Sun's magnetic field behaves in this way is a puzzle, but
the answer must lie deep within the Sun," Smith said.

"We're trying to understand how magnetic fields are generated in
the Sun, the planets and the stars," said Neugebauer. "A better
understanding of how the Sun generates its magnetic field will
help us better understand the solar wind and space weather."

Fluids conducting electricity under the Sun's surface generate the
magnetic field, Neugebauer explained, and the field's apparent
memory is most likely caused by a structure and process occurring
deeper inside the Sun than  previously believed. "There may be
something asymmetric about the Sun's interior, perhaps a deep-
seated lump of old magnetic field," she said.

The findings, published in the February 1 issue of the Journal of
Geophysical Research, are based on all the solar wind data
collected >from the dawn of space exploration through 1998, both
by Earth-orbiting satellites and interplanetary spacecraft. This
includes about 335,000 hours of solar wind speed data and 250,000
hours of magnetic field data. Co-authors of the article, in
addition to Neugebauer and Smith, are Drs. Alexander Ruzmaikin,
Joan Feynman and Arthur Vaughn, all of JPL.

Additional information is available at:

http://spacephysics.jpl.nasa.gov/pr/longitude.htm

This study was funded under the Supporting Research Program of
NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington, D.C. JPL is a NASA
center managed by the California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena.

See the home of The Electric Universe
at http://www.holoscience.com
**************************************************************

PLEASE VISIT THE KRONIA COMMUNICATIONS WEBSITE:

http://www.kronia.com

Subscriptions to AEON, a journal of myth and science, now with
regular features on the Saturn theory and electric universe,
may be ordered from this page:

http://www.kronia.com/html/sales.html

Other suggested Web site URL's for more information about
Catastrophics:

http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/
http://www.flash.net/~cjransom/
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/velikovskian/
http://www.bearfabrique.org
http://www.grazian-archive.com/
http://www.holoscience.com
http://www.users.uswest.net/~dascott/Cosmology.htm
http://www.catastrophism.com/cdrom/index.htm
http://www.science-frontiers.com

Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered, 10 Pensée Journals may be
ordered at the I-net address below:
http://www.e-z.net/~mikamar/default.html
-----------------------------------------------

The THOTH electronic newsletter is an outgrowth of scientific and
scholarly discussions in the emerging field of astral
catastrophics.  Our focus is on a reconstruction of ancient
astral myths and symbols in relation to a new theory of planetary
history.  Serious readers must allow some time for these
radically different ideas to be fleshed out and for the relevant
background to be developed.  The general tenor of the ideas and
information presented in THOTH is supported by the editor and
publisher, but there will always be plenty of room for
differences of interpretation.

We welcome your comments and responses.
thoth at Whidbey.com

New readers are referred to earlier issues of THOTH posted on the
Kronia website listed above.  Go to the free newsletter page and
double click on the image of Thoth, the Egyptian God of
Knowledge, to access the back issues.

---