mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== IV:16 THOTH A Catastrophics Newsletter VOL IV, No 16 Oct 31, 2000 EDITOR: Amy Acheson PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart CONTENTS SWIMMING AROUND ROCKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Mel Acheson EGYPTIAN WHITE CROWN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott RENS' OUTLINE OF MYTHICAL THEMES . . . . . . .by Rens van der Sluijs, Ev Cochrane, Dave Talbott STARS: NUCLEAR VERSUS ELECTRIC: Part II . . . . . . . . by Don Scott ELECTRIC UNIVERSE SNIPPETS: Part III. . . . . . . . by Wal Thornhill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< SWIMMING AROUND ROCKS By Mel Acheson When Einstein introduced the theory of relativity in 1905, astronomers thought the universe consisted of only the Milky Way. What we think of today as galaxies were thought of then as tiny clouds within the Milky Way. It was 20 years later that Hubble showed they were composed of stars and must lie outside the Milky Way. Astronomers have been arguing ever since about how far outside they are. Estimates of distance are based on what can be seen in a mere handful of photons. Calling those estimates "speculations about distance" would be more honest. A quarter century after Hubble's discovery, astronomers revised the calibration of the period-luminosity curve for Cepheid variables. That curve was their primary tool for estimating galactic distances, and the (assumed) redshift-distance relationship was calibrated by the Cepheid yardstick. In consequence of the revision, the distances to the galaxies doubled. But now Arp's observations have undermined the redshift-distance assumption, and galactic distances have collapsed. As much as we might wish the galaxies were rushing about to conform themselves to our expectations for them, it's highly likely they are, and have always been, going about their business in total disregard of us. It's deflating to our egos, but the universe doesn't seem to think our theories are as important as we think they are. In fact, our theories are only metaphors for a few recurrent experiences we have of a few tiny pieces of the universe during a few insignificant moments of its existence. We have only a vague idea of how we come to create these metaphors, and we have no idea _why_ we do it. But we sure love to fight over them. We promote and destroy careers and lives not just over what people say they believe but over what they merely find curious. Remember Gordon Atwater: He was director of Hayden Planetarium when Velikovsky published _Worlds in Collision_. He planned a program illustrating V's ideas. Before he could fire up his star projector, he was fired and blacklisted. He never held another job in astronomy. Readers can no doubt recognize the parallels with the Inquisition. Julian Jaynes wrote near the end of _The Origin of Consciousness . . . _: "It is not religion but the church and science that were hostile to each other. And it was rivalry, not contravention. Both were religious. They were two giants fuming at each other over the same ground. Both proclaimed to be the only way to divine revelation." Scientists talk about seeking truth, as do theologians, and the image is of something absolute: a rock to stand on in the midst of the flood of experiences. We need something to make sense of the experiences, something to make them meaningful. We need ideas to enable us to do things with experiences. We need theories to give us the ability to respond, to become response-able. Attributing absolute truthfulness to a concept can fill this need. But it simultaneously undermines response-ability: The concept becomes an icon that can't be altered or even questioned. It can't be doubted. It can only be believed, thereby placing it beyond the operation of our cognitive abilities. When we experience something outside the concept's domain of meaning, something the concept can't explain or explains ineffectually, we can't respond as fully and as harmoniously as if we were able to create a new concept. Responsibility is shifted to the absolute, and we therewith lose power to act. It gives us something other than ourselves to blame when things go wrong, but it reduces us to being helpless victims. We become cognitively impaired by paradigm paralysis. At this point, one is tempted to jump to the conclusion that "anything goes". But this is merely jumping to another rock, one that assumes certainty is zero instead of 100%. It's often called relativism, but it's only an absolutism of negation. If we're not to cling to rocks of either negativism or positivism, we must learn to swim. Leaving everything open to critical re- evaluation means accepting every concept as provisional. It means living with uncertainty. It means abandoning the idea of constructing a foundation for knowledge and embracing instead the idea of knowledge as a succession of strokes of understanding. Critical rationality is not an ability to construct theories we can subsequently use to isolate ourselves from the flood. Rather, it's an ability to immerse ourselves in the flood and to navigate in it. It enables us to understand the changing characteristics of each wave and to respond to the current. It empowers us to surf the ocean of the universe and therein to discover joy. Mel Acheson thoth at whidbey.com **************************************************************** WHITE CROWN by Dave Talbott In addition to the twin imagery of the rotating crescent, it is necessary to deal with certain additional mirror images due to the polar placement of celestial bodies as seen by an observer on a rotating earth. This can involve either mirror aspects of illumination from the Sun, or mirror sunset and sunrise aspects of the configuration due to displacement of bodies from the axis. An instance of the latter will be the mirror images associated with the Inanna sign in ancient Sumerian symbolism of the "gate post with streamers." An instance of the former will be the illumination of the conical "White Crown" such that the lightened portions presented mirror images at sunrise and sunset. I've attached as a single JPEG pic a few slides from my seminar overview of the evolving configuration. The images relate to the Egyptian White Crown and its intimate connection to an enigmatic feather symbol, called _Mayet_. In the Saturn model this feather could ONLY mean the illuminated portion of the White Crown. Hence, the language and symbolism of the feather and White Crown provide important tests. [ed note: See attachment for pictures.] FIRST SLIDE. This is the opening frame of an animation segment, showing a view of the configuration from space, as material streamed up the axis from Mars toward Venus. The bodies are slightly displaced from the axis, and this displacement will force some additional, highly unique tests. (I'll get to these in a day or two.) A closer view of the Earth and Mars shows that the material leaves Mars at its equator, to stream upward toward Venus. SECOND SLIDE. This shows the view of the depicted stream from the Earth (22nd parallel), along with the Egyptian White Crown, which the Saturn model interprets as a ritual image inspired by the celestial prototype shown here. THIRD SLIDE. Here we see the two phases of sunset and sunrise, presented along side the ostrich feather. For the obvious reasons, the model considers this feather to be symbol of the illuminated portion of the celestial White Crown. FOURTH SLIDE. The goddess Mayet IS the ostrich feather. She was also the Eye of Re. Numerous texts confirm that the Eye, the goddess and the White Crown are synonymous. Though the equation appears ludicrous to specialists, the Saturn model will not only explain, but predict the equation. FIFTH SLIDE. In Egytpian ritual and symbol, the two feathers of Mayet represent two halves of the daily cycle. That is exactly what we should expect, though nothing in nature today would suggest the idea. SIXTH SLIDE. Repeatedly, Egyptian artists placed the two feather to the right and left of the White Crown, though the origin of the symbolism remains inexplicable to Egyptologists. SEVENTH SLIDE. Together, the feathers of the right and left CONSTITUTE the White Crown, exactly as the Saturn model claims. The feathers reach upward from a red disk. In the ritual of kings, the pharaoh honors and imitates this relationship of the warrior-hero to the goddess by donning the crown and feathers. EIGHTH SLIDE. Mars descends visually from the sphere of Venus, appearing to wear a conical crown. Thus, in the myths the god Shu, originally resting inside the central Eye of Re, is "spit out" to become the first form of the warrior hero. Remarkably, the feather is an acknowledged Egyptian symbol of Shu's birth, exactly as we should expect. NINTH SLIDE. The Saturnian crescent stands in a definitive relationship to the crown. The horns of the crescent signify the horns of the Bull of Heaven. Thus, the Egyptian Bull is depicted with a red disk resting between its horns, from which rise two feathers, in precise accord with the model. Dave Talbott **************************************************************** RENS' OUTLINE Rens van der Sluijs, Ev Cochrane, Dave Talbott To all, Yesterday I put an article on the Web containing a brief outline of the methods and principles to be followed in comparative mythology. A large number of previous theories claiming to explain the origin of myth and religion are discarded and it is shown that planetary catastrophism is the only possible theory to account for all the data available. Comments are welcome. Address: http://home-2.worldonline.nl/~mdvds/doctrine.htm. Rens van der Sluijs, Holland EV COCHRANE WRITES: If this is a brief outline, Rens, I wonder what the completed work would look like! Very impressive indeed. In the first paragraph, I noted a sentence that read like pure Dave Talbott: "[The Saturn theory accounts] for the entire range of concepts appearing in every single aspect of human civilization." Who said that unified theories were a thing of the past? DAVE TALBOTT ADDS: Yes, it was very gratifying to see Rens' insightful summary. I would only qualify the sentence in question slightly. Certain ancient concepts belong to a deeper stratum of experience and perception than any natural event can adequately explain. While the ritual and symbolic FORMS are Saturnian, the taproot in human motivation has to run deeper. "WE are guilty!" "HE is guilty!" The planetary dramas certainly did invite deep human tendencies to the surface. But the collective response (scapegoat principle, sacrifice, war, etc.), though highly Saturnian in form, reveals levels of human perception and motivation outside the reach of the Saturn model. I would say that the Saturn model is a unified explanation of the ritual and symbolic forms, but it cannot ultimately account for the roles of fear, guilt, separation, competition, or rage in human relationships. Intensely experienced events did, however, catalyze such harsh or starkly- expressed responses that it becomes impossible to deny the presence of motivations which are, in our own time, often expressed much more subtly. In that sense, the Saturn research can be very revealing, throwing light on an internal shadow-world which still cries out for an explanation. RENS REPLIED: I would never claim that purely psychological mechanisms would stem from an exterior cycle of events such as the establishment and disintegration of the polar configuration would have been. Qualities like anger, envy and longing are inherent to human neurology and behaviour and also shared with the higher mammals. That is never the point. What I would claim, based on judgment of the evidence available, is that every aspect of human civilisation - beyond the strict biological! - that is, every innovation that mankind made in his social framework, was triggered by these celestial happenings. His normal mental patterns were the tools by which this happened and the mechanisms which gave shape to the process of coping with the experiences. In short: with 'aspects of civilisation' I restricted myself to tools and artifacts and social structures. A very limited number of basic structures, which Homo sapiens shared with mammals, would have predated the adaptation from celestial originals, such as the relationship between child and parents. EV SAYS: When reading Rens and Dave talk about the ability of the Saturn theory to explain everything there is to know about ancient civilization, I am often reminded of Ed McMahon's recurring quip on the old Johnny Carson show: "That is everything one could possibly know about this particular subject." At which point Johnny would respond: "Wrong Rhino breath." Personally I would much prefer to downplay such claims and simply proceed to carefully document the many aspects of ancient civilization that the Saturn theory can help to explain. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if certain important aspects of man's civilization did not originate in celestial fireworks. Consider the invention of fire, for example, certainly one of the most important tools/findings of prehistoric man. I would suspect that the ability to artificially generate fire far predates the polar configuration. That said, it would be easy to show that ancient man, upon witnessing the whirling motions of Mars' "fire-drill" in the sky, ascribed the invention of fire or the fire-drill to the warrior hero thereby confusing the true historical order of the invention. DAVE ADDS: I think we've got a misunderstanding here. The question isn't whether all ancient technology derived from the Saturnian experience, but whether the specific forms of collective RITUAL activity, from which a vast wealth of technology emerged, were inspired by the ancient planetary experience. That an explosion of technical capabilities can be traced to ritual motives is an eminently defensible hypothesis. All you have to do is chronicle the examples to see that this eruption of collective activity defines early civilization in distinction from the earlier pastoral condition. To make this point does not require us to claim that pre-civilized races were without technical knowledge or skill. What distinguishes the emerging civilizations is not only profoundly Saturnian, but apparently exclusively so. The ritual "sun"-wheel preceded the useful wheel. Astronomy grew out of intense concern with planetary motions, for the obvious reason. Kingship ritual re-enacted the ascension of Mars as regent of the universal sovereign. Every queen that can be identified in the ancient world was a living symbol of the Queen of Heaven. Temples and cities mirrored the remembered celestial prototypes. Mathematical and architectural skills arose in the service of monument building and celestial observation. Writing systems emerged from pictographs of the gods and their attributes. All of the great magical and symbolic traditions can be traced to attributes and incidents in the lives of the gods. Sacrificial practices re-enacted critical junctures in the biographies of gods. Wars of nationalistic expansion commemorated the vanquishing of chaos and the progressive expansion outward of the land of the gods in the creation. All of the great calendrical festivals were rooted in memories of the age of the gods. Collective agricultural rites and practices explicitly recalled the myth of the dying god. I don't see any reason to equivocate with respect to planetary drama catalyzing the ritual underpinnings of emerging civilization. With respect to the origins of myth, we need to continually remind ourselves that the claimed "unified theory" relates to verifiable, indisputable archetypes--patterns that are either fully acknowledged by independent comparative studies, or that we are prepared to document beyond any reasonable doubt. The groundrules are designed to explicitly eliminate selective perception. A unified explanation of myth does not mean that we have to explain any particular myth in any particular land. There is far, far too much random evolution, fragmentation, and cross-cultural assimilation of myth over SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS to justify any insistence of that sort. The value of the comparative approach is that while random evolution introduces contradictions, the points of agreement between the cultures expose the substratum of human memory. The Saturn model offers a unified explanation of archetypal mythology, and it's imperative that this claim be clear. That way, there can be no question as to the appropriate tests. Anyone documenting an archetype that does not find clear and convincing explanation in the Saturn model should have the right to say that the Saturn model fails as a unified theory, putting the burden on us to prove him wrong. Dave Talbott ***************************************************************** STARS: NUCLEAR VERSUS ELECTRIC: PART II by Don Scott The Electric Sun Hypothesis Juergens, Milton, Thornhill (and others) propose an electrical mechanism for the energy release of the Sun. The major properties of this Electric Sun model are as follows: 1) Most of the space within our galaxy is occupied by plasma (rarefied ionized gas) containing electrons (negative charges) and ionized atoms (positive charges). Every point in the plasma has a measurable (electric) potential energy (or voltage). 2) The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts. 3) The Sun is powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. In the Plasma Universe model these currents create the galaxies and the stars within them. It is a small additional step to propose that these currents also power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the size of the Sun is large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by incoming cosmic electrons. As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower total current and so its output may vary (both periodically and over time). 4) Positive ions leave the Sun and cosmic electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun. This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical laboratories for decades. 5) The Sun's radiative lifetime will extend only until the solar charge (and therefore, its electrical potential [voltage]) equals that of its galactic surroundings. Incoming cosmic ray protons, which bombard the Earth and Sun, represent currents (solar "winds") from higher voltage stars which liberate positive ions with sufficient energy to overcome the Sun's repelling voltage and impinge on its surface. (Is this mechanism, by which the Sun is able to regain some + charge, significant in extending its ultimate lifetime? No one knows at this point.) 6) Because of the Sun's positive charge (voltage), it acts as the anode in a plasma discharge. As such, it exhibits many of the phenomena observed in earthbound plasma laboratories, such as anode tufting. The granules observed on the surface of the photosphere are anode tufts. A cross-section taken through a granule is shown in the three plots below. See Don Scott's website for graphs at: http://www.users.qwest.net/~dascott/Sun.htm The horizontal axis of each of the three plots is distance, measured radially outward, starting at a point near the bottom of the photosphere (the true surface of the Sun - which we can only observe in the umbra of sunspots). The first plot shows the energy per unit (positive) charge of an ion as a function of its radial distance out from the solar surface. The second plot, the E-field, shows the outward radial force (toward the right) experienced by such a positive ion. The third plot shows the locations of the charge densities that will produce the first two plots. Figure 3. Energy, Electric field strength, and Charge density as a function of radial distance from the Sun's surface. All three of these plots are related mathematically. By the laws of physics: E = - dV/dr, and Chg density = dE/dr. In words: The value of the E-field, at every point r, is the (negative of) the slope of the energy plot at that point. The value of the charge density at each point, r, is the slope of the E-field plot at that point. The charge density plot necessary to produce the compound energy curve between points c and e used to be called a "double sheath". Modern nomenclature calls it a "double layer"(DL). It is a typical and well known phenomenon in a plasma discharge. Because of the DL being there between points c and e, a +ion to the right of point e sees no electrical force from +ions to the left of point c. The energy plot (above) is for positively charged particles. Because the E-field represents the force (toward the right) per unit charge on a positively charged particle, the region wherein the E-field is negative (a to b) is a region where positively charged particles will be accelerated toward the left - inward, toward the Sun's surface. One can visualize them falling down the energy hill from point b to a. Any +ions attempting to escape outward from within the body of the Sun must have enough energy to surmount this energy barrier. In order to visualize the effect this energy diagram has on electrons (negative charges) coming in toward the Sun from cosmic space (from the right), turn the energy plot upside down. Doing this enables us to visualize the "trap" that these photospheric tufts are for incoming electrons. As the trap fills, the energy level between b and c (inverted for electrons) rises, and so the tuft shrinks, and eventually disappears. This is consistent with the observed random movement and shrinkage of photospheric granules. Charged particles do not experience electrical forces in the range b to c. Only random "thermal" movement occurs due to diffusion. At a point just to the left of point c, any such random movement toward the right (radially outward) that carries it even slightly to the right of point c will result in a + ion being swept away, down the energy hill, toward the right. Such movement of charged particles due to an E-field is called "drift". This drift of positive ions is the source of the solar "wind" (which is a serious misnomer). As positive ions accelerate down the potential energy hill from point c through e, they gain extremely high radial velocity and lose random motion. Thus, they become "dethermalized". In this region, the movement of these ions becomes extremely organized (parallel). The pinch effect of parallel current filaments in a plasma should be very strong. If any fusion is taking place on the Sun it is likely occurring here (not deep in the core). When these rapidly traveling + ions pass point e they lose most of the radially directed E-field force that has been accelerating them. Because of their high velocity, any collisions they have at this point (with other ions or with neutral atoms) are violent and create high amplitude random motions, thereby "re-thermalizing" the plasma to a much greater degree than it was in the photospheric tufts (in the range b to c). This is what is responsible for the high temperature we observe in the lower corona. The photosphere has temperatures reported to be from 4000 K to 6000 K. Ions in the lower corona (just to the right of point e) are reported to be at temperatures of 1 to 2 million K. Nothing else but exactly this kind of behavior could be expected from the electric sun (anode tuft - double layer) model. The "re- thermalization" takes place in a turbulent region analogous to the "white water" boiling at the bottom of a smooth waterfall. In the fusion model no such "waterfall" exists - and so neither does an explanation of the temperature minimum. The energy plot in figure 3 (to the right of point e) actually trails off, with slightly negative slope, toward the negative voltage of deep space (our arm of the Milky Way galaxy). Consistent with this, a low amplitude (positive) E-field extends indefinitely to the right from point e. This is the effect of the Sun being at a higher voltage level than is distant space. The outward force on positive ions due to this E-field explains the observed acceleration of +ions in the solar "wind" (which is another unexplained phenomenon in the "accepted" thermonuclear model). Mainstream astronomers normally fall back on vague references to the "Sun's mysterious magnetic field" to explain just about everything they can't explain; this acceleration of solar "wind" +ions is a case in point. The particles in our solar wind eventually join with the spent solar "winds" of all the other stars in our galaxy to make up the total cosmic ray flow. Astrophysicists tell us that the Sun is a rather mediocre star as far as radiating energy goes. If it is electrically powered, perhaps its mediocrity is attributable to a relatively unimpressive driving potential. This would mean that hotter, more luminous stars should have driving potentials greater than that of the Sun and should consequently expel cosmic rays of greater energies than solar cosmic rays. A star with a driving potential of 20 billion volts would expel protons energetic enough to reach the Sun's surface, arriving with 10 billion electron volts of energy to spare. It is interesting to note in passing that the three plots shown in figure 3 are analogous to the plots of energy, E-field, and charge distribution found in a pnp transistor. Of course in that (solid- state) device there are different things going on at different energy levels ("valence band" and "conduction band"). In the solar case there are no fixed atomic centers and so there is only one energy band where "the action is". In a transistor, the amplitude of the collector current (analogous to the drift of +ions in the solar "wind" toward the right) is easily controlled by raising and lowering the difference between the energy levels at points a and b (base-emitter voltage). Is the same mechanism (a voltage fluctuation between the anode-Sun and its photosphere) at work in the Sun? e.g., If the Sun's voltage were to decrease slightly - say because of an excessive flow of incoming electrons - the voltage rise from point a to b in the energy diagram of figure 3 would quickly reduce the solar wind (both the inward electron flow and the outward +ion flow). In May of 1999 the solar wind completely stopped for about two days. The mechanism proposed above explains it. The fusion model is at a complete loss in doing so. The volt-ampere characteristic of a laboratory plasma discharge has the general shape shown in figure 4: The volt-ampere plot of a plasma discharge. [see website -- same as above]. This plot is for a plasma contained in a column - a cylindrical glass tube with the anode at one end and the cathode at the other. These two terminals are connected into an electrical circuit whereby the current through the tube can be controlled. In such an experiment, the plasma has a constant cross-sectional area from one end of the tube to the other. The vertical axis of the plot in figure 4 is the voltage rise from the cathode up to the anode (across the entire plasma) as a function of the current passing through the plasma. When we consider the Sun, of course, a spherical geometry exists - with the sun at the center. Assume a constant total electron drift moving from all directions toward the Sun and a constant flow of +ions outward. As we approach the Sun from deep space, the spherical boundary through which this total current passes has an ever decreasing area. Therefore, for a fixed total current, the current density (A/m^2) increases as we move toward the Sun. 1) In deep space the current density there is extremely low even though the total current may be huge; we are in the dark current region; there are no glowing gases, nothing to tell us we are in a plasma discharge. 2) As we get closer to the Sun, the spherical boundary has a smaller surface area; the current density increases; we enter the normal glow region; this is what we call the Sun's "corona". 3) As we approach still closer to the Sun, the spherical boundary gets to be only slightly larger than the Sun itself; the current density becomes extremely large; we enter the arc region of the discharge. This is the anode tuft. This is the photosphere. Sunspots and Coronal Holes In a plasma, the dimensions and the voltage of the anode tufts are both functions of current density at that location (near the anode). The tufts appear and/or disappear, as needed, to maintain a certain required relationship between +ion and electron numbers in the total current. This phenomenon was discovered and reported by Irving Langmuir. In the Electric Sun model, tufting disappears wherever the flux of incoming electrons impinging onto a given area of the Sun's surface is not sufficiently strong to require the shielding produced by the plasma double layer shown in figure 3. At any such location, the anode tufting collapses and we can see down to the actual anode surface of the Sun. Since there is no arc discharge occurring in these locations, they appear darker than the surrounding area and are termed "sunspots". Of course, if a tremendous amount of energy was being produced in the Sun's interior, the "spot" should be brighter than the surrounding photosphere. The fact that sunspots are dark supports the contention that very little, if anything, is going on in the Sun's interior. Because there is no anode tuft where a spot is located, the voltage rise (region a to b in figure 3), which normally controls the local flow of positive ions leaving the anode surface, does not exist there. In sunspots, then, a large number of ions can be ejected upward toward the lower corona. Such a flow constitutes a large electrical current - and, as such, will produce a strong localized magnetic field. The Sun's corona is difficult to see except in solar eclipses and in X ray images. In some X ray images of the Sun (such as the one shown in figure 1(b) at the very top of this page) we can see "coronal holes" - large dark regions in the brighter image of the solar corona. The bright regions indicate hotter, more energetic areas of the solar corona, mainly above the sunspot regions. Strong electric currents also flow in and above the Sun's surface in the vicinity of sunspots due to the voltage difference between nearby anode tufts and the sunspots (where there are no tufts). This region is called the sunspot's penumbra. These currents produce magnetic fields. Since, in plasmas, Birkeland currents follow magnetic field lines, the glowing plasma in these regions often shows the complicated shapes of these spot-related looping magnetic fields. TO BE CONTINUED Don Scott ***************************************************************** ELECTRIC UNIVERSE SNIPPETS: Part III by Wal Thornhill [ed. note: this is a conclusion of Wal's brief review of Electric Universe principles. See full text and photos at: http://www.holoscience.com/eu/eu.htm parts 11-12]. SOME BASICS "The machines that are first invented to perform any particular movement are always the most complex, and succeeding artists generally discover that with fewer wheels, with fewer principles of motion than had originally been employed, the same effects may be more easily produced. The first philosophical systems, in the same manner, are always the most complex." ~Adam Smith. The Electric Universe takes a simplifying leap by unifying the nuclear forces, magnetism and gravity as manifestations of a near instantaneous electrostatic force. Instead of being "spooked" by the concept of action-at-a-distance, like most physicists this century, the Electric Universe accepts it as an observational fact. Anyone who has tried to force two like poles of magnets together has demonstrated action-at-a-distance. "Electromagnetic" radiation is then simply the result of an oscillating electrostatic force. We don't require the ad hoc theoretical barnacles of fields, photons, waves or an "ether". At a fundamental level, the Electric Universe model is based upon the work of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York physicist. Foremost is the simple recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic force** in matter interactions. It also rests upon the simple assumption that the proton, neutron and electron are composed of smaller charged particles, orbiting each other in a classical sense in stable, resonant orbits. That is, the energy exchanged between those sub- particles in elastic deformation during each orbit sums to zero. Being charged, the sub-particles interact via the electrostatic force. A simple calculation shows that the sub-particles that form an electron must travel at a speed far in excess of the speed of light - some 2.5 million light-years per second, or from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second! So the electrostatic force must act at a speed which is almost infinite on our scale for the electron to be stable. It is the stable orbital resonances of these sub-particles, both within and between particles that give rise to the phenomena of protons, neutrons, electrons and atoms. Other denizens of the particle "zoo" are merely transient resonant states of the same charged sub- particles. The so-called "creation" of matter from energetic photons is an illusion in which pre-existing matter is reorganized into new resonant states that give the impression that a particle has suddenly materialized. Antimatter is a misnomer since it too is formed from the same sub-particles as "normal" matter except that the total charge is mirrored. Matter cannot be created or annihilated. A Conventional View of Forces in Physics 1. Nuclear forces keep the nucleons (protons and neutrons) together in the atomic nucleus. They are the dominating forces in the nucleus, but of no importance at large distances from it. 2a. Electric forces. A positive charge and negative charge attract each other, but similar charges repel. Electric forces keep the atoms together (" bind " the electrons to the nucleus). They are of a certain importance in the nucleus. At large distances electric forces are usually not so important because of a screening effect. For example, a positive charge attracts negative charges to its neighborhood so that they screen off the field from the positive charge. 2b. Magnetic forces are closely related to the electric forces. Because they cannot be screened very easily, they are efficient at larger distances than electric forces. Example: the Earth's magnetic field. 3. Gravitation is much weaker than electric forces and therefore of no importance in the atom. As the gravitation cannot be screened, it is the dominating force at large distances. The orbits of the planets and the motions of stars and galaxies are ruled by gravitation. - H. Alfvén. Quantum Theory For the first time the highly successful quantum theory gains a physical explanation in terms of resonant motion of charged particles, mediated by a near-instantaneous electrostatic force. A quantum electron orbit is one in which the exchange of energy between all of the sub-particles in the nucleus of an atom and those in an orbiting electron, sum to zero over the orbit. Exchange of energy takes the form of distortion of a particle to form an electrostatic dipole or a move to a new resonant orbit. Relativity Theory Einstein's Special Theory was designed to define simultaneity in a universe where the fastest force or signal was restricted to the measured speed of detection of light from a distant source. With an electrostatic force of near-infinite speed acting between the sub-particles of all matter, relativity theory reduces to classical physics. The speed of light in galactic terms is exceedingly slow, requiring about 150,000 years to cross our galaxy. However, the astronomer Halton Arp has shown that the redshifts of entire galaxies are quantized which requires some form of near instantaneous, galaxy-wide communication at the sub- atomic level. There are now several reported experiments that demonstrate faster than light effects. With the Special Theory gone, and the universe in communication with its parts effectively in real-time, there can be no time travel and space and time are independent. Common sense has always suggested that this was so. Einstein's General Theory was devised to explain gravity. It attempts to discard the observed action-at-a-distance of gravity by proposing a counter-intuitive warping of space in the presence of massive objects. This unnecessary complication of space is then added to the current metaphysical concepts of what constitutes the mass of an object. But space must also "warp" at near infinite speed to produce the observed planetary orbits. Common sense, observation, and parsimony of hypotheses all suggest that the electrostatic model of gravity (see below) is superior. There is now experimental evidence from gravity measurements at the time of a total solar eclipse that supports the Electric Universe model and discounts the General Relativity model. E = mc2 Einstein's famous mathematical expression E=mc2 makes the very odd assumption that energy and matter are interchangeable. It seems simpler and more sensible to suggest that both nuclear and chemical energies are released or absorbed by the rearrangement of the resonant orbits of charged particles into new resonant orbits. It is then common sense to suggest that mass is the measured response of a system of charged particles to an external electrostatic force. The more massive an object, the more the electrostatic force contributes to the elastic deformation of its protons, neutrons and electrons, rather than their acceleration. This is the phenomenon seen in particle accelerators and conventionally attributed to relativistic effects. But relativity reduces to classical physics in a universe where the electrostatic force has near-infinite speed. The first question to be asked is - if it is that simple, why hasn't it been thought of long ago? The answer seems to lie in the propensity these days for theory to dominate over common sense and observation. It has resulted in the dogmatic adherence to the speed limit of light as the fastest signalling speed in the universe. However, there is evidence from several experiments that effects can follow a cause at speeds far in excess of the speed of light. Because these results conflict with dogma they are described with euphemisms like "spooky action- at-a-distance", "non-locality", and "quantum entanglement". Yet it is simple to show that unless gravity acts with near-infinite speed, the planets would orbit the Sun in an odd way - being always accelerated to where the Sun was minutes or hours earlier. Experiments have shown that this is not so and gravity must act at near-infinite speed. Gravity Sansbury's electrical model of matter leads to a simple explanation of gravity that allows space to be three-dimensional and Euclidean - which is the way we perceive it. The unification of gravity with the other forces, that has been the subject of almost a century of wild-goose-chases, turns out to be simple. It is merely another manifestation of the electrostatic force. Each proton, neutron and electron, being composed of both positive and negative charge, will respond to an imposed electric force by distorting into an ellipsoid with a positive and negative pole, in other words an electric dipole. We have already proposed the near- infinite speed of the electrostatic force, required for the force of gravity, but the electric force can either attract or repel, whereas gravity always attracts. The simple answer to this problem lies in the nature of electrostatic dipoles which, when free to move, always tend to align themselves so as to mutually attract. So gravity is the force due to the sum of all the instantaneous electrostatic dipolar forces between one massive body and another. Note that it has nothing to do with bulk charge separation, although an electrically charged body will exhibit a modified force of gravity. It is particularly noticeable that many physics textbooks deal only cursorily, if at all, with electric dipole theory. The subject has been left to chemists who deal with molecular dipole forces and who have noted the similarity to gravity. This oversight may be recognized in future as a crucial failure of 20th century physics. The electrostatic dipole model of gravity explains why "G", the universal gravitational constant, is the most ill-determined physical constant of all. The simple answer is that "G" is neither constant nor universal! This fact can explain how electrical interactions between planets will create stable orbits in a very short period of time. It also acts to prevent direct impacts between massive bodies and facilitates the capture of satellites. Magnetism Magnetism results when electrons move in response to an electric force. Magnetism is a transverse electrostatic force resulting from the distortion of moving electrons by an applied electric force to form electronic dipoles. Sansbury has derived all of Ampere's laws from the theory of transverse forces between electronic dipoles. Light In the Electric Universe model, fields, electromagnetic waves and photons are all unnecessary theoretical constructs. How can light be either a wave or a particle depending on some hypothetical observer? If it were a wave it would require a medium to carry the wave. If light were a particle, how does that explain wave interference? And what is meant physically by the "collapse" of a wave function? By proposing that an electromagnetic disturbance is due to an oscillating near-instantaneous electrostatic force, the simplification is enormous. What we measure as the speed of light is then a delayed response of bulk electric charge to an oscillating near-instantaneous electrostatic force. Recent experiments that have demonstrated faster-than-light effects may be more simply explained by this model. Mass The equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass has always been a puzzle. However, it is a simple outcome of the electrical model. When one object exerts a force on another the interaction at the atomic level is electrostatic, the same as gravity. The mass of a particle is a measure of its deformability in the presence of an electrostatic force. The more easily a particle can absorb energy elastically in its deformation, rather than in its acceleration, the more massive it appears to be. The larger proton is more easily deformed than the tiny electron. However, the more a particle is deformed the more it soaks up energy in further deformation. This gives rise to the observed apparent mass increase of accelerated charged particles in particle accelerators. Once again, energy is not being converted into matter. Antimatter One success of the purely theoretical approach to particle physics was the prediction of the existence of anti-particles: the positron, anti-proton and anti-neutron. They were subsequently discovered, but without an accurate physical model of the structure of normal matter it led to serious cosmological questions about where all of the anti-matter had gone when normal matter was created Ð the assumption being that it must have materialized in equal quantities from pure energy according to E = mc2. Sansbury's model suggests that matter and anti-matter are not created from radiant energy but are alternate resonant forms of the same "normal" sub-particles, with the sign of the charge reversed. When an electron and its anti-particle, the positron, "annihilate" they simply create a new resonant neutral particle of very low mass < in other words, one that is highly resistant to electrostatic deformation < a neutrino, plus radiation. The decay path for annihilation of protons and neutrons and their respective anti-particles involves a chain of events that result in neutrinos, radiation and electron-positron pairs. So the final result will always be neutrinos and radiation. A neutrino would seem to be a resonant neutral particle that achieves a very low ground-state by radiating most of its orbital energy away in the form of gamma rays. That would make it extremely small and low in mass. The consequences and possibilities in an Electric Universe are far-reaching: There was no Big Bang. The visible universe is static and much smaller than we thought. We have no idea of the age or extent of the universe. We don't know the ultimate source of the electrical energy or matter that forms the universe. Galaxies are shaped by electrical forces and form plasma focuses at their centers which periodically eject quasars and jets of electrons. Quasars evolve into companion galaxies. Galaxies form families with identifiable "parents" and "children". Stars are electrical transformers not thermonuclear devices. There are no neutron stars or Black Holes. We don't know the age of stars since the thermonuclear evolution theory does not apply to them. Supernovae are totally inadequate as a source of heavy elements. The powerful electric discharges that form a stellar photosphere create the heavy elements that appear in their spectra. Stars "give birth" electrically to companion stars and gas giant planets. Life is most likely to form inside a brown dwarf star! Our solar system has gained new planets, including the Earth. Almost all planetary craters are electric arc scars received during their birth or later encounters with other cosmic bodies. The speed of light is not a barrier. Real-time communication over galactic distances may be possible. Time travel is impossible. Space has no extra dimensions in which to warp or where parallel universes may exist. Anti-gravity is possible. There is no "zero- point" vacuum energy. The invisible energy source in space is electrical. Clean nuclear power is available from resonant catalytic nuclear systems. Higher energy is available from resonant catalytic chemical systems than in the usual chemical reactions. Biological enzymes are capable of utilizing resonant nuclear catalysis to transmute elements. Biological systems show evidence of communicating via resonant chemical systems, which may lend a physical explanation to the work of Rupert Sheldrake. DNA may not hold the key to life but be more like a blueprint for a factory floor. We may never be able to read the human genome and tell whether it represents a creature with two legs or six because the information that controls the assembly line may be external to the DNA. There is more to life than chemistry. The future in an Electric Universe looks very exciting indeed! (c)Wal Thornhill 2000 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 A collection of used and out-of-print books on the subject of catastrophics is now available from Mikamar Publishing. E-mail the website directly, or write to THOTH to request a list of available titles. 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