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 VIII, No 2
March 31, 2004

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

CONTENTS

SCIENTIFIC INFIDELITIES . . . . . . . . . . . Mel Acheson
OLBER'S PARADOX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Don Scott
OPPORTUNITY FAVORS THE HERETIC . . . . . . Wal Thornhill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

SCIENTIFIC INFIDELITIES
Mel Acheson

In the course of space age explorations, it has become apparent that the
universe is not composed as we were taught in school.

Quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) were thought to be the most distant and
energetic objects in the universe. They were expected to be distributed
randomly throughout the sky. Instead, they cluster around nearby active
galaxies.

The arms of spiral galaxies were thought to orbit the galaxies' dense
nuclei. They were expected to move with velocities that decreased with
distance, like the planets. Instead, they move with nearly constant
velocity, independent of distance.

Planetary nebulae were thought to be expanding shells of gas blown off by
exploding stars. They were expected to be spherically symmetric and
isotropic. Instead, they display intricate organizations of filaments,
often with axial cylinders and cones or with equatorial toroids that emit
x-rays.

Comets were thought to be snowballs sublimating in the solar wind. Their
tails were expected to be a tenuous mist of water vapor and dust blown
away by the pressure of solar radiation. Instead, they are asteroid-like
rocks with filamentary ion tails that sparkle with x-rays.

The solar neutrino flux was thought to be produced by fusion reactions at
the core of the Sun. It was expected to be large and constant. Instead,
it's half what it should be and it varies with sunspot numbers.

Nor are the surprises confined to astronomy. Speciation was thought to be
fueled by random mutations of genes. Selection pressures were expected to
push variations into novel species. But generations of fruit fly
experiments (not to mention centuries of selective breeding of domestic
animals) have backed Darwin to the wall with exclusive demonstrations of
regression to the mean.

DNA was thought to control the origin of form for organisms and their
parts. Particular sequences of amino acids were expected to generate
particular forms. But most DNA merely sits in the nucleus of cells like
old journals in a library's archives. The cells of the gluteus maximus
have the same DNA as the cells of the elbow, and molecular biologists
can't tell one from the other. Macroscopic form flows from some other
spigot.

The crust of the Earth was thought to be cracked into several plates that
floated on the churning magma below. Subduction trenches were expected to
balance the growth of crust from ridges of sea floor spreading. But like
the rivers that run to the sea without filling it, the ridges spread many
times faster than the trenches can subduct.

These vignettes merely illustrate the disappointment of theoretical
expectations that is common throughout the sciences, from the finest
details to the broadest generalities. The Big Bang can't explain the Large
Scale Structure of the universe, nor can gravitational lensing explain the
subtle details of the Einstein Cross. Darwinian evolution can't explain
the quantized and stable structure of species, nor can genetic determinism
explain adaptive mutations.

In themselves, these disappointments don't detract from the value of
science. In fact, they enhance it. The explanations work IN PART, for a
certain set or level of data. Because some data surprise expectations,
they provoke reexamination and revision--or replacement--of accepted
theories. Many people find this dubious state exciting: It's an
environment conducive to discovery.

Other people find this state threatening. They crave certainty. Because
human cognition can devise only provisional knowledge, it can never
satisfy the craving. But the fervor of a pseudo-religious faith can.
Doubt-free belief can maintain the illusion of certainty by disallowing
troublesome questions, ignoring recalcitrant data, refusing to discuss or
to publish alternative interpretations, and denying funding to speculative
research projects. Because this pseudo-religious attitude is part of
science as it is actually practiced, it validates the postmodernist
critique of science as a social construct that perpetuates the power of
the status quo.

Theories come and go with the insights and conceits of each age. What
seems not to change is people's propensity to believe in the theories.
They believe the theories are more real than the concrete ambiguities of
their experiences and observations. They stumble over those ambiguities
and supplicate their imaginations to invent fantasies that will sustain
their faith and explain away the infidelities of observations.

Most celestial bodies don't conform to gravitational beliefs. But if the
theory of gravity is more real than the observations of celestial bodies,
the observations must be corrected. Therewith astronomers invent fantasies
of black holes and dark matter, a universe of "things unseen," to sustain
their faith in gravity. The archetypal evangelist of the Christian faith,
Paul of Tarsus, set the cornerstone of fideism: "Now faith is ... the
evidence of things not seen." The faith of astronomers puts to shame the
faith of the merely righteous.

It's been over 2000 years since Democritus came up with the idea of atoms
and Anaxagoras came up with the idea of heliocentrism. Ptolemy and
Copernicus told different stories to explain the movements of the planets.
But they all saw the same movements of the same points of light, and they
all understood those movements in terms of mechanical metaphors.

That was all right when there WAS nothing new. But now space age
instruments ARE finding new things. When seen close up and in a literally
different light, the twinkles in the night sky reveal forms and movements
that neither Ptolemy nor Copernicus saw. And these new things are
ambiguous, anomalous, even contradictory of accepted beliefs. They appear
"unreal." They invite new ideas. But the primary preoccupation of
astronomers and physicists today is amending their beliefs to excuse the
observations they didn't predict.

Knowledge is not observing what's there, because we have to interpret our
observations in the context of some theory. Knowledge is not theorizing
about what's there, because we have to verify our theories in the context
of observations. Knowledge is what we JUDGE to be true in the context of
particular theories and observations. It's the product of reason. And
reason is sensitive to initial assumptions and to the evolution of
context: What we know alters the environment of what we CAN know and
extinguishes what we knew.

It would seem reasonable to make the most of reason's sensitivity to
initial assumptions. Especially now that circumstances have enabled us to
observe more than we've ever observed and to hypothesize more than we've
ever imagined, we should deliberately explore contrary initial assumptions
and probe the possibilities of novel explanations.

One recent contrary possibility is the nascent idea of plasma. Everyone
seems to agree the universe is composed mostly of plasma--whatever that
is. It's neither solid nor liquid nor gas, but how much it's not is
debatable. It has something to do with ions: bits of matter that are
charged with electricity--whatever that is. Sometimes it behaves
differently under the same circumstances. Sometimes it behaves the same
from the atomic scale to the galactic.

It's a complex animal, and its investigators are like the blind men poking
the elephant: Magnetohydrodynamicists examine a leg and think it's a hot
gas. Plasma cosmologists examine the trunk and think it's an electrical
current. Geneticists examine the cellular tail and think it's DNA.
Semiconductor engineers examine the belly and think it's a crystal.
Geologists examine the face and think it's magma. And each group is
correct--until they presume to know it all and claim the others are
mistaken.

The blind men poking the elephant should keep in mind how much of the
beast they can't poke: They've missed everything inside, i.e., everything
outside the range of their senses. How much of the universe lies outside
the range of our senses today? Compare what we observed before the space
age with what we observe now with tech-enhanced senses. How much more will
we observe with the enhancements of next century's instrumentation? That
consideration alone should elicit a snicker at any boast of current
certitude.

Is our idea of truth compatible with how we come to know truth, or is it a
reification of the truth we have come to know? People take for granted
that our ideas of "what's there" derive from a "there" that contains the
"what," in contradistinction to a "here" that contains the IDEA of the
"what." But there have always been objections to this metaphor of
objectivism. Twenty three hundred years ago, Pyrrho insisted we can know
nothing with certainty. Kant demonstrated with logical rigor that the
"here/there" chasm couldn't be crossed. Objectivism ends in this
unknowable reality that's merely hypothetical.

Of course, no one lives like that or does science like that. The reality
of our lives and our sciences is not the hypothetical object of an
abstract dichotomy but the actual occurrence of human experiences. We come
to understand those experiences in various ways that emerge from the
experiencing. It's a process that's profoundly metaphorical: Just as we
use instruments to expand the domain of our senses, we use metaphor to
expand the domain of our understanding. It's a process that's certainly
not certain.

The knowledge we were taught in school was at best only practice--practice
at understanding prior experiences. Learning to understand is distinct
from believing in prior understandings, and the dynamics of learning
should lead us to expect not fidelity and conformity but dubiety and
discovery. The infidelities and anomalies of unexpected experiences are
the keys that unlock future understandings.

Mel Acheson
thoth at whidbey.com
********************************************************

OLBER'S PARADOX
By Don Scott 

"Why is the sky dark at night?"

According to the following logical thought sequence (mathematical
derivation), it should be horrendously bright.

1) The apparent intensity of a light source decreases with the square of
its distance from the observer. (Assuming no interstellar dust absorption,
this is true. Lumens received from a star will vary inversely as the
square of the distance to that star.)

2) If the distribution of stars is uniform in space, then the number of
stars at a particular distance, r, from the observer will be proportional
to the surface area of a sphere whose radius is that distance.  This area
is directly proportional to the distance squared. A = (pi)r^2

3) Therefore, at each and every possible radial distance, r, the amount of
light coming toward us should be both directly proportional to the radius
squared (the number of stars) and inversely proportional to the radius
squared (they get dimmer with distance).

4) These two effects cancel each other.

5) So every spherical shell of radius r should add the same additional
amount of light.

6) Ergo:  In an infinite universe, if we sum (integrate) the light coming
from all the infinite number of possible values of r, the sky should be
infinitely bright.

But the sky is not infinitely bright.  Why?

The resolution of this paradox can be achieved by considering how
astronomers solved the problem of defining the ABSOLUTE luminosity
(brightness) of a star. Because of (1) above, the more distant a star is,
the dimmer it appears to be.  In order to set up a standard, astronomers
arbitrarily agreed that if a star was placed at a distance of 10 parsecs
(approximately 32 1*2 light-years) from us and if it looked like a
magnitude 1.0 star at that distance, they would agree to say that its
ABSOLUTE LUMINOSITY was 1.0.

There is a well-known relationship between distance and apparent magnitude
of a star. For example, if we put that same 1st magnitude star at a
distance of 517 LY (light-years), its APPARENT MAGNITUDE would be only
6.0.  Humans cannot see any star whose magnitude is higher (less luminous)
than 6.4.  The 200 inch Hale telescope at Mt. Palomar can see down to
about magnitude 23 or so.

There are approximately 8400 stars in our night sky that are brighter than
magnitude 6.4. We do not see the others; they are too dim.  Yes, yes, Carl
Sagan used to talk about millions and millions of stars ? but we can only
see about 8400 with our naked eyes.  Carl was well known for his tendency
to exaggerate.  We get the impression of millions and millions when we
look up at the Milky Way, but we can see only 8400 stars ? that's it ? and
that1s under ideal conditions.

Of course, some stars are VERY much brighter than absolute magnitude 1.0
and thus would be visible farther out than 517 LY.  But, many are much
dimmer too, so as a rough approximation let us consider the average star.  
If it is farther away than 517 LY, we cannot see it (AT ALL).  So it might
as well not be there AT ALL.  The total light in our night sky (at least
the way we can see it with our naked eyes) is not affected by much of
anything that is dimmer than magnitude 6.4 (typical stars farther away
than around 517 LY). Even for the blue-white giant stars whose absolute
luminosity puts them at ?10 or ?12 (much brighter than absolute magnitude
1.0), there exists some finite distance beyond which they too become
invisible to us ? their apparent magnitude slips down beyond 6.4.

There are a very few vastly distant objects that we can see such as the
Great Andromeda Galaxy M 31.  It is over 3 million LYs away.  But it is
such a concentrated collection of stars and plasma that it looks to us
about as bright as a single magnitude 4 star.

The point is this ? the infinite sum implied in step (5), above, is
incorrect.  The sum STOPS (is truncated) at a distance of about 500+ light
years for the typical star (and somewhere beyond that even for the
brightest ones).  There is an upper limit on the absolute brightness of a
single star; there is no such thing as an infinitely brilliant star.  So
there is a finite upper limit to the integration process described in step
(5) above. It doesn't go out to infinity.

It may also help to remember that the human eye is different from
photographic film or a CCD chip. It does not integrate over time.  The
longer we expose a photographic plate to starlight the brighter the image
becomes.  (There is a limit even to this process in film due to what is
called reciprocity failure.)  But, humans can stare at the night sky all
night long and not see anything they didn't see after the first few
minutes. Things don't get brighter for us the longer we look at them.  So
theoretically the longer we expose our CCD camera chip, the brighter the
image (deeper into space we can see).  This is not true for the human eye.
We can see the 8400 or so stars that we can see, and all the zillions of
others might as well not be there AT ALL as far as our humble naked human
eyes are concerned.

Olber's Paradox is not a paradox at all if you look at it correctly.  It
is yet another example of theoretical mathematics applied incorrectly to a
real world phenomenon.  Or a mathematician might say, "They got the upper
limit on the integral wrong."

Don Scott
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/
********************************************************

OPPORTUNITY FAVORS THE HERETIC
By Wal Thornhill

04 February 2004

[editor's note: This article was written as a day-by-day commentary while
the Mars rover missions were in their early phases of exploration. It
reflects only that data which has been released to the public to date.
More will be added to the holoscience website later.]

*******

".. modern science seems to have exploded into a multitude of highly
specialised areas and distinct disciplines that may at times be
interconnected, but that by and large ignore one another. There appears to
be an overwhelming trend toward a proliferation of distinct and autonomous
'subdivisions'. Researchers in different fields often experience great
difficulties understanding each other." - Etienne Klein & Marc
Lachièze-Rey, THE QUEST FOR UNITY - The Adventure of Physics

********

The Mars Exploration Rover, Opportunity, is about to begin its voyage of
discovery on the surface of Mars. It is an opportunity for heretics to
test their expectations in light of the new information pouring in from
Mars. Otherwise, interpretations of new discoveries will be fashioned to
fit stories created long ago and uncritically disseminated among separate
disciplines. For example, astronomers tell geologists that the planets
were formed about 4.5 billion years ago. Geologists tell astronomers that
craters were formed primarily by impacts of comets, asteroids and meteors.
Astronomers tell geologists that there is an invisible reservoir of
objects that caused the impacts. Physicists tell geologists that the
process of radioactive decay can be trusted as a reliable clock to date
rocks. The geologists assure the particle physicists that nothing could
have happened in the past to upset these radioactive clocks. Physicists
tell astronomers that most of the stable elements which make up the
planets and stars were formed primordially in a series of supernova
events.

These are all simply stories. Countless facts don't fit the stories but
they are not allowed to spoil the telling. Astronomers have not been able
to show theoretically or empirically that the elements came from
supernovas or that the planets came from a collapsing nebula. Pointing to
evidence of 'accretion disks' around some stars simply begs the question.
We know from observation that stars can expel matter (which defies
gravitational theory). The disks are therefore more likely to be
'expulsion disks.' Similarly, geologists have never witnessed a crater
formed by cosmic impact. Their attempts to replicate the features of
planetary craters by high-velocity impacts or explosions have failed ? but
the story remains. Products of short-lived radioactive isotopes found in
some meteorites contradict the 4.5 billion year story. The elements that
would have formed primordially in supernovas don't match the elements
found on solar system bodies. Supernovas are rare events that disperse
matter.

The resulting rickety edifice of fact and fiction is sold under the name
of planetary science. Like the game in which a story is made up by adding
disconnected sentences together, it does not make much sense and no one
can predict where it is leading. In this 'Alice in Wonderland' environment
each new discovery must be a surprise. Then the story is simply amended,
not rewritten. It clearly demonstrates the dysfunctional nature of
over-specialized science.

The only recourse in this situation is to return to the empirical approach
to science - that is, to work from the observable present back through
time as far as reliable information can be extracted and to undertake
laboratory experiments to test ideas. Do not assume old gravito-mechanical
theories are relevant in a plasma universe. Accept that theorists do not
understand gravity, or electrical effects in plasma. Unfortunately, to
take this approach in the age of the theoretician and computer modeler is
to brand oneself a heretic.

>From Astrobiology Magazine come the following report excerpts:

DEPTH TO BEDROCK, ZERO
by Astrobiology Magazine staffwriter

The first impression of the Opportunity landing site in color is the
light, exposed area about ten meters from the rover's location inside a
crater. The region has by now accumulated a plethora of adjectives and
names: bizarre, alien, hummocky, layered, crater-rim, outcrop,
stratigraphic slice, tabular, segmented, slabby.

But what has scientists most intrigued is that the slabs are bedrock.
Bedrock is the solid, intact part of the planet's crust. ..To find bedrock
is to know geologically that the history of this location is free from
rock and boulder transport, mainly by wind, water, lava and impact debris.
Whatever happened on Mars over billions of years, that hummocky slab bears
its records.

See photos at:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=we7zdrqs

THORNHILL COMMENTS:

The assumptions in the assured statements above are manifold. All we have
is a terrestrial theory of how planetary crusts are formed that glosses
over many questions and anomalies. Sediments accumulated by the action of
wind and water are supposed to account for a great deal of the
stratification seen on Earth. Patches visible in the layers of the Martian
rocks appear to contain pebbles and other small stones. So scientists
argue by analogy that the Martian layers could have formed in water.
Drifting volcanic ash or wind-borne sediments also could have built up the
thin layers. However, the great depths of layered material (up to 9 km in
Valles Marineris) found on Mars, a desert planet with little atmosphere,
must call into question conventional ideas about the origin of sedimentary
material and its metamorphism into layered rock. The Moon and some
asteroids, where wind and water never existed, also show evidence of
layering. Back on Earth, many mineral deposits defy orthodox explanations.

It is bold speculation that "..the history of this location is free from
rock and boulder transport, mainly by wind, water, lava and impact
debris." and that "whatever happened on Mars over billions of years, that
hummocky slab bears its records." We live in the space age now. We must
look beyond a terrestrial model for the formation of planetary surfaces,
including the surface of our own planet, Earth.

The Mars Exploration Rover, Opportunity, landed in a 20 meter wide crater
in Planum Meridiani. The surrounding region has some of the most
spectacular etched surfaces seen on Mars. Just east of Terra Meridiani is
a 470-km diameter circular depression known as Schiaparelli Basin. In June
2003 Mars Global Surveyor imaged a small crater in that Basin that
exhibits most of the strange Martian features that challenge geologists
when using terrestrial analogies. If we can explain those features simply
and coherently it should help us to understand the exposed bedrock that
Opportunity is about to investigate.

See photo at:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=we7zdrqs

Official caption: Schiaparelli sedimentary rocks. Some of the most
important high resolution imaging results of the Mars Global Surveyor
(MGS) Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) experiment center on discoveries about the
presence and nature of the sedimentary rock record on Mars. This old
meteor impact crater in northwestern Schiaparelli Basin exhibits a
spectacular view of layered, sedimentary rock. The 2.3 kilometer (1.4
miles) wide crater may have once been completely filled with sediment; the
material was later eroded to its present form. Dozens of layers of similar
thickness and physical properties are now expressed in a wedding cake-like
stack in the middle of the crater. Sunlight illuminating the scene from
the left shows that the circle, or mesa top, at the middle of the crater
stands higher than the other stair-stepped layers. The uniform physical
properties and bedding of these layers might indicate that they were
originally deposited in a lake (it is possible that the crater was at the
bottom of a much larger lake, filling Schiaparelli Basin); alternatively,
the layers were deposited by settling out of the atmosphere in a dry
environment. This picture was acquired on June 3, 2003, and is located
near 0.9°S, 346.2°W. NASA/JPL

THORNHILL COMMENTS:

Sorry, the explanation above just doesn't hold water. It is a series of ad
hoc mechanisms linked together with 'may' and 'might.' To begin, it is
baldly stated that the feature is an 'old meteor impact crater.' That is
an opinion, not a fact. The floor of an impact crater is supposed to be
formed of shattered rock. This crater floor is layered rock. So the crater
'may have once been completely filled with sediment' - or else the
assumption is mistaken. Regular, episodic sedimentation is called upon to
produce such even layering. Some method of cementation is also required to
form each distinct layer. Whatever happened had to have repeated more than
20 times with precision to give such a regular appearance. Finally, 'the
material was ..eroded to its present form.' We should like to know how
that miracle was performed. Neither wind nor water moving across the
landscape could produce the circular symmetry seen here. And it does not
attempt to explain the strange landscape surrounding the crater.

There is a better explanation. In an electric universe, surfaces and
atmospheres of rocky planets are exchanged in the process of their
electrical 'birth' from a gas giant planet and in subsequent electrical
interactions with other moons and planets in the process of achieving a
stable orbit. Both Jupiter and Saturn have moons that would be classified
as planets if they orbited the Sun. Saturn's moon, Titan, has an
atmosphere heavier than Earth's. Later this year, when the Cassini
spacecraft and Huygens probe arrive to observe it first-hand, Titan may
have much to teach us about a planet that didn1t manage to leave home.

The birth of planets by expulsion, followed by accretion of the
'afterbirth,' leaves significant scars and layering on their surfaces, as
does establishing a stable planetary orbit. Orbital dynamics tells us that
two planets, which began in close association, will come together again at
regular intervals. This would make the process of electrical deposition
and erosion between the planets episodic and regular for a short time
(geologically speaking). The result is a global 'onion skin' build up of
crustal materials together with various erratic mineral deposits.
Superimposed are the effects of electrical erosion that occurs only upon
the closest approaches between two planets (the same electrical forces
that caused the initial expulsion preclude impacts). Electrical erosion
tends to be concentrated hemispherically because of the short duration of
closest approach. It also leaves the most dramatic scars. They take
characteristic forms of circular craters (universally mistaken for impact
craters), raised blisters (often mistaken for volcanoes), sinuous channels
(usually mistaken for water or lava erosion channels), and etched or
'fretted terrain' (no conventional explanation).

The crater above can be explained simply by using the electric universe
model. The layering predated the crater. The crater is electrical, not
impact. The so-called erosion was an integral part of the formation of the
crater, caused by rotating Birkeland filaments. Birkeland filaments twist
in pairs to form a rope-like Birkeland current. It is the form in which
electrical energy is transported across the cosmos. The current density is
highest in the Birkeland filaments themselves so the erosion rate falls
off toward their center of rotation ? the center of the crater. The
result, in the sedimentary layers, is a neatly terraced central peak, the
untouched remains of previously existing sedimentary layers.

A note in passing: the small circular craters on the eastern lip of the
large crater illustrate a recurring pattern in electrical cratering.
Lightning is attracted to high points so subsequent discharges will tend
to form craters centered on the rim of an existing crater. It is a pattern
that is inexplicable by impacts. Also, in the upper right side of the
image are some typical electrically etched, or "fretted" depressions with
the circular 'cookie cutter' effect in the walls produced by cathode arcs.
It is a pattern that the Galileo orbiter saw being formed on Jupiter's
electrically active moon, Io.

But that is not all that we can glean from this remarkable image. There is
a procession of linear ridges running approximately north-south. They are
given a feathered appearance by myriad short orthogonal ridges. The
electrical explanation is simple. All of the ridges are soil metamorphosed
and hardened by lightning coursing just below the surface. On Earth they
would be classed as fulgurites. The north-south ridges show the direction
of the global electric field that gave rise to the lightning. The stubby
orthogonal ridges are the result of the corona discharges feeding the main
lightning channels. The entire area then seems to have been
electrostatically "cleaned" or etched free of loose soil, exposing the
ridges of metamorphosed rock. Since the electric field was predominantly
horizontal, the pattern shows the usual disregard for topography. The
pattern can be traced down into the crater, up across the central peak and
out the other side.

Returning to the Mars Rover, Opportunity, we can see that it is sitting in
a small electrically etched crater and the exposed 'bedrock' will be
layered and show signs of modification by an electric arc. The vertical
faces of some of the exposed rocks look as if they were cut. The kinds of
things to watch for are pitting, surface glassification or a burnt
appearance, damage caused by the explosive release of trapped gases, shock
metamorphism, and isotopic and elemental anomalies. A few of these
characteristics can also be produced by an impact explosion. However,
these rocks are layered, not shattered. One thing to look for, if shocked
crystals are found and their orientation determined, is the direction from
which the blast originated. Electrical cratering has a blast center that
moves below ground and around the crater's center. An impact has a
stationary blast center above ground that coincides with the crater's
center. An example on Earth of shocked minerals oriented to a subterranean
moving blast center can be found in the giant Vredefort Dome structure in
South Africa.

THE REPORT CONTINUES:

The rover will look at the fine soil nearby, in hopes of finding out why
this particular region is rare on Mars in being rich with iron-oxides. The
surface soil's top layer is grey, much more grey than anything seen on
Mars before. On the surface, Meridiani is the darkest color yet visited.
But this dark layer gave way when the airbags were retracted revealing a
deep maroon layer underneath. Steve Squyres [principal investigator for
rover science] described the competing theories as either 3we have soil
with two distinct components of coarse, grey grains on top of fine red
soil--or we have aggregates that are grey but when squished, the red comes
out.2

THORNHILL COMMENTS:

Since orbital images of the landing area shows three distinct color
gradations, a first guess is that once outside this crater, the view will
suddenly change to what is expected to be lighter colored soil. The
brightest areas seen orbitally are the crater rims, followed by the flat
plains, then the darkest interior to the craters, where Opportunity now is
snapping charcoal-grey scenery. Since the horizon's range is mainly
restricted to 10 meters for now, once outside this crater the startling
picture of a dark grey Mars will likely change yet again.

See http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=we7zdrqs for diagram of
hematite distribution in Sinus Meridiani, where Opportunity is located.

THORNHILL COMMENTS:

Researchers think the hematite could have formed on Mars by thermal
oxidation of iron-rich volcanic eruptive products during eruption or it
could have formed by chemical precipitation when iron-rich water
circulated through the pre-existing layers of volcanic ash. No volcano has
been identified as a possible source and the pattern does not look like
wind-blown fallout. And why is hematite concentrated in this one small
region on Mars?

The Nobel nominee, the late Prof. Louis Kervran, had heretical views on
the low-energy transmutation of common elements to form anomalous mineral
deposits. He wrote: "There is no need to look for iron's origin in the
centre of our planet; it is a 'surface formation' at the level of the
earth's crust. There is no connection between the core and the mineral
strata; but all the classical theories speak of 'concentration,' of
water-borne materials, of hydrothermal eruptions and of deposits. Even if
all of this is accepted, these theories presuppose the existence of iron
accumulated in certain locations. Therefore the iron existed but where did
it come from?"

Without necessarily subscribing to Kervran's ideas about the origin of the
earthly iron deposits, powerful electric discharges through other common
elements, like carbon and oxygen, can form iron deposits. "On the surface,
and often at a certain depth, superficial alterations have TRANSFORMED THE
CARBONATE INTO A PURE HEMATITE, a formation difficult to explain since a
mere ordinary and superficial alteration should give limonite [hydrated
iron oxides] and not hematite," says F. Blondel. [Chronique des Mines
Coloniales, Sept. 1955.] He goes on to say, "The hematite production on
the surface is not well-clarified."

I suggest that water played no part in the Martian hematite deposition.
The splash of iron oxides on this part of Mars is best explained as a
recent exogenous deposit. It is recent in the sense that the deposit seems
to have buried the fields of boulders strewn across the planet by the
earlier electrical event that scoured Valles Marineris. The outlines of
the distribution pattern shown above conform to that of other electrically
etched surfaces, notably the 'calderas' on Io. The pattern need not be
related to topography as we should expect if a lake were involved.

The dark grey surface inside the small crater is probably an electrically
modified version of the deep maroon soil underneath, itself a fine-grained
hematite deposit. The most likely modification would be physical, in some
form of melting and glassification of the hematite. That effect was seen
by Apollo astronauts in the soil and centers of small craters on the Moon.
Next would be a heat induced chemical change, possibly to metallic iron.
It is also possible for surface ion implantation to occur, with hydrogen
being the most likely atomic addition. Or it may show evidence of nuclear
transmutations ? after the manner of Kervran. The combination of
possibilities allowed in the electrical scenario is so diverse that it is
difficult to predict precisely what will be found. However, it is probable
that the surface has undergone a change from the soil beneath requiring a
source of energy not to be found today on Mars.

On descent, a crater was imaged near Opportunity's landing site. It shows
clearly the dark crater floor and lighter surrounding surface. Squyres
said the science team "looks to 'head for the big one' - a 150 meter wide
crater, probably 10-15 meters deep at least and about half-a-mile away.
The bright rim of that crater may well be another remnant of bedrock or
something different altogether."

The larger crater should show more evident signs of electrical activity
than the modest crater Opportunity finds itself in. The heretics welcome
Opportunity and wish it success!

*******
"Thus the task is, not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think
what nobody has thought, about that which everybody sees." Erwin Schrödinger
(1887-1961) 
*******

Wal Thornhill
copyright Feb 2004
www.holoscience.com
********************************************************

PLEASE VISIT THE KRONIA GROUP WEBSITE:

http://www.kronia.com
and
http://www.thunderbolts.info
to download the first chapter of _Thunderbolts of the Gods

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/library/aeon.html

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

http://www.aeonjournal.com/index.html
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.electric-cosmos.org/
http://www.electric-universe.org
http://www.science-frontiers.com <http://www.science-frontiers.com/>
http://www.catastrophism.com/cdrom/index.htm
http://www.dragonscience.com <http://www.dragonscience.com/>
-----------------------------------------------