mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== SIS On-line Forum John Theakston (7/9/02 11:48 am) .... Like you, when first reading WIC, I wondered on the question as to the actual birth of Venus a great deal (which is one of the reasons I had to pursue the subject further) and I could only conclude that Venus must have been ejected from Jupiter (or maybe even Saturn), in accordance with the hypothesis, at some time preceding the catastrophe of the Exodus, probably measured in terms of several hundreds or maybe even thousands of years. If the Earth did actually have two encounters (separated by 52 years) with Venus barely 3500 years ago, then the orbit of Venus must have been very elliptical at that time. Therefore, how could the orbit of Venus have circularized itself in the space of perhaps only a few hundred years?, particularly when considering the evidence given in ancient Sumerian/ Babylonian tablets and Mayan calendars etc of about that era, that do in fact record Venus as being in an orbit not much different than what it is today. [note by jno: but an eliptical orbit will have the same period as a circular one] Enter, 'The Electrical Universe Theory' (EUT). I will not directly explain to you the origins and workings of this theory (as I see it at least)... it would take too long... but suffice it to say in a very broad sense that all the Galaxies, Stars, Planets, Moons, Comets etc including Space itself are by various degrees electrically speaking, negatively charged. For as much as I have read and am still reading, this negative charge as I understand it, relates to "electron deficient" atoms and it is just a matter of degree that within Space, certain bodies are more negatively charged than others, mostly depending on their immediate electrical environment. Forgive me if I am talking to the "converted", but as a short exercise, perhaps for my own benefit, I will give you a brief summary of what I understand (in the context of the EUT), may have caused the probable expulsion of Venus from Jupiter and the resulting rapid circularising of Venus' orbit (albeit in reverse order). I will begin by explaining a few "basics" of the theory so please bear with me. Atoms stripped by one or more of their electrons are called "ions" and huge numbers of ions constitute a "plasma". This plasma, however tenuous, is also highly conductive, thus allowing electric currents to flow. The Sun and the Planets therefore, all being negatively charged, will electrically repel each other to maximum effect (negatives always repel). (Perhaps this is the reason for the current spacings between the planets which we now observe, and is probably due to an as yet unknown electrical phenomenon which results in the numerical "code" contained within "Bodes Law"). If these negatively charged planets stray too close to each other however, with one of the planets being much more negatively charged than the other, usually the larger of the two, then before anything else happens (collisions etc), these electrical imbalances must be equalised. This is the prelude to terrible catastrophes on the surface of the Earth (and the other body). In the process of "equalising", huge electric lightning bolts will be exchanged between the two bodies. The more highly charged body will assume an "anode" role and the lesser charged body, the "cathode". [jno note: I think he has that reversed. Current flow (convention) is from positive (anode) to negative (cathode), but electron flow is in the apposite direction, from cathode to anode. Since the larger body is more negative, it is the cathode.] As a result, avalanches of electrons will literally be pulled from the surface of the cathode (gouging out craters, rilles etc in the process), while the more negatively charged surface on the larger body will quickly assume a positive role (its surface electrons initially retreating inwards beneath the surface ...negatives repel...causing a highly charged positive surface to remain) and ultimately eject great amounts of these positive ions into Space toward the cathode (the smaller body), to try and equalise the differences in potential. This is similar to terrestrial lightning...cloud to ground...ground to cloud...albeit which operates in a "gas" (atmosphere) and of course at an extremely low level by comparison. [more than a bit confusing] In the terrestrial case the energy is dissipated by the atmosphere, but we do have the "stepped leaders" and "return strokes". Actually, it has been calculated that if terrestrial lightning occurred in a near vacuum environment (as in Space), and struck the ground, the lightning bolt would gouge out a Crater nearly 100 yards in diameter. So you can see what we are dealing with when considering interplanetary lightning bolts. In a physical sense, material would literally be thrown into Space with some of this material possibly being deposited on the surface of the other lesser charged body (cathode). Another point is that this "electrical force", for all intents and purposes, is an invisible force and we only really observe its effects (lightning, sparks and its many practical uses etc). However, this "invisible" force is up to forty powers of magnitude more powerful than the force of gravity (which is also invisible) and gravity by its very nature only attracts. ['orders' of magnitude: 10 ^^ (order)] If we now consider the apparent rapid circularising of the orbit of Venus (which is required in accordance with the events described in WIC), as being purely due to this electrical repulsion phenomenon between the planets and the Sun, which takes say a few tens or hundred years to achieve (which is feasible) and compare this with a purely gravitational controlled circularisation. All we have to do is multiply this approx. 200 year timeframe by up to forty powers of magnitude and observe the effect. The result would mean that Venus could never circularise, even given the current accepted age of the Universe. In fact the age of Venus, just to circularise under gravitational control alone, would predate the current accepted age of the Universe (which is always changing), by many orders of magnitude! This is of course purely theoretical because even considering the singular effects of pure gravity, there are other factors to consider such as tidal forces and inertial forces of mass etc., but if gravity were indeed the sole governing force, as we are led to believe, then logically, only chaos would result and in effect there would be no Solar System in the first place. In fact, no Sun either, but I will not go into that now. Concerning the actual cause of the ejection of Venus from Jupiter, this too is in dispute (for as much as I have read). As I mentioned before, this event could only have occurred at some time predating the Exodus, which is regarded as the first encounter with the tail part of Venus (if there had been a collision, I doubt whether we would be here today to talk about it). Perhaps WIC is a misleading title. [but charged bodies _cannot_ collide. The generated electric fields on a close approach would be enourmous, and act to repell them.] The cause of this ejection was most likely due to an extremely violent electrical imbalance deep within the core of the ejector (lets say Jupiter), which reached a threshold or "breakdown point" and caused a violent fissioning or splitting of part of the core in order to equalise out. Jupiter, being the largest of the planets, has the "privilege" (for want of a better term), because of its size, to intercept by far much more energy from the heliopause region of the Sun than all the other planets put together and will gobble up these highly energetic electrons in great abundance. Consequently, these electrons will join with atoms within Jupiter effectively combining with them to form basic elements and building up molecules of matter in vast quantities. [ugh! "Building molecules" aint gonna happen at planetary temperatures. But the stress of electric discharge could cause "fissioning". Keep that in quotes. Also of considerable intrest is the potential for imbalances of some component within a liquid core. Venus might have been flung out.] This effect combined with the Solar "Wind" ions (more than 90% of which are positive), results in time to an extreme excess build up of positive charge deep within the core. [I dont think even at 2 million miles per hour, that protons have much of a capability of penetrating a hard crust. They dont on Earth. I think we would have to look to other processes, perhaps even more mechanical than electrical, or a combination.] This charge will eventually reach such a level of instability compared with the negativity in the upper layers, that ultimately a huge but localised lightning event will occur (of an unimaginable magnitude) causing fissioning deep within Jupiter and the eventual expulsion of material into space (similar to the process described above, but without the assistance of another charged body). Jupiter for a while would be seen to glow very bright, similar to a Nova but on a much lesser scale of course. With this parturition from the core, we now have two unequally sized but positively charged amounts of material...and on this scale two positives repel with great force. The lesser of the two positively charged masses will be preferentially ejected from the core and will rise up through the dense inner layers of the ejectors' atmosphere. As I see it, we now have an enormous amount of core material, initially shaped like a huge teardrop (the bulky part leading) and at a temperature of tens of thousands of degrees C, undergoing core ejection. This material (proto-planet Venus), will accelerate through the atmospheric layers of the ejector (Jupiter) toward the highly negatively charged outer extremities and dragging much of the surrounding atmosphere with it until escape velocity is reached and expulsion is completed. [This is probably close to an actual description. But the 'escape velocity' is not small. The 'dragged along atmosphere' is probably just loose electrons.] The 'Great Red Spot' on Jupiter is most likely the visible remnant of this event. This of course is not the end of the story because various portions of the hind parts of this ejected material, the thin end of the assumed teardrop shape, must have broken away during ejection (these portions sometimes being called "blobs") and were recaptured by Jupiter. Many of the blobs and other recaptured material fell back into Jupiter but a few blobs, possibly because of inertia, momentum and appropriate velocity, assumed an orbital condition. Maybe Jupiter's closest Moon 'IO' is a recaptured "blob" that settled into an orbit, but because of its size, unlike Venus, could not retain an atmosphere. Subsequently, this proto-planet Venus went Sun-ward into a greatly extended elliptical orbit and for the observers on Earth at the time who witnessed this event, the proto-planet must have looked like a Comet or more precisely, "Comet-like" in appearance. [From just pure mechanical considerations, the ejection had to be along the Jovian equator.] That is to say this ejected material took on the form of a large bulbous glowing head (ie. positively charged material from the denser part of the surface and core of Jupiter...perhaps even mantle material, as a analogy... if indeed Jupiter as such does has a mantle with a solid or semi-solid core), accompanied by a huge trailing luminous tail containing debris and huge amounts of distended atmosphere torn from Jupiter during escape. ['Debris' is so easy to imagine, but perhaps unlikely. A glow discharge will look a lot more substantial than any tail of debris.] I should mention here that a lot of Astronomers take issue on this point.. the definition of a Comet. They assume that Velikovsky and his followers did not have a clue as to what by definition a Comet really is. Well, I will not go into that right now but in respect of this now proto-planet Venus, from a distance, it just happened to look like a Comet, thats all and in a literary sense was merely referred to as a 'Comet'. Better than writing "proto-planet" all the time. Also, the very word 'Comet' has a distinctive "ring" to it in my view. Of course we know what a Comet is, but I doubt whether Astronomers do... they still call them "dirty snowballs"? The rest of the events is yet another story which WIC describes. I should point out that all of this is pure conjecture, but at least very interesting and to me at least, quite feasible. It is also interesting to note that some schools of thought, because of many and various reasons, have deduced that Saturn was the progenitor of Venus, not Jupiter, but this idea predates the theme of WIC by many thousands of years and occupies a totally different era. Velikovsky intended to write of these earlier events in books 'Saturn and the Flood' and 'Jupiter of the Thunderbolt' but unfortunately, time was not of the essence and he was called to a higher realm where no doubt all is revealed. He did nevertheless write many albeit unpublished articles on these events and we now have "Saturnism" in its various forms. Which is again, another big story. I hope I have given you a reasonable explanation as to the theoretical mechanism governing the birth of Venus from Jupiter (or Saturn for that matter). It is just a broad overview as there are many other factors to consider and unfortunately no such theory can be proved until the event happens again. We will know then for sure, but it will be too late. Anyway, I can assure you that there are quite a number of well informed adherents of the EUT on the web, who have been formulating the theory for years. Just key-in "KRONIA" on your search engine and a wealth of info awaits you. Personally, I admit to not having completely grasped the concept even now, so maybe some of my explanations may be in conflict or slightly misunderstood. However, research continues. ..... (end)