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 VI, No 8 
Dec 15, 2002 

BIRTH OF VENUS 
A discussion 

Ken Moss began: 
It is my that Tony Peratt thinks Venus was always part of the 
Saturnian configuration, which I tend to agree with myself. 
However, Wal Thornhill and Dwardu Cardona claim Venus was, or may 
have been, born out of Saturn within man's memory. 

DWARDU CARDONA replied: 
Speaking for my own position on this, "may have been," rather than 
"was," is where I now stand. The problem here is that both 
hypotheses, Peratt's and mine, raise problems. See more below. 

MOSS: 
That is, Venus was the core of Saturn that was pulled out or 
ejected by some means when the Saturn system came in 'contact' 
with the solar system. But there is an important difference 
between the two ejection scenarios. Wal says Venus came out 
equatorially and Dwardu thinks it came out Saturn's pole, the same 
one Mars and Earth was 'under.' 

CARDONA: 
... Yes, I do hold that *IF* Venus was ejected from Saturn, it 
would have been ejected poleward. 

MOSS: 
Can mythology and physics combine to show what really happened? 

CARDONA: 
Seeing as the mytho-historical record is limited to what was seen 
from Earth's perspective, its value in correctly surmising what 
really took place in space is limited in this particular instance. 
All that we can glean from the record is that VISUALLY Venus had 
not always been there. So that, if it WAS there, it was not 
visible to Earth-bound eyes. The record implies that Venus 
appeared SUDDENLY after long ages of proto-Saturnian stability. 

As for physics, as Peratt has stated, the implication seems to be 
that all of the configuration planets were formed at the same 
time. Personally, I have problems with this, DESPITE LABORATORY 
EXPERIMENTS. 

MOSS: 
My recent reading of Egyptian myth supports Tony in that the 
appearance of Venus is treated in a rather low-key way. The sun- 
god One is alone in the heavens then Tefnut/Venus and Shu/Mars are
either quietly spit out
(no sense of real force is implied) or 
they simply become visible at some point, one in front of the 
other and both in front of the disk of Saturn, from Earth's 
perspective. 

CARDONA: 
But there you have it. Whether forcefully or not, Venus IS said to 
have been "spat out." In other words, it had not been visually 
apparent before that event. And as for whether the "spitting" was 
violent or not, we have to analyze other than just the Egyptian 
myth. From my own study of this subject, I can safely say (without 
being adamant) that the first appearance of Venus WAS a violent 
event. 

MOSS: 
On the other hand, Wal's view is supported by the birth myth of 
Athena/Venus who suddenly burst out of the forehead of Zeus fully 
armed and ready for battle. This does sound like a far more 
dramatic appearance and fits the equator ejection model as Venus 
would have been seen to suddenly appear out to the side of Saturn 
and not between Mars and Saturn. 

CARDONA: 
The correct translation is "skull" not "forehead." Even so, I do 
not see how that necessarily translates as an EQUATORIAL ejection. 
And, in any case, that was Hesiod's take. There are other Greek 
versions of the birth of Athena. 

WAL THORNHILL adds: 
The equatorial ejection model is supported by Venus' retrograde 
spin. As Eric Crew made clear in his electrical core expulsion 
model, the ejected matter is given a retrograde spin by the very 
nature of its birth. 

If Venus had been born from the pole of Saturn in some unspecified 
manner, then it would be expected to mimic Saturn's axial 
alignment and spin rate. It does neither. 

CARDONA: 
You are here assuming that Venus spun retrogradely from its very 
inception. I can argue that it did not. And, no, I am not saying 
that Venus stopped spinning and then resumed in the opposite 
direction. It's spin did not change. But it did go through a 
tippe-top inversion, very much in the manner that Warlow 
hypothesized for Earth. As seen from Earth, the effect would have 
been the same as if Venus changed its direction of spin. 

MOSS: 
The more contentious scenario, to me, is Dwardu's and the problem 
has more to do with the physics than any mythology. If Wal is 
right, that it was a combination of attraction (between the sun 
and the core) and sudden electric charge difference (between 
Saturn's outer shell and core) that drove the ejection, how could 
that happen in the already-aligned configuration consisting of 
Saturn, Mars and the Earth? For the core to come out of the pole 
that Mars and the Earth were 'under' it would mean that the 
configuration came into the solar system TAIL FIRST (Saturn being 
the head and Earth the tail of the string of planets). 

CARDONA: 
The problem here, as in many other cases, is the Sun. Why are we 
assuming that Venus was "pulled out" of proto-Saturn by the 
gravitational pull of the Sun? That, surely, is NOT the manner in 
which planets are born. So that whether the proto-Saturnian 
systems entered the Sun's domain tail-first or head-first has no 
bearing on THIS particular issue. (To be sure, this question HAS 
to be answered, but in relation to an entirely different problem.) 

MOSS: 
And if this were so, surely the Earth, being the closest body to 
the sun, would have been subject to tremendous forces. Surely 
these forces would not have left us in peace while reaching over 
us (and Mars), so to speak, in order to pull out Saturn's core? 

CARDONA: 
Saturn's core, IF THAT IS WHAT VENUS WAS, was not "pulled out" by 
anything. Again, that is not the way in which planets are born. 

THORNHILL agrees: 
See my article in Aeon VI:1. The gravitational attraction of the 
Sun had little to do with the birth of Venus. It might have 
contributed an offset in the expulsion from proto-Saturn's 
equatorial plane -- which may be reflected in the fact that Venus' 
spin axis does not line up with any of Earth, Mars and Saturn. But 
the major effects would have been felt when crossing the Sun's 
plasma sheath at some great distance from the Sun and well beneath 
the ecliptic. (That accords with the shared axial alignments of 
Earth, Mars and Saturn, together with the observed revolving 
crescent of sunlight seen from Earth on the body of Saturn). 

The plasma sheath is the region of the Sun's virtual-cathode where 
almost the entire voltage difference between the Sun and the 
galactic plasma exists. The effect upon Saturn would have been, I 
imagine, spectacular and catastrophic, leading to the expulsion of 
Venus in an effort to adjust electrically. A part of the process 
would see Saturn accelerated from the center of its small 
planetary system, leaving the more distantly orbiting satellites 
to trail behind. That is the only way, dynamically, that I can see 
a close polar configuration forming. 

BTW, the preferential constant acceleration of Saturn, as the most 
highly charged body in the assembly, toward the Sun fits perfectly 
with the observed constant deceleration of charged spacecraft 
moving away from the Sun. A dynamic polar equilibrium could only 
be sustained by such a constant tug on proto-Saturn.