VOL III, No. 15 Nov 15, 1999 EDITOR: Amy Acheson PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart CONTENTS GOING IN CIRCLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Mel Acheson MYTHIC ROOTS OF LANGUAGE part II . . . . . . . . .by Dave Talbott LEFT BRAIN/RIGHT BRAIN . . by Pam Hanna, Ted Bond, and Dave Davis UPDATED GALILEO PREDICTIONS . . . . . . . . . . by Wal Thornhill CLOSEST EVER PICTURE OF IO . . . . . . . . . . . by Wal Thornhill ---------------------------------------------- GOING IN CIRCLES By Mel Acheson The idea that the Earth goes around the Sun is as wrong as was the idea that the Sun goes around the Earth. Oh, sure, heliocentrism works for certain limited purposes-for putting a robot on Mars or for sending a probe around Jupiter. But geocentrism works, too-for siting a house on a lot or for calculating solar exposure during the course of a day. Both are simplifications of a more complex phenomenon. In reducing that larger phenomenon to elements usable for immediate purposes, a lot of information is lost. A lot of the phenomenon is overlooked. Really, the planets don't go around the Sun. Orbits are figments of an underactive imagination, a failure to imagine reality. The Sun and planets are spiraling around the galaxy, each causing minor perturbations in the motions of the others. By analogy, the Moon doesn't really go around the Earth. That's an idea left over from geocentric thinking. From a heliocentric view, Moon and Earth merely perturb each other a little as they go around the Sun on almost identical orbits. So the planets follow helix-shaped paths, not closed ellipses. Another image of it is a corkscrew path. That image connects with several other elements of a bigger picture: Hannes Alfven discovered that electrons corkscrew around the axis of plasma filaments. Wal Thornhill has described the corkscrew motion of industrial machining arcs and has related that characteristic to the shapes of planetary craters. Recently, some atmospheric researchers discovered the zigzags of lightning strokes are, in three dimensions, corkscrewed. What do these corkscrew images have in common besides their common shape? Perhaps they're all aspects of plasma behavior. But certainly they each encompass a bigger picture than previous ideas. They have both spatial and historical depth. Now epicycles did a fair job of describing what was "really" happening geocentrically. But they missed a lot: You could never come up with a workable theory of dynamics by studying epicycles. Orbits do pretty well describing what's "really" happening heliocentrically. But they, too, are missing a lot: The stars don't follow gravitational orbits around the galaxy. You can never come up with a workable theory of plasma behavior by studying the inverse-square forces of central point-masses. Conceptually, geocentrism is one-dimensional: It's a kinetic viewpoint with the dimension of motion. Heliocentrism and gravity are two-dimensional concepts: They provide a dynamic viewpoint with dimensions of motion and force. But the understanding of plasma requires a viewpoint that accounts for persistently-interacting assemblages, adding the dimensions of instability and historicity. The collapse of geocentrism was foreshadowed by the proliferation of preposterous epicycles. As more epicycles were added to explain some new observations, the less they explained other observations. Today there is a proliferation of preposterous gravitational conceits. Each handful of new observations is given its own ad hoc "theory". Really, these are not theories but excuses for lack of generality. Both the problem and its solution are suggested in this irony: The universe is observed to be 99% composed of plasma, whose properties are unrecognized. But modern gravitational theory postulates a 99% composition of unobservable "dark matter" to explain observations. The problem is no longer with limitations on seeing what's "out there" but with limitations on seeing what's "in here". It's the conceptual sclerosis that's keeping us from really seeing 99% of reality. Mel Acheson thoth at whidbey.com ---------------------------------------------- MYTHIC ROOTS OF LANGUAGE part II By Dave Talbott Roger Wescott says: The word "comma" has a root "kop" ("to strike or mark"). So there is a semantic connection with "apostrophe" et al., even though that connection isn't morphological. Dave Talbott responds: The meaning of the root _kop_ to strike, brings the _comma_ into alignment symbolically with the Great Star/Great Comet Venus, though I would add the sense of the "break" in a linear sequence, which is the effect of both the comma and the coma (comet). The "punctuation" of a sentence is analogous to the "punctuation" of history. You can see this in the dual meanings of the word "period" (Greek (_periodos_), for example. In Greek thought a full circuit or cycle of time is the "period". A period also denotes the completion of a sentence. Similarly, in a sentence, the "break" of the comma is curiously analogous to the function of the archetypal coma/comet, whose most active and dramatic history signifies the break between two phases (phrases?) of history. Though the great star/great comet is the primary reference in symbols of beauty or "comeliness" (more Venus-comet language), it is invariably associated with endings and beginnings, presiding over the end of one age and the beginning of another. (Thus, the two most dramatic symbols of the comet in its terrible aspect are the raging or lamenting goddess and the raging serpent, always appearing in the sky with the collapse of a former epoch.) This does not mean that the similar functions of the coma and comma were consciously recognized by the Greeks, though I wouldn't discount that possibility. Of course most etymologists would fall off their chair in seeing the "coma/comma" connection implied in my note above. But I suspect that a search through more archaic roots would reveal some surprising parallels between the Greek _kome_ (hair, hair star, comet) and _kop_ ("strike"). I would look for a complex of K-M and K-P roots with a range of meanings roughly paralleling the complex of meanings around the S-T-R root. One parallel would be that between _kop_ and the S-T-R word "strike", including the related words "stroke" and "streak". In seeking out a specific bridge between _kome_ and _kop_ I'd consider the full complex of Great Star/Great comet motifs, but perhaps concentrate first on word roots around the concepts of the cap, cape, cloak, head, and hair. While I could give several reasons for this suggestion, much of the logic comes down to this: the _kome_, "hair", of Venus is the "cap" of the warrior-hero, and the cap does seem to be connected to "comma", i.e., the root _kop_. The warrior-king dons the radiance or "hair" of the Great Star as his crown of glory (see, e.g., the Egyptian king's "wig" or "headdress", which turns out to be a form of the great goddess) Symbolically, the cap IS the radiance, the streaming hair of the goddess. Thus, among numerous cultures, the warrior's helmet or cap is inseparable from its "crest", a tuft of streaming hair or some symbolic variant thereof. The sacred sidelock or topknot of the warrior pertains to the same imagery, in which the hair of the head, or cap, IS the coma, the "radiance" of the goddess. (The spiraling sidelock of the warrior-king Horus is _Hensektet_ a name of Isis and Hathor, for example.) Verifiable symbolic connections can lead to a recognition of numerous morphological connections where the roots would otherwise be treated as unrelated. With respect to the subject at hand, I believe that the conjunction of symbols will trace back to the beginnings of language--and specifically to the conjunction of Mars and Venus in the model we have presented. The role of Venus as headdress or cap cannot be understood apart from the relationship of Venus to the ONE WHO WEARS IT, the warrior-king. So I would expect to find a complex of meanings around the K-P root which will suggest SIMIULTANEOUSLY the cap, the top, the head, the crown or crown of the head, and hair (coma), as in the German _Kopf_ It is by donning the radiance, the crown or cometary "hair" of Venus, that Mars becomes the king of the world, the legitimate "head", the cap-tain. One connection I would explore is that to "copper" (German Kupfer, Latin cuprum, the metal of Cyprus, Greek Kypros), since the "radiance" of the Great Star took the color of copper ore, i.e., brilliant turquoise. Copper ore (such as malachite) was used to produce the turquoise color of the Venus-eye-goddess symbols in both Egypt and Mesopotamia. And Aphrodite was called the "copper" goddess, the Cyprian. Hence, that would be a connection of the Venus-coma to a K-P root worth considering. Also, it's hard for me to imagine that root meanings around the word "comma" would not be related to its spiraling form, which IS the form of the Venus goddess as the spiraling lifebreath (exhaled heart-soul, displaced eye) The same form is represented by the apostrophe. Thus Aphrodite, the planet Venus, is called _Apostrophia_. But she is also called _Comaetho_--the "long haired" (star), an epithet resonating with the global symbolism of the comet as the "long-haired star." Thus we find both the spiraling comma-form and the coma attached to one and the same planet goddess. THE ACID TEST We've noted on numerous occasions that one of the advantages of the Saturn model is that it can be subjected to numerous tests. Under many such tests, the implications of the model will be so far from anything anticipated under conventional assumptions that they can be regarded as ACID tests. And the most compelling acid tests will be those so specific and unusual that no false theory could consistently pass them. When it comes to word associations, one could spend a lifetime applying various tests to the model. We've discussed the imagery of the polar column and the word associations predicted by that feature of the Saturn model. But there are many others. And why not look for the most extraordinary tests first, those in which the model would predict associations so unique one would not even dream of them in the absence of the hypothesized events? (Again, the force of the logic involved here will be lost on those who are not familiar with the details of the model. I will use as a reference the notebook "Symbols of an Alien Sky.") Consider, for example, the remarkable image of Mars in relation to the discharging Venus. Here we have the small planet directly in front of a blast of light (Venus discharge), putting the Martian hemisphere facing the earth into a dark shadow. As we have illustrated this condition, Mars appears as a dark reddish brown object against the brilliant sphere of Venus and its discharge streamers. Add to this unique condition the centrality of the juxtaposed spheres in relation to the much larger sphere of Saturn and you have a highly unique set of relationships-and literally nothing in common with observed phenomena in our sky today. Yet around the world we find ancient pictographs corresponding precisely to this condition-including the enigmatic small dark circle or sphere inside the central star and radiant streamers. (Symbols, pp. 73ff.) Conventional experts will call these images "sun" pictographs, though it is simply inconceivable that people, in both the Old World and the New, would draw the Sun in our sky that way. On the other hand, if you yourself were to represent this aspect of the Saturn model in line drawings, these are surely typical of the pictures you would draw. Moreover, if ancient language arose as a direct reflection of these extraordinary events, how likely is it that words relating to the unique role of Mars would fail to provide us with some explicit confirmation of the implied associations, including the shadow-effect on Mars? A few weeks ago we talked briefly about ancient imagery of the Greek omphalos or navel, which neatly represents the conjunction of Mars and Venus in the model. The raised boss or knob of the omphalos will be the sphere of Mars, and the golden band around this boss will be the planet Venus (gold typically representing "brilliance" in the ancient world). The juxtaposed spheres of Venus and Mars do indeed look like the "navel" of Saturn--as many people viewing the illustration have observed. (Of course it takes the huge sphere of Saturn to create the "navel" affect. The concept of centrality, which is crucial to all such images, is meaningless apart from this relationship.) The Greek omphalos is the Latin _umbilicus_, meaning navel, middle, center. In honor of this numinous "middle"-point, a central district in Italy was named "Umbria". As we've noted previously, the umbilicus is presented on numerous ancient shields, and the depicted central boss or hemispheric protuberance of the shield can only represent the warrior-hero himself, the "navel-born" god, the celebrated axle of the Saturnian wheel (Symbols, p. 92). Thus, it is not surprising at all to find that the Latins called this central boss on the shield the _umbo._. And our own language has retained the connection to the darkly shadowed appearance of Mars: our word "umber", from the Latin _umbra_, means "dark dusky brown or dark reddish brown". But where is the natural basis for the connection of a central hemisphere or boss to "dark reddish brown"? While nature today offers no connection, the Saturn model certainly does! Indeed, the Latin _umbra_ means "shadow" or "shade", which can hardly come as a surprise, since it is the distinctive shadow which produces the dark reddish "umber" of Mars. And of course, the language of astronomy has preserved the original idea intact: _umbra_ means "the complete or perfect shadow of an opaque body, as a planet, where the direct light from the source of illumination is completely cut off". That is exactly the role of Mars in the model. We might note also that archaically, our word "umbrage" (a very Martian expression), meant a "shadowy appearance". The archaic word "umbrose" meant "full of shade", and our word "umbrella", identical to the shade in ancient symbolism, comes from the same root. Also, since the umbilicus was frequently presented as the center of flower, it is significant that this center of inflorescence is called _umbella_, a word equivalent to _umbra_ the shadow. We thus find a complex of words around an ancient root, in which a navel, or a central boss, or the center of flower reveals an enigmatic relationship to the concept of a "shadow" and "dark reddish brown". Though this qualifies as a unique prediction of the Saturn model it would hardly qualify as an EXPECTED connection under the common assumptions of etymologists. It thus exemplifies the kind of testing which the specialists must be challenged to conduct on their own, to determine if similar associations are present in other languages. ---------------------------------------------- LEFT BRAIN/RIGHT BRAIN By Pam Hanna, Ted Bond, and Dave Davis PAM: Our society is VERY masculine and the REASON that Amy & Karen & I have minds that are more masculine than your usual cross-section of the female species is that we HAVE to have masculine minds to even TALK to you dudes. Dig .. TED: On you and Shlain's view of the matter, I got more of a female mind than most males. . . . I think of you, Amy and Kaj as the triple-goddess of the Kronialist, and I'm happy for all your left-brain activity! No sooner had I dispatched this, than I realized one of you had to be the irresistible female lure (e.g. Helen of Troy, La Belle Dame sans Merci), another the nurturing Mother, and the third the destructive, death-dealing Crone (Kali &c.)! PAM replies: heh heh, I'd configure it a little differently since la belle dame sans merci & Kali cover pretty much the same ground. What you're leaving out are the wisdom goddesses, Sekmet, Maat, Sophia, Shekinah, Athena. Actually, I think the Greeks had it sewn up pretty well - Aphrodite, the bait, Hera, the mother/nurturer and Athena, wisdom (unfortunately war comes into the equation with the latter). Aphrodite ALWAYS gets the apple & that's what pissed off the L- brain, image-hating iconoclastic God so mightily. Desire - that makes la belle dame sans merci of women and slaves of men - or so they say - so they WRITE! That's the one thing that men don't have all sewn up - that wild card - their desire for women & that's a bitter pill to swallow for a dominant, controlling, L- brained man. Must be HER fault - the bitch! That she devil MADE me do it! TED: But then I started thinking (the old left-brain went to work while keeping in touch with the adorable right-brain) about a certain recurring archetypal theme and its possible relation via the polar configuration to the origins of Puritanism (a special interest of mine), something that seems to have begun with the Jewish rejection of planet-worship (in particular the worship of Ishtar and its accompanying human sacrifice) and the introduction of an invisible god. PAM replies: The ban on images is a ban on R-brain pattern recognition. Those damn women were getting away with a kind of gestalt communication OUTSIDE MALE control! MUST be bad. MUST be stopped. MUST be forbidden. TED continues: The recurring archetypal theme is of the irresistible female lure, who later either simply abandons her male lover, leaving him in a severely debilitated state (La Belle Dame, the Czech Vilja,) or else drowns him or mutilates and devours him or throws the corpse into the river or the sea (the Lorelei, Tamara [Lermontov], the Sirens, the Maenads), the irresistibly alluring virgin Diana who commands the death of any man who gazes upon her bathing naked, and many others. PAM replies: Give those women an inch & they'll take a mile, hey? The curious thing is that if you examine history, the actual misogyny is heavily weighted on the side of men hating - and punishing - women. Man-hating women are mostly legendary myths & archetypes (like the Bacchantes, Maenads, etc) whereas in actual fact, there were no societies of women who systematically subjugated, tortured and murdered men as men did to women in the notorious gender wars & witch hunts of the middle ages. There were places and times in human history when it was simply a crime to be female. Nowhere, nowhen, was it a crime to be male. Shlain made an interesting point that boys, in order to become men, MUST separate themselves from their mamas & follow their fathers. Girls don't have to separate themselves from or reject either sex to become women. Ptah masturbated the gods into existence without a consort. The Goddess HAD to be dethroned. It was inevitable in the development of our species (this isn't Shlain - this is my own little pet theory). Tiamat had to be done in to make the world out of her body. It's just that when the L brain of the species got too active too fast, that it swung over into misogyny. That's Shlain and that's his central thesis - that patriarchy parallels the introduction of the alphabet (a L-brain activity) and with it L-brain dominance, which crowded out R-brain values & activities. TED continues: Now, the worship of Ishtar-Astarte-Ashtoreth-Inanna-Aphrodite (&c.) seemed, so the best research tells us, to include temple 'prostitution' (so called), the girls assuming the role of the goddess--a delightful practice only recently abolished in India due to the preachings of the puritan Gandhi. Jewish religion attempts (with difficulty) to abolish worship of Ishtar-Baal along with its accompanying temple-'prostitution', and women, except in marriage, are to be chaste and pure. (The prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah [2, 32] rail against women wearing jewelry especially [see Isaiah 3, 16-25] tinkling bells on their- -presumably bare--feet.) (God's gonna fix them real good!) Ezekiel 15, dealing with the 'abominations' of Jerusalem seems to clinch the matter, for backsliding into Venus-worship which includes 'sacrificing one's children to be devoured' and 'passing them through the fire' is clearly linked to the wearing of jewelry and to sexual looseness ('whoredom'). PAM: If you've read THE SACRED EXECUTIONER by Hyam Maccoby, you know that females didn't have a corner on human sacrifice even though it's true that it started with goddess worship. To be sure, there was a downside to the ancient goddess religion - namely the ritual sacrifice of Tammuz, Damuzi, Attis, Osiris, Adonis - all consorts of the goddess. That's what got Ezekiel et al. so bent outta shape. Hebrew women were making cakes for the Queen of Heaven and "weeping for Tammuz" (whom they ritually sacrificed). But comparing sheer numbers, this doesn't hold a candle to sacrifices perpetrated by the patriarchal gods or the ancient Hebrews before the levitical laws were established. The really alarming downside of the goddess cult was when the priests of Cybele voluntarily castrated themselves. Now THAT's the R brain gone mad IMHO - but again, the numbers can't compare to the slaughter of all men, women and children & "everything living" that the Hebrews perpetrated on the cities & towns that worshipped the goddess. But you can bet they kept the non-living things, to wit - the gold, silver, bronze, copper - whatever they could haul away for the coffers of the Levites. Which brings me to what was REALLY going on. All that rap about how licentious the women were, adorning themselves and enticing men - was a COVER STORY. What was really going on is that matrilineal descent affected PROPERTY OWNERSHIP!! In the goddess-religion cities, women owned their own property, were endowed with a legal identity & were free to relate sexually with various men. Paternity was not a particular concern. Being unsure of paternity, they couldn't take her property - which is what they wanted. Hence the characterization of the holy temple women as "prostitutes" rather than "qadishtu" or priestesses of a cult that celebrated life and sexuality as holy. (Sounds a lot more fun than "priests in black gowns are making their rounds and binding with briars my joys and desires". Can't remember whether that's Black or Swineburne). Shlain made the point that it's the L brain mindset that gives rise to prudery. It's the dudes who are the prudes every time! All that stuff in the Mosaic creation myth about how the Lord will put enmity between the serpent and the woman and between "your seed and her seed" was about stamping out the goddess. TED: The Old Testament and, in the New Testament, the Book of Revelation, constantly rail against 'whoredom' as perhaps the greatest sin of all, a sin associated furthermore, with the earlier and constantly revived worship of Ishtar-Baal (hence, no doubt, its wickedness). You will recall that, according the Book of Revelation, the only people saved in the last days will be 144,000 male Jewish virgins (undefiled by women). No women at all will be saved . . . All of this is, I feel sure, the origin of the 'virgin or whore' complex, and the Puritanism of many forms of Christianity. PAM: I disagree. The issue was property. The rejection of the female principle as you call it wasn't about "female attractiveness" & those naughty loose women - it was about matrilineal descent and property rights. The only way men could take over the property of all these rich & well-respected women was to characterize them as "temple prostitutes" . . . TED: Now the turning away from sex--to continue this speculation--was as strong as it was because of the manifestation of Ishtar- Astarte-Venus in her destructive aspect as the wanton hag- destroyer of humans and their habitation. We weren't going to get the old world back, regardless of the number of sacrifices, so Jehovah became the invisible substitute for the once visible original deity, and we would reject everything associated with that nasty Venus who obviously could not be trusted! And all this can also account for the special importance assigned over the last several millennia to female chastity and purity. PAM replies: It's a wise child that knows his own father. When women became property, men had to protect that property from other males who might plant their own seeds therein. I think you're on the right track but with a bit of a red herring slant. I guess my point is that it all reflects what's in the minds of men about the nature of women - not the ACTUAL nature of women. The fact that we - men and women - can even talk about this now as adults is proof that we're starting to wake up & smell the pheromones and realize what's actually going on here. TED: Thanks for this Pam. As you are no doubt well aware I am not a misogynist, and I think domination (by anybody of anybody) is an abomination. Contemporary society is really into the domination- submission thing and its results are deeply destructive. Apart from the heavier stuff, look what it's done to sex! One of my deeper insights (if you'll pardon the immodesty) is that the current view of sex as wicked and nasty--'nasty' has come to mean 'sexually exciting' and 'dirty' the same--is a form of inverse Puritanism. The Jehovah religion turned against sex which was associated with Ishtar &c. This was the origin of Puritanism, and those who see sex as hot stuff but nasty, wicked (impure) and dirty are actually buying into the Puritan view of things. That is why I call it 'inverse Puritanism'. A lot of misogyny originates with the idea that sexy women are 'defilers of men', as The Bible constantly proclaims! This, together with the memory of Ishtar in her destructive phase, is the source of the many (male) legends about destructive women which I talked about. Notice that all these babes (Diana excepted) give their men a really good time before the axe falls! You're wrong about Keats's La Belle Dame sans Merci being Kali; she was a ravishing beauty with whom the knight fell deeply in love before she abandoned him. PAM: . . . have to tell you that I'm well aware of La Belle Dame Sans Merci (without mercy she is) & of the poem & what I meant by saying that la belle & Kali covered the same ground is merely that that aspect of the female archetype is covered by both - both destructive to men. (Of course Kali is pure destruction - to women as well as men) but my point was that the 3 personas of womankind are the mother/nurturer, the destroyer (in whatever aspect - beautiful or horrible but always ultimately deadly) but there's a third - Sophia, wisdom- which I think is an aspect of the female persona that integrates L & R brain & therefore is the wisdom goddess because only such an integration can produce wisdom - wisdom is more than intellect & it's more than intuition. It embodies both word & image. TED: Yes, wisdom of course, which I had quite forgotten (an aspect of Athena/Minerva). Sophia was even, in some tradition or other, seen as the spouse of Jehovah! (Jung blamed God for failing to consult her.) But Sophia does _not_ appear to be related to the polar configuration, and is probably a later addition, and possibly based on the military Athena figure who figures prominently in the beginnings of patriarchy (Aeschylus's _Eumenides_). PAM: How about related to the polar configuration as the radiant Venus? She's the shining glory of the God. Get Dave Talbott on this one some time. The shekinah glory is the glory of transcendent wisdom. TED NOW: This is just part of current male stereotyping. Boys do not have to, nor do they generally, reject their mothers. Of course they have to assert their independence from their parents, but so, absolutely equally, do girls. Pam: Not so. Boys don't have to dump on or hate their mothers & they generally don't but they DO have to separate themselves from their mothers & stop emulating their mothers--acting like their mothers - or else they're dubbed pussies among their fellow males. When I said "rejecting in some way or other", I meant taking on the whole male persona & differentiating it from their mother's persona. It's not absolutely equally the same for girls. DAVE DAVIS SEZ: Right, I must butt in here :) What are these words "boys", "men", "mothers", "girls", etc etc etc? They are getting used as if they were "biological determinatives" - but they are NOT, NO NO NO NO! They are *cultural performatives" (this terminology comes from theorist Judith Butler) Pam, I don't want to hear this "boys have to x...", "girls have to y..." Why do they *have* to? Because their knees swell up if they don't? Because they get lung cancer if they don't? Because all their teeth fall out? Of course not - there's no *physiological* reason behind any of these gender roles - nothing's gonna actually happen except the rest of society will be cross. (John Lennon sang it best ... "There's nothing you can do that can't be done; Nothing you can sing that can't be sung, nothing you can say... ... it's easy!") PAM says: Absolutely Because "the rest of society will be cross." ... But the rest of society being cross is quite a powerful deterrent of so-called aberrant behavior. If boys don't want to be called pussies, candyasses, etc. they have to at some point stop being Mama's boys and emulate big hairy masculine men. If they don't really give a shit - of course they don't HAVE to. They can wear makeup & dress up like drag queens if they WANT to & they're not going to get lung cancer or anything. They MIGHT get the shit kicked outta them by a bunch of homophobic apes & Visigoths tho. DAVE D: Unless you can historically document that society at any time in question was *actually* organised like that, then it's no good appealing to the essentialist natures of men/women/boys/girls to rationalise that it *must* have been like that. (At least not when I'm in the room and you want an easy life ;-) PAM: Hey, I'm not here for the easy life or I wouldn't be hanging out with all these Krazy Kronians ;~}. I can historically document that cultural norms for a massive number of cultures (including American Indians) had all kinds of coming-of-age ceremonies where the boy is taken away from his mother & he has to live in the kiva (picking one) with the men for two years & isn't allowed to even look at any women. In Western Culture, that translates thus: it's kinda cute to be considered "daddy's girl", but it's not a compliment to be called a "momma's boy." ---------------------------------------------- UPDATED GALILEO PREDICTIONS By Wal Thornhill The Galileo craft has reasonable odds of surviving the closest flyby later this month [Nov 25, 1999]. First, the craft has to actually fly through one of the plumes and at 300 km above the surface of Io the discharge is likely to be fairly diffuse. Also, the spacecraft is small so that it would very quickly charge up, possibly avoiding a catastrophic discharge. So, if it does fly through a plume I would expect sudden swings of the magnetometer delineating the complexity of Birkeland currents rather than neutral gas following a ballistic trajectory. It should also find sudden changes in charged particle energy spectra. ---------------------------------------------- CLOSEST EVER PICTURE OF IO By Wal Thornhill >From NASA News of 24 October 1999 The highest resolution image ever of Jupiter's volcanic moon Io, . . . was taken by NASA's Galileo spacecraft on Oct. 11, 1999, from an altitude of 617 kilometers (417 miles). It shows an area about 7.2 kilometers (4.5 miles) long and 2.2 kilometers (1.4 miles) wide. Features as small as 9 meters (30 feet) can be discerned, providing a resolution which is 50 times better than the image taken by the Voyager spacecraft in 1979. The box drawn in the center image, a Galileo image of Io taken earlier in the mission, shows the area displayed in the new image at top. The three color images below show the volcanic region from a much higher altitude than the other images and follow a volcanic eruption. This new image targeted lava flows that erupted from the volcano Pillan. A complex mix of smooth and rough areas can be seen with clusters of pits and domes, many of which are the size of houses. The volcanic features are similar to those found on Earth and Mars. However, this combination of different types of lava flows has not been seen before in such a small area, demonstrating the variety of volcanic processes that continue to change the surface of Io. . . . In the electrical model, the clusters of pits and domes are not volcanic. As expected in an Electric Universe, chains of circular craters show that an electric discharge has moved across the surface of Io. Such crater chains are characteristically found on cathode surfaces as the arc jumps from the neat, circular crater it has just burnt to the nearest high point - often the rim of the same crater. The mounds also are most likely "fulgamites" - the kind of raised blisters found on lightning arrestors after a lightning strike. The movement of Io's so- called volcanoes of over 100km in a few years is also more easily understood as a travelling arc. Features on Mars are similar because they too were caused by interplanetary discharges in the recent past. Galileo's camera and near-infrared mapping spectrometer measured the temperatures of the lavas during the eruption and found that they were hotter than any known eruption on Earth in the last two billion years. ... It was the temperature of the cathode arcs that was being measured, averaged over a large area. Better resolution will show that Io's hot spots are far too hot to be volcanic. They will be found to be made up of multiple smaller spots at temperatures of many thousands of degrees - temperatures found in an electric arc. Photos for this article and much more information about The Electric Universe can be found at Wal Thornhill's website: http://www.holoscience.com ---------------------------------------------- PLEASE VISIT THE KRONIA COMMUNICATIONS WEBSITE: http://www.kronia.com Other suggested Web site URL's for more information about Catastrophics: Subscriptions to AEON, a journal of myth and science, may be ordered at the I-net address below: http://www.ames.net/aeon/ 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 Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered, 10 Pensée Journals may be ordered at the I-net address below: http://www.e-z.net/~mikamar/default.html ----------------------------------------------- The THOTH electronic newsletter is an outgrowth of scientific and scholarly discussions in the emerging field of astral catastrophics. Our focus is on a reconstruction of ancient astral myths and symbols in relation to a new theory of planetary history. Serious readers must allow some time for these radically different ideas to be fleshed out and for the relevant background to be developed. The general tenor of the ideas and information presented in THOTH is supported by the editor and publisher, but there will always be plenty of room for differences of interpretation. We welcome your comments and responses. thoth at Whidbey.com New readers are referred to earlier issues of THOTH posted on the Kronia website listed above. Go to the free newsletter page and double click on the image of Thoth, the Egyptian God of Knowledge, to access the back issues. --- You are currently subscribed to kroniatalk as: mikamar at e-z.net To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kroniatalk-36515E at telelists.com