April 22, 1997 EDITOR: Michael Armstrong PUBLISHER: Walter Radtke CONTENTS: SATURN: THE ANCIENT SUN GOD.........................David Talbott THE ELECTRICAL SUN (Part 4)........................Ralph Juergens SCHOLARS IN DESPERATION...............................Earl Milton Book Review of "Stephen Jay Gould and Immanuel Velikovsky: Essays in the Continuing Velikovsky Affair" ----------------------------------------------- Quote of the day: Belief in truth begins with doubting all that has hitherto been believed to be true. Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------- SATURN: THE ANCIENT SUN GOD By David Talbott (dtalbott at teleport.com) Many threads of Greek and Roman astronomy appear to lead back to a priestly astronomy arising in Mesopotamia some time in the first millennium B.C. The Babylonians were apparently the first to develop systematic observations of the planets, and they recorded the celestial motions with considerable skill. But in laying the foundations of later astronomy, they also preserved a crucial link with the past. Again and again they asserted a claim that could only appear preposterous to the modern translator. They declared that the distant planets were the *gods* of former times. Sumerian myths, we noted earlier, say that the rites and standards of "kingship" descended from the central luminary An, founder of the Golden Age. In Babylonian myth the Sumerian An appears as Anu, first in the line of gods and kings. And according to the best authorities on Babylonian astronomy, the god Anu was mysteriously linked to *the planet Saturn*. The association was stated most bluntly by the renowned expert on Babylonian astronomy, Peter Jensen, in *Die Kosmologie der Babylonier*: Anu was Saturn. What makes this identity stand out is the degree to which one nation after another repeated the same connection. It's an interesting fact, not often noticed, that the ancient Hebrews regarded their race as having been "Saturnian" in the beginning, when they lived under the rule of the creator El. That is, the Hebrews honored the same ancestral tie to Saturn as did the Romans. Indeed, the consistency with which early astronomies identity Saturn as the former creator-king is extraordinary. The Zoroastrians of ancient Persia knew Saturn as the heaven-sustaining Zurvăn, "the King and Lord of the Long Dominion." The Iranian god-king Yima, a transcript of the Hindu Yama, founder of the Golden Age, was also linked to Saturn. The Chinese mythical emperor Huang-ti, first in a great dynasty of kings and mythical founder of the Taoist religion, was identified astronomically as the planet Saturn. Even the Tahitians recall of the god Fetu-tea, the planet Saturn, that he "was the King." Many ancient nations commemorated the era before the fall, the harmonious condition of the "first time," by designating one day of the week as a holy day, the Sabbath. But is it significant that originally the Hebrew Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, was the day of Saturn? So was the seventh and most sacred day of the Babylonian and Phoenician weeks. For the Romans this commemorative day was Saturni dies, "Saturn's day." The same day passed into the Anglo-Saxon calendar as the "day of Seater [Saturn]," which, became our own Saturday. When scholars today look back at this esoteric connection of the Sabbath and Saturn, they see little more than an oddity of minor significance. That is because historians as a whole have missed the ancient link of Saturn to kingship, to the origins of civilization, and to the roots of ancient myth and symbol. But there is an even more significant aspect of the Saturn mystery. Here is a remarkable fact: though numerous figures of the Universal Monarch are translated conventionally as the "sun" god, the celestial power invoked by the world's first religions is not the body we call sun today. In fact the star-worshippers specifically distinguished it from our Sun by calling it best sun, the primeval sun, the central sun. Natives of Mexico recall that prior to the present age, an exemplary sun ruled the world, but this was not the sun of today. His name was Quetzalcoatl. The Maya maintained essentially the same idea, calling the primeval sun god Huracan. The Incas of Peru spoke of a former sun superior to the present sun. To the ancient Egyptians, the sun god Atum-Ra, the model ruler, reigned over the fortunate era for a time, then retired from the world. The Sumerian An, ruling with "terrifying splendor," was the central luminary of the sky, but not our sun, and later departed to a more remote domain. When it comes to the well-known sun gods of early man, nothing in the mythical record seems to have unnerved the experts. As to the original solar character of the Greek Helios, Latin Sol, Assyrian Shamash, or Egyptian Ra, scholars have maintained an unwavering confidence. And surely you can see why: could it really be doubted that Helios, radiating light from his brow, is our sun? In Egypt, countless hymns to the god Ra extol him as the divine power opening the "day." "The lords of all lands. . . praise Ra when he riseth at the beginning of each day." Ra is the "great Light who shinest in the heavens. . . Thou art glorious by reason of thy splendours. . ." In the same way, Assyrian and Babylonian texts depict the god Shamash as the supreme light of the sky, governing the cycle of day and night. Such images would seem to leave no question as to the solar character of these gods. And yet the profile of the great "sun" gods presents a fascinating dilemma. During the past century several authorities noticed that Greek and Latin astronomical texts show a mysterious confusion of the "Sun"--Greek Helios, Latin Sol--with the outermost planet, Saturn. Though the designation seems bizarre, the expression "star of Helios" or "star of Sol" was applied to Saturn! Of the Babylonian star-worshippers the chronicler Diodorus writes: "To the one we call Saturn they give a special name, 'Sun-Star.'" Similarly, the Greek historian Nonnus gives Kronos as the Arab name of the "sun," though Kronos meant only Saturn and no other celestial body. Hyginus, in listing the planets, names first Jupiter, then the planet "of Sol, others say of Saturn." A Greek ostrakon, cited by the eminent classicist, Franz Boll, identifies the Egyptian sun god Ra, not with our sun, but with the planet Saturn. This repeated confusion of the Sun and Saturn seems to make no sense at all. Can you imagine any difficulty in separating the two bodies, or distinguishing the one from the other? One fact beyond dispute is that the word Helios did become the Greek word for our Sun, just as the Latin Sol gave his name to our Sun. The same can be said for the older Shamash and Ra: the names of these gods became the names for the solar orb. But that's where the connection with our Sun ends and the mystery of Saturn, the Universal Monarch, begins. In seeking to explain the curious confusion of the sun and Saturn, late nineteenth century linguists came up with a simple explanation: The confusion, they said, was the result of the similarity of the Greek name Helios to the Greek rendering of the Phoenician god El, a god identified with Kronos, the planet Saturn. So it was all just a misunderstanding of language. But this explanation could not survive more than a few decades. For as the leading expert Franz Boll soon pointed out, the identification of the "sun" god as Saturn was more widespread and more archaic than previously acknowledged. In the Epinomis of Plato (who lived in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.), there is an enumeration of the planets, which, as customarily translated, entails this unstartling statement: "There remain, then, three stars (planets), one of which is preeminent among them for slowness, and some call him after Kronos." Yet the original reading is not Kronos but Helios--which is to say that the original text gave the name Helios to Saturn. But later copyists, who could not believe that Helios was anything other than the sun, "corrected" the reading to "Kronos." Moreover, as Boll discovered, this practice of "correcting" the name of Saturn, from Helios to Kronos, was quite common among later copyists. Based on his reading of the most original Greek manuscripts, Boll drew a startling conclusion: the sun god Helios and the planet-god Saturn were "one and the same god." Now if this only seems to accentuate the puzzle, there is more. Hindu astronomical lore deemed the planet Saturn as Arka, the star "of the sun." And certain wise men of India often asserted that the "true sun" Brahma, the central light of heaven, was none other than Saturn. This in turn, reminds us of a rarely-noted teaching of the alchemists, preservers of so many ancient mysteries. The planet Saturn, they recalled, was not just a planet; it was "the best sun"! Such language--true sun, best sun--is strangely reminiscent of that language used by native Americans when describing the superior sun, who had presided over the era of peace and plenty. Among the Assyrians and Babylonians, the "sun"-god par excellence was the well-known figure Shamash, the "light of the gods" In countless texts and symbolic representations Shamash is depicted as the ruling light and god of the day. Most familiar is the image of the god standing in the cleft of a mountain, a curved, notched sword in hand, introducing the dawn. Or, alternatively, he is shown holding or turning a great celestial wheel. Apart from a few experts on Babylonian astronomy, historians and mythologists as a whole seem to be unaware that in Babylonian astronomical texts, the sun god Shamash and the planet Saturn merge in a most unexpected way. Where one would expect references to the Sun, one finds instead the name of the planet Saturn! In the nineteenth century, the pioneering archaeologist and historian, George Rawlinson, noting that Shamash was repeatedly associated with the planet Saturn, put an exclamation point to the mystery. "How is it possible," Rawlinson asked, "that the dark and distant planet Saturn can answer to the luminary who 'irradiates the nations like the sun, the light of the gods?'" In 1909, the leading expert Morris Jastrow brought this anomaly to the attention of others in a fascinating article entitled "Sun and Saturn." According to Jastrow, Babylonian astrological texts could not have presented the equation of Saturn and the sun more boldly: "The planet Saturn is Shamash," they say. As strange as it may seem, as difficult as it may be to comprehend, the ancient sun god is not the body we call "Sun" today. But how could such a strange identity have attached itself to the now-distant planet [It must be emphasized that we are not claiming our Sun was absent. What should become clear in the course of this investigation is that the Sun was simply not a subject of ancient myth, or the Age of the Gods. The celestial drama takes place at a particular location far removed from the path of the Sun.] A first, crucial step is to distinguish the original meanings of "day" and "night." Many hymns to Shamash and Ra--the celebrated suns of Mesopotamia and Egypt--describe these gods coming forth at the beginning of the ritual day, and the terminology will appear to signify our sun rising in the East. One of the chapters of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, for example, is "The Chapter of Coming Forth by Day." The sun gods of both Egypt and Mesopotamia turn darkness into day, inaugurate the day, appear as lord of the day, and so on. The language is *so strong* it may seem to make any interpretation other than the solar interpretation appear preposterous, since in our sky only the Sun could ever answer to such images. But there is a profound enigma here. It turns out that the "day" actually began with what we would call the "night"--at sunset, with the darkening of the sky, and the coming out, or growing bright of other celestial bodies. It is widely acknowledged that the Egyptian day once began at sunset. The same is true of the Babylonian and Western Semitic days. We know the Athenians originally computed the space of a day from sunset to sunset, and the habit appears to have prevailed among northern European peoples as well. Who, then, is the great god--the god of terrifying radiance--whose coming out or coming forth inaugurates the day? This god of the archaic day, beginning at sunset, is in fact called Shamash, Ra, Helios, and Sol--the very god explicitly identified with the planet Saturn. THE ELECTRICAL SUN By Ralph Juergens --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EDITOR'S NOTE; The article below continues our republication of ground- breaking work by the late Ralph Juergens, in which he introduces the concept of an electrically powered Sun. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ABSTRACT: The interplanetary medium is capable of confining the electric fields of charged celestial bodies within space-charge sheaths of limited dimensions. This phenomenon explains the success of gravitational theory in describing and predicting orbital motions in the present, relatively stable Solar System. Disruption of space-charge sheaths during close encounters between electrified planetary bodies may account for the catastrophic electromagnetic effects observed and reported by the survivors of near-collisions in ancient times. The known characteristics of the interplanetary medium suggest not only that the sun and the planets are electrically charged, but that the sun itself is the focus of a cosmic electric discharge--the probable source of all its radiant energy. RECONCILING CELESTIAL MECHANICS AND VELIKOVSKIANISM (3) All this has seemingly led us far astray from the subject matter of Worlds in Collision. Nevertheless, I am convinced that an excursion like this into astrophysical problems in regions of space as far removed as distant stars and the outer reaches of the galaxy is necessary to make some kind of sense out of problems inside the solar system. If the galaxy is electrified, as [C.E.R.] Bruce supposes, that fact cannot help but have major implications for the solar system. If the galaxy is not electrified, it would seem to me that prospects will ever remain poor for reconciling evidence of electrification within the solar system and celestial motions that seem to deny that evidence. Back toward the beginning of this paper I promised to return to the subjects of space-charge sheaths and comet tails. Actually, in terms of the postulated electrical discharge centered on the sun, these would appear to be not two subjects, but merely two aspects of a single subject. A comet on an extremely eccentric orbit spends by far the greater part of its time in the uttermost parts of the solar system. This is because, according to Kepler's Laws, orbital speeds near aphelion are so much less than near perihelion. Supposing, then, that space potentials in such regions are vastly greater, in the negative sense, than they are close to the sun, as the discharge hypothesis requires, any long-period comet could be expected to acquire local space potential quite readily during its long sojourn far from the sun. Quite possibly, too, its body materials would become electrically polarized in response to the buildup of charge on its surface. Consider next what would happen to this charged, electrically polarized body as its orbit brings it with ever increasing speed back toward the sun. By the time it reaches the orbit of Jupiter, solar-wind protons will have stripped away its superficial blanket of negative charge. No longer does its surface potential match that of its surroundings, yet its internal (radial) polarization produces an external electric field, just as polarization in an electret made of wax exhibits an external field here on earth. A space-charge sheath will begin to form to shield the interplanetary plasma from the comet's alien field. As the comet races toward the sun, its sheath takes the form of a long tail stretching away from the sun. This happens, not because the electrified sun repels the tail material, but because voltage differences between the comet and the interplanetary plasma vary sharply with direction, and because sheath thicknesses are dictated not only by voltage differences, but by gas pressure as well. The potential difference between the head of the comet and the plasma in the direction of the sun might be substantial. But in any case, the potential difference between the comet and plasma farther out from the sun will be greater still. Also, the plasma density is greater nearer the sun than farther from the sun. Hence the sheath remains close to the comet on the sunward side, and it reaches perhaps millions of miles into space on the antisolar side. This rather sketchy qualitative explanation for comet tails is not advanced here as any sort of final answer to the comet-tail mystery. I include it only as an example of the kind of explanation that can at least be discussed in the light of the discharge hypothesis. Hopefully, too, it offers a measure of solace to those who might feel cheated by the fact that the interplanetary plasma knocks down the idea that comet-tail gases might be repelled by the sun's electric charge. By the same sort of analysis, I would conclude that the earth has a potential not quite in keeping with its space environment, and that it therefore is surrounded by a space charge sheath. For the same reasons that a comet's sheath is elongated away from the sun, I would suppose that the earth's sheath has a tail; in other words, I would equate the terrestrial sheath with the earth's so-called magnetosphere. It seems to be pretty well established that the earth's "magnetotail" does not reach as far as Mars, and thus the two planets no longer perturb one another electrically. (The moon, however, sweeping in and out of the earth's sheath every month, does appear to be perturbed by non-gravitational forces--a point emphasized by Dr. Velikovsky on many occasions.) But it seems conceivable that the long reach of the earth's space-charge sheath may have played an important role in settling Mars on an orbit at a safe distance from the earth. A century ago, James Clerk Maxwell, in his monumental Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, wrote these prophetic words: "The phenomena of electrical discharge are exceedingly important, and when they are better understood they will probably throw great light on the nature of electricity as well as on the nature of gases and of the medium pervading space." For the next 50 years, studies of the electrical discharge were pursued with considerable vigor, and the world was led into the age of electronics. After that, however, as Professor Hannes Alfvén reminded us when he accepted the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics (26), "most theoretical physicists looked down on this field, which was complicated and awkward ... not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories." The theorists, says Alfvén, preferred to approach plasma physics by way of the kinetic theory of gases, which led to "mathematically elegant" theories. In Alfvén's estimation, "the cosmical plasma physics of today . . . is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulas which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong . . . several of the basic concepts on which theories of cosmical plasmas are founded are not applicable to the condition prevailing in the cosmos. They are 'generally accepted' by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods; and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. . ." The implication of Alfvén's remarks is clear enough: astrophysicists must bone up on the neglected field of electrical discharge phenomena. I, for one, believe that when they do so the new lines of inquiry will rather quickly lead to the rejection of the idea that stars are thermonuclearly powered. 26. Lecture published in Science, 172 (June 4, 1971), 991-94. Ralph Juergens ----------------------------------------------- SCHOLARS IN DESPERATION -A book review by Earl Milton- A new book Stephen Jay Gould and Immanuel Velikovsky has been published by Ivy Press of Forest Hills, New York. The name of Stephen Jay Gould is likely familiar to readers of commentaries about contemporary science. Alas, Immanuel Velikovsky's name is not as well known to these same readers. An explanation for this will become apparent long before readers finish Stephen Jay Gould and Immanuel Velikovsky. The book offers important incidents in the continuing Velikovsky Affair. Immanuel Velikovsky, then a practising psychiatrist, landed in the United States on the eve of World War Two. He came to America to do library research. While waiting to return to his medical practise in Palestine Velikovsky makes several profound discoveries about historical events. What he found suggests a different version of the past than most of us know. It is the unusually violet reaction to Velikovsky's research that is examined in this new book. In brief what happened is: Since 1950 Immanuel Velikovsky has been lambasted shamelessly by academic scholars across the spectrum of the disciplines. The worst offenders have been the astronomers angered because Velikovsky asserts that a series of close passages between pairs of planets happened within the Age of Man. Historians are provoked by Velikovsky's suggestion that documented events do not fit chronological sequences which are taken as history and taught as fact by professors. This is particularly true of Egyptian History which Velikovsky reconstructed eliminating a six-hundred year period thereby removing an embarrassing pause in events known as the Dark Age of Greece. This gap is more than an interruption of the Greek story in that all regional national histories whose events are fixed using Egyptian dates also include a Dark Age (of some length) which keeps them in-step with events in Egypt. History as altered by Velikovsky fits together: each nation has links to its neighbours. The same is not true when the conventional historical timescale is applied to these same happenings. Immanuel Velikovsky's third difficulty arises in his treatment of the human state. The story he tells begins with the Earth suffering a major catastrophe whose devastating consequences facilitate the escape of the Hebrew people from bondage in Egypt--The Biblical Exodus story. Velikovsky, writing as a psychiatrist, concludes that such an upheaval must leave the human race in a state of trauma. The intensity of the event, Velikovsky believes, forces humans to deny the catastrophe driving human behaviour. Worse, Velikovsky maintains that the cosmic disaster-induced trauma predisposes mankind to warfare. During the Twentieth century wars pose a dangerous consequence. If worst comes to worst a global war might accomplish what several cosmic "collisions" between the Earth and now distant planets failed to do. As stake is the survival of the Earth's inhabitants and even the planetary environment itself. Because restoring mankind to mental stability is mandatory Velikovsky wrote down his ideas. So, in 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky introduced much evidence for his view in the book Worlds in Collision. Its publication unleashes a fusillade of abuse upon Velikovsky's idea, his competence to present that idea, and upon the man's character itself. Since 1950 investigators with no connection to Velikovsky have exposed much evidence supporting Velikovsky's position. This is particularly true of findings made in space. Thus Velikovsky's hypothesis that mankind does not want to know what happened may be proven. It certainly explains why astronomers continue to deny that planets can pass closely to one another wreaking damage upon each other. The scars seen on the faces of the Moon and the planet Mars, the near molten state of the surface of Venus, and the thoroughly cracked crust of the Earth speak loudly for Velikovsky. Stephen Jay Gould and Immanuel Velikovsky touches upon the incidents as the scholars attempt to censor Velikovsky and keep his work out of the public eye. The most opposing scholars will admit is that Velikovsky's book is an example of an outrageous misinterpretation of the real facts of the Earth's and mankind's history. His equally qualified supporters disagree. Their book is a documentary which presents several episodes staged to tyrannize Immanuel Velikovsky and besmirch his reputation. It contains a rich collection of quotations by Velikovsky's critics juxtaposed against Velikovsky's own words. The patient reader who can survive the 662-pages of evidence which the authors present gets to a position where he or she can decide whether or not Velikovsky has been wronged by these opponents. Over the years a parade of prominent critics have railed against each of Velikovsky's books as they are published: their efforts in the main deal with gross misinter-pretations of what Velikovsky did, said, or wrote. In reality the uncharitable observer might be moved to classify these critiques as packs of lies. Whether they are or not Velikovsky's opponents have been effective at stifling any serious examination of the catastrophes and how they affect history and civilization. No person who considers himself informed about human history, planetary behaviour, or natural evolution can afford to ignore this book. It gives a first step you can make to free your mind of forty-seven years of propaganda directed against Velikovsky. Your reward for reading the book will be the discovery of an alive and dynamic tableau of history which is fully integrated with and effected by cosmic events. As well, mankind's role in creating that history becomes obvious. Culture, too, makes great sense once tied into Velikovsky's bigger picture of history. The book Stephen Jay Gould and Immanuel Velikovsky tells what has been done to hide the truth from you. The solution: buy the book and read it. You won't regret the day you did so for potentially your life could be changed for the better once you discover the truth of the matter. ____________________ Stephen Jay Gould and Immanuel Velikovsky: Essays in the Continuing Velikovsky Affair. By Charles Ginenthal, Irving Wolfe, Lynn E. Rose, Dwardu Cardona, David N. Talbott, and Ev Cochrane. Edited by Dale Ann Pearlman. Published by Ivy Press, Forest Hills New York, 11375. Copyright 1996. 795 pages plus indexes and bibliography. Hardbound. ----------------------------------------------- PLEASE VISIT THE KRONIA COMMUNICATIONS WEBSITE-- http://www.kronia.com/~kronia/ Other suggested Web site URL's for more information about Catastrophics: http://www.ames.net/aeon/ http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/sis/ http://www.flash.net/~cjransom/ http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/velikovskian/ http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/Catastrophism.html http://www.grazian-archive.com/ http://www.tcel.com/~mike/paper.html http://nt.e-z.net/mikamar/default.html ----------------------------------------------- The THOTH electronic newsletter is an outgrowth of an intense discussion that has been going on for several years within a community of scholars interested in astral catastrophics. We have initially narrowed our focus to supporting a reconstruction of recent planetary dislocations that ended a universally remembered "Golden Age." Serious readers must allow some time for these radically different ideas to be fleshed out and for a 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 that may be included in the articles. Again, we welcome your comments and responses, and any supporting information or relevant submissions. Michael Armstrong Mikamar Publishing mikamar at e-z.net