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 III, No. 7 April 30, 1999 EDITOR: Amy Acheson PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart CONTENTS THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Amy Acheson GRAVITY/ELECTRIC DISCUSSION . . . . . . . Bob Grubaugh, Dave Davis, and Wal Thornhill WHAT TO DO! . . . . . . . . . . .by Bob Grubaugh, Wal Thornhill MARS' NORTHERN ICECAP. by Kip Farr, Wal Thornhill, James Conway THE OUTER PLANETS . . . . . . by Wal Thornhill, Karen Josephson PLASMA QUESTIONS . . . . . . .. by Wal Thornhill, Barry Cornett SATURNIAN BIOSPHERE . . . . . . . .by Dave Davis, Wal Thornhill ---------------------------------------------- THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE By Amy Acheson In the popular movie/television/book series, The Highlander, a handful of immortals exist in the midst of normal humans. When one immortal meets another, he (sometimes she) whips out a sword and engages the other in "immortal" combat. The winner cuts off his opponent's head and inherits (via spectacular "electrical universe" effects) the life-forces of the loser. For, in the end, "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!" Most of us think of scientific theories in similar terms. When one theory is accepted, its rivals, old or new, are cast aside, decapitated, the vital forces (respect, journal acceptance, government funding) drained from the defeated idea and inherited by the victor. In both cases, in fact, it's not true that there can be only one. When The Highlander runs out of immortal rivals, the story is over, the series ends, the actors collect their final paycheck and go home. The same is true for theories; when the last theory triumphs over its rivals, the story of discovery is over and the pioneers of science collect their final insight and go home. Luckily for those of us who enjoy the thrill of discovery, that day is nowhere in sight. The finite limits of human imagination can never encompass a universe of infinite complexity. The gulf between the largest concept a human can imagine and infinity is still as great as the gulf between one and infinity. By the rules of elementary logic, you can't make a universal generalization from the small handful of facts and ideas that we have collected in the short history of human consciousness. You can only define the domain of validity for a specific theory, then watch how the observations behave when the theory is extrapolated beyond that domain (observe, theorize, predict, verify, repeat, repeat, repeat.) The first article in this issue of THOTH is an excellent illustration of this principle in action: two theories, each attempting to explain overlapping sets of data from two different viewpoints. Part of the discovery process is finding the limits of each theory's domain of validity. Bob Grubaugh's question "What to do?" leads to further questions and to the promise of discovery tomorrow. Amy Acheson Thoth at Whidbey.com ---------------------------------------------- GRAVITY/ELECTRIC DISCUSSION By Bob Grubaugh, Dave Davis, and Wal Thornhill Bob Grubaugh starts with: Talbott, following Velikovsky, has produced a body of evidence that the Earth was once threatened by a near collision with the planet Venus, and he suggests that this terrifying experience was the result of the breakup of the polar configuration, his model of the ancient solar system. To investigate this "near miss" possibility by orbital dynamics, I have developed several analytical models of Earth and Venus orbiting the Sun in potentially conflicting or intersecting paths using Newtonian gravitational equations only. In one model I placed Venus and Earth in the same orbit at 1AU distance from the Sun in the "unstable" position only a few degrees apart expecting the two planets to have their orbits change substantially as the result of their mutual attraction. Instead the model predicted the two planets to "dance", where they would periodically approach each other, drift to slightly different orbital distances from the Sun, the move apart only to move toward each other again. This condition continued indefinitely with period and amplitude of the vibrations varying with the nearness to each other given by the selected initial conditions. This behavior pattern resembles the observed motions of the Asteroids. (coalescence anyone?). In a second model, I placed Venus in an elliptical orbit about the Sun with an eccentricity of .0285 and a perihelion the same as its present-day circular orbital radius. This orbit causes Venus to cross Earth's orbit at about 165 and 195 degrees from Venus' perihelion as a starting point. I then positioned Earth at several points relative to the intersections including one degree in front of, one degree behind , and even with the Venus in its orbit expecting some substantial alteration of their two orbits. Instead they passed each other near enough for Venus to appear twice the size of a full moon to an observer on Earth, and the aphelion of Venus was shortened only slightly and Earth's orbit was reduced insignificantly. I had hoped that the "close encounter" would cause a substantial reduction of the eccentricity of Venus' orbit so that the near circular condition observed today could be at least partially explained by gravitation. No such luck! If anyone has a possible scenario that I might run, please let me know and I'll give it a shot. Dave Davis says: Well, I was very pleased to see this post from Bob Grubaugh - someone on the list having a real go at physically modeling elements of the Saturnian Scenario. "But..." Bob: "To investigate this "near miss" possibility by orbital dynamics, I have developed several analytical models of Earth and Venus orbiting the Sun in potentially conflicting or intersecting paths ****using Newtonian gravitational equations only.****" DaveD: At the end of the day, is there any point doing things this way? [I *really* don't want to sound flippant here - please take this constructively... :( ] Rose & Vaughan tried, Bob Bass tried... but the bottom line is that, right from 1940 when V. first had the brainwave that planetary catastrophism had shaken our solar system within human memory, he was adamant that the behaviour the planets displayed defied Newtonian celestial mechanics and required an Electric Universe. [see the 1942 Affidavit in the Archive, the last minute Epilogue re-write to WinC [Worlds in Collision]notwithstanding, and of course C w/o G [Cosmos without Gravitation]] What's changed in the last 59 years? [ ;-) ] Surely a more holistic approach is demanded: because it's not just a case of "well, we may at least see if we can get to required orbits to work under gravity-only, before we go inventing ad-hoc electro-magnetic magic"- there are other things to be explained beyond dry old orbital trajectories: - take Venus *appearance* for instance: can all that streaming radiance and swastika fireworks be explained using gravity only? (and lets not forget those megafauna, eh Ted Holden?...) Bob: "Instead they passed each other near enough for Venus to appear twice the size of a full moon to an observer on Earth," DaveD: Bob, was the Moon in your model? Surely it would need to be for the model to be valid. Even in gravity-only it would enter the equations at this point.... Somewhere between de Grazia's "V. Affair" book and all the Pensees, there's a bit where V's claim that the Earth had a magnetosphere extending beyond the moon was shown to be verified... since Venus has a similar size magnetosphere to Earth ... close approach, the two magnetospheres would be in contact! BAMMO! Could such a situation *possibly* be described by gravity alone? How does Bob Grubaugh's work connect with Eric Crew's Electric-Circularization-of-an-electric-Venus work (as published by the SIS)? Questions, questions. Wal adds: All very good questions, DaveD. It seems to me that Bob's work doesn't have any connection with Eric Crew's. Eric's simple assumption of an electrical component to the measured force of gravity between a planet and the Sun can't work in practice because of the electrically insulating nature of a plasma. That simple fact renders worthless all past attempts to introduce electromagnetism into celestial dynamics. However, if Sansbury's electrical theory of gravity is right then Eric's model will still work. That's because the exchange of charge by a planet with its surroundings will effectively modify the gravitational force between the planet and the Sun. Therefore it will cause the planet to spiral in or out until electrical equilibrium is achieved. Bob Grubaugh said: ... It seems that nearly all orbital phenomena can be explained by gravitation only, but others require "something else". My problem is what equations to use for the "something else". Electrostatic charge has an effect similar to gravitation, but the lapse rate for the interbody force is the same as for gravitation, hence inclusion of this effect leads only to a linear modification of the gravity constant and does not essentially alter the orbital equations. What to do??? ---------------------------------------------- WHAT TO DO! By Bob Grubaugh, Wal Thornhill BOB G said: Have some interesting numbers. My simple little model of a single planet orbiting the Sun is derived in polar coordinates. One of the principal parameters of the model is the angle between the velocity vector of the planet and the perpendicular to the radial line from the planet to the Sun. If this angle is positive the planet is moving outward from the Sun, and if negative it is moving inward toward the Sun on its elliptical path. The magnitude of this angle determines the rate at which the planet is moving through the Sun's charge field. (distance rate not time rate). For calculation I assumed that this change causes a change in the electrostatic charge of the planet which in turn causes a change in the gravity constant, G. I further assumed this change to be linear in the form G = G0 x (1 + GAMMA ) Where G0 = Gravity constant 6.7E-08 and GAMMA = Angle between velocity vector of planet and a line perpendicular to radius from planet to the Sun. To test this assumption in the model, I assumed the planet to attempt to orbit in an elliptical path from a perihelion of 1 AU, 1.5E+13 cm, to an aphelion of 1.8416E+13 cm. This would be the orbit with no modification of gravity by the electrostatic charge. I then calculated the orbit with the above modification to gravity. Here's what happened: Beginning at perihelion where GAMMA is zero the planet orbited outward in its elliptical path and reached aphelion at 203 degrees, which is 23 degrees beyond the point of orbital symmetry, and where the distance was 1.683E+13 cm from the Sun, which is a considerable reduction from the 1.8416E+13 nominal. The planet then returned to perihelion at 412 degrees from beginning and a distance of 1.649E+13 cm. It then orbited outward to aphelion at 620 degrees and 1.654E+13 cm, and in turn to perihelion at 823 degrees and at 1.653E+13 cm, where it went into circular orbit. What do you think? --------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Bob, Well done! You have cleverly and simply demonstrated the effect I expected. It is interesting to see how quickly the orbit circularizes with the "GAMMA" effect. In reality there would be some [presumably constant for small orbital eccentricities] multiplier of GAMMA that would modify the rate of circularization. Of course, the rapidity of achieving a new, stable orbit would have been crucial to survival of higher life forms on the Earth after the breakup of the proto-Saturnian system. The onset of ice caps and ice ages can then be seen as the extremes of cold the Earth must have suffered over a period measured in tens or at most maybe a hundred years of relaxation from an initially eccentric orbit with a perihelion out in the asteroid belt. Can you experiment using the present orbit of the Earth and an initial aphelion distance in the realm of the asteroids to work out an initial perihelion distance? It would be interesting to see how closely we might have approached Venus' present orbit. Wal Thornhill ---------------------------------------------- MARS' NORTHERN ICECAP Kronia discussion Kip Farr wrote: I was rereading the December 12 issue of Science News, where it talks about Mars' northern icecap. App, the cap is much larger than the southern, though smaller than expected. In addition to wondering where the oceans went, scientists are confused as to how water from the poles could have traveled to the equator as evidenced by the channels "crisscrossing" the equator. Is this possible evidence of Mars' position in the ancient alignment, that is, larger northern icecap (water ice) and water running towards the equator? Any thoughts? Wal Thornhill responds: Most of the channels crisscrossing the equator were not formed by the action of water. They are almost without exception electrical plasma arc scars of one form or another. James Conway asks: What is the minimum mass of an object needed to produce such scars if the bodies have a near miss. Wal Thornhill replies: It would have to be a large body to have sufficient charge available to cause the damage seen on Mars. Juergens made some rough order of magnitude calculations of the charge transferred to the Moon from Mars to cause craters like Aristarchus. Whatever hit Mars was orders of magnitude greater. Some scholars have proposed a general formula relating charge to mass ratio for cosmic bodies. Guesstimating the energy required to remove million cubic kilometres of Mars surface would give you the charge transferred from the marauding object. Then you would have to make assumptions about the proportion of the total charge transferred from that object which in turn would give you the mass. A bit of a pointless exercise in my opinion given the number of guesses involved. Still, it's a whole lot better than stellar evolution theory! The concept of a "near-miss" has to be looked at carefully in the context of an electrical solar system. The distance required to do electrical damage is determined by the sizes of the respective plasma sheaths (magnetospheres in conventional speak). They may be 10's of times the radius of the planets involved. ---------------------------------------------- THE OUTER PLANETS by Wal Thornhill, Karen Josephson The planets do intercept some of the galactic energy on its way to the Sun. (But not much on the outward journey from the Sun). Neptune exhibits strange variations in albedo, inversely related to the solar cycle. Whether that is a direct electrical glow in the ionosphere or some other albedo effect in the atmosphere is not clear. In the Electric Universe, the most tangible evidence of electrical energy input to the planets is in their weather systems. Neptune for example has wind speeds up to almost 1500 mph! It also exhibits spots which I think are sudden releases of energy from the encircling plasmoid (radiation belt) via plasma discharges into the ionosphere. I would expect therefore that changes in albedo would be tied to the solar cycle since that, in turn, reflects the passage of the solar system across the cosmic power conduits: the galactic Birkeland current threads. Neptune's moon exhibits "geyser" activity which indicates electric discharges are impinging on that moon, just like Jupiter's moon, Io. (Would you believe it? - the greenhouse effect was invoked to explain Triton's geyser activity!) It is also covered with double-ridges, like Europa. The next closest outer planet, Uranus, exhibits a phenomenon termed "electroglow" in its upper atmosphere. No one could explain where the electrons got their energy from. "Hot" protons with energies up to 500MeV were found. Also, the warmest point on the planet was its north pole which had been in darkness for 40 years when Voyager 2 shot past. This offers a clue as to how the Earth might have had a uniform global climate during the Saturnian era, since most of the energy appearing in the atmospheres of these outer planets is toward the infra-red and ultraviolet ends of the spectrum. Dwardu has written on the subject of the purple light of that era. It is the plasmoid that fundamentally drives planetary weather systems. It is evident that the weather models used on Earth are missing something important since they don't work for any other planet. Even the Sun has weather! - which strengthens my conviction that it is a common electrical phenomena. Karen Josephson asks: A recent reply by Wal to Harold included the following: "It is the plasmoid that fundamentally drives planetary weather systems. It is evident that the weather models used on Earth are missing something important since they don't work for any other planet. Even the Sun has weather! - which strengthens my conviction that it is a common electrical phenomena." By this passage I infer that meteorologists are missing the electromagnetic effects in their weather models .... Wal replies: Not so much electromagnetic effects, but pure electric current effects. The evidence for such electric currents is in auroral displays and the diffuse glow discharges high above lightning storms and cyclones. Karen wrote: -----I was wondering if surface color could be influencing the reflectivity of these planets. I remember reading that we on Earth were lucky that the darker (color-wise) side of the moon was facing toward us, rather than the much lighter colored opposite side, because our nights would be much brighter, even on nights when the moon wasn't full. Wal replies: The outer planets, being gas giants, the probability is that changes in clouds or dark spots will alter their albedo. However, Uranus and Neptune have had changes in brightness of up to 20% measured! ... That seems more likely to be an electrical phenomena caused by changes in their ionospheres - which in turn relates to electrical input to those planets. Karen continues: The same source claimed that the night would be bright enough to read a book in if there wasn't so much dust blacking out the glow from the center of our galaxy. Is this true?? Would that dust change any of the effects of the of the electric universe?? Wal: Yes it does. Dust tends to remove electrons from a plasma. Juergens observed that the difference between Population I and II stars in the galaxy could be explained by the deficiency of electrons where dust is prevalent. ---------------------------------------------- PLASMA QUESTIONS Wal Thornhill, Barry Cornett Barry Cornett sez: Wal makes comments that on the surface sound like contradictions. They are paradoxical in the nature of the statement. Here is a very good example of such a statement made in his notebook on the Electric Universe: "...although it is true that a plasma is a good conductor, it is very limited in its ability to carry current." Now the comment, "good conductor" contradicts the statement, "very limited in its ability to carry current." That sentence hung me up so badly it was nearly two weeks before I could go ahead with the book. A "good conductor" carries current easily. Copper is a good conductor. Glass is a very poor conductor. But, what I finally pulled out of this (right or wrong?) was he probably meant that plasma (which by definition is a gas-like entity where the gasses are all ions, protons, or electrons) is nothing but charged particles and they are obviously good conductors. The current handling capacity, however, is dependent on how many charged particulates exist in that particular plasma. Wal replies: Correct, Barry. A thin fuse-wire is an excellent conductor but it has a very limited current carrying ability. Barry again: I hope Wal will not take this badly when I say that he sounds contradictory. Wal: I am always happy to receive feedback like yours. It helps me present the ideas better next time around. Barry: The next thing I note is Wal speaks of "neutral plasma" as if plasma needn't be a mass of charged particulates. Does this mean that plasma is simply gasses in space? And, am I understanding the nature of plasma conductivity in my comment above? Wal: No, a plasma is not simply neutral gas in space. A neutral plasma is one in which there are on average in a given volume, the same number of positive charges on ions as there are free electrons. A non-neutral plasma is one in which the positive and negative charges do not balance. It is a practically universal assumption by astronomers that bulk plasma in space is neutral. As you say, the current carrying ability of a plasma is closely related to the density of charged particles it contains. Wal Thornhill ---------------------------------------------- SATURNIAN BIOSPHERE By Dave Davis, Wal Thornhill Dave Davis wrote: Actually, I'd tend to regard this as one of the most important unanswered questions about the Saturn Theory. SIS big wig Prof Trevor Palmer has expressed his incredulity that the Polar Configuration could have existed, broken up and arrived at the present order without wholly destroying the biosphere. At the SIS silver jubilee later this year, I think his paper will be surveying the physical evidence for what can been seen to have or have not happened over the time period in question. It would be nice to have even a rough scheme proposed by Saturnists to correlate changes in the Earth's biosphere/fossil record with events in their scenario. Wal replies: The electrical energy input to the Earth during the proto- Saturnian epoch must have formed a substantial part of the Earth's energy budget - sufficient to give the Earth a globally equable climate. I believe that the Earth, along with Mars, was orbiting inside proto-Saturn's corona, where the energy density would have been relatively high. That would account for the reported inability to see any stars - the glow from the Earth's ionosphere would have been like a million auroras. As Saturn's electrical energy source was usurped by the Sun, the auroral display would have flickered out and the whole phantasmagoria born of proto-Saturn's desperate attempts to stabilise in the new electrical environment would have become apparent. It was at that time that proto-Saturn's entourage began to string out in the polar configuration because the changed electrical environment also modified the gravitational field of all of the bodies in that system and the Sun's sphere of gravitational influence began to peel off the more distant of them. In effect the Sun did to proto-Saturn what Jupiter did to comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. In an electrical solar system, modelling by my friend and one of your countrymen, Eric Crew, has shown that an object like the Earth or Venus can achieve a stable orbit in the inner solar system in the space of decades. While that is happening, the planet is exchanging orbital energy for electrical energy and the result would be further heating to help offset the cold of deep space. The oceans would have had a considerable ameliorating effect. Nonetheless, descriptions abound of a terrible winter that followed the collapse of the polar configuration. ---------------------------------------------- PLEASE VISIT THE KRONIA COMMUNICATIONS WEBSITE: http://www.kronia.com Other suggested Web site URL's for more information about Catastrophics: [Ed note: the SIS Website address has changed to: http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/ ] Subscriptions to AEON, a journal of myth and science, may be ordered through the Kronia website or by calling toll free: 1-800-230-9347 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/ Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered, 10 Pensée Journals may be ordered at the I-net address below: http://nt.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.