THOTH A Catastrophics Newsletter VOL III, No. 14 Nov 1, 1999 EDITOR: Amy Acheson PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart CONTENTS MOVING BEYOND FALLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Mel Acheson THE MYTHIC ROOTS OF LANGUAGE . . . . . . . . . .by Dave Talbott IS IT RIGHT? or DOES IT WORK? . . . . by Jan Sammer, Dave Davis WEBSITES OF NOTE . . . . . . . . . . . Ian Tresman, Ev Cochrane Don Scott, Wal Thornhill ELECTRIC UNIVERSE PREDICTS GALILEO AT RISK. . by Wal Thornhill ---------------------------------------------- MOVING BEYOND FALLING By Mel Acheson It's exciting to discover a new idea that explains more facts with more unity than previous ideas. It's exhilarating to discover two such new ideas that interact to reveal opportunities previously unimaginable. That's what happened with heliocentrism and gravity. Copernicus' idea that the planets moved around the sun instead of around the earth was a breakthrough. It explained the growing number of observations of planetary motions that Ptolemy's geocentric idea was failing to account for. The proliferation of ad hoc adjustments to Ptolemy's system of epicycles had become self- contradictory, and the heliocentric viewpoint fit the new observations together as neatly as epicycles did the old observations. Newton's idea of gravity also explained more observations better than had Aristotle's idea of "it's the nature of things to fall." Aristotle never measured falling objects, but if he had, he would have measured the distance to the ground. It's unlikely he would have discovered any pattern, any scheme of recurrence, in the data. But from the viewpoint of gravity, the important measurement is the distance from the beginning of the fall. There's a readily-discoverable relationship in that data, easily summarized in a mathematical equation. But the ideas of gravity and heliocentrism together were more powerful than the sum of their separate explanatory powers. From the combined viewpoint, the planets didn't just move around the sum, they "fell" around the sun. The mathematics of falling could be developed into equations of motion for orbits. And those equations could not only describe the motions of the planets but could invent additional motions. Suddenly, people could build spaceships that would "follow the math" and take them to the planets. Now it's happening again. The Saturn Theory and the Electric Universe each explain larger bodies of data with greater unity than previously-accepted ideas in their fields. The Electric Universe provides an integrated explanation for the growing mass of astronomical observations that are becoming a morass of contradictory ad hoc confusions. Craters, rilles, parallel grooves, domes, arachnoids, neutrino fluxes, sunspot characteristics, coronal heat, nebulous filaments, pulsars, galactic jets, quantized redshifts ... each has its separate and ill-fitting conventional excuse. But all can be explained as aspects of the single phenomenon of plasma. The Saturn Theory extracts a coherent intelligibility from the recurring plots, characters, and forms of globally-dispersed stories, artifacts, and symbols. Dragons, cosmic thunderbolts, radiant goddesses, lightning-scarred warriors, sacred enclosures, world mountains, revolving crescents, universal floods ... each has failed to conform with commonplace interpretations. But all fit into a logical unity of the polar configuration. Both the Saturn Theory and the Electric Universe are exciting ideas. But together they establish a viewpoint that replaces the idea of gravitational free-fall with the bigger idea of electrically driven motion. The previously-unimaginable possibility arises that there could be other "modes" of motion than falling. The Saturn Theory provides evidence for a second mode: an axial alignment of planets. A third mode may explain, rather than explain away, the enigmatic motions-or lack of motion-of globular clusters, companion galaxies, quasars, and ball lightning: These all exhibit a kind of "suspended" motion, seeming to hang in space in defiance of gravity. And a fourth mode could be the "flat" rotation profiles of galaxies. These various modes are present in the force-free filaments Alfven described in the 1963 reedition of Cosmic Electrodynamics: Charges at the center of a filament move along the axis, generating a spiral magnetic field at the outside. Charges on the outside, following that field, "orbit" around the center, creating the linear field along which the core charges flow. Charges intermediate in the filament follow proportionately- stretched helixes. Scaling up a lab-sized filament to the dimensions of a galactic spiral arm would suggest similar motions could occur with charged planets. Gravity and heliocentrism together provided the viewpoint that empowered travel around the solar system. The Saturn Theory and the Electric Universe together may provide the viewpoint that empowers travel around the galaxy. Mel Acheson thoth at whidbey.com ---------------------------------------------- THE MYTHIC ROOTS OF LANGUAGE Dave Talbott [Excerpted from a discussion of etymology onthe Kronia electronic discussion group] Language points back to its source, and the source is unified. The first systematic, written languages are rooted in the urge of ancient peoples to restore and to re-live the original "wholeness" of the world. Language arose as an integral component of sacred activity. Our word "sacred" itself comes from the Latin _sacer_, "holy", the core idea of which is "wholeness". To honor the wholeness of the First Time is to "remember". Written language emerged from ritual practices, as an instrument of remembering--of this principle I am highly confident. The common assumption, however, is that the early languages reflect little more than separate fragments of human experience. And this is where we must confront the fundamental mistake of conventional etymology, I believe. The experts will see a thousand discrete objects and rudimentary human experiences associated with them. And they will assume that, from the primitive sounds linked to these experiential fragments, ancient cultures gradually forged the first systematic languages. Though this may be a reasonable assumption, given other assumptions about the nature of human origins, the Saturn model offers a radically different possibility--that the ancient languages arose with remarkable suddenness, as an effect of intensely experienced events, and with unified references in the sky. Unified references can only mean a unified substratum of language, no less significant than the unified substratum of the rites, myths, and celestial symbols to which language is so indebted. Moreover, the myths, rites, and symbols preserve countless nuances of the original experience, and together they offer a useful guide for exposing the underpinnings of language itself. A range of seemingly DIFFERENT meanings, connected to similar or identical roots, will reflect the things which human imagination saw in celestial forms no longer present and events no longer occurring. In the cosmic pillar imagination will see a mountain AND a river, though in our world a mountain does not look like a river. In the spiraling Venus it will see a serpent AND the spiraling sidelock worn by the warrior-hero, though a serpent "down here" does not look like a lock of hair. In the polar enclosure it will see a circular serpent (uroborus) AND a cosmic city. In the four-fold "radiance" of Venus it will see four pillars of the sky AND four luminous "winds". But remove the celestial references, and the similar or identical words they inspired will have little or no common link, and attempts to relate them will appear far-fetched at best. It is a fundamental mistake, I believe, to separate the study of language origins from the study of myth. The first languages speak for the "defining" events in the mythical age of the gods-- the archetypes. But the true unity of these first expressions will remain unnoticed until the celestial references are fully acknowledged. The origins of written language take us back to the Golden Age of Saturn--the forms and aspects of the primeval Unity--and the more complex episodes which followed the Saturnian epoch. To remember does not just mean to recall; it means symbolically to re-live or recreate the organic whole, which was lost through catastrophe. In its original ritual contexts, this is a very "Saturnian" concept--to "re-MEMBER", to re-constitute symbolically the "limbs" or distinct aspects of the original Unity. But wait! What is the basis for this not-so-subtle suggestion of an archaic linkage of words which, as far as I am aware, no self- respecting etymologist would countenance? Is there any ground for suspecting a connection between the Latin _membrum_, the limbs or constituents of a whole, and _memor_, remembering? I do not mean to insult the experts. But the question deserves to be investigated from a new vantage point, one outside all familiar boundaries. A conceptual relationship is not only intimated by the root meaning of sacred activity, but by the earliest language relating to "words" (the instrument of remembering) and "limbs". Egyptian religious texts, for example, celebrate the VISIBLE words spoken by the creator-god, identifying these "words" with the forms and aspects of creation itself. This identity is embedded in both the Egyptian language and in the declarations of the religious texts. The "words" shouted by the creator, the Unity, meant nothing else than the god's radiant "limbs". Once such connections are noted, is it appropriate to treat the ideas (words/memory and limbs) as wholly disconnected? And if the ideas ARE clearly connected in the earliest expressions of language, is it reasonable to ignore the possibility that these very connections might have echoed into more recent languages as identical or similar roots, the nature of the original connections (celestial references) having been lost? I am convinced that we are surrounded by the echoes of myth- making imagination, and that language (even modern English, despite the millennia separating our time from the roots of myth) offers unlimited opportunity to explore the connections. But to discuss this possibility one must suspend certain "rules" of etymology. Specifically, one must suspend any assumption which could not be correct if the hypothesized age of Saturn and the planetary gods actually occurred. Though giving this benefit of the doubt to the Saturn model asks a lot from the specialists, a new idea cannot be properly assessed without confronting its logical implications. Ev Cochrane says: I would offer the following thoughts from a trained linguist- Rens van der Slujis. Dr. van der Slujis is from the Netherlands and wrote to me from out of nowhere about how much he had benefited from his chance stumbling across the Saturn theory on my web site. Here are his comments: Dr. van der Slujis: "You seem quite convinced that the Saturn theory will influence linguistic theory greatly. It is not altogether clear to me what you're pointing at with these words. In my view, language must already have arisen long before the celestial events began to happen, so that the impact of the Saturn theory on our speculations with respect to the origin of language might be negligible. Dave Talbott responds: I do not believe that the languages familiar to us can be traced back to, or will point back to, any systematic language prior to the polar configuration. Myth, rites, pictographs, sacred architecture, and written language appear to have emerged simultaneously, and they appear to be so fully entwined as to preclude a primitive formulation of one in isolation from the others. This doesn't mean that certain building blocks of language couldn't have existed previously, but even on that question I suspect that we're in for some surprises. In the Egyptian hieroglyphic system, for example, one finds numerous connections of rudimentary building blocks to aspects of the polar configuration, and I now believe that this includes the full range of hieroglyphs themselves. There are no terrestrial references. Though most (but not all) of the SYMBOLS are drawn from nature and from human activity, the THING SYMBOLIZED, when investigated, always turns out to be an attribute of the configuration, standing in a defined relationship to other aspects of the configuration. And in a sense, this shouldn't surprise us, considering that the entire focus of the earliest sources is religious. The sources celebrate only two things: 1) the forms and activities of the gods, and 2) a human connection to the gods, particularly through the person of the king, who is seen as the priest or servant of the universal sovereign. The royal and priestly function of the sacred written language is, however, progressively extended, democratized, and specialized, and that appears to be part of a rapid process of fragmentation in the absence of the original celestial references. In fact, it is in the very nature of language that it will evolve more rapidly toward localization and specialization than the myths and symbols. And this is why the nuances of specific word roots did not contribute significantly to the development of the Saturn model. Recurring myths and symbols retained a more complete sense of context than would be easily noted in the anatomy of words. But once the larger patterns and the model accounting for them are clear, however, the anatomy of words always seemed to provide the specific link that was asked for (though in fact we have not explored one percent of the potential here). It needs to be emphasized that if the model is correct, the groundrules for the investigation of language will need to change also. It has always been assumed that the original references in the development of language will be found "down here". And when two or more nuances of a word are present, the specialist will always look for the "true root" in a singular thing or quality, assuming that the additional nuances linked to the root came later. And if there is no reasonable way to account for different meanings attached to the same word, it is assumed that two DIFFERENT lineages are involved. They are not actually the same root at all. That two different meanings are expressed by the same word then becomes an accident. The Saturn theory, however, permits us to believe that the most ancient core of language is unified because the original references are unified. Numerous, seemingly incompatible meanings will gather around the same root because the reference is a single thing or event in the sky, onto which human imagination projected a wide range of interpretations. Venus, the feminine "heart" of the sun, is also the radiant "soul", but also the eye, the nave of the sun wheel, the navel, the "breast" of the sky and much, much more. When we see ancient word-roots reflecting a range of meanings, in correspondence with the diverse mythical interpretations attached to a single form in the sky, we do not believe we are looking at an accidental convergence. (The other side of this point is that, if the Saturn theory is correct, a systematic investigation should reveal hundreds of examples of this principle within the Indo-European languages alone, and the same kinds of convergence should be present in all other major language groups. But it will be essential that the investigator know the Saturn model like the back of his hand, or more actual connections will be missed than are identified) Dr. van der Slujis continues: The only linguistic traces certainly left by the Saturn phenomenon are the so called homonyms: identical roots with apparently different meanings. In many cases, it will appear that both meanings stem from one original meaning, which became fragmented after the polar configuration had been distorted, i.e., in like way as all divine epithets and stories became fragmented. Different phenomena which had formerly been seen as an organic unity from the vantage-point of the polar configuration now missed an obvious link, so that the formal identity was now felt as a mere coincidence. From Pokorny's etymological dictionary I collected a number of examples to illustrate this: The root *g(w)er means 'mountain', while another root *g(w)er means 'heavy, mill' and still another root *g(w)er-u means 'rod, spear'. A palatalised velar is reconstructed in *gwer 'be hot, lighten up'. The latter form can in an earlier stage of Proto- Indo-European easily be connected with the former ones, for the difference between plain velars and palatalised velars seems a secondary innovation, perhaps involving the phonematisation of the labialisation [Do you agree with this Dave?]. My point is clear: whereas no single natural object or phenomenon comprises the notions of 'mill, spear, enlightenment' and 'mountain' all in one, the polar configuration is exactly what we are looking for. It is stated elsewhere that the celestial pillar, supporting Saturn's heaven, was variously interpreted as a mountain, a sword and a glowing stream. The combination of pillar and wheel led in broad cycles to the metamorphic mill. [other examples provided] Further examples can easily be collected from the respective dictionaries. Dave Talbott adds: This is a good summary of the reasoning process, using one of the equations we have mentioned frequently. I would add that there are probably more symbolic identities attached to the cosmic column than Dr. van der Slujis is aware (e.g., path of souls, bridge, phallus, erect serpent, wind of the below, boar, tusk, single leg, upraised arm, stem of the plant of life, trunk of the tree of life.) Also, the good doctor's point below may be answered quite convincingly as he is able to consider the larger imagery of the configuration to which the column was inseparably connected. Dr. van der Slujis: Nevertheless, one must be aware that the argument only goes insofar as homonymous roots are restricted to ones that can be connected with help of the Saturn thesis. Consider a case of ten homonymous roots, three of which can be associated as shown above. The point is not convincing in such a case, because seven homonyms are not adequately explained. Talbott: I think we can all accept this point with respect to homonyms, and I would imagine that with the full flowering of language in our own time, virtually all homonyms would represent accidental convergences. But the Saturn theory would predict that the farther back you look, the more a unified complex of meanings will be seen around the homonyms. (Also, many variations which would appear to involve separate distinct word-roots should turn out to reflect the different mythical nuances of the same celestial form.) In fact, certain unique and highly "incongruous" equations should be found more than once within the SAME language, but around DIFFERENT roots. The same "absurdity" evident in one root should also appear in connection with other roots. The Egyptian system will provide excellent examples of this, I believe. Here is just one: The model says that the sidelock of the warrior-hero is the spiraling serpent, and that both are an explicit form of the mother goddess. At least a half dozen instances could be given of this "absurd" equation in Egypt-where one word, such as _shen_, means "hair", but is the name of a serpent as well. (Some time back I posted a listing, and could dig it up if anyone is interested.) It is the global imagery of the "hairy" serpent that will account for the seemingly ludicrous juxtaposition of words and symbols. Dr. van der Slujis: On the other hand, the argument can be strengthened with the help of other language families. When a like nucleus of virtually unconnected homonyms can be shown to occur not only in the Indo- European area, but elsewhere, structural typology demands an explanation in terms of historical-genetic relationship. If that can be shown--and we have good reasons to assume that it can- linguistics has contributed its part to the establishment of the Saturn theory. Lots of work remains to be done here." Talbott: No doubt about it. And we need some well-trained linguists to help us sift through the material. The wind-water-pillar- mountain would be a good principle to explore around the world, precisely because it's so incongruous in the absence of the celestial reference. Egyptian Shu is the nether wind (the wind below the central sun Re), the pillar supporting Re, the world mountain or primeval hill, and the "waterway." As Shu-Anhur, he is represented by the spear. (And that is only the beginning.) Sumerian Enlil is the "wind" but also the Great Mountain. Greek Boreas is the "North wind", the erect serpent (impregnating the goddess), and the primeval _bor_ or mountain. (We also find around Boreas the boreal path of souls and other symbols of the column, perhaps even the boar, if the word doctors will permit it; that the boar is identified symbolically with Mars and the polar mountain is well established.) Hindu Indra is the wind or smoke rising along the world axis, but also a shining pillar. The same pillar is called the phallus of Shiva, but elsewhere it becomes the polar mountain of Meru. Aztec Ce Acatl is a heaven- supporting pillar, but also the "wind". To be continued ... ---------------------------------------------- IS IT RIGHT? or DOES IT WORK? By Jan Sammer and Dave Davis Jan Sammer says: What Larson is doing is he's dumping the whole model. In conformity with his purpose he concentrates his firepower on the hidden unwarranted assumptions of the model, not on its detailed workings. You point out that the model works. Of course it does--it has to otherwise it would be useless. Larson is not saying that the model does not work, he's saying that the model is wrong. Dave Davis responds: Jan, what you have to bear in mind is that chemists are very pragmatic [and pedantic ;-] types... If you pick up most degree level inorganic textbooks, you'll usually find a load of rhetoric in the introduction along the lines of "theories come & go - but facts are constant" blah blah blah... The fact that a model WORKS is, to most chemists, all that matters, because it will allow them to rationalise & classify the chemistry they see happening in front of them in the lab - whether or not it is metaphysically "Wrong" or "Right" is not of much importance. (For how can we really "know" what an atom is anyway?)... I was taught several different models, pretty much all incompatible & conflicting! We didn't have a problem with that. Honestly. Want to explain bonding in sodium chloride? - use the Ionic Model of Bonding! Want to explain 1st series transition metal complexes? Well, try ligand/crystal field theory! Or prefer doing a bit more maths? Well, use Quantum Molecular Orbital theory, then! What about a boring old main group non-metal? - well, the covalent bonding model with VSEPR bells on should do the trick. One of the flash hard-drinking synthetic organic guys, and need to elucidate the transition state of your latest carbonyl addition? well, you're probably are best arguing the case with MO theory again... Now, this might seem a farcical state of affairs to some people - ("what, you mean chemists fully acknowledge that their theoretical models are hopelessly inadequate, and just pick and choose the one which gives the right results in the situation at hand!?!? Cut their funding now!!") - but really, this is only a problem if you are seeking an ultimately "true" metaphysical explanation of chemical behaviour (and as Michael reminded us the other day, "objective" scientific theories must of necessity have underlying metaphysics) - most are just interested in making their reactions work. I'm not especially interested in ultimate true metaphysical absolutes (in fact I don't really believe in them at all)... so if I have a model (like the nuclear atom) that WORKS, then I'm not really that interested in finding a "truer" one. (whether electrons are little billiard balls running round on hoops, or whether they're pointy up & down arrows paired up in little orbital diagrams, or whether they're a bunch of integrals describing a wave function. I'm never, as a human, going to Really "know" what it's Truly like to Be an electron) Now that we're in the space age, we can see that epicycles don't work once you leave earth. NASA couldn't use them to get the Huygens probe to Saturn, so it's not really a good example. But the nuclear atom seems to be working fine - I guess the only way you'd really sell me Larson's idea is to show me examples where it can explain & rationalise things where the nuclear model doesn't have anything to offer. Then, like a good chemist, I'll quite happily use it for those situations. DAVE Davis ---------------------------------------------- WEBSITES OF NOTE Ian Tresman, Ev Cochrane, Don Scott, Wal Thornhill [ed. note: the catastrophics community has been particularly active on the internet in recent months. Here are a few of the latest webpages, introduced with excerpts from the sites themselves. Check the webpages themselves for lots more, and pictures, too.]: Ian Tresman says about his Catastrophism CD: It is to be expected that cosmically-induced global catastrophes should be a running theme through the disciplines. Hence, this work is interdisciplinary in its very nature. And if disciplines conflict in their interpretation, does the interpretation of the evidence or the discipline require revision? This work is a compilation of thousands of articles, books and Web sites, covering a wide range of viewpoints. Some are quite convincing, some speculative, and others apparently preposterous. http://www.catastrophism.com/cdrom/index.htm [ed. note: Here's another website hosted by Ian Tresman. It features summaries of the papers presented at the SIS Silver Jubilee, at which several Saturn Theories were featured.] >From Harold Tresmans's opening address: Just forty to fifty years ago there was virtually no challenge to the conventional overview of science that could easily be found, studied or used as a comparison, in fact, everything was so certain that there was no need to search for alternatives. At that time everything scientific was read and admired...we knew and understood every single process. With the publication of Worlds in Collision, followed by Earth in Upheaval, this cozy, uncritical acceptance changed. In my own case these publications struck the chord that had been niggling at me since my school day and changed my life. http://knowledge.co.uk/sis/silver/ [ed. note: The next website contains the full text of Ev Cochrane's SIS paper, THE SATURN THEORY, with illustrations.] Ev Cochrane says: If the truth be known, the Saturn theory suffers from an embarrassment of riches with respect to evidence which supports the central tenets of the theory. Early descriptions of the "sun" and various planets from Mesopotamia and elsewhere describe them as occupying "impossible" positions and moving in a manner which defies astronomical reality (as currently understood, that is). The ancient sun god, for example, is said to "rise" and "set" upon the same sacred mountain. The planet Venus is described as standing at the "heart of heaven" or within the crescent of Sin. Mars is pointed to as a principle agent behind "eclipses" of the ancient sun god.2 While not one of these scenarios is possible given the current order of the solar system, each is perfectly consistent with the history of the respective planets in the polar configuration as reconstructed by the Saturnists. http://www.ames.net/cochrane/SIS/sis.html [ed. note: the next three sites are maintained by Don Scott, who's put his retirement time into studying the electric universe and the intrinsic redshift.] Don Scott discusses the electric sun: "The certainty that the Sun generates its prodigious outpourings of energy through thermonuclear reactions deep in its interior has been with us for about half a century." [Juergens 1979]. But, there are many reasons to doubt this presently accepted theory of how our Sun (and every other star) generates its radiant energy. In almost every article written for the popular press, the very first sentence usually contains some reference to the "fact" that the Sun is, at its core, a thermonuclear fusion reactor. The heat (energy) produced in this core then "rises to the Sun's surface by convection (a laminar fluid flow) and is there radiated out into space". http://www.users.uswest.net/~dascott/Sun.htm Don Scott talks about Halton Arp and Wal Thornhill: There is a revolution coming in the "sciences" of astronomy and cosmology that will rival the one set off by Galileo. I hope I can live long enough to see at least the beginning of it. Here is a brief description of the battle I see brewing, and my reasons for being on one side of that fight. http://www.users.uswest.net/~dascott/Cosmology.htm Don Scott presents Amy Acheson's articles on Halton Arp: Arp's meticulous examination of each galaxy and its environment led him to an exciting new discovery - that these galaxies are not isolated island universes, but are vitally connected. His systematic observations showed that active galaxies and quasars, large and small spirals, quasar jets and x-ray clouds are all interacting dynamically with each other. http://www.users.uswest.net/~dascott/Amy.htm [ed. note: Wal Thornhill's website is devoted to the electric universe and its implications for science. It includes a regularly up-dated news section which discusses the latest discoveries of the space age and their implications for catastrophics and the electric universe, plus lots of pictures.] >From Wal Thornhill's website preface: The Electric Universe opens up science again to the individual. Science will blossom in the new millennium as a cultural activity more integrated with history, the arts and the human condition. http://www.holoscience.com ---------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC UNIVERSE PREDICTS GALILEO AT RISK By Wal Thornhill RECENT NEWS [ed. note: this article was posted on Wal Thornhill's website before Galileo went into "safing mode" due to problems in one of its memory banks as it approached Io, October 11, 1999.] 8 October 1999 NASA risks Galileo spacecraft by FLYING A "KITE" AT IO! JPL News wrote: "Galileo makes two daring passes less than 620 km above Io on October 11 and November 25, 1999. In November Galileo might even pass through the plume of Pillan Patera, making it the first spacecraft ever to fly through an alien volcano." NASA scientists are upholding a long tradition of misinterpreting observations from their space probes. This time they are jeopardising one of their most successful missions. Long ago in 1979, when the so-called volcanoes of Io were first discovered, Professor Thomas Gold of Cornell University wrote that they are actually the site of powerful electric discharges. NASA geologists paid no attention. Jupiter is still capable of hurling a few thunderbolts! "The biggest mystery about Io's volcanoes is why they're so hot," says Bill Smythe, a co-investigator on JPL's NIMS team. "At 1800 K, the vents are about 1/3 the temperature of the surface of the sun!" The temperature measured by Galileo is an average based on the sharpest resolution of its instruments. If scientists are having difficulty explaining 1800 K, they are in for a shock when they get closer... I predict that when seen close up the temperature of those hot spots will approach that of the Sun as they are both electric arcs. (Electric arcs create intensely hot spots.) The plan to fly the Galileo spacecraft through the plume of an Io volcano in November is therefore as foolhardy as flying a kite in an electrical storm. It is to be hoped that NASA will recognise the dangers in time to change their plan for November. That is, if Galileo survives the October flyby. "Another thing we'll be going for with these close-up flybys are high resolution pictures of the lava flows", continued Smythe. "We really want to know what the shapes and edges of the flows look like because that can tell us a lot about the properties of the lava. On Earth lava flows form little side lobes, or extrusions that look like arms, feet and toes." On the contrary, most of the dark patterns seen radiating from the crater in this image of the Marduk "volcano" are not lava flows. They have the shape of lightning scars on Earth and are caused by powerful currents streaking across the surface to satisfy the arc's hunger for electric charge. They rip huge sinuous furrows in the soil and hurl it to either side to form levee banks and side lobes. The stubby side channels will be found to have rounded ends like those seen on Martian "rivers". http://www.holoscience.com/news/news.htm ---------------------------------------------- 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