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 II, No. 19 Nov 30, 1998 EDITOR: Amy Acheson PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart CONTENTS WHY THE SATURN THESIS?. . . . . . . . . . .by Mel Acheson VISUALIZING COLLINEAR SYSTEMS . . . . . . . .Dave Talbott ELECTROMAGNETICALLY INDUCED LAMARCKISM Discussion: Dave Davis, Wal Thornhill, and Ev Cochrane SATURNISING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Harold Tresman TIDBITS Notes and comments by Dave Talbott, Dwardu Cardona, and Wal Thornhill ---------------------------------------------- WHY THE SATURN THESIS? by Mel Acheson Not only critics but proponents ask: Why waste time on an idea that's physically impossible, theoretically absurd, and socially outrageous? The space program achieves ever more impressive feats of Applied Orthodox Mechanics. Established theories explain libraries of facts and appear capable, with a bit of ad hoc tweaking, of explaining everything. Scientists seriously consider they know the Mind of God, at least in general outline if not in every detail. When the Big Theories can explain the general structure of all space for all time, why consider that a bit of research into the imaginative literature of a short era on a small planet could reveal an entirely different structure to the universe? One answer is the provocation of curiosity inflamed by the enticement of opportunity. A logical method applied to a relevant set of data has resulted in knowledge that doesn't fit--that even contradicts--previous knowledge. The comparison at the level of specific details of myths of globally-dispersed cultures discloses identical characteristics and relationships. The evidence is massive and ubiquitous. The identities-- where one would expect randomness--beg for explanation. There would seem to be only three possibilities: 1) An event experienced by all cultures: An original story. 2) A common genesis of all cultures: An original story-teller. 3) A rigid structure to human imagination-- themes (but not narratives) "hardwired": An original story-telling. Difficulties with the second and third possibilities leave the first as the most likely. The many attempts to relate mythic themes to events of daily life have produced only a morass of inconsistencies. But reversing the process-- reconstructing events from the themes--produces a singular and consistent event. The only problem is: That event is totally unlike the events we know today. The only objection is: We assume (believe) that what we know today is valid for all time, space, and conditions. But theory is always trumped by events. A general law is merely an abstraction until the conditions for its occurrence are fulfilled. Confirmation or falsification must be carried out at the level of concrete events. (Or, better, concrete events determine the "domain of validity" of a theory.) And the universe is much larger and more complex than the simple provincial concepts human beings invent to explain their limited perceptions of it. The event reconstructed from mythic themes demarcates one boundary of validity for established theory. It presents an opportunity to cross a frontier to discover other general laws whose conditions are not presently fulfilled or of which we're unaware. Far from being a waste of time, the Saturn Thesis is pioneering the future of science. --Mel Acheson thoth at whidbey.com ---------------------------------------------- VISUALIZING COLLINEAR SYSTEMS By Dave Talbott Continuing our introductory review of physical issues facing the Saturn theory. We have noted two fundamental principles: 1) the existence of collinear equilibrium positions, and 2) the potential role of secondary forces in stabilizing collinear equilibrium. In both instances, as we saw, the initial pronouncements we received from scientific critics proved to be either incorrect, or highly misleading. That situation is significant not only because our mission is to reconcile the historical argument with VERIFIABLE physical data, but also because it never hurts to be reminded how frequently authoritative pronouncements on matters of physical plausability turn out to be incorrect. Now let's move to some other issues relating to collinear conditions. Perhaps the space program can help here. To study the Sun, the international SOHO satellite was placed in a collinear relationship to Earth and the Sun (actually, a "halo orbit" around the collinear equilibrium position called Lagrange 1), so that as the Earth revolves around the Sun, the satellite remains between the Sun and the Earth. Discounting the movement around L1, you have- EARTH SOHO EARTH SOHO SUN SOHO EARTH SOHO EARTH The SOHO satellite, therefore, gives us a good illustration of collinear equilibrium and why the usual implication of Kepler's Third Law doesn't apply when two or more bodies are acting on a third. If SOHO were moving independently around the Sun, then its orbital period at that distance would be LESS than that of the Earth, which would seem to make the above arrangement impossible. But in fact SOHO is not moving independently; it is also revolving around the Earth once for each orbit of the Earth around the Sun. (Again, bear in mind that I am oversimplifying here since SOHO is not AT the collinear equilibrium position, but circles around the position described, a matter to which we will return in discussing the role of Mars in the Saturn model.) Now this brings us to what was unquestionably the biggest mistake made by the dynamicist Robert Grubaugh in his initial presentation, a mistake which he alone seems to have recognized. In the journal AEON, Grubaugh proposed an ancient system of planets in collinear equilibrium as it moved around the Sun. And he visualized the configuration holding the same angle in relation to the Sun throughout its orbit, yielding a constant crescent on Saturn. For simplification here, I will include only Jupiter-Saturn-Earth through a quarter orbit - Earth Saturn Jupiter Earth Saturn Jupiter SUN As you can see, in inertial space - which is defined by the background stars - the system is not only moving around the primary (the Sun), but the Earth and Saturn are also moving synchronously around Jupiter. This is where the problem comes in, and ones definitions depend entirely on reference points. To illustrate the problem you need to see the contradiction between Grubaugh's mathematical calculation of collinear equilibrium and his visualization of the system. Grubaugh's mathematical analysis involved CO-ROTATIONAL references, in which RELATIVE motions are a key to the concept of "revolution". The revolution of the secondary system is defined by its motion in relation to a radius from the primary. Hence, the crucial question: within a co- rotational frame of reference, is the illustrated planetary system actually doing what Grubaugh described mathematically? To clarify the co-rotational principle, let's go back to the illustration of the SOHO satellite. Imagine a line from the Sun through SOHO to the Earth, with the Sun being the primary center of rotation, and the Earth being the secondary center of rotation. In a co- rotational frame, what is the rotation of the secondary system in relation to the primary? The answer is NONE. While the secondary system IS revolving in the inertial frame, it is not revolving in a co-rotational frame. To get rotation in a co-rotational sense, the line from Earth to SOHO would independently rotate around a point on the radius from the Sun FASTER than the planetary system moved around the Sun. To visualize the principle, imagine a bicycle wheel with a smaller wheel attached to its rim. If the small wheel is locked into place. the secondary wheel will still be turning once in inertial space with each revolution of the larger wheel. But it will NOT be rotating in terms of the co-rotational references. In fact, in co- rotational terms, to get the smaller wheel to revolve ONCE with each revolution of the larger wheel, it will have to revolve TWICE in inertial space. Now look at Grubaugh's first illustration of a synchronous system. His calculations, using co- rotational references, were for a full revolution of the secondary system with each revolution around the Sun. But what he illustrated shows NO revolution co- rotationally, since the angle from the Sun to Jupiter to the Earth is retained throughout. To illustrate the equilibrium conditions he had calculated co- rotationally, he would have had to show the system revolving twice against the background stars for each revolution of the system around the Sun. But to the contrary, his illustration showed a constant Sun- Jupiter-Saturn angle of 135 degrees. While numerous critics certainly noticed that the illustrated condition doesn't work dynamically, none seemed to realize the actual nature of the problem. Dr. Victor Slabinski, an accomplished celestial dynamicist, published in AEON a critique of Grubaugh's model, showing that the angle illustrated could not be maintained. But unless I am sorely mistaken, he did not realize that the illustration failed to represent Grubaugh's own co-rotational mathematics. It was Grubaugh himself who realized this, much to his embarrassment. In retrospect, the error is easy to recognize, though at the time of the initial presentation, the emotional intensity of Internet discussions seems to have prevented all participants from diagnosing the situation correctly. I recall, for example, one qualified expert taking figures from Grubaugh and running a computer simulation with the Sun-Jupiter-Saturn angle initially at 90 degrees- Jupiter Saturn Sun After a quarter turn of the system around the Sun, it looked like this- Saturn Jupiter Sun Is this a clue or what? Yet, searching through my archives of discussion on the Internet newsgroup talk.origins, I cannot find any indication that critics detected what has now become the obvious. In fact, the simulation showed exactly what Grubaugh had calculated co-rotationally, but not what he had illustrated visually. In the mathematical frame he was employing, the J-S system independently rotates 90 degrees as the entire system rotates 90 degrees around the Sun, so that in inertial space Jupiter and Saturn have revolved a total of 180 degrees. Revolution of J-S around the Sun = 90 degrees Independent rotation of J-S = 90 degrees Total J-S rotation in inertial space = 180 degrees This means two full revolutions in inertial space for each revolution of the system around the Sun. In his first presentation of the idea, Grubaugh did not illustrate correctly what he had calculated mathematically! Well, it could have been a lot worse if any of the critics had picked up on the flaw! But instead, four years after Grubaugh's initial presentation, we still find the loudest of critics celebrating Dr. Slabinski's "refutation" of Grubaugh, completely unaware of the actual situation or the meaning of co-rotational references mathematically. In truth, there was no refutation of Grubaugh, only a refutation of the ILLUSTRATED condition, with no discernment of the underlying mistake. Of course, other issues immediately arise. What Grubaugh's first illustration suggested was the possibility of a LASTING crescent on Saturn, due to the enduring Sun-to-Saturn-to-Earth angle. But if, in fact, the planetary system revolved in relation to the radius from the Sun, a crescent on Saturn (as seen from the Earth) would only be temporary, though obviously it would last much longer than the crescent Moon in our sky today. While the Saturn model does not specify duration of the Saturnian crescent, certain constraints must be acknowledged. (I never found any evidence of a Saturn- crescent moving through cyclical "phases", for example, so the effect of these consideration may be to compress our sense of time in the more complex evolution of the system). We'll return to that issue later in this series. Additionally, we must confront the matter of the Earth's polar alignment to the collinear system, which surely requires a continual precession of the Earth's axis as the planets moved around the Sun. Or does it? That issue, too, became a hot topic in Internet discussions, as we shall see. Dave ---------------------------------------------- ELECTROMAGNETICALLY INDUCED LAMARCKISM kronia discussion DAVE DAVIS: Well... I think evolution/extinction of species needs a bit ofexplaining. We know there seems to be some sort of "punctuated process" going on... and people's credibility is frequently strained by the nature (ahem) of the evolutionary directions & just how it all works so neatly. I want to know what effects differing electrical environments can be expected to have on life, on life composed of biomolecules which nearly all carry high excess of electrical charge, whose tissues are flowing with electrolytes, whose transport processes & pumps are controlled by electrochemical gradients. I want to know what planet Earth's own present 200Vm^-1 does to them! (especially on Pentecost). Yes, it's electromagnetically induced Lamarckism! (or something...) Good gracious. WAL THORNHILL COMMENTS: There is a very interesting book that has just been published here, called "Lamarck's Signature", by Steele, Lindley & Blanden. (It even gives good ol' Ev a mention). The subtitle is "How retrogenes are changing Darwin's natural selection paradigm". It got good coverage on TV at its launch in Canberra. Planetary catastrophe almost requires a Lamarckian mechanism to allow surviving life to rapidly adapt to the new conditions. The catastrophe is the punctuation and a new equilibrium has to be achieved quickly. I speculate on my CD about the role of the subatomic electrical interactions in "directing" biological activity in the sense of Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields. EV COCHRANE ADDS: I agree with Wal (as usual). Indeed, I meant to mention Steele's book some time back as a good sign that experiments are afoot which appear to confirm the Lamarckian position that acquired characters may be inherited. In my Master's thesis/book on Lamarckian evolution, I argued that phenomena such as bird migration cannot be accounted for without Lamarckian processes for the very reasons cited by Wal--a catastrophic disturbance of the environment requires the birds to instantly change and adapt their migratory patterns in order to survive. Birds, like most living creatures, don't have thousands of years to sit around and wait for the random genetic changes which Neo-Darwinism claims will allow that hard-earned knowledge to be passed on to their offspring. Indeed, the currently prevailing Neo-Darwinian paradigm denies altogether the possibility that the phenomenon of bird migration can have a basis in experience or learning. How, then, can they account for a bird being born with an innate knowledge of the sun/stars and the instinct to fly to South America come winter? The simple answer is that they can't. On the problem of innate knowledge, see my article "The Case of the Honeyguide" on the Aeon website. ---------------------------------------------- SATURNISING by Harold Tresman I have been Saturnising for more years than I care to admit and have yet to find even a little bit of common ground with anybody having the most superficial knowledge of science. There are many 'Velikovskians' who draw the line at dates preceding the events in W-in-C. Challenge them by asking how a planet could get so close to Earth without shattering and they mutter! Tell them that with an 'electric universe' it did happen and they will walk away making their excuses. We have to recognise, and accept, that the only way we can break through their barrier is by proving that all the events that we KNOW happened fit neatly in a scientific world based on gravity, mass, evolution and uniformity. We know that just cannot be done. All our debates on how to present our ideas within their sacred cows are futile. Our framework of ideas are completely unacceptable...no matter what format we devise. They have too much at stake to even consider the possibility that we might just possibly be right. Their expertise, their authority, their prestige and many other considerations are at risk !! Harlow Shapley was one hundred per cent correct when he said, without reading a word of W-in-C, '...if Velikovsky is right then we are wrong...' (paraphrased). He had vision, and what is more he was actually right. Harold Tresman, PRE-SATURNIAN ---------------------------------------------- PRE-SATURNIAN TIDBITS A Note by Dave Talbott For a little over ten years I've been developing notes on a motif (and explanation) bearing on the question: is there PREHSITORIC HUMAN evidence of the Saturnian configuration? I believe the evidence is provided by the prehistoric mother goddess figure. In the earliest-remembered phase of the configuration, as I've noted before, evidence suggests that Earth was EXTREMELY close to Saturn. Visually, there were no distinct cosmic cycles, and the terrestrial sky was filled with what appeared to human witness as a shimmering cosmic "sea". It is out of this ambient "ocean" above that Saturn emerged visually. The closer the Earth was to Saturn in the collinear system, the more likely it is that Mars would not be seen inside the sphere of Venus, but partially below Venus, since the closer Mars is to the Earth, the more the viewer will see over the smaller sphere of Mars. As you move the Earth closer to Saturn, you reach a point at which it is IMPOSSIBLE to get Mars visually inside the sphere of Venus. (Of course that's why, as Mars approached the Earth in the scenarios we've discussed, it dropped visually from the "womb" of the Venus-goddess.) And interestingly, even before Mars has dropped fully from Venus, it is at least as large visually as Venus, due to the substantial distance traveled for each degree it descends visually. In the prehistoric phase, i.e., in a phase for which written records do not exist, I've visualized a cloud of gases enveloping Venus and Mars in collinear alignment such that, to the observer on Earth, the resulting form of two planets appeared as a "double gourd" or violin-shape (a common goddess shape), with gases stretching toward the Earth from Mars to give the appearance of truncated lower limbs. Preliminary renderings of such a form do, in fact, look strikingly similar to various bulging figures of the prehistoric mother goddess. But you'll just have to trust me when I say there's a lot more to it than this. Lateral displacement of Venus and Mars gave a barbell appearance to the -the two orbs and the gases stretching between them - and this very form merges with what are called "eye-mask" pictographs, mirror-spirals, counter-spirals, and related forms, all tied closely to the prehistoric goddess and all easily replicated visually assuming little more than displacement from perfect alignment. All I shall say for now is that I'm confident that a persuasive case can be made. But I would not want to have to make that case before there was an audience familiar with the more fundamental - and much more richly documented - reconstruction of the Saturn scenario. [As a footnote, this prehistoric phase offers one of several pieces of evidence that Mars did not originally appear as a reddish body, but acquired that color in connection with a specific phase in its history. The two planets appeared as one -a grayish, or blue-grayish color represented by the clay forms of the goddess.] ---------------------------------------------- DWARDU CARDONA COMMENTS: Well, for one thing, some clays are actually red. More than that, natural RED clay was considered of special, even sacred, significance, as I learned this past September when I visited Central Anatolia in Turkey. For another, why not consider the possibility that Venus and Mars appeared as one (or, actually, that Mars was at first invisible) because they were both RED in color. And, really, If Saturn's earliest remembered color was also red, Venus, too, would have been originally invisible. DAVE TALBOTT ADDS: Yes, there is no question about the sacredness of red clay or red earth (or "red sulfur", for that matter) in numerous rites around the world. But the redness of Mars, I believe was an attribute acquired in connection with the evolution of the planetary configuration - including both the removal of atmosphere and water and stupendous electrical activity. As for the two planets appearing as one "body" in the sky, that is precisely my belief. WAL THORNHILL ADDS: It should be remembered that as a part of a dwarf star system centred on Saturn, the closer planets would have effectively been ploughing through Saturn's corona. As a consequence, the colour of planets would have been determined more by fluorescence of the atoms in their ionospheres than by surface colouration. A strong planet-wide glow in the Earth's ionosphere may have been responsible for the apparent invisibility of stars during that epoch. It may have also been a source of life-sustaining energy during the phase-locked or polar configuration eras. ---------------------------------------------- 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 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/xxx/cat/velikovskian/ http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/Catastrophism.html 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. 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.