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. 9 June 15, 1999 EDITOR: Amy Acheson PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart CONTENTS LOOKING UP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .by Mel Acheson SATURNIAN STUDIES . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott and Kronians _Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science_ By Halton Arp . . . . . . . . . . Book Review by Wal Thornhill. ELECTRIC UNIVERSE QUESTIONS . ..Wal Thornhill and the Kronians ARE WE GETTING THERE? . . . . Dwardu Cardona and Wal Thornhill EXCERPTS FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO _Seeing Red, Quasars, Cosmologies and Academic Science_ . . . . . . . .by Halton Arp ---------------------------------------------- LOOKING UP by Mel Acheson At NEW SCENARIOS ON EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, the recent conference held in Italy, a paper by Franco Ricci-Lucchi parsed the decline in prestige of geology since the time of Lyell. "Geology is considered by many people as a minor or ancillary science, or even a non-science, under the influence of thinkers such as Karl Popper (what is not amenable to experiment is not falsifiable; therefore it is not science ...) and of a restricted notion of science ... according to which the book of the universe is written in mathematical languages...." "Geology deals with a) past events, which are not reproducible; b) individual or unique objects and phenomena; c) dynamic, mostly non-linear and chaotic systems; d) complex systems observable in nature, hardly so in the laboratory." Ricci-Lucchi mentioned but didn't elaborate an interesting similarity: "Geology has much in common with Astronomy. The objects in the sky are fossils, too, and their light talks about past events. But Astronomy is more appealing to the layman. Maybe he has more respect or fear for the skies than for Mother Earth!" And maybe the stars don't disagree as forcefully as stones when astronomers foist reductionist theories from mathematical physics onto them. (Until now: quantised redshifts among undeniably- connected quasars and galaxies speak an indefeasible "NO" to the Big Bang.) Astronomy would have done better to follow Geology in recognizing the fossil stars as "dynamic, mostly non-linear and chaotic systems." It should have paid more heed to the complexity of the lights in the sky instead of brushing aside the anomalies which have come to constitute the bulk of available evidence. In pursuing the prestige of being an exact science dominated by mathematically precise models, it lost touch with the objects of its study. A wag has asked, "How can you tell a professional astronomer from an amateur?" "When they go outside at night, the amateur looks up." Ricci-Lucchi began the paper by noting: "The end of this century is marked by a crisis of reason.... Uncertainty and indetermination are recognized as essential elements of physical reality ... " The paper ended with this thought: "It is enough, Popper may forgive, to accept as science every intellectual activity based on reason and aimed at understanding ..." Mel Acheson thoth at whidbey.com ---------------------------------------------- SATURNIAN STUDIES by Dave Talbott and Kronians Clark Whelton writes: Well, I'm curious. Has any Saturnist said that there HAVE been global disasters of celestial origin -- or changes in the celestial order -- in the last 3,000 years? Dave, may I ask your opinion on this subject? Dave Talbott responds: Though this question is outside my own expertise, I'd like to see the issue investigated from all vantage points, including retrocalculations, archaeology, climatology, geology, and direct ancient testimony. All I can say with certainty is that I've never found a symbolic or mythological theme whose origins could be fixed within the last 3,000 years (unless conventional chronologies are off to an earth-shaking extent). All identifiable themes appear to point back to the origins of civilization and beyond. How long was the transitional period between the mythical age of (highly capricious) planetary gods and the later epoch of predictable planetary motions? My wild guess would be that sometime between 1500 B.C and 1,000 BC the planetary system settled into its present highly stable arrangement. But this transitional period may well have been characterized by a series of terrestrial disturbances, some of them global. In this regard, I'm open to considering any possibility backed by a systematic presentation of evidence. One certainty is that the mythological evidence Velikovsky drew upon to support the Venus and Mars events in Worlds and Collision belongs to a period of history prior to the development of writing, kingship, temple-building, and other ritual practices associated with the rise of civilization. We can know this with certainty because the stories and images of Venus and Mars are deeply embedded in all such practices. And they are woven into the collective memories of Saturn's reign. Dave Talbott Karen Josephson joins in: I'm not a great historian, but it seems that the historic calendar changes (and related historic statements), as well as the "angular chronology" I previously mentioned, would infer a very impressive incident. And all the reading I've done indicates that this occurred about 700 BC -- which would definitely be within the 3000 year BP timeframe.. kaj Ted Bond adds: Kaj, I'm so glad to hear somebody say this. I've been waiting to say it myself but still hadn't worked up the courage! Dave Talbott answers: But keep in mind that the original question related to unstable planets causing terrestrial disturbances within the past 3,000 years. A near approach of planets in the past 3,000 years would have generated a large volume of eyewitness accounts identifying the body, since early astronomy did preserve the link of gods and planets. I think that Ev, Dwardu and I would all agree that such evidence is lacking, and we came to our respective conclusions independently. [Caveat: if it turns out that retrocalculations do not match "6th century" observations of planetary motions, I will happily reconsider my own tentative conclusions.] This does not take anything away from legitimate evidence of later terrestrial disturbances, which should be systematically explored. And certainly the electric universe allows residual effects long after the era of profound planetary instability, which WAS remembered around the world and left us with a massive body of evidence that CAN be systematically investigated. Dave Talbott ---------------------------------------------- SEEING RED: REDSHIFTS, COSMOLOGY AND ACADEMIC SCIENCE By Halton Arp Book Review by Wal Thornhill. The book comes about 10 years after Arp's earlier challenge to cosmologists in his book, "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies". Since that time, Arp had moved to the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Munich, Germany - having been effectively excluded from his research in the USA. In Germany he was able to extend his earlier telescopic work by having access to x-ray images of many of the deep-space objects that were crucial to his argument that the cosmological redshift was related more to the age of an object since its birth than to its velocity away from us. With this new book, the Big Bang theory is seen at best to be theoretical flatulence, at worst it is an indictment of academic behaviour and the way science is done these days. "Sometimes I think that Astronomy is not so much a science as a series of scandals." [Seeing Red, p. 64]. However, some comfort can be taken by members of this list from Arp's opening remark: "I started getting letters from scientists in small colleges, in different disciplines, from amateurs, students and lay people. The amateurs in particular amazed and delighted me, because it quickly became clear that they really looked at pictures, knew various objects and reasoned for themselves while maintaining a healthy skepticism toward official interpretations." At the heart of Arp's argument is the discovery that faint, high red-shift quasars seem to be physically associated with active galaxies of normal red-shift. It appears that quasars are occasionally shot from the nucleus of an active galaxy in opposite directions along the spin axis. The youngest quasars are the faintest and have the highest redshift. Older quasars are brighter, have lower redshifts, and finally become new companion galaxies with more normal redshift. The whole family are flung out like drops of water from a double-armed sprinkler with the parent galaxy spinning in the middle, its axis pointing along the sprinkler arms. The most amazing discovery of all was that the quasar redshifts are quantised! It is as if something happens in the quasars to make matter more massive, stepwise, with time and so increase the energy of emitted spectral lines (reduce the redshift). At least that is Arp's challenging conclusion. >From this paradigm shattering data, Arp proposes that the Universe we see is much smaller than advertised because high redshift has little to do with distance. With no primeval bang to work back to, the Universe becomes indefinitely large and old. Arp suggests that matter is created in cascading episodes from existing galaxies. (Unfortunately that merely smears out the matter "creation" story of the Big Bang without providing any more insight into this miraculous effect). He traces events in our region of the universe and constructs a convincing family tree for our own galaxy, with the interesting result that our "twin" is identifiable because it seems that galaxies are born in pairs on opposite sides of the parent galaxy. Arp's book exposes many of the creaking underpinnings of modern physics. Quantum theory has nothing to offer by way of a physical model to explain the redshift jumps across entire galaxies. And since there is no real model of how gravity works, there is no sensible explanation of how inertial mass can increase with time, nor of its link with gravitational mass. It is not surprising that the consequences of the total destruction of all their present smug certainties is too horrible for astronomers to contemplate. They react to the evidence "... like people viewing a grisly automobile accident ...", Arp writes. To complete the ruination, Arp then demonstrates that some stars also exhibit redshift anomalies. So we don't understand stars as well as we thought either. Concerning the birth of stars, the standard model requires the collision of clouds of dust and gas. "Now my co-author, Jack Sulentic, and I were disrespectful enough to suggest that smashing two lumps of gas together was the worst possible way to make stars. It just heated up the gas and generally caused condensations to dissipate." [Seeing Red, p. 105]. Arp's discoveries are the most important in astronomy since the invention of the telescope. He has developed a map of the visible universe that makes good sense and shows once again the penchant for Nature to repeat patterns. This is a feature also of the Electric Universe model, where electrical discharges in plasma exhibit an organizing principle that shapes galaxies. When combined with the plasma focus phenomenon we have an explanation for active galactic nuclei and the birth of quasars. Quantised galactic and stellar redshift is simply explained by Sansbury's new classical physics model of gravity as a near instantaneous electrostatic dipolar force. In fact, it would have been embarrassing if quantum redshifts had not been found. Matter creation is unnecessary when the effective scavenging ability of intergalactic Birkeland currents is added to the electrical causation of increasing inertial mass. Arp's work forms a major piece in the jigsaw puzzle that is The Electric Universe. Just as the Electric Universe does away with the fanciful notion of black holes, Arp reserves some wry comments about this mythical beast that is supposed to lurk at the centres of galaxies and suck stars in: "The greatly publicised theory is black holes where everything falls in. But the observations show everything is falling out! (Can we count on conventional science always choosing the incorrect alternative between two possibilities? I would vote yes, because the important problems usually require a change in paradigm which is forbidden to conventional science.)" [Seeing Red, p. 228]. The last chapter of Seeing Red is devoted to Academia. Those who have followed the "Velikovsky Affair" will recognise the bad behaviour patterns. Arp brings an insider's perspective as an outstanding researcher who followed the rules of experiment and publication only to be met with ostracism and denial. Those who find it hard to credit stories of church officials refusing to look through Galileo's telescope will have difficulty when reading Arp's book to find that the same thing happens in this so-called scientific age. "... influential people in the field know what the observations portend, but they are too deeply committed to go back. The result will surely be to inexorably push academic science toward a position akin to that of the medieval church. But if that is the evolutionarily necessary solution, then perhaps we should hasten the process of replacing the present system with a more effective mode of doing science." [Seeing Red, p. 23]. One important mode is scientific communication. Arp is of the opinion that it has almost completely broken down through the accepted journals. I believe that the Internet provides the new scientific protestants with the communication tool to advance science without requiring the participation of academics. We don't have to waste our time - Seeing Red. Wal Thornhill ---------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC UNIVERSE QUESTIONS Wal Thornhill and the Kronians Amy wrote: I think I asked this once, but it was before you'd read Arp, Wal. So I'll ask again: I can't read about quantum redshifts in galaxies without being aware that the Milky Way is also a galaxy, and one which appears not to have reached it's "normal" potential yet (at least that's how I interpret your interpretation of Arp wrt the observation that M31 (the Milky Way's parent)is blueshifted by one redshift quanta) (Yes? No? Maybe?) Wal replies: It seems so from Arp's model and reconstruction of events in the local cluster of galaxies. Amy: So the question becomes, what happens to our local solar system when the entire galaxy instantly jumps up one electrostatic gravity quantum? Are the dinosaurs testimony to the last time that happened? And would such a jump result in a sudden change in planetary orbits? Say, set into motion the events of the recent history of the solar system? I would assume that there are also local events going on at all scales (stellar jets, SL9, etc.), but what happens locally when the big change occurs? Wal: I have thought a lot about that. I think the biggest changes occur early in the history of a proto-galaxy where the brightness is increasing most rapidly. That is, the electric stress on stars is rising from the red anode glow to the bright tufting stage. Yes, planetary orbits would be affected but I doubt that it would be sufficient to set in motion the events of the recent history of the solar system. If the effects were that drastic I would expect to see a galaxy somewhere in deep space with a lot of nova/supernova activity in evidence, caused by sudden gravitational disturbances in binary star systems. We need to get a handle on what the redshift quantum represents in terms of mass increase of atoms. Arp gives a change of the electrons inertial mass of about .024% (if my arithmetic is right) for a 72km/sec change in redshift. If this is applied to all subatomic particles then it would not cause drastic effects. I believe that the reconstructed events surrounding the Saturnian era are best explained by a catastrophic change in proto-Saturn's electrical environment upon entering the Sun's sphere of influence. To cause a change in the Earth's gravity by 10's of percent required that the electrical connection between proto- Saturn and the Earth was very intimate indeed. I will elaborate in my planned Aeon article. Amy: Question stimulated by this week's announcement that the black hole in the Milky Way's core has been "cannibalizing" a galaxy for the past billion years. In Arp viewpoint, the galaxy is being born.] Amy I think he is right. Wal Thornhill Barry Cornett asks Wal Thornhill Looking back now at a March correspondence I forget the context in which Wal mentioned "neutral plasma." But, it is interesting to note the strange electrical phenomenon that would, theoretically, occur if a large enough potential were placed across a neutral plasma: One would have an equal current flowing in both directions. Wal responds: That's true but what you have described is a glow discharge. The complicated phenomena that occur in a glow discharge can fill a text book. Ralph Juergens gave a good idea of those complexities when he described his model of an electric star. Barry again: Assuming that the Right Hand Rule for the flow of electrons has an equivalent magnetic reaction for the flow of protons, then we would have a Left Hand Rule for a positive current flow! I have never heard of this (or I don't remember) in my physics classes since protons don't flow in wires - but they can sure flow in plasmas! Is this valid? Is there any evidence of this? Wal: Without being pedantic, what you say is basically correct. The current in a plasma is carried by both ions and electrons, moving in opposite directions. Barry: What we see with two electron current flows in the same direction is they magnetically attract each other with the magnetic field circling in the direction of the right hand's curled fingers. Wal: This is where things start getting complicated, when you introduce magnetic fields. Electrons and ions don't like crossing magnetic field lines, they tend to spiral along them. Because the ions are 1000's of times heavier than electrons they form large spirals while electrons form tight spirals. Barry: If the assumption of the Left Hand Rule for proton flow is true then positive & negative currents flowing together within the same potential will also attract each other, because the circular magnetic fields will be the same since the currents will be in opposite directions. Wal: Without reproducing a textbook, the only force-free movement of electric current through a plasma takes the form of Birkeland currents which are twisted filaments of electric current that organise themselves into twisted rope-like structures along magnetic field lines. The current filaments retain their integrity because of long range attraction of parallel currents and short range repulsion of anti-parallel azimuthal current effects. Barry: So, the electrical flow of ALL currents in a plasma will, in fact, attract one another and squeeze, or pinch, together - not just the electrons. Wal: Most of the current is carried in a plasma by the much more mobile electrons. The "pinch" effect is created by a number of filaments coalescing by long-range attraction to form a larger current "rope". Have a look in your library for Sky & Telescope, May 1985, where you will find a diagrammatic explanation. Barry: Wal, you state the following: "It is known that the night side [of Venus'] atmosphere is bombarded by fast electrons and that there is an unexplained large, fast drift of plasma (up to 10km/sec or 23,000 mph) from day to night hemisphere." (pg. 49, Electric Universe) I'm having trouble interpreting this sentence. The plasma that is "drifting," is that actually coming from the day side of the planet in some kind of solar-flare-like arc to the night side? And, is that the source of the high velocity electrons that are bombarding the night side? Barry. Wal answers: As far as I remember, the argument was that most of the electrons would be moving through the Venusian ionosphere in much the same way that we have ionospheric ring currents about the Earth. However, my contention is that the unusual "flux ropes" entwined through Venus' ionosphere are evidence of a direct electrical connection with the solar plasma and that the origin of the fast electrons is from those Birkeland current ropes. Wal Thornhill ---------------------------------------------- ARE WE GETTING THERE? Dwardu Cardona and Wal Thornhill Dwardu Cardona wrote: The orthodox discipline of physics is bending, if not yet breaking. Check the article - "Faster Than a Speeding Photon" - by David H. Freedman, in the August 1998 issue of DISCOVER, pp. 71 ff. The best of the lot, however, is Bernard Haisch who has declared that "twentieth-century physics is as silly as Ptolemaic cosmology - and as wrong." Haisch is on record for stating that "general relativity and quantum mechanics are both entirely erroneous theories. No matter that they both have a long history of stunning agreement between prediction and experiment. The Ptolemaic system had great agreement with observation, too. But it was silly." Wal sez: I agree with that assessment. Dwardu continues: And here's something for Thornhill: According to Haisch, "photons are just particles of electromagnetic energy." Wal opines: I disagree. Photons are not particles nor are they comprised of electromagnetic energy. Dwardu again: Granted, Haisch's model of the Universe is not yet quite in agreement with Thornhill's version. Wal: You said it. Most other versions are from physicists who have a lot to unlearn before they can make any real headway. Me, I'm a slow learner - so now I've got a head start. Dwardu: But, as anyone can see on reading this article, physicists seem to be growing weary, if not wary, of the orthodox model. Haisch's ideas have also struck a chord with NASA officials. In fact, he has landed a contract from NASA which is providing partial funding for his continuing research. Wal asks: How can I get some? Dwardu asks: Are we actually getting there? Is this a step FORWARD? Or merely a SIDEWAYS swipe? Wal replies: I believe we must slowly get there but we will we be tempted down a lot of blind alleys marked on old maps of scientific "truth". However, it is a good sign when more physicists begin to express Their doubts instead of merely giggling nervously in lectures when their peers spout the most outrageous nonsense. Wal Thornhill ---------------------------------------------- EXCERPTS FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO _Seeing Red, Quasars, Cosmologies and Academic Science_ by Halton Arp "I believe the observational evidence has become overwhelming, and the Big Bang has in reality been toppled. There is now a need to communicate the new observations, the connections between objects and the new insights into the workings of the universe- all the primary obligations of academic science, which has generally tried to suppress or ignore such dissident information." "The present book is sure to outrage many academic scientists. Many of my professional friends will be greatly pained. Why then do I write it? First, everyone has to tell the truth as they see it, especially about important things. The fact that the majority of professionals are intolerant of even opinions which are discordant makes change a necessity. Those friends of mine who also struggle to get the mainstream of astronomy back on track mostly feel that presenting evidence and championing new theories is sufficient to cause change, and that it is improper to criticize an enterprise to which they belong and value highly. I disagree, in that I think if we do not understand why science is failing to self-correct, it will not be possible to fix it." "This, then, is the crisis for the reasonable members of the profession. With so many alternative, contradictory theories, many of them fitting the evidence very badly, abandoning the accepted theory is a frightening step into chaos. At this point, I believe we must look for salvation from the non-specialists, amateurs and interdisciplinary thinkers-those who form judgments on the general thrust of the evidence, those who are skeptical about any explanation, particularly official ones, and above all are tolerant of other people's theories." "The only hope I see is for the more ethical professionals and the more attentive, open-minded non professionals to combine their efforts to form a more democratic science with better judgment, and slowly transform the subject into an enlightened, more useful activity of society. This is the deeper reason I wrote this book and, although it will cause distress, I believe a painfully honest debate is the only exercise capable of galvanizing meaningful change." Halton Arp Reprinted by permission ---------------------------------------------- PLEASE VISIT THE KRONIA COMMUNICATIONS WEBSITE: http://www.kronia.com Subscriptions to AEON, a journal of myth and science, may be ordered at the I-net address below: http://www.ames.net/aeon/ Other suggested Web site URL's for more information about Catastrophics: 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. Amy Acheson 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