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 I, No. 17 June 30, 1997 EDITOR: Michael Armstrong PUBLISHER: Walter Radtke CONTENTS: VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS.......................David Talbott PLANET'S TAIL OF THE UNEXPECTED...................Jeff Hecht RALPH SANSBURY'S GRAVITY.......................Wal Thornhill GRAVITY NEWS ITEM............................... Ian Tresman New URL Section ----------------------------------------------- Quote of the day: "New opinions are always suspected and usually opposed without any other reason but because they are not already common knowledge." John Locke -------------------------------------- VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS David Talbott (dtalbott at teleport.com) [EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first in a series of articles on the myth of the comet Venus.] In _Worlds in Collision_, Velikovsky noted many tales of disaster and upheaval in which the agent of destruction possesses cometary attributes, even as it is identified with the _planet_ Venus. The anomalous "cometary" traits of Venus in world mythology thus became key pieces of the argument, and the strength of the argument derived from the breadth of sources. Velikovsky did not rely on traditions of one region only, but drew on key evidences from every ancient civilization. He noted, for example, that in Mexican record, Venus was "the smoking star" the very phrase natives employed for a "comet." He noted in both the Americas and the Near East, a recurring association of Venus with celestial "hair" and with a celestial "beard," two of the most common hieroglyphs for the comet in the ancient world. But another popular glyph for the "comet" was the serpent or dragon, a form taken by the planet Venus in virtually every land. And the same planet, among the Babylonians and other races, was called the "flame," or "torch of heaven," a widespread symbol of a comet among ancient peoples. According to Velikovsky, the history of the comet Venus, inspiring the most powerful themes of ancient myth and ritual, speaks for a collective memory of global upheaval: earthshaking battles in the sky, decimation of nations on earth, an extended period of darkness, the end of one world age and the birth of another. BOB FORREST When it comes to debunking Velikovsky's historical argument, no critic has applied himself more energetically than Bob Forrest of England. In a six volume work, _Velikovsky's Sources_, Forrest undertook to analyze virtually every historical reference employed by Velikovsky, concluding that, when taken in their actual context, the data brought forth by Velikovsky simply do not support the thesis of _Worlds in Collision_. Forrest's work was later updated, corrected and summarized in a very readable volume called A Guide to _Velikovksy's Sources_. which is the source we will use in this overview. Since publication of the latter work in 1985, Forrest's critique has been frequently cited by scientific skeptics as a definitive blow to Velikovsky, delivered on Velikovsky's own turf (ancient myth and history). And whatever one's opinion on the merits of Forrest's analysis, it is to his credit that, in the forty years since publication of Worlds in Collision, his work is the only substantial critique of Velikovsky's use of myth. "Despite the scholarly appearance of Velikovsky's work," Forrest writes, "I think the theories put forward in Worlds in Collision are wrong at an elementary and common sense level." And what, at an "elementary level," does Forrest object to? "The gist of the objection to it is that one will nowhere find anything like a direct historical reference to catastrophic bombardments by the planets Venus and Mars." Having devoted more than twenty years to the exploration of myth, I find the objection particularly interesting because my own conclusion is quite the opposite. The planetary subjects of Worlds in Collision are Venus and Mars, and the catastrophic roles of these planets in ancient times are not only evident, but provable through normal rules of logic and demonstration. (For the sake of focus, these brief submissions will consider only the cometary Venus.) It is not only possible to answer the question--was Venus formerly a "comet"?--but to answer the question in overwhelming detail, with verifiable data and an inescapable conclusion: Velikovsky's comet Venus lies very close to the center of ancient religious, artistic and literary traditions. How can it be that two researchers, approaching the same field of data, can draw such incompatible conclusions? The heart of the issue, I suggest, has to do with one's approach to the subject matter. In penetrating to the core of ancient celestial imagery, methodology is everything. VELIKOVSKIAN RESEARCH AND CATASTROPHISM The gap separating the mainstream sciences and social sciences from Velikovsky's revolutionary approach to myth needs to be appreciated: The Velikovskian investigator has discovered that none of the primary themes of myth answers to our familiar sky. Hence, to focus on recurring themes is to focus on the recurring anomalies of myth. But rather than confront the issue of recurring anomalies, Forrest descends into a swamp of marginal details, picking at virtually every paragraph of _Worlds in Collision_, while rigorously avoiding cross-referencing. As a result, the author consistently fails to see past the veil in which modern perception has wrapped ancient myth. It is as if general patterns and connections are of no interest. In every case of an anomaly noted by Velikovsky, Forrest's "answer" is simply to cite someone else's guess at an explanation (and I DO mean guess)--though many of the cited authorities offered their guesses prior to Velikovsky's novel interpretation, and none of these authorities seems aware of the larger pattern. In this way, Forrest reverses Velikovsky's approach, for Velikovsky connects anomalous Venus images of one land with corresponding anomalies from other parts of the world. Recurring anomalies, as correctly perceived by Velikovsky, are the key to discovery. Let me say at the outset that I have no interest in defending Velikovsky's every word. More than once, Velikovsky did misuse his sources. (I had stated this emphatically to others perhaps ten years before Bob Forrest's published criticisms) And my own opinion is that Velikovsky placed the events in the wrong time. Additionally, I think that many mythical-heroic figures Velikovsky assumed to have been historical were in fact part of a mythical tradition having nothing at all to do with men of flesh an blood.) Can globally-experienced events account for the recurring "catastrophe myths," or must they all be explained by wholly separate, localized disasters? If one resorts to the latter explanation, then no underlying integrity of catastrophe myths is even possible in significant detail. But the inescapable counterpart of this observation is that, if the myths of widespread cultures present the same improbable story in significant detail, then it is the localized explanation that becomes impossible. A reasonable methodology cannot ignore the convergence of recurring themes on an underlying idea, even if that idea stands outside modern perception. To make this point it will be helpful to start with a single example in one region, then work toward a comparison with the Venus symbolism of other lands. ---------------------------------------------- New Scientist (31 May 1997). PLANET'S TAIL OF THE UNEXPECTED http://www.newscientist.com/ns/970531/nvenus.html By Jeff Hecht, Boston One of our neighboring planets can still pack a few surprises, it seems. Using satellite data, an international team of researchers has found that Venus sports a giant, ion-packed tail that stretches almost far enough to tickle the Earth when the two planets are in line with the Sun. "I didn't expect to find it," says team member Marcia Neugebauer of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "It's a really strong signal, and there's no doubt it's real." NASA's Pioneer Venus Orbiter first found the tail in the late 1970s. Around 70,000 kilometres from the planet, the spacecraft detected bursts of hot, energetic ions, or plasma. The tail exists because ions in Venus's upper atmosphere are bombarded by the solar wind, a stream of plasma that blows out from the Sun. But now Europe's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), a project partly sponsored by NASA, has shown that the tail stretches some 45 million kilometres into space, more than 600 times as far as anyone realised. This satellite, which sits about 1·5 million kilometres away from the Earth, passed through the tail last July, when it was roughly in line with Venus and the Sun. Over a period of five hours, SOHO detected three unexpected bursts of between 35 and 60 oxygen and carbon ions. Each burst lasted less than 45 seconds. In the latest issue of Geophysical Research Letters (vol 24, p 1163), the team concludes that the satellite may have passed through three separate streams in the ion tail. Alternatively, it may have been a single filament that was "flapping" in the solar wind. "We don't know if we saw the same ray three times, or three different ones," Neugebauer says. Neugebauer suspects the tail is "a lot of little stringy things" like those of some comets, which can have several ion tails. If so, says Neugebauer, "the theorists are going to have fun trying to explain why they're as narrow as we saw them". Standard physics says that narrow plasma streams are unstable and should dissipate fast. No one can yet explain how they hold together over tens of millions of kilometres. The Earth and Jupiter are well shielded from the solar wind because they have magnetic fields, which deflect the ions. But because Venus has no magnetic field, the solar wind may have stripped away a significant amount of the ions in the planet's upper atmosphere over its lifetime of about 4.5 billion years. Janet Luhmann of the University of California at Berkeley says that this effect would have been strongest early in the life of the Solar System, when the Sun was more active. "It's likely the escape rate was much higher," she says. Scientists believe that interactions between sunlight and the surface of Venus were most important in shaping the composition of the planet's corrosive atmosphere, which is laden with sulphuric acid. Luhmann now speculates that the ion loss may also have played a role. Copyright New Scientist, IPC Magazines Limited 1997 Submitted by Ian Tresman ---------------------------------------------- RALPH SANSBURY'S WORK Wal Thornhill (walt at netinfo.com.au) Wal wrote: >>Ralph's work has enormous implications for physics and heralds >>a return to classical models of subatomic particles and away from the >>metaphysics which now underpin cosmology and particle physics. My >>humble view is that it is the breakthrough needed for fundamental >>science to progress once more. Questioner writes: >I look forward to it! Do you have any references to Ralph Sansbury's >work to keep me occupied till then? Wal replies: I think relevant copies of the Journal of Classical Physics may be obtained from Ralph by e-mail request to rns at concentric.net Ask about his other published material too. A good background in math and physics is desirable to understand the work, but from what you have said that should suit you. Wal answers another question: >>In answer to your second question, I think the fact that the >>gravitational "constant", G, measured on the Earth, is so inconstant is >>evidence for a connection. It would be interesting to see if G was >>measured at the time of a rotational "glitch" caused by dumping of >>charge on the Earth by a solar flare. I would expect an anomalous >>result. Questioner writes: >How to you figure this? Is it speculation or are there scientific findings >that suggest this? It's an idea that I haven't followed up yet. The line of reasoning goes like this: 1. It is known that the Earth's rotation changes suddenly when it intercepts a mass of charged particles hurled from the Sun by a major flare. The rotation asymptotically recovers to its pre-glitch value over a period of months. 2. A rotating charged body has a proportion of its moment of inertia attributable to the charge. Change the charge and you change the moment of inertia. The body speeds up or slows down accordingly. 3. I, and others, have argued that mechanism (2) applies to the Earth and explains (1) best. 4. If Sansbury's electrostatic polarization model of gravity is correct, a change in the electrostatic charge on the Earth's surface will affect the Earth's gravity directly and should show a sudden change followed by an asymptotic return to its former value as the charge leaks away. It may be that the change in G is down in the noise of the experimental determinations. Certainly, the readings would have to be compared from the one laboratory since determinations of G at different laboratories often exhibit inexplicable differences and variations. I am suggesting here a cause of those variations in G and a correlation with solar flares which has never been contemplated, so presumably hasn't been looked for. Questioner continues: > How is the strength of gravity determined on other planets? Has >gravity and density/mass been determined independent of each >other for planets, or has one been used to calculate the other? If >they are not determined separately, how can we be sure both are >correct since we don't even really know what causes gravity? Wal replies: Density has not been determined independently from gravity, therefore statements about the density of planets are not worth much. It is well known that there are severe problems in estimating core composition and sizes in some planets and moons from standard models because of their calculated average densities. Questioner: >I thought as much; kind of nice to have self-confirming measurements. >So then, astronomers must be able to predict the planetary motions >only because of the stability of the present planetary system (assuming >an electrical link to gravity). Wal comments: Yes, in my view we owe the stability of our n-body system to the hypothesized link between charge on a planet and the planet's gravity. It gets around the old problem of how can electrical forces between planets play any part in modifying their orbits when the solar plasma shields from such forces. Electrical forces obviously don't play a role (unless two planets approach very closely and the plasma sheaths contact). But gravity is not shielded by plasma at all. An example of what I mean by the stabilizing influence: A planet with an unstable orbit will exhibit increasing eccentricity in its orbit. There will be an increasing radial component of motion relative to the Sun. In the electrically stressed plasma enveloping the Sun, this would result in a modification of the charge exchange between the planet and the solar plasma. (An extreme example is the comet where the charge exchange is energetic enough to create light and even x-rays in the enclosing plasma). As the eccentric planet moves toward the Sun, increasing positive charge would be accumulated from the solar wind which would reduce the negative surface charge, which would reduce the electrostatic polarization, which would reduce gravity, which would reduce the inward acceleration, which would reduce the eccentricity. The reverse argument applies as the planet moves radially away from the Sun, with the result gravity increases and the eccentricity is reduced on this leg too. Planets which orbit too closely to one another will suffer charge exchange via the plasma sheath of the inner planet (magnetotail in old-speak) once each synodic period which, by transfer of positive charge from the inner planet to the outer planet, will tend to push the orbits apart. Bode's law presumably results from this electro-gravitic form of the least-interaction principle. If so, isn't Nature wonderful!? In my opinion, it is the only plausible way we could achieve the current low eccentricity solar system from the breakup of a Saturnian system only thousands of years ago. Wal Thornhill ----------------------------------------------- GRAVITY NEWS ITEM See this item from Science Frontiers, Full report at: http://www.knowledge.co.uk/frontiers/sf074/sf074a05.htm SOLAR ECLIPSE AFFECTS A PENDULUM ---AGAIN! The period of a Foucault pendulum located at Jassy University, Romania, was carefully monitored during the solar eclipse of February 15, 1981....the pendulum produced a perturbation by describing an ellipse whose major axis deviated in relation to the initial plane by approximately 15°. Submitted by Ian Tresman ----------------------------------------------- "Geomagnetism a Gravity Measured by Magnetic Material: The Infinite or Finite Speed of Gravity and Light?", by Ralph Sansbury, published 1994 by CP Institute, 492 Rockefeller Plaza, New York City, NY 10185. Sansbury has also posted a summary of his thesis in talk.origins under the title "Velikovsky like theory of gravity and magnetism", and other newsgroups under the title "Electrostatic Magnetism & Gravity". A copy of the post appeared in the SIS Internet Digest 1996:1. The original post can probably be found using the DejaNews Usenet Newsgroup search service at http://www.dejanews.com Submitted by Ian Tresman ----------------------------------------------- PLEASE VISIT THE KRONIA COMMUNICATIONS WEBSITE-- http://www.kronia.com/~kronia/ Other suggested Web site URL's for more information about Catastrophics: http://www.ames.net/aeon/ http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/sis/ http://www.flash.net/~cjransom/ http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/velikovskian/ http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/Catastrophism.html http://www.grazian-archive.com/ http://www.tcel.com/~mike/paper.html http://nt.e-z.net/mikamar/default.html ----------------------------------------------- The THOTH electronic newsletter is an outgrowth of scientific and scholarly discussions in the emerging field of astral catastrophics. Our initial focus will be 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 installments in issues of THOTH posted on the Kronia website listed above. Go to the THOTH page and click on the image titled "Thoth: the Egyptian God of Knowledge" to access the back issues. Michael Armstrong Mikamar Publishing mikamar at e-z.net