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. 6
March 31, 1999

EDITOR:  Amy Acheson
PUBLISHER:  Michael Armstrong
LIST MANAGER:  Brian Stewart 

CONTENTS
STEREOSCOPIC VIEWPOINT OF CATASTROPHICS. . . . . . by Amy Acheson
THE BIG BANG AS A RELIGIOUS WORK . . . . . . . .by Dwardu Cardona
SHOEMAKER-LEVI SPECULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . .By Wal Thornhill
SUMMARY OF RALPH JUERGEN'S ELECTRIC SUN MODEL. . by Wal Thornhill
----------------------------------------------

STEREOSCOPIC VIEWPOINT OF CATASTROPHICS
By Amy Acheson

Titus FitzImeter
Said, "The planimeter
Agoragraphs a vicinity."
Herein he was right,
But he scarcely shed light
On the Circular Points at Infinity.
~_The Space Child's Mother Goose_

While the Discipline of Catastrophics may not illuminate infinity 
any more than Titus FitzImmeter's planimeter, its tremendous 
scope gives it an advantage over traditional science and religion 
as a tool for understanding the recent history of the solar 
system.  And this is why:

Science, in its quest to explain every detail of a stable system, 
closes an eye to mythology.  It assumes that the ancients didn't 
understand creation, evolution, astronomy, geology, etc., in the 
same way that modern science does.  Therefore, everything they 
said, every observation they preserved was wrong.  A myth is a 
myth, a story made up to explain a world too complex for a 
primitive mind to comprehend.

Religion, in its quest to preserve the authority of a turbulent 
past, closes the other eye.  It assumes that the more ancient the 
source, the closer to reality, with divine revelation the 
ultimate source of human understanding.  Science, at best, 
becomes pitiful guesses by unworthy humans and, at worst, evil 
corruption.  

The Discipline of Catastrophics concentrates on a limited time 
and space [thousands of years, one tiny solar system], but 
because it observes these events with both the analytic eye of 
science and the mythical eye of religion, it has a stronger sense 
of depth.  Catastrophists experience a stereoscopic perception by 
comparing the stability of today's solar system with the unstable 
alien sky which so troubled our ancestors.

Let's look at, for example, the concept of creation.  Both 
science and mythology picture it as an explosion - one of matter, 
the other of light.  Mythology has it affecting the universe in 
specific ways, but the known universe was smaller then.  For 
science, the universe is older and larger, so the explosion from 
which it began must to be larger and more ancient, as well.

Through the stereoscopic viewpoint of Catastrophics, we can place 
creation/BIG BANG into perspective.  We can conclude that the 
explosion occurred within human memory, but before recorded 
history. We can deduce from mythological correspondences what it 
was that exploded and from astronomical details where the 
explosion took place. The scope of creation was "universal" to 
our ancestors, but tiny compared to our present understanding of 
the concept "universal".

Observed in this perspective, the BIG BANG is reduced to a local, 
recent event, but the universe regains its status as infinite and 
eternal, or at least a lot bigger and older than we currently 
imagine.

Amy Acheson
Thoth at Whidbey.com
----------------------------------------------

THE BIG BANG AS A RELIGIOUS WORK
By Dwardu Cardona

Wal Thornhill wrote:

. . . when confronted with the conclusions drawn from the 
standard solar model, which is central to modern cosmology, I 
agree with Gregg Easterbrook who wrote in The New Republic of 
last October 12; "... for sheer extravagant implausibility, 
nothing in theology or metaphysics can hold a candle to the [Big] 
Bang. Surely, if this description of the cosmic genesis came from 
the Bible or the Koran rather than the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology, it would surely be treated as a preposterous myth."

CARDONA OFFERS:

But the theory DID come from a religious work. Here's a short 
selection from [not yet published] Chapter 1 of GOD STAR by 
Dwardu Cardona:

Begin quote:

In fact, even that so-called pillar of astrophysics, the Big Bang 
Theory, had been much earlier posited in a RELIGIOUS work.

In the Book of Genesis, Elohim, usually translated into English 
as "God," begins the creation with the words: "Let there be 
light." And, it is there written, "there was light." There have 
been many who have seen a similarity between this description of 
beginnings and the Big Bang Theory. The following, one of several 
such, comes from a popular work devoted to the mysteries of the 
Bible:

"Prevailing scientific theory proposes that the universe was 
created in a flash of light. This 'big bang,' or cosmic 
explosion, is believed to have occurred some 16 billion years 
ago. Some see parallels between this modern, scientific theory 
and the biblical account which opens with God's command, 'Let 
there be light'."

Granted, on its own, this similarity is not enough for one to 
claim that the theory in question had already been posited in a 
religious work. The Book of Genesis is not, however, the 
religious work I have in mind. So bear with me for a while.

George Gamow is the acclaimed father of the Big Bang Theory. But 
before Gamow there was Georges Lemaitre who, in 1927, was the 
first to propose that a hot, dense, primeval "atom" had exploded, 
flinging its contents outward to create the universe. With the 
advent of the theory in question, Pope Pius XII himself had it 
stated that "scientists are beginning to find the finger of god 
in the creation of the universe." Lemaitre, who was a Catholic 
priest besides being a physicist, was later decorated by the 
Vatican for his scientific achievements.

To be quite fair, in developing his theory of the expanding 
universe, Lemaitre had relied on the principles of general 
relativity. But, since he was also well versed in the discipline 
of theology, could he not also have come across that great 
medieval commentary on Biblical Scripture known as the Ramban? In 
1990, in a book titled GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG, the Israeli 
nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder argued in detail that there is 
no contradiction to be found between the account of creation as 
described in Genesis and the current scientific dictum. Moreover, 
as Schroeder noted, "the Ramban ... had the remarkably modern 
insight that at the moment after creation, all the matter in the 
universe must have been concentrated in a tiny speck." Tell me 
that this insight is not identical to that reached by Lemaitre?

End of quote.

Dwardu.
----------------------------------------------

SHOEMAKER-LEVI SPECULATIONS
By Wal Thornhill

Jim Bowles wrote:

Shumacher-Levy, of course, blew up.

CARDONA BUTTS IN:

Shoemaker-Levy did not blow up. It broke apart.

Dwardu.

WAL THORNHILL ADDS:

The comet may never have been a single object. Tom Van Flandern 
has proposed that asteroids and comets may be comprised of 
several closely orbiting pieces that are separated when the more 
powerful gravitational influence of a planet or the Sun 
overwhelms the weak gravitational binding force between them.

Tom was partly vindicated by the unexpected and serendipitous 
discovery that asteroid Ida has a tiny "moon". He proposes that 
such objects were created by a "recently" exploded planet, 
possibly in a nova-like outburst. But there is no good 
conventional explanation for such stellar explosions.

In the electrical model of the formation of asteroids and comets, 
they have a common origin in a stream of gas and matter removed 
from a planet by a powerful electric discharge. The solids cover 
a wide range of sizes from dust to planetessimals. The 
opportunity for gravitational and electrostatic "clumping 
together" is very high under these circumstances but far less for 
a simple mechanical explosion. Clumping is a phenomenon evidenced 
in chondritic meteorites where the meteorite has been formed from 
gas, dust, aspheric molten droplets and splintered pieces of pre-
existing solids. The lack of sphericity of the glassy droplets is 
a great puzzle to astronomers since the weightlessness and vacuum 
of space is the ideal environment for liquids acting under 
surface tension to form perfect spheres. The droplets were frozen 
as they were being accelerated, either by electrical forces or by 
the gaseous blast of the cosmic "thunderclap".

Strong evidence for the electrical model is found in the 
chondrules within such meteorites. They all show evidence of 
complex surface effects which I believe could be easily 
replicated in a plasma oven. (Refer to my CD for a much fuller 
explanation). It all points very strongly to a form of 
"lightning" having been responsible for some of the features 
found in meteorites. Several astronomers have subscribed to that 
view but placed the event in a pre-planetary nebula. The problem 
with that scenario is that the minerals in most meteorites show 
that they have come from a pre-existing planet.

Back to the argument: there is the likelihood that the break up 
of comets like Shoemaker-Levy 9 is also affected by electrical 
forces when plasma discharges impinge preferentially on one 
component of the comet or another. That could create impulsive 
electrostatic forces between the components and will change the 
gravitational force between them as well. Many comets have been 
seen to break up during their bright, electrically active phase.

Wal Thornhill
----------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF RALPH JUERGEN'S ELECTRIC SUN MODEL
By Wal Thornhill

I have attempted to paraphrase Ralph Juergen's argument several 
times in the past but because it is so important I'll do it 
again. At the outset let me acknowledge the fine work done by Dr 
Earl Milton in publishing Ralph's work "Electric Discharge as the 
Source of Solar Radiant Energy"  (KRONOS VIII Nos. 1 and 2), 
after the author's untimely death in 1979.
.................................................
The standard model of a star assumes that the physical isolation 
of a star in space is total. Therefore all of its radiant energy 
must be generated internally. This model was developed chiefly by 
Sir Arthur Eddington in his classic work  "The Internal 
Constitution of Stars", first printed in 1926. He wrote, in 
Chapter 1, "Survey of the Problem": "The problem of the source of 
a star's energy will be considered; by a process of exhaustion we 
are driven to conclude that the only possible source of a star's 
energy is subatomic; yet it must be confessed that the hypothesis 
shows little disposition to accommodate itself to the detailed 
requirements of observation, and a critic might count up a large 
number of 'fatal ' objections." Almost all of the efforts by 
theorists since then has been to gloss over the 'fatal' 
objections (note that the use of quotes in the original seems to 
imply that the objections are not fatal) . The worst fatality is 
that the neutrinos that we should expect, if the sun's engine is 
ticking over as advertised, do not exist in anywhere near the 
numbers required. 

Of course, since Eddington's work early this century, space has 
been found to be surprisingly populated with charged particles 
which provide high electrical conductivity. But, as Juergens 
notes, astronomers prefer an invisible source of energy inside 
the sun to an invisible source of energy that surrounds the solar 
system and is connected subtly to the Sun.

"Electricity or more appropriately, electric discharge, since we 
are concerned with a phenomenon occurring in a gaseous medium-
seems to offer precisely the qualities of "subtle radiation" that 
we are looking for. Electric discharge is a known and observable 
phenomenon, yet we might live immersed in a cosmic discharge and 
know nothing of its existence. Without understanding its ultimate 
nature any more than we understand the nature of the 
gravitational field, we know that the electric field is 
potentially one of the greatest storehouses of energy in the 
universe. Electric discharge offers phenomena so numerous and so 
diverse that we have little trouble finding analogs for every 
observable feature of the Sun." (Juergens, Kronos VIII, No. 1, 
pp. 5-6).

Juergens makes the interesting observation that Alfven, the 
father of  cosmic plasma physics, considered the anode region of 
a discharge as "rather unimportant" and has led everyone since to 
believe that is so.

"Electrons, by virtue of their lesser mass and higher mobility 
compared with positive ions, usually initiate discharges and 
ordinarily carry a disproportionate share of the current. On this 
basis, apparently, it is assumed that the source of the electrons 
is more essential, and hence inherently more interesting, than 
the anode. The shortsightedness of such reasoning may be 
demonstrated simply by pointing out that cathodeless discharges 
are not unknown. ...

Transmission lines carrying high-voltage direct current electric 
trolley wires, for example discharge almost continuously to the 
surrounding air. In the case of a positive (anode) wire electrons 
ever present in the Earth's atmosphere drift toward the wire, 
attracted by its positive charge. As they penetrate the 
increasingly intense electric field close to the wire, the 
electrons gain energy from the field and are accelerated to 
energies great enough to initiate electron avalanches as they 
collide with and ionize air molecules. The avalanching electrons, 
in turn, intensify the ionization immediately surrounding the 
wire. Positive ions, formed in the process, drift away from the 
wire in the electric field. In this way, a more or less steady 
discharge is maintained, although there is no tangible object 
other than the surrounding air that can be considered a cathode. 

Such a discharge is classed as a corona discharge. The region of 
intense activity close to the wire is referred to as the coronal 
envelope. And since so few "cathode" electrons are involved, and 
since they move so quickly through the outer region of the 
discharge, most of the current in this outer region is carried by 
the positive ions." (ibid., p. 7).

The Electric Sun model provides a cathodeless discharge centred 
on the Sun (as the anode) with two key observed characteristics 
of the Sun: the solar corona (what irony in using the same term, 
although a corona usually means a discharge at atmospheric 
pressure!) and the solar wind.

To understand more about the Electric Sun we need to look at 
laboratory low-pressure glow discharges.

Most people will remember seeing a demonstration at school of a 
long glass evacuated tube with metal disc electrodes at each end 
connected to a source of high voltage DC. You may recall the 
resulting glows emanating from the discs, at various places along 
the tube, and from the glass walls. For those who had a vacuum 
pump, you will have seen the glows move and disappear as the 
pressure was reduced. A neon sign is a conspicuous application of 
a low-pressure glow discharge.

However, don't confuse the light from a neon tube with the 
mechanism that lights up the Sun.

The glow from the neon tube is produced in the "positive column" 
of the discharge. The positive column is a typical plasma having 
equal concentrations of positive ions and of electrons, with the 
electron temperature very high - sufficient to maintain the 
degree of ionization required to carry the electric current. The 
glowing positive column is formed only in thin tubes because in 
an extended plasma a much lower degree of ionization is 
sufficient to carry the current. Also there is no continual loss 
of ions to the tube walls to be compensated for. Bear in mind 
that the Sun operates in a very extended spherical plasma, most 
of it of much lower density than that used in neon tubes. In that 
case the positive column will not appear.

Why don't we see a stream of energetic charged particles heading 
toward the Sun if it is truly electrically powered?

The bulk of a glow discharge is comprised of a "cool" plasma, 
that is an equal number of positive ions and electrons moving 
randomly, or thermally. Superimposed on that random motion is a 
drift of electrons toward the anode and positive ions toward the 
cathode. It is the cool plasma that behaves very much like a 
metal conductor (except that it has two charge carriers instead 
of just electrons). In a copper wire the entire current is 
carried by electrons drifting very slowly from one end to the 
other. The total current carried in the cool plasma by the two 
opposite drifts constitutes the discharge current. The electric 
field gradient in that cool plasma is very low. In such an 
environment we would be hard-pressed to detect that we were 
inside a glow discharge. The field strength is high only in the 
cathode and anode "sheaths" where the imbalance in positive and 
negative charges is marked. Juergens has identified most of the 
space from the solar corona out to the heliopause as devoted to 
the negative glow region of a glow discharge. The chromosphere 
forms the limit of that region on the anode side. The photosphere 
is identified as the first anode phenomenon.

So, what might we expect to find in space near the Earth if we 
occupy the negative glow region? James Cobine writes in his 
textbook "Gaseous Conductors" in section 8.5 Cathode Phenomena 
and Negative Glow: " an appreciable fraction if not nearly all of 
the electrons entering the negative glow from the Crookes dark 
space have a range [of energies] corresponding to the entire 
cathode drop." In other words, if we accept the estimate from 
Juergens, electrons will be accelerated toward the Sun with a 
range of energies up to almost the full potential difference 
between the Sun and the surrounding plasma, 10 billion volts. As 
Dr Earl Milton pointed out in his editorial of Juergens' KRONOS 
article, such relativistic electrons cause "effects not seen in 
more mundane discharges". It tends to cause the discharge current 
to become self-limiting allowing the observed range of stellar 
luminosities.

But back to the question: it is a simple matter to equate the 
observed energy output of the Sun with the energy of incoming 
relativistic electrons (they must be responsible for the solar 
energy in this model since ions are emitted with low energies 
from the Sun). It requires 3,000 relativistic electrons per cubic 
metre at the Earth's orbital distance, streaming toward the Sun. 
Measurements in the Earth's vicinity give a range of 9 to 11 
million electrons per cubic metre (mostly thermal secondaries 
generated by ionization of solar gases). Juergens writes: "Thus 
it would appear that, if but one in every 3,000 electrons near 
the Earth turned out to be a current carrier moving at almost the 
speed of light toward the Sun, the power delivered would be 
enough to keep the Sun 'burning' at its present rate. This seems 
a rather subtle stream but it would suffice to power the Sun." 
Why haven't we seen these relativistic electrons? Juergens says: 
"Detection may be made difficult ... by the fact that such fast 
electrons quickly charge up the detecting instruments to the 
point where they repel electron currents. Probes of presently 
feasible proportions may be unable to carry apparatus sufficient 
to maintain suitable potentials on electron detecting devices 
...".

I mentioned that the light from the Sun does not come from a 
positive column effect. It comes from the bright granules that 
form the photosphere. They are an anode phenomenon occurring when 
the anode is small in relation to the discharge current. As 
Cobine writes in section 8.12 Anode Phenomena: "The presence of 
impurities and the evolution of gas may cause local points of 
high activity which appear as luminous regions." Stars are well 
constructed to provide gas to the anode discharge. In fact, the 
chromosphere of the Sun exhibits the same sheath of negative 
hydrogen ions observed in Earth-based anodes fed with the gas. So 
the bright granulations are the result of cool neutral gas from 
below the photosphere (at the temperature seen in the umbrae of 
sunspots) being injected into the anode glow region, or 
chromosphere of the Sun by solar lightning, which magnetically 
compresses and heats the gas to incandescence, ionizes some of it 
and accelerates it vertically - giving a superficial appearance 
of convection. It is actually a means to provide more electrons 
to carry the current load at the anode. The relatively quiet, 
orderly behaviour of the photospheric granulations as they grow, 
fade, split and combine is characteristic of anode "tufting" but 
has no sensible explanation in terms of convection.

Because anode tufting occurs above the true anode surface we do 
not know the actual size of the Sun. It explains why the 
photosphere is almost perfectly spherical despite the Sun's 
rotation (sometimes it is actually prolate!) - its shape is 
constrained by electrical forces far more powerful than 
centrifugal rotation effects. It provides an answer to how the 
diameter of the Sun can change over short intervals of time in 
response to changes in its electrical environment.  Also, if the 
Sun's differential rotation is driven electrically from outside, 
it explains how that rotation rate can vary quite markedly and 
why sunspots seem to plough through the photosphere as if they 
were evidence of invisible magnetic stirrers, dipping into the 
Sun.

Juergens felt that the solar wind is an electric wind created by 
collisions of ions accelerated in the chromospheric plasma 
sheath, with neutral hydrogen. The chromosphere is where we have 
the lowest "temperature" and most rapid heating found on the Sun. 
Actually, the concept of temperature in a plasma sheath is 
meaningless. The filamentary structures in the chromosphere and 
corona, seen down to the limit of resolution, are diagnostic of 
predominantly radial electric currents in these regions. I would 
take issue with the use of the word "wind". The solar wind is 
structured in a way that suggests it is a spiral of Birkeland 
currents feeding a plasmoid shaped like a twisted doughnut that 
encircles the Sun very closely. As shown in laboratory 
experiments, such a plasmoid can store considerable energy. That 
energy is released at intervals by discharging to the surface of 
the Sun. Solar flares and Coronal Mass Ejection events result 
from particularly violent discharges.

The glow discharge model predicts that at the boundary of the 
Sun's influence (termed the heliopause and considered 
conventionally to be a purely mechanical shock phenomenon) the 
ion (proton) current from the Sun will be accelerated through 
almost the full potential difference between the Sun and the 
surrounding plasma - estimated by Juergens at around 10 billion 
volts. Here is a possible answer to the puzzle of the origin of 
cosmic rays. As Juergens pointed out, most are likely the "spent" 
ions from other stars. Their range of energies gives a measure of 
the driving potentials suffered by other stars. It also provides 
a check on the reasonableness of Juergens' estimate for the Sun. 
Interestingly, there is a gap in the energy spectrum of cosmic 
rays. The most highly energetic are probably released from the 
plasma focus activities at the centre of active galaxies.

I have briefly covered some of the most obvious phenomena 
associated with the Sun and shown how they may be coherently and 
simply explained by the glow discharge model. However, some 
people have objected that such a star could not form in the first 
place. I will attempt to answer that next.

Wal Thornhill
----------------------------------------------

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 through the Kronia website or by calling toll free:
1-800-230-9347
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/  [NEW ADDRESS]
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://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.
---