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. 8 May 31, 1999 EDITOR: Amy Acheson PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart CONTENTS ENTERTAINING CONTRADICTORY THEORIES. . . . . . . by Amy Acheson DESERT GEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Walter Radtke SATURN CONFIGURATION DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . .Wal Thornhill, Robert Lugibihl, Dwardu Cardona ANOMOLOUS OUTBURSTS . . . Ev Cochrane, Amy Acheson, Wal Thornhill ELECTRIC UNIVERSE IN THE NEWS . . . . . . Canberra Times article THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING . . . . . . . . . . . . by Paul Davies Response by Wal Thornhill ---------------------------------------------- ENTERTAINING CONTRADICTORY THEORIES By Amy Acheson In the early stages of solving a jigsaw puzzle, you need to sort the pieces into general categories - blue ones here, green there, yellow flowers there, black lines down here, and so on. It helps to be aware of how general these categories are (lack of appropriate generality incorporates assumptions that are - and may remain - unconscious.) Until you become more familiar with the puzzle, you need to think of one category of pieces as "blue", not "sky". Otherwise, you're going to have trouble when you look for pieces that fit into, say, the lake. Halton Arp describes this with respect to galactic redshifts in astronomy: "What every astronomer measures in the spectrum of a galaxy is the percentage by which a line is shifted from its laboratory wavelength. Astronomers habitually say they measure a velocity. That is incorrect. What they measure is a redshift, what they infer is a velocity. The only astronomer I ever knew who was meticulously accurate about this was Fritz Zwicky, who always used the term 'indicative' recession velocity." Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, 1987, pg. 115 How do we apply this to the discipline of Catastrophics? Science at its best is meticulous in its research, and should also be meticulous in acknowledging the degree of confidence of any given statement. Is this evidence? Is it a conclusion? Is it a speculation? If it's taken from someone else's work, then whose? Dwardu Cardona's note from the Saturn Configuration Discussion (below) is an excellent example: "(NOTE: The above constitute MY opinions. My Saturnist colleagues should not be burdened with them unless it is definitely known that they agree with them.)" Stating the level of generality allows the speaker to propose ideas which may be speculative and beyond the scope of the body of confirmed research, maybe even wrong. At the same time, exploring several ideas which may be contradictory can open the way to new insights. (NOTE: the above editorial is MY opinion ... ) Amy Acheson Thoth at Whidbey.com ---------------------------------------------- DESERT GEMS by Walter Radtke This just orbited across my monitor & I thought I'd pass it on. An Italian geologist has taken a close look at the beautiful translucent scarab in a pectoral, or necklace, found by Howard Carter among the treasures of Tutankhamen. Carter thought the scarab was carved of greenish-yellow chalcedony. However, measuring its refraction revealed to Vincenzo De Michele that the gem consists of Libyan desert glass. This is a fused natural glass, formed by cooling molten sand. It results from the impact of a meteorite or comet or a low-altitude explosion in the atmosphere. What makes the scarab even more astonishing is that the nearest source of Libyan desert glass is 500 miles west of the Nile, in the Western desert. Half of this distance lies beyond any known oasis. The glass is scattered over an area 15 miles in diameter. However, no meteor crater has been found, and the event responsible for the glass remains mysterious. Best wishes, Walter That is very interesting indeed, Walter. Thanks for passing it on. I don't think the mechanism of formation of the natural glass is likely to be such a mystery. :-) Wal Thornhill ---------------------------------------------- SATURN CONFIGURATION DISCUSSION Wal Thornhill, Robert Lugibihl, Dwardu Cardona Robert & Dwardu, I just wanted to express my appreciation of the questions and answers in this thread. Dwardu's caveat about whether Saturn was captured by the Sun is important. In my opinion, stories about the primordial darkness, "purple dawn", Saturn's appearance, and first appearance of the stars are the places to look for clues. It seems to me that the Sun must either have been at great distance from the Saturnian system or else there was an obscuring cloud of dust preventing the Sun from having much effect on the light in the sky at an early epoch. >From the perspective of the Electric Universe, the capture scenario is more coherent. I have been writing an explanation of how stars are formed in an Electric Universe. Originally it was intended for the Thoth newsletter but it has grown to the point where I am offering it to Dwardu for inclusion in Aeon. I plan to speculate there about the implications of the model for the earlier environment on Earth, as a satellite of Saturn. Wal Thornhill ---------------------------------------------- .................... The last exchange is worth repeating:....... Robert Lugibihl wrote: Is it your opinion then that the timeless era occurred when Earth was a satellite of Saturn CARDONA REPLIES: Yes. ROBERT: and that the advent of day and night occurred when this Saturnian configuration (Saturn, Earth, Mars, Venus) was captured by the Sun? CARDONA: IF the Saturnian system was captured by the Sun (and please note the emphasis). This IS a possibility but NOT a certainty. If the Saturnian system was NOT captured by the Sun, the advent of day and night would have commenced at the clearing of the Saturnian nebular cloud within which the Saturnian system was enshrouded. In any case, whether the Saturnian system was, or was not, captured by the Sun, the Saturnian nebular, or placental, cloud would still have shielded the Sun from view until after Saturn's flare-up which, among other things, blew the placental cloud out of existence. ROBERT: And did the Golden Age begin with this capture? CARDONA: It is difficult to say WHEN the Golden Age COMMENCED. How does one calculate that? All I can say is that the Golden Age stretched over that period during which the Saturnian configuration was complete - that is with Venus and Mars in place at the centre of the Saturnian orb, but BEFORE the first visible descent of Venus and Mars. ROBERT: Also, is it your opinion that the Golden Age never experienced a true night as we experience today due to the close proximity of Saturn? CARDONA: That is correct. ROBERT: So day and night began when the Saturnian configuration was captured by the Sun, right? CARDONA: Again, IF the Saturnian system was captured by the Sun. But still, as stated above, day and night were instituted when Saturn's nebular cloud was blown away by Saturn's flare-up. ROBERT PREVIOUSLY: At what point does massive flooding come into the scenario? ... Do you believe that great quantities of water fell from the sky and/or world pillar in conjunction with the break-up? CARDONA: >From the world pillar during the break-up, definitely - despite Ted Holden's objection of many moons ago. ROBERT PREVIOUSLY: How long do you estimate the breakup took to occur, from the first disturbances at the twilight of the Golden Age to the relatively settled configuration we see today? CARDONA (ALSO PREVIOUSLY): That's anybody's guess. ROBERT: Would you consider throwing out a ballpark figure? 15,000 years? More? CARDONA: Heavens, no! A much shorter time than that. Not even a century. ROBERT PREVIOUSLY: At what point did Saturn's rings become visible...during the Golden Age, during the breakup or after the breakup? CARDONA (ALSO PREVIOUSLY): Depends WHICH ring(s) you are alluding to. Saturn "grew" and "lost" more than one set of rings. ROBERT: Did Saturn possess rings during the timeless era? CARDONA: No. ROBERT: During the Golden Age? CARDONA: Yes. (NOTE: The above constitute MY opinions. My Saturnist colleagues should not be burdened with them unless it is definitely known that they agree with them.) ---------------------------------------------- ANOMOLOUS OUTBURSTS Ev Cochrane, Amy Acheson, Wal Thornhill Ev Cochrane says: An item that might be of interest in light of our recent discussion with respect to the "nova" of 1054 and the difficulty of distinguishing a comet from a "new star." As is well-known, a brilliant comet appeared in the skies during the funeral games celebrated shortly after the death of Julius Caesar. We know it to have been a comet since Chinese sources from the same year clearly describe a comet. Yet it not without interest that various Latin writers called it a "new star". Part of the confusion, perhaps, stems from the propensity of comets to undergo anomalous outbursts. Here's a quote from a recent book devoted to Caesar's comet: "The July sighting in 44 was of an extremely bright, star-like object, surrounded by a slight radial coma, that maintained its high luminosity for at most seven days. This almost certainly the signature of an 'anomalous outburst'. Despite the name, anomalous outbursts are not particularly rare. Vsekhsvyatskii estimates that out of 79 recent comets, 59 have had outbursts. Even Comet 1P/Halley underwent a 9 magnitude increase in luminosity, on 15 February 1991, when it was some 14 A.U. out from the Sun." (J. Ramsey & A. Licht, "The Comet of 44 BC and Caesar's Funeral Games," 1997, p. 72). Astronomers attribute such "outbursts" to a violent explosion of gases. Amy adds: Astronomer Tom Van Flandern states that such outbursts commonly occur in long-term comets as they pass through the asteroid belt. He attributes this to the "sphere of influence" effect and claims it as evidence of an exploded planet (or other catastrophic event?) in the asteroid belt 3 million years ago. The reasoning goes like this: The "sphere of influence" (the ability to hold satellites) is a function of the diameter of an object and varies with the distance of that object to the next larger object (in most cases, the sun). If a planet exploded, the objects moving away from the sun in the initial explosion would clump together around the objects with the biggest sphere of influence, but when they returned to their place of origin for the first time, that sphere would be reduced to the smallest it has ever been, and even smaller, so the pieces would burst apart in "sudden brightening" when they reach the distance from the sun at which they originated. Wal Thornhill adds: Hmm, maybe. I agree with Tom about the breakup but that is probably not the whole answer. Some comets have flared on their outward journey, beyond Jupiter. On my CD I reproduce an illustration of a meteor fragmenting in the Earth's upper atmosphere. The fragments are connected by lightning. A long period comet as it swings toward the Sun will suffer increasing electric stress to the point where material is electrically machined from the surface and accelerated into space. Large fragments will be connected by "bridges" of light created by plasma discharge effects. It would be seen as a flare-up. The notion of volatiles "boiling off" a comet was dealt a blow by comet Hale-Bopp when it was found that much more dust was coming off than could be accounted for by volatiles like water ice. ---------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC UNIVERSE IN THE NEWS Simon Grose, Canberra Times, 12 April 1999. [Circulation 40,000]. Last Thursday in the S&T [Science & Technology] page we published a story about Echidna Technologies which operates from a small room in the recycling centre at Hume. Echidna's Dr George Fischer was pictured beside what looked like a huge vacuum flask. This was his first "triaxial testing apparatus" which produces immense pressures and temperatures and was described as "an earthquake in a bottle". It had been sold to the Chinese Government to be used to "get some sort of clue as to what the rocks do just before an earthquake happens so they can predict an earthquake a few weeks ahead", Dr Fischer said. In this week's S&T page we will publish a story describing how "crazy ants" are killing the red land crabs of Christmas Island "threatening to fundamentally alter the nature of the rainforest". The story will quote Dr Dennis O'Dowd, "director of Monash University's new Centre for the Analysis and Management of Biological Invasions". "This could be catastrophic," he says. "I can think of no impact as large as this by a single invader in such a short period of time." Like the Echidna story, this one has a Canberra connection in ANU research fellow Peter Green, one of O'Dowd's team. Both stories would be also be prime furphy suspects if published on April I with arousing headlines: World-first quake predictor triggers export bonanza for Canberra or Crazy ants massacre land crabs in tropical paradise eco-catastrophe. Both are very real, 100-percent genuine stories. Published in April, not on the 1st, they arouse no suspicion. But they show how close to the threshold of disbelief comes the weird and wonderful world of science and technology. The work of for other Canberra men of science also challenges that threshold. Wally Anfiloff of Spence, the author of the only genuine S&T article we published on April 1, has a sweeping alternative theory about the Earth's geology. A physics and geology graduate with 20 years government service, Wally says he is "the world's top tectonics expert" and ASIO has been trying to entice him to Russia "to conceal the collapse of the science, and to give the USA a free hand dumping nuclear waste in Australia". Wal Thornhill, of Chapman, is also a physics graduate. His Electric Universe theory strongly opposes mainstream astrophysics. Thornhill, who sells a CD ROM describing his theory, claims more than 90 per cent of the craters on planets and moons in the solar system were caused by huge lightning bolts, that the Sun's heat is not generated by nuclear fusion, and eruptions on Jupiter's moon Io are plasma discharges, not volcanoes. (His theory is outlined at www.kronia.com.) BRIAN SCHMIDT, from Mount Stromlo Observatory, leads one of two teams which announced last year that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. Schmidt is highly regarded in mainstream astrophysics, but he admits that the findings are astounding. He found them so hard to believe that he tried every possible way to disprove them before publishing. Almost 18 months later, they still stand. Bob Blanden, head of the division of Immunology and Cell Biology at the John Curtin School of Medical Research, is also a highly regarded figure in his area of science. When Peter Doherty and Rolf Zinkernagel won a Nobel Prize for Medicine for work done at the Curtin School under Blanden's supervision, many insiders felt that Blanden should have shared the award. Last year Blanden co-wrote a book, Lamarck's Signature, which proposes that acquired characteristics can be inherited. This defies Darwinian evolutionary principles, evoking jaded eyeball- rolling and head-shaking whenever senior molecular biologists gather together. Despite its radical nature, the work of Blanden and Schmidt is at the cutting edge of recognised scientific discovery, earning prominent positions on the safe side (just) of the threshold of disbelief The work of Anfiloff and Thornhill is more radical, but not much more. Enough, however, to tip them over the threshold into the outsider zone, from where they strive to deliver themselves by broaching the threshold or shifting it behind them. All men and women of science have to consider the threshold of disbelief and their relation to it. As Wal Thornhill notes on his CD: "If I have had an underlying purpose in my life it has been to watch for intellectual explorers who have been marginalised by their peers. They are often those who have the audacity to use their imagination, uncommon-sense and courage to challenge the paradigm paralysis institutionalised in western science. "We must not let the reputation of even an Einstein stand in our way when seeking better paradigms. We must simply allow for the possibility that he was wrong." Hopefully, the truth will eventually out, justice be done, and courage be rewarded. But don't expect any mercy on April 1. ---------------------------------------------- THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING BY PAUL DAVIES Response by Wal Thornhill Is it conceivable that the answers to life, the universe and everything are within our grasp? After all, science as we know it is barely three centuries old. Some leading scientists clearly think so. In Washington this week top physicists, cosmologists and philosophers will deliberate on how the Universe came to exist, our place in it, and a selection of cosmic destinies. Nobody will claim to know the answers to these Big Questions yet but discussing them is now almost commonplace in scientific circles. Cosmologists are convinced that the universe began with a big bang, and think they know more or less how it happened. They are pretty sure of the fine details after the first trillionth of a second or so. For the moment, physicists believe they are on the verge of a "theory of everything" linking all fundamental forces and particles of nature in a mathematical frame-work. Some key topics are still deeply mysterious. The origin of life and the nature of consciousness remain problematic. Nor can the experts agree on whether we are the only beings reflecting on the meaning of it all or whether the universe is teeming with sentient life forces asking the same questions, but the outline of a grand cosmic scheme is discernible, and those at the cutting edge of research are unashamedly exhilarated. Recent dramatic events, such as the discovery of planets orbiting other star systems, have given a sense of immediacy to the quest. Beneath these heady developments lies a profound philosophical puzzle. How are we able to make such progress? Why can humble Homo sapiens, a chance product of blind evolution, unravel the secrets of nature so spectacularly well? Most people take the success of science for granted. They assume that as long as the budget is big enough it can answer all questions but science is a very strange activity. Had it not been for some historical accidents, humans might never have stumbled across it at all. The founding tenet of science is that nature is ordered and intelligible, but the order isn't readily apparent. Revealing the underlying laws demands arcane procedures such as mathematical analysis and contrived experimentation. Why must the world be this way? Early scientists such as Galileo and Newton, steeped in Christianity, believed that God ordered the physical world according to a rational plan. By studying nature, the scientist might unveil the creator's handiwork. Since man was made in God's image, and therefore shared His rationality, humans could glimpse the mind of God in the mathematical architecture of the cosmos. Today few scientists would describe their work in such stark theological terms, but they all share, perhaps unwittingly, a belief that the universe conforms to a coherent rational scheme. Even if the rational order is accepted, we are left with the riddle of its intelligibility. Evolution has equipped us to solve certain practical problems, like spotting patterns and catching falling apples. Some philosophers argue that science is just an extension of these skills, but the mathematical order in the fundamental laws of physics is in a highly abstract and subtle form. The laws are uncovered only by intense intellectual and investigative effort. The order in the subatomic realm, for example, bears no relation to the patterns found in daily experience. When you catch a falling apple you don't apply the laws of Newtonian mechanics to compute a trajectory but compare the situation with experience and make a best-fit prediction. The fact that we can come to know the physical world not only phenomenologically (as in perceiving falling apples) but also theoretically (by understanding the laws of motion), suggests that our minds are tuned to the deep structure of nature unreasonably effectively. How far can this "cosmic resonance' take us? Do we have the power to grasp the answers to all the big questions of existence? Physicist Steven Weinberg called his most recent book Dreams of a Final Theory. He is one of many theoreticians who hope fervently that physics, at least, is a program that can be completed. Like Stephen Hawking, Weinberg envisages a mathematical formula encompassing everything at the subatomic level. It would predict in principle all the properties of matter, force, space and time and tell us also what happened at the beginning of the universe, the fate of an object that falls into a black hole and much else. The prospect of deducing such a formula is spurring much of the euphoria behind meetings like that in Washington, but could the triumphalism turn out to be little more than a touch of millennium madness? Perhaps physicists simply got lucky in the 20th century and cleaned up a lot of problems that were unusually easy for the human mind to handle. There is no guarantee that this trend will continue. When the next level of structure in the atom is probed we might encounter principles at work that are utterly beyond our ken. Phenomena such as consciousness might lie forever beyond human scope. It would be depressing if fundamental science just petered out in a fog of incomprehensibility. Nevertheless, there is no known reason why our minds should be built for the task of answering the big questions. We might be deluding ourselves to suppose that humans can be privy to the basic rules by which the universe runs. Einstein said once that God was subtle but not malicious. He meant that we could expect to work hard to quarry nuggets of truth using science, but the laws of nature would never prove to be so obscure or fiendishly complex that we couldn't discern them eventually. It is an inspiring belief and one that drives the engine of science in its restless search for truth, but it remains an article of pure faith. -The Guardian ...................... Paul Davies is Visiting Professor of Physics at Imperial College London, and author of The Mind of God. His latest book is The Fifth Miracle: The search for the Origin of Life. "Cosmic Questions" is the title of a conference at the Smithsonian in Washington, DC, which opens on Wednesday. ------------------------------------- Letter to the editor of the Canberra Times. You made an interesting editorial choice in the CT of 12/4. On page 12 was Simon Grose's column which mentioned four Canberra men challenging the threshold of science. I was one of them, arguing for a new astrophysics based on the powerful electrical force. Then on page 14 we find the antithesis of Simon's article in "The answer to everything" by Paul Davies. He writes, "the outline of a grand cosmic scheme is discernible, and those at the cutting edge of research are unashamedly exhilarated." I, along with a growing number of physicists, remain unashamedly skeptical of astrophysical theories that appeal to unseen matter, invisible black holes and the weakest force known, gravity, to explain the amazing universe. As the Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Cornell University wrote on the subject, "never judge the strength of foundation by size of building." Professor Harry Collins, co-author of The Golem: What everyone should know about science; says that "the odd thing is that among the confused consumers of scientific myths are scientists themselves, who base their expectations of themselves on a past populated with heroes capable of creating decisive proofs and certainties that approach the status of mystical revelation." Professor Davies is evidently one such scientist busily and profitably perpetuating that mythology in his copious writing. The sad thing for the rest of us is that scientific progress may be held up for decades or centuries while scientists play these consensual games. You may notice that Davies waxes lyrical about the mathematics that forms the basis of much of modern cosmology. One dissenting physicist observes that it is like programming a computer to tell how much force is required to stretch a certain elastic band a given distance. The computer will keep on churning out unreal answers long after the elastic has snapped. It only requires one elastic band to snap in the cosmological engine the astrophysicists have constructed for the whole thing to not work. The exhilaration Davies feels is that of running with the mob. He should try doing it alone. Wal Thornhill Wal adds: Yesterday I got an email from the Science & Technology editor of the Canberra Times, Simon Grose, in reply to that one I sent you containing my letter to the editor. He wrote: Thanks for your comments. I agree 100% re Davies. he is a boring hypster/spiv who has very successfully clothed himself in an invisible garment that he has convinced most of the world is the raiment of a wise and groovy S&T commentator. Spivs, naked emperors, and visionaries called Wallace will always be with us. regards SDMG ---------------------------------------------- PLEASE VISIT THE KRONIA COMMUNICATIONS WEBSITE: http://www.kronia.com 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 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/ ] 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 or from Michael Armstrong at mikamar at e-z.net ----------------------------------------------- The THOTH electronic newsletter is an outgrowth of scientific and scholarly discussions in the emerging field of astral catastrophics. Our focus is on a reconstruction of ancient astral myths and symbols in relation to a new theory of planetary history. Serious readers must allow some time for these radically different ideas to be fleshed out and for the relevant background to be developed. The general tenor of the ideas and information presented in THOTH is supported by the editor and publisher, but there will always be plenty of room for differences of interpretation. We welcome your comments and responses. thoth at Whidbey.com New readers are referred to earlier issues of THOTH posted on the Kronia website listed above. Go to the free newsletter page and double click on the image of Thoth, the Egyptian God of Knowledge, to access the back issues. --- You are currently subscribed to kroniatalk as: mikamar at e-z.net To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kroniatalk-36515E at telelists.com