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 V, No 5 April 15, 2001 EDITOR: Amy Acheson PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart CONTENTS REALLY? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mel Acheson OF THUNDERGODS AND CELESTIAL MARVELS . . . . . . . . Dave Talbott PARADIGM PORTRAITS IX: DISTANT SUPERNOVAS . . . . . .Amy Acheson IO-THE ELECTRIC MOON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wal Thornhill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< REALLY? by Mel Acheson What's "reality"? For science, for the past century or more, it's "what's out there", "the given". And we get to know it by looking at it. (I say "looking" to mean all sensation.) To get to know it better, we need only to look closer. To that end, we invent microscopes and telescopes to magnify it. We substitute electronic devices for our eyes in order to "see" reality in radio and x-ray wavelengths. Our technologically enhanced senses have put us more in touch with reality than at any other time in the history of our species. But we've known all along that's not how knowing works. And if that's not how we know, what we know probably isn't what we think it is. Reality may not be real. Looking only produces a tingling in the nerves. Sensation, as such, is meaningless. People learn to make sense of their sensations soon after birth, and by the time they can talk, they've forgotten how they learned and even that they did learn. But when cataract surgery was first perfected, it enabled many people who had been blind from birth to see for the first time. Marius von Senden wrote about their experiences in Space and Sight. The newly sighted people experienced patches of color or brightness without meaning. They had to learn to associate the patches with concepts previously associated with other sensations. (This may be the only episode in the history of our species in which individuals capable of communicating their response experienced "pure observation".) Nor do nerves transmit anything. One nerve is stimulated to discharge its tiny electrical spark, and this may stimulate nearby nerves to discharge theirs. There's no variation in amplitude, no "gray tones". It's either on or off. When the chain of discharges reaches the brain, the only way to distinguish one spark from another is the relationship with all other sparks. These relationships can form into groups, and the groups can become associated. Associations of associations can stimulate each other. Hierarchies of associations can develop, which can become "tangled" by associations among higher- and lower-level associations. In this way a dynamic classification system arises. It creates the sensory order, which is not so much a one-to-one mapping of the real world as a metaphor of it. For example, in the real world, colors are part of a linear arrangement of increasing wavelengths. Beyond red is infrared, and beyond violet is ultraviolet. But in the sensory order, red and violet join at purple to make a circle. There is no purple wavelength in the real world. So looking can in no way be equated with knowing. We need an idea to make sense of sensation. That's what theories do. It's also what fantasies do, and they're not what we usually consider to be knowledge. We're missing something. What turns percepts and concepts, those associations of nervous sparks, into knowledge is judgement: answering the question, "Is it true?" Either answer--yes or no--does the trick. Douglas Allchin points out in The Epistemology of Error, "The key epistemological distinction ... is between empirically unresolved questions, or uncertainty, and resolved questions...," between determinate and ambiguous. But judgement, unlike diamonds, is seldom forever. There can be new sensations, new data, and new ideas, new theories. Old sensations and ideas can be rearranged. The question for judgement can be recalled. The determinate can become ambiguous again. The tangled hierarchies of associations of associations of nerve sparks are continually re-energizing themselves and shifting their patterns. Sometimes they reorganize themselves en masse: There can be paradigm shifts which shift reality. How can reality shift if it's "what's out there," to be known by looking at it? Maybe we started our march down Epistemology Lane on the wrong foot. Notice that from the beginning we've unconsciously assumed a dichotomy between a "real" "out there" and what must therefore be an "unreal" "in here". One of Piet Hein's Grooks is pertinent: "lines we neatly drew and later neatly stumbled over." A clue to catching our balance is to notice that, to me, your nerve sparks and classification system and sensory order and paradigm- determined reality are part of my "out there" reality. The dichotomous categories we invented encompass each other and can't be dichotomies. Notice too that equating knowing with looking also equates reality with the descriptions of that looking. This error underlies much of modern physics: Mathematical equations are symbolic representations of the descriptions of looking, so equating reality with the descriptions reduces reality to a set of equations. A vicious circle results: The equations allow you to deduce reality, and you no longer need even to look. What began as empiricism ends up as idealism. The objective and the subjective become confused. Cause and effect become meaningless. The arrow of time becomes an illusion, as in relativity, and existence depends on measurement, as in quantum mechanics. Our unconscious assumptions in the beginning have come back around to bite us on the ankle. And in light of the nerve sparks and sensory metaphors and mutable judgements, an even more basic, unconscious, and untenable assumption comes to light: that reality is something we start with. For science, for the cognitive understanding of our experiences, reality is really what we end up with. Mel Acheson thoth at whidbey.com ******************************************************* OF THUNDERGODS AND CELESTIAL MARVELS by Dave Talbott In ancient traditions, few images find more vivid expression than the great thunderbolts of the planetary gods. When the gods went to war, the heavens shook. Lightning sped between the planetary combatants as flaming weapons, with the fate of celestial kings and kingdoms hanging in the balance. Again and again, we find sovereign gods relying upon a "thunder weapon" to defend cosmic order. Rulers of the sky vanquish chaos monsters with stupendous, earth-shaking bolts. We see this most dramatically in the confrontation of the Greek Zeus with Typhon. But the thunderbolt is also decisive in the Babylonian Marduk's battle against the dragon Tiamat and the Hebrew Yahweh's war against Leviathan. So too, we see the mythic thunderbolt when Indra engages Vritra, or Horus battles Set, or Apollo vanquishes the dragon Python. It is also noteworthy that great hero-gods alternately hurl lightning against the chaos dragon, or TAKE THE FORM of the thunderbolt itself. In the global pattern the hero is often inseparable from his own arrow, sword, spear, club or axe -- even a "tusk" in his mythical form as a "boar" -- while all such symbols merge as distinct forms of the cosmic lightning. [See Lightning Motif #8 in our previous article: "Lightning takes the form of an ancestral warrior, the hero god who defeated chaos monsters in primeval times and consorted with the mother goddess."] A systematic review of lightning themes will make clear that the regional lightning of later times was but an echo of the vastly more terrifying bolts which once held the entire world in awe. Consider the ancient images of the gas-giant Jupiter, whom the Greeks remembered as the ruler Zeus, the victor in the celestial clash of the Titans. Jupiter is just a speck of light in our sky, but ancient races recalled the GOD Jupiter as a heaven-spanning form, employing lightning as his most effective weapon. If we've failed to recognize the celestial players, it's because the implied references are PLANETS appearing huge above the ancient skyworshippers, while our present knowledge of the planets is constrained by their remote and predictable courses today. We see no evidence of unstable planetary motions today, and most assuredly we see no interplanetary lightning arcing between them! Yet that IS the human memory. In Hesiod's Theogony, the poet describes the god Zeus, when the dragon Typhon threatened to destroy the world: "From Heaven and from Olympus he came immediately, hurling his lightning: the bolts flew thick and fast from his strong hand together with thunder and lightning, whirling an awesome flame." In this overwhelming conflagration there was "thunder and lightning, and ... fire from the monster, and the scorching winds and blazing thunderbolt." Destroyed by a searing bolt from Zeus, the world-threatening dragon came to be known as the "thunderstricken." Similarly, Typhon's counterpart Enceladus, struck down by Zeus, was the "lightning-scarred" god. Hebrew tradition recalled the lightning of the gods in similar terms. Thus Psalm 77 proclaims, "The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook." From India, the Mahabarata and Ramayana describe great battles in which lightning of the gods filled the heavens like a rain of fiery arrows. So too, in the texts of ancient Egypt, Babylon, Scandinavia, China, and the Americas, myths and legends describe conflagrations attributed to divine thunderbolts, appearing in the forms of flaming arrows, darts, lances, and other weapons. For anyone seeking to comprehend ancient images of the gods, there can be no greater mistake than to rationalize away the cosmic scale of the described events. But that WILL be the tendency so long as scholars demand that present references in nature account for the ancient depictions. EVIDENCE FROM MANY FIELDS This is an interdisciplinary investigation. To expose the roots of the mythical and symbolic archetypes, we must range across highly diverse fields of evidence. Archaic images of the thunderbolt will provide a unifying thread, connecting planetary geology, plasma science, and astronomy to a most extraordinary epoch of human history, anciently remembered as "the age of gods and wonders." In this investigation, the "lightning bolts" now spanning galaxies will offer crucial analogies for the remembered thunderbolts of mythical gods and heroes. Physical scars on solid bodies within the solar system will become evidence EXPECTED under a new model of planetary history. And the configurations taken by plasma discharges in the laboratory will confirm the accuracy of highly enigmatic rock art and other depictions of the divine thunderbolt. It is the correlation between the different domains of evidence that provides the acid test of a hypothesis. For if, as we claim, planets once waged battles in the sky, then all related fields of inquiry should support the same conclusion, even if the experts, expecting something else, have missed the underlying story. Since plasma science is far from my own field of expertise, I must emphasize that, in the following discussion of planetary discharges and plasma environments, I am indebted to the contribution of Wal Thornhill, my co-author of the forthcoming book, _Thunderbolts of the Gods_. Also, I must credit Amy Acheson for numerous helpful contributions. (Of course, if I've failed to accurately paraphrase either, they are not to be held responsible.) THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE In recent decades, the majority of space age surprises could be listed under a single heading: electromagnetism. Electrical and magnetic principles, though never envisioned by the pioneers of gravitational theory, are evident at all scales of observation, from comet tails to the most expansive intergalactic structures. But the accepted models of planetary evolution permit virtually no discussion of electricity. When electrons are removed from atoms, the result is an assembly of charged particles, a plasma. The removed electrons provide the negative component and the remainder of the atom -- called an ion -- the positive. It was Irving Langmuir (1881-1957) who first described the behavior of plasma as a kind of "gas" of charged particles, and it was he who coined the name "plasma," due to its similarity to the biological plasma of the bloodstream. When subjected to electric and magnetic stimuli, plasma will respond as if alive -- and often unpredictably. Langmuir describes what happens when a charged object is placed in plasma. The charges within the plasma adjust their positions to form a barrier, called a "Langmuir sheath." This Langmuir sheath then shields any object outside it from the introduced charge. Langmuir sheaths also form around larger bodies immersed in plasma, such as planets. These planetary sheaths are called plasmaspheres or magnetospheres. The charged objects will not "see" each other electrically until the sheaths themselves touch. This unusual effect can be demonstrated with a novelty plasma ball, perhaps most familiar to us in the old sci-fi movies showing the laboratories of mad scientists, with strange spheres zapping away and emitting luminous, filamentary arcs in every direction. The ball is constructed from a glass sphere filled with a low- pressure gas and enclosing an inner conductor, usually a smaller ball. A high voltage, radio-frequency power source is connected between the two spheres and ionizes the gas -- that is, the components of the atoms dissociate into charged particles. The resulting plasma forms glowing, twisting filaments. If you wave your hand through the air around the ball, the filaments in a plasma ball will be unaffected. However, when you touch the glass, your hand will introduce additional charges. The filaments will be drawn toward your hand and will follow it when you move it along the surface of the glass. Similarly, if two electrically charged planets were to approach each other, neither would respond to the electrical charge of the other so long as their plasmaspheres made no contact with each other. If, however, they moved sufficiently close that their plasmaspheres touched, a discharge would occur between planets. DO PLANETS CARRY CHARGE? To justify an exploration of interplanetary lightning bolts, we must address the issue of planetary charge. Accepted wisdom in astronomy states that all bodies in space are electrically neutral; that is, they must contain equal numbers of positive and negative charges throughout, with a net charge of zero. This theoretical assumption, usually stated as fact, stems from a misunderstanding of the electrical nature of space. The foundation of astronomical theory, Newton's theory of gravity, was formulated before the electric light or Maxwell's equations -- even before Benjamin Franklin flew his kite. Under the influence of gravitational doctrines, phenomena that are now better explained electrically, such as the behavior of cometary ion tails, were forced into an electrically sterile, gravitational explanation. But recent decades have seen an explosion of new data challenging all traditional suppositions. Much of the data comes from space age tools farther beyond Newton's gravity than electric light-bulbs are beyond Victorian gas-lights. Of particular significance are the contributions of plasma experiments, utilizing electrical forces to replicate many extraordinary and previously unexplained configurations now observed in deep space. Space is not empty. It contains atoms and charged particles whizzing about in intricate patterns -- a plasma. But since plasma is a better conductor of electricity than copper, astrophysicists (virtually none of whom are trained in electrical phenomena) supposed that a plasma environment will not support charge differential. To this supposition, astronomer Donald Menzel added an exclamation point with his now-famous statement, "the Sun could not hold enough charge to run a flashlight for more than a few minutes." But the statement is false. That plasma is a very good conductor is only half the story. Equally crucial is the fact that plasma in space is extraordinarily tenuous -- thinner than the thinnest vacuums science can produce on Earth. Hence, there are very few charged particles to carry the currents. If the Sun is electrically charged, the only sign of it would be an accelerating, tenuous "wind" of charged particles "blowing" away from it. Of course, that flow of charged particles is exactly what our modern probes discovered. We call it the "solar wind." If the Earth is electrically charged, there should be a detectable electric field at the surface. And there is. In fine weather, this electric field measures 100 volts per meter as you travel up from the surface. If the Earth is charged, we should also expect electrical currents to flow between the Earth and space, particularly when the Sun is continuously emitting a "wind" of charged particles past the Earth. And we do find such currents. Most obvious are the auroras, now forecast like weather on the Internet. But there is another phenomenon so familiar that it may not be recognized as a planetary electrical discharge. This phenomenon is lightning. In recent years it has been found that lightning storms may be accompanied by strange faint glow discharge phenomena, playfully called elves, sprites and jets, radiating toward space above the clouds. This is exactly what we should expect if regional lightning is part of a continuous exchange between the Earth and the larger electrical environment through which our planet moves. If the Earth is charged, it should possess a Langmuir sheath. And it does. Astronomers call it a "magnetosphere," implying that electricity is not involved. However, this sheath not only traps the planet's magnetic field but the electric field as well. This means there is a flow of electricity across the plasma of interplanetary space. Hence, the term "plasmasphere" would be more fitting. WHEN PLANETS SPEAK ELECTRICALLY Evidence from wide-ranging disciplines will enable us to reconstruct the events accompanying the close encounter of another planet with the Earth. This evidence will include ancient accounts of interplanetary "thunderbolts," modern day experiments with electric discharge phenomena, and the scarring patterns on planets and moons. Taken as a whole, the evidence will permit an interdisciplinary "forensic" approach, one that must remain open to the possibility of extraordinary cosmic events in ancient times. But before we can discuss the effects of a planetary close encounter, three major types of electric discharge in plasma need to be briefly described. The first, noted above, is a "wind" composed of neutral atoms being driven by collisions with ions, or charged particles, as they are accelerated in an electric field. (By this mechanism, ionic air fresheners give rise to a gentle "breeze" that can be felt.) The second discharge type is more energetic and is called a "glow discharge." It can be seen in auroras and neon signs, and is occasionally observed on high- voltage power lines. The third and most energetic discharge is the electric arc, as illustrated by terrestrial lightning. It should also be noted that plasma phenomena are known to be scalable over at least 12 orders of magnitude. This means that phenomena seen in the laboratory and recorded in billionths of a second may span light-years and last for centuries in space. It is this scalability that enables us to compare laboratory discharge phenomena with galactic-scale events. It also enables us to compare similarities between laboratory discharge patterns and ancient depictions of the sky. In both cases, plasma discharge phenomena will account for data that have no other explanation in scientific theory. We are thus reminded of Immanuel Velikovsky's warning many years ago that science can not afford to ignore the role of electricity in the evolution of the solar system. Velikovsky pondered the ancient stories of earth-threatening thunderbolts, envisioning near collisions of planets and electrical discharges flying between them. In Worlds in Collision he wrote: "I became skeptical of the great theories concerning the celestial motions that were formulated when the historical facts described here were not known to science. ...The accepted celestial mechanics, notwithstanding the many calculations that have been carried out to many decimal places, or verified by celestial motions, stands only if the sun ... is as a whole an electrically neutral body, and also if the planets, in their usual orbits, are neutral bodies. Fundamental principles in celestial mechanics including the law of gravitation, must come into question if the sun possesses a charge sufficient to influence the planets in their orbits or the comets in theirs. In the Newtonian celestial mechanics, based on the theory of gravitation, electricity and magnetism play no role." This was written several years before the space age began. But now, more than fifty years later, the vital role of electricity and magnetism can no longer be denied. The outcome will be a more holistic science for the third millennium. Through our own investigations, weighing ancient evidence against the revelations of plasma physics, we have come to accept Velikovsky's underlying hypothesis. We have, however, gone beyond Velikovsky's observations to identify numerous details of an ancient gathering of planets vastly different from the arrangement observed today. An assembly of planets and moons, moving close to each other within a plasma sheath, produced a celestial drama that is unimaginable to astronomers. The most extraordinary aspect of this hypothesis is the ancient "polar configuration." It is the mythic thunderbolt that has catalyzed the merging of my own reconstruction -- the polar configuration -- with the electric universe as summarized by the pioneering work of Wal Thornhill. And thanks to the voluminous descriptions left by our ancestors, it is now possible to show in detail that all ancient images of the divine thunderbolt are nothing else than images of the ancient planetary forms, as reconstructed over more than a quarter century. NEXT: "Polar Configuration and Cosmic Thunderbolt." EDITOR'S NOTE: The Intersect 2001 conference -- "Electricity, Cosmology, and Human History" -- will include the first public presentation of this story, with new animation and other visual support. Dave Talbott ******************************************************** PARADIGM PORTRAITS IX: DISTANT SUPERNOVAS by Amy Acheson In a press release dated April 2, 2001, NASA announced more discoveries in the Deep Field North. This time it's the "most distant supernova" ever seen, and that is important "because it tells us more about the early universe." See pictures here: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010404.html AMY COMMENTS: This one is a twisted bag of intertwined concepts -- they claim to have discovered that dark energy is a repulsive force. Will this "dark energy" remind astrophysicists that they already "know" of a repulsive force? Like electricity? Maybe they will squeeze in a plasma explanation of the universe through the back door of a far-off supernova? But as for this "discovery" of dark energy in the early universe, it's NOT A DISCOVERY AT ALL! It's an attempt to twist data into a theory that will explain away evidence which blatantly contradicts standard cosmology. Halton Arp compares this aspect of astrophysics to the crew of the Titanic: "full speed ahead in spite of the icebergs, because they believed their ship was unsinkable." The Deep Field supernova is an iceberg, and dark energy is a wad of pre-chewed gum that completely fails to patch the hole. Translation: like the distance to quasars, ULIRG's and galaxy clusters, the distance to this supernova was determined by the redshift of the galaxy in which it exploded. The surprising news (also like quasars, ULIRG's and galaxy clusters) is that the supernova was brighter than expected. The "distance as measured by the brightness of the supernova" fails to match the "distance as measured by the redshift." Rather than admit that their rubber ruler (redshift = distance) doesn't work, they invent a whole new type of energy and a whole new history for the universe to compensate for the awkward figures. The simple answer is Arp's -- the galaxy is closer than its redshift indicates. That's why the supernova was brighter than expected. There is even evidence associated with Stefan's Quintet and M82 (see Halton Arp's _Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies_, pg. 100) that points to redshift-related variations of supernova brightness [intrinsically high-redshift galaxies have lower- luminosity supernovae]. If this is true, then the supernova may have an even lower absolute magnitude than the one already too high for the standard theory to explain. Then both the supernova and the galaxy it resides in may need to be brought closer yet. In conclusion: If Arp is right, this galaxy and its supernova are NOT (as claimed) more than ten billion light-years away. Therefore, this galaxy and this supernova cannot tell us ANYTHING AT ALL about how the universe behaved 10 billion years ago. Furthermore, an intrinsic interpretation of redshift knocks the props out from under the accepted age of the universe, as well. It implies a much larger and older, possibly infinite and eternal, universe. So even if the redshift-dependent distance were accurate, the universe itself wouldn't have been "young" a mere 10 billion years ago. Amy Acheson ******************************************************** IO-THE ELECTRIC MOON by Wal Thornhill It is well known that there is an electrical connection between Jupiter and its inner Galilean moon, Io. However, when plumes of matter were discovered jetting into space the immediate interpretation by geologists was that they must be volcanic. The intense volcanism on Io is explained by the notion of rhythmic 100 meter high tides as it orbits Jupiter with a slight eccentricity. But such an obvious answer leaves many mysteries. For example, what makes the lava on Io much hotter than any on Earth? Why are the plumes filamentary? How do the volcanoes move tens of kilometres in a few years? Why is the fallout deposited in rings? New photos from NASA show the ring deposits around old and new eruptions on Io: http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/files/images/browse/pia02588.gif These oddities make it unlikely that we are looking at volcanoes or hot lava on Io. So why do NASA scientists leap to weak tidal effects to explain what is happening on Io's surface when it has been calculated that the voltage induced across Io is 400 thousand volts and the observed current flowing in its vicinity is about one million amperes? (Note that these figures may be an underestimate because they assume that the Jupiter system is electrically closed. Evidence [exists] ... that this is not so.) Part of the answer probably lies in the fact that neither volcanoes nor lightning are well understood on Earth. Also it is traditional that geologists are asked to pronounce on such matters. So it has been easy to suggest that the electrical power passes around Io rather than into it. Geologists can then ignore the obvious electrical scarring features on Io but they are then forced into far-fetched explanations. There is a little known behaviour of lightning that seems to be at work on that small moon. That is, lightning's ability to accelerate material upwards from a surface against the force of gravity. Of course, lightning on Io is not going to look anything like earthly lightning because it has no atmosphere to speak of. It will take the form of a diffuse glow discharge. Plumes have been seen with no attachment to an identifiable volcanic caldera. Io glows visibly when eclipsed by Jupiter. Did no one recognize the obvious electrical activity on Io? It is clear that Thomas Gold is a scientist that you ignore at your peril. In the journal, Science, of 30 November, 1979, he published an article titled "Electric Origin of the Outburst on Io." The abstract reads in part: "The outbursts on Jupiter's satellite Io have been described as volcanic eruptions. They may instead be the result of large electric currents flowing through hot spots on Io and causing evaporation of surface materials." Gold made several telling arguments for such an interpretation: 1) for the plume to reach heights of several hundred kilometres it would require a volatile propellant capable of accelerating surface material to speeds of 1 kilometre per second. 2) with incessant activity, in a small fraction of geologic time all of the volatiles would be driven off. 3) heavy sulfur atoms form compounds that are not ideal as a propellant. In a 1987 paper in Astrophysics and Space Science, plasma physicists Peratt and Dessler supported Gold's interpretation and went into more detail. They explain the jets in terms of a plasma- arc discharge. The high velocity and parabolic cross-section of the plumes are derived from laboratory plasma experiments. The filamentary penumbra and convergence of ejecta into well-defined rings are characteristic plasma discharge effects that have no counterpart in volcanoes. See pictures and more info on Wal Thornhill's website at: http://www.holoscience.com/news/volcano_io.htm http://www.holoscience.com/news/flashback.htm Reports have expressed surprise at the high temperatures measured at the hot spots on Io. They have been headlined as being the second hottest objects in the solar system, following the Sun. Such a result fits the notion of the hot spots being the touchdown points of electric arcs. The wandering of the hot spots over tens of kilometres, their preference for the edges of earlier cratering, the production of circular edged scalloping to give a fretted appearance, seen to advantage in ... clasp[s] of Io ..., are all characteristic of electric arc machining but have no coherent explanation in volcanic terms. ... [T]he brightly coloured "lava fountains" [seen on press release photos] ... were painted in by NASA artists. In the original image whatever was occurring there was too bright for Galileo's camera to register. If they were hot spots created by electric arcs then it would be like trying to film an arc welder in action. When we finally get cameras to Io that can register bright light in fine detail we will find tiny points of light brighter than the Sun. Io will be a unique and valuable laboratory to begin to understand some of the electrical scarring suffered by comets, asteroids, moons and planets. Ironically, it may also help us to understand lightning and volcanoes here on Earth. For example, for reasons unknown to geologists, eruptive activity is greatest on both Io and the Earth at mid-latitudes. Also it is known that here on Earth powerful lightning is often associated with volcanic eruptions. Now, in plasma experiments where a magnetised ball is placed in a vacuum and subjected to an electric discharge, the ball has a plasma torus form around the equator - which then discharges to the mid-latitudes of the ball. Can it be that volcanoes here on Earth are connected to electrical activity in space via the lightning above them? Are volcanoes a result of an underground electrical discharge? Also, lightning and strange electrical and magnetic effects are often reported to precede and accompany strong earthquakes. Are earthquakes a different manifestation of the same phenomena? ~Wal Thornhill See the home of The Electric Universe at http://www.holoscience.com ********************************************************* PLEASE VISIT THE KRONIA COMMUNICATIONS WEBSITE: http://www.kronia.com Subscriptions to AEON, a journal of myth and science, now with regular features on the Saturn theory and electric universe, may be ordered from this page: http://www.kronia.com/html/sales.html 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/ http://www.holoscience.com http://www.users.qwest.net/~dascott/Cosmology.htm http://www.catastrophism.com/cdrom/index.htm http://www.science-frontiers.com ----------------------------------------------- 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.