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 IV, No 17 Dec 15, 2000 EDITOR: Amy Acheson PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart CONTENTS MATTER, CHARGE, AND CONJECTURES. . . . . . . . . .by Mel Acheson STARS: NUCLEAR VERSUS ELECTRIC: Part III . . . . . .by Don Scott RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION. . . . . . . by Amy Acheson and Halton Arp GALACTIC CONNECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . posted by Walter Radtke SPINNING ELECTRONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .by Wal Thornhill BRIEF SIS REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .by Wal Thornhill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< MATTER, CHARGE, AND CONJECTURES by Mel Acheson One of the hot topics of discussion in the Monday meeting after last month's conference was the relative strengths of electricity and gravity. The electricians knew the electric force was 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, and the graviticians knew the gravitational force was 40 orders of magnitude stronger than electricity. This misses the point. On the purely mathematical level, you can plug numbers into the equations to get any magnitude of force you want. The gravitational force between two 10 kg lead spheres placed 1 m apart is: F = GM^2/R^2 = 6.7x10^-11 times 10^2 divided by 1^2 = 6.7x10^-9 Newtons. To equal that force with electricity, the spheres would have to be charged to: 6.7x10^-9 = [1/(4 x pi x e-sub-naught)] times Q^2 divided by 1^2, or Q = sqrt (6.7x10^-9 divided by 9x10^9) = 8.6x10^-10 coulombs, or 860 micro-micro-coulombs. This could be achieved with a current of 1 microampere in less than a millisecond. The technology of nylon rods rubbed over cat fur can transfer enough static charge to overcome the gravitational attraction of lead spheres. But as Tom kept asking, "Can you get electricity to move planets?" That would require a lot of cats. The question is not relative strengths of forces but whether it's possible to accumulate enough charge and move it with enough power to toss planets around like electrons. Irving Langmuir could provide some enlightenment here. He's dead, but his discoveries linger on. One discovery was that just a few ions in a substance can cause it to behave in unexpected ways. It forms cells and filaments. Charges separate into double layers that insulate cells from each other. The filaments twist around each other. They writhe and radiate. They seem almost alive-- which is why Irving called the substance a plasma. An accumulation of charge inside one cell doesn't interact with that in another cell until the double layers break down. Then they interact with tremendous power. Another discovery (maybe this wasn't Langmuir's) was that plasmas exhibit the same behavior over large ranges of scale. From millimeter-sized sparks in a lab that last a millionth of a second to kilometer-long lightning bolts that last several seconds, the same properties can be observed. A long list of investigators has tried to draw attention to the similarities between certain astronomical phenomena and these lab and terrestrial plasmas. Just on a theoretical level, it seems rather simple to scale up a lightning bolt (at 10^9 kW) that can toss around our lead spheres to the size of an interplanetary bolt (at 10^21 kW) that can toss around planets (move the Earth 1/4 au in a year, say). But does it actually happen? We can't clip the leads from a planet-sized voltmeter across the solar system and measure the voltage drop. So we're left with arguing about similarities. And we all know argument from analogy is fallacious. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, only that it's uncertain. The idea of gravity tossing planets around is familiar; the idea of plasma doing it isn't. Much of our preference for one idea over another is simply this business of familiarity. Much of the work required to reach a new understanding of something is just this effort to make the unfamiliar familiar. By analogy with argument from analogy, argument from familiarity is also fallacious. After allowing for the preference for familiarity, gravity is in no better shape than plasma. We see large accumulations of matter--which we could just as easily see as large accumulations of charge if that idea were familiar. We assume an identity between the ideas of a large accumulation of matter and a large accumulation of mass. But mass is a property--F/a--that's not necessarily identical with quantity of matter. The Machian idea of inertial mass being the relationship of a particle of matter to all other particles within its sphere of communication implies that a newly created particle increases its mass as it ages. The Meta Model idea of gravitational mass being the shielding effect of other matter within the mean collisional distance of gravitons implies an upper limit of matter accumulations beyond which mass remains constant. We can't hatch a Machian chicken and see if it grows without feeding it corn, nor can we stick a large toothpick into cakes of Meta matter to see if there's uncooked mass in the middle. What we're stuck with is a conflict of paradigms. Each explains overlapping sets of data in different ways. We won't know for sure if the universe is electric until we travel to a Seyfert galaxy and stick our finger in the socket. Nor will we know for sure if it's gravitic until we drop Newton's apple off the Leaning Tower of M87. The question of "what's the truth" is premature. The truth is this: No paradigm is believable. I.e., none are certain. Being stuck with a conflict of paradigms is really an opportunity. We can choose whichever conjecture strikes our fancy and follow its implications to see if we can invent something new to make our lives more comfortable and exciting. It's not _necessary_ to choose; it's an _opportunity_ to choose. We're better off having more conjectures to choose from than having less. It's time to scrap the outworn philosophy of physics based on an illusory certainty. Instead, a more biological philosophy based on conjectures and refutations (Karl Popper's phrase) or blind variations with selective retention (Donald Campbell's phrase) would be more appropriate for small soft creatures living on a speck of terrestrial dirt and prancing around the cosmos. Mel Acheson thoth at whidbey.com ****************************************************** STARS: NUCLEAR VERSUS ELECTRIC: PART III by Don Scott [Ed note: This concludes on the electric sun taken from Don Scott's WebPages. You can access the entire article, along with the photos and diagrams at http://www.users.qwest.net/~dascott/Sun.htm ] Prominences, Flares, and CME's All of the above discussion applies to the steady-state (or almost steady-state) operation of the Electric Sun. But there are several dynamic phenomena such as flares, prominences, and coronal mass ejections (CME's) that we observe. How are they formed? Hannes Alfven, although not aware of the Juergens Electric Sun model, advanced his theory (3) of how prominences and solar flares are formed electrically. It is completely consistent with the Juergens model. Any electric current, i, creates a magnetic field (the stronger the current - the stronger the magnetic field, and the more energy it contains). Energy, Wm, stored in any magnetic field, is given by the expression Wm = 1/2 Li^2. If the current, i, is interrupted, the field collapses and its energy must be delivered somewhere. The magnetic field of the Sun sometimes, and in some places on its surface, forms an "omega" shaped loop. This loop extends out through the double sheath layer (DL) of the chromosphere. One of the primary properties of Birkeland currents is that they follow magnetic field lines. A strong current will produce a toroidal magnetic field that will expand the loop. If the current following this loop becomes too strong, the DL is destroyed1. This interrupts the current (like opening a switch in an inductive circuit) and the dissipation of the energy stored in the magnetic field is explosively released. It should be well understood (certainly by anyone who has had a basic physics course) that the magnetic field "lines"2 that are drawn to describe a magnetic field, have no beginning nor end. They are closed paths. In fact one of Maxwell's famous equations is: "div B = 0". Which says precisely that in the language of vector differential calculus. So when magnetic fields collapse due to the interruption of the currents that produce them, they do not "break" and "recombine" (as some uninformed astronomers have claimed). The field simply collapses (very fast!). On the Sun this collapse releases a tremendous amount of energy and matter is thrown out away from the surface - as with any explosively rapid reaction. This release is consistent with and predicted by the Electric Sun model as is shown above. 1. Double layers can be destroyed by at least two different mechanisms: a) Zener Breakdown - The electric field gradient becomes strong enough to rip all charges away from an area, thus breaking the discharge path; b) Avalanche Breakdown - A literal avalanche occurs wherein all charges are swept away and no conducting charges are left - thus the conducting path is opened. 2. A magnetic field is a continuum. It is not a set of discrete "lines". Lines are drawn in the classroom to describe the magnetic field (its direction and magnitude). But the lines themselves do not actually exist. They are simply a pedagogical device. Proposing that these lines "break" and "recombine" is an error (violation of Maxwell's equations) compounded on another error (the lines do not exist in the first place). The Power Source The question, "Are there enough electrons out there in nearby space to power the Sun?" is a valid one. Juergens studied it and came up with the following answer: In an article compiled from Juergen's notes after his death by Earl Milton, "Electric Discharge As the Source of Solar Radiant Energy", Juergens (Milton) says the following: "The solar constant, defined as the total radiant energy at all wavelengths reaching an area of one square centimeter at the Earth's distance from the Sun, is about 0.137 watts per square centimeter (see R.C.Wilson, Journal of Geophysical Research, 83,4003-4007 1978). It works out, then, that the Sun must be emitting about 6.5x10^7 watts per square meter of solar "surface", and the total power output of the Sun is a (very nearly) constant 4x10^26 watts. The hypothetical electric discharge must then have a power input of 4x10^26 watts.......suppose that the Sun's cathode drop may be of the order of 10^10 volts, ...then..the total power input divided by the cathode drop [is] 4x10^16 amperes..... Let us suppose that the effective velocity of a typical interstellar electron would be about 105 m/s, corresponding to a kinetic temperature of a few hundred Kelvin. From current estimates of the state of ionization of the interstellar gas, we might conclude that there should be as many as 50,000 free electrons per cubic m.(S.A. Kaplan, Interstellar Gas Dynamics - Pergamon 1966). The random electric current of these electrons then would be Ir = NeC/4 where N is the electron density per cubic meter, e is the electron charge in coulombs, and C is the average velocity of the electrons. Using the given values, we find that the random electric current density should be about 2x10^-10 amperes per square meter through a surface oriented in any manner. The total electron current that can be drawn by the discharge is the product of the random current density and the surface area of the sphere occupied by the cathode drop. There is little to indicate how large this sphere might be, but in view of the enormity of the cathode drop it seems likely that the radius of the sphere would be large in terms of solar system dimensions. The mean distance of Pluto's orbit is 39.5 AU, or about 6x10^12 meters. We might guess that the cathode drop would reach to at least 10^13 meters from the Sun, so that its spherical boundary would have a collecting surface area of somewhat more than 10^27 square meters. Such a surface could collect a current of interstellar electrons amounting to practically 10^18 amperes - twenty five times greater than the total current that seems proper. And of course a larger sphere could collect an even greater current." So there are enough electrons out there to power the Electric Sun. Note that although astronomers ought to be aware that magnetic fields require electrical currents to make them, currents and E- fields are never mentioned in standard models. Nor do they seem to be included in astrophysics curricula. Why Doesn't the Sun Collapse of Its Own Weight? How can we account for the fact that the Sun has been around for a long time with something like the same luminosity, yet has not collapsed in upon itself.3 In orthodox theory, a main-sequence star like the sun behaves like a ball of gas, its temperature and pressure both increasing monotonically from the outer surface towards the center. The temperature is needed to sustain the pressure, and the pressure is needed to fend off gravitational forces which, in the absence of sufficient pressure, would lead to collapse. It is hard to understand how in Juergens' theory, with no fusion going on in the core, such a "reverse" temperature gradient can be maintained. The answer is best stated by Wal Thornhill: "The electric star model makes the simplest assumption that nothing is going on inside the Sun. ..... So for most of the volume of a star where the gravity is strongest, atoms and molecules will predominate. (In the electric model that applies to the entire star). The nucleus of each atom, which is thousands of times heavier than the electrons, will be gravitationally offset from the centre of the atom. The result is that each atom becomes a small electric dipole. These dipoles align to form a radial electric field that causes electrons to diffuse outwards in enormously greater numbers than simple gravitational sorting allows. That leaves positively charged ions behind which repel one another. That electrical repulsion balances the compressive force of gravity without the need for a central heat source in the star. An electric star will be roughly the same density throughout, or isodense." We should also remember, considering a pair of similar particles (say protons) that the strength of the electrostatic repulsion force between them is something like 35 orders of magnitude greater than the strength of gravitational attraction! (Not 35 TIMES, but 35 Orders Of Magnitude). So the offset of the electron from the nucleus can be absolutely miniscule and yet produce an extremely strong force to counteract gravitational collapse. The Sun does not require internally generated heat in order to avoid collapse. 3. The same question ("Why doesn't it collapse due to gravity?") should be asked about globular clusters of stars or even galaxies. The real answer in these cases is also electrical in nature. Questions There are many questions still to be answered regarding the Electric Sun model. Is there any fusion at all occurring in or on the Sun? If so, where - the chromosphere? - the bottom of the corona? - penumbrae of sunspots? What is the exact circuit diagram - precisely what paths do the galactic currents take in the vicinity of the Sun? Will the solar charge be replenished over time by cosmic ions ("rays")? Do incoming cosmic rays help power the Sun? We know that large currents are necessary to produce the Sun's strange and changing magnetic fields. Are the magnetic field reversals observed on the Sun due to reversals (or changes of some sort) in the galactic currents across which the Sun is traveling? Or is the Sun simply traveling through many different current streams? Are pulsars binary stars that act together as relaxation oscillators? Conclusion This has been a brief introduction to the Electric Sun model: - the idea that our Sun is a ball of lightning - a huge electrically charged relatively quiescent sphere of gas that supports an electric plasma arc discharge on its surface and is powered by the subtle currents that move throughout the tenuous plasma that fills our galaxy. The scientific community now ought to at least begin to re-examine the assumptions of today's orthodox thermonuclear models which fail to explain the most basic, observed, solar phenomena. Juergens' Electric Sun model does predict the existence of the temperature minimum. It doesn't require convection to occur where it cannot. It does predict both the existence and the acceleration of the solar wind. The neutrinos are not "missing" they just aren't there. All of the above are failures of the "generally accepted" thermonuclear model that are easily understood from the point of view of the Electric Sun. Ralph Juergens had the genius to be the first to develop the Electric Sun model after reading the works of Alfven, Birkeland, Langmuir and other giants of electrical/plasma science. His model uniquely passes the harsh tests of observed reality. His seminal work may eventually get the recognition it deserves. Or, of course, others may try to claim it, or parts of it, and hope the world forgets who came up with it first. References: 1. The Physics of the Sun and the Gateway to the Stars - Eugene N. Parker, Physics Today June 2000 p26-31. 2. Guest Editorial - Anthony L. Peratt IEEE Transactions on Plasma Physics, Dec 1986. p.613. 3. Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics - Hannes Alfven (Nobel Prize) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Physics, Dec 1986. p.779. 4. Model of the Plasma Universe - Hannes Alfven (Nobel Prize) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Physics, Dec 1986. p.629. 5. The Persistent Problem of Spiral Galaxies - Halton Arp, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Physics, Dec 1986. p.748 6. Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets - Anthony L. Peratt IEEE Transactions on Plasma Physics, Dec 1986 p.639. 7. Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II The Formation of Systems of Galaxies - Anthony L. Peratt IEEE Transactions on Plasma Physics, Dec 1986. p.763. 8. Intergalactic Plasma - Grote Reber IEEE Transactions on Plasma Physics, Dec 1986. p.678. 9. STELLAR THERMONUCLEAR ENERGY: A FALSE TRAIL? - Ralph Juergens, KRONOS A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis, Vol. IV, No. 4 Summer 1979, pp. 16-27. 10. THE PHOTOSPHERE: IS IT THE TOP OR THE BOTTOM OF THE PHENOMENON WE CALL THE SUN? - Ralph Juergens, KRONOS A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis, Vol. IV, No. 4 Summer 1979, pp. 28- 54. 11. THE NOT SO STABLE SUN - Earl R. Milton, KRONOS A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis, Vol. V, No. 1 Fall 1979. [Ed note: Don's WebPages are still under construction. Check back again to learn more: Spicules, Bulk gas flow between tufts, Stark effect (Fraunhofer "broadening"), etc., etc., ...are all predicted by the Electric Sun hypothesis.] Don Scott **************************************************************** RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION By Amy Acheson and Halton Arp Well, I could have called the post "raging fury". It's how I've felt today since reading the latest release from _Spaceflight Now_: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0011/12quasar/ My out of proportion anger hasn't much to do with the article itself. The article discusses the mainstream concept of gravitational lensing of quasars. It completely ignores the controversy that they may be observing a group of ejected quasars rather than one gravitationally lensed quasar, especially in the topic sentence, which says, "A carefully planned observation of this mirage may be used to determine the expansion rate of the Universe as well as to measure the distances to extragalactic objects, arguably two of the most important pursuits in modern astronomy." [GRRRR! I'll show them "arguable!" The expansion rate is zero and if they ever find an honest hint of the actual distances, they're in for a BIG surprise.] What Halton Arp said last week about Stephan's Quintet applies here, as well: "This case dramatizes, I believe, the power of government controlled agencies to publish pictures which, at a glance, contradict current theory but then they say with complete authority that it once again proves 'Big Bang' cosmology." But, like I said, that's not what's getting my Irish up today. What's bothering me is that this time I'm fully aware -- I have the printed-out copy in front of me -- that Halton Arp has written to NASA and ESA officials (among others) just this week to let them know that the controversy isn't over. And here they've printed yet another article that fails to acknowledge that the Big Bang and Expanding universe are still in doubt. Okay, I can accept it when the mainstream ignores us "crack-pots." Most of us turned our backs on them. In my more positive moods, I believe it's because we recognized their foolishness "before it was too late", and I think there's more truth than bravado in that. But the fact remains that many of us did walk away from mainstream science. But Halton Arp did stay in. He jumped through all the hoops. He even accepted an assigned thesis when (hindsight shows) the one he proposed might have "discovered" quasars a decade before they actually were discovered. He got his assignment to Palomar. He earned the Helen B Warner prize and the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. This is what makes me angry today. After all that, WHAT RIGHT DOES THE MAINSTREAM HAVE TO TREAT ARP'S MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVERY LIKE THIS? End of temper tantrum. For the most part, I think our best response is to ignore them back. If Arp is right, then all the number-crunching and computer-enhanced space-telescope photos in the world will never make the fairy tale of a Big Bang and an Expanding Universe come true. But Arp added another sentence to his note about Stephan's Quintet. He said, "NASA and ESA are sensitive to public pressure, but only slowly to very strong pressure." You mean even us crack-pots? Do you (or anybody else?) have any suggestions of how we might exert that kind of pressure? ~Amy Acheson Response to Amy, Probably anger is evolutionarily useful. So I am glad that I am not the only one that gets angry about official disinformation. The present release on the "gravitational lens" 911 +0551, however, is a trap the overconfident have walked into. In one of two long papers which are scheduled to appear in the 1 March Astrophysical Journal I print, in color, a picture of this object with a string of galaxies leading directly back to a relatively large, obviously, nearby galaxy! The miracle of my getting papers published in the Astrophysical Journal, however, is tempered by the fact that certainly most professionals will not read this article and, of course, only the professionals see the journal. I am setting up a web site and can put some of this material on it. But it will be hard to compete with the Penn State news release which apparently is supported by the English magazine "Astronomy Now" on their website "Space Flight Now". This means there are more loose cannons rolling around besides the NASA website. The current version of Astronomy Now is a for profit scrambling outfit which would only react they saw a possible financial advantage. Maybe they would go for the controversy angle if they realized their audience was much more informed than the professionals. NASA might react if they thought some congressmen were getting pressure about their overhyping their data. Possibly some energetic, objective people could set up a rival news service that would win the hearts (and financial support) of the interested public. (Margaret Burbidge is writing up a paper for the January AAS meeting announcing a devastating new pair of quasars across Arp 220.) [Ed note: you can find Arp 220 in Halton Arp's Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, at this website: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Arp/Arp55.html ] Maybe we should support more the existing alternative journals like Journal of Scientific Exploration and Tom Van Flandern's Meta Research Bulletin (and website). Maybe we should do all of the above while not forgetting to celebrate the new, paradigm busting results which are relentlessly rolling in. Halton Arp *********************************************************** BRIEF SIS REPORT By Wal Thornhill Having just about recovered from being upside-down again I thought a short report on the SIS meeting in London would be in order. It was only last Saturday, on a grey, showery autumnal day, that the SIS meeting was held in University College, London. The sloped lecture theatre was well suited and technically fitted out for the 60 or so that turned up. There was a Chinese astronomer from Beijing, Clark Whelton from New York, Birgit Leisching from Belgium, and a Scandinavian astronomer whose sole reason for being there seemed to be to throw doubt on Halton's work. He didn't succeed and left at the lunch break having presumably learnt nothing. Evidently the Electric Universe was beneath his dignity to attend. There were two young students(?) at the meeting too. Brian Moore, Jill Abery, Trevor Palmer, Peter James, David Salkeld, the Tresman family and many other familiar faces from the SIS were there. Halton had the floor from 11am until lunch-time. The material covered was much the same as we saw in Portland. Question time was enthusiastic and it provided an opportunity to raise the surprising connection between the spacing of planetary orbits and quantized redshifts. The presentation was videotaped by Randall Meyers who had been taping an interview with Fred Hoyle the day before. Halton and I spent lunch-time talking about some of the issues raised by plasma cosmology and the Electric Universe model. Unfortunately he had to leave following lunch. The afternoon began with a short history by John Crowe of Velikovsky's challenge to astronomical orthodoxy and his relationship with Einstein. Many of V's outrageous "advance claims" were noted that were later confirmed. John felt that Velikovsky would be well pleased with the work that was now being done on the electrical nature of the cosmos. John was followed briefly by Clark Whelton who thought that Velikovsky would be well treated by future historians of science but that his historical reconstructions would not because he was a "chronological fundamentalist". Velikovsky believed absolutely in the chronology of the Bible. Clark made the important observation that history should be pieced together by working backwards, building the evidence in a continuous fashion, rather than setting benchmarks and trying to fill in the gaps. That is a technique that should apply to cosmology as well. It is heeded far more by Halton Arp, Tony Peratt and myself than by astrophysicists who seem content to work forward from some hypothetical, idealized beginning. The Saturn model extends the time span of human observations enormously and so offers us the most complete set of data from which to work. The Electric Universe presentation occupied the rest of the afternoon apart from a short tea break following the introduction. It used the same format as in Portland but with some improvements and changes to suit the different audience. I also included a brief review of the Portland meeting. There followed an extensive question time with many good observations and queries. The audience response was enthusiastic and easily the best I have had from the SIS. It reflects, in part I think, the longer time available and continuing improvements in presentation - it was the first time I have had the facilities to give a computer driven show to the Society. My thanks go to Simon and Ian Tresman for their technical support. The SIS stalwarts and those with further questions repaired to a local pub to continue discussions over a pint. The two young students were there. I believe we are at last winning converts to the Saturn thesis in London. Wal Thornhill ******************************************************** GALACTIC CONNECTIONS posted by Walter Radtke [Ed Note: Here's some fascinating excerpts from an article posted to Kroniatalk by Walter Radtke.] (full article and histograms can be found at: www.21stcenturysciencetech.com ) RUSSIAN DISCOVERY CHALLENGES EXISTENCE OF 'ABSOLUTE TIME' by Dr. Jonathan Tennenbaum . . . By demonstrating the existence of a universal, astronomical factor influencing the fine structure of supposedly random fluctuations, Shnoll et al. have opened up an entirely new field of scientific investigation which is not supposed to exist, according to Bohr. A Simple Experiment We now give a very brief description of the basic phenomenon discovered by Shnoll and his collaborators. The phenomenon itself is so astonishingly simple, that it is amazing that it has not attracted more attention until now. The simplest case is the measurement of radioactive decay, where Shnoll has conducted thousands of experiments of the following simple type. We take a radioactive sample, and place it in front of a suitable detector (such as a Geiger counter), which counts the individual acts of radioactive decay of nuclei in the sample by detecting the emitted particles. Assuming the half-life of the radioactive element involved is relatively long, the count-rate of the detector, in counts per second or per minute, will fluctuate around a certain average value, which is related to the number of radioactive atoms in the sample and their half-life. This phenomenon of continual fluctuations in the number of counts per unit time, around a relatively fixed average value, is normally accounted for by assuming that the radioactive decay of any given atom is a random event, and the assumption that decay of a given atom occurs independently of the other atoms in the sample. Thus, each atom which has not yet decayed up to a certain moment in time, has a certain probability of decaying during the next minute-a probability which is fixed for any given isotope by the character of that isotope, and virtually independent of the temperature, chemical environment, and activity of neighboring atoms. An extraordinary phenomenon emerges, however, when we examine the fluctuations more carefully, with the help of a histogram: We fix a certain period of time (10 seconds, or a minute for example), and record the number of counts during each of a series of consecutive intervals of the given length. This gives us a sequence of whole numbers. We construct a histogram, by plotting the number of times a given whole number appears in the sequence, as a function of the number. Now, from the standpoint of simple statistics we would expect the histogram curve to have a simple bell shape, with a maximum around the number corresponding to the overall average number of counts, and then declining gradually on both sides. Naturally, if the number of measurements is small, the histogram will look more irregular, owing to the effect of random fluctuations; but we would expect that as we increase the total time of measurement, the curve would become closer and closer to the ideal mathematical bell curve. However, real measurements of radioactivity and many other processes, carried out by Shnoll and others over many years, give a completely different result! The histograms typically show several clearly defined peaks, which do not "smooth out" as we increase the number of measurements, but which actually become more and more pronounced! In four histograms, each plotting the results of 1,200 consecutive measurements of the radioactivity of a sample of the iron isotope Fe-55, over 36-second intervals, the largest peak corresponds to the average count, of about 31,500 pulses per 36 seconds; but there are a number of other peaks, which we can see emerging more and more clearly as we follow the cumulative results of the first 100, 200, 300, and so on, measurements as "layers" under the main curve (Figure 1). Change in Shape over Time The histograms, made from more than two days from four successive 12-hour-long series of measurements, show another typical phenomenon discovered by Shnoll: The shapes of the histograms change over time (Figure 2). Most remarkably, the shapes of histograms for independent measurements taken over the same time period, tend to be very similar. For example, simultaneous measurement of the reaction rate of ascorbic acid, dichlorophenolindophenol (DCPIP), and beta activity of carbon-14 show histograms of very similar shape. These and a large number of other experiments carried out by Shnoll and his collaborators over many years, point unambiguously to the existence of a universal factor influencing the shapes of histograms, and which varies in time. Furthermore, the Russian researchers have discovered well-defined periods, over which similar histogram shapes tend to recur (Figure 3). To do this, they devised a computer-based algorithm for measuring the relative degree of "closeness" or similarity of histogram shapes, and on this basis carried out a computer analysis of hundreds of histograms taken over a long period. Examining the distribution of time intervals between "similar" histograms, they found strong peaks at 0 hours (that is, histograms made independently at the same time tend to be similar), at approximately 24 hours, at 27.28 days (probably corresponding to the synodic rotation of the Sun), and at three time intervals close to a year: 364.4, 365.2 and 366.6 days. More recent data, just reported to the author, indicate that the "24-hour" period is actually slightly shorter, and corresponds quite precisely to a sidereal day! The latter would suggest, that at least one astronomical factor influencing histogram shape may originate outside the solar system, being associated with the orientation of the measuring station relative to the galaxy, and not only relative to the Sun. Shnoll concludes: "From the data presented above, it follows that the 'idea of shape'-the fine structure of distributions of results of measurements of processes of diverse nature-is determined by cosmological factors." He does not put forward a definite hypothesis concerning the nature of the these factors, but suggests as a possibility the notion of a global "change of space- time structure," and notes that "a sound analysis of such a hypothesis will possibly require experiments under different gravitational conditions." Clearly, these results should be intensively followed up by scientists around the world. ... Copyright (c) 2000 21st Century Science Associates. All rights reserved. *********************************************************** SPINNING ELECTRONS by Wal Thornhill [Ed note: this post was offered in response to the above article.] I favour the idea of classical, "causal" physics as distinct from the fashionable "acausal" quantum mechanics. It is this kind of evidence of connectedness of matter on a galactic scale that I believe is required to solve the problems thrown up for physics by Arp's observations of quantised redshifts of quasars and companion galaxies. However, I don't expect theoretical physicists to be overjoyed at the news. It is going to be a very difficult road to follow for those who are besotted by the "elegance" of their mathematical theories. So the outcome I expect will be a resounding silence. The item has prompted me to share with you something I read today that portrays the problem very well. It is an excerpt from an editorial in Physics Today of last March, written by N. David Merman: ..................... "In a lecture at Fermilab ..., Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar talked about "harmoniously organizing a domain with order, pattern, and coherence." (See his article in Physics Today 1979, page 25.) He cited five examples of such pinnacles of exposition, one of them being Paul Dirac's celebrated book, Principles of Quantum Mechanics. "The translucence of the eternal splendor through material phenomena," Chandrasekhar remarked, "[is] made iridescent in these books." Keeping that iridescent translucence firmly in mind, consider the following remarks of the eminent mathematician Jean Dieudonné: "When one arrives at the mathematical theories on which quantum mechanics is based, one realizes that the attitude of certain physicists in the handling of these theories truly borders on delirium .... One has to ask oneself what remains in the mind of a student who has absorbed this unbelievable accumulation of nonsense, real hogwash! It would appear that today's physicists are only at ease in the vague, the obscure, and the contradictory." What is Dieudonné talking about? He is addressing the approach to quantum mechanics laid out in Dirac's book. Elegance in physics is as much in the eye of the beholder as it is in any other field of human endeavor. Dirac's formulation appeals to physicists because, by being a little vague and ambiguous about its precise mathematical structure, it enables them to grasp and manipulate the physical content of the theory with a clarity and power that would be greatly diminished if one were distracted by certain complicating but fundamentally uninteresting mathematical technicalities. But for mathematicians, those minor technical matters lie at the heart of the subject. Quantum mechanics becomes ill-formulated and grotesque if it does not properly rest on impeccable mathematical foundations." ....................... Merman then uses a beautiful phrase to describe this situation when he writes: Chandrasekhar and Dieudonné ... sensitized me to what one might call interdisciplinary aesthetic dissonance ..." Merman writes, a little later: ........................ "... it occurred to me that a curious episode, early in my professional career, was yet another manifestation of the same phenomenon. Over 25 years ago, I became interested in the physics of the newly discovered superfluid phases of helium-3. I realized that one of the phases of this unique fluid bore a striking similarity to a type of structure known to mechanical engineers as a Cosserat continuum. So when I noticed one day that there was a seminar on Cosserat continua on the Cornell Engineering quad, I wandered over. I didn't learn anything useful about helium-3 from the engineers, but in the discussion period after the lecture, rather to my surprise, a heated debate broke out over whether a point particle could have an angular momentum-the terms of the argument were whether a particle with no internal structure at all could nevertheless spin like a top. I found this dispute remarkable for two reasons. First, because I hadn't thought that hard-headed engineers could become so passionate about so fundamentally metaphysical an issue. And second, because the question, insofar as it had empirical content, had an elegant answer whose relevance to their argument the disputants seemed not to have noticed. So I rose to my feet and made a remark, elegantly stated in four words, that I was sure would settle the whole debate: "What about an electron?" There followed a sickening silence. It was as if someone in the crowd had shouted an obscenity. (This was the early 1970s, when somebody in any crowd was quite likely to shout an obscenity.) A senior professor of theoretical and applied mechanics rose slowly from his seat, fixed me with a baleful gaze, and delivered this crushing rejoinder: "Have you ever seen an electron?" His riposte elicited nods and murmurs of approval throughout the auditorium. Then they returned to their deliberations with undiminished vigor. My elegant invocation of physical reality to cut through a metaphysical argument was viewed as a clumsy introduction of speculative metaphysics into a tough-mindedly practical debate about-about what? To this day, I do not know what the debate was about. So I slunk back to the physics corner of the campus, where the elegance and relevance of spinning electrons remained unchallenged." ........................ It is interesting that Merman seems to visualize an electron as a spinning object when it is treated by physicists as a mathematical abstraction - a point particle. For those who have had their curiosity aroused, see the full text at: http://www.aip.org/pt/mar00/refmar.htm -- 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.uswest.net/~dascott/Cosmology.htm http://www.catastrophism.com/cdrom/index.htm http://www.science-frontiers.com Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered, 10 Pensée Journals may be ordered at the I-net address below: http://www.e-z.net/~mikamar/default.html A collection of used and out-of-print books on the subject of catastrophics is now available from Mikamar Publishing. E-mail the website directly, or write to THOTH to request a list of available titles. 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