Beyond Velikovsky

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Beyond Velikovsky

Unread postby D_Archer » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:34 am

Miles Mathis: Beyond Velikovsky
http://milesmathis.com/vel2.pdf

---
I do not think many on this forum are particularly into Velikovsky (ie like blind fans), but some very important conclusions in this article and good for the "velikovsky people" to know ( i guess)...

pba this is NOT a conspiracy post and i post in the future of science because it does impact the way i will see Velikovsky from here on out and to know the past we can better shape the future of science.

I think that future is individual people thinking for themselves and not falling for the big science propoganda of the past, or the current time nor the future. This article proves to me that debates are polarized on purpose and later used for blackwashing. And propoganda, polarizing, blackwashing are terms that (should) have nothing to do with science.

And does it impact thunderbolts...?... for me i am always wary, but respect most in the thunderbolts community and again it is about what 1 individual says or proposes and anybody can make up their own minds.. i hope.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Beyond Velikovsky

Unread postby moses » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:38 pm

This Mathis article seems rather slap-dash to me. He writes that planets are not like comets and this summarises his effort. The tails of comets are very like the tails of planets and this is one of the main tenets of EU.

I like the Mathis charge theory but he seems to be determined that only he is right, and right about everything. He really needs to go over his ideas again and again.
Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Beyond Velikovsky

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:57 pm

I concur, Mo, and Daniel.

I wrote the following to discuss with the pro-Miles site, http://CuttingThroughTheFog.com .

Paraphrasing + Comments on Miles' recent paper, Beyond Velikovsky, at http://milesmathis.com/vel2.pdf (Vel. means Velikovsky.)

_MM -- Vel. claims Venus was ejected from Jupiter, then appeared as a comet and came close to Earth before settling into its present orbit. (LK -- And he said Venus is hot because it's a new planet.)

_MM -- The mainstream doesn't admit that Venus must have recently experienced a catastrophe; Venus and its spin are very round, so there was no collision, but maybe a close pass with Earth or another body.

_MM -- Vel. admits all planets have excess heat, but he gives the wrong reason; it's because Venus' poles and/or spin are reversed, causing a magnetic effect that spins incoming photons up in polar through-charge, causing more heat, and Venus' spin will reverse and go in the same direction as other planets, but it takes a long time for the Sun's charge field to reverse the spin of such a large planet.

_MM -- Vel. is wrong about Venus nearly colliding with Earth, because Earth did not heat up significantly, but only suffered darkness and other minor changes, and he's wrong about Venus' heat coming from recent formation and the mainstream is wrong about the greenhouse effect, because as Vel. said, thick Venusian clouds would block solar heat, causing cooling, not heating, and Venus reflects most of the light it receives, which also prevents heating.

_MM -- In reality Venus' heat comes up from below via the charge field. (LK -- But the charge field comes from the Sun, doesn't it, which means it comes from above, not below? If Venus were newly formed, as Vel. said, its heat would come up from below. It seems more likely that Venus was heated some other way. Maybe the flipping of its axis heated it at least partly. Talbott and Cardona thought Venus, Mars and Earth were formerly satellites of Saturn, that Saturn was a brown dwarf star that flared as a nova, and Venus was closest to Saturn, so the nova may have heated Venus too.)

_MM -- The mainstream avoids seriuosly discussing why Venus' data is so unusual; evidence indicates Venus has flipped its axis recently, but Miles can't yet calculate how recently. (LK -- Catastrophists have discussed this and have shown that the present rate of heat loss on Venus indicates that it should cool to normal levels within a few centuries or millennia.)

_MM -- It's unlikely that, as per Vel., Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet. (LK -- I think Vel. thought Jupiter's Great Red Spot could have been the birthplace of Venus. John Ackerman still thinks so. I think that's unlikely, but I recently noticed this article: An exoplanet loses its atmosphere in the form of a tail https://phys.org/news/2018-12-exoplanet-atmosphere-tail.html . So, even if Venus wasn't ejected from Jupiter as a new planet, it seems entirely plausible that it [Venus] could have looked like a comet, if it lost some of its atmosphere in the form of a tail. Mythology around the world says Venus was a comet, which is where Vel. got the idea. And it's likely that Earth lost much of its atmosphere recently too, because large land animals needed the extra buoyancy in order to move under the present gravity conditions. And dinosaur bones have been C14 dated to only tens of thousands of years, not millions.)

_MM -- It's also unlikely that Venus was ejected as a moon from the Jupiter or Saturn systems (LK -- or others), because the present moons of those systems would still be in turmoil. (LK -- That depends on how long it takes orbits to normalize. Iapetus has a 2 million mile radius orbit around Saturn inclined at nearly 16 degrees from Saturn's equatorial plane. Dust, gases and ions earlier in the systems may have caused the circularization of orbits much quicker than without that debris. The same applies to Venus' orbit circularization.)

_MM -- Bode's law corrected explains that smaller planets should orbit nearer than large ones, thus Saturn (LK -- etc) tends to move below Jupiter's orbit (LK -- and Mars below Earth's).

_MM -- The asteroid belt was likely caused by close planetary encounters in that way, and a similar recent encounter likely involved Venus moving from a farther orbit past Earth to its present orbit and flipping on its axis while passing.

_MM -- Mars was probably involved in the asteroid belt event, as it's close to the belt, and there's plenty of room above Earth's orbit for Venus to have come from there, and Mars appears to be moving toward the gap that Venus left.

_MM -- The moon of Mars is getting closer to it because Mars is moving inward, while Earth's Moon is moving farther from Earth because Earth is moving outward and Earth's period was likely shorter. (LK -- Some ancient records say it was 360 days.)

_MM -- Venus and Earth did not dance together in Biblical times, but they may have much earlier. (LK -- Talbott and Cardona independently concluded that indeed the encounter between Earth and Venus was at least a thousand years earlier than Vel. thought and was not mentioned in the Biblical record. I think they expressed perplexity as to how Vel. concluded that Venus was involved in the plagues of the Exodus event.)

_MM -- The Moon may have previously orbited Venus, or it may have been on the far side of Earth as Venus passed etc. (LK -- Some ancient records seem to say Earth initially had no Moon.)

_MM -- Vel. was likely misdirecting readers away from evidence of the photonic charge field. (LK -- I don't know if the ruling class's experts knew about the charge field then, in 1950. Vel. and his successors, Thunderbolts, have favored electrical forces as having major effects. I'm not sure yet that Vel. was trying to misdirect. It's possible, but I need better evidence. I know some of the Thunderbolts people and it seems they just haven't been able to follow Miles' explanations well enough. Some of their forum members like many of Miles' ideas, including me, and we discuss them there sometimes. But I'm open-minded on whether there has been intentional misdirection.)

_MM -- Thunderbolts is claiming that there are no photons. (LK -- I haven't heard that. I'd say most of them consider photons as massless. If they've said there are no photons, I'd like to see where they say that. On this page https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/09/02/essential-guide-to-eu-introduction/ they say: "Electric fields are detectable in two ways: when they accelerate electrons, which emit observable photons as synchrotron and Bremsstrahlung radiation, and by accelerating charged particles as electric currents which are accompanied by magnetic fields, detected through Faraday rotation of polarized light." So I think Miles needs to correct the statement.)

_MM -- The governors wanted to keep the charge field secret, except for a few military scientists. (LK -- That would be more plausible if there's evidence that military scientists have done anything that would likely have only been possible if they knew about the charge field.)

_MM -- Vel. followed the pattern of Ignaeius Donnelly who also divulged a lot of good data, but then blackwashing it. (LK -- I'm interested in what data was blackwashed.)

_MM -- By burying the data from both of them, the governors squelched discussion and research. (LK -- That's very plausible, that they intended to make anyone who discussed such subjects pariahs. However, they could have done that even if Vel. and Donnelly were not controlled opposition.)

_MM -- To keep control of science, they had to keep everyone in the gravity-only, math-based, relativity/QED fog; if the average scientist understood the charge field, a real revolution would have been quick.

_MM -- Vel. was wrong on specifics, but right in general, e.g. (LK -- cataclysmic) events weren't caused by Venus, since it passed Earth earlier, but they may have been caused by comets, asteroids and meteors, even according to his evidence.

_MM -- Vel's theory that Venus and later Mars caused the cataclysms is fanciful and unnecessarily complicated. (LK -- Thunderbolts tries to interpret the mythological records accurately and they [the records] do seem to indicate that Venus and Mars were inner moons of Saturn, which eventually destabilized and the pair caused some havoc in the inner solar system, not necessarily directly on Earth.)

_MM -- Vel. was paid to blackwash the truth, i.e. the charge field, ancient texts, amateur scientists and the public. (LK -- Maybe, but the evidence seems slim, and it seems that Vel. believed in what he found, and I don't know of evidence that anyone else guided or controlled him. He claimed that he made his discovery about Venus etc in 1939, I think, when he had the theory that Moses, not Akhenaten, was the original monotheist.)

_MM -- Before WW2 the public had considerable knowledge of science, but less and less thereafter.

_MM -- The Vel. affair pre-blackwashed Miles' findings with help from Thunderbolts. (LK -- ... I wouldn't be surprised if some of the moneyed supporters of Thunderbolts have ulterior motives, but I'd be very surprised if Talbott, Thornhill, Scott, Cochrane, Cardona, van der Sluijs and others do/did.)

_MM -- The governors weren't prepared for someone like Miles, because his methods are unprecedented and he has taken advantage of their own tools, like the internet. (LK -- I'd like to know how Miles was educated. There's an organization called the Institutes for the Advancement of Human Potential, which found that almost all kids have genius potential, and they've been trying to help parents learn how to help their kids develop that potential. So I think genius would be common if society would learn how to develop it, like IAHP teaches.)
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron