Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:47 am

While it is true that on the world wide web, the earliest mention of the Nebular Hypothesis has been attributed to the great Swedish scientist and Christian philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), I would like to present you with evidence from his own writing that this is not the case. In fact, I think I can demonstrate to an objective and fair readership that the case is actually quite the opposite: Swedenborg's scientific writings contain the first mentions of solar expulsion of materials, resulting in the formation of planets. In that sense, his cosmology is compatible with the [science of the Electric Universe as presented in the] writings of Wallace Thornhill, in which electrical [fission] is the way that stellar pairs, gas giants, and rocky planets are formed.

I will leave aside Swedenborg's biography for now. He was in essence a brilliant scientist and engineer, and held an official post for the Crown in mining. I personally discovered him because of his incredibly advanced and pioneering work in human anatomy, and in particular the human brain. Later in life, he experienced a spiritual awakening which led to a transition in his writing. He then wrote many books about the spiritual state of man, and the afterlife. But even in these writings, he draws heavily from his understanding of plant and animal life, and human anatomy, to illustrate and confirm spiritual realities.

In the book The Principia: Or, the First Principles of Natural Things, Being New Attempts Toward a Philosophical Explanation of the Elementary World, Vol 2, Swedenborg presents his ideas for particle physics, magnetism, and the formation of the planets. I will be presenting quotes from this book, and not re-interpretations and summaries of his work. The difficulty with Swedenborg is that he was writing in Latin and there are good translations and extremely poor translations. But this reprint of the original work has many diagrams which he produced himself and can help to clarify the meaning of the text.
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:04 pm

In the IV chapter of Part III of Swedenborg's Principia, called "On the Universal Solar and Planetary Chaos, and the Separation into Planets and Satellites", he presents his idea of the physical processes involved in the formation of our solar system. Therefore, this is the primary historical document which must be used to determine what his views are.


Before transcribing passages from the original texts for your own evaluation, I will say first that his physical explanation of the formation of the sun and the planets differs from the Nebular Hypothesis in the following ways:

1. Swedenborg assumes first a vortex of energy in which the sun exists, and from which it receives its motion and energy.

2. Swedenborg's system of particles include the active, the passive, and the elementary/finites. The sun consists of active particles.

3. Swedenborg states that from the active particles the elementary particles are "compressed," and this compression occurs on the surface of the sun.

4. Once the compression of active particles covers the sun with a layer of elementary particles, this layer is expelled away from the sun.

5. He then proceeds to demonstrate how the other planets and the earth move out, away from the sun, to their present orbits. In fact, Chapter XI is called, "On the Vortex Surrounding the Earth, and the Earth's Progression from the Sun to the Circle of Its Orbit."

So you see that Swedenborg has addressed the origins of matter in his Principia, and that the creation of matter from simpler particles mainly takes place on the surface of a sun, which is embedded in its vortex. This is very similar language to the Electric Universe's axiom that an electric Birkeland Current sustains the place of the sun in the galaxy. It is also compatible with the Electric Universe hypothesis that the heavy elements are created on the surface of stars, and not in distant nebular explosions -- which then must travel vast distances across space and intermix with the Nebula, from which planets arise, according to today's astronomers.
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby Webbman » Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:05 am

I do enjoy Mr. Swedenborgs ideas.

I do believe though that his compression isn't physical but electrical and refers to voltage or electrical compression/pressure, extreme voltage.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:52 pm

Webbman says, "I do believe though that his compression isn't physical but electrical and refers to voltage or electrical compression/pressure, extreme voltage."

I immediately think of nucleosynthesis on the solar surface too! (:

Swedenborg's system of particles, from the "ethereal individual" particle, to the increasingly compressed particles, to the compounded elements, would be interesting to look at first, but I only set out to show that he is not describing the Nebular Hypothesis. Meanings of terms he is using must be inferred from contexts for now. He plainly had a developed system of physics and was relying on the first particles for the creation of subsequent particles; and he proceeded with the certainty that for the material of the earth to be there, the causes for the formation of those materials must also first be there.
Shorthand version: No effects without causes!

Image
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:57 pm

Emanuel Swedenborg

OF THE UNIVERSAL SOLAR AND PLANETARY CHAOS, AND ITS SEPARATION INTO PLANETS AND SATELLITES.

As yet the vortex is void and empty; running round the sun like a torrent, and ever pursuing the same gyrations. It encloses the sun in its middle, and never allows it to move out of its place or centre: on the other hand, neither does the sun allow the circumfluous element to penetrate into its own active space. It is this element which sets limits to the solar space; which enables us, also, to give it a name, and to call it a space; without this circumfluous element, we could not attribute locality to the actives, which would then dissipate themselves far and wide into an unfathomable void...
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:06 pm

1. That, by reason of the same causes, the second elementary particles are most highly compressed near the solar active space; that, in consequence of this compression, they cease to be elementaries; that finites erist in the same manner as first elementaries; but that these finites erist from second elementaries of a higher dimension, and are the fourth in order, the former being third in order.

From what we have said it follows, that the second elementaries are extremely similar to the first ; that they are in the same volume with them, in the same gyre round the sun, in one and the same common state, and thus that each genus may fulfil the same destiny. It results also from the theory of each element and of the third and fourth finite, that, in the state of the formation of the vortex or before the elementaries can become circumfluent, they dispose themselves into a general and concordant motion, adapt either themselves to motion or motion to their figure, and are fluent in a state of equilibrium; that they may, in this state, be compressed; when compressed, may recede into themselves, and lose their elasticity and yieldance, that is to say, all their elementary character; that they may lose, in fine, one first principle of their nature, which is the active; thus that they cease to be elementaries, and exist as fourth finites near the sun.
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:13 pm

4. That nevertheless this crust, consisting of fourth finites, which is formed around the sun, is rotated in a certain gyre; that it is thus representative, as it were, of an active centre in formins, and perfecting the vorter, around which, consequently, the elementaries can nevertheless flow in a vortical current, but with a potency and force different from that which they would possess in case the solar space acted nakedly and contiguously upon the circumfluent elementaries. ...

5. That this crustaceous matter, being endowed with a continual gyratory motion round the sun, in the course of time removes itself farther and farther from the active space; and, in so removing itself, occupies a larger circle of space, and consequently becomes gradually attenuated, till it can no longer contiguously cohere, but bursts in some part or other....

7. That this crustaceous easpanse may subside partly into itself, and thus consist merely of a volume of finites : that it may partly subside inwardly, or toward the solar space, and thus revolve itself round some active space; that it may partly subside eateriorly or toward the vortea, and thus enclose a volume of elementary particles. Thus that there may eacist bodies of three different kinds, namely, planets, satellites, and erratic bodies straying round the sun, such as we are accustomed to denominate solar spots. Of this subject however we shall derive a better conception from the figures about to be presented. Hence it follows, that these bodies, separated into globes, consist of fourth finites; that they direct their course into the vortical current according to their magnitude and weight; that they continue more and more to elongate their distance from the sun, until they arrive at their destined periphery or orbit in the solar vortex, where they are in equilibrium with the volume of the vortex.
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby jacmac » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:18 pm

Webbman said:
"I do believe though that his compression isn't physical but electrical

I think I understand your point, but I am not sure.
Anyone who has experienced an electric shock will tell you
that it is physical.
Perhaps you might clarify.
Thanks,
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby Webbman » Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:30 am

what I mean is the electrical pressure is the driving force. Voltage builds on the sun and gets released as an arc discharge/mass ejection. Side effect of this is elemental fusion.

I should of said source of compression.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby nick c » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:01 am

Webbman wrote:I do believe though that his compression isn't physical but electrical
Perhaps the word "mechanical" should be substituted for "physical"?
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:05 pm

Figure 98 in Emanuel Swedenborg's Principia
Image

Now we turn to the diagrams for further clarification.

Fig. 98. A is the solar space; kh the crust consisting of fourth finites, which revolves round the sun. Fig. 99 exhibits the same crust expanded into a larger ring, namely, c, d, e, f, whose volume equals in quantity the volume in Fig. 98. The whole internal space is occupied by the actives of the sun. Fig. 100 exhibits the same crust still larger and more expanded, broken likewise at mn : in consequence of which hiatus a passage is afforded to the vortical element for rushing in, so as to enable it to act upon all sides, as we shall more clearly perceive in the following figures.
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:18 pm

Fig. 101 represents the crust as having a still greater density....One part withdraws itself in an inward direction, as EG and OK, carrying away with it also a part of the actives of the sun, and surrounding them with itself. Another part recedes in an outward direction, such as DPH and NQL, occupying the volume of the element flowing without, and enclosing it by glomerating around it; intermediately however it subsides as it were into itself. A and B are the quarters in which are the poles; the subsidence takes place in all directions toward the equator of the crust or the vortex, and conformably to the situation and motion of the parts in the vortex. Fig. 103 represents the crust collapsed into the form of a zone in the plane of the equinox, about which are situated the bodies A, I, K, L, M, N, O, P, in which is enclosed and concentrated the vortical element. Interiorly however, as at Q, Q, Q, Q, Q, are the bodies in which are enclosed and concentrated the actives of the sun. The zone itself or belt consists entirely of, fourth finites. Fig. 104 represents the formation of the bodies



Image

into globes, after the disruption of the zone. To these still adhere partly the lighter bodies, such as g, h, k, D; in which the light vortical element lies enclosed. All the bodies are thus in the plane of the equator, or as appears to the inhabitants of this earth, in the plane of the zodiac. Fig. 105 represents the same bodies issuing from the sun, and veering toward the circle of their orbit, as R, Q, W, N, U, T, S.; the lighter bodies accompanying them, such as p, p, p, a ; all of which become gradually surrounded by the ether in the course of their journey. In Fig. 106 we see represented the excursion of these bodies from the sun, together with the lighter bodies denominated spots of the sun. Now if it is in this manner that the universal chaos exists, it follows that for a considerable period the sun will be shut out of its vortex; and lie with its beams imprisoned within a crust...

(Some of the images are too big.)
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:35 pm

Now here are some celestial observations which he used to support his model of solar expulsion of planets:

Emanuel Swedenborg:

Stars have been known to come into view, and after a lapse of time, to grow obscure and imperceptible: then again to become visible, and again obscure; so that either they altogether disappear, or else, unless some neighbouring stars should in the meantime occupy their vortex, remain in view permanently. Here then we see the origin of the planets actually imaged forth to the eye. We see, as it were, the same incrustations arising from the compression of the circumfluent elementary parts, and veiling over the star or sun to which they belong; we see also their repeated disipations and separations. Astronomy is full of phenomena of this kind, and to this very day continues to offer to the eye those representations of chaos of which we have been speaking; forbidding as it were a single doubt upon the subject. I shall here adduce the remarks of one astronomer only; the celebrated David Gregory, who, in his Elements of Physical and Geometrical Astronomy, lib. ii., prop. xxx., p. 171, A.D. 1702, thus observes:

“In the age of Hipparchus, according to the testimony of Pliny, there appeared among the fixed stars a new one, between which and the celebrated star in Cassiopea, which appeared in the year 1572, Riccioli enumerates the appearance of six other stars. The new star in Cassiopea, which seemed to be of the first magnitude, appeared about the beginning of November, in the year 1572; and continued till the month of March, in the year 1574. This star, as well as the one which appeared in the age of Hipparchus, gave occasion to Tycho Brahe to make observations on the fixed stars; as he himself states in his Progymnastica, in which he expressly treats of this new star.

In the month of August, A.D. 1596, David Fabricius observed a new star of the third magnitude, which disappeared in two months. In the year 1600, a new star appeared in the breast of the Swan; first observed by other astronomers, and afterwards by Kepler, who gave an astronomical account of it. This star, which was of the third magnitude, continued to be so till the year 1659. (Kepler made observations upon it with large instruments from the year 1638 down to this period.) From the year 1659 it began to decrease in a remarkable manner; and, at the end of the year 1661, had entirely vanished. After an interval of five years, or in the month of September 1666, it reappeared so as to be visible even to the naked eye, and was seen by Hevelius as a star of the sixth or seventh magnitude, in exactly the same situation it had previously occupied.

In the year 1604, about the beginning of October, a new star was seen in the right foot of the Dragon, which appeared larger than Jupiter and nearly equal to Venus. This star lasted for a whole year; but after the month of October 1605, became invisible. Kepler published a pamphlet upon the subject. These three new stars, viz., the one in Cassiopea, the one in the Swan, and the one in the Dragon, were seen in the galaxy; which consequently came to be denominated by some the treasury of new stars.

Other new stars also have been observed; one, for instance, in the year 1612: this was seen in the girdle of Andromeda by Simon Marius, author of the Mundus Jovialis : another in Antinous, by Justus Byrgius, clock-maker to the Prince of Hesse ; as also by other astronomers.

In the year 1638, John Phocylides Hollward, of Francfort, observed a new star of the third magnitude, or still larger, in the neck of the Whale. The manner in which this star vanished and reappeared every year, but not always at the same time, (though Bullialdus thought it was,) and how after four years it became again finally invisible, may be learnt from the history of it given by Hevelius, and annexed to his account of the planet Mercury, as also from his Annus Climactericus. Cassini found by observation, that the phases of this star recurred after nearly 330 days; for sometimes there was a difference of 15 days in the commencement of the phase, either sooner or later. This star seems to be the same with the one which Fabricius had observed in the year 1612; for the localities of the two coincide.

In the month of July, 1670, Hevelius detected a new star of the third magnitude under the head of the Swan; and which, in his catalogue, he assigns to the Little Fox. After a short time it began to decrease, and about the end of August, 1671, entirely disappeared; but in the month of March following it again came into view, at first like an extremely minute star, from which it gradually enlarged to one of the third magnitude. After this it again diminished; so that in the month of September, 1672, it became wholly extinguished, and was never afterwards seen.

Besides these, there have been seen other stars of various magnitudes, as of the 4th, 5th and 6th, which were known to the ancients, and were observed also by Tycho Brahe, but which also have, in turn, gradually become extinct, as we may find on examining Hevelius' catalogue. Hevelius mentions four in his Prodromus Astronomicus; one star, namely, in the left thigh of Aquarius, preceding the adjacent one in the tail of Capricornus; a second in the belly of the Whale; and another, the first of the shapeless ones behind the beam of the Scales. Other observations upon these stars have been made by French astronomers. Besides all this, the large fixed stars of the first, second, and third magnitude are found to experience considerable changes, in regard both to lustre and dimension; as is evident from the different accounts, given us by various astronomers, concerning fixed stars of the first and second, or second and third magnitudes. And in order that posterity might be the more easily able and without error to judge of the changes experienced by the large fixed stars, Hevelius in his Prodromus has recorded a variety of observations made by himself.”

From these statements it appears, not only that stars are seen to come into view in the heavens, but that afterwards they form around themselves another element, and in course of time become incrusted; that, in this state of incrustation, being situated among so many neighboring stars which are disposed in their own sphere in regular order, they are unable to perfect any vortex around themselves, and consequently always remain in a state of suspended formation; that hence they become incrusted, continue in their state of incrustation, and thus remain concealed from our view.

End of quote.
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:27 pm

Two of my favorite images of Swedenborg. Maybe more people will recognize him, from a recent video.

Image

I bought the Principia back in 2013, but in the end I did not have to transcribe the text because I was able to use a setting on google books, which allowed me to copy and paste the above passages. (Also: I apologize for confusing the words "elemenaries" and "elements" in one earlier post.) But I appreciate the opportunity to share something from my library in this digital age. And I pray that the diagrams and primary source will help to illuminate what this man was actually saying for as many people as possible. I think that it is very clear from the primary historical source that Swedenborg was in no way advancing the the Nebular Hypothesis, or even a variant of it -- since the elements were formed on the star and then actively expelled into their orbits.

Further, I believe this compares favorably with the Electric Universe model of electrical sorting of elements within stars according to ionization potentials at their birth, and later, with the electrical fisioning of materials from within the star; and still later with the nucleosynthesis taking place on the sun.

Stars behave as electrodes in a galactic glow discharge. Bright stars like our Sun are great concentrated balls of lightning! The matter inside stars becomes positively charged as electrons drift toward the surface. The resulting internal electrostatic forces prevent stars from collapsing gravitationally and occasionally cause them to “give birth” by electrical fissioning to form companion stars and gas giant planets. Sudden brightening, or a nova outburst marks such an event. That elucidates why stars commonly have partners and why most of the giant planets so far detected closely orbit their parent star. Stellar evolution theory and the age of stars is an elaborate fiction.
~Wal Thornhill


Image
God eftermiddag!
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Swedenborg: Nebular Hypothesis, or Solar Expulsion?

Unread postby Solar » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:23 am

Thank you for posting this.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am


Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest