Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby everquestion » Fri May 11, 2018 9:34 am

Yes, as with Metryq’s comment above,
we three are in agreement that there is,
at this point in time,
far too small of a dataset, and far too much conjecture involved, for there to be a true consensus formed from the available data, yup.
...color me the eternal optimist...been studying this stuff for thirty years now, just out of simple curiosity, and any little movement towards what seems to me to be a more realistic understanding of our universe makes me giddy with joy.
...I’m a 55-year old little boy, still full of awe and wonderment when it comes to this stuff.
Thanx for your reply.
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:38 am

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby Metryq » Sat May 12, 2018 3:56 am

everquestion wrote:especially regarding our attempts at placing ‘statistical’ grids over the ‘messy’ real world.

That's why I have to shake my head and wonder if it is worth the effort to get into a long debate with someone when the "Drake equation" is brought up. Some get all flustered and find themselves at a loss for words if I tell them the Drake equation is not science. It is a narrow-minded, a priori notion phrased as a mathematical sentence. In short, it is nothing more than speculation masquerading as science. One cannot do statistics without a data set. We have one planet, and are still learning about it.

We don't know how life began; there are numerous hypotheses that it might have started in space, which instantly puts a hole in the equation. As others have argued, we don't even know where the information in DNA came from. That is, DNA isn't just a bunch of molecules that—given enough of that magic Time—fell together into a pattern that worked (a "statistical" certainty). DNA is a code that implies a sender and receiver that understand the code. That opens a whole order of new questions that must be answered. And until a relatively short time ago, vast sections of DNA were thought to be "junk," meaningless code. Now we know about the "epigenetic code," ready-made sub-routines just waiting for the right environmental trigger. Where did all that come from?

New students of science need to know that they are not receiving final answers from on high, but a sheaf of loosely organized observations and ideas that are changing even as they learn about it.

D_Archer wrote:i think they infer too much.

Exactly! I'll grant that there may be planetary bodies out there, especially if there is some secondary (visual) confirmation of the find. But the wobbles and dimming? If such are periodic, that might "rule out" some mechanisms. But it's like the conclusion that an X-ray source must be a black hole. It couldn't be anything else! Heck, any electronics bench tech can tell you how to create X-rays, especially if they ever worked on old CRT monitors.

If a fission reactor can occur naturally, I don't see why any of the mechanisms of electronics can't.
User avatar
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby everquestion » Tue May 15, 2018 12:44 pm

...the Drake equation is not science... is nothing more than speculation masquerading as science...

....thank you...nice to hear someone 'say' that 'out loud'...
....again, i find (at last from my point of view), we are in agreement on all points. to where the infomation in DNA comes from, i share this link just in case you're aren't aware of this reseach, a possible answer to that question:
"DNA is a Fractal Antenna in Electromagnetic Fields"
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:38 am

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby Metryq » Wed May 16, 2018 4:20 am

everquestion wrote:"DNA is a Fractal Antenna in Electromagnetic Fields"

That's very cool!

One of the first things to occur to me when learning about plasma cosmology is the "coincidence" of the twisted channels of a Birkeland current and the double helix of DNA. Related? It would seem so. Charge is the most fundamental aspect of all matter. Then one reads a book like Pollack's The Fourth Phase of Water, and one might almost imagine that we're on the trail of how consciousness ties into matter... but I think we still have a long way to go before we puzzle that one out.
User avatar
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby everquestion » Mon May 21, 2018 11:14 am

Double helix/Birkeland currents, riiiiight? Wondered the same thing.
Thanx for the tip on the Pollack book, hadn't noticed that one, will definitely check it out.
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:38 am

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby DangerousDann » Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:06 pm

It mystifies me how easily the current majority of mainstream science can ignore the obvious depictions of ancient man, or even bury or re-bury evidence that modern man is much older than previously theorized. Hot Jupiters abound, the evidence is clear that we are not a norm. I believe my long dead ancestors much more than any current , technology blinded , self important scientist bucking for funding in a capitalistic driven economy , any day. To me its simple: will we ever get a cure to cancer in a capitalist economy that makes millions on chemo that rarely cures anything? There is no profit in healing people. It won't happen. Will the obvious cosmic truth be accepted if it means termination of funding? Not in this greed driven economy, no chance in hell. It will be like pulling teeth to get mainstream Nobel scientists to face reality and close the book of failing mathematical theory. Private money is the only way to try to gain critical mass.
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: More Confirmation for Theory that the Planets were Close

Unread postby ja7tdo » Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:12 pm

everquestion wrote:1. the distant solar systems we’re seeing tend to be of the same configuration,
2. that configuration being nothing like ours,
3. and showing planets that are very close to each other.

This is the mechanism by which a fixed star can be formed by electric universe.A star is made from the knot of birkeland current.A star is a hollow.The interstellar material covers the surface.In the early stages when the stars shine, the plasma is thin, so it looks like a red dwarf.Plasma is only being discharged at the surface.Over time, heavy elements are fused.When heavy elements accumulate inside, the electrical repulsive force maintaining the cavity decreases.The star is deflated and it turns into a gas planet.The gas planet does not have a strong magnetic field of a star.Gas planets that can no longer collect interstellar matter will deviate from the center of the birkeland current.A new star can be made in the center.

The reason why a gas planet is just near the center star still has the same charge yet.Over time, the gas planet receives electric charge from the center star and moves away little by little.
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Ancients witnessed "Creation of the Universe"

Unread postby BeyondTheVeil » Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:37 pm

The proto-Saturn hypothesis postulates that Earth was once a planet of the brown dwarf star Saturn, basking in its glow-mode plasma sheath prior to electrical capture by our current sun. Being inside of Saturn's glow-mode plasma sheath would have precluded the inhabitants of Earth from seeing any of the rest of the cosmos, except the other planets within close proximity of Earth, those being Mars and Venus.

Considering the proposed capture by our current sun, the shutting down of the Saturn's glow-mode plasma emissions and its conversion into a gas giant planet, and the subsequent electrical relocation of Earth, Mars, and Venus, the cosmos would have become suddenly visible to the Ancients. This must have appeared to them as the Creation of the Universe, given that they had never observed anything in the sky before other than the glow of our former brown dwarf star Saturn and the Earth's two sister planets Mars and Venus. And in their view, the universe must have appeared to have been born/created out of the chaos of the planetary captures and relocation events.
Unless you ask, the answer is always "No".
User avatar
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:56 pm
Location: Huaran, Cusco, Peru

Re: Ancients witnessed "Creation of the Universe"

Unread postby moses » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:27 pm

Yes, it seems certain that the creation stories come from a time after the break up of the previous configuration of planets. Everything in the sky would have appeared new. However this would likely be true for any previous configuration, and there would have been chaotic conditions straight after the break up and only later would come the idea of creation.

Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Velikovsky: How was Venus Born? Jupiter or Saturn

Unread postby philalethes » Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:03 pm

I have all of Cardona's books, and as i recall off the top of my head, he also speaks of a time under Saturn before it began to be illuminated, or charged by Sol, when the ancients spoke of there being a Chaos Ocean. I envisioned this as dimly barely glowing swirls of plasma around Saturn, and Saturn not seen clearly. Uranus or Ouranos later means "heaven," and UR is prefix for primal, primordial.

So mankind only saw a dim swirl overhead, the UR Ocean of Chaos. Then as Saturn received charge from Sol, it began to become visible. this would appear to be a form of birth, son Saturn from UR father Ouranos. Or, an egg appearing which is another story of how cosmos came into being.

As some point out, Venus could already be there ejected from Saturn earlier, but now the increasing charge caused Saturn to glow, stand out from the Ocean, and then the overcharge caused Venus to flare and suddenly it looked like She came out of the foamy swirling Sea. Perhaps the scythe or sickle was a vivid plasma shape occurring.

As to Saturn eating his children, I can also imagine that in this birthing time, there was the emergence of various plasmoids, or clouds of plasma, that seemed to emanate from Saturn, and were then reabsorbed.

Cardona speaks of mankind seeing the emanations from Saturn that formed into the rings, 3 major divisions with 7 contained within, giving rise to stories of the 7 or 3 tiers to a "palace" of the King, or of a divine mountain, leading to the idea of a stepped arrangement copied in the ziggurat models of heaven on earth.
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:29 pm

Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago

Unread postby Younger Dryas » Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:56 pm

They were both right.

Venus was physically ejected from the planet Saturn (electric stress = decrease surface area) in simple terms.

At some point in the 2nd Millennium B.C the planet Venus's orbit took it behind the planet Jupiter - emerging out of what appeared to be its forehead.

Josepheus created a lot of confusion :)
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)
Younger Dryas
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada


Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests