Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

[mharratsc]

I asked for clarification because I fully believe that the Sun and everything else in orbit around it are in an electrodynamic relationship- all of it acts as a load on an intragalactic circuit.

This gives one quite a large power source to work with for further speculation regarding the causal factors of various observations made within the solar system!

I don't know if you were referring to being trolled by me specifically or not, but I can assure you that wasn't my intention. I think you're one of the more educated folks running around here (with regards to to these matters) and I value your input, hence why I asked for clarification on your views regarding our solar system's electrical environment.

[nick c]

@ Saul - Why would you specify 'electrostatic in an electrodynamic solar system?

Anyway looks like I've been trolled once again

saul,
I am not sure what you are saying here? Mike has asked a valid question. Viewing phenomena involving the electrodynamics of plasmas in space from a simple electrostatic perspective will ultimately lead to a dead end. Scott explains this important distinction (in the context of the Electric Universe model of the solar wind) in his rebuttal to Thompson.
See:
Tim Thompson – A Rebuttal

Wal Thornhill has already referred Thompson to low-pressure gas discharge physics as being the appropriate model to use, not simple electrostatics. As a pseudoskeptic, Thompson refuses to address his remarks to this model because it refutes his beliefs and he can‘t find any authority to quote that has ever considered the possibility. In the gas discharge model, interplanetary space is an extensive plasma region termed the 'positive column,‘ which is characterized by almost equal numbers of positive charges (ions) and electrons. The plasma is electrically 'quasi-neutral,‘ like a current-carrying copper wire. And like a copper wire, it is a region with a weak electric field that causes a steady drift of electrons toward the more positive 'sink.‘ (The drift speed of electrons in a current-carrying copper wire is typically measured in cm/hr!) The drift current focused down from the vastness of space powers the Sun.

[Benevolent]

For a century, scientists have assumed that the Earth has same chemical make-up as the sun. But this belief has been challenged by scientists at The Australian National University.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-cho ... earth.html

[jetstove]

I have my own theory of planetary formation that would agree with the Saturnian model with some differences.

The basic assumption is that Saturn came into the electromagnetic field of Sol and was finally captured after many interactions with the field. I believe that with every interaction there was planetary birth. That is why there are so many moons orbiting Saturn. Here is how my model works.

After entering the electromagnetic field of Sol, Saturn is strongly attracted due to large differences in electrical charge potential. Saturn has a large inertial mass and to balance the inertia it must give electrons to (discharge) Sol. This is in the form of a plasma stream from Saturn’s polar region to Sol. Plasma streams are like tornados and pick up debris as they spin. This debris flows along the Birkland currant towards Sol. The amount is large because the charges on the particles are all equal, they want to separate. All this is very much like the currant theory so far.

So, the electrical charge is moving towards Sol and new forces now come into play. There must be a point where the forces acting on the debris is equal in both directions, the theoretical Lagrange points. At these points the movement of matter would stall, collect, and build into a planet. At some point it would grow to such a mass that a new set of Lagrange points would appear. One would be towards Sol (and perhaps form the moon) and the other between Saturn and the newly formed Earth. Mars would be born. This would also build up and form another set of Lagrange points between the newly formed Mars and Saturn and between the Earth and Mars. Venus would be born. So now you have a string of planets all connected by a plasma stream and matching the mythological mode. As the planets grow the Lagrange points shift and the forces become unstable. Mars starts to move from the Lagrange points between Venus and Mars and Earth and Mars. Every time it moves back and forth it carries a charge to the Earth and accepts one from Venus (the hero warrior). The stable points finally collapse when Jupiter comes close. The most highly charged planet (Venus) races towards Sol to discharge. The scarred Mars is left between the asteroid belt (remains of a planet?) and the Earth. Earth settles into a new orbit around Sol.

Some questions: If Lagrange points for gravity can be calculated, where are the Lagrange points for the electromagnetic forces? Electromagnetic force is reckoned to be 10 to the power of 43 times stronger than gravity. As these forces interact in the orbit around the sun the points must be moving. When will the earth be, once again, at the focal point of massive electromagnetic forces? What would the effect be? Can they be additive, subtractive, or reflective? Do the points comb interstellar space and latch onto debris?

[Sparky]

Try this....

[jetstove]

Sparky! With two words and a link you have consigned me to weeks of study!! Very interresting!


Thanks

[saul]

[...]

Some questions: If Lagrange points for gravity can be calculated, where are the Lagrange points for the electromagnetic forces? Electromagnetic force is reckoned to be 10 to the power of 43 times stronger than gravity. As these forces interact in the orbit around the sun the points must be moving. When will the earth be, once again, at the focal point of massive electromagnetic forces? What would the effect be? Can they be additive, subtractive, or reflective? Do the points comb interstellar space and latch onto debris?

The trouble with this kind of theory is that it assumes the space around the objects is vacuum. In fact they are embedded in a plasma. In a plasma, charge carriers are free to move and will move to balance out the electric field and hence the field only extends out to a certain distance called a DeBye length. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_length

In almost all cases the DeBye length will be far inside any Lagrange point, unless you are willing to invoke some more interesting dynamic plasma physics which allows static electric fields to be stable in a conductive media, in which case I am all ears

[Anaconda]

As for electromagnetic Lagrange points, I don't know.

Saul, I'm sure, you have heard about Double Layers, in fact, your bringing up Debye length, seemingly anticipates arguments about electric fields in space (I know because I've read those arguments before). However, in my opinion, that's a red herring because, first; the presence of electric fields, even if limited in scope, have a dramatic impact on charged particle kinetic and vector reactions which extend beyond the electric field, second; given that electromagnetism's physical properties are well established by plasma laboratory experiments as being scale-independent, assertions about Debye length being scale-dependent, ring hollow. What is determinant is the energy level, density of charged particles. and total number of charged particles present, larger-scale, energy intensive plasma interactions will have larger Debye length possibility.

In my experience, the "Debye length" dismissal is simply an excuse not to "grasp the nettle" of the electromagnetic position in discussions of how astrophysical plasmas behave and interact.

In brief, the formation of Double Layers do not depend on pre-existing charge seperation, rather, Double Layers form where bodies of plasma collide and, in turn, cause charge separation, and, thus, segregated currents of electrons and ions.

Double Layers are the cause of charge separation, their formation does not depend on a pre-existing state of charge separation, but, rather, on the collision of plasma bodies with different physical properties -- charge separation can be present, but is not a necessary prerequisite, for the formation of Double Layers in astrophysical plasma.

In regards to quasi-neutral plasma, it is important to remember, while the plasma has equal numbers of electrons & ions, it is still an ionized or an electrified body. Coulomb force is present among the free electrons & ions in a body of plasma.

Coulomb's law or Coulomb's inverse-square law is a law of physics describing the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law

Coulomb force is present in all plasmas -- or, in fact, it wouldn't be a plasma, but instead a body of neutral gas.

Given the above statement, one needs to be conscious of the physics of how a Double Layer forms in bodies of plasma:

Anthony L. Peratt provides a two-step statement of how Double Layers form in astrophysical plasma:

“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, retired

“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, retired

In other words, colliding bodies of plasma, yes, colliding quasi-neutral bodies of plasma, cause Double Layer boundary sheaths to form, which, then, in turn, causes the separation and acceleration of charged particles, which are segregated into bodies of electrons & ions, thus, segregated electric currents. These segregated electric currents are often called field-aligned beams of ions and electrons accelerated in opposite directions. It's the electric field formed by the Double Layer that accelerates the beams of ions and electrons.

Who is Dr. Anthony L. Peratt?

Anthony L. Peratt (S'60, M'63, SM'85, F'99) received his Ph.D. in electrical engineering in 1971 from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Earlier degrees include the MSEE, USC, 1967; UCLA, 1963-1964, BSEE, California State Polytechnic University. He was a Staff Member at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1972-1979); a Guest Physicist at Max Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik, Garching, Germany (1975-1977); a Guest Scientist, Alfvén Laboratory of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden (1985); and, at Los Alamos National Laboratory from1981to the present serving in the Applied Theoretical Physics Division, Physics Division, Associate Laboratory Directorate for Experimental Programs; and as Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy (1995-1999) where he served a term as Acting Director, National Security, in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Directorate.

Dr. Peratt's research interests have included numerical and experimental contributions to high-energy density plasmas and intense particle beams; explosively-driven pulsed power generators; lasers; intense-power-microwave sources; particles; high energy density phenomena, Z-pinches, and inertially driven fusion target designs.

He has served as session organizer for space plasmas, IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science 1987-1989; Guest Editor, Transactions on Plasma Science, special issues on Space Plasmas 1986, 89, 90, 92, 2000, 2003; Organizer, IEEE International Workshops on Space Plasmas, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2003; Associate Editor, Transactions on Plasma Science, 1989-; Elected member of IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Science Society (NPSS) Executive Committee (ExCom), 1987-1989; 1995- 1997; GENERAL CHAIRMAN, IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1994. IEEE NPSS ExCom Vice Chairman 1997; Elected to the IEEE NPSS Administrative Committee, 1997, named an IEEE Fellow, 1999.

He holds memberships in the American Physical Society, American Astronomical Society, Eta Kappa Nu and has earned the United States Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award, 1987, 1999; IEEE Distinguished Lecturer Award, 1993; Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, University of Oslo Physics Department, and Norsk Hydro Kristian Birkeland Lecturer, 1995. Dr. Peratt is Author, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag (1992); Editor, Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1995); Editor, Advanced Topics in Space and Astrophysical Plasmas, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1997). Anthony Peratt can be reached at alp@ieeetps.org

http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/ ... eratt.html

Anthony L. Peratt understands the physical dynamics of space plasmas and how Double Layers form in astrophysical plasmas.

Note, in Dr. Peratt's two conjoined statements there is no limit or reference to scale dependence, which is fit, as stated above, plasma laboratory experiments have repeatedly validated the scale-independence of the electromagnetic force.

[saul]

Thanks for your reply Anaconda. Yes, I should apologize for "trolling" with my remark about the Debye length in this forum However such a reply is what I am interested in and I believe important in many discussions here. First of all, I should point out that the classical Debye length does depend on the density and temperature of the plasma.

In any case as far as the Legrange points go the formation of double layers may allow for stable charge separation but the position of null points in the electric field is unlikely to be that of naked charges which would produce such Legrange points. The calculation of Legrange points of electric fields is not useful in an astrophysical/planetary context.

I believe the difference between the quasi-Neutral and your approach is that mentioned in Alfvens papers on double layers in astrophysics: that the Debye length calculation is a "local" system, which doesn't consider other externals currents and magnetic fields which could affect the system. The paper references Peratt's work.

However, AFAIK there is no well developed theory of how the plasma resistivity changes due to magnetic fields in a double layer.. there are some simulations of double layers mentioned in the '86 paper which I need to look up. The term seems to largely have disappeared in the literature, being replaced by shock or magnetic shock (sometimes "boundary layer") which seems to perform the same basic function. In scientific language there are often terms replacing others and the trend like most of language is almost never logical. However I am interested if you think there are some fundamental differences in the meaning or physics.

[Anaconda]

Hi saul:

Thanks for your reply Anaconda. Yes, I should apologize for "trolling" with my remark about the Debye length in this forum

You're welcome. No need to apologize. I was happy to rise to the discussion and state my reply.

However such a reply is what I am interested in and I believe important in many discussions here.

Yes, it's a good discussion to have. You are right in your belief that it is important in many discussions here because the Double Layer process, relationship or dynamic (Hannes Alfven called it a 'phenomena'), as discussed and subscribed to by Hannes Alfven, and Anthony L. Peratt, in my opinion, is a central proposition of the Electric Universe paradigm.

First of all, I should point out that the classical Debye length does depend on the density and temperature of the plasma.

Good, as that reflects what I wrote:

What is determinant is the energy level, density of charged particles. and total number of charged particles present, larger-scale, energy intensive plasma interactions will have larger Debye length possibility.

The "energy level" is the "temperature of the plasma", but maybe more useful for understanding plasma, in my opinion, is to think of it as kinetic velocity of the charged particles, as the higher the kinetic velocity, the higher the energy level, as detected from Earth or satellite space probe. But remember, Browning "temperature" is a measure of random particle vibration, rather, than vector kinetic energy, so the term, 'temperature', in my opinion is slightly misleading, because vector kinetic energy is a better description, as charged particles are subject to control by magnetic & electric fields in space, as moving plasma generates its own magnetic field and bodies of plasma tend to follow magnetic fields.

I believe the difference between the quasi-Neutral and your approach is that mentioned in Alfvens papers on double layers in astrophysics: that the Debye length calculation is a "local" system, which doesn't consider other externals currents and magnetic fields which could affect the system. The paper references Peratt's work.

My position is based on Hannes Alfven's work, as best I understand it and Anthony L. Peratt's work, as best I understand it. In fact, I don't claim originality regarding my above reply, except the immediate composition of the reply, itself. Although, I will take credit for conjoining the two Peratt statments, to the best of my knowledge, into a single physical definition of what will cause a Double Layer:

Anthony L. Peratt provides a two-step statement of how Double Layers form in astrophysical plasma:

“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, retired

“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, retired

Yes, Hannes Alfven thought it necessary, in order to fully understand plasma dynamics, to map the electric fields.

In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and electric currents.

I will add, this is what I have written before, regarding Coronal Mass Ejections (CME):

At any rate, in order to gain a better understanding of the physical dynamics of CME’s, observations & measurements must take into account all the physical perameters: Magetic fields, electric fields, charged particle density, location, direction and points of acceleration.

It is my contention and the Electric Universe hypothesis that CME's are a type of Double Layer explosion. In current or more recent peer-reviewed published papers, this concept is referred to as Current Disruption theory. In Alfven's Double Layer explosion, the trigger for the release of energy is a disruption of current through the Double Layer.

I'll add, it's necessary to fully understand the phenomena to observe & measure the energy level, i. e., the temperature of the plasma, the kinetic velocity and vector of the plasma.

However, AFAIK there is no well developed theory of how the plasma resistivity changes due to magnetic fields in a double layer..

I can't supply an answer. Frankly, that is an excellent question, but, perhaps, the reason this question hasn't been answered or investigated is a lack of research, and that is because it requires an acknowledgment of the wide-spread presence of Double Layers in space plasma, and, so far, that has not been admitted by conventional astrophysics.

(Or I'm simply unaware of the scientific research in that area of research, which is entirely possible.)

The term seems to largely have disappeared in the literature, being replaced by shock or magnetic shock (sometimes "boundary layer") which seems to perform the same basic function. In scientific language there are often terms replacing others and the trend like most of language is almost never logical. However I am interested if you think there are some fundamental differences in the meaning or physics.

Yes, that is true, Hannes Alfven, with his prestige in the astronomical community, was hard to ignore, he got a hearing, and had a conference at NASA, but, with his passing, those opposed to his views, who never adopted his theories or the supporting physical concepts, went right back to what was accepted in the astrophysical community.

Mostly, this is because those opposed to Hannes Alfven's views, didn't want to acknowledge the electric field and electric currents in space, so the term, 'shock', or even 'magnetic shock' (the magnetic fields simply can't be denied), which is a mechanical or fluid dynamic term, is used. The end result avoids having to consider the electric field or electric currents -- as electric currents -- rather, than simply particle flows, devoid of the electrical component.

Saul, there is a reason why certain terms are used and how the concepts came into being. Let's take what I've previously written regarding CME's as an example since I've already touched on the subject:

So-called “magnetic reconnection” was developed in response to ground observations of CME’s, and, in the pre-space age of 1946, only magnetic fields could be observed from ground observatories.

The early “magnetic reconnection” papers all focussed on magnetic fields, but the magnetic field is only one force among many which also includes electric fields, charged particle density, location, velocity, direction, and points of acceleration.

As a result, these early papers never quantified the process and many disagreements existed among the scientists studying the process.

Other scientists applied an electromagnetic framework from the beginning of their analysis & interpretation (which had already been developed in the laboratory), these scientists applied the Electric Double Layer model, which has been qualitatively & quantitatively resolved.

And, this electromagnetic analysis & interpretation has been validated by in situ satellite probes.

Of course, Yamada, et al., doesn’t discuss Electric Double Layers or compare & contrast the two processes because if they did, it would be readily apparent the processes are one and the same process, with, albeit, different names.

It’s simple: The “magnetic reconnection” camp can’t admit the Electric Double Layer analysis & interpretation was right all along because then the game would be over.

Clearly, an electromagnetic framework of analysis & interpretation is required to develop a model for the process in question: Formation & propagation of coronal mass ejections (CME’s).

I still maintain this is the reason why so-called "magnetic reconnection" is so fiercely held onto in the astrophysical community.

But with recent satellite probes which can measure electric fields, charged particle direction, velocity, acceleration, and density, in addition to magnetic fields, these scientists are in the embarrassing position of observing & measuring the exact same signature of a Double Layer, which already has been qualitatively & quantitatively formalized, in the plasma laboratory, and having to insist on calling it "magnetic reconnection".

Of course, the only difference is the term, at one level, because the physical phenomena is the same, no matter what it is called, but at another level, those that use the term, 'shock' or 'magnetic shock', do so without either understanding or acknowledging the full electromagnetic component, specifically the electric component. (The astrophysical community uses the magnetic component, forgetting Maxwell's equations require the electric component, as the two forces are reciprical of each other and inseparable, so the electric component must be considered.)

Why this insistence on avoiding the electric component?

You want my opinion?

Well, to come to grips with the full electromagnetic force, being that it is so much more powerful and dynamic than the force of gravity would upset a lot of established apple carts.

[Anaconda]

Hi saul:

I need to clarify an issue:

I believe the difference between the quasi-Neutral and your approach is that mentioned in Alfvens papers on double layers in astrophysics: that the Debye length calculation is a "local" system, which doesn't consider other externals currents and magnetic fields which could affect the system. The paper references Peratt's work.

My approach is consistent with and works within the principles & definition of quasi-Neutrality.

In regards to quasi-neutral plasma, it is important to remember, while the plasma has equal numbers of electrons & ions, it is still an ionized or an electrified body. Coulomb force is present among the free electrons & ions in a body of plasma.

In brief, the formation of Double Layers do not depend on pre-existing charge separation, rather, Double Layers form where bodies of [quasi-Neutral] plasma collide and, in turn, cause charge separation, and, thus, segregated currents of electrons and ions.

Double Layers are the cause of charge separation, their formation does not depend on a pre-existing state of charge separation, but, rather, on the collision of plasma bodies with different physical properties -- charge separation can be present, but is not a necessary prerequisite, for the formation of Double Layers in astrophysical plasma.

The following is a partial description of an astrophysical phenomena:

The injection rate is dependent on the detailed electromagnetic structure of the shock, which determines the rate at which incoming particles are reflected or scattered back upstream, and it appears to be very sensitive to the local magnetic obliquity. For quasi-perpendicular shocks, thermal particles are not able to scatter sufficiently to initiate diffusive shock acceleration before the magnetic field sweeps them through the shock. Determining the injection mechanism is nontrivial. Even after years of investigations of the Earth’s bow shock based on International Sun-Earth Explorer (ISEE) and Cluster data, the origin of the field-aligned beams that initiate the ion-acceleration process is unknown.

The origin of the field-alinged particle beams of electrons and ions is consistent with the signature of a Double Layer where field-alinged segregated particle beams of electrons & ions are accelerated in opposite directions by the initiation of an electric field upon the formation of the Double Layer as the result of the collision of two bodies of plasma consistent with the two-step approach outlined by Dr. Anthony L. Peratt's statements:

“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, retired

“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, retired

In other words, colliding bodies of plasma, yes, colliding quasi-neutral bodies of plasma, cause Double Layer boundary sheaths [Langmuir sheath] to form, which, then, in turn, causes the segregation and acceleration of charged particles [in opposite directions], which are segregated into bodies of electrons & ions, thus, segregated electric currents.

I hope this clarifies the relationship of "quasi-Neutral" bodies of plasma and the approach outlined so that it is understood that the initiation of a Double Layer is consistent with the accepted principles & definition of quasi-neutral plasma.

Perhaps, food for thought at an experimental level from UCLA Basic Plasma Science Facility:

Three dimensional field lines taken from a volumetric data set in an experiment in which two laser produced plasmas collide. Data was acquired at 30,000 locations in a 3D volume in the LAPD device. Shown are the magnetic fields due to Alfven wave currents. The two Carbon targets that the lpp plasmas originate at are seen in the background. The "sparkles" are the induced electric field calculated from -dA/dt. Note that the induced field is largest in the reconnection region at the center of the image. The data is acquired 5 us after the targets are struck and 6.56 meters and 65.6 cm away. There is a background He plasma (n = 2X10^12 cm-3, B0z (not shown) = 600G)

http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/pages/gallery.html

Within the link is the following paper:

Three-dimensional current systems generated by plasmas colliding in a background magnetoplasma.

I suggest a Double Layer is formed where plasmas collide and an electric field is initiated.

[dusthurricane]

Gowdon bennett - At the top of this topic - Lloyd states that this theory is accepted by most if not all of the thunderbolt team. Oh well. I am dissapointed if this is true. Please put me on the team - i'll sort it.
Orbits are pre-determined bands which form when the star forms. Solar systems are complete packages from the start. They form nearer the centre of the galaxy where mangetic loops are inplace cutting through the gas clouds - the outer galaxy is the destiny of all planetary solar systems. Non planetary stars are functional units and may be arranged in configurations with other stars to perform a specific function within the galaxy core. So all this talk of browm dwarfs etc... orbiting another active star...please. Oribital law is a fractal type law. I will add, when stars burst into life, so do to the planets - an early solar systems will look like smaller stars orbiting parent star(s). At the centre of all orbiting celestial bodies is a star like structure which feeds from the band which it is assigned to. The band is an extension to the star itself, not just a path of orbit. It is a channel.
-

[Lloyd]

DH Theory
* DH, you should start a thread about your theory on the NIAMI board at the bottom of the forum. These other boards are just for EU theory discussion. I mean if you want to explain your theory in detail, that's where you should do it.
Saturn Theory
* EU theory on this website is based on Saturn Theory, which is based on common themes discovered in ancient myths worldwide, which are considered as evidence of what the ancients saw in the skies. Saturn Theory developed from Velikovsky's findings in 1950, but rejects some of his conclusions about Venus and Mars encountering Earth in the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. Instead, they are considered likely to have encountered Earth etc around the 3rd millennium BC.
* This is the first of six videos about ancient myths:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... search=tag
* These two videos show that ancient myths led to the finding that Mars was carved by electrical forces:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_T6__JDeyw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-qrnsh83f4

[Anaconda]

There is a substantial body of evidence to support a mechanism to introduce large amounts of energy into the Earth's crust & mantle which could account for the mass extinctions of 11,000 B. C. and the plasma effects observed & recorded by humans at about this time in history. The best scientific evidence currently available strongly suggests this electromagnetic energy came from the Sun, not Saturn.

The physical evidence for Earth being a moon of Saturn is almost non-existant. Both plant & animal behavior is consistent with a day & night cycle for tens of thousands of years, if not much longer. But Earth being a moon of a brown dwarf star -- Saturn -- where there would be no day or night, only a consistent ambient glow does not match up with plant & animal life being accustomed (evolved even) to the day & night cycle.

I subscribe to Dr. Anthony L. Peratt's theory that a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora enveloped the Earth and most likely has enveloped the Earth many times in the Earth's past.

The Thunderbolts Picture of the Day presents numerous articles which support Dr. Peratt's conclusions. These articles have been primarily written by Rens Van Der Sluijs, based on his substantial and volumous work, which can be validated by many different scientific & mythological sources.

Here are the peer-reviewed scientific papers which support my position:

Dr. Peratt laid out the scientific evidence for such a High-Current, Z-Pinch in two scientific papers published in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE:

Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity (I & 2) by Dr. Anthony L. Peratt:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14145750/Anth ... -Antiquity

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16839562/Char ... ntiquity-2

Dr. Peratt's reputation & understanding of plasma phenomenon both in the laboratory and in the field is unmatched.

The process Dr. Peratt describes based on his laboratory work with plasma phenomenon & field work cataloging petroglyphs is exhaustive.





Per Anthony L. Peratt:

The discovery that objects from the Neolithic or Early Bronze Age carry patterns associated with high-current Z-pinches provides a possible insight into the origin and meaning of these ancient symbols produced by man. This paper directly compares the graphical and radiation data from high-current Z-pinches to these patterns. The paper focusses primarily, but not exclusively, on petroglyphs. It is found that a great many archaic petroglyphs can be classified accoridng to plasma stability and instability data. As the same morphological types are found worldwide, the comparisons suggest the occurance of an intense aurora, as might be produced if the solar wind had increased between one and two orders of magnitude, a millennia ago.

And, it turns out that Science has observed & measured stars that have powerful electromagnetic current sheets radiating out from their equators:



From: "Spiral Dance in a Planetary Nursery" courtesy of Sabaru Telescope They call it a "protoplanetary disc" as the star AB Aurigae seems to display the outline of it's own "ballerina skirt" also known as the heliospheric current sheet.

This would seem to offer observational confirmation that aurora current sheets can exist which are orders of magnitude stronger than the present heliopheric current sheet.

And these plasma, electric current sheets would introduce huge amounts of electromagnetic energy into the Earth's crust and mantle, plus, this energy level given off by the Sun likely was repeated numerous times in Earth's past.

Regardless of the exact age of the Earth (I agree no one knows), it does appear high electromagnetic energy epochs were repeated across the great expanse of Earth's history. These epochs were catastrophic in effect and extent. There were many secondary electromagnetic effects and phenomena. It seems quite possible that mass extinctions, including large reductions in human populations, even civilization collapsing effects could have happened.

Orbits of the planets could have been disrupted & changed. The planet Venus likely would have had a magneto-tail lighted by glow mode and even arc discharge electromagnetic effects. Venus' orbit could have been effected with the plasma from the magneto-tail impinging on the Earth with catatrophic effects, as well. Likely, this would have happened in cyclic patterns that the ancients could have tracted, even predicted, (what an opportunity for "priests" to gain temporal power) thus, the facination with the orbit of the planets, so as to predict the coming of Venus with its magnetotail impingement. The gas giants, yes, Saturn, would, likely, have been also "lighted", perhaps, even the whole of Saturn's magnetosphere would have been in glow mode with parts possibly in arc discharge mode. A spectacular vision in the night sky, perhaps visible even in daylight.

The Thunderbolts Picture of the Day presents a variety of articles which support Dr. Peratt's conclusions. These articles have been primarily written by Rens Van Der Sluijs, based on his substantial and volumous work, which can be validated by many different sources, both scientific & mythological, which no on disputes exists, rather, it is the analysis & interpretation which is at issue. Rens Van Der Sluijs provides compelling analysis & interpretation for his conclusions.

Why does the Thunderbolts Picture of the Day present these articles?

Because there is so much scientific evidence which supports Dr. Peratt's theory which can be cited and presented so readers can consider the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusions -- even do their own independent research, not simply accept it from some "on high" source.

Another physical effect would be an increased volcanism at perhaps catastraphic activity levels and, thus, large amounts of material being expelled into the atmosphere, for which there is supporting physical evidence.

At times in Earth's history, the surface was a very inhospitable place to be.

The problem for the "Earth was a moon of Saturn" idea is that much of it depends an interpretation of Summarian manuscrips which is singular and limited. Such singular interpretation does not provide a firm scientific foundation for such conclusions which are clearly extraordinary claims.

Extraordinary claims, at the very least, require clear scientific evidence. (Frankly, extraordinary claims are said to require extraordinary evidence, but for discussion, here, clear scientific evidence will do...)

That simply doesn't exist for claims that Earth was a moon of Saturn when Saturn was a brown dwarf roaming the Milky Way galaxy then became a planet orbiting the Sun.

[PersianPaladin]

There is a substantial body of evidence to support a mechanism to introduce large amounts of energy into the Earth's crust & mantle which could account for the mass extinctions of 11,000 B. C. and the plasma effects observed & recorded by humans at about this time in history. The best scientific evidence currently available strongly suggests this electromagnetic energy came from the Sun, not Saturn.

The physical evidence for Earth being a moon of Saturn is almost non-existant. Both plant & animal behavior is consistent with a day & night cycle for tens of thousands of years, if not much longer. But Earth being a moon of a brown dwarf star -- Saturn -- where there would be no day or night, only a consistent ambient glow does not match up with plant & animal life being accustomed (evolved even) to the day & night cycle.

I subscribe to Dr. Anthony L. Peratt's theory that a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora enveloped the Earth and most likely has enveloped the Earth many times in the Earth's past.

The Thunderbolts Picture of the Day presents numerous articles which support Dr. Peratt's conclusions. These articles have been primarily written by Rens Van Der Sluijs, based on his substantial and volumous work, which can be validated by many different scientific & mythological sources.

Here are the peer-reviewed scientific papers which support my position:

Dr. Peratt laid out the scientific evidence for such a High-Current, Z-Pinch in two scientific papers published in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE:

Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity (I & 2) by Dr. Anthony L. Peratt:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14145750/Anth ... -Antiquity

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16839562/Char ... ntiquity-2

Dr. Peratt's reputation & understanding of plasma phenomenon both in the laboratory and in the field is unmatched.

The process Dr. Peratt describes based on his laboratory work with plasma phenomenon & field work cataloging petroglyphs is exhaustive.





Per Anthony L. Peratt:

The discovery that objects from the Neolithic or Early Bronze Age carry patterns associated with high-current Z-pinches provides a possible insight into the origin and meaning of these ancient symbols produced by man. This paper directly compares the graphical and radiation data from high-current Z-pinches to these patterns. The paper focusses primarily, but not exclusively, on petroglyphs. It is found that a great many archaic petroglyphs can be classified accoridng to plasma stability and instability data. As the same morphological types are found worldwide, the comparisons suggest the occurance of an intense aurora, as might be produced if the solar wind had increased between one and two orders of magnitude, a millennia ago.

And, it turns out that Science has observed & measured stars that have powerful electromagnetic current sheets radiating out from their equators:



From: "Spiral Dance in a Planetary Nursery" courtesy of Sabaru Telescope They call it a "protoplanetary disc" as the star AB Aurigae seems to display the outline of it's own "ballerina skirt" also known as the heliospheric current sheet.

This would seem to offer observational confirmation that aurora current sheets can exist which are orders of magnitude stronger than the present heliopheric current sheet.

And these plasma, electric current sheets would introduce huge amounts of electromagnetic energy into the Earth's crust and mantle, plus, this energy level given off by the Sun likely was repeated numerous times in Earth's past.

Regardless of the exact age of the Earth (I agree no one knows), it does appear high electromagnetic energy epochs were repeated across the great expanse of Earth's history. These epochs were catastrophic in effect and extent. There were many secondary electromagnetic effects and phenomena. It seems quite possible that mass extinctions, including large reductions in human populations, even civilization collapsing effects could have happened.

Orbits of the planets could have been disrupted & changed. The planet Venus likely would have had a magneto-tail lighted by glow mode and even arc discharge electromagnetic effects. Venus' orbit could have been effected with the plasma from the magneto-tail impinging on the Earth with catatrophic effects, as well. Likely, this would have happened in cyclic patterns that the ancients could have tracted, even predicted, (what an opportunity for "priests" to gain temporal power) thus, the facination with the orbit of the planets, so as to predict the coming of Venus with its magnetotail impingement. The gas giants, yes, Saturn, would, likely, have been also "lighted", perhaps, even the whole of Saturn's magnetosphere would have been in glow mode with parts possibly in arc discharge mode. A spectacular vision in the night sky, perhaps visible even in daylight.

The Thunderbolts Picture of the Day presents a variety of articles which support Dr. Peratt's conclusions. These articles have been primarily written by Rens Van Der Sluijs, based on his substantial and volumous work, which can be validated by many different sources, both scientific & mythological, which no on disputes exists, rather, it is the analysis & interpretation which is at issue. Rens Van Der Sluijs provides compelling analysis & interpretation for his conclusions.

Why does the Thunderbolts Picture of the Day present these articles?

Because there is so much scientific evidence which supports Dr. Peratt's theory which can be cited and presented so readers can consider the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusions -- even do their own independent research, not simply accept it from some "on high" source.

Another physical effect would be an increased volcanism at perhaps catastraphic activity levels and, thus, large amounts of material being expelled into the atmosphere, for which there is supporting physical evidence.

At times in Earth's history, the surface was a very inhospitable place to be.

The problem for the "Earth was a moon of Saturn" idea is that much of it depends an interpretation of Summarian manuscrips which is singular and limited. Such singular interpretation does not provide a firm scientific foundation for such conclusions which are clearly extraordinary claims.

Extraordinary claims, at the very least, require clear scientific evidence. (Frankly, extraordinary claims are said to require extraordinary evidence, but for discussion, here, clear scientific evidence will do...)

That simply doesn't exist for claims that Earth was a moon of Saturn when Saturn was a brown dwarf roaming the Milky Way galaxy then became a planet orbiting the Sun.

You forget that evolutionary changes in the morphogenetic fields of living organisms can be near-instant. Have a read up on the work that has been published on this. Here's a brief summary:-

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... 6dogma.htm

So, plants could've adapted to a day-night cycle. Who knows eh?

There is a plethora of evidence of a "sun" at the polar regions of our planet, in a range of civilisations and parts of the world. Why was it stationery? How is that possible? We don't know - but if you look at the Polar Configuration and how Venus and Mars have been said to inter-relate with Saturn, then we can see that electrical effects are clearly present. Intense aurora effects could've also manifested themselves whenever the configuration became unstable. If you read the various Catastrophist journals over the years, you will see that there has been some debate over the details of the Saturn theory. Was the Earth actually orbiting around Saturn? Can't prove it, but I would not exclude this either! Remember, Talbott et al are WELL AWARE of Anthony Perratt's work. Talbott has actually met him on a few occasions and seen slide presentations.