Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

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: Full Mars in Crescent Saturn?

Unread postby celeste » Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:36 am

Moses,
We are not even close to deciding who's theory is right. No one yet HAS a complete theory. You were right in your last post, that it is difficult to separate stories of the near past, with stories from the long past. What is more, it is difficult to separate stories by scale. We have Talbott making a case that a golden age has to do with alignments of planets, and Saturn being a sun. People like Cruttenden say a golden age has to do with cycles of our sun and another star. "Hamlet's Mill" is all about ages being determined by where we are in our precessional cycle. We even have those like Jenkins, saying that ages have something to do with our solar system's alignment to the galactic plane.
So, who is right? NO ONE , until they realize that in an electric universe, these cycles are in no way independent.
Talbott is right about the polar alignment of planets, but will continue to struggle with finding a mechanism to produce this alignment, if he does not consider forces from OUTSIDE our solar system. Cruttenden correctly associates the precessional cycle with our position relative to another star, but thinks both are due to gravitational forces.
Whether or not you agree with my earlier posts, know this: You can not have charged stars or planets moving through magnetic fields without it affecting their precession. You can not have a solar system spiraling through z-pinch, without disrupting the orbits of it's planets. You can not have stars travelling on Birkeland currents through the galaxy, and say they are immune from our orientaion in that field. No theory will be right if it attempts to explain all the behavior on one scale alone.
celeste
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Full Mars in Crescent Saturn?

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:10 pm

Celeste said: Let's imagine our solar system spiraling on a Birkeland current filament, with another star across from us on the other filament. Now let's enter a z-pinch. Observers on Earth, unaware of the filaments we are in, just see a star moving closer to us. The star moves faster and faster towards us, and then all of a sudden, stops, and appears to just hover at the same distance from us. (sound familiar to any religious, mythological stories?) After the z-pinch, the other star recedes slowly at first, but picks up speed, and finally, it's just another backgroud star.

I've heard Peratt or Thornhill theorize that a z-pinch in a Birkeland filament would cause stars to form from the pinch, but I haven't heard anyone theorize that existing stars could fall into or near a z-pinch.
So, we've got our planets in a line, in a polar configuration, with another star lighting them from the side. Our sun, behind us, still lighting the face of Mars ahead of us. Earth's daylight in the northern hemisphere comes from the other star, as does that crescent phase of Saturn (which is why observers saw the crescent at the top of saturn during noon, and at the bottom at night).

Although their theories may suggest that each filament could hold a star and planets, I don't think the other star would have been close enough to the solar system to light up any of the planets. The cause of the movement of the crescent around Saturn was the Earth's rotation. Instead of Saturn or the crescent turning, it was really the Earth that was rotating. The Sun was relatively fixed. The Sun, Saturn, Venus and Mars were virtually the only stars that the ancients reported seeing. They never saw other stars until about 5,000 years ago, after the Saturn System broke up. Many of them thought the stars were the remains of Saturn, which is how the first constellations got their names. I think Cardona figured that Saturn's plasmasphere prevented stars being seen before that, other than the Sun, which latter was bright enough to pierce the haze or whatever.
- I imagine Talbott may simply have overlooked the fact that Mars should have appeared crescent shaped too, although I haven't heard anyone mention the ancients ever seeing Mars as crescent shaped.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Full Mars in Crescent Saturn?

Unread postby celeste » Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:23 pm

Llyod,
" I don't think the other star would have been close enough to the solar system to light up any of the planets."
You've nailed it. If I could ask Thornhill one question that would be it: "Could another star be brought close enough at z-pinch to not only rearrange our planetary system, but visibly light the nearest sides of each planet?"
I know Thornhill has not spent enough time theorizing what would happen to our system at z-pinch, or he would have been the one telling Talbott how that crazy polar alignment came to be.
As far as Talbott maybe overlooking the correct shape of Mars, that's a definite no. He shows too many depictions of that crescent Saturn with that round Mars dead in front of it. That's one observation we must account for in any theory about our ancient sky.
celeste
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby celeste » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:30 pm

Llyod, From the first of your posts back on Feb 22,2012
You may be interested in this: http://www.iovs.org/content/30/10/2265.full.pdf
The human eye is not very adapted to night vision. But we don't see very well in the bright daylight either, without sunglasses. A little more technically correct here, would be to say that many current eye diseases (cataracts, retinal damage, etc,) seem to be caused by exposure to sunlight in the U-V portion. Here we have adaptation in mice ,to U-V. Could it be that mice, which reproduce much more frequently than humans, have adapted to a different "sun"? It would be interesting to follow up (for those into biology), when the departure of mice into separate groups occurred (was the enhanced ascorbic acid a recent adaptation?). It would be interesting to see trends in ascorbic acid in other animals , if that is occurring. Not a quick response from me here, just something I stumbled on. May turn out to be nothing, but worth a read, I think.
celeste
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby Xuxalina Rihhia » Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:38 am

Dave wrote:Yep, that's about right. More specifically: a mixture of blue, scarlet and, of course, purple - the colour of priests and kings. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 923AAKGi4w


Here is what Saturn may have looked like in the daytime sky. The glow around Saturn would be mainly the plasma sheath, plus some influence from our atmosphere. In space both would have looked a bit brighter and bluer but not significantly, so this would roughly represent what you'd see on the surface of the Earth or in space.

Image
Xuxalina Rihhia
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:53 pm

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby Xuxalina Rihhia » Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:50 am

I got my cues for the image above that I created from this image below that I found and a modified one below, as well as other sources:
Image
Image
Xuxalina Rihhia
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:53 pm

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby Xuxalina Rihhia » Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:54 am

I forgot to add that chlorophyll of green plants utilizes both red light and blue light for photosynthesis; green light is not utilized and that is why chlorophyll is green. On the surface of the earth, the majority of light received is yellow and green. Yet a brown dwarf like Saturn would emit both red and blue light due to the way it's powered electrically. Therefore, chlorophyll was MADE for brown dwarf Saturn-light, and NOT the present day sunlight. In fact, in outer space, the sun would look blue white!
Xuxalina Rihhia
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:53 pm

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:19 am

I guess those images are from the Saturn Death Cult website. Thanks for the info about biological adaptation to light etc. Can you provide links for reference? That would be helpful.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby Xuxalina Rihhia » Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:29 am

Certainly. This is from wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chlorofilab.svg

Chlorophyll (also chlorophyl) is a green pigment found in cyanobacteria and the chloroplasts of algae and plants. Its name is derived from the Greek words χλωρός, chloros ("green") and φύλλον, phyllon ("leaf"). Chlorophyll is an extremely important biomolecule, critical in photosynthesis, which allows plants to absorb energy from light. Chlorophyll absorbs light most strongly in the blue portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, followed by the red portion. However, it is a poor absorber of green and near-green portions of the spectrum, hence the green color of chlorophyll-containing tissues.[1] Chlorophyll was first isolated by Joseph Bienaimé Caventou and Pierre Joseph Pelletier in 1817.[2].....

.....Why green and not black?
Black plants can absorb more radiation, and yet most plants are green

It still is unclear exactly why plants are mostly green. Green plants reflect mostly green and near-green light to viewers rather than absorbing it. Other parts of the system of photosynthesis still allow green plants to use the green light spectrum (e.g., through a light-trapping leaf structure, carotenoids, etc.). Green plants do not use a large part of the visible spectrum as efficiently as possible. A black plant can absorb more radiation, and this could be very useful, if extra heat produced is effectively disposed of (e.g., some plants must close their openings, called stomata, on hot days to avoid losing too much water, which leaves only conduction, convection, and radiative heat-loss as solutions).[7] The question becomes why the only light-absorbing molecule used for power in plants is green and not simply black.

I hope this helps. Saturn's radiation would have been mostly red light, but also a lot of blue light due to the corona and plasmasphere generating blue, UV and X-ray light via the electrical power that Saturn received as a brown dwarf. The color would have been magenta and many LED lights for plants are that color, which the plants love. Thus, chlorophyll would be perfectly adapted to Saturnlight, not the harsher sunlight of our present sun; that would explain why chlorophyll "spits out" most of the blue-green, green and yellow-green light and uses blue and red light.
Xuxalina Rihhia
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:53 pm

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby Xuxalina Rihhia » Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:22 am

This is the solar spectrum of the sun we have now; as you can see, it produces more light in the blue and violet than in any other frequency. Earth plants use blue and violet because of the power of the photons and also use red photons for photosynthesis.
Image
What would be the visible, NUV and NIR spectrum of a Saturnian-type brown dwarf? Would anyone have a clue? Thanks in advance.
Xuxalina Rihhia
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:53 pm

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby Blue Progressive » Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:17 pm

There is no explanation of how Saturn shrunk to its present size nor of the dynamics of the configuration change, so the model is not viable.
Ceux qui ne se rétractent jamais s'aiment plus que la vérité.--Joseph Joubert
Blue Progressive
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby tayga » Mon Aug 05, 2013 3:18 am

Blue Progressive wrote:There is no explanation of how Saturn shrunk to its present size nor of the dynamics of the configuration change, so the model is not viable.


You mean not complete, surely?

I think that if you looked for more information you might find suggestions as to how Saturn's plasmasphere shrunk after its entered the solar system. However, the tone of your comment doesn't indicate that you are trying to be constructive so I guess you wouldn't want to expend any effort yourself.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby Blue Progressive » Mon Aug 05, 2013 6:25 am

Tayga,

I don't know why ur saying my tone isn't constructive or why ur assuming that I wouldn't make the effort to find information about it. But I should have been more clear and said "as far as I know". I have searched the Internet but haven't found a whole lot about it, and I haven't read "Saturn Myth."

How does the EU model for planetary formation compare with Van Flandern and Jacot? The EU model is not elaborated so it is hard to assess, but it doesn't seem to compare favourably. For instance, there is overwhelming evidence asteroids have an explosive origin, but the EU explanation doesn't posit explosions for them. Also, it doesn't explain the twinning of planets (and moons). As well, the Saturn aspect is not worked out dynamically, and is based entirely on myth, which is important evidence, but until there is a physical explanation it can't be considered adequate (which is the word I should have used instead of "not viable"). But there are at least 3 things that tend to substantiate the electric model: most solar systems have planets with elliptical orbits, many planets are weirdly close to their suns, and at least 1 alternates between rocky and giant.
Ceux qui ne se rétractent jamais s'aiment plus que la vérité.--Joseph Joubert
Blue Progressive
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby tayga » Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:21 pm

I'm really not qualified to answer your questions fully as I've not read a lot of the material on the Saturn theory (Dwardu Cadona, for example) but I do know that there are numerous theories of possible dynamics for a Saturn system breakup. Jno Cook talks about a mechanism to stabilise the polar configuration but when you say it's not really worked out I think you're probably right; this is an area where there's a lot of speculation.

Lloyd would be a good person to ask about the various models, I'd imagine.

Regarding the origin of asteroids (and comets for that matter), the videos 'The Lightning Scarred Planet Mars' and 'The Electric Comet' both imply a possible origin in electric discharge machining of Mars. The known geology is certainly consistent with this.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby Blue Progressive » Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:48 am

Tayga,

I'ts like msheakc , who is, like me, on MetaResearch (I'm Solar Patroller) says in another thread, which I no longer can find, asteroid origins are explosive and can be explained by electrical discharges, possibly MCEs, not by ejecta. This is a strangely overlooked fact.
Ceux qui ne se rétractent jamais s'aiment plus que la vérité.--Joseph Joubert
Blue Progressive
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest