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: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby nick c » Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:20 pm

Blue Progressive,
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 have made several assertions such as the above, on this and other threads, that are straw man arguments. You make an erroneous statement and then use that as support for your position. But there is an explanation, but apparently you prefer to critique without actually taking the time research the subject you are critiquing. This is obvious by statements you have made concerning the EU and it's more speculative aspect of cosmic catastrophism. A certain minimum amount of research must be done and we cannot do it for you, I for one, do not have the time.
Which books or journals have you read? Cardona, Talbott, Velikovsky, Cochrane, Cook, or others; the journals Aeon or Kronos? There are several variations of the Saturn scenario, thousands of pages have been written.

Back to the issue raised in the above quote. It is thought that Saturn was originally a Brown Dwarf star with a retinue of satellites. That system was travelling through interstellar space until it came under the influence of and was captured by the Sun, causing electrical stress on the proto Saturn dwarf (Jupiter may have been involved) resulting in Saturn going nova, which was actually the brown dwarf fissioning and throwing off material; possibly giving birth to at least one planet and possibly other bodies. Comets and the asteroid belt are some of the remnants of the dismemberment of the Saturnian system and the electrical machining of the terrestrial type planets, especially Mars. What was left is the present day Saturn with it's ring system. To understand the processes described above refer to the EU model of comets. Essentially, proto Saturn and (later the young Venus, too) were on elliptical orbits of the Sun and were subjected to a scaled up version of the same plasma processes we see with the smaller comets of today. At that time the Solar System was reordered until the present state of stability was achieved.

For instance, there is overwhelming evidence asteroids have an explosive origin, but the EU explanation doesn't posit explosions for them.
What do you mean by "explosive?" Explosive implies, to me, a mechanical explanation such as a lithospheric collision. The EU postulates that asteroids and comets have a common origin and are basically the same type of objects; the difference being the degree of electrical stress. They are the result of electrical machining of planetary surfaces during a recent period of the solar system's history that was very different from what we have today. The asteroid belt is the scene of a recent cosmic traffic accident. There is not that much material (> 4% of the Moon) in the asteroid belt and it is spread out over a wide area. This speaks against it being the remains of an exploded planet. Though that discussion should take place on another thread.


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 favorably.
I am not too familiar with the comparison, however, this thread is not about Van Flandern's model and that would be off topic. Feel free to open a new thread on your preferred topic in the NIAMI board. I would certainly be interested in reading and maybe asking some questions. Anyway, comparisons with the EU model and its' alleged lack of evidence would make for a nice discussion on that, yet to be created, thread.


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").
The Saturn scenario definitely got it's start from a comparative analysis of myths, tales, rituals, and literary references...but to say that there is no physical explanation is wrong. The only reason that the theory has persisted for so many years is that there has been a series of observational supports in the observed behaviors of plasmas in space. This led to the Electric Universe as we presently know it. The myth aspect provides us with a clue, a directional pointer, it is viewed as our ancestors' subjective and traumatized interpretation of extinction threatening cosmic events. There is plenty of support from all fields, including all and any of the "hard" sciences. The approach is forensic and interdisciplinary and it is simply untrue that it is based "entirely on myth." As a simple example - almost every culture tells of the planet gods hurling deadly thunderbolts at each other and at the Earth. If the planets are charged bodies in plasma this is exactly what would happen when one planet encroaches upon another's plasma sheath, that begs the question of how ancient cultures would have this knowledge without having witnessed such events? Did they make it up? Why did they distinguish between celestial lightning and ordinary terrestrial lightning? The interpretation involves the modern discoveries in plasma physics applied to ancient testimony, and that is only one example of the approach.
By stating it has not been "worked out dynamically" it seems you are implying that there should be some kind of Newtonian calculations to support the hypothesis. See the Thornhill article referred to earlier in this post: Newtons Electric Clockwork Solar System
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby Blue Progressive » Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:19 am

nick c,

Ur getting me all wrong. I am not an orthodoxer so I don't make straw man arguments and I don't make (knowingly) erroneous statements--no way, no how have I ever done that. And I am not an opponent of EU. I believe in the electric sun, electric scarring, and novas and supernovas as DL explosions, and that EU is an important part of planetary formation theory. I have Thunderbolts of the Gods, have started a thread in this section, Planetary Formation, don't have time to do the research any more than you on the Saturnian theory, and there should be a comprehensive summary of it, which I do not support on the basis of what I know of it so far. Capture models have been proposed before, but they don't work out. And the Flandernian theory is not off topic because it can be linked to the EU model as I and msheakc have proposed in Electric Comets (last page).
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 nick c » Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:43 pm

Blue Progressive,
Did not mean to offend, but you did make several statements as criticisms of Saturn theory, which were not true. Not that we cannot criticize, but pointing out a flaw that is not really there is unfair.
don't have time to do the research any more than you on the Saturnian theory, and there should be a comprehensive summary of it, which I do not support on the basis of what I know of it so far.
I have read much of the material on Saturn theory and I do make time for it, because I think it is worth the time. But how we allocate our time is a decision each of us must make for ourselves. If you don't have the time that is understandable. But one has to have somewhat of a familiarity with a subject in order to make an intelligent critique.
Here is a link to the Thoth newsletter:
http://web.archive.org/web/201001050654 ... thoth.html
It ran from 1997 through 2004 and covers a variety of EU subjects, but much of the focus is in short discussions of Saturn theory and related topics.

Capture models have been proposed before, but they don't work out.
That is because the attempt to model is based on Newtonian mechanics, which in itself is flawed; see the N body problem. We are dealing with electric forces in plasmas. (Note that the Moon orbits in the plane of the ecliptic and not in the plane of the Earth's equator. Most satellites orbit in the plane of their primary's equator. This is strong evidence that the Moon was captured by the Earth.) In the Electric Universe, capture is not unusual, and attempting to refute it from Newton's perspective is using the wrong model. Capture of a brown dwarf by a star like the Sun should not pose any theoretical problem.

And the Flandernian theory is not off topic because it can be linked to the EU model as I and msheakc have proposed in Electric Comets (last page).
It is off topic for this thread, which is what I wrote. As far as I know, TVF never wrote anything on the Saturn theory, although I believe he was well aware of it. Although his work is interesting and related to the EU, I do not consider TVF to be an EU theorist. If you want to open a thread devoted to his work, do so on the NIAMI board.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby tayga » Sun Aug 11, 2013 8:50 am

Many thanks for the link the the Thoth archives, Nick. Having limited financial resources, I am very grateful for free access to this information.

On that subject, I would love to read some of Dwardu Cardona's work but find the prices for his books terrifying. I've looked a number of times for online resources but have found nothing. Is his work only available in hard copy or are there electronic versions out there that you know of?
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 rkm » Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:53 am

Do brown dwarfs have an analog in plasma experiments?
User avatar
rkm
Site Admin
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Wexford, Ireland

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby rkm » Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:45 pm

The problem I have with the Saturn theory is that I can't see when it could have happened. Here's the Vostok temperature record for the past 420,000 years. There are no singularities in this record. There's just an ongoing fractal pattern of semi-regular spikes. Surely a shift of Suns would show up as a temperature singularity, or a transition to a new pattern, wouldn't it?

V-450K+1800-X.jpg
User avatar
rkm
Site Admin
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Wexford, Ireland

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby nick c » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:33 am

rkm wrote:The problem I have with the Saturn theory is that I can't see when it could have happened. Here's the Vostok temperature record for the past 420,000 years

hi rkm,
Welcome to the discussion.
If the conventional interpretation of ice cores is valid, then it could possibly be presented as strong evidence in favor of falsification of Saturn theory as well as most models for recent catastrophism. That being said, there are serious problems with the assumptions that lead to the derivation of the scale on the x axis of the graph you presented. That is the time scale.
Are you familiar with the WWII "Glacier Girl" and the lost squadron? Several US warplanes landed on the Greenland glacier and were abandoned. Later in the 1980's an expedition was sent to investigate and recover the aircraft. It was calculated, using O2 isotope data, that the aircraft should be covered by 12 meters of ice . Well it took a long while to actually find the planes for they were no where near the depth or lateral location predicted. The airplanes were finally found, intact and encased in ice at a depth of 78 meters. When presented with this case, proponents of ice core dating, cite the location of the lost squadron saying it was in a coastal location where there would be unpredictable melting and snowfalls. But here in lies the problem, their response has an underlying uniformitarian assumption that the present day conditions have been in effect for the entire time frame of the x axis. Under catastrophic conditions meltings and snowfalls would have taken place irregularly and on an order of magnitude not imaginable to those confined to assuming that climate conditions of today were the same as in the catastrophic past. It is not reasonable to use a model based on uniformitarian assumptions to disprove a catastrophic scenario.
see:
Charles Hapgood, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, shows several ancient maps that accurately depict the coastlines of Antarctica and Greenland without glaciers.

also:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophi ... s/ice.html
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby rkm » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:17 am

Thanks for your response. Does that mean depth is their only measure of age? Aren't there the equivalent of tree rings, where you can count years? Have there been any suggestions as to how to calibrate the ice cores by some other means?

However if there were a huge snowfall singularity, that threw our time-scale out of kilter, that would stretch a segment of the x-axis, giving us a pattern that looks broader and flatter than it actually is. I don't see any evidence of a stretched segment in the Vostok record. The most regular thing about the pattern is the slopes of the related spikes.

And I don't see the relevance of the fact that coastal areas might have been free of ice in near-historical times. That doesn't necessarily prove that records from high altitudes would be unreliable.

I"m not arguing that the age scale is correct, but I do want to understand clearly our 'state of knowledge' about its reliability.
User avatar
rkm
Site Admin
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Wexford, Ireland

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby nick c » Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:19 pm

rkm,
Snowfalls and melts create layers, these do not necessarily conform to years. Imagine a catastrophe that melts off a sizeable percentage of the ice cap and then things quiet down and the cap begins to grow again. A later coring would have it's entire time scale thrown off. Alternatively, if the ice cap were deposited in a short period of time there would still be layers but the interpretation of those layers as representing years of deposition would be wrong.
Reread the link here:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophi ... s/ice.html
The interpretation of the same evidence yields very different results when not constrained by the uniformitarian assumption. In his book, The Extinction of the Mammoth p.283, Ginenthal describes how a cosmic catastrophe could deposit many feet of ice in layers in a very short time period.
...during a celestial catastrophe, areas of the ocean boiled which produced immense amounts of atmospheric moisture which fell as immense rain showers in some regions, but as snow at the poles...
[snip]
...Hurricanes sweeping over the entire Earth would then have carried this water vapor in the atmosphere from vastly different oceanic temperature regimes to the polar regions to fall, under normal conditions, as snow. Present day amounts of snow which would have taken decades to fall, would have done so in a few days or weeks. This snow, derived from warm, cool; or cold oceanic regions, would contain totally different amounts of oxygen-18 or oxygen-16 mixtures. Two hundred or more feet may have fallen at a time from either a warm or cool oceanic area. This snow, under the burden of snow falling from above, would be quickly pressed to form firn [ice crystals] and would create many layers via rapid diffusion of oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 into the ice.
The important point is that the underlying assumption behind mainstream's ice core dating is that the processes we observe today have always been in operation in the same manner. In other words catastrophes are assumed not to have happened. When this assumption is discarded and the evidence is viewed from a catastrophic perspective, the ice cores support rather than refute the catastrophic model.
It all depends on the coloration of the glasses that we choose to wear.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby rkm » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:07 pm

I'm onboard with catastrophes, ever since Velikovsky. But catastrophes leave tracks, which is why he noticed them. I don't think your response was responsive, to the considerations I suggested
User avatar
rkm
Site Admin
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Wexford, Ireland

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby nick c » Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:59 pm

I don't think your response was responsive, to the considerations I suggested
I do not understand the reasoning behind your complaint. My above two posts are meant to show that the scale of the x axis on the graph you posted was incorrect once we look into the assumptions from which they are derived. I gave links to Ginenthal's attack on the ice core data as well as a quote from one of his books dealing with the subject. Here is a quote from one of the articles in the link.
Again, the derivation of dates on the x axis are based on a false assumption:
True cause of isotope separation in ice cores unrelated to age:


Given the Devil's Hole core findings, one must wonder if the
ice cores are really a true reflection of the process described
by Ellenberger, Mewhinney and the scientific sources they site.



Long ago, Fred Hall pointed out that seasonal variations of
oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 in ice layers are not related to climate
at all. He claimed that a


vastly different picture is presented by specialists who
actually have to deal with the subtleties of the ice cores. To
begin with, there is far too much mixing of gases, over time, to
allow for Ellenberger's simplistic assumption. I refer the
reader, for example, to the December 23, 1988, issue of Science
and the article "Gravitational Separation of Gases and Isotopes
in Polar Ice Caps," by H. Craig, Y. Horibe and T. Sowers, pp.
1675ff.

What will be absolutely clear to the objective reader of this
article is that the atmospheric gases left in deposited layers
[of snow] do not remain in those layers. Rather, due to gravity,
they are diffused downward, tending to accumulate on top of more
dense layers or ice below.



The accumulating firn [ice-snow granules] acts like a giant
columnar sieve through which the gravitational enrichment can be
maintained by molecular diffusion. At a given borehold, the time
between the fresh fall of new snow and its conversion to nascent
ice is roughly the height of the firn layers in [meters] divided
by the annual accumulation of new ice in meters per year. This
results in conversion times of centuries for firn layers just
inside the Arctic and Antarctic circles, and millennia for those
well inside [the] same. Which is to say--during these long spans
of time, a continuing gas-filtering process is going on,
eliminating any possibility of using the presence of such gases
to count annual layers over thousands of years.28 (Emphasis
added.)



According to the cited article, the percentages of gases in the
pores at the base of the firn layer, where ice becomes solid,
were much higher than those obtained in atmospheric gases. One
of these gases turned out to be oxygen-18. The oxygen-18 had
diffused downward and condensed at the bottom. The maximum
enrichment of the heavy isotopes (nitrogen-15 and oxygen-18)
observed followed patterns predicted for gravitational
equilibrium at the base of the firn layer, as calculated from
the depth of the transition layer and the temperature of the
firn.29



The authors then showed examples where oxygen measurements are
totally inconsistent with present-day atmospheric content in
temperature regimes expected to be almost exactly the same as at
present: "O2 trapped in 2,000-year-old ice from Camp Century,
Greenland, has an 18O/ 16O enrichment given by (18O) = 0.61 per
[millimeter] versus present-day atmospheric O2."30



They claimed that this evidence supports the concept that the
layers of oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 relate to filtration and
condensation in the pores of the firn, and not to accumulation
of oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 layers from snow containing different
amounts of these isotopes. The past 2,000-year-old record should
not be so different from the present-day record if the climate
layering concept is correct.


If this is the process responsible for oxygen isotope layers,
the entire argument presented by Ellenberger and Mewhinney is
wrong. How do they explain away this evidence? To date they have
simply ignored it! Warm and cold snaps occur repeatedly over the
Greenland icecap and, therefore, rapid meltings and freezings
will leave several deposits of oxygen-16 or oxygen-18 in the
ice, based on the gas diffusion process attested to by Craig,
Horibe and Sowers. That is, instead of having one layer of
oxygen-16 or oxygen-18 per year, three or four layers may be
produced by this method each year; thus, the record is actually
a reflection of this diffusion process and not of the climate.
If the temperature 2,000 years ago was similar to that of today,
there should never have been such a large difference in
oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 content in the ice. The age of the ice,
based on this concept, could be quite different from what we are
led to believe. Ellenberger and Mewhinney assert that the
volcanic signatures support the validity of the ice cores. This
diffusion process could only occur in the winter, when the firn
lacks water from summer snow melts on the cap, or during hot and
cold spells in the spring or fall.

It is not a simple matter of counting layers. Scientists are always looking for chronological tools that allow them a degree of precision when examining events in the past; but drawing conclusions about dating past climatological events from ice core data is giving a false sense of precision.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby rkm » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:54 pm

Interesting critique, though I can't really evaluate it. If the ice-core people have it so wrong, however, I don't understand how we'd end up with the kind of pattern we see in the graph.
User avatar
rkm
Site Admin
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Wexford, Ireland

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby rkm » Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:15 am

Just to clarify, I can accept that the precision of ice-core dating is questionable. But the kind of distortions you describe would lead to irregularities and discontinuities of various kinds in the temperature record. Instead the record seems very consistent. It seems to me that if the scale is off, it's off by some scalar factor.
User avatar
rkm
Site Admin
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Wexford, Ireland

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby justcurious » Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:43 pm

Well, in my own independent research (sparked by thunderbolts and EU), I have come to my own conclusion that there is a tendency to extrapolate our observations in a very brief period of time, to scales unimaginable.
rkm mentionned tree rings, this is precisely the data that was falsified by the global warming alarmists (climate-gate).
We think we observe some expansion in our universe today, and assume it was expanding forever, extrapolated back a dozen billion years to the supposed big bang.
Carbon dating is only accurate based on the assumption that the carbon environment in other epochs were identical to the carbon environment we live in today.
The ice cores layers is an excellent example as demonstrated by nickc.
I also used to assume that "all these smart people couldn't have possibly gotten it wrong all this time".
I have been surprised over and over when fact checking, I am no longer surprised.
Everything should be questioned, especially the speculative concepts being floated as "fact".
I bought the book the God Star, very long one. Just now getting into the parts about Saturn. Hopefully I can have something to contribute. If anyone has links to illustrations describing the catastrophic events and when/where they happened would be greatly appreciated. I am very intrigued by the "moon of Saturn" concept.
justcurious
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

Unread postby Spektralscavenger » Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:08 am

Sometimes people explain the Sun rituals: "The Sun goes to the underworld at night, will it return to dissipate the darkness?" OK, but had the Sun been encircling Earth faultlessly for millions of years nobody would be afraid of the Sun "never coming back". I put my money on the Sun rituals directed to a "Sun" which one day departed and never returned. Aztecs said the current Sun is the fifth Sun!

Saturn waters could explain why Earth oceans aren´t deadly salty after hundreds millions of years accumulating salts.

I think the rings of Saturn were once a couple of moons. I wouldn´t daresay that about other planetary rings but Saturn rings are too wide and thick to be random dust.

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSF ... tions.html
This story is really interesting!
Spektralscavenger
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:40 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests