Earth Was a Moon of Saturn

[john666]

If I read that people write that "creationist scientists" (the term is a contradiction in itself) have discovered something or "a higher force did imprint composite memories on natives" then I think it is better for you to go to a creationist forum! This is not the place for unscientific "The Earth is only 6000 years young!"-claims and their propagandists.

I doubt Cadornas claims concerning the continental plates. The natives observed with their own eyes - and survived!

You are not going to tell me what to write, and what not to write.
If you don't like something, don't read it.

But I do have a question for you.
How did the mountains form?

Also, I have another question for you.
How did the Saturnian humanity, that was used to Saturn's energetic field, adapt(survive), to living without it?

[Sparky]

How did the Saturnian humanity, that was used to Saturn's energetic field, adapt(survive), to living without it?

T'was peoples on Saturn?

[john666]

How did the Saturnian humanity, that was used to Saturn's energetic field, adapt(survive), to living without it?

T'was peoples on Saturn?

Well OK, it is imprecise formulation of words.
What I meant was humanity living during the time, when Earth was orbiting Saturn.
How did they survive without the influence of Saturn - if they really did survive - that is the question, that I am asking.

[Sparky]

humanity living during the time, when Earth was orbiting Saturn.

oh, that's different...
guess they all lived on opposite pole of Earth from Saturn...

[john666]

oh, that's different...
guess they all lived on opposite pole of Earth from Saturn...

There you have it...

[oz93666]

I think this tread has raised a number of points as to why the Earth could not have had Saturn as it's 'Sun' at one time, but for me the most powerful reason is this.
If Saturn was emitting enough light to sustain life on Earth then it would be very hot , and Saturn could not have cooled down to it's current temperature in a few thousand years. It would take millions of years. You cannot change these basic laws of physics. So the whole idea is a non starter. Next subject please!

[nick c]

If Saturn was emitting enough light to sustain life on Earth then it would be very hot , and Saturn could not have cooled down to it's current temperature in a few thousand years. It would take millions of years.

You are assuming that stars are heated internally, that is that the heat is being produced inside of the star. An electric star would probably have a relatively cool center, all the action of a stellar nature taking place at the surface. Furthermore, most of the versions of the Saturn theory have the brown dwarf going nova and throwing off material, in which case much of this thrown off material was probably the hotter outer layers. The present planet Saturn with its' rings and satellites is what is left after these events.

Next subject please!

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated!"

[oz93666]

An electric star would probably have a relatively cool center...

The laws of thermodynamics determine the whole mass of Saturn must be at least as hot as the surface, which had to be thousands of degrees , and all this great mass has to cool down. Then also we have heat generated within the mass of Saturn, certainly from normal radioactive decay of all elements, possibly in other ways. You just cant switch off a star like that and the whole thing cool down so quickly. Thermal inertia!

[nick c]

But then how do you know what is in the center of Saturn today? or what is the temperature? How about a star?
It seems that you are doing a lot of assuming.
The solar corona is millions of degrees, then the photosphere is 6000 degrees, sunspots which are holes in photosphere are 3000 degrees.
Do you maintain that the interior of the Sun must be hotter, when it appears that the deeper we look the cooler it gets?

[oz93666]

Do you maintain that the interior of the Sun must be hotter, when it appears that the deeper we look the cooler it gets?

You raise a good point, this violates the laws of thermodynamics, and is totally unexplainable.
I was assuming that Saturn behaves as Earth , and every other physical object we know , and the interior cannot be cooler that the surface .
But also if Saturn went nova surely things would get very hot and every thing mixed up to this high temperature.
There seems so many holes in this 'Earth Was a Moon of Saturn' idea, how could life survive close proximity to a star going nova?

[nick c]

I do not think that any physical laws are being violated, it seems to me that you are thinking in terms of a star being (for example) a coal burning stove. It radiates heat and then ultimately cools down. Looking at it in strictly mechanical terms is not consistent with a model which assumes that those mechanical requirements are changed under a situation which is dominated by electrical forces. I used the example of the Sun's temperatures: Corona (a low density plasma in glow mode at million degree temperatures, the photosphere (an arc mode plasma at around 6000 K) and sunspots (which are holes in the photosphere giving us a look at the layer below the photosphere at around 3000 K). Furthermore the temperature layering, between the corona and the photosphere, does not have very much if any temperature gradient. The corona is on top of the photosphere separated by a double layer with an enormous temperature difference between the two.

What can we say about the solar interior below what is observable? It seems (from the temperature gradient that we observe) that the interior as we move toward the center must be getting cooler. But in lieu of further information, the temperature, density, composition, etc. of the solar interior (and that of a brown dwarf too) is open to speculation.

So under the Electric Star hypothesis all the action is taking place on the surface. A nova under this model is not a mechanical explosion blowing apart a star, but rather an electrical event causing the star to throw off material, think of it as a scaled up CME, it may even signify a fissioning event. In the electric star model. We do not know at this time the nature of the interior of a star, this includes the density. Under this model the interior of a star or brown dwarf star is open to speculation, but it is definitely not analogous to a stove. [Remember, the EU challenges the notion that mass and matter are the same thing. Wal Thornhill has theorized that mass is a variable function of matter, with matter (the quantity of protons and electrons) being inviolable.]

The Saturn theory has to be viewed in the context of the electric star model, in this case a brown dwarf which is often called proto-Saturn. Of course this is highly speculative and there are several different and competing versions. Thousands of pages have been written on this and I for one am not going to attempt a summary.

My own view is that our ancestors were subjected to near extinction as the solar system was reordered and the Earth's land surface and hydrosphere were catastrophically altered. Trying to figure out exactly what happened and the cosmic agents involved is a work in progress. The Saturn theory, in some form or other, offers many intriguing explanations that seem to fit.

But it seems to me that your initial assertion of falsification by examination of the present temperature of Saturn (while worthy of consideration) is premature and in the context of the wrong paradigm.

[Sparky]

Trying to figure out exactly what happened and the cosmic agents involved is a work in progress.

ET's probably have home movies of all the history of Earth.
If we would quit shooting them down, they might invite us to see them.

[oz93666]

Trying to figure out exactly what happened and the cosmic agents involved is a work in progress.

ET's probably have home movies of all the history of Earth.
If we would quit shooting them down, they might invite us to see them.

Ah ...we have the next best thing, Andrew Bartzis says he can access the Akashic records and can answer all our questions without error ....He's Good..... here is his take on BIG BANG

It’s a theory. Really can never be proved. If you pay attention to quantum mechanics, at all, since the 60′s it’s already been proven wrong, and you would realize, it’s a, pretty much a paid theory, that’s been put forward to suppress true science.

[saul]

Ah ...we have the next best thing, Andrew Bartzis says he can access the Akashic records and can answer all our questions without error ....

Wow, thanks for that! I like to think I get around the interwebs and the noosphere but wow... that guy is the new far out champion.

[oz93666]

Ah ...we have the next best thing, Andrew Bartzis says he can access the Akashic records and can answer all our questions without error ....

Wow, thanks for that! I like to think I get around the interwebs and the noosphere but wow... that guy is the new far out champion.

Absolutely.... I don't know if you've seen this one yet.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0-tfH2x6DQ. Andrew Bartzis interviews Mark LeClair , this is the most relevant to EU, I don't know if Thornhill and the other high fliers are aware of this information, It's the most extraordinary and revolutionary information I've ever seen.