A question:
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:09 pm
A question:
What is the consensus within the EU community about Ben Davidson's Catastrophe Cycle scenario? As far as I can tell, he's the only one promoting it, and others like Wal, et al, haven't commented. This notion of a recurring catastrophe that wipes out all human progress seems to be a popular one, but it also seems to more or less conform to the standard model index of time, even in Davidson's case. So it's partly based on an extension of EU Theory, and partly on Standard Model statistics, and mostly based on talking so fast in such opaque technical detail that no one really understands what the deuce you're saying.
So is there anyone else in the EU community with credibility who supports Davidson's thesis? Any links?
So is there anyone else in the EU community with credibility who supports Davidson's thesis? Any links?
-
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am
Re: A question:
There is no consensus. My personal opinion is we have bigger fish to fry then trying to push notions that might make us look more than a little crazy. This reminds me of the Clinton Body Count where folks threw out scores of names they claimed the Clinton's had murdered. True or not, they came away being viewed as crazy by most people. Now if instead they'd concentrated on just a just a few names on their list ... like Ron Brown and Vince Foster ... for which there was plenty of evidence suggesting foul play, they might have gotten somewhere. We should focus on the physics.
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:09 pm
Re: A question:
I don't know what this means. If the physics points to a pending or past catastrophe you can't really avoid that and it wouldn't be ethical to do so. So those who have a clear idea of the physics are somewhat obligated to set down some kind of benchmark for proof or rejection of the consequentialist theories. If you're that worried about being called crazy you should probably steer clear of scientific paradigm shifts entirely.BeAChooser wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 5:04 pm My personal opinion is we have bigger fish to fry then trying to push notions that might make us look more than a little crazy. ... We should focus on the physics.
-
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am
Re: A question:
Why do you think no-one has responded to this question:
"So is there anyone else in the EU community with credibility who supports Davidson's thesis? Any links?"
"So is there anyone else in the EU community with credibility who supports Davidson's thesis? Any links?"
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:09 pm
Re: A question:
I don't know. I thought Thunderbolts was an open free-thinking group of people. You mean there are some questions one isn't supposed to ask? How droll!BeAChooser wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 5:14 am Why do you think no-one has responded to this question:
"So is there anyone else in the EU community with credibility who supports Davidson's thesis? Any links?"
- nick c
- Posts: 2882
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am
Re: A question:
That seems to be a loaded question.So is there anyone else in the EU community with credibility who supports Davidson's thesis?
What constitutes credibility and by whose judgement?
Ben Davidson has had numerous articles and Space News videos published on the Thunderbolts site. Whether or not there is consensus agreement with his positions, does that in itself not constitute support?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/?s=davidson
-
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am
Re: A question:
I certainly have no problem with presentations like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ08nS32KrI&t=2884s .
I'm just suggesting that stuff like this, right or wrong, ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui6BLAyXLZA
may be viewed a <...moderator edit>
Last edited by ForumModerator on Wed Jul 27, 2022 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Political comment with no relevance to the topic - removed
Reason: Political comment with no relevance to the topic - removed
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:09 pm
Re: A question:
Alright, here are my thoughts since people seem too timid to share their own (for reasons that, frankly, escape me).
The Davidson "Catastrophe Cycle" thesis seems inconsistent with the thesis of the Polar Configuration, and Davidson has implied as much when he claimed that "most people" who subscribe to EU Theory don't subscribe to the "Venus Theory" which I take to mean David Talbott's "Polar Configuration". However, there are a plethora of other catastrophe cycle theories popular right now and all of them assume that the basic sun-centered current solar system, or some modification of it, existed in the far distant past.
It's interesting to me that no one on this forum was willing to say as much. I suppose it's possible to come up with a cyclic theory that includes the Saturnine polar configuration, but it doesn't lend itself to such an interpretation. However, EU theory does propose that the universe is much more volatile than previously thought, which would (at least under conventional circumstances) mean that we are less safe than the uniformitarian models suggest.
It seems to me that the Davidson thesis as well as other catastrophe cycle models are examples of Velikovsky's "Amnesia Syndrome" which proposes that the suppression of a traumatic memory causes the trauma to find its way back to consciousness through other routes so that it can be dealt with in a way that vanquishes the subject's sense of impotence. Most of the people I've talked with who believe in some recurring catastrophe or reset have elaborate plans and strategies for overcoming the threat, even though the nature of the threat probably imposes an impossibly high level of uncertainty.
My approach to this is quite different, and I have a hunch that David Talbott and Michael Clarage would agree with me. We do have a much more volatile universe, but man also has the capacity to master that universe and to master the electromagnet/plasmoidal processes which are its primary characteristic. But what we're missing is a theory of perception that links to physics. Wal has dealt with this a bit in his theories about light and morphic fields, whereby light is a transverse electrical disturbance in the æther. Thus, the æther must be a dielectric medium that transfers this disturbance instantaneously, giving the appearance that a photon has moved through space.
On the macro level the key to obtaining a balanced percept based upon the proper resonance interval is to prevent imagination from overriding memory or substituting an imagined memory for a real one, which has been the trend since Gutenberg. This is initially what produced the amnesia, historically, around 600 BCE. (This was when phonetic scripts began to dominate over ideographic scripts.) Mass media enhances imagination, necessarily at the expense of memory. We imagine impossible utopias as well as chaos monsters at every turn. But if we remembered truly perhaps our utopias would be capable of greater uberty while our chaos monsters became more manageable?
The Davidson "Catastrophe Cycle" thesis seems inconsistent with the thesis of the Polar Configuration, and Davidson has implied as much when he claimed that "most people" who subscribe to EU Theory don't subscribe to the "Venus Theory" which I take to mean David Talbott's "Polar Configuration". However, there are a plethora of other catastrophe cycle theories popular right now and all of them assume that the basic sun-centered current solar system, or some modification of it, existed in the far distant past.
It's interesting to me that no one on this forum was willing to say as much. I suppose it's possible to come up with a cyclic theory that includes the Saturnine polar configuration, but it doesn't lend itself to such an interpretation. However, EU theory does propose that the universe is much more volatile than previously thought, which would (at least under conventional circumstances) mean that we are less safe than the uniformitarian models suggest.
It seems to me that the Davidson thesis as well as other catastrophe cycle models are examples of Velikovsky's "Amnesia Syndrome" which proposes that the suppression of a traumatic memory causes the trauma to find its way back to consciousness through other routes so that it can be dealt with in a way that vanquishes the subject's sense of impotence. Most of the people I've talked with who believe in some recurring catastrophe or reset have elaborate plans and strategies for overcoming the threat, even though the nature of the threat probably imposes an impossibly high level of uncertainty.
My approach to this is quite different, and I have a hunch that David Talbott and Michael Clarage would agree with me. We do have a much more volatile universe, but man also has the capacity to master that universe and to master the electromagnet/plasmoidal processes which are its primary characteristic. But what we're missing is a theory of perception that links to physics. Wal has dealt with this a bit in his theories about light and morphic fields, whereby light is a transverse electrical disturbance in the æther. Thus, the æther must be a dielectric medium that transfers this disturbance instantaneously, giving the appearance that a photon has moved through space.
On the macro level the key to obtaining a balanced percept based upon the proper resonance interval is to prevent imagination from overriding memory or substituting an imagined memory for a real one, which has been the trend since Gutenberg. This is initially what produced the amnesia, historically, around 600 BCE. (This was when phonetic scripts began to dominate over ideographic scripts.) Mass media enhances imagination, necessarily at the expense of memory. We imagine impossible utopias as well as chaos monsters at every turn. But if we remembered truly perhaps our utopias would be capable of greater uberty while our chaos monsters became more manageable?
- nick c
- Posts: 2882
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am
Re: A question:
hi Demosophist,
Interesting post! I mostly agree with your analysis. I like your inclusion of humankind's traumatization and its tragic results...such as endless wars, human sacrifice, the threat of nuclear annihilation, and the hostility toward those who seek to remember.
Humanity is continually attempting to recreate the effects of the original trauma in an attempt to remember.
Are you familiar with the Velikovsky Archive? From there, is the text of a fascinating lecture given by Velikovsky at the University of Lethbridge in 1974, on Cultural Amnesia.
It would not be fair for me to comment on Davidson's material since I have not given it a thorough look.
From the two Space News videos by Davidson that I have watched, I did not see anything that would be controversial within the TBP, on the contrary, he seems to be open minded to planetary catastrophism and all of its derivatives, and "space" weather. I especially liked the proposed connection between Earth's tectonic activity and the Sun. I will have to watch/read more of Davidson's contributions as I enjoyed those two very much. He mentions that he was somewhat inspired by the late Michael Steinbacher who was a regular forum contributor in v2.0 under the Username 'starbiter'. I had many private correspondance and phone conversations with Michael and I too was amazed and entertained by his enthusiasm.
With regard to cyclical catastrophes and its compatibility with Saturn Theory and Velikovsky; if by "cyclical" catastrophes it is meant that these were taking place over a long period of time at fixed intervals, then that is indeed not compatible with the Saturn theory, or for that matter Velikovsky. (Although in WIC Velikovsky does describe a cycle of 52 years between encounters of Earth and Venus. But in a larger geological framework that interval was brief, lasting for maybe a millenium or less.)
if the cycle of catastrophes are derived from an interpretation of geological strata (how else?) then I would not put any stock in those conclusions, as these are derived from radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is based upon the assumption of decay constants. Decay constants are anything but constant, as it has been shown that certain external conditions have the ability to reset radiometric clocks.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2015/0 ... 20neutrino.
Obviously, if decay rates are affected by the Earth/Sun distance and Solar Flares, then that opens the door to a total negation of decay rates as a reliable geological dating method under the conditions of massive electric discharges as postulated in the Saturn Theory and/or any type of Velikovskian scenario. Radiometric dating is then exposed as being based upon an a priori assumption of uniformitarian conditions. Catastrophism by its very nature is non uniformitarian.
Furthermore, there is actual physical evidence that Earth's magnetic field reversed in historical times circa 700 BCE. The dates of magnetic reversals for geology are derived from radiometric dating and yield a figure of about 780,000 years ago. Yet in Earth In Upheaval, p. 146, the work of Folgheraiter on Etruscan and Greek vases is cited.
Yet this scientific study which involved numerous samples is completely ignored and geologists tell us the last magnetic reversal took place three quarters of a billion years ago.
The evidence is ignored, not because of any flaw in the methods of the researchers, but because establishment scientists do not want to face the evidence, because the implications assault the uniformitarian assumption.
How does the Earth's magnetic field flip under Velikovskian type scenarios? From Worlds in Collision, P.114:
Interesting post! I mostly agree with your analysis. I like your inclusion of humankind's traumatization and its tragic results...such as endless wars, human sacrifice, the threat of nuclear annihilation, and the hostility toward those who seek to remember.
Humanity is continually attempting to recreate the effects of the original trauma in an attempt to remember.
Are you familiar with the Velikovsky Archive? From there, is the text of a fascinating lecture given by Velikovsky at the University of Lethbridge in 1974, on Cultural Amnesia.
It would not be fair for me to comment on Davidson's material since I have not given it a thorough look.
From the two Space News videos by Davidson that I have watched, I did not see anything that would be controversial within the TBP, on the contrary, he seems to be open minded to planetary catastrophism and all of its derivatives, and "space" weather. I especially liked the proposed connection between Earth's tectonic activity and the Sun. I will have to watch/read more of Davidson's contributions as I enjoyed those two very much. He mentions that he was somewhat inspired by the late Michael Steinbacher who was a regular forum contributor in v2.0 under the Username 'starbiter'. I had many private correspondance and phone conversations with Michael and I too was amazed and entertained by his enthusiasm.
With regard to cyclical catastrophes and its compatibility with Saturn Theory and Velikovsky; if by "cyclical" catastrophes it is meant that these were taking place over a long period of time at fixed intervals, then that is indeed not compatible with the Saturn theory, or for that matter Velikovsky. (Although in WIC Velikovsky does describe a cycle of 52 years between encounters of Earth and Venus. But in a larger geological framework that interval was brief, lasting for maybe a millenium or less.)
if the cycle of catastrophes are derived from an interpretation of geological strata (how else?) then I would not put any stock in those conclusions, as these are derived from radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is based upon the assumption of decay constants. Decay constants are anything but constant, as it has been shown that certain external conditions have the ability to reset radiometric clocks.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2015/0 ... 20neutrino.
Obviously, if decay rates are affected by the Earth/Sun distance and Solar Flares, then that opens the door to a total negation of decay rates as a reliable geological dating method under the conditions of massive electric discharges as postulated in the Saturn Theory and/or any type of Velikovskian scenario. Radiometric dating is then exposed as being based upon an a priori assumption of uniformitarian conditions. Catastrophism by its very nature is non uniformitarian.
Furthermore, there is actual physical evidence that Earth's magnetic field reversed in historical times circa 700 BCE. The dates of magnetic reversals for geology are derived from radiometric dating and yield a figure of about 780,000 years ago. Yet in Earth In Upheaval, p. 146, the work of Folgheraiter on Etruscan and Greek vases is cited.
Colleagues of Folgheraiter subsequently found that vases dated earlier, ca 1000 BCE, were spun in a magnetic field similar to today. The implication is that Earth's magnetic field was flipped twice since 1000 BCE.The position of the ancient vases during firing is known. They were fired in the standing position, as the flow of glaze testifies. The magnetic inclination or the magnetic dip of the iron particles in the fired clay indicates which was the nearest magnetic pole, the south or the north.
In 1896 Guiseppe Folgheraiter began his careful studies of Attic (Greek) and Etruscan vases of various centuries, starting with eighth century before the present era. His conclusion was that in the eighth century the Earth's magnetic field was reversed in Italy and Greece. Italy and Greece were closer to the south than to the north magnetic pole.
Yet this scientific study which involved numerous samples is completely ignored and geologists tell us the last magnetic reversal took place three quarters of a billion years ago.
The evidence is ignored, not because of any flaw in the methods of the researchers, but because establishment scientists do not want to face the evidence, because the implications assault the uniformitarian assumption.
How does the Earth's magnetic field flip under Velikovskian type scenarios? From Worlds in Collision, P.114:
To summarize: geological dates based on radiometric dating are not to be relied upon within the catastrophic paradigm.A thunderbolt upon striking a magnet , reverses the poles of the magnet. The terrestrial globe is a huge magnet. A short circuit between it and another celestial body could result in the north and south magnetic poles exchanging places.
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:09 pm
Re: A question:
I read Mankind in Amnesia and the theory seemed consistent with human psychology, however I'm a sociologist rather than a psychologist, and population-wide amnesia or trauma is not really part of that literature. All the same, there is rather clearly a short list of archetypes, and as Talbott says, they appear on every continent... so there is clearly something going on. I've also done a fair amount of comparative analysis with Lipset, and the methods used by Velikovsky and Talbott seem sound to me.nick c wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:12 pm Are you familiar with the Velikovsky Archive? From there, is the text of a fascinating lecture given by Velikovsky at the University of Lethbridge in 1974, on Cultural Amnesia.
Yes, the impulse to diagnose cyclic catastrophe appears to involve conflicting impulses. One would be to recall the collective trauma, while the other would be to force it into a set of time boundaries which would be a way to tame it. If it follows such definitive rules it becomes less threatening, somehow. I'm sure it does follow rules, but such iron-clad cycles seems a bit too convenient. It would almost make sense to view it as a progression rather than a cycle, since the breakdown of the polar configuration led to a form of technological progress that the "golden age" lacked. There simply wasn't the motivation, because things were "good enough" in that kind of womb.It would not be fair for me to comment on Davidson's material since I have not given it a thorough look.
....
With regard to cyclical catastrophes and its compatibility with Saturn Theory and Velikovsky; if by "cyclical" catastrophes it is meant that these were taking place over a long period of time at fixed intervals, then that is indeed not compatible with the Saturn theory, or for that matter Velikovsky.
....
if the cycle of catastrophes are derived from an interpretation of geological strata (how else?) then I would not put any stock in those conclusions, as these are derived from radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is based upon the assumption of decay constants. Decay constants are anything but constant, as it has been shown that certain external conditions have the ability to reset radiometric clocks.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2015/0 ... 20neutrino.
Obviously, if decay rates are affected by the Earth/Sun distance and Solar Flares, then that opens the door to a total negation of decay rates as a reliable geological dating method under the conditions of massive electric discharges as postulated in the Saturn Theory and/or any type of Velikovskian scenario. Radiometric dating is then exposed as being based upon an a priori assumption of uniformitarian conditions. Catastrophism by its very nature is non uniformitarian.
There are a lot of catastrophe cycle theories around now, such as Doug Vogt's and the Archaix guy's. Many of them buy into the Baudrillard notion of a "virtual reality" which is a very popular theme right now. But if you pay attention to McLuhan he would diagnose "virtual reality" as a television phenomenon... an effect of the resonant interval as a one-to-many medium of control. But the digital/internet medium isn't like that, so you could say that virtual reality is a kind of Madison Avenue wet dream. It's motivated by the dream of point-to-point advertising, and that ship has already sailed. The effect of the digital/internet era is completely different.
McLuhan once suggested that the development of electrical mass communication advanced human mentality thousands of years in just a century or so. He also frequently mentioned the theory that we are turning the Earth into a kind of museum that we will be able to return to in order to experience the nostalgia of "where it all began". I don't imagine many people grasped what he meant by that.
Yes, I think that's right. We know there have been a series of catastrophes, but they all seem to have been engendered by a unitary phenomenon: the graduated collapse of the Polar Configuration. Thanks for the tip about the Velikovsky lecture and other things.....Colleagues of Folgheraiter subsequently found that vases dated earlier, ca 1000 BCE, were spun in a magnetic field similar to today. The implication is that Earth's magnetic field was flipped twice since 1000 BCE.
Yet this scientific study which involved numerous samples is completely ignored and geologists tell us the last magnetic reversal took place three quarters of a billion years ago.
The evidence is ignored, not because of any flaw in the methods of the researchers, but because establishment scientists do not want to face the evidence, because the implications assault the uniformitarian assumption.
How does the Earth's magnetic field flip under Velikovskian type scenarios? From Worlds in Collision, P.114:To summarize: geological dates based on radiometric dating are not to be relied upon within the catastrophic paradigm.A thunderbolt upon striking a magnet , reverses the poles of the magnet. The terrestrial globe is a huge magnet. A short circuit between it and another celestial body could result in the north and south magnetic poles exchanging places.
- JP Michael
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am
Re: A question:
I know our friend Eugene Bagashov has some major physics issues with Davidson's "Galactic Current Sheet" hypothesis, among other things. 45 min video worth the watch here, plus comments.
I personally find the fellow to be an egotistically eloquent apocalyptic grifter cashing in on other's inability to understand his endless jargon, his scam company 9RESE' LLC being a case in point. But he does bring up occasionally good science papers (e.g. Zarkhova on heliophysics and the Grand Solar Minimum cycle). At the very least someone "famous" is discussing plasma cosmology, but the guy's arrogance is a major problem.
I personally find the fellow to be an egotistically eloquent apocalyptic grifter cashing in on other's inability to understand his endless jargon, his scam company 9RESE' LLC being a case in point. But he does bring up occasionally good science papers (e.g. Zarkhova on heliophysics and the Grand Solar Minimum cycle). At the very least someone "famous" is discussing plasma cosmology, but the guy's arrogance is a major problem.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest