Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.
User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by JP Michael » Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:20 am

This thread is for the discussion of the mechanics of the Saturnian polar configuration and/or axis mundi, including difficulties and criticisms of the theory(ies).

A summarised version of the Timeline for the History of Theories on the Mythical Axis Mundi is available in van der Sluijs, On the Origin of Myths (London: All-Round, 2019), pp. 307-312.

EDIT: At the request of the author, pp. 307-312 has been removed from this forum.
Last edited by nick c on Fri May 07, 2021 2:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: edited as per request of the original poster

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by JP Michael » Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:30 am

Of the above, discussions by Faber, Eliade, and pretty much everyone after Talbott (but especially Peratt and van der Sluijs) entertain specific physical mechanics for the propagation, sustenance and eventual destruction/disappearance of the polar configuration/axis mundi.

Primary contributing factors include, but are not limited to:

1. Solar outbursts resulting in enhanced (columnar) auroras at north and/or south poles
(Peratt; Johnson & van der Sluijs; van Rhee; Zysman; Ashton; Robert Schoch, etc.)

2. Interplanetary Birkeland current(s) between planets held in an ancient, now-destroyed, planetary configuration
(Thornill; Talbott; de Grazia & E.R.V Milton; Cochrane; Jno Cook; Dwardu Cardona, etc.)

3. Complex and changing morphologies of the world axis phenomena = Plasma instabilities/morphology over time?
(van der Sluijs; Wilbert; plus Thornill; Talbott; de Grazia etc allowing for movement within planetary configuration changing shapes/morphologies of the world axis)

Robertus Maximus
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by Robertus Maximus » Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:30 pm

Energy from solar wind favors the north

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-energy-so ... north.html

"Using information from ESA's Swarm satellite constellation, scientists have made a discovery about how energy generated by electrically-charged particles in the solar wind flows into Earth's atmosphere—surprisingly, more of it heads towards the magnetic north pole than towards the magnetic south pole."

The author of this article is mistaken, a south magnetic pole is located in the northern hemisphere, nevertheless, energy input is greater in Earth's northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere.

If Earth's electrical environment changed would we find greater electrical activity at high northern latitudes compared to high southern latitudes?

Link to paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20450-3

toni
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:31 pm

Re: Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by toni » Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:34 am

This is definitely very interesting research. The picture of the earth with energy coming in is a very good way to see electricity in action. We had a lot of drawings of the same but not the real thing.
In my opinion, discussing this subject without mentioning electrical spirals that are creating earth, is not complete. Reading the text by the earth's picture, somehow it does not line up. The explanation fits more with 2 electric spirals which creates 2 effects with one direction - one is pull inward towards center to create compression and the second effect - push outside from center to create expansion. This is the reason why they don't see the same action on both poles and that 2 poles are different and have opposite functions. Many books have been written about it but not very well understood by many.
We do not need more renewable energy or less fossil fuel. What we need is total knowledge of how electricity works. When man achieves that then we will have the greatest reset that humanity has ever had. The way that I see AXIS MUNDI:
AXIS MUNDI = Gravity -- Controlling Electrical Spirals -- creating matter -- and mass
in short- AXIS MUNDI = Gravity

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by JP Michael » Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:41 am

Thanks for the contribution toni. This thread is only early in the discussion of sources and mechanics.

Do you have a more specific or testable hypothesis, or sorces, detailing the manner of physical mechanics that would account for:

1. The suspension of multiple planetary objects near or along earth's rotational axis;
2. And/or the creation and sustenance of one or multiple "polar columns" along the same axis;
3. Treatment of changes in morphology of this phenomenon, including its eventual destruction and disappearance.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by JP Michael » Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:53 am

Earlier mechanics discussion from another thread.
spark wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:01 pm
JP Michael wrote: Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:10 am The good ol' polar configuration. Sacrosanct heresy to almost all modern cosmologies, despite them already assenting to the facts of interplanetary catastrophism and planetary migration. t not allowed in human eyewitness memory, or as a source for mythologies the world over. Sad, really.
The Action Lab recently made a video about magnetic locking which locks magnets in space with rotation and tilt. This might help explain how planets could electromagnetically orbit a star in polar configuration.

Magnetic Locking WITHOUT a Superconductor!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5FyFvgxUhE
nick c wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:10 am Herbig-Haro objects are stars with enormous polar jets. It is not a stretch to consider the possibility of a planet/satellite suspended within one of these jets.
And there is at least one known example of a Brown Dwarf star that is a HH object.
First Large-scale Herbig-Haro Jet Driven by a Proto-brown Dwarf
JP Michael wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:44 am
spark wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:01 pm Magnetic Locking WITHOUT a Superconductor!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5FyFvgxUhE
Excellent, thank you.

Full paper by Hamdi Ucar, "Polarity Free Magnetic Repulsion and Magnetic Bound State," is downloadable here.
spark wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:01 pmThis might help explain how planets could electromagnetically orbit a star in polar configuration.
The major question, then, is would current planetary rotation speeds be enough to account for such magnetic locking? Or else do we have to ponder how fast the sun's magnetic field is rotating (or may have been rotating, if such is no longer the case)?

As with SAFIRE, I want to know what happens when you add more than 1 magnetic object to such systems.
paladin17 wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:28 pm
JP Michael wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:44 am Full paper by Hamdi Ucar, "Polarity Free Magnetic Repulsion and Magnetic Bound State," is downloadable here.
A quick "napkin" estimation shows that in order for the magnetic force to be comparable to gravitation between Earth and Saturn, their magnetic moments m1 and m2 (in A*m^2) should satisfy the equation m1*m2 = r^2*10^47, where r is the distance between their centers (in m).
At present for Earth and Saturn m1*m2 ~ 10^47, i.e. the Earth's center should only be about 3 meters from Saturn's center. So if "proto-Saturn" was as far as the Moon (as an example), the magnetic moments' product should have been about 10^64, i.e. 17 orders of magnitude higher than today.
In terms of "polar configuration" I should note as well that the rotating dipole should be perpendicular to the floating one, not parallel to it. And it should spin around the perpendicular axis.
JP Michael wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:21 pm
paladin17 wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:28 pm So if "proto-Saturn" was as far as the Moon (as an example), the magnetic moments' product should have been about 10^64, i.e. 17 orders of magnitude higher than today.
Is such a product even possible? I appreciate the napkin math, mate. Cheers.
paladin17 wrote:In terms of "polar configuration" I should note as well that the rotating dipole should be perpendicular to the floating one, not parallel to it. And it should spin around the perpendicular axis.
This is still possible if the 'floating one(s)' are the polar shish-kabob, whereas the perpendicular one is the sun. It is Thunderbolts hypothesis that Saturn & co. wandered into the Sun's domain. Given the glaciation in Africa in the past, maybe Michael Czusdi's conjecture that Africa was once the North Pole may be related.

I will suggest that I don't think the math will be as 'clean' with planets as with neodymium/iron/boron magnets; further, what happens when you add 1. A vacuum; 2. Plasma; 3. Electric currents between bodies thus magnetically held?

In other words, pure magnetism might not account for the whole story here, if valid at all for the Polar Config. But it is something to play with. Time to buy a drill and some spherical neodymium magnets!
paladin17 wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:51 am
JP Michael wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:21 pm
paladin17 wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:28 pm So if "proto-Saturn" was as far as the Moon (as an example), the magnetic moments' product should have been about 10^64, i.e. 17 orders of magnitude higher than today.
Is such a product even possible? I appreciate the napkin math, mate. Cheers.
I used the expression (4.2) - a well known one - in the paper you linked. You can see the product in the numerator. You put the gravitational force in the left side and from this evaluate what this product should be. The expression in square brackets can be ignored, since it only contains unit vectors and doesn't influence the order of magnitude much.
JP Michael wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:21 pm
paladin17 wrote:In terms of "polar configuration" I should note as well that the rotating dipole should be perpendicular to the floating one, not parallel to it. And it should spin around the perpendicular axis.
This is still possible if the 'floating one(s)' are the polar shish-kabob, whereas the perpendicular one is the sun.
Well, as I've said, the solar magnetic field in this case should rotate around the axis that is perpendicular to its spin axis (see Figure 5.1 where "Rotator" would be the Sun's magnetic field). Alternatively, the whole "kebab" can rotate around such axis (perpendicular to the solar spin axis), which is conceivable if the "kebab" system was (for some unknown reason) spiraling towards the Sun.
Thinking about it for a bit, the solar field actually does rotate in this manner (with some additional complications though) - I mean the 22-year magnetic cycle, when the magnetic north pole travels to heliographic south pole and then comes back to the north pole again. That's an interesting twist.
Magnetic moment of the Sun is only 4 orders of magnitude stronger than Saturn's though.
JP Michael wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:21 pm I will suggest that I don't think the math will be as 'clean' with planets as with neodymium/iron/boron magnets; further, what happens when you add 1. A vacuum; 2. Plasma; 3. Electric currents between bodies thus magnetically held?
Vacuum doesn't change anything really. Plasma would, however. At the very least it helps the magnetic field to decrease less rapidly with distance (see solar wind magnetic field strength as an example). It is a good question though what kind of magnetic interaction we can see if plasma naturally tends to separate itself into different "cellular" regions (e.g. Earth's magnetosphere versus "quiet" solar wind outside of it).

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by JP Michael » Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:13 am

paladin17 wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:28 pm So if "proto-Saturn" was as far as the Moon (as an example), the magnetic moments' product should have been about 10^64, i.e. 17 orders of magnitude higher than today.

...

I used the expression (4.2) - a well known one - in the paper you linked. You can see the product in the numerator. You put the gravitational force in the left side and from this evaluate what this product should be. The expression in square brackets can be ignored, since it only contains unit vectors and doesn't influence the order of magnitude much.
I don't think I made myself clear enough!

What I meant is whether it is possible to have a magnetic moment product 10^64 times higher than present; how might that have been the case; and what kind of environmental effects (esp. on Earth) might such a magnetic moment imply, if there was one?

What I want to explore in this thread is the mechanical (that is, physics) plausibility of especially the Polar Config model of the axis mundi. I think the plasma model has less mechanical difficulties, but the Peratt-Johnson-van der Sluijs model does not adequately address the role of the planet-gods and their relationship to the 'cosmic mountain', etc.

toni
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:31 pm

Re: Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by toni » Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:48 am

It would probably be best to explain what is on those 'polar columns', what they support and what is their function.
A while back, Walls video showed in the beginning, a picture of 2 spirals with a sphere in the center and in the opposite corner, was Neil Bohr's atom.
Firstly, if we look into Neil's atom it is a round ball which jumps into 3D space and attracts more round balls that run around the first one in all possible ways or something like this.
Two conical spirals, with a sphere in the center, represent two spirals from the blue and red spectrum. On each end are cold dark cathodes. Electricity extends and compresses that cold ether towards anodes in 4 octaves with a precision that a Swiss watch maker would envy. In the center, at the 4 octaves, matter and mass is created. All of this is happening under a watchful eye of Axis Mundi or gravity.
One of those two examples has nothing to do with nature even though both stories are with us for over 90 years. To put things in perspective, it is going to be a lot of work.

Walter Russell is probably the first one who wrote books about this subject.
Mr. Tesla, in the beginning of the 1940's or thereabouts, made some drawings that was going in the same direction as Mr. Russell.
Mr Einstein, around the 1950's, tried to correct some of his mistakes in his theories, but no one wanted to co-operate with him. Most likely, he learned about Mr. Russell's wave and its function and could have noticed that his 1905 formula could work for the gravity part of the wave but not for the decay or expansion half. For the beginning I think we have enough for a good start.
Thanks,
Toni

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by paladin17 » Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:17 pm

JP Michael wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:13 am What I meant is whether it is possible to have a magnetic moment product 10^64 times higher than present; how might that have been the case; and what kind of environmental effects (esp. on Earth) might such a magnetic moment imply, if there was one?
That ultimately boils down to the question of how is the field generated in the first place. If we assume it is (roughly speaking) a coil with a current in it - well, obviously then the current should be the same order of magnitude stronger. More precisely, the product of the current and the area of a current loop should be.
This may actually be an interesting subject to look into with regards to expanding Earth: if we assume that the current was the same, then maybe possible area changes could be traced through that.

Anyways, if the magnetic field of Earth took only a negligible fraction of this difference (the rest ensured by changes in Saturn) - say, even just some 10^10 - oh boy, that would be a very-very strong field in the past. The relationship between the field strength and magnetic moment is linear (given the same size), so if today we have ~ 50 uT field, this one would become 0.5 MT. That's megateslas. We don't have examples of such fields anywhere near us, it is already neutron star territory. I have no idea what would happen to this planet in this case, but it would be wild. It's not even science fiction, but some absolute monstrosity of an object.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by JP Michael » Fri Jan 29, 2021 11:56 pm

paladin17 wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:17 pm *snip*
Cheers mate!

Here's another interesting paper about giant planet migration in our solar system.

Tran et al., "The Epoch of Giant Planet Migration Planet Search Program: I. Near-Infrared Radial Velocity Jitter of Young Sun-like Stars," arXiv 2101:11005.

While not specifically associated with Thunderbolts Polar Config theory, I post it here to demonstrate mainstream thought about planetary migration in earlier times of the solar system. This is for when objections arise from critics about our solar system experiencing past planetary migration, it can be demonstrated that the idea is already accepted in certain segments of the astrophysics community, as long as it is confined to stars and galaxies far far away. This is obvious hypocrisy, to accept that planets can migrate and swap and collide elsewhere, but it's generally not allowed in our own backyard (Nice-model Neptunian catastrophism excepted).

I will also include some previous posts on this:

Planetary catastrophism in Formalhault B (academic paper here)

Planet Swaps during close stellar encounters (academic paper here).

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by JP Michael » Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:26 am

So after considerable back and fro with Marinus Anthony van der Sluijs, it is time to put the Polar Configuration theory to bed.

van der Sluijs raised seven unanswered questions on p.55 of his "A Response to Cardona's Objections," SIS Chronology & Catastrophism Review (2013), which was preceded or shortly followed by his article co-authored with Peter James, "Saturn as the 'Sun of Night' in Ancient Near Eastern Tradition," Aula Orientalis 31 no. 2 (2013), 279-321.

Those unanswered objections are as follows:

1. Considering that the celestial pole appears very low above the horizon at equatorial latitudes, how could peoples at these latitudes have perceived a putative polar column as a 'high' vertical object, joining Earth to the sky?

[[Note: the 'column' is a global phenomenon, and not always associated with the northern sky.]]

2. Considering that the celestial north pole is not visible from the southern hemisphere, how could traditions of a putative north-polar 'sun' and column have arisen on the southern hemisphere?

[[Southern hemisphere myth has abundant references to the polar axis, but not always associated with the northern sky.]]

3. Find an example of cognisance of the celestial north pole on the southern hemisphere at a higher latitude than 10 degrees, or vice versa, in a culture unaffected by 'western' tradition and using a primary source.

4. Find an example of the planet Saturn as a 'sun' in a tradition from Africa, East Asia, Oceania, the Americas or early non-classical Europe, using a primary source.

5. Find an example of the planet Saturn as a 'sun' in any tradition antedating the 7th century BC, using a primary source.

6. Find an example of the planet Saturn at the pole in a tradition from Africa, Oceania, the Americas or early non-classical Europe, using a primary source.

7. Find an example of the planet Saturn at the pole in any tradition antedating the 3rd century BC, using a primary source.

EU proponents are to be commended for their attempt to take a catastrophist approach to mythology seriously, as well as their attempt to challenge uniformitarian cosmology and geology. But as van der Sluijs demonstrates repeatedly, EU scholarship is very poor when it comes to working with mythic source materials. Many of their arguments, especially those concerning Saturn as primordial "sun," fall down under close scrutiny with primary source material in the original languages. EU scholars particularly ignore traditions of Jupiter as "moon of night," a curious omission that requires explanation.

Sadly, this spells the end of the road for me with respect to this specific aspect of Thunderbolts. I will continue to lurk the forums, if only for posts by Evgeny and Robertus Maximus, mostly, but I am no longer convinced of one of EU's fundamental tenents: Saturn as former sun and the former 'Polar Configuration'. The current state of mythic evidence for it is neither primary, global nor ancient.

evcochrane
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:25 pm

Re: Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by evcochrane » Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:19 pm

Please excuse my lack of Forum/computer skills. I have no idea how to respond to a particular thread, if that is indeed what you call these discussions nowadays. First I would say that this is a very interesting thread. I have especially enjoyed the posts of Paladin and JP, if I am reading/interpreting correctly. JP's point about mainstream astronomy being perfectly willing to allow giant planets to roam about the solar system so long as it occurred umpteen billions of years ago is right on the money. How I wish Tony Peratt was here to set us all straight on how plasma science might help us explain how something like the polar configuration could exist. I can tell you from personal knowledge that Tony maintained that this was not only possible, it actually happened.

evcochrane
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:25 pm

Re: Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by evcochrane » Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:51 pm

Earlier in this thread JP claimed that Rens van der Sluijs has "repeatedly" shown that EU scholarship is "very poor" when it comes to working with mythic source materials. This is a gross misstatement of the facts as well as of Rens's own position. For the record, I stand behind no man in my admiration for Rens's researches. He and I have been in near daily contact for twenty years now and I have edited all of his books, as he has mine. While I would not want to speak for Rens, I believe it is fair to say that he found Velikovsky's scholarship in this area to be seriously wanting and the same is true of Cardona. Whether either of these gentlemen should be included under the banner of EU scholarship is for others to determine. I know for a fact that Rens is an admirer of Dave Talbott's intellect and mythological writings, although that does not mean he agrees with everything he has ever written by any stretch of the imagination (as JP intimated, Rens does not accept a role for the planets in the polar configuration). My own personal belief is that the researches of Dave and Rens will prove pivotal as we try to reconstruct a scientific theory of myth in the 21st century. I hope this helps clarify matters.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by JP Michael » Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:19 am

evcochrane wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:51 pm Earlier in this thread JP claimed that Rens van der Sluijs has "repeatedly" shown that EU scholarship is "very poor" when it comes to working with mythic source materials. This is a gross misstatement of the facts as well as of Rens's own position.
Allow me to quote at length, therefore, Tony's most recent foray into the topic (besides our private correspondence the last 2 months, which I shall not post here), as a demontration that this seems to be Tony's own position. This is from pages 74-75 of On the Origin of Myths in Catastrophic Experience, Vol 1 (Vancouver: All-Round, 2019):
Marinus Anthony van der Sluijs wrote:Luniplanetary catastrophism as defined above will not be pursued here except in historical discussions, both because the requisite science seems extremely shaky and because the various suggested scenarios in this genre mostly found their original motivation in a questionable, Hellenocentric reading of world mythology. The emphasis in the writings of Radlof and the Velikovskians on myths and other beliefs concerning multiple planetary deities sits uncomfortably with the comparative method because the prominence of such deities is really confined to the classical world and the Near East; on a global scale, the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and Mercury are unknown or play a marginal part - typically without any connection to the mythology of creation - in the overwhelming majority of traditional belief systems. [Footnote (n.)152 - Full arrays of planetary gods are most prominent in Babylonian, Graeco-Roman and Hindu mythology. However, except in the cases of the Babylonian Venus and possibly Mars, these deities and their associated myths appear to have existed long before they were linked to their planets, a process initiated in Babylonia.]

Some might argue that characters not explicitly identified as planets in the cultures themselves had originally related to planets but that this identity slipped out of awareness. This is a fair hypothesis, but pure conjecture nonetheless. And to build a case on shared traits of planet lore which actually are widely attested in disparate cultures and are not easily explicable by reference to the planets' ordinary features may make for a superficially compelling argument, but runs the risk of cherry-picking, turning a blind eye to the association of the same traits with other celestial bodies or mythical agents. For example, one might juxtapose selected traditions from around the world linking the planet Mars with warfare or pimples and deduce that something in the past or present appearance of Mars inspired these traditions [n.153 - citing Cochrane 1997, 2006, 2017], while downplaying or ignoring other traditions which relate these same attributes to the planet Venus, the planet Saturn, the sun, the moon or a mythical character not associated with any astronomical object. In such cases, the gathered sets of planetary traditions are immensely valuable for comparative mythologists, but the conclusions drawn from them may not logically follow.

Other cross-cultural traits assigned to planets - such as Mars' redness or the morning star's function as light-bringer to 'day star' - may be legitimate identifiers, but are satisfactorily reducible to these bodies' familiar appearance and behaviour; a uniformitarian explanation then has the edge over a catastrophist on [n.154 - citing Aveni 1992; James 2000]. And some cases, such as reports of a tailed morning star [n.155 - van der Sluijs 2018: 52-55, 58-59], do call for a catastrophist cause, but, as the present study shall show, far simpler mechanisms will suffice than wholesale displacement of planets, which - to borrow a colleague's words - "may seem like an oversized astronomical hammer built to crack a relatively small mythological nut." [n.156 - citing James 2000:99]

Going by the traditions in their own words, the celestial bodies which could most reasonably be claimed to have been of universal importance are the sun, the moon and the morning star, whichever planet may be in the latter role. To seek the principal actors of the myths in a select class of astronomical bodies and, in doing so, to focus on the planets while overlooking the significance of the sun and moon is perhaps the most fundamental problem in the catastrophist theories of Velikovsky and his followers. A more open-ended starting position, adopted here, but not necessarily linked to any particular type of celestial body discerned today. Much depends on the extent to which identifications provided in the myths can be taken literally, a question taken up below.
I, like Tony, really want the Saturn shish-kabob theory to be true. But at the moment it has some significant methodological flaws which allow questioning of its conclusions. I have posted those criticisms above and would appreciate answers thereto, if any.

evcochrane
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:25 pm

Re: Polar Configuration/Axis Mundi: SOURCES, MECHANICS & DISCUSSION

Unread post by evcochrane » Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:56 pm

Thanks much to JP for posting this lengthy quote from Rens (not Tony), with which I am perfectly familiar. Suffice it to say that I do not share Rens' agnosticism in this regard. As fate would have it, I prepared a long response to Rens many years ago when he first raised some of these objections. Perhaps I can locate that original response--I have changed computers numerous times since then--and have JP repost it here until I can learn how to properly format material for this Forum. In the meantime I will offer a number of points in rebuttal to foster further dialogue.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest