VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan
David N. Talbott
Since I don't have the time others have for the t.o Posturing Wars,
I'm going to focus on responding to one party at a time. As
promised I'll begin with Leroy Ellenberger. If Leroy fails to
respond, I'll see if someone else is willing to take over the
adversarial position with respect to the Saturn theory. The only
exception is this: if Mark Isaak accepts the challenge I recently
posted (then re-posted yesterday), I'll make some additional time
for that little escapade as well.
I thought I might put up a few notes and asides prior to this
weekend, then post the first leg of a response to Leroy by Sunday
afternoon. Thereafter, if some of you feel that Leroy isn't
demonstrating the debating skills or acumen you expected, you can
supply him with any additional ideas or materials you choose. Feel
free to tutor him on physics, astronomy, geology, logic, common sense,
manners, ethics, getting a life, or whatever you want. Just don't try
to explain the origins of myth to him (the blind leading the blind).
At least in the initial stages I'll post the response to Leroy in
segments on talk.origins and alt.catastrophism, so that if Leroy
chooses he can draw on various debunker responses in formulating
his own riposte. To the extent possible, I'll review various t.o
responses myself before formulating the final draft of a position
statement to be placed on the Kronia Communications website, but
there is no possibility that I will have the time to chase after other
debunkers and try to debate them as well. For now, at least--
LEROY IS THE MAN.
Dave
Leroy Ellenberger
BEGIN EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION
The following is posted for Ellenberger by Thompson. Text is a
faithful copy of Ellenberger's original except that I have re-written
his description of how to get the files archived by Lippard so that
all you computer nerds out there could understand it.
Talbott's original invitation posted under the thread
"VELIKOVSKY: The Great Degate" (Talbott's typo, not mine) never arrived
on my server, though I did find it in Deja-News. I told Leroy about it,
and I have sent him a copy. This post is a response to the fact that
Talbott has issued the challenge, but Ellenberger is posting without
having seen Talbott's original.
Content is Ellenberger's, typos are probably mine; it's late, and
I don't feel much like proof-reading.
END EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION
[POSTED FOR ELLENBERGER BY THOMPSON]
The main purpose of this posting is to acknowledge my learning of
Dave Talbott's challenge on 7 July to debate me on the "Saturn Myth",
or whatever the specific invitation is. I have not seen the posting
by Mr. Talbott and will not until I return to St. Louis on July 22
from Rutland, Vermont, where I shall be meeting with Anne Kilmer,
Assyriologist at Berkeley who decoded Babylonian musical notation,
and Ernest McClain, musicologist who decoded the Sumerian harmonic
cosmology. Contrary to the many notices for the meeting in Deerfield
Beach, Florida, I shall not be lurking on the hotel parking lot.
Considering Mr. Talbott's track record dealing with my arguments
in the past, I am not sanguine about the benefits of further
engagement. On talk.origins, from June 1994 to October 1994, Mr.
Talbott subjected my documented arguments to condescending ridicule
and derision before ultimately ignoring them. See "Ellenberger Contra
Cochrane: The Second Reply & Talbott, Too" (posted 20 June 1994) and
"DAVID N. TALBOTT: Hoist, Clueless & 'Nihilated" (posted 14 July 1994),
archived and available by anonymous FTP at ftp.rtd.com, files
/pub/lippard/cle-contra-cochrane and /pub/lippard/cle-talbott, for the
flavor of our previous interaction. An indicator of Mr. Talbott's
trustworthiness is the fact that, in 1994 when he offered a $100
reward to the first person to simulate one circular orbit of
Grubaugh's stack of Jupiter, Saturn, and Earth, (sans Sun) which
closed on itself, he renigged when solutions were posted by Wayne
Throop and myself.
Before I can take Mr. Talbott's invitation seriously, it would
behoove him to respond substantively to my 2 July 1996 posting via
Ben Dehner containing "16 Reasons Refuting the 'Saturn Myth'" (sent
to Messrs. Talbott & Cochrane on postcards in case they missed it on
talk.origins or alt.catastrophism). Does he have the capacity to
engage in authentic intellectual discourse? Can he accept criticism
with grace?
On general principles, debating the meriits of neo-Velikovskian
ideas espoused by Mr. Talbott (and others) is ludicrous because, as
I have already argued on talk.origins and in SKEPTIC (3:4, posted on
talk.origins), ...
(1) they are based on a false premise [the first gods were planets],
(2) employ erroneous methodology [correct predictions NEVER prove a
theory,
(3) are physically impossible,
(4) violate the conservation laws of physics,
(5) are contradicted both by (a) the seasonal varves in the world's
ice caps extending back beyond the Holocene and (b) the plethora
of circular, spin-orbit resonances in the satellite systems of
Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn that take more time to achieve
than has elapsed since the cataclysmic era ended,
(6) the data they purport to explain can be explained by other,
physically feasible alternatives, notably that by Clube and
Napier (which are essentially ignored) while the number names
of the major gods in the Sumerian pantheon are not explained by
their "Saturn Myth" model that supposedly explains everything,
and ...
(7) his literal interpretations deny a role for metaphor and
synecdoche in myth and he projects modern concepts on archaic
perceptions.
Investigating the "Saturn Myth" is like looking for the Invisible
Man because H.G. Wells happened to write about him. An interdisciplinary
synthesis, such as neo-Velikovskians pride themselves on, that discounts
the laws of physics [e.g., ignoring the fact that Venus is too massive
ever to have had a visible tail] cannot be taken seriously. Clearly, Mr.
Talbott inverts normal procedure by giving hypothesis priority over
physics and physical evidence. Who properly sets the rules, anyway?
The falsity of the "Saturn Myth" as epoused by Mr. Talbott is a no-brainer.
Leroy "Huwawa" Ellenbeger,
Confidant to Velikovsky 4/78 -- 11/79,
who was banned at Portland, Oregon, 11/94,
"Vivere est vincere", 10 July 1996
--
Posted for Ellenberger by Thompson. Content is Ellenberger's, not mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer.
Atmospheric Corrections Team - Scientific Programmer.
Mark Isaak
Thanks to Alta Vista, I have seen Talbott's messages to me. (If you really
want them to get to me, Dave, please email; don't post. Neither copy of
your post appeared at our site.) For now, I will only comment on Talbott's
methodology.
In article <dtalbott.836271275@linda>, David Talbott writes:
>The single most pervasive misunderstanding of myth is the idea that "you
>can prove anything by resort to myth." . . . As it turns out, the
>assumption is provably incorrect. . . .
and
>Just so there's no misunderstanding: I have claimed there is a way of
>seeing human history and planetary history that will account for all of
>the recurring themes of myths. So all Mark will need to do is show a
>recurring attribute of the serpent or dragon that is not predicted by the
>hypothesis. Now that should be pretty easy, shouldn't it?
If it is true that you can prove anything by resort to myth, the task you
set for me should be impossible. You appear not to comprehend the very idea
of falsifiability. But please prove me wrong; email me an exhaustive list
of attributes of the serpent or dragon that your hypothesis predicts, and I
will see if there are any recurring attributes that are not on the list. If
you can't come up with such a list, your hypothesis is unfalsifiable and
therefore worthless.
As to your challenge regarding serpent myths, I am in the process of
preparing a detailed analysis of serpent and dragon myths which will not
disprove your hypothesis, but which will show that the Once Hollow Earth
theory is statistically a much more likely explanation. I had hoped to be
able to post it today, but I haven't had the time to finish it yet. It will
have to wait until after my vacation. Sorry for the delay.
--
Mark Isaak "The first principle is that you must not
is...@aurora.com fool yourself, and you're the easiest
person to fool." - Richard Feynman
Tim Thompson
In article <DuFrp...@aurora.com>, is...@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
> Thanks to Alta Vista, I have seen Talbott's messages to me. [ ... ]
I have had similar problems, seeing Talbott's posts very much out
of time synchronization with each other, but they do eventually arrive.
The ones that arrived today were 5 days late, despite that fact that
in the interim I have seen Talbott posts get here in a day. This jumbling
makes it hard to carry on a consistent discussion without a lot of careful
reference to messages that haven't arrived yet. My usual clue is that I
often see replies posted by others for several days before the original
arrives here.
> In article <dtalbott.836271275@linda>, David Talbott writes:
[ ... ]
>> Just so there's no misunderstanding: I have claimed there is a way of
>> seeing human history and planetary history that will account for all of
>> the recurring themes of myths. So all Mark will need to do is show a
>> recurring attribute of the serpent or dragon that is not predicted by the
>> hypothesis. Now that should be pretty easy, shouldn't it?
It does seem like a good idea at this juncture to point out the difference
between "predicts" and "is consistent with". It is quite common, even amongst
scientists, to say that some hypothesis "predicts" something which is, in fact,
already known. It is more correct to say that the hypothesis is consistent with
what is already known, and reserve the word "predicts", as much as possible, for
use with those things that are in fact not already known.
That said, scientists do commonly use the consistency test to strengthen and
develop an hypothesis. However, eventually, one must take the risk of actually
predicting some new heretofore unknown result or phenomenon, sort of like
Einstein predicting that light would follow a curved trajectory around a massive
object (the Sun). That was a genuine prediction, nobody had seen that before,
nobody had thought to look for it before. However, when Eddington looked a short
time later, the observation was as predicted. So, if we are going to hold the
Saturn myth to some scientific sense of prediction, as Talbott seems to suggest
we should, then our Saturnist friends should be expected to put forth a genuine
prediction. For instance, predict that some "recurring attribute of the serpent
or dragon" which is now not known will e discovered by later archaeologists
or mythologists?
--
David N. Talbott
I wouldn't call it an auspicious beginning, but maybe it's a start. Mark
Isaak says he'll take up the challenge. So I'm starting a new thread
titled "THE COSMIC SERPENT." You are cordially invited to check in
periodically. It won't go fast (due to my schedule), but I can guarantee
you that it will expose one of the more preposterous hoaxes perpetrated on
t.o. And it will be a useful exercise because the misperception about
myth, on which Mark's entire argument rests, is repeated in virtually
every post by t.o debunkers the moment they address the subject of myth.
The debunkers have yet to realize that there is a coherent substratum, and
that its existence can be (and has been) demonstrated. Exposure of the
substratum does not require selective perception or subjective
interpretation, only a rigorous cross-cultural comparison in which nothing
other that *recurring* themes is allowed. (The reason for this
methodological requirement will be clear to anyone who actually applies
it. The substratum, as the residue of a collective memory, expresses
itself in a few hundred well-established themes. Localized elaborations,
fragments and distortions of the underlying themes express themselves in
*hundreds of thousands* of contradictory details. It is an easily
demonstrable fact--once the substratum is discerned--that the
localizations and elaborations are the *cause* of the contradictions.)
Now how are you going to know whether what I am claiming here is true?
You will only know either by going through the exercise yourself, or
familiarizing yourself with the several volumes of material already
published on the Saturn theory. Since the t.o debunkers are willing to do
neither, the only purpose of carrying on this discussion is to register,
with an explorer or two, a possibility outside all of our prior ideas about
the origins of myth.
We are here simply to leave a sign post for explorers who may drop
by. The serious discussion will go on elsewhere. If you have an interest
check in with the Kronia Communications website--
http://www.teleport.com/~kronia/
Then send along a note expressing your interest and background. An
electronic forum for explorers will emerge from this process over the next
year or so. You can count on it.
Dave
Andrew MacRae
In article <dtalbott.837289021@julie> dtal...@teleport.com (David N.
>
> I wouldn't call it an auspicious beginning, but maybe it's a start.
..
> t.o. And it will be a useful exercise because the misperception about
> myth, on which Mark's entire argument rests, is repeated in virtually
> every post by t.o debunkers the moment they address the subject of myth.
I do not really *care* about a debate about the interpretation of
myth, by itself. See below.
> The debunkers have yet to realize that there is a coherent substratum,
> and that its existence can be (and has been) demonstrated. Exposure of
Fine.
..
> *hundreds of thousands* of contradictory details. It is an easily
> demonstrable fact--once the substratum is discerned--that the
> localizations and elaborations are the *cause* of the contradictions.)
>
> Now how are you going to know whether what I am claiming here is true?
You miss my interest entirely. I am willing to accept -- at face
value -- that your mythological interpretations are correct, and discuss
the *implications* of your model for the physical evidence observed in the
geologic record. It would take me ages to get up to speed on the
mythological background, but as I have stated previously, I regard it as
potentially useful for formulating hypotheses. So, forumulate away, and
then let us look at the predictions from your mythological interpretation
and how they compare to the geological evidence, and to alternative
explanations. If you can not make specific predictions that are relevant
to this field, then you are not proposing a scientifically testable
theory.
Here are four outstanding issues I am willing to discuss, in
approximate order of interest:
1.) geological evidence for the orbital configuration of the Earth and
Moon, as indicated by tidal deposits (see the July 5 "Science" for a
summary)
2.) The critique by James and I of Ginenthal's claims about Venus geology
(from his "Surface of Venus a newborn babe" article).
3.) Ginenthal's claims about the significance of "whales on land", from
his "The Flood" article.
4.) The evidence (or apparent lack of it) for some sort of recent (last
few thousand years), global, astronomically-related "catastrophe" and its
expression in the Earth's deep sea sediments by some sort of unusual
sediment bed.
These are relevant. They are short enough and I am already
familiar enough with them that I can spend time discussing them. I am
particularly interested in #1, because I have the impression (perhaps
wrong) that Velikovsky advocates are unfamiliar with that evidence.
I do not really care what or if you choose to discuss things with
Leroy. It is your perrogative. I agree with Leroy about some things,
disagree with him about others, and am not sure about many more. He is no
more a representative of my opinion than a person chosen at random from
the crowd. If you demonstrate he is wrong or right on some issue, I may
or may not agree with you, but I suspect, from the likelihood of your
focus on myth rather than testing myth against the physical evidence, that
I will consider most of your discussion irrelevant to testing your
scientific claims. The latter is where my interest lies, and, although
discussion of the interpretation of myth is interesting, I do not find it
fruitful when there are copious amounts of other evidence out there which
could potentially test a particular mythological interpretation
scientifically. It seems more efficient, to me, to adopt a strategy that
wittles away at the many possible mythological interpretations until only
one remains that is consistent with the scientific evidence.
> You will only know either by going through the exercise yourself, or
> familiarizing yourself with the several volumes of material already
> published on the Saturn theory. Since the t.o debunkers are willing to
> do neither,
No, I do not consider the details of the mythological basis of an
interpretation to be fruitful when I can just assume your expert
interpretation is correct and test its validity with the tools I am
familiar with.
> the only purpose of carrying on this discussion is to
> register, with an explorer or two, a possibility outside all of our
> prior ideas about the origins of myth.
What is the point of just "registering" the idea when you can test
it?
> We are here simply to leave a sign post for explorers who may drop
> by. The serious discussion will go on elsewhere.
So, are you saying your committment is superficial? Gee, that
would really encourage me to spend my time discussing the issue.
> If you have an
> interest check in with the Kronia Communications website--
>
> http://www.teleport.com/~kronia/
>
> Then send along a note expressing your interest and background. An
> electronic forum for explorers will emerge from this process over the
> next year or so. You can count on it.
I have always wondered: are you guys collecting vote committments
for a renewed talk.catastrophism proposal?
--
-Andrew
mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
home page: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae
Andrew MacRae
In article <dtalbott.837048646@kelly> dtal...@teleport.com (David N.
>
> Since I don't have the time others have for the t.o Posturing Wars,
See another post for some non-posturing comments.
In the past, I have not found your or Leroy's preferred "debating
style" to be particularly conducive to scientific discussion, because it
is often rather antagonistic. Perhaps I will be surprised, but the
comments in your introductory posting do not look promising (the "the
blind leading the blind" and "getting a life" comments and several other
jabs). It is not nice to pre-judge, but given this post, I suspect your
"debate" is not going to be particularly interesting to me.
..
Wade
Tim Thompson wrote:
> It does seem like a good idea at this juncture to point out the difference
> between "predicts" and "is consistent with". It is quite common, even amongst
> scientists, to say that some hypothesis "predicts" something which is, in fact,
> already known. It is more correct to say that the hypothesis is consistent with
> what is already known, and reserve the word "predicts", as much as possible, for
> use with those things that are in fact not already known.
I strongly differ though I feel your pain.
A theory can be said to predict something, in a safe and sane manner,
if that something is a logical necessity and that something wasn't part
of the formulation of the theory.
Although prediction carries a connotation of a revelation of that which is
as yet unknown, this is an arbitrary and unscientific constraint.
The difficulty lies in fullfilling the "not part of the formulation of
the theory" constraint listed above. Fitting a line to a set of data points and
removing one point, refitting the line and saying that the theory as represented
by the slope and intercept of that line predicts the removed datapoint is
rather trivial and not as dramatic and measuring a new datapoint after the
line is calculated, and not as dramatic still as measuring a new datapoint
outside the range previously measured.
If in mythological terms, one can remove an observation, truely count it as
not part of the other observations (this myth not influenced by the
retelling of the other myths, other myths not influenced by the telling of
this myth) it might be possible to use such a myth as evidence for historical
basis for a myth. My primative understanding of myth and myth making leads me
to believe that this is rather unlikely this an unlikely.
--Wade
David N. Talbott
A few excerpts from Andrew's Macrae's latest--
> I do not really *care* about a debate about the interpretation of
>myth, by itself.
> I am willing to accept -- at face
I think these excerpts are sufficient to make clear Andrew's position,
which is perfectly reasonable so long as the situation is understood.
When I say that we are looking for explorers, not debunkers, I am
responding to the history of discussion on t.o. We are trying to forge a
bridge between the historical argument on the one hand and physical theory
and physical evidence on the other hand. Though there have been some
promising exceptions, t.o has, on the whole, only obstructed or slowed
down the process, by turning everything into an argument or refutation or
sweeping pronouncement of "impossibility" even before the contexts of
various issues are understood. And in every insance I can think of, if I
took the time to examine the claimed basis of the "refutation" it turned
out to be fraudulently overstated or oversimplified or just plain
ridiculous. (Some examples of this are included in a post I plan to put
up in response to Tim Thompson on Wednesday evening.
The few explorers who have come into the
process have offered precisely the reverse: instead of asking *me* to
answer all of the physical issues, and to bring to them a fully-defined
physical model (which would be idiotic), they have come forward to help us
visualize ways to reconcile the physical data and the historical argument,
and they have been perfectly willing to look at planetary geology from
*both* sides of the ledger.
I do not recall a single instance of this from t.o regulars, which is one
reason I keep asking, what is the friggin purpose here? Ten thousand
pages of pronouncements, and not a single instance in which anyone
discerned a physical fact difficult to account for in conventional theory
but strangely consistent with the hypothesized planetary history of the
Saturn theory. One would have to believe that no such physical facts
exist!
And yet a high school student would have no difficulty taking the general
profile of the planets and finding highly interesting anomalies that would
immediatley disappear if the hypothesized planetary history did indeed
occur.
Wherever there is genuine interest in exploring issues, rather
than relentless debunking, I will do my best to carry on an
electronic correspondence by email. And I'll see if I can set up
an efficient way of communicating with explorers as a group to save time.
Dave
David N. Talbott
An interesting observation from <31EA6B...@shore.net> Wade
<ms...@shore.net> in response to Tim Thompson:
>
>If in mythological terms, one can remove an observation, truely count it as
>not part of the other observations (this myth not influenced by the
>retelling of the other myths, other myths not influenced by the telling of
>this myth) it might be possible to use such a myth as evidence for historical
>basis for a myth. My primative understanding of myth and myth making leads me
>to believe that this is rather unlikely this an unlikely.
>--Wade
To answer questions of this sort, the thing that is needed most is an
approach as free of advanced suppositions as possible. In a sense,
this freedom is imperative when assessing the Saturn theory because what
is being proposed, if true, *requires* an entirely new vantage point on
the entire field of evidence.
A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if
an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific
understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give ground.
But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see the danger
of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from ancient
memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only have to be
willing to ask--What if?
*If*, as claimed by the Saturn theory, immense and terrifying planetary
forms dominated the sky of ancient stargazers, then there is no question
about it--ancient memories *do* have something to tell us about things
modern science has not even speculated upon. Hence, to deny even the
possibility that ancient memories could tell us something we don't know
is not only arrogant, but self-defeating.
All that is needed is the slightly opened door that Wade has allowed. With
that, investigation and discussion can go forward to determine just how
coherent the collective memory really is, and whether it *consistently*
points to something science has overlooked. If it can be shown that a
thousand symbols--all seemingly irrational and contradicting every
experience of nature today--actually point to the *same* cosmic forms and
event sequences then only a fool would ignore the message. No one is
asked to *believe* that myth is anything more than wholesale superstition
and irrationality, only to consider another possibility and to apply
to this possibility the same tests of coherence and explanatory power that
one applies to other fields of evidence.
Dave
Paul J. Gans
The following posting is repeated in its entirety:
David N. Talbott (dtal...@teleport.com) wrote:
:
: Since I don't have the time others have for the t.o Posturing Wars,
: I'm going to focus on responding to one party at a time. As
For those of you who still might think that Talbott is an
"honest" debator, I ask you to note that of all of the people
on talk.origins who disagree with Talbott only ONE does not
have net access.
Guess which one Talbott wants to debate?
Neat huh?
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Burch Seymour
dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes:
>A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if
>an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific
>understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give ground.
>But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see the danger
>of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from ancient
>memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only have to be
>willing to ask--What if?
This is where one must step back three steps and be objective. What the T.O
critics are insisting, is that the catastrophists presenting their ideas
in this forum have not done that. Indeed it would seem they are more
devoted to proving their radical notions are being unfairly criticised
than they are to providing any tangible proof that their ideas warrent
further consideration.
The example of contenental drift has been given many times here. An idea
which was roundly rejected when first offered, is now uncontested fact.
Why? When originally presented the model was wrong. It was easily
demonstrated to be wrong. Later work found the proper answers and
now no-one doubts the idea.
Myths provide an interesting point to start looking for things, but those
"things" must be explainable without disregarding physics. As the saying
goes, "I keep an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out.".
It is incumbant on the presenter of radical new ideas to show how those
ideas fit in with established physical laws and basic observations.
One cannot simply hand wave away the physical evidence that shows
no such radical planetary pinball games ever occurred.
After reading this group for years, I've seen certain individuals present
the same tired arguments, refuted soundly dozens of times, over and
over and over with not a whit of modification or acknowledgement that
there might be any problems with their pet theories.
After all these years it's become very clear to me who exhibits the
arrogance of assumption. Here's a hint, it's *NOT* the "establishment"
scientists. They have bent over backwards to examine all arguments and
respond with fact based criticism.
Good luck in your quest.
-Burch-
David N. Talbott
The latest offering from the class clown:
In <4sepnl$t...@news.nyu.edu> ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes:
>For those of you who still might think that Talbott is an
>"honest" debator, I ask you to note that of all of the people
>on talk.origins who disagree with Talbott only ONE does not
>have net access.
>Guess which one Talbott wants to debate?
>Neat huh?
> ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Shame, shame, Paul. You forgot to mention that in the past I completely
ignored Leroy Ellenberger and offered to debate numerous t.o regulars. In
fact, I happen to know that Craig Standish forwarded to you my challenge
to debate *you*.
And as I said, just as soon the t.o howlers want to replace my nominee
they are welcome to. Or they can go on talking to themselves on
any issues they please, late into the night.
You seem to have also forgotten that one of the reasons for choosing Leroy
is that several t.o howlers are impressed enough with his contribution to
spend a good deal of time entering posts for him. I fail to see where the
slightest disadvantage comes in, since lack of net access has not kept
Leroy from typing up postcards faster than he can think.
Dave
Matt Silberstein
dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote:
[snip]
>A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if
>an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific
>understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give ground.
>But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see the danger
>of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from ancient
>memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only have to be
>willing to ask--What if?
You propose a dichotomy where none exists. We can learn from myth, but
where myth contradicts physical science, myth must give ground.
>*If*, as claimed by the Saturn theory, immense and terrifying planetary
>forms dominated the sky of ancient stargazers, then there is no question
>about it--ancient memories *do* have something to tell us about things
>modern science has not even speculated upon. Hence, to deny even the
>possibility that ancient memories could tell us something we don't know
>is not only arrogant, but self-defeating.
That is a big IF. Yes, if it were true, it would be true. Even if the
Saturn theory were wrong, "ancient memories" might have something to tell
us. Denial here is only self-defeating if we would learn something from
the myths. It is up to you to show that knowledge, not assert it.
Robert Grumbine
In article <dtalbott.837483347@linda>,
David N. Talbott <dtal...@teleport.com> wrote:
[deletia of Talbott quoting MacRae]
>When I say that we are looking for explorers, not debunkers, I am
>responding to the history of discussion on t.o. We are trying to forge a
>bridge between the historical argument on the one hand and physical theory
>and physical evidence on the other hand. Though there have been some
>promising exceptions, t.o has, on the whole, only obstructed or slowed
>down the process, by turning everything into an argument or refutation or
>sweeping pronouncement of "impossibility" even before the contexts of
>various issues are understood.
I just requested information on a context -- namely the properties
of the cloud you now say existed about the planets during the Saturn
configuration -- and you refused to provide it. You (now) say this
is part of the Saturn theory, and that it has important effects on
the orbital mechanics, yet when the discussion went on for months
around the Grubaugh model you never mentioned its existence. You
certainly had the opportunity in the innumerable posts you made to
have mentioned this feature of the Saturn model.
>The few explorers who have come into the
>process have offered precisely the reverse: instead of asking *me* to
>answer all of the physical issues, and to bring to them a fully-defined
>physical model (which would be idiotic), they have come forward to help us
>visualize ways to reconcile the physical data and the historical argument,
? Not only does one have to invent the physical properties of the
solar system (unaided by the historical argument since, per above
regarding the cloud, you're not providing it) to be an 'explorer', but
one must reach the 'right' (support for Saturn theory) conclusion?
>
>I do not recall a single instance of this from t.o regulars, which is one
>reason I keep asking, what is the friggin purpose here? Ten thousand
>pages of pronouncements, and not a single instance in which anyone
>discerned a physical fact difficult to account for in conventional theory
>but strangely consistent with the hypothesized planetary history of the
>Saturn theory.
Again that 'explorers' must support a particular conclusion.
Speaking of exploration, though, do you or do you not want me
to do that exploration of tides w.r.t. Velikovsky and Ginenthal's
constructions? The post in which I gave the details has been out
for some time, with no response from you, and no response when
I mentioned it again in a post you did respond to parts of.
--
Bob Grumbine rm...@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Tim Thompson
This time Talbott's post arrived on my server the day after he posted it,
a much improved transit time.
In article <dtalbott.837482650@linda>, dtal...@teleport.com
(David N. Talbott) writes:
> An interesting observation from <31EA6B...@shore.net> Wade
> <ms...@shore.net> in response to Tim Thompson:
>>
>> If in mythological terms, one can remove an observation, truely count it as
>> not part of the other observations (this myth not influenced by the
>> retelling of the other myths, other myths not influenced by the telling of
>> this myth) it might be possible to use such a myth as evidence for historical
>> basis for a myth. My primative understanding of myth and myth making leads me
>> to believe that this is rather unlikely this an unlikely.
>> --Wade
[Talbott ... ]
> To answer questions of this sort, the thing that is needed most is an
> approach as free of advanced suppositions as possible. In a sense,
> this freedom is imperative when assessing the Saturn theory because what
> is being proposed, if true, *requires* an entirely new vantage point on
> the entire field of evidence.
Counterpoint: if we are indeed going to *require* "an entirely new vantage
point on the entire field of evidence", then the interpretations that are
responsible for this requirement must derive from the entire field of
evidence. So, what is "the entire field of evidence"? It is the sum of
whatever in involved with the open question. In the case of the Saturn Myth
this certainly includes mythology, but it also includes physics (primarily
celestial mechanics of the polar configuration) and geology (the interpretation
of geologic features as evidence for or against the hypothesis) at the very
least, and maybe more.
Furthermore, not all "evidence" from all sources is equal. There is always
an hierarchy of confidence, an inevitable result of the fact that we know
some things better, and with more confidence, than we know (or think we know)
other things.
> A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if
> an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific
> understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give ground.
And I am one of them; I am not prepared to soften my position in the least.
The precedence of physics over myth is an absolute requirement. The reason
for this comes from my second paragraph above. We know a lot about the
relevant physics, a lot more than you think we do. Specifically, we know
a great deal about orbiting systems of planets and how they behave. This is
not guesswork and supposition, and it is not loosely considered hypotheses;
it is very complete knowledge, and strongly supported by wide ranging
experience. In short, its confidence level is very high.
But what do we really know about myths? Not much, and I dare say a lot
less than you think we do. It seems to me that you are mistaking your own
arbitrary interpretation of myth for knowledge about where the myths came
from, but it is not. It is one thing to assert that there are common themes
throughout the myths of the world, and I doubt there is a lot of surprise
in the wider community that there should be. However, the interpretation
that we can reconstruct the visible sky in any part, from this family
of common themes, is entirely arbitrary, and the details of the interpretation
(i.e., the polar configuration) is even more arbitrary. In my opinion this
does not constitute evidence in any sense of the word, but even if it did,
it would be "evidence" with a very low level of confidence due to its
arbitrary nature. To argue that this kind of evidence should be equal to,
or take precedence over pnysical evidence is unreasonable.
> But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see the danger
> of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from ancient
> memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only have to be
> willing to ask--What if?
This is a non-sequitor, there is no "assumption that we have nothing to
learn from ancient memories"; I certainly make no such assumption. All I am
insisting on is that we cannot learn from these memories the things you say
we can learn. Of course we can learn from ancient memories, as they are
embodied in literary myth, because they represent the imagination of our
ancestors. How could we not learn something from this? However, this does not
mean we can learn anything useful about celestial mechanics from myth, and I
am quite convinced that we cannot.
[Remainder of original deleted ... ]
Jamie Schrumpf
In article <dtalbott.837538376@kelly>, dtal...@teleport.com says...
sighting, no Saturnist had yet proposed initial conditions for the Saturn
configuration that were stable for more than one or two orbits. Have new data
been derived for this problem, and if so, have they yet been posted?
Until the configuration can be proven stable for any reasonable length of time
(and must this must be long enough for Ted's "reduced-felt-gravity megafauna
to have evolved, or are his hypotheses not accepted by the majority of
Saturnists?), I see no point of debate. Either the configuration is stable or
not, and if not, the question is moot.
So, what's the latest data?
James G. Acker
:
: In <4sepnl$t...@news.nyu.edu> ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes:
:
:
: >For those of you who still might think that Talbott is an
: >"honest" debator, I ask you to note that of all of the people
: >on talk.origins who disagree with Talbott only ONE does not
: >have net access.
:
: >Guess which one Talbott wants to debate?
:
: >Neat huh?
:
: > ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
:
: Shame, shame, Paul. You forgot to mention that in the past I completely
: ignored Leroy Ellenberger and offered to debate numerous t.o regulars. In
: fact, I happen to know that Craig Standish forwarded to you my challenge
: to debate *you*.
So I guess I'm out of the race, huh? Ah well, I have
other projects.
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Paul J. Gans
David N. Talbott (dtal...@teleport.com) wrote:
[deletions]
: I do not recall a single instance of this from t.o regulars, which is one
: reason I keep asking, what is the friggin purpose here? Ten thousand
: pages of pronouncements, and not a single instance in which anyone
: discerned a physical fact difficult to account for in conventional theory
: but strangely consistent with the hypothesized planetary history of the
: Saturn theory. One would have to believe that no such physical facts
: exist!
:
: And yet a high school student would have no difficulty taking the general
: profile of the planets and finding highly interesting anomalies that would
: immediatley disappear if the hypothesized planetary history did indeed
: occur.
Do I understand correctly? You are here stating that there exits
"physical fact[s] difficult to account for in conventional
theory but strangely consistent with the hypothesized planetary
history of the Saturn theory."?
I would be very anxious to see several of these physical facts *and*
how they are inconsistent with conventional theory but consistent
with Saturn theory.
David N. Talbott
From <4sj0q8$1...@post.gsfc.nasa.gov> jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G.
Acker):
>David N. Talbott (dtal...@teleport.com) wrote:
>:
>:
>: The latest offering from the class clown:
>:
>: In <4sepnl$t...@news.nyu.edu> ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes:
>:
>:
>: >For those of you who still might think that Talbott is an
>: >"honest" debator, I ask you to note that of all of the people
>: >on talk.origins who disagree with Talbott only ONE does not
>: >have net access.
>:
>: >Guess which one Talbott wants to debate?
>:
>: >Neat huh?
>:
>: > ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
>:
>: Shame, shame, Paul. You forgot to mention that in the past I completely
>: ignored Leroy Ellenberger and offered to debate numerous t.o regulars. In
>: fact, I happen to know that Craig Standish forwarded to you my challenge
>: to debate *you*.
> So I guess I'm out of the race, huh? Ah well, I have
>other projects.
Not so fast there, partner. I'm counting on the opportunity to
communicate with you directly, just as soon as you've had a chance to view
the documentary. (It's in the mail. Honest.)
Dave
Richard A. Schumacher
>: pages of pronouncements, and not a single instance in which anyone
>: discerned a physical fact difficult to account for in conventional theory
>: but strangely consistent with the hypothesized planetary history of the
>: Saturn theory. One would have to believe that no such physical facts
>: exist!
Bingo.
>: And yet a high school student would have no difficulty taking the general
>: profile of the planets and finding highly interesting anomalies that would
>: immediatley disappear if the hypothesized planetary history did indeed
>: occur.
Describe some such anomalies, please.
Scott H. Mullins
In article <dtalbott.837048646@kelly>,
Oh, David, give yourself more credit. You do very well at posturing,
to wit:
[del]
>if Mark Isaak accepts the challenge I recently
>posted (then re-posted yesterday), I'll make some additional time
>for that little escapade as well.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Feel
>free to tutor him on physics, astronomy, geology, logic, common sense,
>manners, ethics, getting a life, or whatever you want. Just don't try
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to explain the origins of myth to him (the blind leading the blind).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[del]
See? Your posturing is just fine! No need to see that chiropracter.
>LEROY IS THE MAN.
By your nomination? I don't think so. Go set up your strawman someplace
else. You're getting dirt on my rugs.
Scott Mullins
smu...@primenet.com
Scott H. Mullins
In article <dtalbott.837538376@kelly>,
Glad to see your posturing is still fine...
>In <4sepnl$t...@news.nyu.edu> ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes:
>
>
>>For those of you who still might think that Talbott is an
>>"honest" debator, I ask you to note that of all of the people
>>on talk.origins who disagree with Talbott only ONE does not
>>have net access.
>
>>Guess which one Talbott wants to debate?
>
>>Neat huh?
I did want to say that Paul's charge wasn't completely fair. I'll say
more in a moment.
>Shame, shame, Paul. You forgot to mention that in the past I completely
>ignored Leroy Ellenberger and offered to debate numerous t.o regulars.
I and several others in t.o took up a very serious and polite discussion
with you and Everett on the Saturnian "simulation" you guys came up
with. It went nowhere largely, IMHO, because everyone on the V'ist
side avoided every substantial point or issue raised, choosing to
focus on the modeler's and the critic's "credentials", their debating
styles, the age and infirmity of the V'ist modeler (whose name I have
forgotten), etc., ad infinitum. I took a very serious and time-consuming
look at the information I was given on the "model" and it ended up that
I entirely wasted my time.
I blame you and Ev for that. Why would I want to give it another
try?
>And as I said, just as soon the t.o howlers want to replace my nominee
>they are welcome to. Or they can go on talking to themselves on
>any issues they please, late into the night.
The correct phrase would be "amongst themselves." Hope this helps.
>You seem to have also forgotten that one of the reasons for choosing Leroy
>is that several t.o howlers are impressed enough with his contribution to
>spend a good deal of time entering posts for him. I fail to see where the
>slightest disadvantage comes in, since lack of net access has not kept
>Leroy from typing up postcards faster than he can think.
You're acting like an ass again, David. Hope this helps.
Scott
Wade Hines
dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes:
>I had written:
>>>A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if
>>>an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific
>>>understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give ground.
>>>But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see the danger
>>>of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from ancient
>>>memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only have to be
>>>willing to ask--What if?
>To which Matt responded--
>>You propose a dichotomy where none exists. We can learn from myth, but
>>where myth contradicts physical science, myth must give ground.
>Yes, we've already heard that line and it has nothing to with the approach
>that is needed here. Explorers will be perfectly willing to consider
Needed is an interesting term. The connonations do Talbott great disservice.
As in "needed to give me any chance of making an arguement" ...
>compelling historical evidence for things that science today does not
>believe ever happened. How many surprises from space are necessary before
>you will realize "science" is the farthest thing from "infallibility".
Surely suprizes continue to occur. Recent reports of liquid oceans under
ice caps on a moon of jupiter and even the spinning of the earth's core
help us know that we don't know it all. But these fascinating new observations
don't suggest that he basics of planetary orbital mechanics are unfounded
or suspect. No great dogmas of science fall in the discovery of an ocean
under the ice on a moon. Likewise, the recent note about a faster spinning
core go well with the recent data on the faster rotation of the earth some
10's to 100s of million years ago. Nothing really new here, just clearer
pictures. So you have to do better to argue for discounting scientific
observation and theory for mythological "evidence".
>The t.o debunkers, on the other hand, will prefer to hide behind their own
>illusion of science, declaring things to be impossible no matter how many
>people of higher accreditation insist these things are not impossible, or
>insist that these things deserve to be explored.
I've never given a rat's ass to anyones accreditation. Ask my boss or my
old professors. But your appeals are rather comical to any but the most
superficial reading. Try again. I'm sure you can do better.
--Wade
>The fact is that, if planets ever did congregate in a unique system,
>appearing huge in the terrestrial sky, historical evidence will
>self-evidently be the key to reconstructing the events. The more
>compelling the evidence, the more the prior suppositions of science will
>have to give way. None of this has anything to do with proposing
>impossible events. It has to do with elementary rules of logic and
>demonstration. Why is someone's far-fetched guess at an explanation for
>the catastrophic resurfacing of Venus called "science" and the historical
>evidence offering an explanation called make-believe?
>Dave
Matt Silberstein
dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote:
>A brief response to an earlier post from Matt Silberstein--
>I had written:
>>>A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if
>>>an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific
>>>understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give ground.
>>>But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see the danger
>>>of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from ancient
>>>memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only have to be
>>>willing to ask--What if?
>To which Matt responded--
>>You propose a dichotomy where none exists. We can learn from myth, but
>>where myth contradicts physical science, myth must give ground.
>Yes, we've already heard that line and it has nothing to with the approach
>that is needed here. Explorers will be perfectly willing to consider
>compelling historical evidence for things that science today does not
>believe ever happened. How many surprises from space are necessary before
>you will realize "science" is the farthest thing from "infallibility".
I am a historian by training. The concept of "compelling historical
evidence" is almost laughable. We have problems determining events in the
recent past. Just determining order can cause controversy. If I have the
freedom to ignor scientific knowledge along the way I could claim just
about everything. "Well, Hanibal folded the elephants into little boxes
and they carried them over the Alps.", "Gengis Kahn used radio (or
telepathy) to keep his troops on schedule", or "Grant and his troops
flapped their wings and flew around Vicksburg". I know these are
rediculous. But the point is that while examining historical evidence I
constantly come up with mental models for what happened. I have to reject
the ones that violate physical laws, and suspect the ones that violate
other, less "firm" laws. So people can't walk 200 miles a day, they don't
grow to 10' tall, the can't be in two places at once.
For you to claim that physical models should give way you need a much
stronger case to even start.
>The t.o debunkers, on the other hand, will prefer to hide behind their own
>illusion of science, declaring things to be impossible no matter how many
>people of higher accreditation insist these things are not impossible, or
>insist that these things deserve to be explored.
If you have these people of "higher accreditation" available then what do
you need with t.o? This is not a major research establishment, it is a
discussion group. What would you get if you convinced these "less" people?
>The fact is that, if planets ever did congregate in a unique system,
>appearing huge in the terrestrial sky, historical evidence will
>self-evidently be the key to reconstructing the events. The more
>compelling the evidence, the more the prior suppositions of science will
>have to give way.
And you have nothing that comes close to compelling evidence. Have you
read "The Golden Bough", the full version? He has 1,000's of similar
stories and legends that he collected. Are your myths closer and better
than those? Can you do a better job explaining the mythic similarity than
did Fraiser or Cambell? If so, then start by convincing the
anthropologists. Work towards you evidence, not away from it.
>None of this has anything to do with proposing
>impossible events. It has to do with elementary rules of logic and
>demonstration. Why is someone's far-fetched guess at an explanation for
>the catastrophic resurfacing of Venus called "science" and the historical
>evidence offering an explanation called make-believe?
I think it has something to do with physical evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------
What is the scariest line you know? Mine is:
Hi, my name is Number 6, what's yours?
David N. Talbott
A brief response to an earlier post from Matt Silberstein--
I had written:
>>A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if
>>an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific
>>understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give ground.
>>But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see the danger
>>of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from ancient
>>memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only have to be
>>willing to ask--What if?
To which Matt responded--
>You propose a dichotomy where none exists. We can learn from myth, but
>where myth contradicts physical science, myth must give ground.
Yes, we've already heard that line and it has nothing to with the approach
that is needed here. Explorers will be perfectly willing to consider
compelling historical evidence for things that science today does not
believe ever happened. How many surprises from space are necessary before
you will realize "science" is the farthest thing from "infallibility".
The t.o debunkers, on the other hand, will prefer to hide behind their own
illusion of science, declaring things to be impossible no matter how many
people of higher accreditation insist these things are not impossible, or
insist that these things deserve to be explored.
The fact is that, if planets ever did congregate in a unique system,
appearing huge in the terrestrial sky, historical evidence will
self-evidently be the key to reconstructing the events. The more
compelling the evidence, the more the prior suppositions of science will
have to give way. None of this has anything to do with proposing
impossible events. It has to do with elementary rules of logic and
demonstration. Why is someone's far-fetched guess at an explanation for
the catastrophic resurfacing of Venus called "science" and the historical
evidence offering an explanation called make-believe?
Dave
David N. Talbott
I'm going to put up this quick rejoinder to the Class Clown, then head out
on a trip for a few days.
I had written:
>: I do not recall a single instance of this from t.o regulars, which is one
>: reason I keep asking, what is the friggin purpose here? Ten thousand
>: pages of pronouncements, and not a single instance in which anyone
>: discerned a physical fact difficult to account for in conventional theory
>: but strangely consistent with the hypothesized planetary history of the
>: Saturn theory. One would have to believe that no such physical facts
>: exist!
>:
>: And yet a high school student would have no difficulty taking the general
>: profile of the planets and finding highly interesting anomalies that would
>: immediatley disappear if the hypothesized planetary history did indeed
>: occur.
>Do I understand correctly? You are here stating that there exits
>"physical fact[s] difficult to account for in conventional
>theory but strangely consistent with the hypothesized planetary
>history of the Saturn theory."?
>I would be very anxious to see several of these physical facts *and*
>how they are inconsistent with conventional theory but consistent
>with Saturn theory.
You disappoint me so! I was counting on you finding just one instance
if for no other reason than to embarrass me.
Every hemispheric dichotomy on Mars is an anomaly (go to the textbooks and
you'll find plenty). Conventional models of planetary evolution do not
predict any of these incongruities, though all represent the type of
dichotomy the Saturn theory would *predict*.
The Saturn theory places large planetary bodies at the celestial pole of
the Earth, implying axial alignment and gravitational forces directed
along the Earth axis. Therefore the *axially-centered* north polar bulge
becomes a particularly fascinating anomaly, for which there is no
generally accepted explanation. Moreover, within the contexts of any
analysis of the Saturn theory, it is logically insufficient to guess at an
explanation of the terrestrial bulge in geological terms that could not
also be applied to the much more extensive *south polar bulge* of Mars,
since both are equally anomalous and neither is predicted by conventional
models of planetary evolution.
Oceans formerly flowed on Mars, which has no atmosphere to permit water
to flow so freely on the surface. And Mars is too far from the Sun.
Water would not flow in the indicated fashion, even if you put an
atmosphere on Mars. The Saturn theory puts Mars much closer to the Sun,
and claims that its atmosphere and oceans were removed by dynamic
interactions with other planets at close range, including Venus. So it
accounts for more than one anomaly in a single stroke.
I have suggested that atmosphere and presumably water removed from Mars
stretched between Mars and Venus, spiraling around Venus and gathering
into bands, which would mean that the material was moving at thousands of
miles per hour. Today Venus rotates so slowly that its day is longer than
its year. Upper atmospheric winds, however race around the planet 50
times faster than it rotates, violating every conceivable principle
relating winds to rotation. If, however, these winds are the residual
motions of clouds formerly rotating at a vastly faster rate, the anomaly
is explained.
The Saturn theory postulates interplanetary electrical discharges between
Venus and Mars, claiming that these discharges and planet-wide cyclonic
activity originated in atmospheric exchange with other planets, flinging
massive volumes of rock and gravel into surrounding space. Hence the
incredilbly improbable arrival on Earth of *meteorites*, which specialists
identify as having originated from Mars, is no anomaly at all within the
framework of the Saturn theory. Nor is the removal of the "meteorites"
from Mars without vaporizing them the virtual impossibility it becomes for
conventional theorists dealing with Mars in isolation.
The cyclonic activtiy on Mars originated in relation to atmosphere and
water stretching toward the Earth, along the polar axis. Significantly,
we find an extraordinary *concentric* layering of sedimentary terrain at
the poles of Mars, particularly the south pole, showing the very pattern
predicted by the hypothesis of axially-centered cyclonic movements. No
forces are present today to achieve these effects.
So too, we see a circle of apparently sand-sized material surrounding
the layered terrain of the northern polar region, presumably deposited
(according to experts) by the same planet-wide forces that produced the
layering of finer material at the pole. These forces are no longer
present, and the dunes are now being worn down by Martian winds.
Water flowed abundantly on numerous moons of Jupiter and Saturn, though
nothing of this sort was ever anticipated by astronomers, considering the
great distance from the Sun. The Saturn theory removes the anomaly,
claiming that Jupiter and Saturn formerly moved much, much closer to the
Sun.
According to the Saturn theory, there were no rings around Saturn
during the epoch of the polar configuration. Therefore, the rings must
be extremely recent in geological terms. Now astronomers say the rings
are indeed, incredibly recent in geological terms--so recent that they are
ready to conjure forces continually re-supplying the rings with new
material.
At the risk of paroting my own rhetoric in earlier posts:
Would you like more?
After all, you don't have to look at minor or barely apparent
features of the planets. You only have to consider the dominating
profiles. So I ask you, oh comic one, oh court jester, will it ever be
possible for the howlers to explore, rather than deny and debunk? Can
you, of all people, not find a little comic relief in the psychological
inability of a single howler to detect what shouts to us from our
planetary neighbors?
Dave
Tim Thompson
In article <dtalbott.838097339@kelly>, dtal...@teleport.com
(David N. Talbott) writes:
[Talbott responds to Matt Silberstein ... ]
> Yes, we've already heard that line and it has nothing to with the approach
> that is needed here. Explorers will be perfectly willing to consider
> compelling historical evidence for things that science today does not
> believe ever happened. How many surprises from space are necessary before
> you will realize "science" is the farthest thing from "infallibility".
We already understand the fallibility of science. You, however, have failed
to understand the fallibility of what you call "history". Science is far less
fallible, and far more confident in its content and approach.
> The t.o debunkers, on the other hand, will prefer to hide behind their own
> illusion of science, declaring things to be impossible no matter how many
> people of higher accreditation insist these things are not impossible, or
> insist that these things deserve to be explored.
Have you ever considered a career as a political propagandist? You could
use a paragraph like this to get a job in any major political party. Fame and
Fortune at last? We aren't hiding anything, all of our cards are on the table.
Where are yours? I think you're the one who is hiding, and I can see the wall
you have built around yourself, impenetrable by reality. You will never
accomplish anything at all until you understand your own weaknesses.
I am not a slave to someone elses "accreditation". Fred Hoyle's accredtitation
includes a well deserved Nobel Prize in physics. Does this mean that I am required
to believe everything he says, carte-blanche, no questions asked? I respect Hoyle
and his opinions, I just don't believe them, that's all. And I don't believe your
accredited explorers either. I have a pretty good knowledge of physics for myself,
and I will judge possibility and impossibility for myself. All your accredited
explorers need to do is demonstrate all of this possibility out in the open, where
we can all see it. To this date, they have failed utterly in that regard.
> The fact is that, if planets ever did congregate in a unique system,
> appearing huge in the terrestrial sky, historical evidence will
> self-evidently be the key to reconstructing the events. The more
> compelling the evidence, the more the prior suppositions of science will
> have to give way.
Wrong. Thhe more compelling the *scientific* evidence, the more the prior
suppositions of your own "historical" reconstruction will have to give way.
> None of this has anything to do with proposing
> impossible events.
Wrong again. You are proposing an impossible event, namely the polar configuration.
No amount of "historical" mumbo-jumbo can ever erase the stain of impossibility.
There is nothing to debate, nothing to argue, and nothing to discuss besides this one
overriding point. Unless you are willing to address the physical impossibility
of the polar configuration head-on, you have nothing interesting to say.
> It has to do with elementary rules of logic and
> demonstration. Why is someone's far-fetched guess at an explanation for
> the catastrophic resurfacing of Venus called "science" and the historical
> evidence offering an explanation called make-believe?
Because it IS make-believe. It is not the "historical evidence" that is in
question, and it never was. It is your interpretation of the evidence that is
in question. You have constructed an arbitrary scenario that has no independent
justification, a story of your own device, in other words "make believe". On the
other hand, the "far fetched" stories about the re-surfacing of Venus are logical
extrapolations from the known properties of Venus and its environment. Furthermore,
that re-surfacing explanation is openly subject to revision and modification, as
new knowledge comes to the fore. The Saturn Myth, on the other hand, is a mature
and entrenched dogma, not subject to modification or revision at any level. It is
as much "make believe" as it is possible for anything to be. Your own failure to
see this is your fault, not ours.
Jamie Schrumpf
In article <dtalbott.838097339@kelly>, dtal...@teleport.com says...
>
>
>A brief response to an earlier post from Matt Silberstein--
>
>I had written:
>
>>>A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if
>>>an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific
>>>understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give ground.
>>>But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see the danger
>>>of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from ancient
>>>memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only have to be
>>>willing to ask--What if?
>
>To which Matt responded--
>
>>You propose a dichotomy where none exists. We can learn from myth, but
>>where myth contradicts physical science, myth must give ground.
>
>that is needed here. Explorers will be perfectly willing to consider
>compelling historical evidence for things that science today does not
>believe ever happened. How many surprises from space are necessary before
>you will realize "science" is the farthest thing from "infallibility".
>
>illusion of science, declaring things to be impossible no matter how many
>people of higher accreditation insist these things are not impossible, or
>insist that these things deserve to be explored.
>
>appearing huge in the terrestrial sky, historical evidence will
>self-evidently be the key to reconstructing the events. The more
>compelling the evidence, the more the prior suppositions of science will
>impossible events. It has to do with elementary rules of logic and
>demonstration. Why is someone's far-fetched guess at an explanation for
>the catastrophic resurfacing of Venus called "science" and the historical
>evidence offering an explanation called make-believe?
>
>
>
>
>
By this criteria, witches must exist.
Many societies have burned them in the past, and so many "witnesses" couldn't
possibly be wrong.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schrumpf http://www.access.digex.net/~moncomm
"It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as
it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as
you have got it." --- Edmund Way Teale, "Circle of the Seasons"
Andrew MacRae
In article <dtalbott.838097339@kelly> dtal...@teleport.com (David N.
>
> A brief response to an earlier post from Matt Silberstein--
>
> I had written:
>
> >>A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if
> >>an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific
> >>understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give
> >>ground. But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see
> >>the danger of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from
> >>ancient memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only
> >>have to be willing to ask--What if?
>
> To which Matt responded--
>
> >You propose a dichotomy where none exists. We can learn from myth, but
> >where myth contradicts physical science, myth must give ground.
More like a straw man. I still have not heard anyone say what
Dave has claimed -- i.e. "assuming in advance that we have nothing to
learn from ancient memories". That is categorically wrong, because
several people have said exactly the opposite.
Dave is confusing the difference between:
Scientific procedure:
1.) formulate a hypothesis from myth [several people have said they agree
this could be useful]
2.) consider the physical evidence that tests that hypothesis
3.) it could fail
4.) *if* it does, do not accept the hypothesis
5.) if it does not, do more tests (go back to #2)
And:
Unscientific procedure:
1.) do not formulate a hypothesis from myth because it is a waste of time
4.) do not accept the hypothesis
The difference seems pretty plain to me, and the part Dave is
ignoring, apparently, is #2 and #3 in the first procedure, because many
Velikovsky-style hypothesis have failed. He just sees the end result
(#4), and assumes the second is what people are doing. I am tired of that
accusation. It is demonstratively wrong, and it is insulting for a
scientist.
> Yes, we've already heard that line and it has nothing to with the
> approach that is needed here. Explorers will be perfectly willing to
> consider compelling historical evidence for things that science today
> does not believe ever happened.
Yes.
> How many surprises from space are
> necessary before you will realize "science" is the farthest thing from
> "infallibility".
Oh, gosh, of course. Science is absolutely infallible. That is
why ideas like plate tectonics and mass extinctions from huge astronomical
impacts will never be accepted.
I am sure, from your perspective, that it might look like people
are treating it that way. They are not.
> The t.o debunkers, on the other hand, will prefer to hide behind their
> own illusion of science, declaring things to be impossible no matter how
> many people of higher accreditation insist these things are not
> impossible, or insist that these things deserve to be explored.
I am sorry, Dave, but you completely misunderstand the problem
here, and how to affect it. I do not care which people with "higher
accreditation" insist strongly that they are correct, I want to hear why.
Show me, do not tell me. I do not expect you to accept what I say on
matters geological or paleontological simply because I have a degree in
those subjects. I can still make stupid mistakes. Likewise anyone else
who tries to impress me with their qualifications will find me
unimpressed. I want to hear the scientific reasons, not the personal
reasons, for accepting someone's interpretation. If I do not accept their
explanation, it is not because of their accreditation, it is because they
either failed to communicate or I consider their interpretation to be
inconsistent with the evidence. It is that simple. Testing scientific
ideas it not about dueling qualifications and accepting those with the
most.
> The fact is that, if planets ever did congregate in a unique system,
> appearing huge in the terrestrial sky, historical evidence will
> self-evidently be the key to reconstructing the events. The more
> compelling the evidence, the more the prior suppositions of science will
> have to give way.
Dave, they do "give way". The problem is, when scientists suspend
disbelief for the sake of testing some Velikovskian models which have been
proposed, those models are inconsistent with the evidence. It has nothing
to do with a supposed inability to consider the possibility of unusual
hypotheses formulated on the basis of myth. Nothing at all.
> None of this has anything to do with proposing
> impossible events. It has to do with elementary rules of logic and
> demonstration. Why is someone's far-fetched guess at an explanation for
> the catastrophic resurfacing of Venus called "science" and the
> historical evidence offering an explanation called make-believe?
Because it is not a "far-fetched guess", it is consistent with the
evidence and it makes specific predictions about geological features on
Venus. To be blunt, it appears you do not understand the evidence or the
interpretation of it by conventional scientists. You demonstrated that
recently by trotting out some of Ginenthal's misinformation about Venus
geology without any indication that you realized there were problems with
it, or that there has been a great deal of work done in the last five
years, or that even if one ignores the current explanation, the
Velikovskian ones which have been proposed are still inconsistent with
observations. Apparently the misinformation Ginenthal presented years ago
is still going strong. I notice the same misconceptions are communicated
by an author who presented a paper at a recent Velikovsky symposium (last
year's, I think). The surface of Venus was not recently (the last few
thousand years) molten to kilometres depth. Topographic features like
rift valleys kilometres deep alone falsify this possibility. There is no
way to make sheer cliffs kilometres tall with >60 degree slopes out of
molten or recently-molten material with a thin solid crust. If you tried,
the lava would burst out everywhere and fill the rift.
Your dismissal of the current explanation of Venus geology is no
more potent than Ted's labelling of it as a "resurfacing fairy". Guess
what, Dave? The "resurfacing fairy" on Earth is many times more active
right now, and it *completely* "resurfaces" 70% of the Earth's surface
within only about 200 million years. It does a pretty good job on the
rest too, albeit using a different process, and both of these processes do
not appear to operate on Venus. Funny, I did not notice burning petroleum
falling from the sky yesterday, despite the activity here.
Mike Payne
Jamie Schrumpf <ja...@dcd00745.slip.digex.net> wrote:
> In article <dtalbott.838097339@kelly>, dtal...@teleport.com says...
> >
> >
> >A brief response to an earlier post from Matt Silberstein--
> >
> >I had written:
> (snip)
> >
> >To which Matt responded--
>(snip)
> >Talbott reply
>(snip)
> >
> By this criteria, witches must exist.
>
> Many societies have burned them in the past, and so many "witnesses" couldn't
> possibly be wrong.
This is the funniest freudian slip I've seen in a post yet. Considering
the witch mottif probably originated with the destruction of the polar
configuration or similar occurance of past destruction in the sky and
Earth and that people who had different ideas and thoughts in the past
were called witches and burned at the stake by the so called
establishment of the time.......the ramifications of the unconscious
mind never cease to amaze me. Thank you Jamie, you've made my day.
Mike Payne
Ian Tresman
t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>our Saturnist friends should be expected to put forth a genuine
>prediction. For instance, predict that some "recurring attribute of the serpent
>or dragon" which is now not known will e discovered by later archaeologists
>or mythologists?
Do you mean something along these lines: Because Saturnists believe
that the Earth may have been a satellite of Saturn then we would
predict that:
a. Early myths and legends would describe the planet Saturn in more
detail that is available with the naked eye. For example, that it has
other satellites (not discovered until 1684 AD)
b. Since Saturn would have dominated the skies, and the Sun does now,
then we would expect myths to show confusion between Saturn and the
Sun.
Or are you after more physical "predictions"?
Ian Tresman, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/sis/
Ian Tresman
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>You propose a dichotomy where none exists. We can learn from myth, but
>where myth contradicts physical science, myth must give ground.
Assuming that physical science is always right, which it isn't, so
that physical science must sometimes give ground.
Andrew MacRae
In article <dtalbott.838088270@kelly> dtal...@teleport.com (David N.
>
> I'm going to put up this quick rejoinder to the Class Clown, then head
> out on a trip for a few days.
>
> I had written:
>
> >: I do not recall a single instance of this from t.o regulars, which is
> >: one reason I keep asking, what is the friggin purpose here? Ten
...
> >: Saturn theory. One would have to believe that no such physical facts
> >: exist!
> >:
> >: And yet a high school student would have no difficulty taking the
> >: general profile of the planets and finding highly interesting
> >: anomalies that would immediatley disappear if the hypothesized
> >: planetary history did indeed occur.
>
>
> >Do I understand correctly? You are here stating that there exits
> >"physical fact[s] difficult to account for in conventional
> >theory but strangely consistent with the hypothesized planetary
> >history of the Saturn theory."?
>
> >I would be very anxious to see several of these physical facts *and*
> >how they are inconsistent with conventional theory but consistent
> >with Saturn theory.
>
> You disappoint me so! I was counting on you finding just one instance
> if for no other reason than to embarrass me.
>
> Every hemispheric dichotomy on Mars is an anomaly (go to the textbooks
> and you'll find plenty).
Like the Pacific Ocean or Eurasia, on Earth? Please, Dave.
Finding some sort of polarity to the distribution of large scale
structures is a statistical likelihood. On Earth, we have almost an
entire hemisphere covered with ocean, and the northern hemisphere has far
more continental material than the southern. Big deal. It is due to the
contingencies of continental motion.
On Mars, there are several features distributed non-uniformly on
the surface. For example, craters are more dense (and the surface older)
in the southern hemisphere than the north. However, there are large lobes
and basins where craters are rarer in the southern hemiphere (e.g., Hellas
Planitia), and the polarity to their distribution is not centred on the
rotational axes or the supposed polarity developed for other structures.
The largest volcanoes on the surface of Mars (the ones in the Tharsis
Montes region) are concentrated in one area, but there is other evidence
for large volcanic cones on other parts of the planet, and the
concentration of the volcanoes in the Tharsis region has no obvious
relationship to the aforementioned crater distribution, other than
blotting a bunch of craters out.
I do not see anything particularly "anomalous" that can not be
explained by differences in large impact basin location, and coincidences
between the areas of overlap of different processes.
> Conventional models of planetary evolution do
> not predict any of these incongruities, though all represent the type of
> dichotomy the Saturn theory would *predict*.
How? If there were tidal effects, I would expect them to be
bipolar (i.e. podally and antipodally), not unipolar. If such a tidal
effect were responsible for, say, the large area of plains in the northern
hemisphere, then why would the largest volcanoes be off on one side,
throwing off the symmetry?
> The Saturn theory places large planetary bodies at the celestial pole of
> the Earth, implying axial alignment and gravitational forces directed
> along the Earth axis.
The modern tidal effects due to the Moon are bipolar.
> Therefore the *axially-centered* north polar bulge
> becomes a particularly fascinating anomaly, for which there is no
> generally accepted explanation.
You mean the current polar bulge of the Earth? Try loading of the
continents (remember the north versus southern hemisphere bias to the
distribution of continents?) and loading of the mid-northern latitudes
during the last glaciation, from which the Earth's surface is still
rebounding. The latter is explained in any reasonable introductory
geology text that deals with the geoid and isostacy. The effect of the
last glaciation is a classic example that is commonly described. I can
get you a specific reference if you want.
> Moreover, within the contexts of any
> analysis of the Saturn theory, it is logically insufficient to guess at
> an explanation of the terrestrial bulge in geological terms that could
> not also be applied to the much more extensive *south polar bulge* of
> Mars, since both are equally anomalous and neither is predicted by
> conventional models of planetary evolution.
Why? There is no evidence that Mars has recently experienced
continent-scale glaciations, and its crustal properties and tectonics are
quite different from the Earth (no plate tectonics, thicker crust). It is
unlikely it would respond similarly even if the same process did operate
there.
> Oceans formerly flowed on Mars,
Yes.
> which has no
... present ...
> atmosphere to permit water
> to flow so freely on the surface.
Yes.
> And Mars is too far from the Sun.
For what? Liquid water? No. It depends upon how thick the
atmosphere is and other factors.
> Water would not flow in the indicated fashion, even if you put an
> atmosphere on Mars.
Yes it could. The greenhouse effect could greatly increase the
temperature. One of the main reasons the surface of Mars is currently so
cold is the thin atmosphere. Substitute a thicker one with the right
composition (e.g., more CH4), and you would potentially solve two problems
at once. It depends upon what greenhouse gasses were present and in what
concentrations. Even without those, it is still possible that subsurface
geothermal processes locally and temporarily caused the melting of
permafrost (for which there is ample evidence) and expelling of liquid
water onto the surface.
See:
Squyres, S.W. and Kasting, J.F., 1994. Early Mars: How warm and how wet?
Science, v.265, p.744-749.
Note that if Mars was warmer and wetter is not the issue anymore.
> The Saturn theory puts Mars much closer to the Sun,
> and claims that its atmosphere and oceans were removed by dynamic
> interactions with other planets at close range, including Venus. So it
> accounts for more than one anomaly in a single stroke.
But the loss of the atmosphere of Mars is not an "anomaly". It
will inevitably leak away due to ordinary escape mechanisms, which are
higher rate on Mars than on Earth because of the much lower gravity, and
the change will be more effective because Mars is less volcanically active
than Earth (so the replenishment of the atmosphere is slower). The
eventual loss of much of the atmosphere of Mars is expected.
> I have suggested
Suggest away. You have not proposed a viable physical mechanism to
accomplish this. Your previous attempt to compare to large-massive binary
star systems was nonsensical, because the outer atmosphere of red giants
is so extensive and tenuous, and because stars are not comparable, in
terms of deformation, to terrestrial (i.e. silicate rock) planets. The
problems with moving terrestrial planets inside their respective Roche
limits still exist.
> that atmosphere and presumably water removed from Mars
> stretched between Mars and Venus, spiraling around Venus and gathering
> into bands, which would mean that the material was moving at thousands
> of miles per hour. Today Venus rotates so slowly that its day is longer
> than its year. Upper atmospheric winds, however race around the planet
> 50 times faster than it rotates, violating every conceivable principle
> relating winds to rotation. If, however, these winds are the residual
> motions of clouds formerly rotating at a vastly faster rate, the anomaly
> is explained.
Are you seriously proposing they are still "coasting" from a
"spinning" event a few thousand years ago? This "violates every
conceivable principle" of atmospheric dynamics, particularly friction.
What has maintained the speed for the last few thousand years?
> The Saturn theory postulates interplanetary electrical discharges
> between Venus and Mars, claiming that these discharges and planet-wide
> cyclonic activity originated in atmospheric exchange with other planets,
> flinging massive volumes of rock and gravel into surrounding space.
"Massive volumes", and Earth was in the neighborhood. Perhaps a
more important question than why Mars and Lunar meteorites occur on Earth,
is why they are not more common? How "massive" were these volumes to
amount to a dozen or so meteorites out of the thousands that have been
found, and where is the global debris layer formed from the Earth sweeping
up this material?
> Hence the
> incredilbly improbable arrival on Earth of *meteorites*, which
> specialists identify as having originated from Mars, is no anomaly at
> all within the framework of the Saturn theory. Nor is the removal of the
> "meteorites" from Mars without vaporizing them the virtual impossibility
> it becomes for conventional theorists dealing with Mars in isolation.
Actually, it is far from a "virtual impossibility". Conventional
theory was wrong, pure and simple. But scientists do not sit around when
empirical evidence tells them that. From experimental and theoretical
work, it has been demonstrated that impacts can produce relatively
low-shock ejecta at escape velocity (note that this is much lower for a
smaller planet like Mars, and particularly with its thin atmosphere), and
the process of the transit and eventual capture of interplanetary
meteorites has been recently modelled. See:
Gratz, A.J.; Nellis, W.J.; and Hinsey, N.A., 1993. Observations of
high-velocity, weakly shocked ejecta from experimental impacts. Nature,
v.363, p.522-524.
Gladman, B.J.; Burns, J.A.; Duncan, M.; Lee, P.; and Levison, H.F., 1996
(8 March). The exchange of impact ejecta between terrestrial planets.
Science, v.271, p.1387-1392.
Perhaps a more interesting question is why meteorites from Venus
have not been recognized. There is an easy explanation in the
conventional model.
> The cyclonic activtiy on Mars originated in relation to atmosphere and
> water stretching toward the Earth, along the polar axis.
Ah. Definite confirmation of mass quantities of Martian material
being deposited here. So where is it? A dozen or so meteorites out of
thousands is it so far?
> Significantly,
> we find an extraordinary *concentric* layering
Actually, it is just plain layering. The concentric shape is
caused mainly by subsequent differential erosion of near horizontal layers
with different resistance.
> of sedimentary terrain at
> the poles of Mars, particularly the south pole, showing the very pattern
> predicted by the hypothesis of axially-centered cyclonic movements.
How? This "axially-centered cyclonic movement" can produce
thousands of cyclic alternations in sedimentation processes?
> No forces are present today to achieve these effects.
It has been suggested that the cyclic variations in the sediment
are caused by climatic cycles, possibly driven by long-term variations in
Martian orbital parameters (not unlike Milankovitch cycles for Earth).
The climate change causes variation in the supply of dust to the polar
areas.
> So too, we see a circle of apparently sand-sized material surrounding
> the layered terrain of the northern polar region, presumably deposited
> (according to experts) by the same planet-wide forces that produced the
> layering of finer material at the pole. These forces are no longer
> present, and the dunes are now being worn down by Martian winds.
What evidence can you present to support this latter part? For
that matter, your entire presentation is sorely lacking in documentation.
> Water flowed abundantly on numerous moons of Jupiter and Saturn, though
> nothing of this sort was ever anticipated by astronomers,
So? Was it anticipated by Velikovsky? I can not remember him
saying much about the volcanoes on Io, although conventional astronomers
did predict those shortly before the arrival of Voyager.
> considering the great distance from the Sun. The Saturn theory removes
> the anomaly, claiming that Jupiter and Saturn formerly moved much, much
> closer to the Sun.
It is not necessarily an "anomaly". Tidal forces, heating due to
density differentiation, and radioactivity can potentially cause melting
of icy moons, particularly early in their history when plenty of
gravitational energy is available.
> According to the Saturn theory, there were no rings around Saturn
> during the epoch of the polar configuration.
Which means they somehow had to organize themselves, despite all
sorts of other "dancing of the planets", into an amazingly thin, perfectly
equatorial layer in a few thousand years. What is the Velikovskian
explanation for the "anomaly of Saturn's rings" (i.e. the "anomaly" being
their formation so perfectly in a few thousand years)?
> Therefore, the rings must
> be extremely recent in geological terms.
A mythological question: Why couldn't some of the concentric
images depicted in ancient art be a representation of Saturn's rings? I
have not seen an explanation of that offered here.
If Saturn did not formerly have rings, how did ancient peoples
differentiate between Jupiter and Saturn as they parted from the "Saturn
Configuration" to their current position? Were they experts in
distinguishing gas giant planets sans rings? I remember one of the myths
supposedly mentioning a "green sun". Maybe it was Uranus or Neptune
rather than Saturn? The colour would fit better. In other words, why
must "Saturn" then correspond to "Saturn" now? Did the ancients carefully
track its motions in the midst of the catastrophes that caused it to drift
off to its present location, in order to ensure they did not confuse it
with similarly retreating orbs?
> Now astronomers say the rings
> are indeed, incredibly recent in geological terms
In what sense -- as usual, "only" hundreds of millions of years
old?
> --so recent that they
> are ready to conjure forces continually re-supplying the rings with new
> material.
Perhaps you could provide a reference to that claim from
astronomers, so it can be independently evaluated.
> At the risk of paroting my own rhetoric in earlier posts:
>
> Would you like more?
I would like to see your evidence for the arrival of these vast
quantities of water, atmosphere, and rock on the Earth from Mars or Venus,
please.
> After all, you don't have to look at minor or barely apparent
> features of the planets. You only have to consider the dominating
> profiles. So I ask you, oh comic one, oh court jester, will it ever be
> possible for the howlers to explore, rather than deny and debunk? Can
> you, of all people, not find a little comic relief in the psychological
> inability of a single howler to detect what shouts to us from our
> planetary neighbors?
What is shouted to me from our plantary neighbors is, "You dopes!
It isn't as simple as position and size. Planets and moons are as diverse
in process and resulting structure as living creatures are. You thought
Venus and Earth would be similar in geology because of size and
composition -- ha!"
Personally, I like surprises, and have no problem saying many
conventional ideas about the solar system were wrong. However, I see
little evidence for Velikovskian scenarios being the right explanation.
In fact, many planetary observations are inconsistent with them, or at
least darn puzzling. I would really like to know how Saturn's rings
formed in the last few thousand years, for example, or how the surface of
Venus got so solid in the same time, or why Venus has almost a thousand
large impact craters while Earth has less than 200 (even counting the tiny
ones that Venus does not have), and where that layer of "massive volumes"
of interplanetary material is on Earth?
The last would be particularly nifty to find, and would be
particularly supportive of a Velikovskian model. It could at least
demonstrate the occurrence of some fantastic astronomical event in the
last few thousand years. It would be the one piece of evidence that could
rocket Velikovsky's model from obscurity to the forefront of scientific
investigation. It is strange that all those DSDP and ODP cores have not
come across it yet. I guess a few hundred boreholes in every ocean in the
world just isn't enough yet. Or maybe those narrow-minded geologists do
not know what to look for when it comes to finding evidence for
astronomical material arriving on Earth?
Go ahead, Dave. You can call me a "debunker" again if you want.
I am expecting it. If you want to suprise me, answer some of my
questions, particularly the ones about geological evidence for the arrival
of interplanetary material on Earth.
Robert Grumbine
In article <31f6607c...@news.easynet.co.uk>,
Ian Tresman <ianTr...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>
>>our Saturnist friends should be expected to put forth a genuine
>>prediction. For instance, predict that some "recurring attribute of the serpent
>>or dragon" which is now not known will e discovered by later archaeologists
>>or mythologists?
>
>Do you mean something along these lines: Because Saturnists believe
>that the Earth may have been a satellite of Saturn then we would
>predict that:
>
>a. Early myths and legends would describe the planet Saturn in more
>detail that is available with the naked eye. For example, that it has
>other satellites (not discovered until 1684 AD)
And Swift 'predicted' that Mars would have two satellites,
if this is what you'll count for a prediction.
But, since you're accepting this as a prediction, perhaps we can
derive something from it. First, how far from Saturn would we have
to be to see its largest satellite? (A question for Mr. Thompson
rather than Mr. Tresman.) This requires both a visual magnitude
greater than order 5.7 and a separation from Saturn greater than 2 minutes
of arc.
Of course, the magnitude of the satellite depends on the illumination
source. So, how brightly did Saturn shine? -- Have to supply this
Mr. Tresman.
Once we have these, we can place bounds on how far away from
Saturn the earth was, in terms of the Saturn myth. From here,
one can develop other features which are implied by that construction
of the Saturn myth. It would be nice if, for example, we could
hear how large Saturn was in the sky. Since Mr. Tresman points
to confusion between Saturn and the Sun, presumably Saturn was about
30 minutes of arc in the sky. This may or may not accord with being
able to see its moons.
Robert Grumbine
In article <4t6mvg$e...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
Andrew MacRae <mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>In article <dtalbott.838088270@kelly> dtal...@teleport.com (David N.
>Talbott) writes:
Much fine material from Mr. MacRae deleted in order to speed the
following pedantry:
>> Therefore the *axially-centered* north polar bulge
>> becomes a particularly fascinating anomaly, for which there is no
>> generally accepted explanation.
>
> You mean the current polar bulge of the Earth? Try loading of the
>continents (remember the north versus southern hemisphere bias to the
>distribution of continents?) and loading of the mid-northern latitudes
>during the last glaciation, from which the Earth's surface is still
>rebounding. The latter is explained in any reasonable introductory
>geology text that deals with the geoid and isostacy. The effect of the
>last glaciation is a classic example that is commonly described. I can
>get you a specific reference if you want.
No disagreement with Mr. MacRae here.
I just add a note on the magnitude of these deviations:
Radius of earth (considered as a sphere) 6367 km
Elliptic deviation from spherical ~ 21 km
All other deviations from Ellipsoidal ~0.2 km maximum
-- 200 meters, tops, is the size of the 'bulge' referred to.
While geophysicists, oceanographers, and related types get
excited about this (we're talking about people who want the
radius of the earth measured to within a cm), it isn't an
oustanding 'anomaly'. It is even less of an anomaly when
one considers the reasons Mr. MacRae advances. Interesting
to the professionals, but not anomalous.
Post-pedantry: Before someone tries to point out that Everest
is a good bit higher than 200 meters, I'll note that the references
are to the geoid (a surface of constant gravitational potential)
rather than to the physical surface necessarily. It is a lot easier
to measure gravity than to drill holes to the center of the earth.
Ted Holden
t...@jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
>>
>> a. Early myths and legends would describe the planet Saturn in more
>> detail that is available with the naked eye. For example, that it has
>> other satellites (not discovered until 1684 AD)
>>
>> b. Since Saturn would have dominated the skies, and the Sun does now,
>> then we would expect myths to show confusion between Saturn and the
>> Sun.
> No, because in both cases these are "retro-dictions" rather then
>"pre-dictions". It is actually relatively easy to create an arbitrary
>interpretation that implies that ancient people knew that Saturn had
>satellites, since you already know what you are trying to prove.
> I mean a genuine "pre-diction" of anything at all. Predict that some
>theme not yet known to exist in any ancient writings will be discovered
>in the future. Predict that some as yet unknown physical sign of the
>former configuration of the solar system will be discovered. For instance,
>Hoagland has predicted that Mars has a real face and a real city on it,
>a prediction with which Holden agrees. Someday, maybe sooner, maybe later,
>we will be in a position to test that theory either by direct eyeball
>observations (astronauts to Mars) or photography (a Mars satellite).
>It is a testable prediction, and we will know whether it is right or wrong.
> Predict *anything* not yet known to exist, whether pysical or not, and
>then try to determine whether or not it actually exists. If it does, good
>for you, if not, back to the drawing board.
You've left out the third possibility, i.e. kill off the guy with the
correct predictions with an infinity of ad-hoc explainations and other BS.
Take Velikovsky's most major correct PREdiction for instance, i.e. that
Venus would be found to be hot in keeping with the ancient descriptions of
it as a brilliant torch arching across the heavens etc. Nobody had
previously predicted a surface temperature for Venus any higher than
around 300 F. and most scientists assumed the planet would be about 15
degrees F hoter than Earth, latitude for latitude.
The verification of Velikovsky's prediction by probes should have been
greeted by a profusion of apologies from American academia, particularly
from astronomy departments. Nonetheless, as we well know, it was met
instead with a hitherto undreamed of level of bullshit in the form of Carl
Sagan's "Super-Greenhouse" theory, and by sniveling claims that he had not
specified how "hot" hot was supposed to be, as if he should have predicted
that Venus would be found to be 947.998784452 degrees at its surface.
Worst of all, if you can believe this, when I or others point out the
obvious problems of "Super-Greenhouse", for instance the manner in which
astronomers claim that all instruments measuring properties such as
IR flux which bear on the question of thermal balance
(essential to super-greenhouse) produced results which were grossly in
error, or by noting F. W. Taylor's claim that all empirical evidence shows
Venus to be out of thermal balance, then some shameless clown will come
along and try to claim that we need to average all albedo values for Venus
taken since the early middle ages in with the good PV values from Venus
orbit in 1979, upon which Taylor's findings rest, and actually average in
values based upon assuming thermal balance as well, to show what an idiot
Taylor is.
That's really hard to believe, isn't it?
....................
From the catastrophism www page:
No WWW page for catastrophism would be complete without some sort of a
response to Tim thompson's treatise on the age of Venus found on
the Ediacara page. The problem centers around F.W. Taylors article
concerning albedo readings on Venus, and what that implies for the question
of atmospheric thermal balance on Venus and, hence, for Carl Sagan's
super-greenhouse theory, which is the standard explaination for the
1000 degree F. surface temperature of Venus. Super-greenhouse requires
that the planet's atmosphere be in thermal balance, i.e. that energy taken
in from the sun equal energy radiated off into space, since solar energy is
given as the cause for the 1000 F temperature.
Catastrophists generally scoff at the entire notion of super-greenhouse for
a number of reasons; in any real sort of a greenhouse, for instance, there
is some sort of a glass roof to prevent the heated air from somehow RISING and
dispersing the heat, before it ever gets to 1000 degrees fahrenheit. There is
no glass roof over Venus...
Nothing more than a good mind and 12'th-grade reading skills is required
to understand this one.
.....................................................................
There are two possible explainations for the 1000 F surface temperature
of Venus: Velikovsky's, which is that Venus is in a process of cooling
either from a recent creation or from heat generated during recent
catastrophic events (i.e. is natively hot), and Carl Sagan's "super
greenhouse" theory, which is standard doctrine amongst astronomers,
despite being ridiculous.
Sagan's theory would require that Venus' atmosphere be in thermal
balance, i.e. since all the heat would be derived from the sun, heat
taken in and given out should equal eachother.
I have noted that this is in sharp disagreement with with actual
findings, and that astronomers have made a habit of doctoring the
findings and have actually found themselves in the position of having to
explain AWAY 100% of the raw data. All of the probes which carried
infra-red flux (upward vs. downward readings) meters to the surface
measured a sharp upward ir flux, which is in keeping with Velikovsky's
version, but not that of Sagan. Astronomers have posted oficial
position papers (Revercomb/Suomi et. al) explaining the manner in which
each and every such probe "failed", without bothering to try to explain
why they should not all be fired for failing to oversee the proper
manufacture of so simple an instrument in even one case out of at least
four (instruments were not all the same).
And then there is the question of F.W. Taylor's description of massive
thermal imbalance as measured from outside the atmosphere (from the article
on thermal balance by F.W. Taylor in "VENUS", Hunton, Colin, Donahue,
Moroz, Univ. of Ariz. Press, 1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0, pp 657-658).
"Measurements of albedo are more difficult to calibrate than
those of thermal flux, because of the problem of obtaining an
accurate reference source. Using earth-based measurements,
Irvine (1968) calculated a value for A [albedo] of 0.77 0.07,
which was later revised upward to 0.80 0.07 by Travis (1975).
The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel
calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained
a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 0.02.
"Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume
that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the
equation:
(1-A)E
4 0
sigma * theta = ---------
b a^2
should apply. Here E is the solar constant, and a the distance
0
from the sun. This expression allows the albedo to be calculated
from thermal measurements alone.
"In this way, a value of 0.79 + 0.02 - 0.01 has been obtained
from Venera radiometry (Ksanfomality, 1977, 1980b) and [a value]
of 0.76 0.006 [has been obtained] from Pioneer Venus emission
measurements (Schofield et al., 1982).
"Clearly the Pioneer measurements of emission and reflection
are not consistent with each other if net radiative balance
applies. (Emphasis added.) A source inside Venus equal in
magnitude to 20% of the solar input (i.e., accounting for the
difference between A = 0.76 and A = 0.80) is very unlikely,
since Venus is thought to have an Earth-like makeup, which would
imply internal heat sources several orders of magnitude less
than this. Also, even if such sources were postulated, it is
difficult to construct a model in which these fairly large
amounts of heat can be transported from the core to the
atmosphere via a rocky crust without the latter becoming
sufficiently plastic to collapse of the observed surface relief.
This could be avoided if the transport was very localized, i.e.,
via a relatively small number of giant volcanoes. Although
large, fresh-looking volcanoes do appear to exist on Venus...and
the composition of the atmosphere is consistent with vigorous
output from these, a simple comparison with terrestrial
volcanism shows that the volcanic activity on Venus would have
to be on an awesome scale to account for the missing 5 X 1015 W
[watts], or so, of power. A more acceptable alternative is that
the preliminary estimate of 0.80 0.2 for the albedo from the
P. V. [Pioneer Venus] measurements is too high, since the
uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too
conservative. (J. V. Martonchik, personal communication.) A
fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] albedo data--still
the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial and phase coverage,
and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for
the foreseeable future--is likely to resolve this puzzle. In
conclusion, then, the best thermal measurements of Venus WITH
THE ASSUMPTION OF GLOBAL ENERGY BALANCE yield a value for the
albedo of 0.76 0.1; this is the most probable value."
..................................................................
Let's examine what Taylor is saying. The term "albedo", stripped of the
four-syllable adjectives, is a measure of reflectivity, the percentage
of light which bounces back from something.
Taylor is saying that there are two ways to measure this albedo, a
direct method, and an indirect method involving a formula which relates
albedo to thermal emissions, assuming thermal balance holds. The direct
method:
"The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel
calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained
a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 0.02."
doesn't go into detail, but makes it clear that they either did one of
the following things, or something entirely like one of them:
a. Brought the satellite to the dark side of Venus, beamed a light
towards Venus, and measured how much of that light returned.
b. Brought the satellite to the light side of Venus, and simply turned
the instrument towards the sun, and then towards Venus, and computed a
ratio of the light intensities.
Taylor also mentions the indirect method:
"Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume
that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the
equation:
(1-A)E
4 0
sigma * theta = ---------
b a^2
should apply. Here E is the solar constant, and a the distance
0
from the sun. This expression allows the albedo to be calculated
from thermal measurements alone.
He notes that, if thermal balance does hold, the two techniques should
produce the same number, but that they don't, and that the difference is
so great, that a massive heat source on Venus would be needed to explain
it, entirely in keeping with Velikovsky's version of the entire thing.
He notes that further study is needed, since he sees no way for Venus to
have such a heat source given standard versions of solar-system history,
and that the .76 value derived for albedo is therefore the "most
probable" value.
He notes that the Pioneer Venus readings are the best we've had and the
best we're likely to get for a long time:
A fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] albedo data--still
the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial and phase coverage,
and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for
the foreseeable future--is likely to resolve this puzzle.
In particular, he notes that:
"Measurements of albedo are more difficult to calibrate than
those of thermal flux, because of the problem of obtaining an
accurate reference source.
and:
The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel
calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained
a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 0.02.
That means that people trying to measure albedo from Earth always had to
estimate reference sources anywhere near Venus, whereas the lamp mentioned
was right there; again, ample reason for tossing all prior albedo
measurements.
Thus between the infra-red flux meters of the descender probes and the
phenomena Taylor describes, all of the raw data flatly contradict Sagan
and "super-greenhouse", and scientists are left having to explain away
100% of the raw data.
I've noted this on talk.origins, and here the fun begins.
Tim Thompson, the astronomical guru of talk.origins, claims that I'm a
moron, and that problem vanishes if we simply average the all such values
together or somehow regard them as jointly telling an incomplete story:
> On January 9, 1994, in a response to Mark Isaak, Ted Holden said:
>"Neither you, nor anyone else on t.o has been able to refute my clear
>demonstration that all available evidence indicates Venus being badly
>out of thermal balance, and this includes the IR flux readings from the
>low level probes as well as the PV reflection and emission readings,
>which a number of t.o regulars used to claim showed Venus 'within error
>bounds' of thermal balance. I mean, we've cleared that up now, haven't
>we?"
> This statement is massively false in many ways, but I will not
>quibble over Mr. Holdens view of events. I will now provide conclusive
>refutation of Mr. Holden's claim. Save this post, and any time in the
>future, when Mr. Holden repeats this claim, then you can just re-submit
>this post.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>TABLE 1: VENUS ALBEDO DATA
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1 ~0.80 +/- 0.07 P. 657 Derived from stellar optical comparison
>2 0.80 +/- 0.02 P. 658 "Preliminary" from PV 0.4-4.0 micron IR
>3 0.79 +0.02 -0.01 P. 658 From Venera assuming thermal balance
>4 0.76 +/- 0.006 P. 658 From PV assuming thermal balance
>5 0.836 +/- 0.017 P. 30 Ave. of 4 at 55 microns non-integrated
>6 0.74 +/- 0.04 P. 30 #5 converted to integrated by empirical fit
>7 0.76 +0.02 -0.03 P. 30 From PV assuming thermal balance (?)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In table 1 above I reproduce all of the independent albedo
>measurements or calculations I found in "Venus", chapters 3 & 20, except
>Irvine's 1968 data, which was later revised to become #1 in the table.
>I have given the mean of 4 albedos, reported over a 75 year span (#5),
>as does Moroz ("Venus, ch.3), rather than the 4 individual reports.
>This average (#5) does not appear in the graph below, because it is
>a narrow band, visual albedo (at 55 microns), and we need integrated
>albedo in order to discuss thermal balance. Table 1, #6 is the visual
>data in #5 converted to an integrated value, by empirical fit using
>a color function, and this does appear in the graph
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>FIGURE 1: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF DATA IN TABLE 1
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 0.70 1 2 3 4 0.75 6 7 8 9 0.80 1 2 3 4 0.85 6 7
> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>1 |-------------------------- * --------------------------| (S)
>2 |------ * ------| (IR)
>3 |-- * ------| (Th)
>4 |- * -| (Th)
>6 |-------------- * --------------| (Fit)
>7 |---------- * ------| (Th)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>(S) = Derived from stellar magnitudes by comparison with Venus
>(IR) = Derived from IR reflectance/emission
>(Th) = Derived from radiometry assuming thermal balance
>(Fit) = Empirical fit to stellar magnitude data
> In the graph above the numbers appear in the same order as they do in
>table 1; each data point is an "*", and the quoted 1-sigma error bars are
>shown graphically.
> There are 6 data points here, derived in 4 different ways. Although
>the top 3 points are clearly offset from the bottom 3, it should be equally
>clear that the error bars over lap at 0.78, except for #4. Point #1 is not
>very strong, its error bars span the entire data set. The Venera thermal
>balance and PV IR (#2 & #3) agree quite well with each other, but the
>2 PV thermal balance (#4 & #7), along with the empirical fit to the
>stellar magnitude data (#6) also agree with each other, but show a lower
>value. It may be that #4 and #7 are actually the same point, in ch.20
>Taylor et al. do not consider this point, which Moroz credits to Taylor
>(1980) in ch.3, but Taylor et al. give #4 as Schofield (1982). Since
>both are PV, and evidently assuming thermal balance, they may in fact
>represent the same data, I don't know.
> There is clearly an inconsistency in these data, to which Taylor et
>al. allude on page 658 with the statement "Clearly, the Pioneer
>measurements of emission and reflection are inconsistent with each other
>if net radiative balance applies". Of course, you can see here that they
>are also inconsistent if net radiative balance does not apply.
> The whole point of this effort id to show that these albedo data do
>not strongly support any arguement concerning net radiative balance.
>It is not at all justified for Mr. Holden to claim that these data show
>Venus to be out of thermal balance, let alone "wildly" so. Conversely,
>it is also not justified to claim thagt these data show Venus to be
>in thermal balance either, the data are just not good enough for any
>strong claims either way. Since neither position is really supported by
>these data, Mr. Holden's claim, that "all available evidence shows Venus
>being badly out of thermal balance" stands refuted.
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Timothy J. Thompson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
>Secretary, Los Angeles Astronomical Society.
>Vice President, Mount Wilson Observatory Association.
Thompson is claiming that, aside from the directly measured PV albedo of .80,
the book also contains a number of older readings dating from the late
1800's, one other recent value of .80, and the values derived from
assuming thermal balance which Taylor mentioned, and that no one of
these values is really any better than any other.
If for no other reason than the stated one of avoiding what in mathematics is
called assuming a proof, you've GOT to toss the three values derived via
assuming thermal balance. Values 5 and 6 represent a non-corrected and a
corrected average of visual spectrum readings taken betwen 1893 and 1968,
i.e. before we were able to take such readings other than from Earth, and
obviously need to be tossed.
That only leaves one entirely accurate (PV), and one other modern value,
both .80, i.e. the value which causes the problem for astronomers
wishing to believe in thermal balance.
Thompson is, amongst other things, actually using the values derived via
assuming thermal balance in an effort to PROVE thermal balance, or at
least a null-hypothesis for not rejecting thermal balance.
In higher math courses, in areas involving logical proofs, if you ever use
the proposition which you are trying to prove, or anything directly
dependant upon it, as an assumption in your proof, then you incur a failing
grade and the censure of your professor.
Thus, you would think that Thompson's article would raise howls of
protest from the folk which inhabit talk.origins (the "howler-monkey"
"crew"). Not so; where Thompson refrains from claiming that you
actually need to average the values he notes (to avoid hellfire for too
gross a misrepresentation no doubt), the crew jumps straight in:
For instance:
From: howler-monkey 1
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thermal imbalance on Venus proves Velikovsky's theory
Date: 30 Apr 1994 19:16:47 GMT
>...Unless you can find a specific error in the
>math the calculations below prove that a weighted average of the results gives
>more accurate results than just taking one measurement, regardless of the
>precision of the estimates.
For instance:
>From: howler-monkey 2
>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>Subject: Re: Albedo and bolometric temperature: what is being said
>Date: 08 May 1994 17:58:51 GMT
>*THE MORE MEASUREMENTS INCLUDED IN A WEIGHTED AVERAGE, THE BETTER*.
>This statement was *proven* mathematically in an earlier post...
>In the face of a proof, an argument from intuition is worse than
>useless - it's pathetic. The *only* answer to a complete, formal proof
>is to demonstrate that the proof has an error - not to whine
>incessently that the proof is counterintuitive.
>Ted> And as if that weren't bad enough in and of itself, Thompson is
>Ted> including in his average two values derived from an assumption of
>Ted> thermal equilibrium, this in an attempt to prove equilibrium. Do
>Ted> you really wish to be associated with anything that disingenious?
>You *really* don't have a clue, do you?
For instance:
>From: howler-monkey 3
>> The albedo of Venus: Dropped after repeatedly displaying that he
>> doesn't understand observational data reduction. [i.e. averaging]
....................................................................
I counted what seemed like about 100 such posts. Basically, no treatise
on the efficacy of weighted averages has anything to say about averaging
albedo readings for Venus taken from Earth in the 1890's with values taken
with good modern instruments from Venus orbit by the Pioneer probes (which
is in fact part of what Thompson is actually doing). That's nonsense.
If Thompson ever had any qualms about the notion of averaging the
values derived via assuming thermal balance with the actual direct (.80)
value in order to demonstrate thermal balance, he had ample opportunity
to tell all of these people they were out of line; he never did.
Worse, this basic article of Thompsons has now been enshrined as some
sort of an official position paper on the Ediacara/talk.origins WWW
server for people of all nations to read as they surf the net, the
assumption being that all such papers on the server are devine truth.
It seems obvious to me that, at some point, intelligent people will
begin to notice that sort of thing, and it may well cause embarassment
for the internet generally, rather than merely for t.o./Ediacara.
Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html
______
[ \ ^^^^^^^^^^ / ]
\ \ / /---
| \ \ / / |
_..-'( / _0 | 0_ \ )`-.._
./'. '||\\. / \ _ / \ .//||` .`\
'.|'.'||||\\|.. _______ / \__/ \__/ \ _____..|//||||`.`|.`
/'.||'.||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||.`||.`\.
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
Tim Thompson
In article <31f6607c...@news.easynet.co.uk>, ianTr...@easynet.co.uk
(Ian Tresman) writes:
> t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>
>> our Saturnist friends should be expected to put forth a genuine
>> prediction. For instance, predict that some "recurring attribute of
>> the serpent or dragon" which is now not known will be discovered by
>> later archaeologists or mythologists?
> Do you mean something along these lines: Because Saturnists believe
> that the Earth may have been a satellite of Saturn then we would
> predict that:
>
> a. Early myths and legends would describe the planet Saturn in more
> detail that is available with the naked eye. For example, that it has
> other satellites (not discovered until 1684 AD)
>
> b. Since Saturn would have dominated the skies, and the Sun does now,
> then we would expect myths to show confusion between Saturn and the
> Sun.
No, because in both cases these are "retro-dictions" rather then
"pre-dictions". It is actually relatively easy to create an arbitrary
interpretation that implies that ancient people knew that Saturn had
satellites, since you already know what you are trying to prove.
I mean a genuine "pre-diction" of anything at all. Predict that some
theme not yet known to exist in any ancient writings will be discovered
in the future. Predict that some as yet unknown physical sign of the
former configuration of the solar system will be discovered. For instance,
Hoagland has predicted that Mars has a real face and a real city on it,
a prediction with which Holden agrees. Someday, maybe sooner, maybe later,
we will be in a position to test that theory either by direct eyeball
observations (astronauts to Mars) or photography (a Mars satellite).
It is a testable prediction, and we will know whether it is right or wrong.
Predict *anything* not yet known to exist, whether pysical or not, and
then try to determine whether or not it actually exists. If it does, good
for you, if not, back to the drawing board.
--
Matt Silberstein
ianTr...@easynet.co.uk (Ian Tresman) wrote:
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>You propose a dichotomy where none exists. We can learn from myth, but
>>where myth contradicts physical science, myth must give ground.
>Assuming that physical science is always right, which it isn't, so
>that physical science must sometimes give ground.
But physical science gives ground to physical science, not to mythic
interpertation.
Andrew MacRae
In article <31f67258...@news.easynet.co.uk> ianTr...@easynet.co.uk
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
> >You propose a dichotomy where none exists. We can learn from myth, but
> >where myth contradicts physical science, myth must give ground.
>
> Assuming that physical science is always right, which it isn't, so
> that physical science must sometimes give ground.
But physical science gives ground because of the physical evidence
or the limitations of physical laws, not because a myth says, for example,
that it is possible to fly between islands by constructing wings of
feathers and wax.
Of course physical science is not always right. Maybe myth might
identify an example, but it will not demonstrate it to any scientist's
satisfaction.
Tim Thompson
Well, it's nice to see that Holden is still willing to re-post my posts
for me ad-infinitum.
In article <medved.838347558@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net
(Ted Holden) writes:
>t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
>> Predict *anything* not yet known to exist, whether pysical or not, and
>> then try to determine whether or not it actually exists. If it does, good
>> for you, if not, back to the drawing board.
[Holden ... ]
> You've left out the third possibility, i.e. kill off the guy with the
> correct predictions with an infinity of ad-hoc explainations and other BS.
>
> Take Velikovsky's most major correct PREdiction for instance, i.e. that
> Venus would be found to be hot in keeping with the ancient descriptions of
> it as a brilliant torch arching across the heavens etc. Nobody had
> previously predicted a surface temperature for Venus any higher than
> around 300 F. and most scientists assumed the planet would be about 15
> degrees F hoter than Earth, latitude for latitude.
Most scientists did indeed think that Venus would be cooler by a
considerable margin than it turns out to be. Velikovsky did predict
that Venus would be hotter than expected. However, your description
is slightly incomplete. Velikovsky also predicted petroleum fires
burning on the surface, where are they? He also predicted that Venus
would be found to have been recently molten, which we now know to be
incorrect. He predicted an atmosphere rich in hydrocarbons, which we
now also know to be incorrect. Velikovsky did not just predict that
Venus would be "hot", he made that prediction as part of a suite of
predictions about the planet based on his mytho-analysis. As it has
turned out, the entire suite of predictions, save perhaps one, have
all been shown to be wrong. This leaves the "hot" prediction out in
the "cold", doesn't it?
> The verification of Velikovsky's prediction by probes should have been
> greeted by a profusion of apologies from American academia, particularly
> from astronomy departments. Nonetheless, as we well know, it was met
> instead with a hitherto undreamed of level of bullshit in the form of Carl
> Sagan's "Super-Greenhouse" theory, and by sniveling claims that he had not
> specified how "hot" hot was supposed to be, as if he should have predicted
> that Venus would be found to be 947.998784452 degrees at its surface.
What Holden calls the "Super-Greenhouse" theory is known in the atmospheric
physics trade as a "runaway greenhouse", the result of a positive feedback
loop. Both the standard and run-away greenhouse are described in detail in
any number of books on atmospheric physics. See, for example, "Atmospheric
Radiation" by R.M. Goody and Y.L. Yung, Oxford University Press (2nd ed),
1989, or "The Physics of Atmospheres" by J.T. Houghton, Cambridge University
Press, 1977. There are any number of papers that describe the specific
application of greenhouse theory to Venus, but a good place to start is
"Greenhouse Model's of Venus' High Surface Temperature as Constrained by
Pioneer Venus Measurements" by J.B. Pollack, Owen B. Toon and Robert Boese,
Journal of Geophysical Research 85(A13): 8223-8231, December 30, 1980.
Another more recent exercise examines the Venusian climate: "The Stability
of the Climate on Venus" by Mark A. Bullock and David H. Grinspoon, Journal
of Geophysical Research 101(E3): 7521-7529, March 25, 1996.
There is no appropriate way for me to teach greenhouse theory on this
forum, but these sources should get any interested readers on the learning
track. Holden likes to think of himself as the great greenhouse slayer, but
as he never manages to actually say why the theory doesn't work, there
doesn't seem to be much point in bothering with him.
> Worst of all, if you can believe this, when I or others point out the
> obvious problems of "Super-Greenhouse", ...
Wrong, neither Holden nor anyone else has ever done any such thing.
I defy Holden or anyone else to do so on this forum at this time.
> for instance the manner in which
> astronomers claim that all instruments measuring properties such as
> IR flux which bear on the question of thermal balance
> (essential to super-greenhouse) produced results which were grossly in
> error,
An old and long dead argument. It's not a claim, it's a fact. The raw
data violate energy conservation and thermodynamic principles, as was
demonstrated, for instance, in "Venus Lower Atmosphere Heat Balance"
by Andrew P. Ingersoll and Judith B. Pechmann, Journal of Geophysical
Research 85(A13): 8219-8222, December 30, 1980. That the instruments
themselves suffered mechanical failure was clearly demonstrated in a
series of papers starting with "Net Radiation in the Atmosphere of
Venus: Measuurements and Interpretation" by V.E. Suomi, L.A. Sromovsky,
and H.E. Revercomb, Journal of Geophysical Research 85(A13): 8200-8218,
December 30, 1980 and another paper "Reassessment of Net Radiation
Measurements in the Atmosphere of Venus" by H.E. Revercomb, L.A.
Sromovsky and V.E. Suomi, Icarus 52(2): 279-300, November 1982. There
were more papers in the Icarus series by the same authors, but these
will tell the tale.
Unable to deal with, or respond to, any of the arguments or laboratory
demonstrations, Holden reverts to calling the authors liars and openly
accuses them of having falsified the data to support their own
pre-conceptions. In doing so Holden only reflects himself onto the
targets of his slander, and demonstrates his own rather preposterous
tendency to invent whatever facts he needs at the moment.
> or by noting F. W. Taylor's claim that all empirical evidence shows
> Venus to be out of thermal balance,
Like I said, inventing the facts that he needs for the moment. I have
no intention of retaining the zillion lines that follow this, despite the
fact that Holden does me the peculiar courtesy of re-posting my material
for me. It is easy enough to consult the original, which he will no doubt
repost in the near future, or just go an read it on his web page. In short,
Taylor never made any such claim or statement. Holden chose to interpret
Taylor in that way, and then dishonestly states that it was Taylor's
claim all along.
The fact that this person is actually invited to speak to an audience
at the symposia put on by Talbott and Cochrane, on a regular basis, really
should tell you something un-flattering about the people we are forced to
deal with on this forum.
> then some shameless clown
That's supposed to be me, in case you haven't noticed :-)
> will come
> along and try to claim that we need to average all albedo values for Venus
> taken since the early middle ages in with the good PV values from Venus
> orbit in 1979, upon which Taylor's findings rest, and actually average in
> values based upon assuming thermal balance as well, to show what an idiot
> Taylor is.
For a man who claims some expertise in advancing the "historical evidence"
I find it interesting that Holden choses to place 1893 in the early middle
ages.
Well, enough of that. The fact that I don't like Holden and he doesn't
like me is not exactly big news. However, I do appreciate his surprising
willingness to constantly re-post my own material for me, as he has done
now for over two years. If I did that I would be rightly accused of
insufferable egotism (not that I am immune to the occasional enlightened
self-interest). But with a fan like Holden I can be assured that my
material will live after me in cyberspace. Thank you, Ted.
Ian Tresman
t...@jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>>> our Saturnist friends should be expected to put forth a genuine
>>> prediction.
> I mean a genuine "pre-diction" of anything at all. Predict that some
>theme not yet known to exist in any ancient writings will be discovered
>in the future.
> Predict *anything* not yet known to exist, whether physical or not, and
>then try to determine whether or not it actually exists.
I think I understand your differentiation between "retro-dictions" and
"pre-dictions". Let me describe some examples, and let me know whether
this is the sort of prediction you might accept (these aren't actual
predictions).
1. It will be found that the planets Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn
were once in different orbits. [I have no idea how this would be
tested: on Star Trek they would check for tachyon particles or
something. Perhaps it is possible that planets leave a signature as
they travel through space, eg. atmospheric components.]
2. Radioactive decay constants will be found to have not always been
constant.
3. Undiscovered mythological texts will be found to be consistent and
unstandable only in the context of the "Saturn Myth".
Ted Holden
ianTr...@easynet.co.uk (Ian Tresman) writes:
[predictions...]
>3. Undiscovered mythological texts will be found to be consistent and
>unstandable only in the context of the "Saturn Myth".
For newcomers, this is in fact the case with the main body of
well-known known mythological texts from Greek and Roman authors.
When Ovid and Hesiod claim, for example, that there was formerly a golden
age of man "when Saturn/Kronos was the king of heaven", they mean when
Saturn was the sun. That's what the language means.
Paul J. Gans
Ian Tresman (ianTr...@easynet.co.uk) wrote:
: t...@jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
:
: >>> our Saturnist friends should be expected to put forth a genuine
: >>> prediction.
:
: > I mean a genuine "pre-diction" of anything at all. Predict that some
: >theme not yet known to exist in any ancient writings will be discovered
: >in the future.
:
: > Predict *anything* not yet known to exist, whether physical or not, and
: >then try to determine whether or not it actually exists.
:
: I think I understand your differentiation between "retro-dictions" and
: "pre-dictions". Let me describe some examples, and let me know whether
: this is the sort of prediction you might accept (these aren't actual
: predictions).
:
: 1. It will be found that the planets Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn
: were once in different orbits. [I have no idea how this would be
: tested: on Star Trek they would check for tachyon particles or
: something. Perhaps it is possible that planets leave a signature as
: they travel through space, eg. atmospheric components.]
:
: 2. Radioactive decay constants will be found to have not always been
: constant.
: 3. Undiscovered mythological texts will be found to be consistent and
: unstandable only in the context of the "Saturn Myth".
Number 2 is an actual prediction. Number 1 is a *possible*
prediction, but not in that form. I'd cast is as "Deep
space photography (or whatever) will reveal that a very
massive dark body passed through the solar system about
20,000 (or whatever number) of years ago. Given sufficient
observation of the massive dark body its space trajectory
can be computed.
Number 3 isn't a prediction at all. It is a certainty. Except
that the scholars of mythology won't agree with Dave Talbott's
interpretation.
------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
David N. Talbott
From <4teesg$n...@news.nyu.edu> ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (the Class Clown):
>Ian Tresman (ianTr...@easynet.co.uk) wrote:
>: t...@jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>:
>: >>> our Saturnist friends should be expected to put forth a genuine
>: >>> prediction.
>:
>: > I mean a genuine "pre-diction" of anything at all. Predict that some
>: >theme not yet known to exist in any ancient writings will be discovered
>: >in the future.
>:
>: > Predict *anything* not yet known to exist, whether physical or not, and
>: >then try to determine whether or not it actually exists.
>:
>: I think I understand your differentiation between "retro-dictions" and
>: "pre-dictions". Let me describe some examples, and let me know whether
>: this is the sort of prediction you might accept (these aren't actual
>: predictions).
>:
>: 1. It will be found that the planets Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn
>: were once in different orbits. [I have no idea how this would be
>: tested: on Star Trek they would check for tachyon particles or
>: something. Perhaps it is possible that planets leave a signature as
>: they travel through space, eg. atmospheric components.]
>:
>: 2. Radioactive decay constants will be found to have not always been
>: constant.
>:
>: 3. Undiscovered mythological texts will be found to be consistent and
>: unstandable only in the context of the "Saturn Myth".
Predicting something in advance is psychologically effective, but does not
inherently increase the explanatory power of a hypothesis beyond
the ability of the thesis to account for facts "retroactively". Often,
what is a prediction in one context is a retroactive explanation in
another.
For example, many years ago, based on cross cultural comparisons, I had
concluded that the ancient sun god was a planet, specifically *Saturn*.
One of several reasons for this was the great crescent wrapped around the
sphere of the god. Another was the repeated identity of the sun god as the
prototype of kings and founder of the Golden Age. This was the role of
the now-distant Saturn in the myths. I had also found a great deal of
evidence for a "superior" sun, or "primeval" sun in former times.
But how could I, with no training in Greek or Latin, determine the archaic
identity of Helios and Sol? As it turned out, the job had been done for
me by Franz Boll, a leading classicist, many years before my time.
In an article entitled "Kronos-Helios" Boll recounted an amazing fact: in
the earliest Greek manuscripts in which the name of the planet Saturn
occurs, the name is *Helios*, the "sun". Psychologically, this provided
me with an incredible boost in confidence, one of hundreds of instances I
could give in which precise data I did not have, but sought to obtain,
provided the (highly unusual!) confirmations I expected (i.e.,
"predicted").
Another example: I had found numerous instances of a central sun, or
motionless sun, and with the help of the revolving crescent motif I had
concluded that there was no alternative to the presence of this enigmatic
body at the celestial pole. This figure, I had concluded on the basis
of converging lines of evidence, was the planet Saturn. And on the
comparative approach I was following there was no escaping the
"prediction" that the Egyptian sun god Ra was this very figure. And yet,
in all conventional translations, Ra is invariably described rising and
setting. That was one of several reasons I realized that I had to learn
the Egyptian hieroglyphic language. And the results were incredible.
I came to realize that the Egyptian words translated as "rise" do not mean
rise, but mean "to grow bright". As conventionally translated the typical
homage to Atum or Ra has the god "rising" (growing bright) "in peace".
But the literal language means "at rest" or "while standing in one place".
Literally, Ra does not rise in peace, but *grows bright while standing at
rest, or in one place*!
I found later, in the work of the French Egyptologist Jacques Enel, and
later still in the work of the eminent American Egyptologist T. Rundle
Clark, the emphatic statement that the station of the resting Atum was
*the celestial pole*. So was I "predicting", or explaining a fact
retroactively? Whatever you call it, the psychological effect of this
kind of personal discovery is profound.
This is, in a nutshell, why we chose the approach we took in the
documentary "Remembering the End of the World." It presents a model that
"predicts" hundreds of motifs so precisely that it is impossible to ignore
the model's predictive ability. You will see more examples of this than
you could ever dream of in the 12 follow-up MYTHSCAPE segments.
Dave
For additional reading consult the Kronia Communications website--
Burch Seymour
Ted is really getting near the end of his string on this one. It's almost
complete gibberish. Consider this paragraph:
med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>Worst of all, if you can believe this, when I or others point out the
>obvious problems of "Super-Greenhouse", for instance the manner in which
>astronomers claim that all instruments measuring properties such as
>IR flux which bear on the question of thermal balance
>(essential to super-greenhouse) produced results which were grossly in
>error, or by noting F. W. Taylor's claim that all empirical evidence shows
>Venus to be out of thermal balance, then some shameless clown will come
>along and try to claim that we need to average all albedo values for Venus
>taken since the early middle ages in with the good PV values from Venus
>orbit in 1979, upon which Taylor's findings rest, and actually average in
>values based upon assuming thermal balance as well, to show what an idiot
>Taylor is.
In the start of it he uses Taylor to support his view:
"by noting F. W. Taylor's claim that all empirical evidence shows
Venus to be out of thermal balance"
But later on in that same sentence, Ted Sez:
"to show what an idiot Taylor is."
So here we have a very compact example of Ted Logic. Argument by appeal
to a bigger idiot.
The rational mind boggles.
-Burch-
Floyd_...@cup.portal.com
Once we get all the details of Saturn resolved there is still the
repeated connections to the earth that leaves the earth/moon/year
relations largely intact.
This far (200 plus posts) there has been only passing lip service to
large wandering space objects that may have caused the catastrophes
wrote of in Velikovsky's writings. These (large wandering space objects)
are most apt to be mythical. The product of peoples imagination in an
attempt to explain the un-explained.
ON the other hand there is ample evidence of many meteor impacts,
tidal waves, polar ice meltdown, apparent magnetic reversals and mountains
pushing up (as opposed to volcanic action).
If all these things wait for large wandering space objects they would
have to arrive quite often.
Then we get to the objections of Tim Thompson that there is no evidence
of the earth's crust melting from these encounters. This crust melting is
an old wives tale dreamed up for the "Scop Monkey Trial" to support
creation.
The fact is it takes friction to convert mechanical motion to heat
and the heat will be generated at those friction point(s). This gives
very high temperature in places that is prevented from spreading over the
surface of the earth by the insulating factor of the earth (about 60,000
per mile).
There is some mention of perhaps an electro-magnetic method. I suspect
this was dreamed up by people who do not understand electromagnetics.
It is my humble understanding that energy is only transferable. If
it is converted to heat it is lost as far as using it to power up
mechanical rotation. It can be done as in engines but they are usually
less than 50% efficient. In nature it is usually less than 1%.
There may be some mechanism for storing the energy and using it to
re-spin the earth but I can not visualize it.
There is the myth that gravity was much less at times in the past.
Velikovsky was writing a book about it. IMHO gravity is one of the more
solid theories and not amenable to change.
It is true that in the past there seems to have been giants. Both
fossil records and Genesis tell of giants.
It seems that things that do not age keep growing. On earth we have
sharks, lobsters, alligators and a few other things that do not age
as we do (old shark and lobster meat is not tough).So the "GOLDEN AGE(s)"
may have been a period of growing larger.
The bone strength theory of Archimedes Plutonium, among others to
equate giants with low gravity is by and large refuted by our space
experience. The astronauts bone structure gets weaker in the low gravity
of space.
My plea is to quit fighting over the finer points of Saturn and tie the
things we can prove on earth together. Again IMHO it can be done without
Saturn and without God as well.
I do not know much about Saturn but it seems that when we were less
informed we lay everything in God's Hands. If our barn burned we looked
to see where we had offended God. Now we check to see why our lightning
protector failed.
Things that are still in God's hands are the things we have not resolved.
As far as I know everything we have resolved it seems God does not control
it and we can do better.
IMHO the violent tides, earth quakes and mountains pushing up comes
from the *REEL* of the earth's crust. This should need only a medium to
small meteor to start as long as there was sufficient time for the POLAR
ICE CAPS imbalance the crust. Once the crust starts to move the energy
stored in the rotation is sufficient to do the rest. Including to melt
a lava bearing for the crust to turn on. This heat liberated miles below
the surface would be insulated from the earth's surface.
All these things raise many questions. Some of which may be answered
by figuring the energy flows. Does the moon which gets energy from the
earth's rotation give any energy back in times of upheval? Is the
process bi-directional?
Floyd
Andrew MacRae
In article <medved.838347558@access5> med...@access5.digex.net (Ted
Holden) writes:
> t...@jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
..
> > No, because in both cases these are "retro-dictions" rather then
> >"pre-dictions". It is actually relatively easy to create an arbitrary
..
> > Predict *anything* not yet known to exist, whether pysical or not,
> >and then try to determine whether or not it actually exists. If it
> >does, goodfor you, if not, back to the drawing board.
>
> You've left out the third possibility, i.e. kill off the guy with the
> correct predictions with an infinity of ad-hoc explainations and other
> BS.
That does not sound particularly effective. Are you sure this
would work for a hypothesis that was actually correct and for which there
was copious amounts of valid evidence?
> error, or by noting F. W. Taylor's claim that all empirical evidence
> shows Venus to be out of thermal balance, then some shameless clown will
> come along and try to claim that we need to average all albedo values
> for Venus taken since the early middle ages in with the good PV values
> from Venus orbit in 1979, upon which Taylor's findings rest, and
> actually average in values based upon assuming thermal balance as well,
> to show what an idiot
> Taylor is.
>
> That's really hard to believe, isn't it?
Actually, Taylor's analysis, eventhough he refutes the
interpretation you make in the same section you always quote, does
constitute a genuine prediction. He predicts that a geological source for
that degree of "thermal imbalance" implies active volcanism on an "awesome
scale". How awesome? About 300x Earth, and about 10x that of Io (the
second and most volcanically-active bodies currently known) in terms of
heat output. He makes that prediction and rejects it on the basis of the
limited amount of information that was then known about the geology of
Venus. However, let us neglect this initial falsification, and proceed to
the Magellan mission, when much more data became available.
Is there evidence for active volcanism on Venus, producing heat to
hundreds of times that on Earth and 10x that of Io, the latter which had
easily observable changes even in the months between the two Voyager
encounters? No. There is evidence for plenty of past volcanism on Venus,
but evidence for any sort of volcanic *activity* on Venus (i.e. actual
eruptions), particularly on the "awesome scale" required to account for
the "thermal imbalance" is cryptic, at best, and the topography is
consistent with it being that way for a very long time, because the crust
is at least kilometres thick. Velikovsky advocates like Ted have offered
a variety of claims that the presence of volcanic cones and flows on most
of the surface of Venus means they are active now. It doesn't, any more
than the fact Los Alamos, New Mexico is located in the middle of a huge
volcanic caldera means it is in danger of being buried in lava tomorrow,
or that it is currently producing 100x the average heat flow of the Earth.
The surface of Venus should be changing even faster and more radically
than Io to account for the data. It obviously is not. The problem with
Ted's claim, very basically, is that it predicts obvious evidence of
current eruptions on an "awesome scale", and that evidence is absent at
the required scale.
..
> And then there is the question of F.W. Taylor's description of massive
> thermal imbalance as measured from outside the atmosphere (from the
> article on thermal balance by F.W. Taylor in "VENUS", Hunton, Colin,
> Donahue, Moroz, Univ. of Ariz. Press, 1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0, pp
> 657-658).
..
> "Clearly the Pioneer measurements of emission and reflection
> are not consistent with each other if net radiative balance
> applies. (Emphasis added.) A source inside Venus equal in
> magnitude to 20% of the solar input (i.e., accounting for the
> difference between A = 0.76 and A = 0.80) is very unlikely,
> since Venus is thought to have an Earth-like makeup, which would
> imply internal heat sources several orders of magnitude less
> than this. Also, even if such sources were postulated, it is
> difficult to construct a model in which these fairly large
> amounts of heat can be transported from the core to the
> atmosphere via a rocky crust without the latter becoming
> sufficiently plastic to collapse of the observed surface relief.
> This could be avoided if the transport was very localized, i.e.,
> via a relatively small number of giant volcanoes. Although
> large, fresh-looking volcanoes do appear to exist on Venus...and
> the composition of the atmosphere is consistent with vigorous
> output from these, a simple comparison with terrestrial
> volcanism shows that the volcanic activity on Venus would have
> to be on an awesome scale to account for the missing 5 X 1015 W
> [watts], or so, of power. A more acceptable alternative is that
..
Wayne Throop
: dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott)
: Predicting something in advance is psychologically effective, but does
: not inherently increase the explanatory power of a hypothesis beyond
: the ability of the thesis to account for facts "retroactively".
: For example, many years ago, based on cross cultural comparisons, I
: had concluded that the ancient sun god was a planet, specifically
: *Saturn*. One of several reasons for this was the great crescent
: wrapped around the sphere of the god.
: name of the planet Saturn occurs, the name is *Helios*, the "sun".
Actually, this point is one of my reasons for skepticism of the
saturn thesis. The "crescent wrapped around the sphere" was
(correct me if I'm wrong) interpreted as a ring structure.
Hence, saturn. Hence the identity of saturn/sun.
Yet this whole chain of inference was later thrown out; the current
version of the saturn thesis involves no ring structure, and the
crescents are attributed to shadows on a planetary "stack".
So the major reason to "predict" a sun/saturn connection no longer
exists; there is no "prediction" here at all. In fact, the tracking
of all the planets through literally earth-shaking catastrophe
seems a *major* weakness of the theory, not a strength at all.
Further, it shows how the physical interpretation can be swapped around.
Talbott disagrees, but it seems to me the main reason not to substitute
other non-planetary-stack physical causes for the mythic imagery is
Talbott's prejudice, not any compelling feature of the mythic themes
themselves. After all, if one can swap around between a ring structure
and a shadow on a spherical surface, I see no particular reason not to
take the physical causes of the imagery to be a bit more metaphorical
than Talbott is willing to do.
As I say, IMO this point is illustrative; the myths *don't* really pin
down a physical interpretation nearly as well as Talbott thinks; Talbott
himself is flexible within limits, and those limits don't seem to me to
be ... call it "data driven".
--
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
thr...@cisco.com
Tim Thompson
In article <medved.838733216@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net
(Ted Holden) writes:
> The claim is that Tim Thompson (not me) is claiming that Taylor is an
> idiot, or at least making statements which add up that way. The sentence
> was a tad long, but an intelligent person should have been able to read
> it...
Stupid and wrong, as Holden most certainly DOES claim, even if covertly,
that Taylor is an idiot. This is easily determined by considering Holden's
rather lame excuse for an idea in light of what Taylor actually says. If you
actually examine the now infamous page 658 in the now infamous book "Venus"
you will see that Taylor actually considers the very position that Holden
has advocated. Taylor, after due consideration, then rejected the idea,
on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the rest of the data on Venus.
Taylor says ...
"A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary estimate of 0.80
+/- 0.02 for the albedo from the PV measurements is too high, since the
uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too conservative
(J.V. Martonchik, personal communication)."
By continuously advocating the position examined and rejected by Taylor,
it is clearly Holden who implies that Taylor must be an idiot. Furthermore,
Taylor rejected the idea because it was NOT consistent with the "big picture".
Holden likes to repeat ad-nauseum that astronomers "explain away 100% of the
data". But Taylor is clearly in a better position than Holden to examine and
understand the data, all 100% of it. Taylor came to exactly the opposite
conclusion from Holden, that the albedo data was exceptional and wrong.
Ted Holden
bsey...@encore.com (Burch Seymour) writes:
>But later on in that same sentence, Ted Sez:
>"to show what an idiot Taylor is."
The claim is that Tim Thompson (not me) is claiming that Taylor is an
idiot, or at least making statements which add up that way. The sentence
was a tad long, but an intelligent person should have been able to read
it...
>The rational mind boggles.
No, those with rational minds and normal IQs simple read the sentence
and understood it.
Ted Holden
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>: As it turned out, [...] in the earliest Greek manuscripts in which the
>: name of the planet Saturn occurs, the name is *Helios*, the "sun".
>Actually, this point is one of my reasons for skepticism of the
>saturn thesis. The "crescent wrapped around the sphere" was
>(correct me if I'm wrong) interpreted as a ring structure.
>Hence, saturn. Hence the identity of saturn/sun.
>Yet this whole chain of inference was later thrown out; the current
>version of the saturn thesis involves no ring structure, and the
>crescents are attributed to shadows on a planetary "stack".
>So the major reason to "predict" a sun/saturn connection no longer
>exists; there is no "prediction" here at all. In fact, the tracking
>of all the planets through literally earth-shaking catastrophe
>seems a *major* weakness of the theory, not a strength at all.
David could answer this better than I can, but I always was under the
impression that the major evidence leading to the Saturn Thesis was in
literature and language anomalies such as Boll and Jastrow were writing
about at the turn of the century, and that the glyphs showing the
concentric spheres were secondary pieces of evidence. For that matter,
the manner in which the older and newer interpretations of those glyphs
arose are easy enough to comprehend. The natural inclination would be to
view the interior sphere(s) as the body of the former sun (Saturn), the
crescent as a ring such as Saturn now possesses and showing phases (the
former interpretation). Later research indicated the position of Venus
and Mars inside the circle of Saturn, as is shown on the www pages.
Ted Holden
t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
>> The claim is that Tim Thompson (not me) is claiming that Taylor is an
>> idiot, or at least making statements which add up that way. The sentence
>> was a tad long, but an intelligent person should have been able to read
>> it...
> Stupid and wrong, as Holden most certainly DOES claim, even if covertly,
>that Taylor is an idiot.
That's BS. I claim that Taylor's analysis of the data is the best and
most honest which could be had IF one assumes that thermal balance must
actually pertain, i.e. if one rejects apriori or is not aware of
Velikovsky's explaination of the surface heat.
>This is easily determined by considering Holden's
>rather lame excuse for an idea in light of what Taylor actually says. If you
>actually examine the now infamous page 658 in the now infamous book "Venus"
>you will see that Taylor actually considers the very position that Holden
>has advocated. Taylor, after due consideration, then rejected the idea,
>on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the rest of the data on Venus.
>Taylor says ...
> "A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary estimate of 0.80
> +/- 0.02 for the albedo from the PV measurements is too high, since the
> uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too conservative
> (J.V. Martonchik, personal communication)."
Again, Taylor is merely claiming that that the .80 actual reading is too
high and the .76 computed (via a formula based upon assuming thermal
balance) the value which will most likely turn up correct, because he is
not aware of any body of theory which would predict excess surface heat
and/or thermal imbalance. He notes that the actual discrepancy between
the measured albedo of .80 and the computed value of .76 would indicate
a major thermal imbalance and represent either a serious error or a
serious problem (as I claim) for the investigations.
> By continuously advocating the position examined and rejected by Taylor,
>it is clearly Holden who implies that Taylor must be an idiot. Fur
Let me state flat out: I regard Tim Thompson as an idiot; I do not
regard F.W. Taylor as an idiot. I hope that is sufficiently clear.
Tim Thompson
Floyd doesn't like the "Saturn Myth" model, which is OK by me. However,
his suggested alternative is not much better from the physicsts point of
view.
In article <152...@cup.portal.com>, Floyd_...@cup.portal.com writes:
[ ... ]
> Then we get to the objections of Tim Thompson that there is no evidence
> of the earth's crust melting from these encounters. This crust melting is
> an old wives tale dreamed up for the "Scop Monkey Trial" to support
> creation.
>
> The fact is it takes friction to convert mechanical motion to heat
> and the heat will be generated at those friction point(s). This gives
> very high temperature in places that is prevented from spreading over the
> surface of the earth by the insulating factor of the earth (about 60,000
> per mile).
Your description of "friction" is over-simplified. That kind of heat
generation by friction along a contact surface (not a "point") is what
happens, for instance, inside a car engine, or when you rub your hands
together. But, when an elastic substance is deformed, internal friction
generates heat throughout te volume of the substance. If the heat cannot
be dissipated fast enough, and the thermal energy builds up enough, then
the substance melts. This is not an "old wive's tale", it is called
"continuum mechanics". If the crust of the Earth is deformed by tidal
stress, which is very likely in the Saturn Myth scenario, it will heat,
and possibly melt.
Your alternative suggestion that the crust of the Earth might slide
around, or "reel" is not practical. It is not just a matter of friction
at the contact surface that makes up the bottom of the crust (I believe
this is what geologists call the Mohorovich discontinuity or "Moho").
That contact surface is not smooth, and is not really much of a surface
at all, as we usually use the word. There is no free surface there to
slide on, it's "solid rock all the way down". Indeed it's not quite
"solid", but it acts solid in response to short-period disturbances.
As physical models go, the "reeling crust" model just doesn't work.
Andrew MacRae
In article <8387...@sheol.org> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
> : dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott)
> : Predicting something in advance is psychologically effective, but does
> : not inherently increase the explanatory power of a hypothesis beyond
> : the ability of the thesis to account for facts "retroactively".
> : [...]
> : For example, many years ago, based on cross cultural comparisons, I
> : had concluded that the ancient sun god was a planet, specifically
> : wrapped around the sphere of the god.
> : name of the planet Saturn occurs, the name is *Helios*, the "sun".
>
> Actually, this point is one of my reasons for skepticism of the
> saturn thesis. The "crescent wrapped around the sphere" was
> (correct me if I'm wrong) interpreted as a ring structure.
> Hence, saturn. Hence the identity of saturn/sun.
>
> Yet this whole chain of inference was later thrown out; the current
> version of the saturn thesis involves no ring structure, and the
> crescents are attributed to shadows on a planetary "stack".
And I asked specifically about this previously, because I keep
wondering:
[physics questions (i.e. skip this one)]
1) How did Saturn's rings form so fast afterwards, and so perfectly in its
equatorial plane?
[mythological questions]
2) Why Saturn, and not Jupiter? Without rings, they would look
superficially similar.
3) If there is mention of a "Green Sun" in the myths (Ted and others have
mentioned this), then, gee, why not Uranus or even Neptune? They would be
closer in colour than Jupiter or Saturn. (Making the assumption, of
course, that they were the same colour as now, although, obviously, that
could change. In which case, how?)
4) Why *not* Saturn with rings to account for the concentric structures in
the art images?
> So the major reason to "predict" a sun/saturn connection no longer
> exists; there is no "prediction" here at all. In fact, the tracking
> of all the planets through literally earth-shaking catastrophe
> seems a *major* weakness of the theory, not a strength at all.
Ah, that was #5:
5) If the ancients were so busy simply dealing with the effects of
"catastrophe", how did they manage to precisely track the planets tossed
out of the "Saturn Configuration" until they waned into their present
"wandering star-like" appearance to the naked eye? It seems to me that if
there was not potential for confusion before, Jupiter and Saturn would
start looking *awfully* similar eventually, and differ only in position.
If busy trying to deal with burning petroleum from the sky, it might not
be easy to track any of the bodies involved.
> Further, it shows how the physical interpretation can be swapped around.
> Talbott disagrees, but it seems to me the main reason not to substitute
> other non-planetary-stack physical causes for the mythic imagery is
> Talbott's prejudice, not any compelling feature of the mythic themes
> themselves. After all, if one can swap around between a ring structure
> and a shadow on a spherical surface, I see no particular reason not to
> take the physical causes of the imagery to be a bit more metaphorical
> than Talbott is willing to do.
And, hey, why not some of the other superficially similar gas
giant planets while you are at it?
> As I say, IMO this point is illustrative; the myths *don't* really pin
> down a physical interpretation nearly as well as Talbott thinks; Talbott
> himself is flexible within limits, and those limits don't seem to me to
> be ... call it "data driven".
Well, it is an impression I share, but I am open to explanations
why, for example, Jupiter must be rejected, Saturn did not have rings at
the time, it could not be Uranus or Neptune, there could not have been
some "mixup in the confusion", etc. These (except #1) are questions that
exist even within the confines of the mythological "data", so they should
be no trouble for Dave, for example, to answer. I am not looking for
anything complicated as an answer either. The absence of the rings was
something I incorporated into the 3D models I constructed, but I still
would like to know why. It took me a while to get the Cassini division
correct on the original version with rings :-)
Matt Silberstein
ianTr...@easynet.co.uk (Ian Tresman) wrote:
>ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>>Ian Tresman (ianTr...@easynet.co.uk) wrote:
>>: 1. It will be found that the planets Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn
>>: were once in different orbits. [I have no idea how this would be
>>: tested: on Star Trek they would check for tachyon particles or
>>: something. Perhaps it is possible that planets leave a signature as
>>: they travel through space, eg. atmospheric components.]
>>Number 1 is a *possible*
>>prediction, but not in that form. I'd cast is as "Deep
>>space photography (or whatever) will reveal that a very
>>massive dark body passed through the solar system about
>>20,000 (or whatever number) of years ago. Given sufficient
>>observation of the massive dark body its space trajectory
>>can be computed.
>I'm not sure why (1) is not a prediction in its current form. It is
>currently accepted that Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn have all been
>pretty much in the same orbits since their creation. A passing 'dark
>body' might be an accepted explanation, but an explanation is not
>required. *If* it turns out that, for example, the order of the
>planets Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn was at some time different in
>the past, then the "prediction" must have been valid.
It is not a prediction because it is so open.
>>: 1. It will be found that the planets Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn
>>: were once in different orbits.
What obits? Different at the same time? You have to put some numbers and
contraints to it. Would a million miles closer to the Sun be different
and so fit the prediction? How about a million miles farther? How about
6 feet?
Andrew MacRae
In article <medved.838763220@access5> med...@access5.digex.net (Ted
> t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
>
> >> The claim is that Tim Thompson (not me) is claiming that Taylor is an
> >> idiot, or at least making statements which add up that way. The
[no, Ted is claiming Taylor is an idiot]
..
> That's BS. I claim that Taylor's analysis of the data is the best and
> most honest which could be had IF one assumes that thermal balance must
> actually pertain, i.e. if one rejects apriori or is not aware of
> Velikovsky's explaination of the surface heat.
Does Velikovsky's explanation involve the generation of heat from
the interior of Venus, through its currently rocky surface? If so, then
it was considered.
> >This is easily determined by considering Holden's
> >rather lame excuse for an idea in light of what Taylor actually says.
> >If you actually examine the now infamous page 658 in the now infamous
> >book "Venus" you will see that Taylor actually considers the very
> >position that Holden
> >has advocated. Taylor, after due consideration, then rejected the idea,
> >on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the rest of the data on
> >Venus. Taylor says ...
Exactly.
..
>
> Again, Taylor is merely claiming that that the .80 actual reading is too
> high and the .76 computed (via a formula based upon assuming thermal
> balance) the value which will most likely turn up correct, because he is
> not aware of any body of theory which would predict excess surface heat
> and/or thermal imbalance.
No, he is more specific than that. He cites evidence which
*falsifies* any conceivable model for generating that heat via geological
sources. His reasoning is sound. You have *not* formulated and presented
a theory for generation of geological heat that is consistent with the
evidence he cites. The only model you have proposed is one where magic
magma fountains (to go along with your "resurfacing fairy" :-)) actively
support mountains and steep cliffs of kilometres altitude without
betraying their existence in the form of huge amounts of *current* igneous
activity -- current activity for which there is no evidence on the scale
required to produce the needed amount of heat, 10x that of Io, and 300x
that of Earth from geological sources.
..
> Let me state flat out: I regard Tim Thompson as an idiot; I do not
> regard F.W. Taylor as an idiot. I hope that is sufficiently clear.
Then you must accept Taylor's statement that the features on the
surface of Venus are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the "thermal
imbalance" is due to geological heat sources from the interior of the
planet. I do not care who you think is an "idiot", your claims are
inconsistent with the evidence, and they are equally inconsistent with
Taylor's interpretation. If you think Taylor did not consider
Velikovsky's model simply because he did not say, "And I considered
Velikovsky's model, but rejected it because I am hopelessly biased", you
are wrong. He considered it amply by the phrase "internal heat sources",
and "even if such sources were postulated". Unless Velikovsky was
proposing nuclear fission, fusion, chemical reactions, or something else
to generate the needed heat, it got considered and rejected on the basis
of evidence which is still valid.
..
Ian Tresman
>: 1. It will be found that the planets Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn
>: were once in different orbits. [I have no idea how this would be
>: tested: on Star Trek they would check for tachyon particles or
>: something. Perhaps it is possible that planets leave a signature as
>: they travel through space, eg. atmospheric components.]
>Number 1 is a *possible*
>prediction, but not in that form. I'd cast is as "Deep
>space photography (or whatever) will reveal that a very
>massive dark body passed through the solar system about
>20,000 (or whatever number) of years ago. Given sufficient
>observation of the massive dark body its space trajectory
>can be computed.
I'm not sure why (1) is not a prediction in its current form. It is
currently accepted that Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn have all been
pretty much in the same orbits since their creation. A passing 'dark
body' might be an accepted explanation, but an explanation is not
required. *If* it turns out that, for example, the order of the
planets Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn was at some time different in
the past, then the "prediction" must have been valid.
Ian Tresman, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/sis/
Andrew MacRae
In article <152...@cup.portal.com> Floyd_...@cup.portal.com writes:
> Once we get all the details of Saturn resolved there is still the
> repeated connections to the earth that leaves the earth/moon/year
> relations largely intact.
..
> Then we get to the objections of Tim Thompson that there is no
> evidence of the earth's crust melting from these encounters. This crust
> melting is an old wives tale dreamed up for the "Scop Monkey Trial" to
> support creation.
Are you joking? Are you a troll?
> The fact is it takes friction to convert mechanical motion to heat
> and the heat will be generated at those friction point(s). This gives
> very high temperature in places that is prevented from spreading over
> the surface of the earth by the insulating factor of the earth (about
> 60,000 per mile).
So, you are saying the solution to the friction problem is
insulation? I'm sorry, but there would still be copious amounts of melt
generated. Even for smaller-scale faults with displacements of metres,
layers of friction melt (pseudotachylite) are generated. The process you
describe would requires many orders of magnitude more energy, and many
times more extensive in effect (global). The same amount of heat would be
generated with plenty of insulation, and you would have a new problem:
reversals occur often enough (every few thousand to million years) that
after a few of them, that the heat probably could not escape in the time
allotted. Each reversal would cause more and more melting at depth in the
crust, generating more and more rising magma bodies, until eventually so
much lava was reaching the surface that you would end up with an Earth
surface looking not unlike Io.
Current heat fluxes from the crust of the Earth are very low.
> There is some mention of perhaps an electro-magnetic method. I
> suspect this was dreamed up by people who do not understand
> electromagnetics.
That would be magnetohydrodynamics, which is vastly more
complicated than electromagnetics, because it combines electromagnetic and
fluid dynamic processes in a wonderously complicated self-affecting
system. See:
Glatzmaier, G.A. and Roberts, P.H., 1995 (Sept. 21). A three-dimensional
self-consistent computer simulation of a geomagnetic field reversal.
Nature, v.377, p.203-209.
> It is my humble understanding that energy is only transferable. If
> it is converted to heat it is lost as far as using it to power up
> mechanical rotation. It can be done as in engines but they are usually
> less than 50% efficient. In nature it is usually less than 1%.
Think about dragging a mountain down the highway at several
kilometres per hour (or whatever speed you are envisioning). Try to
imagine what the contact between the mountain and the road would look like
after dragging for a while. Now picture the mountain is actually the size
of the entire globe, and is tens of kilometres thick.
I have no idea why people are so fascinated by the idea of
*magnetic* pole reversals having something to do with *geographic* pole
reversals. The latter is physically impossible, and the mechanisms
proposed to accomplish it are ridiculous. Ice caps? They are a coat of
paint on the surface of a bowling ball. A few kilometres on the radius of
a globe over 6000km in diameter? The ice caps will not have an effect on
the "rotation" of the Earth's crust any more than the paint on the surface
of a bowling ball affects its travel significantly.
Even if these physical problems are ignored, the evidence is
inconsistent with the proposed model. Magnetic reversals do not have a
statistically-significant correlation with extinctions or other surface
events (with the possible exception of the Cretaceous Quiet Zone, which
may have had increased volcanism associated with it).
> There may be some mechanism for storing the energy and using it to
> re-spin the earth but I can not visualize it.
..
> IMHO the violent tides, earth quakes and mountains pushing up comes
> from the *REEL* of the earth's crust.
What "violent tides, earthquakes, and mountains pushing up" are
you talking about?
> This should need only a medium to
> small meteor to start as long as there was sufficient time for the POLAR
> ICE CAPS imbalance the crust.
There is no evidence that the "POLAR ICE CAPS" could "imbalance
the crust". Figure out the relative mass and geometry. The effect is
minimal. The major effect is isostatic adjustment due to the weight of
the ice (i.e. up and down), not lateral force. Even if they could, there
is no evidence that, despite many magnetic reversals in the last few
million years, the rotational poles have been anywhere but approximately
their current location (the continents, however, have moved independently
with respect to eachother and the rotational poles at extremely slow
rates).
> Once the crust starts to move the energy
> stored in the rotation is sufficient to do the rest. Including to melt
> a lava bearing for the crust to turn on. This heat liberated miles below
> the surface would be insulated from the earth's surface.
But after a few more of these "reelings", something pretty
catastrophic would start happening. There have been seven major magnetic
reversals in the last 2 million years, plus many other smaller events.
The heat must be disposed of, not merely delayed in its expression at the
surface.
David N. Talbott
This one from <8387...@sheol.org> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne
Throop) deserves to be printed in full:
I had written:
>: Predicting something in advance is psychologically effective, but does
>: not inherently increase the explanatory power of a hypothesis beyond
>: the ability of the thesis to account for facts "retroactively".
>: [...]
>: For example, many years ago, based on cross cultural comparisons, I
>: had concluded that the ancient sun god was a planet, specifically
>: *Saturn*. One of several reasons for this was the great crescent
>: wrapped around the sphere of the god.
>: As it turned out, [...] in the earliest Greek manuscripts in which the
>: name of the planet Saturn occurs, the name is *Helios*, the "sun".
>Actually, this point is one of my reasons for skepticism of the
>saturn thesis. The "crescent wrapped around the sphere" was
>(correct me if I'm wrong) interpreted as a ring structure.
>Hence, saturn. Hence the identity of saturn/sun.
>Yet this whole chain of inference was later thrown out; the current
>version of the saturn thesis involves no ring structure, and the
>crescents are attributed to shadows on a planetary "stack".
>So the major reason to "predict" a sun/saturn connection no longer
>exists; there is no "prediction" here at all. In fact, the tracking
>of all the planets through literally earth-shaking catastrophe
>seems a *major* weakness of the theory, not a strength at all.
>Further, it shows how the physical interpretation can be swapped around.
>Talbott disagrees, but it seems to me the main reason not to substitute
>other non-planetary-stack physical causes for the mythic imagery is
>Talbott's prejudice, not any compelling feature of the mythic themes
>themselves. After all, if one can swap around between a ring structure
>and a shadow on a spherical surface, I see no particular reason not to
>take the physical causes of the imagery to be a bit more metaphorical
>than Talbott is willing to do.
>As I say, IMO this point is illustrative; the myths *don't* really pin
>down a physical interpretation nearly as well as Talbott thinks; Talbott
>himself is flexible within limits, and those limits don't seem to me to
>be ... call it "data driven".
It happens that the actual history of the reconstruction will suggest a
polar opposite form Wayne's conclusion. The process of reconstruction
always began with identifying the root forms behind the symbols to see if
different symbols might refer to the *same* celestial form. In each
instance, only after identifying the celestial forms did I begin to ponder
how planetary bodies or other phenomena might have cooperated to
produce those forms. The identified forms have stood up incredibly well,
while the progression of the research has required periodic amendments of
the suggested explanations.
In 1972, I began to notice a strange but *repeated* role of a celestial
crescent that seemed to have to no connection to the behavior of our
Moon. In the earliest astral symbolism, this crescent appears in both
texts and pictographs to be wrapped around the ancient "sun"--a bizarre
relationship left unexplained in conventional treatments.
Subsequently, I began to discern mythic expressions of the crescent
beyond the abstract form. These included: the shining horns of the Bull
of Heaven, the twin peaks of the world mountain, and two extended arms
of a heaven-sustaining giant (who turned out to be a form of the hero). A
crescent appearing as two horns does not seem illogical. But a crescent
appearing as twin peaks, or two extended arms does seem highly
incongruous as a recurring pattern. (Those familiar with the Saturn
theory will understand how the polar column provides the missing component,
enabling the crescent to fulfill its symbolic roles as twin arms/twin
peaks.)
Then I began to notice repeated associations of these crescent forms with
alternating positions around a center. The alternating positions were
being presented in relation to two halves of a *daily cycle*. But none of this
could find even a remote connection to the motions of the crescent Moon.
There was a point at which I realized that the crescent could only be
understood in its ancient contexts by placing it at the celestial pole, so
that as the earth rotated the crescent revolved with the cycle of day and
night. This was particularly significant because I had already noticed
four mutually reinforcing themes: 1) Saturn as ancient sun, superior sun,
best sun, 2) the myth of the central, or motionless sun 3) the repeated
statement in early astronomies, that Saturn formerly occupied the
celestial pole, 4) the universal symbolism of the celestial pole as the original
station of the "sun" god.
To explain the revolving crescent I was working with two ideas. The idea
of a band or enclosure, and the idea of a central or stationary orb. So I
imagined a spectacular torus-cloud around Saturn, this cloud illuminated
by the sun in such a way as to present to the terrestrial observer a giant
illuminated semi-circle or crescent embracing the orb of Saturn. That
idea did seem to work in explaining the celestial forms I had uncovered up to
that point.
The problem was that I began to find things that didn't work under the
hypothesis--including the extraordinarily consistent roles of Mars and
Venus. The bottom line is: I amended the hypothesis and the
contradictions disappeared. This was one of perhaps six or seven
instances in which, in order to acknowledge recurring themes left
unexplained by the hypothesis, I had to make amendments to it. In the
end, the result was a supreme confidence that recurring themes are,
indeed, a remarkably reliable guide to former experiences of which science
knows virtually nothing.
Even today, I am amazed at how well the celestial forms I first discerned
in 1972 have withstood every test of consistency (either by me or by
critics). All recurring themes are connected. No recurring themes answer
to anything experienced in our world today. That is an impossible
situation under conventional assumptions.
I will give an example showing how the crescent image served as
a predictor of key symbols and meanings. If the crescent provided the
world mountain with its twin peaks, then the model says that, in defiance
of modern concepts--the two peaks must have *revolved* in the sky. Not
only that, they must have stood in the inverted position above during the
phase of diminished light (what we would call the "noon" position) and
below in the phase of greatest brilliance (our "midnight). Hence the model
predicts a highly specific hieroglyphic meaning, challenging everything
the experts have ever said about Egyptian symbolism of the sun god. The
prediction meets, and exceeds, the test stated by Tim Thompson.
And what is the result of the test? It is this: numerous Egyptian texts,
and hieroglyphic symbols, and ritual art combine to describe the famous
twin peaks *revolving in the sky*--indeed, the hero *sails in a
circle* within the twin peaks--exactly as the Saturn model suggests.
Moreover, the twin peaks are depicted *upright* in relation to the phase
of brightness, and *inverted* in relation to the phase of decline. The
consistency with the role of the crescent in the model couldn't be more
precise. And the absence of any references today couldn't be more
obvious.
And just to add an exclamation point to the methodological issues. In
virtually every instance you can settle the issue of predictive ability
without resorting to subjective interpretations as all. Literal,
acknowledged meanings of ancient words and symbols will be quite
sufficient, as in the case just cited.
Dave
Christopher C. Wood
In article <4tr4f8$6...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
|> ianTr...@easynet.co.uk (Ian Tresman) wrote:
|> >ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
|> >>Ian Tresman (ianTr...@easynet.co.uk) wrote:
|> >>: 1. It will be found that the planets Earth, Mars, Venus and
|> >>: Saturn were once in different orbits. [I have no idea how this
|> >>: would be tested: on Star Trek they would check for tachyon
|> >>: particles or something. Perhaps it is possible that planets
|> >>: leave a signature as they travel through space, eg. atmospheric
|> >>: components.]
|> >>Number 1 is a *possible* prediction, but not in that form. I'd
|> >>cast is as "Deep space photography (or whatever) will reveal that
|> >>a very massive dark body passed through the solar system about
|> >>20,000 (or whatever number) of years ago. Given sufficient
|> >>observation of the massive dark body its space trajectory can be
|> >>computed.
|> >I'm not sure why (1) is not a prediction in its current form. It is
|> >currently accepted that Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn have all been
|> >pretty much in the same orbits since their creation.
Because it's not specific enough. Read this week's Science News; they
Becahave a feature piece about a dynamic analysis of the solar system,
and comets. It seems that Neptune fetches comets out of the Kupier
belt, and (eventually) perterbs the orbit of a comet until it crosses
the orbit of Uranus. Uranus does the same thing, until the comet
crosses the orbit of Saturn. Saturn hands it to Jupiter, and from
there, it's either life as a short-period comet, or out of the solar
system. A result of all this shuttling comets into the inner solar
system, each of the gas giants has shifted its orbit outward.
Is the original prediction correct? No, No, No, and Yes. Are Earth,
Mars, Venus, and Saturn pretty much in the same orbits since their
creation? Also yes -- these changes are thousands of miles, just a
few earth-diameters. Nothing significant, compared to the scale of
the solar system.
|> >A passing 'dark body' might be an accepted explanation, but an
|> >explanation is not required. *If* it turns out that, for example,
|> >the order of the planets Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn was at some
|> >time different in the past, then the "prediction" must have been
|> >valid.
|> It is not a prediction because it is so open.
Exactly.
|> >>: 1. It will be found that the planets Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn
|> >>: were once in different orbits.
|> What obits? Different at the same time? You have to put some
|> numbers and contraints to it. Would a million miles closer to the
|> Sun be different and so fit the prediction? How about a million
|> miles farther? How about 6 feet?
Or a few thousand miles, as actually is the case?
Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@CFAnet.com
Mark Isaak
On the subject of predictions, here's an easily tested one from the Once
Hollow Earth theory: In memory tests, mythic terms related to the former
chthonic realm will be more easily remembered than other terms of roughly
the same commonness. In particular, "underground", "cave", and "dark" will
be easier to remember than "Saturn" and "comet."
--
Mark Isaak "The first principle is that you must not
is...@aurora.com fool yourself, and you're the easiest
person to fool." - Richard Feynman
Mark Isaak
Velikovsky predicted Venus was hot enough to glow. In the same book, he
predicted it was cool enough to support insect life. His predictions on
Venus's heat were contradictory and in both cases wildly wrong. I have
difficulty imagining how Velikovsky could be more wrong if he tried.
Ian Tresman
Timothy.j...@jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>> 2. Radioactive decay constants will be found to have not always been
>> constant.
> As for #2, yes it would be a valid prediction, however, its logical
>connection to the Saturn Myth is rather suspect,
It has no direct connection with the Saturn Myth.
>radioactive decay "constants" could be variable without the planets moving
>around, and vice versa, so the aid and comfort given the Saturn Myth by
>#2 seems limited.
Agreed.
Ian Tresman
Timothy.j...@jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>> 3. Undiscovered mythological texts will be found to be consistent and
>> unstandable only in the context of the "Saturn Myth".
> Number 3 isn't a prediction because it is to vague. A better example
>would be to predict a specific theme, one currently unknown in any body
>of myth. If that theme is subsequently discovered, then you may have
>scored a point.
Would this include or exclude the research already carried out by Dave
Talbott, Dwardu Cardona and Ev Cochrane, and is currently unknown to
'conventional' mythologists? Otherwise, I don't see how a specific
theme could be specified.
For example, the 'theme' that there is confusion between the identity
of the solar Sun and the planet Saturn as the sun is currenly unknown
in conventional mythology.
ev.co...@ames.net
Perhaps the following example will serve as the kind of
evidence we are looking for. Although there is a wealth
of evidence for the worship of Venus and Mars in the
New World, much of which corresponds in a striking manner
with that found in the Old World (Venus is described as
a great serpent, for example), one of the most important
missing pieces is some explicit statement that the planet
Saturn once served as the ancient sun-god. I would
expect this to be forthcoming in the not-too-distant
future. I wouldn't be surprised if such evidence already
exists in the Maya language, hitherto obscured by faulty
translations. I would also draw attention to the recent
discovery in the Amazon of a hitherto unknown culture
dating to many thousand years b.c. (the excavator estimates
it at 9-10,000 years b.c., if I remember correctly).
If enough records from this civilization have survived,
I would expect unequivocal evidence supporting the
Saturn-thesis, whether in the form of rock art or
some other means of communication. Needless to say,
if these Indians were proficient with cam-corders and
VCR's, I suspect confirmation of the Saturn-thesis is
near at hand.
--
Ev Cochrane
Editor/Publisher of Aeon
A Journal of Myth and Science
http://www.ames.net/aeon/
Email: ev.co...@ames.net
ev.co...@ames.net
A brief follow-up to my previous post describing the
recent discovery of a culture in the Amazon stemming
from c. 9000 BC. The excavator's name is Anna Roosevelt,
currently an archaeologist at the Univ. of Chicago (or
Illinois, or both, the article is not clear). A
summary of her preliminary findings can be found in
Science, Vol. 272, April 19th, 1995.
Robert Grumbine
Aside from preserving part of the subject line in consideration of
those who prefer to kill velikovskian threads, I'll have little
connection to the previous posts in this thread.
An interesting point: For quite some time, meteors (a celestial
phenomon) were thought to be atmospheric. I wonder if the Saturnist
reconstruction (to the extent that there is any meaningful consistency),
in making mythological events into celestial events, missed in the
other direction, mistaking atmospheric events for celestial.
Rings around the moon and sun are particularly simple in this light.
They occur naturally when there are ice crystals of the right sort
in the upper atmosphere. There are two main types, 22 degree and 44 degree
haloes. This gives a particular size to the haloes. Relatively
rare, but they do occur, are crescent haloes and some truly amazing
structures (you'll have to see the pictures, I can't describe them).
Many of these are photographed in a book by ?Walter Tape. The
crescent and elaborate haloes are sufficiently rare to be well-deserving
of a myth or two. (The 22 and 44 degree haloes are routine events
-- yearly at least -- even at unfavorable locations.) As the required
ingredients are sun and atmosphere, one would expect these myths to
be global.
On a different tack, let us consider the 'serpent's tail', associated
or not with Venus. There are clouds which are known to the professional
community as 'mare's tail' these days. The more formal types call them
comma clouds. What they are is cirrus clouds which have developed convection
cells and produce snow. The ball of the comma is the convective cell,
and the tail (comma, mare, serpent) is the snow shaft. These clouds
are more or less ordinary depending on where you are. The relevance to
mythology would be to consider the striking picture one can get with
Venus in proximity to a mare's tail. Only Venus (and perhaps Jupiter)
are bright enough to be visible at the same time as the clouds are
visible. Again, any myth relating to this striking event would be
expected to be global.
The above events recur routinely (though not on schedule). This,
I think, is important. The Velikovskian/Saturnist reconstructions
are based on myths they date to 3500 and more years ago. Cities
simply weren't very large then. There were therefore rather few
people available to _make_ a myth of some event. Of those even
present, rather few would have the literary ability to make a
_memorable_ myth of even a memorable event. If the event were
singular, it thus becomes difficult to envision how it is that
stories about it were developed throughout the world (we'll concede
this point for the sake of argument). On the other hand, if the
event is something that happens, on average, once every generation,
and we get to accumulate our myths for 100 generations, then it
isn't so surprising that sooner or later a memorable even occurred
in front of someone capable of developing a memorable story about it.
--
Bob Grumbine rm...@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
ev.co...@ames.net
Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
> Aside from preserving part of the subject line in consideration of
> those who prefer to kill velikovskian threads, I'll have little
> connection to the previous posts in this thread.
>
> An interesting point: For quite some time, meteors (a celestial
> phenomon) were thought to be atmospheric. I wonder if the Saturnist
> reconstruction (to the extent that there is any meaningful consistency),
> in making mythological events into celestial events, missed in the
> other direction, mistaking atmospheric events for celestial.
Naturally, this idea has occurred to us. And, no, your
meteorological explanation of the imagery associated with
the Saturn-thesis will not work. Leroy Ellenberger has long
attempted to explain the so-called cup mark pictographs in
a similar manner, failing miserably. I would hate to think
that Leroy has now found his first and only convert to his
way of thinking. The bottom line is really quite simple: The
ancients claimed to be creating images of the celestial bodies
(Venus, the ancient sun-god, etc.). They identified those
images with the various planets, which they observed with
great care and detail. A quick reading of the Babylonian
astronomical texts will convince you that these guys knew
what they were doing. And yes they mentioned meteorological
phenomena, being perfectly familiar with all sorts of exotic
atmospheric apparitions. It is precisely because of their
astronomical sophistication and familiarity with atmospheric
anomalies that they *could not possibly* have mistaken
Venus as a comet with some ephemeral atmospheric
phenomenon. The peoples of Mesopotamia worshipped
Venus with great fervor and devotion for some three
millennia before developing the world's first astronomy.
I, for one, think it likely they knew what they were
talking about when they labeled Saturn the ancient sun-god,
described Venus in terminology otherwise befitting a
comet, and associated Mars with great eclipses. When
they depicted Venus set upon the face of the ancient
sun-god, or set within the horns of a celestial crescent,
or described Mars setting within (or moving in front
of) Venus, you can bet your bottom dollar they knew
what they were doing. The reason is very simple:
Other peoples around the world preserved the same
pictures and told the same stories.
Here's a challenge for you Robert: It is obvious that
you are a bright guy with a penchant for examining
bizarre hypotheses like the Saturn-thesis. And for
that we are grateful. Why don't you do yourself
(and us) a favor and examine our evidence for yourself?
If you will read Talbott's classic article "The Ship
of Heaven", for example, you will find unequivocal
proof that the Sun described by the ancients did not
rise in the east and set in the west. If this is true--
and it is--you don't have to be a genius to see the
implications for modern astronomy and the conventional
understanding of the history of the solar system.
I would also direct you to my article "Suns and
Planets in Neolithic Rock Art," which provides a good
summary of the bizarre images found on cave walls
throughout the ancient world. Both of these articles
can be found at my web site or at Ted's. If you have
any difficulty locating them, or have any further
questions, I'll be happy to help.
Robert Grumbine
In Message-ID: <32050C...@ames.net> Ev Cochrane wrote:
>Robert Grumbine wrote:
You know, Ev, since you spoke recently about how well you cite
things, it would be nice if you'd preserve the usual news headers.
>> An interesting point: For quite some time, meteors (a celestial
>> phenomon) were thought to be atmospheric. I wonder if the Saturnist
>> reconstruction (to the extent that there is any meaningful consistency),
>> in making mythological events into celestial events, missed in the
>> other direction, mistaking atmospheric events for celestial.
>
>Naturally, this idea has occurred to us.
That's a good start.
>And, no, your
>meteorological explanation of the imagery associated with
>the Saturn-thesis will not work. Leroy Ellenberger has long
>attempted to explain the so-called cup mark pictographs in
>a similar manner, failing miserably. I would hate to think
>that Leroy has now found his first and only convert to his
>way of thinking.
Whether this is a theory of Leroy's or not, I don't know.
The fault, if any, is my own.
In asserting that the ancients were quite familiar with
relatively rare meteorological phenomena, I'm afraid that
you're quite unfaimiliar with the history of meteorology.
Quite of lot of things which are now considered obvious
were not obvious as little as a century or two ago, even
among strictly observational phenomena.
>Here's a challenge for you Robert: It is obvious that
>you are a bright guy with a penchant for examining
>bizarre hypotheses like the Saturn-thesis. And for
>that we are grateful. Why don't you do yourself
>(and us) a favor and examine our evidence for yourself?
Well, you know, it took some weeks to get an answer even to the
matter of whether miles high tides were part of your current
constructions. This is a point that is answerable (or ought to have
been) off the cuff on your part. I was set to bring substantial
apparatus to bear on the matter, but you wouldn't even answer whether it
was even a point in your field.
I've sent Dave Talbott my address two or three different times in
hopes (which I was lead to believe would be fulfilled) of getting a
copy of Robert Bass's article which is purported by Talbott to prove
that the planets will relax to a Bode's Law configuration in only a few
centuries. Two months and counting with no paper.
I've sent Talbott and Kronia communications my address for them to be
able to send me a copy of the video which has been advertised and which
I was invited to review. Also two months and no video.
During the period the Grubaugh model was under discussion, I and
others made quite a few attempts to find out exactly what the model was,
how implemented, what the initial conditions were, etc etc. Each of
these, very elementary, requests required an extended period to get any
sort of answer. Some of the questions, I don't think were ever
satisfactoraly answered. Then, this year, Talbott mentions that there
was a gas cloud present in the reconstruction, which has always been
part of the reconstruction, and which wasn't in the Grubaugh model, but
is dynamically significant. This last leaves an especially bad taste.
It is saying that you want something studied, but won't put all the
cards on the table for study.
For the most part, I have stayed with the physical side of the
discussions. You comment that I'm a bright guy. (Thank you) Part of
that brightness is to realize that I don't know everything and
am not going to. Hence my prior comment to Talbott about the curse of
the amateur. That applies to me as much as anyone else.
You invite me to read Talbott's article which you say gives
unequivocal proof of the sun did not rise in the east and set in the
west. To name a different article, that I have already requested a copy
of, consider how I expect to read and review Bass's Bode's Law article.
The general subject, celestial mechanics, is one which I have studied
(on my own, granted, but studied), and one which relies on methods from
classical mechanics (which I know), probably Bass is using variational
mechanics in the approach (which again, I know), and the apparatus is
some medium-advanced mathematics, of a type that I know. In reading
that paper, then, I expect to re-derive every piece of it that looks
significant, and I expect to be able to identify what is significant.
Further, since I know something about the subject independant of what
the paper says, I expect to be able to identify what was left out.
The last point is quite important. In a serious review of a paper,
the reviewer is supposed to be knowledgeable enough to know what wasn't
included, in order to be able to tell if the paper is a proper
representation of the subject at hand. Consider in contrast the
position I'd be in when reading Talbott's paper(s). He writes that
this myth says X. Do I know the particular myth? No. I have to take
his word for it. He says that 'all' cultures have myths saying X. Do I
know myths from all cultures? No. Even if he refers to a myth and gives
a source for it that I can find (unlikely given my presently
impoverished library resources), do I know that the source is a good
translation? I only speak one language fluently and the other two I can
piece through are modern. I would have to read translations. Reading
in translation is a further level of taking someone's word.
Now, it is possible to read something, taking the author's word that
everything he says is true, and still prove that his conclusion (or the
conclusion that someone else reaches regarding the paper) is wrong.
I've done that before. It is a very uninteresting project though,
and I have no shortage of projects.
Much more interesting is when the people who are expert in the Saturn
thesis can provide a physical implication of that theory, or at least
describe it in enough detail that I can derive an implication from it.
Two we have currently regard the 'north polar bulge' and the presence of
dust from mars in the ice caps, both presented by Talbott. In both
cases, the prediction made by the Saturn thesis is wrong. It is wrong
_regardless_ of any subtlety of 'standard' science. It is wrong based
on simple (to science) present day direct observation. If you and Dave
were to modify your reconstruction in response to these simple facts,
we could have a very interesting project indeed. You, the experts in
your theory, describe what you expect to see in the physical record, and
people who are knowledgeable about the physical record tell you what is
really there, and you modify your theory where it is wrong and can be
pleased where it turns out not to conflict with observation.
Floyd_...@cup.portal.com
The news about the earth's solid core with it's magnetic field
rotating once every 400 years raises the question "If the core is
solid how does the magnetic field flip"?
The liquid core around the solid core has electric currents that
generate a magnetic field. This should add or subtract from the field
in the core. The magnetic field we see on earth should be the vector
sum of the two.
If the magnetic field does not "FLIP" the reverse magnatism in the
lava flows may best be explained by the crust reversing.
Timothy J. Thompson (t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov) writes
> As physical models go, the "reeling crust" model just dosen't work.
Maybe we should get a new model. The reeling crust would explain
many things that mainline science can not explain and choose to ignore.
Still we do not want to violate any rules of physics in the process.
Floyd
Jamie Schrumpf
In article <32050C...@ames.net>, ev.co...@ames.net says...
>
>Here's a challenge for you Robert: It is obvious that
>you are a bright guy with a penchant for examining
>bizarre hypotheses like the Saturn-thesis. And for
>that we are grateful. Why don't you do yourself
>(and us) a favor and examine our evidence for yourself?
>of Heaven", for example, you will find unequivocal
>proof that the Sun described by the ancients did not
>rise in the east and set in the west. If this is true--
>and it is--you don't have to be a genius to see the
>implications for modern astronomy and the conventional
>understanding of the history of the solar system.
>I would also direct you to my article "Suns and
>Planets in Neolithic Rock Art," which provides a good
>summary of the bizarre images found on cave walls
>throughout the ancient world. Both of these articles
>can be found at my web site or at Ted's. If you have
>any difficulty locating them, or have any further
>questions, I'll be happy to help.
>
Question: before the invention of the compass, there were no such directions
as North, South, East, and West, and I believe that the compass is a
relatively recent invention (within the last millenia). So by what criteria
are you judging "unequivocal proof that the Sun described by the ancients did
not rise in the east and set in the west"? Is it something along the lines of
Mayan reports of the sun setting over the Atlantic, or is it a little more
abstract?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schrumpf http://www.access.digex.net/~moncomm
"It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as
it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as
you have got it." --- Edmund Way Teale, "Circle of the Seasons"
Paul J. Gans
David N. Talbott (dtal...@teleport.com) wrote:
[Long quote from Wayne Throop deleted]
: It happens that the actual history of the reconstruction will suggest a
There is at least one major objection that can be raised.
Another recurring motif in ancient texts from the very early
middle east is the idea that the earth is flat and the
heavens an inverted bowl over it. This bowl is freqently
mentioned as being held up by giant mountains.
As a result of this belief, it was common in the middle east
to build artificial mountains (real ones being in scarce
supply) for religious purposes, thus one became closer to
God (or the gods). Hence pyramids, ziggurats, etc. This
idea can be found expressed in several places in the older
parts of the Old Testament.
I advance this point to show that, not only are there alternative
explanations for some of Talbott's myths, but to show that there
is, in fact, physical evidence supporting this alternative
evidence. Talbott's theory does NOT explain why folks in the
ancient middle east thought the earth flat, nor does it explain
why one build artificial mountains when real ones were lacking.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Tim Thompson
In article <3209766d...@news.easynet.co.uk>, ianTr...@easynet.co.uk
(Ian Tresman) writes:
> Timothy.j...@jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>> [Tresman ... ]
>>> 3. Undiscovered mythological texts will be found to be consistent and
>>> unstandable only in the context of the "Saturn Myth".
> [Thompson ... ]
>> Number 3 isn't a prediction because it is to vague. A better example
>> would be to predict a specific theme, one currently unknown in any body
>> of myth. If that theme is subsequently discovered, then you may have
>> scored a point.
[Tresman ... ]
> Would this include or exclude the research already carried out by Dave
> Talbott, Dwardu Cardona and Ev Cochrane, and is currently unknown to
> 'conventional' mythologists? Otherwise, I don't see how a specific
> theme could be specified.
>
> For example, the 'theme' that there is confusion between the identity
> of the solar Sun and the planet Saturn as the sun is currenly unknown
> in conventional mythology.
Personally, I suggest that it is also unknown to Talbott, Cochrane and
Cardona, despite protests to the contrary. There is a real confusion here
caused by the intermingling of mutually incompatible ideas. Tresman rightly
points out "I don't see how a specific theme could be specified." Neither do I.
Mythology is not science, and should not (in general at least) be held to
the same standards of evidence and "proof" to which science is held. Yet in
bringing up the matter of predicting specific themes, I have done just that,
so as to illustrate the obvious point: mythology really is not science.
However, celestial mechanics and the operation of the solar system is science,
and must be held to the higher standard of evidence and "proof"; the mechanism
of hypothesis -> prediction -> verification must be in full operation.
Some of what Talbott et al. have done might be legitimately called "research",
the idea of comparing linguistic roots, or common themes, but their amateur
status in these areas shows rather clearly. Much of what they have done does not
merit the title of "research" at all, as it really amounts to no more than
"reading a lot of books", which is not quite the same thing. It should be fairly
obvious that the entity we call "The Saturn Myth" is an entirely ad-hoc creation.
Its link to any "evidence" exists entirely in the interpretation, which as often
as not is strained to say the least. This kind of ad-hoc procedure is of little
interest even to mythology, and no interest at all to celestial mechanics.
All of the mytho-historical arguments in the world cannot alter the basic
fact that the Saturn Myth is entirely useless in the absence of a clear
physical description/explanation. Talbott, Cochrane & Cardona cannot provide
this, if ony by virtue of their self-admitted ignorance of things physical.
However, it appears that their physical gurus (Grubaugh, Driscoll and Bass
have been named thus far) are also quite unable to do so; despite having
20 years or so to get the job done, they have yet to provide anything that
goes beyond the most primitive level of analysis. This is a very un-inspiring
performance.
In the absence of a clear physical analysis, the Saturn Myth is best described
as an empty page.
Tim
> A brief follow-up to my previous post describing the
> recent discovery of a culture in the Amazon stemming
> from c. 9000 BC. The excavator's name is Anna Roosevelt,
> currently an archaeologist at the Univ. of Chicago (or
> Illinois, or both, the article is not clear).
Actually, it says "University of Illinois at Chicago".
It appears that Cochrane read the News item, but not the
main paper.
> A
> summary of her preliminary findings can be found in
> Science, Vol. 272, April 19th, 1995.
1996
See pp 346-347 for the News Item (by the editors) ...
"First Americans: Not Mammoth Hunters, But Forest Dwellers?"
The main paper is ...
"Paleoindian Cave Dwellers in the Amazon: The Peopling of the Americas"
by A.C. Roosevelt et al. [16 authors]
[Field Museun of Chicago and University of Illinois at Chicago]
pp 373-384
The site in question is a cave off the north bank of the Amazon River
(actually off Rio Paituna which flows into Rio Gurupatuba which flows into
Rio Amazonas); map coordinates ...
01 deg 59 min 46.148 sec South Latitude
54 deg 04 min 16.413 sec West Longitude
Physical evidence consists of stone tool artifacts, petroglyphs, and carbonized
plant meterial. There are 56 radio-carbon dates and several additional
luminescence dates, all consistent. The Earliest habitation is circa 11200
years ago, with a time-line determined from stratigraphy that extends up to
the time of the invasion of the Amazon by European explorers/conquistadors.
The Earliest inhabitants appear to be fisher/gatherers rather than hunters.
This is contemporary with the mammoth hunting Clovis culture of the New
Mexico area (despite Ted Holden, they did hunt mammoth, a fact atested to
by arrow heads found inside the mammoth skeletons).
The implication appears to be that culture flourished rather earlier than
expected in South America, 5000 miles from the Clovis folks. The significant
differences also indicate a broader range of adaptibility than previously
thought. I didn't have time to study it, but the paper looks quite interesting.
ev.co...@ames.net
As Dave and I have shown in several articles, and as I
intend to document at great length in the forthcoming
issue of Aeon, the most ancient accounts of the sun god's
daily cycle show him "rising" and "setting" upon the
same celestial mount--i.e., in the same place. This
is because the ancient sun-god did not move. As Dave
has shown, the ancient sun-god (Shamash, Ra, Helios, etc.)
was actually the planet Saturn and, given the unique
mechanics of the polar configuration, it did not appear
to move because it shared an axis of rotation in common
with Earth.
Naturally, the widespread memory of a time when the
sun did not move, but grew brilliant over the same
mountain has been a source of puzzlement to the greatest
of scholars. Witness the following remark of de
Santillana and von Dechend in Hamlet's Mill:
Speaking of Heidel's translation of a passage in
the Gilgamesh Epic: "That the Mashu mountain(s) [watches
over the sun] does so every day, as translated by Heidel,
Speiser, and others, is obviously wrong. Even if we
stipulate, for the sake of peace, the idea of a
terrestrial mountain, the sun is not in the habit of
rising on the same spot every day, and it needs no
profound astronomical knowledge to become aware of
this fact." (p. 293)
Hope this helps.
Tim Thompson
> rotating once every 400 years raises the question "If the core is
> solid how does the magnetic field flip"?
The Earth's magnetic field does not come from the solid core, it comes
from the fluid outer core, where the fluid motion generates the field.
The motion of the solid core probably affects the field, but I am not
sure what the affect is.
> The liquid core around the solid core has electric currents that
> generate a magnetic field. This should add or subtract from the field
> in the core. The magnetic field we see on earth should be the vector
> sum of the two.
No. The entire magnetic field comes from the outer fluid core, none is
generated by the solid inner core directly. But the motion of the inner
core is one ingredient in the mix. The interplay between the fluid motions
and the direction of the magnetic pole is not so simple, it is not the
vector sum of the two, nor is it any other easily characterized vector
sum. The proper mathematical description requires integration of the
equations for fluid motion in the outer core.
> If the magnetic field does not "FLIP" the reverse magnatism in the
> lava flows may best be explained by the crust reversing.
The field does "flip". Relatively small changes in the motion of the
fluid can cause the field to reverse polarity. The mathematical equations
are symmetric and don't care what direction the pole points in. The result
is that there is no strong control over the polarity.
> Timothy J. Thompson (t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov) writes
>> As physical models go, the "reeling crust" model just dosen't work.
> Maybe we should get a new model. The reeling crust would explain
> many things that mainline science can not explain and choose to ignore.
> Still we do not want to violate any rules of physics in the process.
I agree, you need a new model.
Floyd_...@cup.portal.com
Ev Cochrane writes of old records of the sun rising in the west and
setting in the east. How many old records and what time frame?
Floyd
Paul J. Gans
Mark Isaak (is...@aurora.com) wrote:
: In article <medved.838347558@access5> med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
: >Take Velikovsky's most major correct PREdiction for instance, i.e. that
: >Venus would be found to be hot in keeping with the ancient descriptions ...
:
: Velikovsky predicted Venus was hot enough to glow. In the same book, he
: predicted it was cool enough to support insect life. His predictions on
: Venus's heat were contradictory and in both cases wildly wrong. I have
: difficulty imagining how Velikovsky could be more wrong if he tried.
Well, he *could* have insisted that Saturn hung unmoving in the
sky above the North Pole while Venus and maybe Mars yo-yo-ed
up and down the axial line connecting the Earth and Saturn, with
Jupiter hovering somewhere in the neighborhood watching Mars
and Venus trade atmospheres.
He never said anything that stupid, did he?
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
ev.co...@ames.net
Tim wrote:
>
> In article <3204DF...@ames.net>, ev.co...@ames.net writes:
>
> > A brief follow-up to my previous post describing the
> > recent discovery of a culture in the Amazon stemming
> > from c. 9000 BC. The excavator's name is Anna Roosevelt,
> > currently an archaeologist at the Univ. of Chicago (or
> > Illinois, or both, the article is not clear).
>
[interesting material deleted]
A good summary of Roosevelt's research can be found by
typing in "anna roosevelt" in alta vista. In an article
entitled "Archaeologist Unearths Early Human Cultures
in Amazon Cave," there can be found various color photos
of uneven quality showing early pictographs of celestial
objects. There the author writes: "In the lowest levels
of the cave, researchers found...cave paintings...dating
back more than 11000 years. The paintings depict humans,
animals, and composite creatures, along with geometric
and possibly astronomical designs. According to Roosevelt,
they may be among the oldest cave paintings yet found
in the Americas."
Amongst these paintings is one which looks more than a little
like the polar configuration. Other scholars have
observed that the picture resembles a comet. Although
I will personally reserve judgement as to the antiquity
of this site and its paintings, it is interesting to
find these ancient Indians likewise appear to have been
attracted to the imagery associated with celestial
phenomena.
Andrew MacRae
In article <152...@cup.portal.com> Floyd_...@cup.portal.com writes:
> The news about the earth's solid core with it's magnetic field
> rotating once every 400 years raises the question "If the core is
> solid how does the magnetic field flip"?
>
> generate a magnetic field. This should add or subtract from the field
> in the core. The magnetic field we see on earth should be the vector
> sum of the two.
See:
Glatzmaier, G.A. and Roberts, P.H., 1995 (Sept. 21). A three-dimensional
self-consistent computer simulation of a geomagnetic field reversal.
Nature, v.377, p.203-209.
Yes, the inner, solid core does seem to be essential to the
proces.
> If the magnetic field does not "FLIP" the reverse magnatism in the
> lava flows may best be explained by the crust reversing.
Then every reversal should be coincident with all sorts of other
evidence of the process and its effects on surface conditions.
> Timothy J. Thompson (t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov) writes
>
> > As physical models go, the "reeling crust" model just dosen't work.
>
> Maybe we should get a new model. The reeling crust would explain
> many things that mainline science can not explain and choose to ignore.
Like what? Magnetic reversals?
> Still we do not want to violate any rules of physics in the process.
That would be a worthy goal.
Burch Seymour
ev.co...@ames.net writes:
<snip>
> ... the most ancient accounts of the sun god's
>daily cycle show him "rising" and "setting" upon the
>same celestial mount--i.e., in the same place.
<snip>
>is because the ancient sun-god did not move.
<snip>
>was actually the planet Saturn and, given the unique
>mechanics of the polar configuration, it did not appear
>to move because it shared an axis of rotation in common with Earth.
Ev or Dave Please unconfuse me here. How can this sun-like-object(SLO)
not move, yet still rise and set?
Also is this a correct summary of your proposed configuration:
The SLO is (for the sake of this reference frame) fixed at point
X. The Earth is in orbit around the SLO, BUT with it pole pointed
at the SLO permanently (for the duration of this configuration).
The Earth is, however still rotating along the axis perpendicular
to the SLO.
Is that substantially what you are suggesting? Do you have any numbers
for SLO to Earth distance? Does your theory follow in something that
I recall Ted saying (or at least I think I recall Ted saying it)
that Saturn was actually a small "burning" star at that point in time.
Thanks.
-Burch-
David N. Talbott
From <Dvs7o...@encore.com> bsey...@encore.com (Burch Seymour:
>ev.co...@ames.net writes:
> <snip>
>> ... the most ancient accounts of the sun god's
>>daily cycle show him "rising" and "setting" upon the
>>same celestial mount--i.e., in the same place.
> <snip>
>>is because the ancient sun-god did not move.
> <snip>
>>was actually the planet Saturn and, given the unique
>>mechanics of the polar configuration, it did not appear
>>to move because it shared an axis of rotation in common with Earth.
>Ev or Dave Please unconfuse me here. How can this sun-like-object(SLO)
>not move, yet still rise and set?
As I pointed out just a couple of days ago, dilemmas of this sort arise
from the failure of translators to work with literal meanings of words.
In more than one ancient language, the words translated "rise" and "set"
actually relate to phases of brightness and dimming. The archaic,
motionless sun grows bright and grows dim at one spot, in relation to
a daily cycle. The daily cycle has its reference in a great crescent on
the "sun", with the period of declining brightness occurring as the
crescent moves above, and the period of growing brightness occurring as
the crescent moves below. Put a gas giant at the celestial pole, in
answer to the ancient astronomical tradition of the polar sun/polar
Saturn, then allow for solar illumination to place a crescent on Saturn.
As the Earth rotates you will get all of the features of the ancient daily
cycle.
But try to adapt the language, pictographs and symbols to our world and
you get the most transparent of contradictions.
In answer to your second question: The historical argument implies a
congregation of planets moving very close to the Earth and remaining in
conjunction during periods of stability, so that they appeared as
(roughly) concentric spheres. The suggested behavior of the Saturnian
crescent--in concert with other features of the configuration--makes
clear that the location of the planetary congregation was the celestial
pole, exactly where diverse astronomicaltraditions placed it. These two
prinicples of the historical argument imply a collinear configuration and
axial alignement of the Earth with an imaginary line running through the
gathered planets. (Though other phases in the evolving configuration have
been discussed, the dynamical issues have naturally focused on these two
dominant attributes.)
In recent years a number of qualified engineers, physicists, and
mathematicians have found the historical argument interesting enough to
postulate various ways in which the requirements of the historical
argument might be met without violating known principles. But they have
not all followed the same path with respect to the underlying systems or
principles proposed. A few attempts have been publicized, with varying
opinions being expressed as to credibility. While I am excited about what
others have contributed, the Class Clown is convinced we're starting a
cult.
Dave
Ted Holden
dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes:
>principles proposed. A few attempts have been publicized, with varying
>opinions being expressed as to credibility. While I am excited about what
>others have contributed, the Class Clown is convinced we're starting a
>cult.
If you're referring to Tim Thompson, I have to object; Thompson is a
<no-class> clown, as his positions on albedo readings for Venus, on
Mongolian shamen, and on various other topics clearly demonstrate.
Again, for newcomers:
.............................................................
This one begins with Tim (Hey Boy) Thompson and Ben Dehner stooging on
the net for Leroy Ellenberger again. In fact, I don't believe in
insider jokes all that much. Another poster once asked whether to
address Thompson as Dr. or Prof. Thompson and I replied naturally enough
that Thompson's ilk should be addressed the way Richard Boone used to
address the Chinese porter on Have Gun, Will Travel, i.e. "Hey boy...".
Ellenber and hence also Thompson and Dehner (who likes to talk about
scientific illiteracy) was making a case against the Saturn hypothesis
based upon a claim that, amongst other things, the Rig Veda was 7000
years old and, of course, preserved astronomical knowledge which
contradicts the idea of any change in our solar system over that span of
time. Ev Cochrane, Don Lowry and others naturally enough noted that was
ridiculous. Hey Boy replied:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: 12 Feb 1996 23:30:52 GMT
In article <xxBKBNQ....@delphi.com>,
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
[ ... ]
> In fact, I *do* know better. Tim doesn't seem to understand that
> Sidharth/Ellenberger's claim is tantamount to someone claiming that
> Abraham Lincoln assumed the presidency in 3000 B.C. I mean, the
> claim that part of the Rig Veda stems from 7300 B.C. is so ludicrous
> that only a fool could take it seriously.
I am going to take the position that this is a fundamentally ludicrous
statement, which cannot be justified or supported by any logical argument,
or any scholarly research. Cochrane's analogy is pure invention.
and:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: 22 Feb 1996 00:18:45 GMT
Message-ID: <4ggcp5$4...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In article <Z5FpaUj....@delphi.com>,
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
[ ... ]
> Once again Leroy demonstrates his unparalleled capacity for
> misunderstanding *his own sources*, something we've
> encountered again and again on talk.origins.
Pure propaganda; this is a crock. Cochrane has consistently insisted
that Sidharth's claims required a knowledge of "advanced astronomical
reckoning", "advanced astronomical concepts" and "advanced astronomical
practices". However, in each and every case Cochrane provided no hint
at all as to just exactly what he thought constituted "advanced
astronomical practices", or "advanced astronomy" in this context. For
all we know, Cochrane is claiming that we think ancient aryans were
practicing quasar red-shift measurements.
Sidharth, on the other hand, specifically said " *comparatively*
advanced astronomical concepts", and then went on to describe exactly
what he was talking about.
Ellenberger has no way of knowing what Cochrane meant, and neither
does anybody else. Cochrane just waits for somebody to complain, and
then twists the words into his own favorite meaning. By doing this in
a consistent fashion, Cochrane insults the intelligence of his audience
and successfully demeans only himself.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
and then backpedals a little:
>>> Cochrane is continuing to ridicule and belittle the argument even
>>> while
>>> admitting that he does not even know what argument he is ridiculing.
>>> Certainly this is a thoroughly unacceptable practice.
>[Lowry ... ]
>> The fact remains that the burden of proof for such an extraordinary
>> claim as a date of 7300 BC for ANY work of literature is on he who
>> makes the claim.
> Second, nobody ever claimed that the Rig Veda dates from 7300 BC.
>Sidharth's claim, such as it is, is that the astronomical content of
>the Rig Veda could *possibly* preserve some knowledge that dates from
>7300 BC. That knowledge is preserved in the form of descriptions of
>astronomical events that can be dated by running the solar system, or
>the Earth itself, backwards in time on a computer. Some of the early
>dates for the Rig Veda are very solid (for instance, it is now well
>known that some of the Rig Veda contents can be clearly dated to
>circa 2400 BC).
and then pedals forward some more:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: 23 Feb 1996 19:45:06 GMT
Message-ID: <4gl5g2$j...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
In article <medved.824999952@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net
(Ted Holden) writes:
> Cochrane posted a massive response to this foolishness last week, which
> clearly
> indiicated that he knows more about he Rig Veda than you, Ellenberger,
> and
> Sidharth singly or combined know about it. You'd do well to read it
> before
> embarrassing yourself further on this topic.
Cochrane's response was not all that massive, but more importantly was
full of mistakes and easily refuted. The only reason that I have not already
done so is that I was away all weekend, and have had a very busy week. I
hope to finish crafting my response this weekend. Cochrane's argument thus
far is not very good, and I will embarrass both of you as soon as I can.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
And then posted a piece of garbage intended to resemble scholarship or
something like that, footnotes included. Ev cochrane replied:
From: Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 96 00:52:48 -0500
On February 23rd, Tim Thompson announced that he would be
embarrassing me in the very near future. Shortly thereafter, he
posted a six-page document detailing his understanding of the
chronology and astronomy of the Rig Veda. Having examined
Tim's document with some care, I am prepared to admit that
I am indeed embarrassed------for Tim. The ignorance displayed
in this particular document is so abysmal, the level of insight
so critically-challenged, that had Tim not expressly claimed
authorship I would have naturally assumed it had been dictated
by Leroy Ellenberger. While a paragraph by paragraph analysis
of Tim's document is warranted and will be complete by the weekend,
the following will suffice to expose the level of "scholarship"
to be found therein.
Tim sets out to undermine my critique of Sidharth's discussion
of the precession of the equinoxes:
In article <4gon41$j...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>This is my reply to an earlier post by Ev Cochrane.
[del]
>
> Cochrane continues ...
>> Sidharth also claims of the ancient Hindus that "they knew
>> of the precessional cycle, which takes about 25,800 years....There
>> is a possibility that in the earliest Vedic times, precession was
>> known." (p. 12). Once again, there is no evidence to support this
>> view. Indeed, so far as I'm aware, there is no credible evidence
>> for knowledge of precession before Hipparchus. Here the learned
>> opinion of D.R. Dicks might be cited: "To suppose that astronomical
>> theory or observational technique had reached such a level in
>> Philolaus' time that the effects of precession (about 50'' of arc
>> a year for stars on the ecliptic) would be noticed, is quite out of
>> the question, and it is now certain that it was Hipparchus
>> in the second century BC who made this discovery." (Early Greek
>> Astronomy to Aristotle, 1970, pp. 69-70).
>
> Here, however, both Cochrane and the authoritative Dicks are
>simply wrong. Hindu knowledge of precession is documented in the Surya
>Siddhanta, a 6th century BC Indian document which pre-dates Hipparchus
>(who lived circa 150 BC) by 400 years. Here is how Rene Taton put it,
>back in 1957! [4] ...
>
> " Fairly accurate determinations of the sun's position by
> means of their nakshatra system enabled the Indian astronomers
> to notice very early that the equinoctal and solstitial points
> do not remain stationary. However, this fact was not mentioned
> in any text earlier than the Surya Siddhanta, which speaks of
> a libratory motion rather than a rotary precession. It has been
> assumed that this notion was borrowed from Greek astronomy which
> does, in fact, have a theory of that kind, but there is no reason
> why the Indians could not have arrived at it independently."
Understand, it matters little to my theory whether knowledge of the
precession stems from Hipparchus--as most authorities seem to agree--
or whether it can be traced slightly further back in time. The question
here is whether it is *credible* that the ancient Hindus from the earliest
Vedic times--dated, it will be remembered, to 7300 BC by Sidharth--
also possessed such knowledge. As I have observed, such a view is
*incredible* in the truest sense of the word.
This said, let us examine Tim's sources. We'll overlook the fact that
Rene Taton is not exactly a leading figure in Vedic astronomy. And
we'll overlook the fact that no quote from the Surya Siddhanta is
offered to buttress the claim and to assure critically-minded scholars
that precession is actually being described. But there is one little
detail that we cannot overlook: The fact that the Surya Siddhanta
dates to c. 505 AD, not to the sixth century BC as claimed by Tim! [1]
This, my friends, is what we've come to know as "Thompsonian scholarship".
Footnotes:
1. The following quote is taken from Tim's own source--The History
of Oriental Astronomy, p. 140: "Surya-Siddhanta i.e., the Siddhanta of the
Sun, composed by Latadeva (505 A.D.)." Note that there were several
texts which came to be known by the name Surya-Siddhanta. The
earliest, according to David Pingree, is the one associated with
Latadeva. Thus Pingree refers to "the Old Suryasiddhanta, a work
known to us now only through Varahamihira's summary of the
recension made by Latadeva in 505 AD." See "Astronomy and
Astrology in India and Iran," ISIS 54, 1963, p. 239. Recensions of
this "text" continued well into modern times.
Hey Boy (seriously embarassed) replied:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: 29 Feb 1996 20:59:24 GMT
In article <ZfMq7wg....@delphi.com>,
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
> But there is one little
> detail that we cannot overlook: The fact that the Surya Siddhanta
> dates to c. 505 AD, not to the sixth century BC as claimed by Tim! [1]
Constant streams of insults are not necessary, it is sufficient to
simply point out my errors. My notes are not clear enough, but I
believe the c. 600 BC date came from Taton, though I will have to
look again and see (something I will not be able to do until the
weekend in any case). If I am in error, my apologies.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
Which is not to claim that he won't go back to making the same kinds of
cases and arguments ten minutes later. In the middle of all this somewhere,
I noted that Leroy Ellenberger is <ALWAYS> turning up idiotic theories
to hold up as one last-ditch defense against the Saturn thesis the way
Von Helsing holds up the star of David against the vampire in Love at first
Bite:
Text of a typical mass-distribution
postcard from Tim Thompson's literary
protege, Leroy Ellenberger, dated
23 Oct., 1995:
DAWN BEHIND THE DAWN: A Search for
tThe Earthly Paradise (1992) by Geoffrey Ashe
"A lively, scholarly detective story In which Ashe turns
his Inquisitive eye on the possible truth of a prehis-
toric Golden Age." -- Kirkus Reviews
Prehistorian Ashe claims that an Indo-
European people, through contact
with shamans of Siberia in the Altai
Mountains 5000 years ago, created a
hybrid culture that exerted a Pro-
found, hitherto unrecognized influ-
ence on Western civilization. This
nameless people presumably absorbed
such shamanic beliefs as goddess wor-
ship; a mystique around the number
seven, reflecting reverence for Ursa
Major with its seven stars; and motifs
of a cosmic center aasociated with a
divine mountain. In Ashe's (Discovery
of King Arthur) scenario, the Indo-Eu-
ropean people drifted to Iran and In-
dia, and ideas from the "Altaic seed-
bed" were also disseminated through,
out Mesopotamia, ancient Israel,
Canaan and Greece and across Old Eu-
rope with its Paleolithic worship of an
earth mother goddess. One Altaic lega-
cy, he argues, is seven as an ordering
principle in ancient seven-planet as-
trology, the musical scale and the spec-
trum. It's an interesting but un-
stantiated theory. -- Pub. Week
This book even better than J.
Godwin's ARKTOS, puts the lie,
albeit Implicitly, to that per-
verse corruption called the
"polar configuration," a naive
concoction even Lenny Bruce
would recognize as "the anti-
thesis of everything right and
proper intellectually," and
thereby shows hpw incompetent is
the "interdisciplinary synthesis"
foisted by the "Saturnists" who
are with no doubt cosmic poseurs
par excellence. One would never
know from THE SATURN MYTH how
intimately involved with polar
tradition are the twins Apollo
and Artemis, for example.
Another antisaturnic is THE
ORION MYSTERY by R Bauval.
Hey Boy first defended this thesis:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.catastrophism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: More Ellenberger/Thompson/Dehner "Prehistory"...
Date: 12 Feb 1996 22:33:03 GMT
Well, I have been "ignored", entered into the Splifford FAQ, and now
Holden even puts me in the subject line! It's noce to know he cares :-)
In article <4ffnde$j...@access5.digex.net>, med...@access5.digex.net
(Ted Holden) writes:
[Holden earlier ... ]
>>> Again, the last or second-to-last postcard I got from Ellenberger
indicated
>>> that the golden-age tradition, along with most of everything else
>>> Indo-Europeans know about religion and philosophy, came from contact
with
>>> Mongolian shamen in the Altai mountains around 6000 BC...
[Nyikos responded ... ]
>> What is his source
>> for this? _The Aquarian Age Gospel of Jesus Christ_? the "Akashic
Records"
>> which is the alleged source for that New Age fantasy? Or some more
ancient
>> source, like the caveman for whom Boopsie was channeling on "Doonesbury"?
[Holden now ... ]
> Everybody needs friends, but with opponents like Ellenberger, Thompson,
and
> Dehner, we Saturnists probably don't need as many as would otherwise be
> the case.
I am not impressed, either by Holden's incessant derision of everything
too complicated for him to understand (which, of course, means just plain
everything anyway), or Nyikos's argument by sillification. It is not evident
to me that either of these gentlemen care to think about the matter.
I have not read Ashe's book, so I don't know what his argument is, but it
should be crystal clear that neither Holden nor Nyikos know either. I am
consistently amazed by the ability of some to ridicule what they have never
even read. Since it is a common ploy for the Velikovskian to complain that
critics have not read Velikovsky's works, you would think that they would
have a care to not behave in the same manner.
Now, would someone care to explain to me why it is fundamentally silly,
or obviously impossible, for Ashe's argument to be wrong, something so
obvious that it can be ridiculed without even being read? We know that the
indigenous population of India was displaced, or at least conquered, by
Aryan migration from the steppes region, somewhere in the 3000 - 2000 BC
timeframe. We also know that we can trace the worlds oldest written
languages
to a similar timeframe. We also know that there must have been a long oral
tradition before the advent of writing. Finally, we know that the pre-
historic
Celtic population in Europe had already developed a network of commerce,
and had established standard 'trade routes'.
This all means that we know there was a considerable traffic in both
peopleand merchandise, in this area, well before the advent of written
history. I see nothing fundamentally silly about the idea that this could
also have included a traffic in ideas, customs, and oral-literature. On
the face of it, there is nothing "silly" about this idea, whether or not
it turns out to be right.
This kind of argument, to ridicule as if it is "obvious", is not
acceptable.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
I.e. one should not ridicule the idea of western man learning all of his
religion and philosophy from Mongolian shamen in the Altai mountains.
Then, characteristically, hey Boy begins to backpedel just a bit:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.catastrophism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: More Ellenberger/Thompson/Dehner "Prehistory"...
Date: 14 Feb 1996 23:05:54 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Earth and Space Science Division
[Holden ... ]
> I.e. Thompson believes that Western man owes it all to Mongolian shamen. I
> rest my case.
Now you all know where the phrase "Air Hed Ted" comes from. Personally,
I would prefer a Mongolian Shaman to a delusional Russian psychiatrist.
Holden's view of History, and his opinion of mine both qualify as emminent
examples of "Air Hed" in action.
No, neither I nor anyone else believes "western man owes it all to
Mongolian Shamen". However, we know that what are now the Hindus of India
started out as Aryans, or Indo-Europeans, who migrated to India from the
steppes region east of the Ural mountains. The Aryan migrations to India
are dated around 2000 BC or so. They weren't Mongolians. But they
undoubtedly brought their own history and customs with them on the
migration. One of few the things we can be fairly sure of is that the
Rig Veda, or some part of same, came with them, and represents knowledge
and/or custom from the pre-migration period. That is the point.
Air Hed Ted wigs out in public again.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
And then a lot:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.catastrophism,talk.origins
Subject: Mongolian Shamen
Date: 21 Feb 1996 23:54:10 GMT
......
.......
The line about "Mongolian Shamen" is entirely the literary invention of
Monsieur Holden. And that leads us to another fruitful avenue of
investigation.
As we see here, Holden is claiming that we are making claims that we are, in
actuality, not making at all. Now, what is the usual word used to describe
this kind of activity? In the best of pedagogical traditions, this is left
as an exercise for the student.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
And then, some serious backpeddling:
From: t...@ediacara.org (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Velikovsky is wrong -- Earth's axial tilt must be ancient
Date: 23 Feb 1996 19:51:28 GMT
Message-ID: <4gl5s0$j...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
At this point I do not intend to mince words. Not only is Holden's
statement
obviously stupid, it is just another in a long string of deliberate and
calculated
lies told by Holden. I am not at all appreciative of his habitual lying,
most especially when he lies about me. The "Mongolian Shaman" line is just
another of Holden's typical fairy tale inventions, and neither he nor it
are deserving of any kind of respect at all.
In other words, Hey Boy is seriously embarrassed by his erstwhile
defense of his stoogemeister Ellenberger's claim of a Mongolian origin
for our culture, philosophy, religions, cosmological ideas etc.
Consider the ultimate chieftain of the people who Ellenberger sees as
our "roots". What goes around in life comes around; Hey Boy may
ultimately have to explain his backsliding to this gentleman in some
future incarnation. We don't really have a whole lot on Chengis Khan in
our English-speaking world other than Harold Lamb's book. Russians, of
course, got a somewhat closer view of the Mongol empire for several
hundred years, and have a better feel for it. Allow me, therefore, to
translate just a tiny section of V. G. Yan's "Chengisxhan I Batui" for
you. This is a historical novel, but the breadth of detail is immense
and a reader assumes it isn't far from fact.
Chengisxhan, in immeasureable amazement, put his hand on his mouth,
pointed towards Jelal ed-din and said to his sons:
Thus should a son be to his father!
The Mongols, seeing the sultan had thrown himself in the river, wished
to pursue immediately, but chengisxhan forbade it.
They massacred the army of Jelal ed-din, not before the soldiers had
thrown the sultan's wife and mother into the river, to prevent their
falling to the Mongols.
There remained amongst the living only the seven-year-old son of the
sultan, seized by the Mongols. They brought him before Chengisxhan.
The youngster, turning towards the kagan, fixed a brave and hateful gaze
upon him.
"The seed of our enemies must be extirpated by the roots.", said
Chengisxhan. "The progeny of such brave Muselmen will strive to
slaughter my grandchildren. Therefore, feed ye my Borzoi hound this
boy's heart."
The Mongol palach (head executioner/torturer), smiling to the ears with
pride at an opportunity to display his skills before the great Kagan,
rolled up his sleeves and walked over to the boy. Throwing the boy on
his back, he of an instant, per Mongol custom, cut his chest open with
his knife below the ribs and ripped out his steaming little heart, and
carried it to Chengisxhan who, several times like an old boar raised the
Mongol war cry: "khuu - khuuu - khuu, turned his paint horse and,
dourly slumping somewhat in the saddle, headed further along the stone
path.
From everything else I've read, that seems believable; that's how
Chengisxhan might deal with an innocent youngster whose existence had
simply become inconvenient. How he might deal with an unscrupulous
and psychopathically dishonest propagandist, with pictures of Himler
and Tokyo Rose up on his walls, I'll leave to Hey Boy's imagination.
Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html
______
[ \ ^^^^^^^^^^ / ]
\ \ / /---
| \ \ / / |
_..-'( / _0 | 0_ \ )`-.._
./'. '||\\. / \ _ / \ .//||` .`\
'.|'.'||||\\|.. _______ / \__/ \__/ \ _____..|//||||`.`|.`
/'.||'.||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||.`||.`\.
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
Ian Tresman
Floyd_...@cup.portal.com wrote:
> Ev Cochrane writes of old records of the sun rising in the west and
>setting in the east. How many old records and what time frame?
This letter from SIS Workshop 3:1:
"Dear Sir,
" Why do Egyptologists ignore the many inscriptions which tell that
the sun rose in the west during quite a number of dynasties? One such
is the inscription over the tomb of Horemheb which distinctly states
that the Sun now rises in the west. Other such evidence is in the
burial of kings "the wrong way round" according to orthodoxy.
" I can well recall Howard Carter's remarks when he opened the tomb
of Tutankhamun in 1922. He said that after reading the instructions
given to the workmen regarding the orientation of the golden shrine,
he could not understand the mistake of workmen "who were usually
meticulously careful" and that "it only goes to show that the best of
workmen can make mistakes." As you know, the kings and nobles were
supposed to be buried with their heads in the east so that, when
upright, they would face the sunset (i.e. west) and their Ka's could
follow the sun as it went down into the underworld.
" I was in the tomb of Tutankhamun during a visit to the Valley of
The Kings in 1965, and noted, as Carter had indicated, the king had
been buried the wrong way round; but the Velikovsky Theory (with which
I agree) indicates no mistake - the sun rose in the west and set in
the east in those days. Tutankhamun was only one of many royal
personages whose burials satisfy the Velikovsky claim - it just
happens to be the best known. Then, in 1954, I was intrigued to hear
about the solar ships which were discovered in the underground
chambers parallel to the south face of the Great Pyramid, and to note
that one had its prow pointing east and the other pointing west. (I
checked this in 1965). Obviously Khufu wanted his Ka to be able to
follow the sundown whatever happened to the Earth. (A tradition of
Earth inversions was given to Herodotus on his visit to Egypt by the
priests).
" I happened to be flying over the monuments of Ramses II at Abu
Simbel in Jan. 1943 and noted that they faced present east. As the
king was depicted with his false beard I knew he was supposed to be
dead and ready to meet the gods, therefore looking towards the sunset
and following the sun down into the underworld. It would seem
therefore that the sun rose in the west and set in the east also in
his time.
Arthur W. Perrins, Florida."
Ian Tresman, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS)
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/sis/
Paul J. Gans
: From <Dvs7o...@encore.com> bsey...@encore.com (Burch Seymour:
: opinions being expressed as to credibility. While I am excited about what
: others have contributed, the Class Clown is convinced we're starting a
: cult.
: Dave
Yup.
------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
PS: I'm still waiting for the reference to a medieval Saturn myth.
Chris Nedin
In article <APC&7'0'125413fe'c...@peg.pegasus.oz.au>,
abe...@peg.pegasus.oz.au wrote:
> The fundamental symbols of the Desert area cultures of Australia
> (2/3 of the continent) are: column, opposing crescents,
Opposing crescents represent people siting - the symbol comes from the
shape made in the sand by the backside and thighs of a sitting person and
has nothing to do with the sky.
> circling crescents, nested crescents,
Crescents can also be used to denote sand dunes - again a simple pictorial
representation, nothing to do with the sky.
concentric circles,
Circles represent waterholes, meeting places, campsites and other impotant
locations. The number of concentric circles denoted the importance of the
site - the larger the number of circles the more important the site, again
no connection with the sky.
Chris
cne...@geology.adelaide.edu.au ne...@ediacara.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Many say it was a mistake to come down from the trees, some say
the move out of the oceans was a bad idea. Me, I say the stiffening
of the notochord in the Cambrian was where it all went wrong,
it was all downhill from there.
Paul V. Heinrich
ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote
>Robert Grumbine (rm...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
>: In article <mls-290796...@mls.dialup.access.net>,
>: Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com> wrote:
>: >
>: >I would supplement it by using Imbrie's work on the
>: >Milankovitch cycles driving Ice Ages. These demonstrate
>: >periodicity in eccentricity *around the values derivable
>: >by integration of the current orbit of the earth* for
>: >many cycles beyond human (or even early hominid)
>: >memory -- with the hypothesized signal being
>: >observable in the record of Ice Ages.
There are now hundreds of papers that provide evidence for
the influenced of the cyclic changes in three Earth orbital
parameters, called "Milankovitch cycles" on climate, floras,
sedimentation, and faunas for the last 2.5 million years.
The very close correspondence between the changes detected
in lake and deep sea cores and the variations in these
orbital parameters and resulting solar insulation as calculated
by Dr. Milankovitch clearly demonstrates that the catastrophic
game of cosmic billiard-balls hypothesized by Mr. Talbott is
very seriously, if not fatally flawed. Since the Milankovitch
cycles are calculated from the present back into the Pleistocene,
had the catastrophic events theorized Mr. Talbott occurred, there
would be a complete lack of any correspondence between the
orbital parameters calculated by Dr. Milankovitch and the cyclic
changes observed in numerous cores of Pleistocene
sediments.
>: >The Earth's orbit simply has NOT changed drastically
>: >over millions of years. Period. The Saturn idiocy is
>: >totally bogus.
The recognition of Milankovitch cycles and the absence of
any evidence for catastrophic event is fatal to Mr. Talbott's
theory about Saturn. Mr. Talbott needs to explain how a
catastrophe of the magnitude that his theory proposes
occurred and left the Earth orbital parameters (eccentricity,
obliquity, and procession) unperturbed. Given that these
orbital parameters are directly related the orbit and rotation
of the Earth, it would be impossible for the catastrophe
involving Saturn and Mars that Mr. Talbott claims to have
occurred without it completely changing these orbital
variables. As a result of such a catastrophe the present
100,000 year cycle for eccentricity, 41,000 year cycle for
obliquity, and 23,000 year cycle for procession should be
vastly different for the Earth prior to the catastrophe then
are now. However, there are hundreds of papers, e.g. Morley
and Hays (1981), Pisias (1976), Hays et al. (1976), Ruddiman and
McIntyre (1981), that find these same cycles within Pleistocene
sediments over the world. To salvage his theory, Mr.
Talbott will have to either explain why his proposed catastrophe
1. failed to changed these orbital parameters or 2. how each
of the hundreds of papers documenting hard evidence for
Milankovitch cycles in marine or lake sediments is seriously
flawed as to come to incorrect conclusions. [see footnote #1]
A even bigger problem is that Dr. Milankovitch and others
using these cycles have calculated the variations in solar
insolation and Earth climatic variables for the past 4 to 5
million years starting from the present. Over this period of
time, there is a very close correspondence between the timing
and magnitude of the calculated cycles and timing and
magnitude of ice age glaciation (Imbrie et al. 1992, 1993a,
1993b). Had there been a catastrophic or significant
disturbance of the orbit or rotation of the Earth, such a
close match between the calculated Milankovitch cycles and
the observed Milankovitch cycles would be totally lacking.
This alone is very strong proof that that both the orbit and
rotation of the Earth has been undisturbed for the last
three to four million years. Thus, this observation is a
very serious, if not fatal, test of the hypothesis of Mr.
Talbott.
>: The Milankovitch periods are better support than you (seem
>: to) think. These periods depend not on the earth-moon-sun
>: system, but on the relations between the earth-moon-sun-
>: Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune system.
This is incorrect. Milankovitch cycles are caused only by
variations in three orbital parameters of Earth. These
parameters are eccentricity, obliquity, and procession. For
more details see Imbrie (1992) and Imbrie et al. (1992, 1993a,
1993b). The Moon effects them only as it effects these
parameters and gradually slows down the rotation of the
Earth. I seriously doubt that either Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,
or Neptune has any effect on these orbital variables at all.
If they do, you need to prove your claim by posting the
appropriate scientific citations.
....stuff snipped........
>: Milankovitch period variations have been observed in
>: the geologic record for the last 2.5 million years (at least).
>: Further, there is some strong suggestion (Paul Olsen (sp?))
>: that something very similar was occurring prior to the
>: K-T boundary (I think it was actually Triassic, but it is a
>: while since I read his papers and attended his talk.), so
>: at least 65 Mya.
There is evidence for the presence of Milankovitch cycles
throughout much of the Tertiary, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic.
The classic Triassic examples come from the study of Triassic
lake deposits that lie within ancient rift basins of eastern North
America. Recently, they have drilled and a complete core with
a significant amount of overlap has been obtained for the
entire lacustrine sequence. Also, whether Milankovitch cycles
control the formation of either 3rd, 4th, or 5th-order
parasequences during the Cretaceous, Carboniferous, and
Devonian Periods and throughout much of geologic time
is a topic of considerable research in the discipline of
sequence stratigraphy (de Boer and Smith 1994,
Dennison and Ettensohn 1994, Fischer 1991).
I. References about Newark Supergrpoup Milankovitch
cycles are:
Olsen, P. E., 1991, Tectonic, climatic, and biotic modulation
of lacustrine ecosystems - examples from Newark Supergroup
of eastern North America. in B. J. Katz (ed.). Lacustrine Basin
Exploration - Case Studies and Modern Analogs. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, no. 26, pp. 53-62.
Olsen, P. E., D. V. Kent, B. Cornet, W. K. Witte, and
R. W. Schlische, 1996, High-resolution stratigraphy
of the Newark rift basin (early Mesozoic, eastern North
America). Geological Society of America Bulletin.
vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 40-77.
II. Similar cycles are reported from Miocene lake deposits
Olsen, P. E., 1986, 40-million year lake record of early Miocene
orbital climatic forcing. Science. vol. 234, pp. 842-844.
An interesting aspect of these cycles is that they have
periods that likely represent the 100,000-year, 41,000-year,
and 23,000-year cycles of modern and Pleistocene
Milankovitch cycles. Again, had there been any sort of
catastrophic disturbance of either the orbit and rotation of
the Earth, these cycles would be considerably different
then they are now.
The existence of Pleistocene Milankovitch cycles that
are in-phase and of the same periodicity as modern
Milankovitch cycles clearly contradict any claim for the
occurrence of catastrophic events within the last 12,000
years having any effect on either the rotation or the
orbit of the Earth. The existence of evidence for identical
cycles within Mesozoic and Paleozoic rocks demonstrate
that the orbital and rotational characteristics of the Earth
have been remarkably stable for hundreds of millions
of years. Direct evidence for the duration, in days,
of the lunar month afforded by tidal rhymites provide
an independant confirmation of the stability of the
orbit and rotation of the Earth over geological time.
Both lines of evidence clearly falsify any claims for
the catastrophic disruption or disturbance of the
Earth orbit or rotation.
(NOTE: Tidal rhymites will be discussed in another post)
References Cited
de Boer, P. L., and D. G. Smith (eds.), 1994, Orbital
forcing and cyclic sequences. Special Publication of the
International Association of Sedimentologists. no. 19
Blackwell. Oxford, International.
Dennison, J. M., and F. R. Ettensohn (eds.), 1994, Tectonic
and eustatic controls on sedimentary cycles. Concepts in
Sedimentology and Paleontology. no. 4, SEPM (Society
for Sedimentary Geology). Tulsa, OK, United States.
Fischer, A. G., 1991, Orbital cyclicity in Mesozoic strata.
In: G. Einsele, W. Ricken, and A. Seilacher (eds.), pp. 48-62,
Cycles and Events in Stratigraphy. Springer Verlag. Berlin,
Federal Republic of Germany.
Imbrie, J. and 17 others, 1992, On the structure and origin of
major glaciation cycles. 1. Linear responses to Milankovitch
forcing. Paleoceanography, vol. 7, pp. 701-738.
Imbrie, J., 1992 Editorial: A good year for Milankovitch,
Paleoceanography, vol. 7, pp. 687-690.
Imbrie, J. and 18 others, 1993a, On the structure and origin
of major glaciation cycles. 2. The 100,000-year cycle,
Paleoceanography, vol. 8, pp. 699-735, 1993a.
Imbrie, J., A. C. Mix, and D. G. Martinson, 1993b, Milankovitch
theory viewed from Devils Hole, Nature, vol. 363, pp. 531-533.
Hays, J. D., J. Imbrie, and N. J. Shackleton, 1976, Variations
in the earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the ice ages. Science. vol. 194,
pp. 1121-132.
Morley, J. J., and J. D. Hays, 1981, Towards a high-resolution,
global deep-sea chronology for the last 750,000 years. Earth
Planetary Science Letters, vol. 53, pp. 279-295.
Pisias, N. G., 1976, Late Quaternary sediment of the Panama
Basin, sedimentation rates, periodicities, and controls of
carbonate and opal accumulation. Memoir of the Geological
Society of America. no. 145, pp. 375-391.
Ruddiman, W. F. and A. McIntyre, 1981, Oceanic mechanisms
for amplification of the 23,000-year ice-volume cycle. Science.
vol. 212, pp. 617-627.
Shapely, K. W., and P. J. macabre, 1991, Perspectives on the
Sequence Stratigraphy of Continental Strata. Report of Working
Group III, 1991 NUN Conference on High Resolution
Sequence Stratigraphy.
FINAL NOTE: I ran a GEOREF citation search at the LSU library.
I told me there were 2,224 citations when I did a search on
the keywords "Milankovitch and (cycle* or period*)"
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich All comments are the
hein...@intersurf.com personal opinion of the writer and
Baton Rouge, LA do not constitute policy and/or
opinion of government or corporate
entities. This includes my employer.
To persons uninstructed in natural history, their country
or seaside stroll is a walk through a gallery filled with
wonderful works of art, nine-tenths of which have their faces
turned to the wall.
- T. H. Huxley
Paul J. Gans
Ian Tresman (ianTr...@easynet.co.uk) wrote:
: Floyd_...@cup.portal.com wrote:
: > Ev Cochrane writes of old records of the sun rising in the west and
: >setting in the east. How many old records and what time frame?
:
: This letter from SIS Workshop 3:1:
:
: "Dear Sir,
:
: " Why do Egyptologists ignore the many inscriptions which tell that
: the sun rose in the west during quite a number of dynasties? One such
: is the inscription over the tomb of Horemheb which distinctly states
: that the Sun now rises in the west. Other such evidence is in the
: burial of kings "the wrong way round" according to orthodoxy.
:
: " I can well recall Howard Carter's remarks when he opened the tomb
: of Tutankhamun in 1922. He said that after reading the instructions
: given to the workmen regarding the orientation of the golden shrine,
: he could not understand the mistake of workmen "who were usually
: workmen can make mistakes." As you know, the kings and nobles were
: supposed to be buried with their heads in the east so that, when
: upright, they would face the sunset (i.e. west) and their Ka's could
: follow the sun as it went down into the underworld.
[deletions]
I refer you to sci.archaeology, a group in which you have
been known to post. Several well-known Egyptologists hang
out there.
I know that you are reluctant to post there, as the
International Archaelogical Conspiracy (tm) will descend
upon you claiming that the above is false and in so
doing play harshly with you. We have both seen that
happen to others.
My theory is that they *were* buried with their heads in the
east, but an expedition mounted by Von Daniken secretly
*moved* them. Unfortunately all records of this were lost
when Von Daniken went down in the Bermuda Triangle, so that
only the Atlanteans now know the truth.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
PS: For talk.origins folk, the International Archaeological
Conspiracy playes the same role toward Pyramid Power people,
Bermuda Triangle Folks, Atlanteans, Saturnists, etc., that
Howler Monkeys do here.
Obviously a suspect group.
David N. Talbott
<dtalbott.839596935@linda> <4uh0un$3...@news.nyu.edu>
I had written
>:
>: In recent years a number of qualified engineers, physicists, and
>: mathematicians have found the historical argument interesting enough to
>: postulate various ways in which the requirements of the historical
>: argument might be met without violating known principles. But they have
>: not all followed the same path with respect to the underlying systems or
>: principles proposed. A few attempts have been publicized, with varying
>: opinions being expressed as to credibility. While I am excited about what
>: others have contributed, the Class Clown is convinced we're starting a
>: cult.
>:
>: Dave
Then this from the Class Clown
>Yup.
>PS: I'm still waiting for the reference to a medieval Saturn myth.
There are hundreds of medieval themes that resonate with global motifs.
Have you never heard of the famous warrior consorting with the daughter of
a great king, the warrior with the unerring sword, the magic fountain or
well in which "wisdom" dwells, the hollow mountain, the land of the
dwarves, the one-eyed giant, the witch soaring across the sky with wildly
disheveled hair, the fiery dragon attacking the ancestral village? But
the question is not whether these medieval myths have their roots in far
older memories. That is easily provable. The question is whether the
Saturn theory will *predict* the recurring themes--including:
Saturn as the "best sun", an ancient tradition preserved by the
alchemists. See Klibansky, Panofsky, and Saxl, _Saturn and Melancholy_,
page 129.
So if I can show you that in the earliest recorded expressions of the
themes, the mythical figures are *cosmic*, not terrestrial, will you
humor me by showing me something in the sky today that could have prompted
such themes--themes which dominated human imagination for thousands of
years?
And if I can show you that each of the themes, in its earliest expression,
is indeed, exactly what YOU YOURSELF would expect if the events
hypothesized by the Saturn theory actually occurred, will you then concede
that I have not misrepresented the predictive power of the theory (a claim
that you and others have repeated again and again)?
Dave
Tim Thompson
In article <320D21...@intersurf.com>,
"Paul V. Heinrich" <hein...@intersurf.com> writes:
>ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote
>>Robert Grumbine (rm...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
[ ... ]
>>: The Milankovitch periods are better support than you (seem
>>: to) think. These periods depend not on the earth-moon-sun
>>: system, but on the relations between the earth-moon-sun-
>>: Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune system.
[Heinrich ... ]
> This is incorrect. Milankovitch cycles are caused only by
> variations in three orbital parameters of Earth. These
> parameters are eccentricity, obliquity, and procession. For
> more details see Imbrie (1992) and Imbrie et al. (1992, 1993a,
> 1993b). The Moon effects them only as it effects these
> parameters and gradually slows down the rotation of the
> Earth. I seriously doubt that either Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,
> or Neptune has any effect on these orbital variables at all.
> If they do, you need to prove your claim by posting the
> appropriate scientific citations.
I sort-of disagree. Precession is directly caused by the Moon, and
obliquity is dominated by the Moon, which prevents otherwise chaotic
excursions in the Earth's obliquity. I doubt that the other planets
have any measurable effect on those two parameters, but the eccentricity
of the Earth's orbit is certainly affected by perturbations originating
in the outer planets, at least from Jupiter, which by it self affects
the whole solar system. There is some discussion of this in Duncan & Quinn
(1993), notably in section 5 where the long term stability of planetary
orbits comes under discussion. However, I think it would be essentially
impossible to use the Milnakovitch cycles to back out any detailed
information about the structure of the solar system, at least for now.
The Long Term Dynamical Evolution of the Solar System
Martin J. Duncan & Thomas Quinn
Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 31: 265-295 (1993)
The Chaotic Obliquity of the Planets
J. Laskar & P. Robutel
Nature 361(6413): 608-612 (1993 Feb 18)
Orbital, Precessional, and Insolation Quantities for the Earth from
-20 MYR TO +10 MYR
J. Laskar, F. Joutel & F. Boudin
Astronomy and Astrophysics 270(1-2): 522-533 (1993 Mar)
[Here the authors are most bothered by changes in the shape of the Earth]
A 3 Million Year Integration of the Earth's Orbit
T.R. Quinn, S. Tremaine & M. Duncan
Astronomical Journal 101(6): 2287-2305 (1991)
[Full integration includes perturbation effects of all the planets.
The authors suggest the use of their work as input to tests for
the Milankovitch hypothesis]
Long-Term Evolution of the Solar Insolation Variation Over 4GA
T. Ito, M. Kumazawa, Y. Hamano, T. Matsui & K. Masuda
Proceedings of the Japan Academy Series B Physical and Biological Sciences
v69 (9) : pp233-237 (1993 Nov)
[The authors reproduce the Milankovitch cycles by analysing the Earth-Moon
system alone]
Insolation Values for the Climate of the Last 10000000 Years
A. Berger & M.F. Loutre
Quaternary Science Reviews 10(4): 297-317 (1991)
[Like the Japanese paper above, but the integration includes the
entire solar system as point masses]
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Paul V. Heinrich
Thanks for correcting my misstatement and the references.
I appreciate you taking the time and trouble to provide the
references as I requested below.
That a large moon is necessary to prevent chaotic excursions
in a planet's obliquity has some interesting evolutionary
consequences. It seems like the lack of a large moon and the
resulting chaotic excursions in obliquity would preclude the
development of complex organisms. It would be more difficult
for complex organisms, e.g. vertebrates, to adapt to such
drastic changes than single-celled animals. Also terrestrial
organism would be less able to cope with such changes as
marine organisms (assuming large interconnected oceans
like Earth).
Would the presence of a large moon and the resulting
orbital stability be a prerequisite for the development of
intelligent terrestrial beings?
If I write a science fiction story about intelligent space
aliens, I guess I will have to make sure that their planet
has an Earth-like moon. Is this a correct inference?
>I doubt that the other planets have any measurable effect
>on those two parameters, but the eccentricity of the Earth's
>orbit is certainly affected by perturbations originating
>in the outer planets, at least from Jupiter, which by it
>self affects the whole solar system. There is some
>discussion of this in Duncan & Quinn (1993), notably in
>section 5 where the long term stability of planetary
>orbits comes under discussion.
I stand corrected again.
>However, I think it would be essentially impossible to
>use the Milankovitch cycles to back out any detailed
>information about the structure of the solar system,
>at least for now.
I agree.
It would be impossible to reconstruct the structure of
the solar system using Milankovitch cycles. However,
that is not important. It would be impossible for a stable
Moon - Earth system to be maintained, for Milankovitch
cycles to exist, and for them to leave their imprint in the
Pleistocene sedimentary record with Saturn interacting
with the Earth as Talbortt claims happened. I am just saying
that the Milankovitch cycles are proof of a stable Earth -
Moon system that precludes the claims of Mr. Talbott.
....excellent reference list deleted.....
Paul J. Gans
:
: I had written
:
: >:
: >: In recent years a number of qualified engineers, physicists, and
: >: mathematicians have found the historical argument interesting enough to
: >: postulate various ways in which the requirements of the historical
: >: argument might be met without violating known principles. But they have
: >: not all followed the same path with respect to the underlying systems or
: >: principles proposed. A few attempts have been publicized, with varying
: >: opinions being expressed as to credibility. While I am excited about what
: >: others have contributed, the Class Clown is convinced we're starting a
: >: cult.
: >:
: >: Dave
:
: Then this from the Class Clown
:
: >Yup.
:
:
: >PS: I'm still waiting for the reference to a medieval Saturn myth.
:
: There are hundreds of medieval themes that resonate with global motifs.
: Have you never heard of the famous warrior consorting with the daughter of
: a great king, the warrior with the unerring sword, the magic fountain or
: well in which "wisdom" dwells, the hollow mountain, the land of the
: dwarves, the one-eyed giant, the witch soaring across the sky with wildly
: disheveled hair, the fiery dragon attacking the ancestral village? But
: the question is not whether these medieval myths have their roots in far
: older memories. That is easily provable. The question is whether the
: Saturn theory will *predict* the recurring themes--including:
Thanks for the reference to *A* myth. These aren't myths, they
are motifs. Many of them have well-known roots and, in particular,
there is no evidence (other than speculation) that they have
ancient roots. Indeed, the "sword" metaphor can't be very old,
certainly not 10,000 years old since swords are a more recent
invention. So right away we see that one of these motifs is
not "ancient" in Talbott's sense.
The wooing of the daughter of a great king is interesting. Usually
the daughter is the youngest daughter, often deprived of her
birthright. These myths are often considered to be back-
harkenings to the Goddess myth, whose priestess was always
the *youngest* daughter of the old (and now dead) priestess.
Typical examples of this are known to all--Cinderella, Lear,
etc. But again, there is no particular indication that these
are anything but medieval.
Yes, there are motifs in which a fountain holds wisdom. Then
there are motifs in which is is wine... _in vino veritas_,
and then there are those in which it is an apple. You can't
single out one of these (fountains) and ignore the others.
The hollow mountain is a clear reference to the Once Hollow
Earth theory.
The land of dwarves is a false lead. Dwarves are often
associated with the underground. Thus such myths are more
likely to hark back to the Once Hollow Earth theory.
As for witches flying through the sky, those are not, to
my knowledge, even medieval. They are later than that, though
I'm willing to be educated.
So what have we here: a number of common motifs none of which
seem to pertain solely to celestial happenings and a number
of which clearly do NOT pertain to anything celestial.
Besides, what evidence is there that any of these go back to
10,000 years?
: Saturn as the "best sun", an ancient tradition preserved by the
: alchemists. See Klibansky, Panofsky, and Saxl, _Saturn and Melancholy_,
: page 129.
I'll check it out.
:
: So if I can show you that in the earliest recorded expressions of the
: themes, the mythical figures are *cosmic*, not terrestrial, will you
: humor me by showing me something in the sky today that could have prompted
: such themes--themes which dominated human imagination for thousands of
: years?
Well, "if" is a good word. Nothing above has shown anything.
What I'd like from you is ONE myth (give it your best shot)
of medieval provenance with *clear* roots going back beyond
history. I want something other than just your word on it.
It should contain a motif that has NO terrestrial counterpart,
but should be unambiguously celestial. Circles with hair won't
do it. They may look to *us* like a comet, but there is no
telling what they represented to their creators.
:
: And if I can show you that each of the themes, in its earliest expression,
: is indeed, exactly what YOU YOURSELF would expect if the events
: hypothesized by the Saturn theory actually occurred, will you then concede
: that I have not misrepresented the predictive power of the theory (a claim
: that you and others have repeated again and again)?
No. That is not how it works. You have to show me myth that
can be interpreted no other way. Then we can *deduce* the
Saturn theory. It doesn't work your way. Your way is to see
if myth can be *interpreted* to agree with your theory. The
problem there is that the same myths can often be interpreted
in another way. The Once Hollow Earth theory is just one of
them. Jungian psychology is another. And common human experience
is yet another. What you need is (1) physical evidence, or
(2) mathematical plausibility, or (3) myth that can have NO
other interpretation.
I have listed these in the order of strength. The first is
the most convincing, the last the least.
Go to it.
Paul J. Gans
Tim Thompson (t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:
: In article <320D21...@intersurf.com>,
: "Paul V. Heinrich" <hein...@intersurf.com> writes:
: >ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote
: >>Robert Grumbine (rm...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
: [ ... ]
: >>: The Milankovitch periods are better support than you (seem
: >>: to) think. These periods depend not on the earth-moon-sun
: >>: system, but on the relations between the earth-moon-sun-
: >>: Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune system.
: [Heinrich ... ]
: > This is incorrect. Milankovitch cycles are caused only by
: > parameters are eccentricity, obliquity, and procession. For
: > more details see Imbrie (1992) and Imbrie et al. (1992, 1993a,
: > 1993b). The Moon effects them only as it effects these
: > parameters and gradually slows down the rotation of the
: > Earth. I seriously doubt that either Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,
: > or Neptune has any effect on these orbital variables at all.
: > If they do, you need to prove your claim by posting the
: > appropriate scientific citations.
: I sort-of disagree. Precession is directly caused by the Moon, and
: obliquity is dominated by the Moon, which prevents otherwise chaotic
: have any measurable effect on those two parameters, but the eccentricity
: of the Earth's orbit is certainly affected by perturbations originating
: in the outer planets, at least from Jupiter, which by it self affects
: the whole solar system. There is some discussion of this in Duncan & Quinn
: (1993), notably in section 5 where the long term stability of planetary
: impossible to use the Milnakovitch cycles to back out any detailed
: information about the structure of the solar system, at least for now.
:
: The Long Term Dynamical Evolution of the Solar System
But before we let some folks misinterpret what Tim is saying,
the Milankovich cycles are still excellent evidence for the
long-term stability of the EARTH's orbit--which was the original
purpose in bringing them up.
They are but one bit of evidence among several *independent* bits
all showing that the earth has been in its present orbit for far
longer than 10,000-30,000 years. This stability alone puts
severe constraints on any theory that would re-arrange the
solar system during this time period.
David N. Talbott
Just when the Class Clown thought he might have me chasing all over town
to answer his latest post, he made the job easy. The question was whether
medieval motifs have their roots in older themes.
>As for witches flying through the sky, those are not, to
>my knowledge, even medieval. They are later than that, though
>I'm willing to be educated.
As numerous comparative mythologists have pointed out the witch is an echo
of the ancient "angry goddess" whose image is as old as civilization. The
goddess rages across the sky with disheveled hair. In the earliest
astronomies she is identified with Venus, the planet the Babylonians knew
as the "witch star." As Ev Cochrane and I have pointed out, all of the
ancient hieroglyphs for the *comet* are attached to the goddess. Even
Carl Sagan called the disheveled hair of the angry goddess a "comet"
symbol. In Europe the witch's broom was a clump of grass, and Jacob Grimm
gives a clump of grass as the old European hieroglyph for the comet. In
China, the broom was the most common hieroglyph for the comet. And as I
pointed out in my article, "The Great Comet Venus," posted on t.o a couple
of years ago, similar images of the angry goddess and broom appear in
Mexico.
>Besides, what evidence is there that any of these go back to
>10,000 years?
The question is whether they can be traced to the beginnings of
civilization. They can. The truth is that from the earliest expressions
of myth, ritual and art, there is no evidence of a new general theme
arising (i.e., no new archetype, or widely recurring motif). Here, too,
the message will be clear to anyone willing to reflect on these things in
intellectual honesty.
Dave
Tim Thompson
In article <321001...@intersurf.com>,
"Paul V. Heinrich" <hein...@intersurf.com> writes:
[ ... ]
> That a large moon is necessary to prevent chaotic excursions
> in a planet's obliquity has some interesting evolutionary
> consequences. It seems like the lack of a large moon and the
> resulting chaotic excursions in obliquity would preclude the
> development of complex organisms. It would be more difficult
> for complex organisms, e.g. vertebrates, to adapt to such
> drastic changes than single-celled animals. Also terrestrial
> organism would be less able to cope with such changes as
> marine organisms (assuming large interconnected oceans
> like Earth).
> Would the presence of a large moon and the resulting
> orbital stability be a prerequisite for the development of
> intelligent terrestrial beings?
I have seen this argued, but I really don't know how forceful
the conclusions are. But there is another even more immediate
consideration. Tides are for the most part lunar, which means
that without the Moon there would be no tide pools. It has
been suggested that life first evolved in tide pools along the
ancient shores, and if this is true, the presence of the Moon
becomes essential.
> If I write a science fiction story about intelligent space
> aliens, I guess I will have to make sure that their planet
> has an Earth-like moon. Is this a correct inference?
In addition to what I have already said, here is another
thought to ponder: would humans hhave had any incentive to
explore space without the Moon as an attractive target?
The Moon is relatively nearby; getting there was clearly
"doable" even to people who lived well before the advent
of appropriate technology. Suppose there were no Moon.
No place for Apollo to go. Getting to Mars, or Venus, or
anywhere else, with people, is out of the question even
today (if you want to ge them back). Would any intelligent
species become space-faring under such circumstances?
Tim Thompson
In article <dtalbott.839988963@linda>, dtal...@teleport.com
(David N. Talbott) writes:
[ ... ]
> The question is whether they can be traced to the beginnings of
> civilization. They can. The truth is that from the earliest expressions
> of myth, ritual and art, there is no evidence of a new general theme
> arising (i.e., no new archetype, or widely recurring motif). Here, too,
> the message will be clear to anyone willing to reflect on these things in
> intellectual honesty.
I only want to address the obvious implication of the last sentence.
Whatever Talbott might have meant, what he has said is that anyone who
disagrees with him is intellectually dishonest. I object to that implication.
Paul J. Gans
: to answer his latest post, he made the job easy. The question was whether
: medieval motifs have their roots in older themes.
:
: >As for witches flying through the sky, those are not, to
: >my knowledge, even medieval. They are later than that, though
: >I'm willing to be educated.
:
: As numerous comparative mythologists have pointed out the witch is an echo
: of the ancient "angry goddess" whose image is as old as civilization. The
: goddess rages across the sky with disheveled hair. In the earliest
: astronomies she is identified with Venus, the planet the Babylonians knew
: as the "witch star." As Ev Cochrane and I have pointed out, all of the
: ancient hieroglyphs for the *comet* are attached to the goddess. Even
: Carl Sagan called the disheveled hair of the angry goddess a "comet"
: symbol. In Europe the witch's broom was a clump of grass, and Jacob Grimm
: gives a clump of grass as the old European hieroglyph for the comet. In
: China, the broom was the most common hieroglyph for the comet. And as I
: pointed out in my article, "The Great Comet Venus," posted on t.o a couple
: of years ago, similar images of the angry goddess and broom appear in
: Mexico.
Neat, Dave, but my statement stands. I know of no references
to witches flying on brooms in any document that can be dated
to the European middle ages (500-1350). There are certainly
later references, but that isn't the point.
Further, the image of a comet looks like a comet. Such an image
can be *interpreted* to be a broom, but that isn't proof that
a broom is a symbol for a comet.
You say that in Europe the witch's broom was a clump of grass.
What do you think brooms were made out of? Dead grass.
: >Besides, what evidence is there that any of these go back to
: >10,000 years?
:
: The question is whether they can be traced to the beginnings of
: civilization. They can. The truth is that from the earliest expressions
: of myth, ritual and art, there is no evidence of a new general theme
: arising (i.e., no new archetype, or widely recurring motif). Here, too,
: the message will be clear to anyone willing to reflect on these things in
: intellectual honesty.
You've certainly asserted it. Can you point us to any ancient
myths containing witches flying on broomsticks?
I repeat: I know almost nothing about myth. I am merely
exploring the possibilities.
Wayne Throop
:: dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott)
:: The truth is that from the earliest expressions of myth, ritual and
:: art, there is no evidence of a new general theme arising (i.e., no
:: new archetype, or widely recurring motif). Here, too, the message
:: will be clear to anyone willing to reflect on these things in
:: intellectual honesty.
The explanation that springs to mind is that humans have a genetic
predisposition to a finite number of archetypes/mythic-motifs, so that
once the "predisposed archetype-space" is filled up, any reinventions
will appear derivative.
Rather like, (after the Fosberry Flop anyways) there are no
fundamentally new general ways for humans to do the high jump.
Or, there are no fundamentally new story ideas (per Heinlein, there are three).
Certainly, catastrophies that swamp human scale comprehension have continued
to occur during the last 300 kiloyears or so, right up to the present time.
A flood that floods the world from horizon to horizon does so, and it makes
no odds whether the disaster is "genuinely" world-spanning. The theory that
there is some physical experience that no longer occurs is very implausible,
in that once an experience swamps the reach of human senses, it simply
can't get any larger in terms of potential for mythogenesis, even IF
it is larger in terms of physical effect.
--
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
thr...@cisco.com
Ian Tresman
rm...@access5.digex.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
> An interesting point: For quite some time, meteors (a celestial
>phenomon) were thought to be atmospheric. I wonder if the Saturnist
>reconstruction (to the extent that there is any meaningful consistency),
>in making mythological events into celestial events, missed in the
>other direction, mistaking atmospheric events for celestial.
Are you asking whether the myths could be (a) purely explained by
atmospheric conditions, or, (b) whether the atmospheric conditions at
the time of the Saturn-Earth configuration were sufficiently different
to generate myths of their own?
Ian Tresman, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies