Lloyd, thank you for directing me to this thread. I have seen it before but had only really skimmed it. I have just read it with great interest, but my reservations still remain. Let me see if I can explain what I meant by not being convinced by Saturnian Theory.
When viewing the theory from a top-down perspective I don't have many complaints. The use of comparative mythology to identify archetypes with their connection to other archetypes and discovering a unity of myths around the world is very compelling. However, my reservations stem from looking at it from a bottom-up perspective where I question the methodology and premise's of the theory and more specifically comparative mythology.
One of the big assumptions is that ancient myths (at least in their original incarnations) stem from natural phenomena or events witnessed around the world. This is a claim that cannot be verified apodictically. This is not a show stopper, but a shortcoming nevertheless, that inserts a level of skepticism or doubt in its initial premise.
Assuming we give this premise the benefit of the doubt, there is still the matter of interpretation of the myths. I am not a mythologist/scholar/archeologist so I am not qualified to say what is, or is not plausible/demonstrable from an interpretation of myth, but the very nature of interpretation is subjective. Ancient human testimony can be cryptic and vague and using interpretation to discern meaning from those records adds a latitude of freedom that makes it difficult to verify. The subjectivity and openness of this process can lead to an interpretation that might "shoehorn" an archetype into the model that you want to see. However, I will add that the comparison of ancient symbology does add a level of credence to it.
There is also the component of the theory that says we were "lucky" to have survived the planetary instability and subsequent realignment. I know there isn't really an answer to this, but it does come across a little like "... and then a miracle happened". It just doesn't sit well with me right now.
Ultimately, the Theory must stand on empirical evidence in whatever form may still exist. The mythological interpretation was simply a blueprint of the theory. Now it must be filled in with data.
The "Symbols of an Alien Sky" series is certainly a step towards that.
fosborn
Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory
[quote]Assuming we give this premise the benefit of the doubt, there is still the matter of interpretation of the myths. I am not a mythologist/scholar/archeologist so I am not qualified to say what is, or is not plausible/demonstrable from an interpretation of myth,[/quote]
I wonder if you think David Talbott is qualified to do this?
Lloyd
Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory
* I guess one of the best websites on the Saturn Theory is http://maverickscience.com. * Kronos and Aeon magazines were very good too, but they're no longer published. There may be a source for back issues. Another site for resources is http://www.sis-group.org.uk/resource.htm. * Dave T started a mythology board on this forum a couple years ago, but later took it down. * I think the Saturn Theorists' research is pretty solid that shows that Saturn was our sun up till about 5,000 years ago. There isn't just myths to base their theory on. There's also rock art and various other physical art forms. 5,000 years ago isn't that long. The ancients also told about the birth of Venus and the time before the Earth had a Moon etc.
moses
Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory
There is also the component of the theory that says we were "lucky" to have survived the planetary instability and subsequent realignment. I know there isn't really an answer to this, but it does come across a little like "... and then a miracle happened". It just doesn't sit well with me right now. Orthogonal
I don't want to be picky, but the theory that there was a period of planetary instability or chaos, is very independent of the theory that there once existed a Saturn System. The possibility that the Solar System was once just the way it is now, and something disturbed it causing all sorts of chaos and destruction, and then returned to the same or similar state, is very real. But in both cases we have humanity after a stable period undergoing great trauma in a time of startling events in the sky. This is what I think is significant, it is just that the evidence points towards an unusual planetary configuration previously. Mo
Orthogonal
Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory
fosborn wrote: I wonder if you think David Talbott is qualified to do this?
Yes, he is certainly qualified and I do not dispute that. However, I say this with the caveat as listed in my previous post that interpretation is subjective. There are certainly many details of the theory that are highly correlated with Mythology and rock art/historical records.
It cannot be proven, or atleast deemed plausible, until there is a preponderance of empirical evidence. A level that has yet to be reached.
fosborn
Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory
Yes, he is certainly qualified and I do not dispute that. However, I say this with the caveat as listed in my previous post that interpretation is subjective. There are certainly many details of the theory that are highly correlated with Mythology and rock art/historical records.
OK so I should stick with Dave and the "Apodictic" archetypes. It can't be more self evident than that.
So if you had to cast a ya or nay vote. Do you accept Dave's theory, as the best explanation above all others, how do you vote?
apodictic (comparative more apodictic, superlative most apodictic) 1.Incontrovertible; demonstrably true or certain. 1902, William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Folio Society 2008, p. 284: No religion has ever yet owed its prevalence to 'apodictic certainty'. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apodictic
There is no way I am going to out "William James," you. Not even a contest.
Orthogonal
Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory
Thanks for the links Lloyd, I will give them a thorough look. I do have some questions about the scientific aspects of the theory. Maybe the links address them, but I haven't really looked yet.
It seems that both earth and mars were likely "ejected" from Saturn at some distant time. Would they not have then orbited Saturn? I don't understand how the planets entered a linear formation, especially in a pole forward direction.
Moving from the relatively thicker atmosphere on earth and saturn's plasmasphere to what we have now would have caused significant biosphere destruction. It would likely have caused a mass extinction event. From what I know about planetary history there seems to have been evidence of some animal extinctions around that time, but I don't know if is sufficient evidence. I would expect that the planet's flora would have been more extensively impacted as night fell for the first time.
This is also related to the Sun's solar irradiance and the very highly tuned human eye to peak solar irradiance at earth's surface in the visible spectrum. Chloraphyll is also equally tuned to the Sun's EM spectrum. Had we been originally in Saturn's environment this would not be possible since human eyes (cones/rods) would be adapted to a completely different spectrum under Saturn.
One last curiosity regarding symbol's and rock art. I have seen a few video's talking about the enclosing serpent, but there wasn't ever an interpretation of it's celestial reference. Do you know what that was?
So if you had to cast a ya or nay vote. Do you accept Dave's theory, as the best explanation above all others, how do you vote?
At present I refrain from voting.
There is no way I am going to out "William James," you. Not even a contest.
fosborn
Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory
Orthogonal »
Wow, I was reading some of your post in ": Electric Sun: A Quantitative Calculation"
Your an awesome contributor to this forum!! I will so enjoy your post. And promise to stay out of the way! Thanks.
This is also related to the Sun's solar irradiance and the very highly tuned human eye to peak solar irradiance at earth's surface in the visible spectrum. Chloraphyll is also equally tuned to the Sun's EM spectrum. Had we been originally in Saturn's environment this would not be possible since human eyes (cones/rods) would be adapted to a completely different spectrum under Saturn.
Thanks for this observation. This is going to be exciting, to look into this.
Orthogonal
Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory
fosborn wrote: Thanks for this observation. This is going to be exciting, to look into this.
It's talking specifically about chlorophyll, but the idea is similar enough to understand how it would also affect the human eye. Note: This is more about a planet that is orbiting the star, not one that would be inside like some of the EU theories suggest.
StevenJay
Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory
Orthogonal wrote: Note: This is more about a planet that is orbiting the star, not one that would be inside like some of the EU theories suggest.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "inside?"
Orthogonal
Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory
StevenJay wrote: Could you elaborate on what you mean by "inside?"
Someone asked privately: So concerning this [article]: Were Aborigines the first astronomers? Tribes carefully arranged rocks to map the progress of the sun 10,000 years ago [Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1EM62TYH1] What in your material would address this issue. I assume something with the reliability of radiological dating? If so how would Saturn theory be affected by unreliable radiological dating? The main issue for me is the past positions of our Sun in relation to Saturn Theory.
* Actually, Cardona says the Saturn System arrived at the Sun's heliosphere about 10,000 years ago. So it's possible that that is fairly correct, although C14 dating does seem to be off by hundreds of years the older something is.
Orthogonal said on Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:41 pm: [The Saturn Theory] cannot be proven, or atleast deemed plausible, until there is a preponderance of empirical evidence. A level that has yet to be reached.
* The preponderance of empirical evidence perhaps has not yet been reached by you and me, but I believe it has by Talbott, Cardona, Cochrane and some others, which is why they advanced the Saturn Theory.
Orthogonal said on Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:28 pm: It seems that both earth and mars were likely "ejected" from Saturn at some distant time. Would they not have then orbited Saturn? I don't understand how the planets entered a linear formation, especially in a pole forward direction.
* Cardona says the Saturn System likely developed the linear arrangement in a way similar to the way Comet SL9 did after its close approach to Jupiter a couple years before it returned to Jupiter in 94 and crashed into it. He suggests that Herbig-Haro objects, which are stars, also have a similar linear arrangement. The Saturn System moved like a comet and like other brown dwarf stars have been found to move. Brown dwarfs that have bipolar jets move in the direction of one jet with the other jet trailing behind. He suggests that Mars and Earth were in Saturn's trailing jet. When Saturn reached the Sun's heliosphere about 10,000 years ago, Saturn was apparently moving almost tangentially, as it bounced off the heliosphere a few times before actually penetrating. Then it must have taken close to 5,000 years to reach the location of the main asteroid belt, when the system broke up and the linear arrangement came to an end. During that time Venus was likely ejected from Saturn or Jupiter [about 7,000 years ago].
Orthogonal said: Moving from the relatively thicker atmosphere on earth and saturn's plasmasphere to what we have now would have caused significant biosphere destruction. It would likely have caused a mass extinction event. From what I know about planetary history there seems to have been evidence of some animal extinctions around that time, but I don't know if is sufficient evidence. I would expect that the planet's flora would have been more extensively impacted as night fell for the first time. - This is also related to the Sun's solar irradiance and the very highly tuned human eye to peak solar irradiance at earth's surface in the visible spectrum. Chloraphyll is also equally tuned to the Sun's EM spectrum. Had we been originally in Saturn's environment this would not be possible since human eyes (cones/rods) would be adapted to a completely different spectrum under Saturn. To get a better idea of the process I'm referring to you can watch this video on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp353jS0JKI - It's talking specifically about chlorophyll, but the idea is similar enough to understand how it would also affect the human eye. Note: This is more about a planet that is orbiting the star, not one that would be inside like some of the EU theories suggest.
* You have it kind of backwards. Before Saturn entered the Solar System, the light was rather dim, like the full moon or somewhat brighter, for the northern hemisphere. The southern hemisphere was even darker, but some light may have reflected off of Saturn's heliosphere. Cardona called the time before Saturn's arrival in the Solar System the Age of Darkness. Saturn was described as being initially like a glow worm. The Younger Dryas event about 10,000 years ago was the time of the extinction of giant mammals. There's evidence that electrical effects can induce rapid evolution. So plants and animals may have had to adjust to changes in lighting. But, even now, I think they're adapted mostly to red and blue wavelengths.
Orthogonal said: One last curiosity regarding symbol's and rock art. I have seen a few video's talking about the enclosing serpent, but there wasn't ever an interpretation of it's celestial reference. Do you know what that was?
* Yes, according to articles in Kronos magazine etc, the enclosing serpent was a circular formation around Saturn, caused by Venus' first appearance like a comet that left a trail of gas, dust, or plasma behind it. It was called the Ouroboros, the circular snake biting its own tail. After some time Venus settled into the linear arrangement, appearing to move to the center of the face of Saturn, but, according to Talbott, it continued to display a curly tail for some time.
StevenJay said: Orthogonal wrote: Note: This is more about a planet that is orbiting the star, not one that would be inside like some of the EU theories suggest. - Could you elaborate on what you mean by "inside?"
* Thornhill has suggested that Saturn's heliosphere protected the planets from the vacuum of space. Saturn's satellites, including Earth, were inside its protective heliosphere.
Lloyd
Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory
* Here are some of my notes and questions on Cardona's book, God Star, and his replies to my questions.
GOD STAR p. 381 Saturn's axis is tilted about the same as Earth's and it points the same direction as Earth's, toward the North Star. Neither axis has changed since at least the Tertiary. LLOYD: Did the Saturn System breakup have no effect on the axis orientations? CARDONA: I cannot go into this in any detail right now, but, although it looked quite chaotic to onlookers on Earth, the break-up resulted from an ordered sequence inherent in plasmatic dispersal. LLOYD: You said low rays from a brown dwarf would not allow flora to thrive. But wouldn't the plasmasphere reflect enough light for flora there? CARDONA: No, I did not say "low rays." Read it again. I said "SLANTED rays." This was presented as a criticism of Ken Croswell in which the brown star he presented in his model would have bathed the poles of its EQUATORIALLY ORBITING PLANET with slanted rays just as the Sun does at present in relation to Earth. Such rays WOULD have impeded the growth of lush sub-tropical flora at the poles. Croswell's model did not include a plasmasphere. LLOYD: You mentioned the greenhouse property of thicker atmospheres like Earth's former atmosphere. I'm not sure greenhouse is the best word, because there seems to be a great misconception that Venus is hot because of a greenhouse effect, instead of because of its youthfulness. If Mars were given a similarly thick atmosphere and then moved to Venus' orbit, it would not heat up, would it? I think the thick atmosphere would insulate it from the Sun's heat. CARDONA: Unfortunately, because of Venus, neo-Velikovskians have tended to shy away from the term "greenhouse." However, Venus notwithstanding, there IS such a thing. And, yes, it CAN be, as it actually is, brought into play by denser atmospheres.
GOD STAR p. 382: Uranus' sunlit side has an electric glow. Its north pole, which had been in darkness for forty years, was found to be warmer than the rest of the planet. LLOYD: Is this because heat was escaping from its north pole? Was the measurement at the cloud tops? CARDONA: I have no idea. No one does yet.
GOD STAR p. 385: Earth could have had a north polar opening, but not likely. LLOYD: Wouldn't a thick Earth atmosphere have made proto-Saturn hard to see from Earth? CARDONA: To an extent, of course. This is discussed in Volume Four.
GOD STAR p. 393: Coral reefs grow in narrow zones. The Pago Pago harbor coral reef is about 5,000 years old, an interesting age. LLOYD: It was recently found that corals grow all over the deep ocean floors, up to at least 500 ft tall. CARDONA: Grow? Or have grown? LLOYD: I believe I read that they grow there now, i.e. on the deep ocean floor.
GOD STAR p. 397: Continental drift over the equatorial bulge could have broken up Pangea. GOD STAR p. 400: Saturn's magnetic field is aligned with its spin axis within one degree, unlike any other planet. GOD STAR p. 402: Mars' poles have deposits and two antipodal areas on the equator have similar deposits, suggesting that the poles were there previously, where those equatorial deposits are. GOD STAR pp. 409, 411 Dave Talbott's Theory was that Jupiter was behind Saturn in the Saturn Age. LLOYD: Or Earth could have been between Saturn and Jupiter. CARDONA: I tried that once, but I gave up on it.
GOD STAR p. 415: No water was detected during the comet SL9's impact on Jupiter. GOD STAR pp. 416, 417: SL9 fragmented in 1992 during a close approach to Jupiter. The fragments did not then orbit each other, like asteroid Dactyl orbits the 34 mile long asteroid Ida, but instead moved in single file in a nearly straight line until they hit Jupiter 2 years later. LLOYD: And that's how the Saturn System probably moved in single file until it broke up within the Solar System? CARDONA: NO. I presented that as an example of cosmic linearity, and as Wallace Thornhill's theory. Please read carefully. LLOYD: I think you mean NO, not in a straight line like a fragmented comet, but in a straight line like something else, maybe like Herbig-Haro objects. Right?
GOD STAR pp. 417, 423: Dave Talbott's Theory CARDONA: Dave Talbott's theory here concerns his belief that proto-Saturn wandered before it came to a semi-permanent rest in Earth's north celestial pole. But while I accept that proto-Saturn did appear to wander in the sky, in my opinion it only did so for a short while when its flare-up temporarily dislocated Earth's sharing axis. More on that, again, in Volume Four.
GOD STAR p. 433: Sanchoniathon collected various peoples' myths and made a single story from them. CARDONA: Well, just a minute there. What I said is that Sanchoniathon "fused two variant readings of the same event into a sequential one." Not quite the same as collecting various myths from various peoples from which he manufactured a single story. I was here speaking of only one specific event, not the entire mytho-historical record. I know you have said you skipped over the mythology parts of GOD STAR, but, honestly, I do not know how anyone can really understand what lies behind my reasoning by skipping over the very evidence on which the entire concept of the book is based. LLOYD: I think I read much of the mythology in several catastrophist magazines previously.
GOD STAR p. 434: In the 3rd century Lactantius used Boreas [wind] as an analogy of the Sanctus Spiritus that impregnated Mary to conceive Jesus. GOD STAR p. 439: According to Sanskrit literature, Manu, had to perform penance by standing on one leg for 10,000 years. LLOYD: The one leg was the polar column, so could the duration of the polar column have been 10,000 years? Or was their year equivalent to half of a modern year? CARDONA: The 10,000 years mentioned in this case are due to retroactive calculation. The polar column, in Anthony Peratt's opinion, with which I heartily agree, was as old as Earth itself. However, as explained in the sequels to GOD STAR, it retracted and re-established itself at each of proto-Saturn's recurrent flare-ups.
GOD STAR P. 458: Dave Talbott first considered the polar column to be a luminous stream of falling debris, but that would have left a lot of detritus in the Arctic. Juenemann considered the column to be a tornado of air and water vapor. CARDONA: Actually, Jueneman explained the polar column as a Rankine vortex AKIN to a tornado.
GOD STAR p. 459: Luminous blueish & greenish tinted tornadoes have been observed. CARDONA: Once again—NO. What I wrote is that bluish tornadoes have been seen. But the encasement "in a pale green envelope" is Jueneman's description of the planetary Rankine vortex he proposed as a model of the polar column. One thing I have to be adamant about here is that what I have written should be presented correctly—please. Dwardu
LLOYD: I'm trying, Dwardu.
Orthogonal
Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory
Lloyd wrote: * You have it kind of backwards. Before Saturn entered the Solar System, the light was rather dim, like the full moon or somewhat brighter, for the northern hemisphere. The southern hemisphere was even darker, but some light may have reflected off of Saturn's heliosphere. Cardona called the time before Saturn's arrival in the Solar System the Age of Darkness. Saturn was described as being initially like a glow worm. The Younger Dryas event about 10,000 years ago was the time of the extinction of giant mammals. There's evidence that electrical effects can induce rapid evolution. So plants and animals may have had to adjust to changes in lighting. But, even now, I think they're adapted mostly to red and blue wavelengths.
Ok, if the light was "dim" this would certainly point to a large difference in both Chlorophyl and Animal eye response in the EM spectrum. There is nothing particularly "special" about what we call the Visible Spectrum, it is just happenstance that that it is what it is due to our orbit around the Sun. If we were around another star, the visible spectrum would be something else entirely. Under the Saturnian system, it would have likely been pushed toward infrared. It is your position that entering the Solar system induced rapid evolution to achieve the response we currently see? I'll have to see if there is any data on this. I don't know if any ancient human genomes have been analyzed for something like this.
Lloyd
Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory
* I believe there have been one or more threads on this forum that discussed recent discoveries about electricity inducing rapid evolution. Cardona found that the Saturn System apparently encountered numerous plasmaspheres of stars or other things during its journey from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy to the Solar System, which caused Saturn to flare violently and these violent flares occurred every few millennia on average. Each time these flares occurred Earth would have been exposed to greater electrical stress, which would have induced rapid evolution during each flare episode. * As I said earlier, I believe the light from Saturn was concentrated more in both the red and blue. I can ask Dwardu about that, but I don't know if I'll remember to do that. I'll try.
