Squatting Man * LongC, speaking of the squatting man, we'll touch on that below re Peratt's findings on rock art. * In discussing this thread with others, I got this response from Hank (bold is mine). Stopping Earth's Rotation
- I was surprised to see the claim that the rotation of the Earth's core was temporarily stopped, resulting in the MOHO. I can't imagine what kind of force could cause that. If, on the other hand, it was the outer shell of Earth, above the MOHO that stopped, there is such a force that could cause that, i.e. the magnetic field of another massive body passing hear the Earth, then moving away. The magnetic force would only penetrate the near surface of Earth, which contains only a tiny fraction of the total rotational energy. - But what kind of force could act only on the core to stop it, then what ... is the mechanism that could start it rotating again? ... I formed my ideas about the MOHO in connection with the biblical tale about the Earth stopping temporarily, in the context of Velikovsky's mention of it in his books. Velikovsky never mentioned the MOHO, to my knowledge, and I got pretty excited many years ago when I read about the MOHO and made the connection, as others apparently have also done (Dwardu, for one). Assuming that something like that really happened, all I am saying is that the only thing that makes any sense to me is that a magnetic force from some magnetized object such as a planet, approached Earth, then went away, its magnetic field entering the shallow regions of Earth, stopping (or braking) the Earth's crust by magnetic tension above the MOHO, then releasing its grip as it went away. - Dwardu has chimed in to clarify that he only suggested that the crust was "slowed"; my conclusion that it "stopped" for awhile is based on the biblical record that the Sun "stayed in its course for about a day" (paraphrasing here because I don't recall the exact wording).
Earth in a Z-Pinch * Fred Jueneman has given an interesting alternative theory to explain the evidence of Earth expansion and continental drift as follows (bracketed words, bold and color are mine for clarification or emphasis).
- Great glorious globs of galactic goo! What we seem to be discussing here are somewhat trivial exercises in topological reconfigurations. There was a lot more going on during the primordial disruption of proto-Earth's shape and spin that hasn't otherwise been considered by [the Thunderbolts team]. Peratt et al. touched on it in their "Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity Part II: Directionality and Source" (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 35, No. 4, August 2007, p. 802). Herein is shown a prolate planetary configuration that satisfies most all of the questions raised recently, which can at least be partially answered by a more careful perusal of Cardona's and Talbott/Thornhill's books, not to mention extant literature. The reversion of a prolate [Earth elongated polarly] to an oblate form [shortened polarly and widened equatorially] by such a disruption would reshape continents, which themselves would slide like skaters on ice. This apparently is a magnetohydrodynamic/mechanical process that had been going off and on throughout at least the entire Phanerozoic Eon [supposedly from 540 million years ago to the present]. We are only just now settling down into a relatively stable equilibrium since the Holocene events that brought the Saturnian configuration into the solar system proper. ... I'd already run much of what was said in my last [email above] by Dwardu Cardona something over a year ago or so and experienced his rather terse skepticism, although he left the question open. So, I'll also leave it open to the EU aficionados, and if I haven't become persona non grata in the meanwhile may add a few ex officio comments at the [upcoming] Las Vegas colloquium. - To my mind, however, there's not much left to question. Just a myriad of details to flesh out. As mentioned previously, Peratt et al. laid it out in general terms (p. 802). http://www.nazcamystery.com/geoglyphs_aurora.pdf [This shows that Earth was in a Z-pinch.] - Taken to a logical conclusion, proto-Earth was at one of the foci of a series of Z-pinches in the Birkeland current plasma trailing proto-Saturn (viz., Talbott/Thornhill, Electric Universe, p. 53), to which Peratt also alludes. This rather massive and powerful Birkeland current was perforce rotating in synchrony with the rest of the proto-planetary system, as well as the primary [proto-Saturn]. Ergo, the Z-pinch compressive effect elongated proto-Earth and other trailing bodies into prolate [polarly elongated] shapes,albeit counterintuitively rotating at several times the observed present-day rotations. Think an 8-10 hour day equivalent. Also, consider the gravity vs. centrifugal effects of a highly rotating prolate planet. (N.B., if Earth's daily rotation was 1.41 hours, objects at the equator would be essentially weightless — not less massive, just weightless.) - During periods when the plasma stream was disrupted, proto-Earth would have reverted to a more oblate shape, with the release of momentum energy as it slowed in rotation, thereby allowing continental slag to break up and slide over the underlying magma as if on a sheet of ice. It may well have occurred during a proto-Saturnian flare cycle — if indeed such a phenomenon was cyclical. This must have occurred several times over the Phanerozoic Era to redistribute the continents as described by the geologists and plate tectonic[s] enthusiasts. Such rapid continental "drift" as envisioned here would be generally moving from east to west because of equatorial expansion, while the more fluid air movement would have been from west to east. However, there would also have been additional effects that I won't go into here, except to say that the mechanical reversion of the prolate to oblate form would have been accompanied by a series of damped oscillations. - It's a wonder that as many species survived as they did. Fred
Implications * Wow! That's a lot of food for thought. For one thing, it sounds like the large dinosaurs lived when Earth was in a stronger Z-pinch from Saturn, which made Earth spin much faster, making everything much lighter in weight. I imagine the age of large dinosaurs could have lasted a mere few thousand years and could have occurred within the past 100,000 years, instead of 250 million years. * And it looks like Peratt's Rock Art findings pretty well prove that Earth was in a Z-pinch a few thousand years ago.
longcircuit
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
Lloyd,
Much food for thought. Thank you. Some questions: 1. Is "the MOHO" the Mohorovicic Discontinuity? 2. Assuming that "some magnetized object such as a planet" did slow or stop the crust's rotation, how did the withdrawal of the object cause the crust to resume its former velocity—or did it? 3. I don't have a copy of Worlds in Collision handy, so my dates may be off. Didn't the longer day (or halted Sun) Velikovsky mentions occur during a battle described in the Old Testament? If so, does any account of the battle—or of that day—include mention of great cataclysms? It's hard to imagine the crust's rotation slowing without its being accompanied by multiple natural disasters. 4. I'm not convinced large dinosaurs would have been impossible in Earth's gravity, assuming the latter has remained constant since well before the saurians appeared. A recent National Geographic Channel program showed that the largest, heaviest bones of, e.g., brontosaurus and ultrasaurus, were full of air- (or gas-) filled voids, which would make them much lighter. This doesn't disprove the theory of lighter gravity in Earth's past, but it does justify regarding it skeptically.
longcircuit
nick c
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
hi longcircuit,
Didn't the longer day (or halted Sun) Velikovsky mentions occur during a battle described in the Old Testament? If so, does any account of the battle—or of that day—include mention of great cataclysms? I
We probably do not want to get into a discussion of mytho/history on this board, any such discussion is usually done on the NIAMI board... but to answer your question, yes it does. The same story (Joshua) describes a disruption in the apparent movement of the Sun, an enormous earthquake which knocked down the walls of Jericho, and a rain of "barad" (literally translated as hot rocks or meteorites, though King James translated it as 'hailstones' not understanding how rocks could possibly fall from the sky) which killed many people. Indeed, your thinking is correct, an event of this nature should be accompanied by other similar or related events, and that is indeed the case. Also, if there is no corroboration from multiple sources then one's position is weakened. The story of the disrupted motion of the Sun in the sky is a common motif in many cultures, and no doubt refers to more than one event, for example the Greek myth of Phaethon. This story associates the disrupted motion of the Sun with the destruction of civilization by fire and flood. What I find very interesting is that if a people, who were lacking knowledge of Astronomy as a science, were simply making this up, how would they know to incorporate such diverse elements as an earthquake, rain of rocks (or, fire, flood and destruction in the case of Phaethon) as events that would follow a disturbance of the Sun's apparent motion? How would they know that a disturbance to the Sun's motion would result in catastrophe if it was not from experience? But there is much more than literary evidence, see the work of archaeologist Claude Schaeffer. Schaeffer wrote an epic analysis of numerous archaeological sites covering an extensive area of the Mediteranean and mideast (at the time he was unaware of Velikovsky or his work) concluding that they were all destroyed simultaneously by an enormous natural catastrophe. Later, Schaeffer wrote to Velikovsky after reading Earth In Upheaval (1955):
Independent from you I came to the conclusion of an important and vast upheaval towards 1500 (XVIth C.) B.C. or a bit earlier followed by the rise of the kingdom of Eygpt and corresponding highlights in neighboring countries. There must be a connection with the many observations you refer to of the catastrophes in the middle of the IInd mill.: p. 158 (glacial evidence), p. 166 (Bear River and its glacier), p. 174 (Klimasturz), p. 175 (tree rings), p. 177 (lake dwellings history), p. 180 (indications of climatic catastophes by pollen analyses), drop of ocean levels (p. 183) and land sinking (p. 184).- There is also concordance between my catastrophe of the end of the IIrd mill or twoard 2100-200 and several phenomena you refer to.
The palace of Ugarit I finished to excavate (or at least the main part) last November, went through earthquake and fire destruction like the palace of Knossos and this several times. These new findings have still to be published. But the evidence is already visible among the ruins I have excavated and which can be visited. - p. 228, have a look into the reference of mammoth find in Predmost (Moravia) in Neolithic towns. I remember (but cannot verify here) that before the war, theese finds have been dated to the late paleolithic period.
The issue, imhop, is not whether or not these types of catastrophic events happened, but when, from what celestial body, and in what order.
Nick
Lloyd
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
* LongC, 1. Is "the MOHO" the Mohorovicic Discontinuity? Yes. * 2. Assuming that "some magnetized object such as a planet" did slow or stop the crust's rotation, how did the withdrawal of the object cause the crust to resume its former velocity—or did it? Fred says it was an electric Z-pinch turning on and off that affected the rate of rotation. Cardona says it was an electric Saturn flare that temporarily slowed rotation. I'm a little unclear about his view. I thought it was that the flare slowed the Earth's core rotation, but I guess it's more likely that he meant it stopped the Earth's crust rotation, then, when the flare ended, the rotation of the core caused the crust to resume normal rotation. * 3. I don't have a copy of Worlds in Collision handy, so my dates may be off. Didn't the longer day (or halted Sun) Velikovsky mentions occur during a battle described in the Old Testament? If so, does any account of the battle—or of that day—include mention of great cataclysms? It's hard to imagine the crust's rotation slowing without its being accompanied by multiple natural disasters. Nick answered that and said discussion of mythology is normally for the NIAMI board. However, the allowed discussion on this board includes evidence of "Historic planetary instability and catastrophe". So citing the bible and other documents for historical evidence of such things seems to be acceptable here, though it's probably a slippery slope that can lead to unacceptable discussion of myths here. * 4. I'm not convinced large dinosaurs would have been impossible in Earth's gravity, assuming the latter has remained constant since well before the saurians appeared. A recent National Geographic Channel program showed that the largest, heaviest bones of, e.g., brontosaurus and ultrasaurus, were full of air- (or gas-) filled voids, which would make them much lighter. This doesn't disprove the theory of lighter gravity in Earth's past, but it does justify regarding it skeptically. Ted Holden fairly definitively explained at these two links why gravity must have been attenuated in order for large dinosaurs to even have been able to stand upright. http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropods/biganim~ http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropods/sauropo~ - No matter how light or strong the dinosaurs' bones were, their muscles would have been incapable of supporting or lifting nearly as much mass as they must have had, if gravity was not reduced.
Lloyd
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
More on Earth in a Z-Pinch * Here's more from Fred.
... The proto-Saturnian system and its own retinue of planets were originally most likely offspring of a pulsar or quasar some eons past that were carried along by its own Birkeland plasma column. I would estimate that such plasmas have an extended albeit finite lifetime, even the ones we see today (but have no clue as to their lifetimes since our own observation periods have only been measured in centuries, not eons). - ... Proto-Earth's rotation was itself caused by the twisting of the magnetic field of the Birkeland plasma, not the other way around. Further, the so-called "braking" would have been evident by the change in angular momentum of a prolate spheroid to an oblate form, with a slowing down of rotation — much like a skater who extends the arms after a rapid pivotal spin. When there is a loss of magnetohydrodynamic forces, mechanical forces then take over. - ... Peratt did not allude to an Earth that slows and speeds up in its rotation, but it is nevertheless a logical fallout of his Z-pinch plasma paper. There appears to be geological evidence that proto-Earth had over the Phanerozoic Eon experienced both the loss and regaining of the influence of the magnetohydrodynamic Birkeland current to slow down and speed up again to redistribute continental plates. There were five such major extinction events over that period, with many smaller ones in between. ... Any planetary bodies worthy of the name would be prolately shaped by the Birkeland current in the scenario described, i.e., if they remained within the influence of the rotating plasma stream. Once freed of this MHD influence, mechanical forces would dominate, and extinctions would subsequently occur. - Indeed, such a rapid rotation of our prolate planet must have lasted for many millions [or at least thousands] of years for the megafauna to evolve and grow to such outlandish sizes, which were in effect in equilibrium with their environment, much as whales are in theirs. Moreover, dinosaur fossils have been found over extended latitudes in both hemispheres, which give some credence [to] this hypothesis. And, quite simply, they grew to such large sizes because they could. Further, there also had to be a lush environment — literally from pole to pole — for all the herbivorous megafauna to thrive. - To anticipate your next inquiry: a book is in progress. Fred
longcircuit
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
Sorry to have steered the thread away from its subject. I think I've said all I can on the matter without pondering Lloyd's recent posts.
Nick, thanks for the information about Joshua, Jericho, and Phaethon. You make a good point about ancient peoples' inclusion of "an earthquake, rain of rocks (or, fire, flood and destruction...)" in their accounts of the Sun's disturbance. Thanks also for mentioning Schaeffer. I'll look into his work.
Lloyd, Thank you for Jueneman's and Cardona's thoughts. All I can say now is that, whether or not either is true, no one can say either really happened. I've looked at Holden's pages more than once. The math makes my brain hurt, but I'll have to give it another shot. Okay, back to "Earth Was a Moon of Saturn."
longcircuit
Lloyd
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
LongC said: Thank you for Jueneman's and Cardona's thoughts. All I can say now is that, whether or not either is true, no one can say either really happened.
* You need to modify that statement to say "no one SEEMS to be able to say either really happened". You'd need to be somewhat omniscient to truthfully say that no one knows something for certain. Their theories have a lot more going for them than probably nearly any other theories regarding Earth's astronomical past.
tholden, Now that's more like it. The Google Maps images and "Axis Tilts" certainly suggest your interpretation. Could you please provide your source for Robert Bass's thoughts on Venus's axis tilt? I'd really like to read it.
Lloyd, Having read tholden's linked page, I happily modify my earlier statement to read: "...no one seems able to say either really happened."
I think the issue now for the EU community is to show why the capture of the non-Solar planets had to be electrical rather than gravitational. I say this because I read hints that mainstream astronomy may accept that the Sun did capture some of the planets.
longcircuit
tholden
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
Bass' commentary was in an issue either of Pensee or Kronia, mid to late 70s, and your chances of finding the article are not good. What he said was that the reverse spin (Venus) could not plausibly be primordial and must have arisen via interaction with another body in the system, and that the phase lock with Earth tells us which body that was, i.e. that if Velikovsky didn't exist, somebody would sooner or later have to invent him.
jim1967
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
Lloyd - to answer your earlier question regarding the mechanism for an expanding earth, I would say that I find many of the ideas presented in EE thread on the NIAMI board to be noteworthy. Specifically, Allynh presents a plethora of information of which I am grossly ignorant, but nonetheless find to be quite compelling. Obviously the sun's energy is the mechanism along with free neutrinos within the earth (which is possibly relatively hollow). I equate plate boundaries with expansion joints. I realize of course that this interpretation of the data could be different that someone else's. I always try to keep my mind open and accept that in the absense of absolute proof, no ideas should be dismissed. But getting back to the subject at hand, I find the varying mechanisms for Joshua's "long day" discussed here to be rather insightful (Saturn flare vs. plasma z-pinch). I apologize for the amateurish posts. I really am in over my head here, but do enjoy the conversation. Jim
tholden
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
jim1967 wrote: Lloyd - to answer your earlier question regarding the mechanism for an expanding earth...
The idea of an expanding earth arises from two considerations, i.e. the impossibility of sauropod dinosaurs under present gravity, and arguments related to the curvature of the ancient super continent.
Two problems...
1. The largest sauropods would require at minimum a 3-1 attenuation in gravity and they died out no more than a few thousand years ago. I don't picture any way for the Earth to have gained that much mass in that short a time.
2. There is a much better explanation for the curvature of the super continent i.e. that it was sitting on the high end of an egg-shaped planet rather than lying on a more or less spherical planet as the continents do now.
Of all the possible explanations for the increase in Earth's gravity, an expanding Earth is the one I like the least.
Lloyd
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
* I tend to concur, Ted. Here's Siggy's Birkeland current Z-pinch http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/download/file.php~ Earl's Z-pinch http://www.aldebaran.cz/astrofyzika/plazma/reconnection/rek~ Thornhill's soda can experiment pinched like this in the center from a Z-pinch. http://www.redicecreations.com/news/2006/11nov/elpinch.gif Peratt's illustration of Earth in a Z-pinch before it became oblong http://www.viewzone2.com/end2.zpinch1.jpg Fred said the Z-pinch would have made Earth prolate like this http://pballew.net/prolate.jpg * If Z-pinches were strong enough during proto-Saturn flares, which Cardona says there were many of, Earth would have changed shape numerous times. It's hard to imagine how that would have produced the current shapes of continents and ocean basins. It's more complex than the other theories we've been dealing with. But it seems very promising. * The TB team and others were discussing the possibility in the Thoth email newsletter years ago that Earth had been egg-shaped in the past and that changing from that to spherical caused the continental movements etc. And now Fred has given a plausible means of getting the Earth to be egg-shaped. The theory used to be that Earth was close enough to Saturn at least for a while that it developed a huge tidal bulge. But a Z-pinch squeeze seems more likely to produce that shape. I don't see any moons of planets that are egg-shaped, so tidal forces don't seem likely to be enough. * Fred said in the earlier post that the Z-pinch also made Earth spin much faster and that's what reduced the effect of gravity, so dinosaurs could reach huge sizes.
tayga
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
tholden wrote: The largest sauropods ... died out no more than a few thousand years ago.
I thought they are supposed to have died out 60 million years ago. Am I mistaken?
tholden
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
Lloyd wrote: The theory used to be that Earth was close enough to Saturn at least for a while that it developed a huge tidal bulge. But a Z-pinch squeeze seems more likely to produce that shape. I don't see any moons of planets that are egg-shaped, so tidal forces don't seem likely to be enough. * Fred said in the earlier post that the Z-pinch also made Earth spin much faster and that's what reduced the effect of gravity, so dinosaurs could reach huge sizes.
That's interesting... Other posters on t.o convinced me that the tidal bulge idea wasn't going to work early on and Sansbury's theory of gravity does involve spin rates.
