Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Completing The Circuit



Rens Van Der Sluijs: Joining the Dots Part One: Fireworks on New Year's Day.

Can there be any truth in the traditional linkage of a total conjunction of planets and universal disaster or is this just arrant nonsense?

“All that the earth inherits will … be consigned to flame when the planets, which now move in different orbits, all assemble in Cancer, so arranged in one row that a straight line may pass through their spheres. When the same gathering takes place in Capricorn, then we are in danger of the deluge.”

This statement is attributed to the Babylonian priest, Bēl-re’ušunu (3rd century BCE), better known as Berossus, and epitomises the once widespread astronomical concept of the ‘Great Year’. From the Roman Empire to China, ancient philosophers defined the ‘Great Year’ as a large cosmic cycle, completed when the five naked-eye planets, the sun and the moon appear in linear conjunction. It was thought that such complete conjunctions occasioned cosmic catastrophes – devastating floods and fires that destroyed the preceding cosmos and inaugurated a new world.

Standard astronomical models do not acknowledge any mechanisms accounting for global tides or fires in response to planetary conjunctions. While the tidal effects of the moon are satisfactorily explained with gravity [I disagree on this point -- OIM], the same force cannot demonstrably be made to work for the planets, as has often been pointed out.

The crux is that this dismissal rests on the antiquated perception of interplanetary space as a vacuum, in which gravity is the only operational force. With the coming of the Space Age, this simplistic paradigm has been incontrovertibly refuted. It is now known that most of the interplanetary space, and of the entire cosmos, consists of plasma and almost every body in the solar system is enclosed in a plasma sheath, technically a double-layer structure that serves to shield the object inside from electric fields impinging on the shell.

Teardrop-shaped magnetotails, which are structurally comparable to the comas and ion tails of comets, extend out into space from the earth, Venus, and most other planets. These are often so long as to extend to the orbit of the next planet, sometimes ‘tickling’ the protective sheath around that object as they point away from the sun. The solar equivalent to these planetary magnetospheres is the solar wind, which is ultimately responsible for auroral displays on the earth and on other planets.

The physical composition and the interaction of these magnetospheres are extremely complex and scientists are only just beginning to get a handle on the subject. What is already clear, however, is that the possibility of the sun or any of the planets ‘influencing’ the electromagnetic weather on another body is no longer so remote.

As the plasma sheaths of different bodies brush against each other in the ecliptic plane, they effectively complete a giant electric circuit, allowing a transfer of electric charge between adjacent planets. Such discharging offers a straightforward explanation for the ‘forgotten’ Pythagorean conviction that ‘comets’ arise when planets form linear conjunctions. Can it also account for the destructions by fire and flood the ancients believed would happen when the planets line up?

To find out, it is necessary to make a careful distinction between apparent linear conjunctions as seen from a viewpoint on earth and actual linear conjunctions in space.

Insofar as some or all the naked-eye planets are regularly seen to arrange themselves in linear conjunctions, ancient astronomers might have based their ideas concerning a ‘Great Year’ on observation. The approximate conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Venus, Mercury and the rising sun stretched out over a number of constellations on the 15th. April 2002 is comparable to the so-called thema mundi or ‘cosmic birth chart’ outlined by Hellenistic astrologers, in which the seven traditional ‘planets’ span across the entire starry sky. Could such ‘apparent’ lineups of planets have inspired associations with transient events of the kind envisioned by the likes of Berossus?

In theory, current knowledge about the solar wind and the ‘windsock’ behaviour of planetary magnetotails allows that a lineup of bodies in the solar system might cause extremely violent disturbances of the geomagnetic field. For such a magnetospheric explanation to work, however, the linear arrangement of the moon, the sun and the five naked-eye planets cannot have been apparent, as, in that case, the plasma tails of these bodies could not line up to produce a ‘closed electric circuit’.

Also, the earth would have to be physically displaced outside the string of planets, yet if it was to experience any of the resulting ‘fireworks’, it must have been caught in the crossfire itself. As the earth’s ionosphere would be loaded to excess with charged particles, an outburst of auroral activity might go some way towards explaining the reported ‘conflagration’ of the world.

The requirement of a ‘real’ linear conjunction of planets, including the earth, in true state fits better with Berossus’ intimation that the “gathering” of the seven players occurred in a single constellation, but results in a visual separation of the exterior planets on the night side and the interior planets on the day side, in solar transit. The ancient authorities on the subject of the Great Year all lived at times when astronomy was advanced enough to distinguish apparent visual arrangements in the sky from inferred physical models of reality.

That a great conjunction triggers destructive interplanetary ‘storms’ fits into the segment in time when astronomers first became interested in the periodicities of planets. The idea may have received its ultimate inspiration from mythical memories about a time when comets and meteors were rampant, when the world suffered in flames, and when stars and planets saw an apparent reorganisation that followed the breakup of a previous linear arrangement of bodies. In the real world, a linear alignment of planets with the solar wind may sometimes have coincided with an exceptionally intense discharge event.

The above is not to suggest that planetary conjunctions must always precipitate cosmic discharging or ‘bad weather’ on earth – far from it. It is easy to think of complicating factors that help to explain why, for example, the conjunction of 2002 did not wreak any havoc. For one thing, many congregations of planets may simply be loose enough to allow sufficient leeway for plasma tails to ‘miss’ the sheaths of other planets. The role of coronal mass ejections warrants investigation – are these a required cause or a consequence of the ‘fireworks’ accompanying a great conjunction?

What are the restrictions on the orientation of the solar wind on such occasions? Finally, the intensity of electric discharging during conjunction must be modulated by the initial charge differential between the bodies involved, but this will vary over time, gradually being cancelled out during quiescent periods, when no extraneous forces impinge on the system.

The bottom line is that ancient speculations about a link between catastrophic events and planetary movements present a challenge that is well worth renewed attention. In this particular case, plasma physics offers an intellectually palatable way to vindicate the ‘astrological’ claim that the antics of the planets can affect the conditions of life on earth as a whole. The role of concomitant effects, such as the repositioning of the geomagnetic field, tsunamis and earthquakes, also invites further consideration. As a theory of cosmic time, the ancient notion of a ‘Great Year’ may thus be rescued from the dustbin of scientific theorising.

11 comments:

Anaconda said...

@ OilIsMastery:

As you know from previous comments I don't agree with the "Saturn theory".

The "theory" is quite specific in terms of planetary alignment, namely, having all the planets stacked on top of each other above the North pole.

There is little if any physical evidence for this unique alignment.

The author of the underlying article, Rens Van Der Sluijs, and Dr. Anthony Peratt have a more compelling theory -- namely, intense Birkeland currents, several orders of magnitude stronger than today, which caused a plasmoid cage around the Earth or Axis Mondi.

(In prior comments I have presented evidence for this view.)

The present post does not stand for the "Saturn theory", on the contrary, in my opinion it stands for the proposition that with increased Birkeland currents, of a strength to cause a plasmoid cage around Earth, or Axis Mondi, all the other planets would be effected as well, likely they would be much more visible than currently is the case.

And as the posted article suggests, the planets could "light up" even more when they lign up so that their plasma tails intersect with the next planet in line.

This could result in orbital and axial effects on the planets -- but without the drastic orbital changes required of the "Saturn theory".

Both Venus and Mercury could have appeared much more like large comets moving across the skies.

Saturn could have been much brighter than today.

Even the Moon could have displayed marked electromagnetism phenomena visible from the Earth.

In short, the historical, mythological, references to planets taking on fantasic characteristics within the last 10,000 years don't require radical changes in orbital positions.

OilIsMastery, over the time I have been commenting on this website, I have observed what appears to be an over reliance on individual scientists. You place too much stock in individuals being completely right, or completely wrong.

Such is rarely the case in reality.

Individuals, almost always are right about somethings and wrong about others.

Velikovsky was right about the pervasive electromagnetism present in the solar system.

But his "mechanism" to explain evidence of intense electromagnetic dynamics on Earth and exhibited by the other planets is wrong.

These effects can be explained by other processes which I have outlined in detail in other posts.

Peratt's and Van Der Sluijs' theories about intense aurora which form a semi-permanent "plasma tower" standing over the North pole is more consistent with the evidence at hand.

I asked you to consider that proposition before and you responed that you would consider it, although, you never returned with a final or even provisional answer.

As several OilIsMastery posts have pointed out, individuals, while making substantial contributions to scientific knowledge like Aristotle, if held in too high a position for too long, end up holding back Science because Man's understanding advances beyond what was understood in a previous age.

Velikovsky served a purpose, highlighting electromagnetism's role in the solar system, but clinging to the "Saturn theory" at this point shows a stubborness that ultimately retards knowledge.

This website first took off expounding the scientific evidence for Abiotic Oil theory, then Expanding Earth theory, and now Plasma Cosmology.

In each instance, you and I asked people to inspect the evidence and be open to changing their opinions based on the best scientific evidence currently available.

But at times it seems you are not willing to do the same about your own opinions. This "stubborness" you exhibit undercuts your over all message of being open-minded to the best scientific evidence currently available

Also, your "stubborness", in terms of style and strategy for conveying persuasive communication has also hurt your credibility and I would submit the credibility of this website as well.

You should be concerned about that.

This website took off discussing the evidence for Abiotic Oil theory, I suggest you reach back to that base of expertise and authority.

(I understand you feel the question is settled and "boring" at this point in time, but a theme needs to be repeated -- creativity is finding new ways to present the evidence in an interesting and entertaining fashion. Your last "oil" post, More Oil Discovered Onshore Zzzz, the first in over two months was dismissive of the subject, even I was not encouraged to comment -- turning your back on the "gal" who brought your to the dance is bad form and strategy.)

I have subtly tried to suggest synthesizing the three major themes in an overarching analysis, by way of some of my comments, a wholistic approach.

I think there is major potential upside to that approach. It would be creative, yet well within a sound scientific framework of evidence.

Changes in approach to reach a larger audience is no vice.

Something to think about.

OilIsMastery said...

Anaconda,

"OilIsMastery, over the time I have been commenting on this website, I have observed what appears to be an over reliance on individual scientists. You place too much stock in individuals being completely right, or completely wrong."

Example? Velikovsky?

"Such is rarely the case in reality. Individuals, almost always are right about somethings and wrong about others."

See my Aristotle post below where I agree with you on this point.

"Velikovsky was right about the pervasive electromagnetism present in the solar system."

I agree.

"But his "mechanism" to explain evidence of intense electromagnetic dynamics on Earth and exhibited by the other planets is wrong."

How do you know that?

"Velikovsky served a purpose, highlighting electromagnetism's role in the solar system, but clinging to the "Saturn theory" at this point shows a stubborness that ultimately retards knowledge."

How am I clinging to Saturn theory? I've only ever discussed it as a result of you bringing it up. And Now I've found the quotes from Von Humboldt and Augustine -- not Velikovsky -- concerning Saturn.

Anaconda said...

@ OilIsMastery:

There are several scientists on both sides of the ledger. I have commented on them before. Your attacks ad nauseam against Newton fail to acknowledge how primitive scientific thought was at the time he developed his hypothesis and fails to acknowledge that his ideas and effort at quantitative description (mathematics), while an approximation, has served Man well: Getting Man to the Moon and back alive!

OiIsMastery asks: "How do you know that [Velikovsky's Saturn theory is wrong]?"

There is very little physical evidence to support it.

There is no orbital theory that would explain the "mechanics" of a stack of planets over the North pole, and the quotations don't offer compelling proof.

(I've offered more detailed comments prior.)

Augustine is repeating a hand-me-down. No one disputes that the planets weren't important to the ancients, but as I've explained there is reason that has nothing to do with "Saturn theory".

Many times scientists are right about general premises, yet wrong about specifics, partcularly pioneers. Details many times are filled in by scientists following up on the original general premise, but they have enough objectivity to avoid being trapped into the specifics.

OilIsMastery, you seem to always leap to the defense of Velikovsky, most reject "Saturn theory" even the author of the posted article.

I could be wrong, but you have come across as if you were infatuated with Velikovsky.

I suggest you take his general ideas about electromagnetism and hold circumspect his specific idea of the "Saturn theory".

That is all.

OilIsMastery said...

Anaconda,

"Your attacks ad nauseam against Newton fail to acknowledge how primitive scientific thought was at the time he developed his hypothesis and fails to acknowledge that his ideas and effort at quantitative description (mathematics), while an approximation, has served Man well: Getting Man to the Moon and back alive!"

On the contrary, it is precisely due to "primitive scientific thought" that I attack Newton. On the one hand you say gravitation is "primitive scientific thought", on the other hand you claim it allowed man to get to the moon precisely. I suggest the former statement is true and the latter statement is not. The theory of gravitation said heavier than air flying machines are impossble.

"There is very little physical evidence to support it."

Saturn exists. It's a real physical planet. You don't consider history to be physical evidence?

"There is no orbital theory that would explain the "mechanics" of a stack of planets over the North pole, and the quotations don't offer compelling proof."

It's called a conjunction no? Where does Velikovsky say that anyway?

"I could be wrong, but you have come across as if you were infatuated with Velikovsky."

You aren't wrong and I am perhaps infatuated. But perhaps my love of Velikovsky isn't as foolish as you think.

"I suggest you take his general ideas about electromagnetism and hold circumspect his specific idea of the "Saturn theory"."

What is Velikovsky's specific idea of Saturn Theory? Saturn is only mentioned on 6 pages (out of 389) in Worlds In Collision.

OilIsMastery said...

Here is what Velikovsky actually said about Saturn:

"The age that man later called the Age of Cronos (Saturn) was remembered with nostalgia as the age of bliss. It was the the earliest age of which man retained some, however dim, memories, but farther into the past, the dimness amounts almost to darkness. Saturn was also a more massive body than it is now, possibly of the volume of Jupiter, 1 whereas now the proportion is approximately 7 to 13.

1 Interestingly, for certain reasons G. Kuiper assumed in recent years that Saturn originally was of a mass equal to that of Jupiter. Sky &Telescope, March 1959, p. 259.

At a date that I would be hard put to task to identify even with approximation, but possibly about than ten thousand years ago, Saturn was distrubed by Jupiter and exploded, actually became a nova. The solar system and reaches beyond it were illuminated by the exploded star, and in a matter of a week the earth was enveloped in waters of Saturnian origin."

Anaconda said...

@ OilIsMastery:

Of course, you are welcome to your own ideas.

I have offered my reasons, if they are not sufficient to persuade you to reconsider your ideas, then it is no matter.

You must be comfortatble with your own ideas and conceptions, after all you have to live with them.

I'll accept that Velikovsky did not articluate the specific I refer to and so I will stand corrected in that instance.

Be that as it may, the idea that Saturn inhabited a close orbit to Earth is very unlikely in my estimation.

There will never be absolute proof, one way or the other. All I can do is weigh the evidence for the various propositions and do my best to draw reasonable conclusions.

I've considered the evidence and will continue to do so as additional evidence is provided -- science is an ongoing process that is constantly building on previous understanding and new understanding based on additional observation & measurement.

Analysis & interpretation is also required to be applied to any given set of circumstances and updated as new and novel approaches and ideas are offered as new ways to analyize & interpret.

Although, in historical questions there may be a lack of additional evidence available so one must rely on the evidence already in hand, that is not to say new insights in analysis & interpretation can't be applied to aid in reaching a better and more complete understanding of previously available evidence.

If such is the case in this instant (a lack of new evidence or new ways to interpret that evidence), I'll be likely to maintain my opinion because presently the evidence is insufficient to warrant the conclusion that Saturn was in a close Earth orbit (relative to where Saturn presently orbits today) in the historical time frame of the last 10,000 years.

The last quoted passage of Velikosky seems fantastic in the extreme -- I have seen no evidence to suggest such a radical development ever happened.

But to each his own.

OilIsMastery said...

Anaconda,

Here are the interesting questions posed by the Saturnians which should be pondered and not ridiculed.

Why did the first astronomers celebrate the planet Saturn as the first supreme god?

Why did ancient people sacrifice their children to Saturn?

Why was the original Sabbath, the most sacred day of the week, named after Saturn?

Why did ancient nations invoke Saturn as the primeval "sun?"

Why did early astronomies declare that Saturn ruled from the celestial pole?

Why do so many modern religions carry remnants of Saturn worship?

Anaconda said...

OIL PRICE VAULTS ABOVE $58

Could the oil market finally be turning around?

Oil above $58 a barrel.And in another piece of oil news:

Chevron Pumps First Oil From Costliest U.S. Project(Bloomberg) May 6, 2009 -- "Chevron Corp., the second-largest U.S. oil company, said its $4.7 billion Tahiti field in the Gulf of Mexico began pumping crude yesterday, almost two years after faulty parts delayed construction."

"The field, located 190 miles (306 kilometers) from New Orleans in 4,100 feet of water, is expected to produce 125,000 barrels of oil and 70 million cubic feet of gas a day when output peaks, the San Ramon, California-based company said today in a statement."

"The deepest of the wells feeding the floating Tahiti platform reaches 26,700 feet below the surface of the Gulf, a record for a producing well, the company said."

So, the deepest wells are producing oil from 22,600 feet below the seafloor.

From dead plants and algae?

Not likely -- this is Abiotic Oil from below the salt barrier.

Additional data was not available, such as the temperature of the oil, the pressure, and the thickness of salt layer the oil sits under.

Louis Hissink said...

Folks,

Please do not assume that absolute dating is what it is, absolute - the age of 10,000 years ago is a well established uniformist one used by mainstream science.

It is better to "rank" past events in sequence, rather than assign a particular date to them.

It's basically an adaption of the law of superposition used in sedimentology, in which an overlying layer is younger than the one it overlies.

Some what simplistic, I admit, but this the approach needed to make sense of the Saturn theory in terms of what we know now.

Also be cautious of retrocalculation using Newton's laws of motion - the 3-Body problem shows that you cannot.

So how valid are any retrocalculations in this light?

Quantum_Flux said...

Just throwing it out there for you to chew on:

Brainwave Frequency Listing

Quantum_Flux said...

126.22 - Sun
141.27 Mercury
144.72 Mars
147.85 Saturn
183.58 - Jupiter
194.71 - Earth
207.36 - Uranus
211.44 - Neptune
221.23 - Venus
280.5 - orbit of Pluto
282.4 - orbit of Mercury
289.4 - orbit of Mars
295.7 - Saturn Orbit
310.7 - spin of Neptune

etc.