Plasmanplanetsnmyths : Messages : 46-82 of 92

Regarding the discussion of giants on intersect a while ago, I was hestitant to
respond to intersect, but eventually I realized that there would be no
objections on this forum.

I'd have to say that the non-acceptance of giants is deliberate suppression.
If they were to acknowledge the existence of giants then they would also to have
to acknowledge that the Old Testament contains much historical knowledge
including catastrophism which would contradict their uniformitarian theory.

The Old Testament discusses giants on numerous occasions. The following areas
and people are described as being of the land of the giants (number of referenes
in parenthesis):
- the word giant (19 references)
- region of Bashan (53), ruled by King Og (22)
- Ashtaroth (11), Edrei (8) : cities in Bashan
- Anak (16) which come of the giants and his sons Sheshai (3), Ahiman (4) and
Talmai (King of Geshur)(6)
- Ishbibenob (1), Saph (1), Sippai (1) : sons of the giants
- Anakims (9) or Emims (3) : accounted as giants
- Zamzummims (1) : other giant race

That's quite a few references and they are all self-consistent.  They often
describe the giants as having walled cities and being of great stature.
Unfortunately, actual dimensions are rare. Most of these references seem to be
about how the giants were conquered / slaughtered and their land subsequenty
divided. This explains why their numbers have dwindled.

Additionally, Goliath was 6 cubits and a span (just under 3 metres). There is
also the following quote from Samuel II:
"And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had
on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in
number; and he also was born to the giant."
and from Deuteronomy:
"For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his
bedstead was a bedstead of iron; ... nine cubits was the length thereof, and
four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man." (5 x 2.2 metres)

I find it very unlikely that these references can be founded upon anything other
than fact. The Old Testament was used as the foundation for three major
religions. There is no way that they would mention anything other than what they
saw. They may have misinterpreted some things but I can't see them making up
stuff. That would be akin to Dave Talbott introducing the Saturn Theory by
describing the leprechauns in modern day Europe and pointing out that some
leprechauns have six toes on each foot. How many of you would be here if that
was the case?

To the benefit of the Electric Universe paradigm, the Old Testament also has a
number of references to mountains being raised out of the ground and being split
asunder. These references violently contradict the Uniformitarian theory.
Unfortunately, I don't have any references right now and not enough time to
gather them in the foreseeable future.

Considering that the Old Testament is considered sacred by a large number of
people, most of these people should be easily convinced that:
a) giants did exist (and their descendants are amongst us, although watered
down)
b) Uniformitarian theory is nonsense and should be replaced.

The EU theory fares quite well in its agreement with ancient texts and modern
evidence.

Scott.

On 16/9/2008 2:59:04p,  (dvd@...) wrote:
>  Very interesting. I think the 'Giants' issue, like so many others,
> relates to the catastrophism versus gradualism mindsets. The gradualists,
> of course, like to think we are�the pinacle of all that has been, and seem
> to resent anything whatsoever that might open the door to other
> possibilities.
>  �
>  I am reading�Mankind in Amnesia at the moment, and the Big V points out
> that�both Darwin and Freud were aware of many catastrophic events,�but
> choose to attach very little importance to them.
>  �
>  So, are we talking about selective amnesia, or deliberate suppression?
>  �
>  David D.
>  �
>  �
>  �
>   ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Mary-Sue
>  To: intersect@yahoogroups.com
>  Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:10 PM
>  Subject: [SPAM][intersect] (F) (L) evidence suppression? (Re: Giants)
>
>
>
>
>
>   On 16-Sep-08, at 12:53, <redshift0_0@...>
> <redshift0_0@...> wrote:
>   An interesting little article, not terribly scientific but a good
> collection of supporting photographs. Open the attached web-archive file
> to see the page with all it's associated photographs. Otherwise go here:
>  �http://hubpages.com/hub/Human-Giants
>
>
>
>
>  Included in the article is a picture showing a 47-inch long femur from a
> being estimated to be 14 feet tall or more. A model of this bone is
> positioned on a drawing, with curator Joe Taylor
> (<http://www.mtblanco.com/AboutUs.htm>), apparently an average-height
> modern human standing beside it. The attached caption mentions Deuteronomy
> 3:11 describing the bed of a king of Bashan said to have been 14 feet long
> -- the only known bit of data about this believed-to-be historical
> character. (Image credited to <www.mtblanco.com>, the small museum with
> this replica)�
>
>
>  That same museum site promotes the dinosaur-human footprint fossil as
> proof of co-existence. People taking this position are often doing so out
> of a religious stance; the Taylors are no exception, being associated with
> something called the "Primitive Baptist Church" (the first I've heard of
> that one). It's curious to see the same small independent museum promoting
> both the existence of giants and the co-existence with dinosaurs, while
> major museums like the Smithsonian take extreme measures to hide all the
> evidence and declare that there's no proof of either.�
>
>
>  Who's lying, I wonder, and specifically why? As soon as one asks that,
> one is automatically declared a "crank" or a "kook" or even a "conspiracy
> theorist". The question is simply not allowed if the academic community is
> to retain its cohesion and funding. But why? The small Taylor museum is a
> business that sells fossils and reproductions and casts of fossils, so
> there's a profit motive as well as religious beliefs prompting them to
> promote anything unusual. What do the big institutions have to gain, or
> lose, by hiding this stuff? They can't be doing it because of respect for
> religious beliefs, since the religious folks are off in left field
> promoting it with quotes from the Bible. Does it run contrary to evolution
> to say that humans have diminished in size?�
>
>
>  I've seen accounts similar to this elsewhere.�It seems almost routine to
> have cover-ups, and a standard method of keeping them under wraps, such as
> (<http://www.viewzone.com/oklahoma.southend.html>):�
>
>
>  "Each day as Lisa and the other Park's Department employees went onto the
> site, they were searched for cameras. Similarly they were searched as they
> left the site each day to make sure they weren't removing artifacts. They
> were also obliged to sign "secrecy documents" ensuring that they would
> never divulge details of their participation in this undertaking. The
> reason for this degree of secrecy stems from the fact that the skeletons
> were of people who were about 8 feet tall. They had six fingers on each
> hand and six toes per foot. They also had a strange, double row
> arrangement of teeth..
>
>
>  "The crates containing the recovered remains, at the termination of work,
> were taken away by the Smithsonian officials and, undoubtedly, will never
> be seen again. Strangely enough, there is a report of two similar skulls
> having been found in New Zealand's far north around the beginning of the
> 20th century. Lisa later had official "hassles" when trying to come home
> to New Zealand and was severely grilled by US government functionaries as
> she attempted to depart from the US."
>
>
>  The suppression of evidence is even bigger than the bones these entities
> are said to have left behind.�Some of the photos in the article mentioned
> by Kim suggest that unusually-tall people were still living in recent
> enough times to have pictures taken of them.�
>
>
>  Since Velikovsky mined the Old Testament and other ancient records for
> hints about changes to the planet and what happened to its inhabitants, I
> wonder if he mentioned�giants anywhere, or theorized about what happened
> to them. If dinosaurs are too large to live on the planet today, is it the
> gravity or the electromagnetic field changes that would be the bigger
> problem? And if smaller humans are better adapted to today's conditions,
> why were there still giants around even in fairly recent centuries?�
>
>
>
>
>   While on the subject of ancient records, there's a "mummified" hadrosaur
> being examined using powerful x-ray photography that has even determined
> what it ate. There's so much of the soft tissue structure preserved that
> they are not using the word fossilized, and this one, nicknamed
> "Leonardo", is regarded as a watershed separating study of the ancient
> soft-tissue record from that of mere bones. But of course it's millions of
> years old... according to the widely-believed evolutionary theory at any
> rate.�
>
>
>
>  Just a few notes.�
>
>
>  MSH

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#55

From: "Steve Franklin" <yahoo@...>
Date: Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:17 pm
Subject: Re: Giants and mountains

lordbalto

Keep in mind that the Tuareg of the Algerian Sahara are seven feet tall and maintain a basically matriarchal social structure that may go back to the Libyan Amazons mentioned by Diodorus Siculus, the story of whom was twisted around quite a bit by Plato in his Atlantis story. See Chapters Eight and Ten of my Alignment of Hebrew, Egyptian, and Assyrian Chronologies at http://neros.lordbalto.com/Contents.htm. This is a non-commercial site (despite the .com extension) in which I attempt to reconstitute the work of Immanuel Velikovsky based on a returning short-term comet rather than his difficult to justify planetary collisions. Any comments would be appreciated.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#56

From: "Steve Franklin" <yahoo@...>
Date: Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:50 pm
Subject: Re: Giants and mountains

lordbalto

That link should be: neros.Lordbalto.com.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#57

From: "Steve Franklin" <yahoo@...>
Date: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Jno Cook

lordbalto

--- In Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com, "Mo" <moses133@...> wrote:
>
> >There would be evidence for both P.O.V on rock then no? I know there
> >is some argument on this between some folks. Do you know off hand any
> >direct references to this dispute? James
>
> No references. My view is that there are very few petroglyphs
> at sea level or in the plains. This indicates to me that a flood
> has swept through the low areas worldwide, and the survivors
> had lost their writing utensils and so resorted to the rocks to
> picture their upset sky. Thus few petroglyphs of the planets
> in the northern arrangement will be found because there was
> widespread civilization and thus writing equipment, and so,
> just like today, few people would draw on rocks when they
> could use something paper-like. The flood would have swept
> most of this civilization away.
> Mo
>
Count Byron de Prorok, 1929:

"One thing, however, is of supreme importance-a thing I have noted at many African centres: here, in the chotts of Algeria, in Tunisia, in the Libyan desert, at Siwa, and in the Djouf, there is a distinct and definite trace of the receding tide. The desert was not always so lacking in water as it now seems to be. The water-level has steadily lowered, and with each decline there is a new or changed civilization. The Stone Age, with the foyers of primitive men, is to be found on the highest level. The pal�olithic, succeeded by the neolithic, gives way, at a lower level when the water has subsided, to the Gr�co-Phoenician and to the Romano-Byzantine, and, at the present level, to the Arab."

While Egypt and Mesopotamia were experiencing floods (about 2950 BC), the Sahara was drying out. Water does not come from nowhere. Flooding in one place indicates drought in another, at least for the period after the end of the last glacial period. That there are no petroglyphs at lower levels is the result of those levels being under water, not as a result of your biblical flood, but simply because it rained much more in what is now desert. Thus more rivers and lakes at lower levels. You can find a map toward the bottom of this page: "Eden and the Fall of Atlantis". Note especially the megalakes and the wadis. The ancient rivers are hypothetical and have been added from the Piri Re'is Map and Herodotus.

SF

Reply | Messages in this Topic (11)

#58

From: "Mo" <moses133@...>
Date: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:43 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jno Cook

>While Egypt and Mesopotamia were experiencing floods (about 2950 >BC), the Sahara was drying out. Water does not come from nowhere.

By nowhere, you mean outer space, whereas I say that the

water may have come from outer space. Also massive tsunamis

could produce floods.

>Flooding in one place indicates drought in another, at least for the period >after the end of the last glacial period. That there are no petroglyphs at >lower levels is the result of those levels being under water, not as a result >of your biblical flood, but simply because it rained much more in what is >now desert.

>SF

Now I doubt I said 'biblical flood'. A lot of rain is unlikely to stop

people living in such an area - rather the opposite.

Have you read any of Jno Cook ? You both have a love of detail,

whereas I just use an overall understanding.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (11)

#59

From: "Steve Franklin" <yahoo@...>
Date: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
Subject: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

lordbalto

I've read Alfred de Grazia and David Talbott, both of whom this guy seems to be channeling, and I'll be frank here: There is NO chance any of these characters is right. This whole planetary age business goes back to the Sumerians, who desperately tried to merge stellar astrology with planetary astrology, the result being a peculiar system where each sign of the zodiac through which the seasons precessed was identified with a particular planet. These "planets" moved around as a result of the precession, but the real planets stayed in the same place. Velikovsky never figured this out, and neither did any of his followers and extenders, including the whole Saturnian Solaria Binaria crowd. The sad thing is, there were catastrophes, and they were astronomically triggered, by a single large comet-like object that continued to menace the earth over a period of at least 5000 years and probably longer, and it did cause the biblical flood, but not by dumping water on the earth, rather by changing the weather patterns of the earth--hence more rain in Egypt and Mesopotamia, less rain in the Sahara. And the really sad thing is that the continued promotion of such totally indefensible theories has muddied the water so badly that any rational attempt at a catastrophic history of the earth is laughed out of court without a second look.

As to whether these folks are talking about the biblical flood or not--you are at best being disingenuous here--there is really no other reason for bringing up the concept at all. There is vastly more archaeological evidence for earthquake and fire than for flooding as the cause of the obvious divisions in the archaeological record. See Claude Schaeffer for details on this. And as Herodotus tells us, the flood in Egypt had the land under water up to Lake Meroe, and swamp as far south as the outskirts of Thebes, hardly the result of a tsunami or other short-lived event. It took seven years for the Saharan civilization to die, and for at least as long Egypt was under water.

Beyond this I can only say, one does not gain an "overall understanding" without understanding the details. But neither can one pick out certain details to the exclusion of others.

----- Original Message -----

From: Mo

To: Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 7:43 PM

Subject: Re: [Plasmanplanetsnmyths] Re: Jno Cook

>While Egypt and Mesopotamia were experiencing floods (about 2950 >BC), the Sahara was drying out. Water does not come from nowhere.

By nowhere, you mean outer space, whereas I say that the

water may have come from outer space. Also massive tsunamis

could produce floods.

>Flooding in one place indicates drought in another, at least for the period >after the end of the last glacial period. That there are no petroglyphs at >lower levels is the result of those levels being under water, not as a result >of your biblical flood, but simply because it rained much more in what is >now desert.

>SF

Now I doubt I said 'biblical flood'. A lot of rain is unlikely to stop

people living in such an area - rather the opposite.

Have you read any of Jno Cook ? You both have a love of detail,

whereas I just use an overall understanding.

Mo

#60

From: Gerard Bik <gerardbik@...>
Date: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:42 pm
Subject: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

gerardbik

Hi Steve

Why do you think these Sumerians were desperately trying to merge the two astrologies? What was their motivation?

I've read Alfred de Grazia and David Talbott, both of whom this guy seems to be channeling, and I'll be frank here: There is NO chance any of these characters is right. This whole planetary age business goes back to the Sumerians, who desperately tried to merge stellar astrology with planetary astrology, the result being a peculiar system where each sign of the zodiac through which the seasons precessed was identified with a particular planet. These "planets" moved around as a result of the precession, but the real planets stayed in the same place. Velikovsky never figured this out, and neither did any of his followers and extenders, including the whole Saturnian Solaria Binaria crowd. The sad thing is, there were catastrophes, and they were astronomically triggered, by a single large comet-like object that continued to menace the earth over a period of at least 5000 years and probably longer, and it did cause the biblical flood, but not by dumping water on the earth, rather by changing the weather patterns of the earth--hence more rain in Egypt and Mesopotamia, less rain in the Sahara. And the really sad thing is that the continued promotion of such totally indefensible theories has muddied the water so badly that any rational attempt at a catastrophic history of the earth is laughed out of court without a second look.

As to whether these folks are talking about the biblical flood or not--you are at best being disingenuous here--there is really no other reason for bringing up the concept at all. There is vastly more archaeological evidence for earthquake and fire than for flooding as the cause of the obvious divisions in the archaeological record. See Claude Schaeffer for details on this. And as Herodotus tells us, the flood in Egypt had the land under water up to Lake Meroe, and swamp as far south as the outskirts of Thebes, hardly the result of a tsunami or other short-lived event. It took seven years for the Saharan civilization to die, and for at least as long Egypt was under water.

Beyond this I can only say, one does not gain an "overall understanding" without understanding the details. But neither can one pick out certain details to the exclusion of others.

SF

----- Original Message -----

From: Mo

To: Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 7:43 PM

Subject: Re: [Plasmanplanetsnmyths] Re: Jno Cook

>While Egypt and Mesopotamia were experiencing floods (about 2950 >BC), the Sahara was drying out. Water does not come from nowhere.

By nowhere, you mean outer space, whereas I say that the

water may have come from outer space. Also massive tsunamis

could produce floods.

>Flooding in one place indicates drought in another, at least for the period >after the end of the last glacial period. That there are no petroglyphs at >lower levels is the result of those levels being under water, not as a result >of your biblical flood, but simply because it rained much more in what is >now desert.

>SF

Now I doubt I said 'biblical flood'. A lot of rain is unlikely to stop

people living in such an area - rather the opposite.

Have you read any of Jno Cook ? You both have a love of detail,

whereas I just use an overall understanding.

Mo

--

______________________ _
Gerard Bik grafische vormgeving
Van Aerssenstraat 263
2582 JM Den Haag
070 3554081

#61

From: "Steve Franklin" <yahoo@...>
Date: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:34 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

lordbalto

http://www.lordbalto.com/images/V-Ages.jpg

GB,

Sumer was overrun by the Semitic Akkadians under Sargon of Akkad during the 24th Century BC. The linguistic and racial sources of the Sumerians have never been determined. The Akkadians were concerned with the study of the stars as a form of divination and not as a practical scientific endeavor, and this involved something akin to modern astrology that saw indications of the future in the positions of the planets among the stars of the zodiac. It's been a while since I ran into this particular datum, so I can't give you a reference. It may have been in Hamlet's Mill or the writings of Livio Stecchini. But the important point is that at some point the astronomers (or astrologers) of the ancient world developed a series of equivalences: colors, metals, planets, constellations, etc., and this system led to the identification of certain constellations (or individual stars that marked those constellations) with certain planets, and it is those planetary associations that led to the identification of each 2160-year precessional age with a planet (or its underlying god). The following link is to a table from my Origins of the Tarot Deck (McFarland, 1988):

This was an early attempt to understand these relationships. The table of antediluvian kings in Chapter 10 of my current work (http://neros.lordbalto.com/ChapterTen.htm) is a later attempt, though there are no astronomical references here, except for the obvious Roman equivalents of the Greek gods. I now feel that there is at least some historical reality to some of these people, though how much is not exactly clear. There may have been some confusion at an early date between the planets/ages and the antediluvian kings.

----- Original Message -----

From: Gerard Bik

To: Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 1:42 PM

Subject: [Plasmanplanetsnmyths] Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott
Hi Steve

Why do you think these Sumerians were desperately trying to merge the two astrologies? What was their motivation?

GB

I've read Alfred de Grazia and David Talbott, both of whom this guy seems to be channeling, and I'll be frank here: There is NO chance any of these characters is right. This whole planetary age business goes back to the Sumerians, who desperately tried to merge stellar astrology with planetary astrology, the result being a peculiar system where each sign of the zodiac through which the seasons precessed was identified with a particular planet. These "planets" moved around as a result of the precession, but the real planets stayed in the same place. Velikovsky never figured this out, and neither did any of his followers and extenders, including the whole Saturnian Solaria Binaria crowd. The sad thing is, there were catastrophes, and they were astronomically triggered, by a single large comet-like object that continued to menace the earth over a period of at least 5000 years and probably longer, and it did cause the biblical flood, but not by dumping water on the earth, rather by changing the weather patterns of the earth--hence more rain in Egypt and Mesopotamia, less rain in the Sahara. And the really sad thing is that the continued promotion of such totally indefensible theories has muddied the water so badly that any rational attempt at a catastrophic history of the earth is laughed out of court without a second look.

As to whether these folks are talking about the biblical flood or not--you are at best being disingenuous here--there is really no other reason for bringing up the concept at all. There is vastly more archaeological evidence for earthquake and fire than for flooding as the cause of the obvious divisions in the archaeological record. See Claude Schaeffer for details on this. And as Herodotus tells us, the flood in Egypt had the land under water up to Lake Meroe, and swamp as far south as the outskirts of Thebes, hardly the result of a tsunami or other short-lived event. It took seven years for the Saharan civilization to die, and for at least as long Egypt was under water.

Beyond this I can only say, one does not gain an "overall understanding" without understanding the details. But neither can one pick out certain details to the exclusion of others.

SF

----- Original Message -----

From: Mo

To: Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 7:43 PM

Subject: Re: [Plasmanplanetsnmyths] Re: Jno Cook

>While Egypt and Mesopotamia were experiencing floods (about 2950 >BC), the Sahara was drying out. Water does not come from nowhere.

By nowhere, you mean outer space, whereas I say that the

water may have come from outer space. Also massive tsunamis

could produce floods.

>Flooding in one place indicates drought in another, at least for the period >after the end of the last glacial period. That there are no petroglyphs at >lower levels is the result of those levels being under water, not as a result >of your biblical flood, but simply because it rained much more in what is >now desert.

>SF

Now I doubt I said 'biblical flood'. A lot of rain is unlikely to stop

people living in such an area - rather the opposite.

Have you read any of Jno Cook ? You both have a love of detail,

whereas I just use an overall understanding.

Mo

--

______________________ _
Gerard Bik grafische vormgeving
Van Aerssenstraat 263
2582 JM Den Haag
070 3554081

#62

From: "Mo" <moses133@...>
Date: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:44 am
Subject: Re: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

>These "planets" moved around as a result of the precession, but the

>real planets stayed in the same place. Velikovsky never figured this

>out, and neither did any of his followers and extenders, including the

>whole Saturnian Solaria Binaria crowd. The sad thing is, there were

>catastrophes, and they were astronomically triggered, by a single large

>comet-like object that continued to menace the earth over a period of

>at least 5000 years and probably longer, ...

The real planets probably stayed in the same place because that is

there tradition, from the planets in the Saturn-Jupiter System staying

in about the same place in the sky. I see little difference between a

comet causing strife and a planet doing this.

>And as Herodotus tells us, the flood in Egypt had the land under water

>up to Lake Meroe, and swamp as far south as the outskirts of Thebes,

>hardly the result of a tsunami or other short-lived event. It took seven

>years for the Saharan civilization to die, and for at least as long Egypt

>was under water.

I see no problem for a large amount of water being dumped in the Sahara

from sticking around for a few years. And the earthquakes and fire, along

with volcanic eruptions, all being produced by interplanetary electrical

discharges.

>The following link is to a table from my Origins of the Tarot Deck

>(McFarland, 1988):

>SF

I love the Tarot, and I see the cards depicting catastrophe. I reckon

they tell the story of what happened to the Earth. And because what

happened is rivetted into our being, this is what gives the cards their

power because we all are strongly influenced by what happened to

our ancestors, in a pattern that repeats.

#63

From: "Steve Franklin" <yahoo@...>
Date: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:44 am
Subject: Re: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

lordbalto

----- Original Message -----

From: Mo

To: Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:44 PM

Subject: Re: [Plasmanplanetsnmyths] Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

>These "planets" moved around as a result of the precession, but the

>real planets stayed in the same place. Velikovsky never figured this

>out, and neither did any of his followers and extenders, including the

>whole Saturnian Solaria Binaria crowd. The sad thing is, there were

>catastrophes, and they were astronomically triggered, by a single large

>comet-like object that continued to menace the earth over a period of

>at least 5000 years and probably longer, ...

The real planets probably stayed in the same place because that is

there tradition, from the planets in the Saturn-Jupiter System staying

in about the same place in the sky. I see little difference between a

comet causing strife and a planet doing this.

The difference is, you don't have to contradict the laws of celestial mechanics to have a comet do the damage, whereas with planets you have to introduce all manner of bizarre electrical and electromagnetic forces that are not in evidence on a planetary scale.

>And as Herodotus tells us, the flood in Egypt had the land under water

>up to Lake Meroe, and swamp as far south as the outskirts of Thebes,

>hardly the result of a tsunami or other short-lived event. It took seven

>years for the Saharan civilization to die, and for at least as long Egypt

>was under water.

I see no problem for a large amount of water being dumped in the Sahara

from sticking around for a few years. And the earthquakes and fire, along

with volcanic eruptions, all being produced by interplanetary electrical

discharges.

Nothing was dumped in the Sahara. The Sahara went from a wet and fertile environment to a dry and desolate environment. As for fires, these followed the cosmic events and are a result of the political dislocations caused by the comet.

>The following link is to a table from my Origins of the Tarot Deck

>(McFarland, 1988):

>SF

I love the Tarot, and I see the cards depicting catastrophe. I reckon

they tell the story of what happened to the Earth. And because what

happened is rivetted into our being, this is what gives the cards their

power because we all are strongly influenced by what happened to

our ancestors, in a pattern that repeats.

If you actually read the book, you will see that the Tarot goes back to the early School of Pythagoras in the 5th Century BC and paints a picture of the universe essentially as it exists today, with the same zodiacal stars along the ecliptic and the same length of the year. And this same pattern appears at Stonehenge in the late 4th Millennium. Little has changed since then, except that the Comet has lost its cloud and exists only as a swarm of meteors that have been undetectable until some of them hit the earth.

SF

#64

From: "Mo" <moses133@...>
Date: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:29 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

>The difference is, you don't have to contradict the laws of

>celestial mechanics to have a comet do the damage,

>whereas with planets you have to introduce all manner of

>bizarre electrical and electromagnetic forces that are not

>in evidence on a planetary scale.

No need for 'bizaare'. There is a ton of evidence.

>The Sahara went from a wet and fertile environment to a

>dry and desolate environment.

So you are implying that a tsunami would not do this ?

Sand is encroaching in many areas on the Earth in present

day. Sand is a powerful force that is excedingly hard to

stop once it gets a foothold. Rip out the trees in almost

any tropical area on Earth, and with little rainfall you will

end up with a desert. The Sahara originally had forest

because the Earth had a totally different environment in

the Saturn-Jupiter System.

You don't see the Tarot depicting world-wide catastrophe ?

#65

From: "Steve Franklin" <yahoo@...>
Date: Mon Apr 6, 2009 1:19 am
Subject: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

lordbalto

It looks like the mail server is kicking back messages for some reason.

As for a "ton of evidence," this is all of the mythological variety, which is
dangerous to try to interpret in an historical vacuum. The fact is, we don't
know what happened this early in human history. All we have is the tree ring
minimum at 4375 BC, the end of the last glacial period sometime near the
beginning of the Holocene Period (circa 10,000 BC), and various underwater
cities, including one off of western Indian that carbon dates to 7500 BC or
thereabouts. Though there is definite evidence of an Eden-like world in the
Sahara before 3000 BC, this was sporatic at best and cannot be equated with any
long term Golden Age as the Sol-Bin folks would have it. In short, it just
doesn't wash. It amounts to barking up the wrong cosmic tree, so to speak.

As for the Tarot, you really need to read the book before you start running on
about how catastrophic it is. In fact, it's surprisingly uniformitarian
considering it comes from one of the cometary avatars himself, a person who
claimed to remember his earlier incarnations. I would attribute this to the
geometrical leanings of Pythagoras and his overriding belief in cosmic harmony.

#66

From: "Mo" <moses133@...>
Date: Mon Apr 6, 2009 5:23 am
Subject: Re: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

>As for a "ton of evidence," this is all of the mythological

>variety, which is dangerous to try to interpret in an

>historical vacuum.

It is the geological evidence that is overwhelming when

one sees just about all the features on all the planets

have an electrical explanation. Mountains, rivers, sand

dunes that don't move, volcanoes and so-called impact

sites - all electrically formed.

>As for the Tarot, you really need to read the book before

>you start running on about how catastrophic it is.

I wish I had a dollar for every author that comes up with

this one. There is the high priestess with the planet on

her head and the moon arc at her feet. the wheel of

fortune looking very astral. The tower with the lightning

striking it. The star, the moon and the sun. Judgement

seen in the sky. In fact just about all these arcana has

planetary symbols. I believe it tells the story of the

planetary interactions. And I'd expect us to dig up

this story in possibly a time capsule, one day.

#67

From: "Mo" <moses133@...>
Date: Mon Apr 6, 2009 6:14 am
Subject: Re: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

http://sites.google.com/site/dragonstormproject/

A geologist is working on cometary effects:

Perhaps this will interest you.

#68

From: "Steve Franklin" <yahoo@...>
Date: Mon Apr 6, 2009 10:29 am
Subject: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

lordbalto

--- In Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com, "Mo" <moses133@...> wrote:
>
> >As for a "ton of evidence," this is all of the mythological
> >variety, which is dangerous to try to interpret in an
> >historical vacuum.
>
> It is the geological evidence that is overwhelming when
> one sees just about all the features on all the planets
> have an electrical explanation. Mountains, rivers, sand
> dunes that don't move, volcanoes and so-called impact
> sites - all electrically formed.

So where is all of this electrical activity now? Have the laws of the universe
changed within the memory of man?

>
> >As for the Tarot, you really need to read the book before
> >you start running on about how catastrophic it is.
>
> I wish I had a dollar for every author that comes up with
> this one. There is the high priestess with the planet on
> her head and the moon arc at her feet. the wheel of
> fortune looking very astral. The tower with the lightning
> striking it. The star, the moon and the sun. Judgement
> seen in the sky. In fact just about all these arcana has
> planetary symbols. I believe it tells the story of the
> planetary interactions. And I'd expect us to dig up
> this story in possibly a time capsule, one day.

Read the book. I will not discuss something with you that you know nothing
about. But let me just say this. I am not denying the cards are astronomical.
That is the whole point of my book. What I said was that the astronomical
references are generally uniformitarian. The Tower is an exception. It
represents the destruction of the Temple of Enlil at Nippur in 2230 BC during
the reign of Naram-Sin, king of Akkad, grandson of Sargon, and the Nimrod of the
bible.

SF

#69

From: "Scott Wall" <wall@...>
Date: Mon Apr 6, 2009 10:56 am
Subject: Re: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

scottish_wall

On 31/3/2009 5:44:50a, Steve Franklin (yahoo@...) wrote:
> >  The real planets probably stayed in the same place because that is
> >  there tradition, from the planets in the Saturn-Jupiter System staying
> >  in about the same place in the sky. I see little difference between a
> >  comet causing strife and a planet doing this.
>  �
>  The difference is, you don't have to�contradict the laws of celestial
> mechanics to have a comet do the damage, whereas with planets you have to
> introduce all manner of bizarre electrical and electromagnetic forces that
> are not in evidence on a planetary scale.�

Are these "laws of celestial mechanics" that are supposedly being contradicted
the same laws that are unable to predict the trajectories of many spacecraft
such as Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Ulysses, ...
See
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080304anomaloustrajectories.htm .

And yes, there is an electrical explanation that explains the anomalies.

Scott

#70

From: "Mo" <moses133@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 12:17 am
Subject: Re: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

>So where is all of this electrical activity now? Have the

>laws of the universe changed within the memory of man?

>SF

Plasma hangs around in cells, and on the edge of such

a cell is a double layer where there is a huge difference

in electrical potential. So if the Solar System travelled

through such a double layer then an enormous increase

in electrical effects would result. But other than this

there is plenty of electricity in the Solar System now.

It is just that the planets stay out of range of each other's

plasma cell. What electrical universe people are hoping

for is for a comet to come close to Earth and be zapped

by Earth and for satellites to get the video. Because

comets would likely be at a different electrical potential

to Earth. And there is plenty of evidence of comets being

zapped in the not too distant past - Tungusta(probably)

and Chicago.

#71

From: "Steve Franklin" <yahoo@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 12:17 am
Subject: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

lordbalto

--- In Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Wall" <wall@...> wrote:
>
> On 31/3/2009 5:44:50a, Steve Franklin (yahoo@...) wrote:
> > > The real planets probably stayed in the same place because that is
> > > there tradition, from the planets in the Saturn-Jupiter System staying
> > > in about the same place in the sky. I see little difference between a
> > > comet causing strife and a planet doing this.
> >
> > The difference is, you don't have to contradict the laws of celestial
> > mechanics to have a comet do the damage, whereas with planets you have to
> > introduce all manner of bizarre electrical and electromagnetic forces that
> > are not in evidence on a planetary scale.
>
>
> Are these "laws of celestial mechanics" that are supposedly being contradicted the same laws that are unable to predict the trajectories of many spacecraft such as Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Ulysses, ...
> See http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080304anomaloustrajectories.htm .
>
> And yes, there is an electrical explanation that explains the anomalies.
>
There is a massive difference between tiny space probes near interstellar space and a theoretical structure that not only moves the planets from their orbits but pretends to negate the laws of gravity and inertia. And those are laws, discovered by Isaac Newton and capable of explaining the motions of the planets so accurately that it was only with Einstein's relativity that very minor deviations were explained.

And keep in mind that there is something called "Three-Body Theory," or rather there isn't: that is, there is no mathematical way yet developed that models the complex interactions among three objects in space. So that your "trajectories" cannot even be modelled, let alone shown to be inaccurate. We also do not know what is actually out there, so we do not even know what gravitational forces exist there.

To gratuitously add an electric force not in evidence is to try to explain a theoretical structure based on misinterpreted myth when gravity and inertia do not support it. This is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

And I use the term "misinterpreted" advisedly. This whole chimera goes back to the image of the cross and circle that appears in ancient mythology and as a physical object at certain oracular sites in Greece and elsewhere. Livio Stecchini has shown that these locations are at significant geographical locations and those locations have an important cartographic significance. You may want to read his writings at the website Metrum.

That this symbol has also been associated with the North Pole is not surprising, since it represents the four equinoctial and solstitial colures whose origins are at the poles. Hamlet's Mill contains much of this evidence, though it sees everything through the lens of a uniformitarian universe.

So again, where is this electrical force in the present solar system? Do you seriously think you can just throw out orbital mechanics and replace it with electrical attractions and repulsions? Where are the equations for these forces? You cannot simply claim that they "explain" things without presenting definitions precise enough to be mathematically modelled. You cannot simply say, "The solar system is a giant light bulb!" and pretend that this simple statement of belief is enough to overthrow the work of centuries. I smell incense here, and the cool waters of the baptismal font, and the musty odor of medieval religious manuscripts. These are fine in their place. But they do not belong in a discussion of the science of astronomy.

#72

From: "Steve Franklin" <yahoo@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 1:49 am
Subject: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

lordbalto

--- In Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com, "Mo" <moses133@...> wrote:
>
> >So where is all of this electrical activity now? Have the
> >laws of the universe changed within the memory of man?
> >SF
> Plasma hangs around in cells, and on the edge of such
> a cell is a double layer where there is a huge difference
> in electrical potential. So if the Solar System travelled
> through such a double layer then an enormous increase
> in electrical effects would result. But other than this
> there is plenty of electricity in the Solar System now.
> It is just that the planets stay out of range of each other's
> plasma cell. What electrical universe people are hoping
> for is for a comet to come close to Earth and be zapped
> by Earth and for satellites to get the video. Because
> comets would likely be at a different electrical potential
> to Earth. And there is plenty of evidence of comets being
> zapped in the not too distant past - Tungusta(probably)
> and Chicago.
> Mo
>
I have no problem in theory with short range electrical interactions between celestial bodies, but this is a long way from an "electrical universe."

The problem, of course, is that the terminations of periods during the Bronze Age, as Clause Schaeffer pointed out in Stratigraphie Comparee, were marked by earthquakes and not by fires, as one might expect from electrical discharges, and the fires occurred long after the initial earthquake activity and as a result of human responses to the events. As for Tunguska, there is also no evidence of fire, as one might expect from an electrical discharge. The event appears to have involved an explosion. The Italians are currently exploring Lake Cheko for remnants of a secondary object that may have reached the ground. We may soon know just what this object was.

As for Chicago, well, even if there is a cometary connection--and Donnelly was seeing comets everywhere--there is no evidence here of electrical phenomena, though there is a brief mention of the word in a quoted source. Having just read the relevant part of Ragnarok, it is clear we are looking at something on the order of the firestorm in Dresden during World War II. That was also not electrical. It simply required the proper number of incendiaries and plenty of fuel. People were literally cooked alive in their bomb shelters. Martin Caiden wrote a very descriptive book about the firebombing of Dresden. And keep in mind, Donnelly's description of events is colored by his own theory of cometary structure, a rather peculiar theory that saw the tail of the comet as a mass of gravel, by which he previously explained the gravel deposits in parts of the U.S., the presence of which was later explained by glacial activity. Furthermore, to use Donnelly's transcription of newspaper accounts from a period when phantom airships were regularly reported in the newspapers of the Middle West is the height of folly and proves nothing beyond their marked tendency to exaggerate. In short, don't believe everything you read.

#73

From: "Mo" <moses133@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 6:32 am
Subject: Re: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

>I have no problem in theory with short range

>electrical interactions between celestial bodies,

>but this is a long way from an "electrical universe."

Negatory. You can't have it both ways.

>... were marked by earthquakes and not by fires,

>as one might expect from electrical discharges, ...

Do you expect the electrical charges to be world-wide,

whereas the gripping and shaking of the Earth in say

North America, would not be producing earthquakes

all around the Earth ? If Mars flew by the Earth then

one could easily expect the electrical discharges to be

from closest point to closest point and thus the affected

area to be a line across the Earth taking up about a

third of the area of the Earth. And the gripping of the

Earth in this area with the retardation of rotation on

this area, would produce great earthquakes all around

the world, and tsunamis.

>The event appears to have involved an explosion.

The zapping of a comet in the upper atmosphere of

Earth would be extremely explosive. The heat produced

at such a height needs to be very great to ignite trees.

Chicago is an example of this.

Have you read any of Steve F's work yet ?

#74

From: Gerard Bik <gerardbik@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 7:39 am
Subject: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

gerardbik

Hi Steve

You show the typical reaction of someone with lots of scientific knowledge when confronted with the electric universe.

Funny thing is you mention the Three-body-problem as a defense where it is clearly a refutation of the orbital mechanics of gravity. When three bodies cannot stay in a stable orbit, how come this solar system hasn't fallen apart in billions of years?

The electricity in the universe is not additional to gravity, it is fundamental. Gravity is additional, in that it takes over after the large scale structure has reached an electrical equilibrium.

To appreciate the electric universe model, it is best to start from scratch and imagine a universe starting with separated charges instead of a big bang.

I still enjoy having the two models in my mind to compare: the consensus Lambda-CDM model and the renegade EU model.

And for mathematical modeling: the EU ideas are not yet developed to a level where a complete model is possible. Parts can be modeled if someone is up to it. It will take very advanced mathematicians to model plasma behaviour.

regards

--- In Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Wall" <wall@...> wrote:
>
> On 31/3/2009 5:44:50a, Steve Franklin (yahoo@...) wrote:
> > > The real planets probably stayed in the same place because that is
> > > there tradition, from the planets in the Saturn-Jupiter System staying
> > > in about the same place in the sky. I see little difference between a
> > > comet causing strife and a planet doing this.
> >
> > The difference is, you don't have to contradict the laws of celestial
> > mechanics to have a comet do the damage, whereas with planets you have to
> > introduce all manner of bizarre electrical and electromagnetic forces that
> > are not in evidence on a planetary scale.
>
>
> Are these "laws of celestial mechanics" that are supposedly being contradicted the same laws that are unable to predict the trajectories of many spacecraft such as Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Ulysses, ...
> See http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080304anomaloustrajectories.htm .
>
> And yes, there is an electrical explanation that explains the anomalies.
>
There is a massive difference between tiny space probes near interstellar space and a theoretical structure that not only moves the planets from their orbits but pretends to negate the laws of gravity and inertia. And those are laws, discovered by Isaac Newton and capable of explaining the motions of the planets so accurately that it was only with Einstein's relativity that very minor deviations were explained.

And keep in mind that there is something called "Three-Body Theory," or rather there isn't: that is, there is no mathematical way yet developed that models the complex interactions among three objects in space. So that your "trajectories" cannot even be modelled, let alone shown to be inaccurate. We also do not know what is actually out there, so we do not even know what gravitational forces exist there.

To gratuitously add an electric force not in evidence is to try to explain a theoretical structure based on misinterpreted myth when gravity and inertia do not support it. This is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

And I use the term "misinterpreted" advisedly. This whole chimera goes back to the image of the cross and circle that appears in ancient mythology and as a physical object at certain oracular sites in Greece and elsewhere. Livio Stecchini has shown that these locations are at significant geographical locations and those locations have an important cartographic significance. You may want to read his writings at the website Metrum.

That this symbol has also been associated with the North Pole is not surprising, since it represents the four equinoctial and solstitial colures whose origins are at the poles. Hamlet's Mill contains much of this evidence, though it sees everything through the lens of a uniformitarian universe.

So again, where is this electrical force in the present solar system? Do you seriously think you can just throw out orbital mechanics and replace it with electrical attractions and repulsions? Where are the equations for these forces? You cannot simply claim that they "explain" things without presenting definitions precise enough to be mathematically modelled. You cannot simply say, "The solar system is a giant light bulb!" and pretend that this simple statement of belief is enough to overthrow the work of centuries. I smell incense here, and the cool waters of the baptismal font, and the musty odor of medieval religious manuscripts. These are fine in their place. But they do not belong in a discussion of the science of astronomy.

--

______________________ _
Gerard Bik grafische vormgeving
Van Aerssenstraat 263
2582 JM Den Haag
070 3554081

#75

From: "Steve Franklin" <yahoo@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 9:43 am
Subject: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

lordbalto

--- In Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com, "Mo" <moses133@...> wrote:

I am really getting tired of your quoting me out of context. And I am especially
getting tired of your making ad hoc statements based on zero evidence beyond
your own faith in your so-called electrical universe. Cut and paste THAT if you
can.

SF

> >I have no problem in theory with short range
> >electrical interactions between celestial bodies,
> >but this is a long way from an "electrical universe."
>
> Negatory. You can't have it both ways.

"IN THEORY." Do you not read well?

>
> >... were marked by earthquakes and not by fires,
> >as one might expect from electrical discharges, ...
>
> Do you expect the electrical charges to be world-wide,
> whereas the gripping and shaking of the Earth in say
> North America, would not be producing earthquakes
> all around the Earth ?  If Mars flew by the Earth then
> one could easily expect the electrical discharges to be
> from closest point to closest point and thus the affected
> area to be a line across the Earth taking up about a
> third of the area of the Earth. And the gripping of the
> Earth in this area with the retardation of rotation on
> this area, would produce great earthquakes all around
> the world, and tsunamis.

I expect to see evidence of these "electrical charges," whatever in the world
THAT means, before I discuss the means by which those mythical charges
manifested themselves. And as for the hypothetical passing of the earth by Mars,
well, I see no evidence of that either, except for Velikovsky's distorted
reading of history.

> >The event appears to have involved an explosion.
>
> The zapping of a comet in the upper atmosphere of
> Earth would be extremely explosive. The heat produced
> at such a height needs to be very great to ignite trees.

The trees at Tunguska were not ignited. As for Chicago, you need to learn that
assuming your conclusions does not constitute evidence.

> Chicago is an example of this.
>
> Have you read any of Steve F's work yet ?

Huh?

#76

From: "Steve Franklin" <yahoo@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 10:03 am
Subject: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

lordbalto

--- In Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com, Gerard Bik <gerardbik@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Steve
>
> You show the typical reaction of someone with lots of scientific
> knowledge when confronted with the electric universe.

I show the typical reaction of someone presented with a mystical belief
system based on no evidence.
>
> Funny thing is you mention the Three-body-problem as a defense where
> it is clearly a refutation of the orbital mechanics of gravity. When
> three bodies cannot stay in a stable orbit, how come this solar
> system hasn't fallen apart in billions of years?

You clearly do not understand the 3-body problem, which is not a
refutation of anything. It is simply a statement that you cannot compute
orbits beyond a high level of approximation.
>
> The electricity in the universe is not additional to gravity, it is
> fundamental. Gravity is additional, in that it takes over after the
> large scale structure has reached an electrical equilibrium.

What you are saying is that the term drops out of the equation.
Unfortunately, if it drops out of the equation, it has no predictive
value and can only be used as a deus ex machine to explain what you
cannot explain otherwise, like some folks resort to "God" when they
can't explain something. This has no more value than resorting to the
Easter Bunny as the cause of the unexplainable. He, of course, drops out
of the equation when he reaches equilibrium, so there is no evidence of
Him.
>
> To appreciate the electric universe model, it is best to start from
> scratch and imagine a universe starting with separated charges
> instead of a big bang.

The Big Short Circuit, huh?

> I still enjoy having the two models in my mind to compare: the
> consensus Lambda-CDM model and the renegade EU model.

I enjoy comparing the Gravitational-Inertial model with the Easter Bunny
Theory. Of course, it will take very advanced mathematicians to model
the Easter Bunny Theory.
>
> And for mathematical modeling: the EU ideas are not yet developed to
> a level where a complete model is possible. Parts can be modeled if
> someone is up to it. It will take very advanced mathematicians to
> model plasma behaviour.

So you admit you have no mathematical model? Not much better than my
alternative Easter Bunny Model.
>
> regards

SF
>
>
> >--- In Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Wall" wall@
wrote:
> >>
> >>  On 31/3/2009 5:44:50a, Steve Franklin (yahoo@) wrote:
> >>  > >  The real planets probably stayed in the same place because
that is
> >>  > >  there tradition, from the planets in the Saturn-Jupiter
System staying
> >>  > >  in about the same place in the sky. I see little difference
between a
> >>  > >  comet causing strife and a planet doing this.
> >>  >
> >>  >  The difference is, you don't have to contradict the laws of
celestial
> >>  > mechanics to have a comet do the damage, whereas with planets
you have to
> >>  > introduce all manner of bizarre electrical and electromagnetic
forces that
> >>  > are not in evidence on a planetary scale.
> >>
> >>
> >>  Are these "laws of celestial mechanics" that are supposedly being
> >>contradicted the same laws that are unable to predict the
> >>trajectories of many spacecraft such as Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11,
> >>Ulysses, ...
> >>  See
>
>>http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080304anomaloustrajector\
ies.htm
> >>.
> >>
> >>  And yes, there is an electrical explanation that explains the
anomalies.
> >>
> >There is a massive difference between tiny space probes near
> >interstellar space and a theoretical structure that not only moves
> >the planets from their orbits but pretends to negate the laws of
> >gravity and inertia. And those are laws, discovered by Isaac Newton
> >and capable of explaining the motions of the planets so accurately
> >that it was only with Einstein's relativity that very minor
> >deviations were explained.
> >
> >And keep in mind that there is something called "Three-Body Theory,"
> >or rather there isn't: that is, there is no mathematical way yet
> >developed that models the complex interactions among three objects
> >in space. So that your "trajectories" cannot even be modelled, let
> >alone shown to be inaccurate. We also do not know what is actually
> >out there, so we do not even know what gravitational forces exist
> >there.
> >
> >To gratuitously add an electric force not in evidence is to try to
> >explain a theoretical structure based on misinterpreted myth when
> >gravity and inertia do not support it. This is the height of
> >intellectual dishonesty.
> >
> >And I use the term "misinterpreted" advisedly. This whole chimera
> >goes back to the image of the cross and circle that appears in
> >ancient mythology and as a physical object at certain oracular sites
> >in Greece and elsewhere. Livio Stecchini has shown that these
> >locations are at significant geographical locations and those
> >locations have an important cartographic significance. You may want
> >to read his writings at the website <http://www.metrum.org/>Metrum.
> >
> >That this symbol has also been associated with the North Pole is not
> >surprising, since it represents the four equinoctial and solstitial
> >colures whose origins are at the poles. Hamlet's Mill contains much
> >of this evidence, though it sees everything through the lens of a
> >uniformitarian universe.
> >
> >So again, where is this electrical force in the present solar
> >system? Do you seriously think you can just throw out orbital
> >mechanics and replace it with electrical attractions and repulsions?
> >Where are the equations for these forces? You cannot simply claim
> >that they "explain" things without presenting definitions precise
> >enough to be mathematically modelled. You cannot simply say, "The
> >solar system is a giant light bulb!" and pretend that this simple
> >statement of belief is enough to overthrow the work of centuries. I
> >smell incense here, and the cool waters of the baptismal font, and
> >the musty odor of medieval religious manuscripts. These are fine in
> >their place. But they do not belong in a discussion of the science
> >of astronomy.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ______________________ _
> Gerard Bik grafische vormgeving
> Van Aerssenstraat 263
> 2582 JM  Den Haag
> 070 3554081
>

#77

From: "Scott Wall" <wall@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 10:15 am
Subject: Re: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

scottish_wall

On 7/4/2009 5:43:17a, Steve Franklin (yahoo@...) wrote:
>  I am really getting tired of your quoting me out of context. And I am
> especially getting tired of your making ad hoc statements based on zero
> evidence beyond your own faith in your so-called electrical universe. Cut
> and paste THAT if you can.

I'm really getting tired of this discussion.

It seems that you have fallen victim to mainstream brainwashing and are hostile
to the EU theory.
"Faith" in the Electric Universe is backed by many successful predictions 
http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm . Your FAITH in mainstream science
is what should be questioned here as it is backed by countless contradictions
and ad hoc theories of invisible matter and energy.

This is supposed to be a forum to discuss various aspects of plasma, planets and
myths. If you don't think that myths describe planets interacting with plasma
discharges, then why in the name of Zeus are you participating on this forum?
Please stop wasting everyone's time!

Regards,
Scott.

#78

From: Gerard Bik <gerardbik@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 10:47 am
Subject: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

gerardbik

Wikipedia says at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

Specific solutions to three-body problem result in chaotic motion with no obvious sign of a repetitious path.

You can test the effect yourself with a mathematical model at http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/ThreeBody/ThreeBody.html

And the Easter Bunny of electrical interactions has left his eggs all over the planets. Once you know what to look for, you see them everywhere.

But, the big question is "why in the name of Zeus are you participating on this forum?" as Scott put it.

regards

By the way, I always wondered, what is inertia? What is the origin of it?

--- In Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com, Gerard Bik <gerardbik@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Steve
>
> You show the typical reaction of someone with lots of scientific
> knowledge when confronted with the electric universe.

I show the typical reaction of someone presented with a mystical belief
system based on no evidence.
>
> Funny thing is you mention the Three-body-problem as a defense where
> it is clearly a refutation of the orbital mechanics of gravity. When
> three bodies cannot stay in a stable orbit, how come this solar
> system hasn't fallen apart in billions of years?

You clearly do not understand the 3-body problem, which is not a
refutation of anything. It is simply a statement that you cannot compute
orbits beyond a high level of approximation.
>
> The electricity in the universe is not additional to gravity, it is
> fundamental. Gravity is additional, in that it takes over after the
> large scale structure has reached an electrical equilibrium.

What you are saying is that the term drops out of the equation.
Unfortunately, if it drops out of the equation, it has no predictive
value and can only be used as a deus ex machine to explain what you
cannot explain otherwise, like some folks resort to "God" when they
can't explain something. This has no more value than resorting to the
Easter Bunny as the cause of the unexplainable. He, of course, drops out
of the equation when he reaches equilibrium, so there is no evidence of
Him.
>
> To appreciate the electric universe model, it is best to start from
> scratch and imagine a universe starting with separated charges
> instead of a big bang.

The Big Short Circuit, huh?

> I still enjoy having the two models in my mind to compare: the
> consensus Lambda-CDM model and the renegade EU model.

I enjoy comparing the Gravitational-Inertial model with the Easter Bunny
Theory. Of course, it will take very advanced mathematicians to model
the Easter Bunny Theory.
>
> And for mathematical modeling: the EU ideas are not yet developed to
> a level where a complete model is possible. Parts can be modeled if
> someone is up to it. It will take very advanced mathematicians to
> model plasma behaviour.

So you admit you have no mathematical model? Not much better than my
alternative Easter Bunny Model.
>
> regards

SF
>
>
> >--- In Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Wall" wall@
wrote:
> >>
> >> On 31/3/2009 5:44:50a, Steve Franklin (yahoo@) wrote:
> >> > > The real planets probably stayed in the same place because
that is
> >> > > there tradition, from the planets in the Saturn-Jupiter
System staying
> >> > > in about the same place in the sky. I see little difference
between a
> >> > > comet causing strife and a planet doing this.
> >> >
> >> > The difference is, you don't have to contradict the laws of
celestial
> >> > mechanics to have a comet do the damage, whereas with planets
you have to
> >> > introduce all manner of bizarre electrical and electromagnetic
forces that
> >> > are not in evidence on a planetary scale.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are these "laws of celestial mechanics" that are supposedly being
> >>contradicted the same laws that are unable to predict the
> >>trajectories of many spacecraft such as Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11,

> >>Ulysses, ...
> >> See
>
>>http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080304anomaloustrajector\
ies.htm
> >>.
> >>
> >> And yes, there is an electrical explanation that explains the
anomalies.
> >>
> >There is a massive difference between tiny space probes near
> >interstellar space and a theoretical structure that not only moves
> >the planets from their orbits but pretends to negate the laws of
> >gravity and inertia. And those are laws, discovered by Isaac Newton
> >and capable of explaining the motions of the planets so accurately
> >that it was only with Einstein's relativity that very minor
> >deviations were explained.
> >
> >And keep in mind that there is something called "Three-Body Theory,"
> >or rather there isn't: that is, there is no mathematical way yet
> >developed that models the complex interactions among three objects
> >in space. So that your "trajectories" cannot even be modelled, let
> >alone shown to be inaccurate. We also do not know what is actually
> >out there, so we do not even know what gravitational forces exist
> >there.
> >
> >To gratuitously add an electric force not in evidence is to try to
> >explain a theoretical structure based on misinterpreted myth when
> >gravity and inertia do not support it. This is the height of
> >intellectual dishonesty.
> >
> >And I use the term "misinterpreted" advisedly. This whole chimera
> >goes back to the image of the cross and circle that appears in
> >ancient mythology and as a physical object at certain oracular sites
> >in Greece and elsewhere. Livio Stecchini has shown that these
> >locations are at significant geographical locations and those
> >locations have an important cartographic significance. You may want
> >to read his writings at the website <http://www.metrum.org/>Metrum.
> >
> >That this symbol has also been associated with the North Pole is not
> >surprising, since it represents the four equinoctial and solstitial
> >colures whose origins are at the poles. Hamlet's Mill contains much
> >of this evidence, though it sees everything through the lens of a
> >uniformitarian universe.
> >
> >So again, where is this electrical force in the present solar
> >system? Do you seriously think you can just throw out orbital
> >mechanics and replace it with electrical attractions and repulsions?
> >Where are the equations for these forces? You cannot simply claim
> >that they "explain" things without presenting definitions precise
> >enough to be mathematically modelled. You cannot simply say, "The
> >solar system is a giant light bulb!" and pretend that this simple
> >statement of belief is enough to overthrow the work of centuries. I
> >smell incense here, and the cool waters of the baptismal font, and
> >the musty odor of medieval religious manuscripts. These are fine in
> >their place. But they do not belong in a discussion of the science
> >of astronomy.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ______________________ _
> Gerard Bik grafische vormgeving
> Van Aerssenstraat 263
> 2582 JM Den Haag
> 070 3554081
>

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Plasmanplanetsnmyths/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Plasmanplanetsnmyths/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:Plasmanplanetsnmyths-digest@yahoogroups.com
    mailto:Plasmanplanetsnmyths-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Plasmanplanetsnmyths-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--

______________________ _
Gerard Bik grafische vormgeving
Van Aerssenstraat 263
2582 JM Den Haag
070 3554081

#79

From: "Mo" <moses133@...>
Date: Wed Apr 8, 2009 12:06 am
Subject: Re: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

:http://sites.google.com/site/dragonstormproject/

>> Have you read any of Steve F's work yet ?
>Huh?

Did you not see this posting:

:A geologist is working on cometary effects:

:Perhaps this will interest you.

:Mo

The geologist is Steve F.

PS: If you are into comets and ancient history then

that is good reason to be on this forum.

#80

From: "James St.Pe'" <rhondaandjames4504@...>
Date: Thu Apr 9, 2009 5:02 pm
Subject: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

rhondaandjam...

Wow y'all have been busy.I didn't know the list had been active.I'll be catching
up soon.

--- In Plasmanplanetsnmyths@yahoogroups.com, "Mo" <moses133@...> wrote:
>
> >> Have you read any of Steve F's work yet ?
> >Huh?
>
> Did you not see this posting:
> :A geologist is working on cometary effects:
> :http://sites.google.com/site/dragonstormproject/
> :Perhaps this will interest you.
> :Mo
>
> The geologist is Steve F.
> Mo
> PS: If you are into comets and ancient history then
> that is good reason to be on this forum.
>

#81

From: "Scott Wall" <wall@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 9:56 am
Subject: Re: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

scottish_wall

Hmm, this didn't seem to go through, so I'll send it again.

On 6/4/2009 8:17:38p, Steve Franklin (yahoo@...) wrote:
> > Are these "laws of celestial mechanics" that are supposedly being
> > contradicted the same laws that are unable to pred ict the trajectories
> > of many spacecraft such as Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Ulysses, ...
> > See
> > http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080304anomaloustrajectorie
> > s.htm .
> >
> > And yes, there is an electrical explanation that explains the anomalies.
> >
> There is a massive difference between tiny space probes near interstellar
> space and a theoretical structure that not only moves the planets from
> their orbits but pretends to negate the laws of gravity and ine rtia. And
> those are laws, discovered by Isaac Newton and capable of explaining the
> motions of the planets so accurately that it was only with Einstein's
> relativity that very minor deviations were explained.
>
> And keep in mind that there is something called "Three-Body Theory," or
> rather there isn't: that is, there is no mathematical way yet developed
> that models the complex interactions among three objects in space.
>  So that your "trajectories" cannot even be modelled, let alone shown to be
> inaccurate. We also do not know what is actually out there, so we do not
> even know what gravitational forces exist there.

And yet NASA is baffled with the "trajectories" of their spacecraft:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080229-spacecraft-anomaly.html

> To gratuitously add an electric force not in evidence is to try to explain
> a theoretical structure based on misinterpreted myth when gravity and
> inertia do not support it.

The "solar wind" is a stream of charged particles. Most engineers would call
this an electric current.
The aurora is also obviously electrical in nature. There are many more examples
which I don't have the patience to go into here.

> This is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

I tend to ignore ad hominem attacks.

> And I use the term "misinterpreted" advisedly. This whole chimera goes
> back to the image of the cross and circle that appears in ancient
> mythology and as a physical ob ject at certain oracular sites in Greece
> and elsewhere. Livio Stecchini has shown that these locations are at
> significant geographical locations and those locations have an important
> cartographic significance. You may want to read his writings at the
> website Metrum.

I can't find this website.

> That this symbol has also been associated with the North Pole is not
> surprising, since it represents the four equinoctial and solstitial
> colures whose origins are at the poles. Hamlet's Mill con tains much of
> this evidence, though it sees everything through the lens of a
> uniformitarian universe.
>
> So again, where is this electrical force in the present solar system?

see above regarding solar wind, aurora, ...

> Do you seriously think you can just throw out orbital mechanics and replace
> it with electrical attractions and repulsions?

When the charges have reached equilibrium, gravity maintains the status quo of
orbital mechanics. When the system is disrupted, then electrical interactions
dominate. The following incidents have all indications of being electrical
interactions with external bodies:
Tunguska in 1908
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060202tunguska.htm
  and the Chicago fires of 1871
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060206chicagofire.htm

Of course, these incidents are dwarved by previous encounters.

> Where are the equations for these forces? You cannot simply claim that they
"explain" things without
> presenting definitions precise enough to be mathematically modelled. You
> cannot simply say, "The solar system is a giant light bulb!" and pretend
> that this simple statement of belief is enough to overthrow the work of
> centuries.

The EU theory has been used to generate an impressive set of successful
predictions documented at http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm .
It seems obvious to me and to several others that electricity plays a major role
in astronomy.

Tony Perratt has done some simulations at
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/anatomy.html .
Eric Lerner has also done some quantitative work at
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ .

> I smell incense here, and the cool waters of the baptismal
> font, and the musty odor of medieval religious manuscripts. These are fine
> in their place. But they do not belong in a discussion of the science of
> astronomy.

I find this statement to be unworthy of comment.

Regards,
Scott.

#82

From: "Scott Wall" <wall@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 2:24 am
Subject: Re: Re: Jno Cook, Alfred de Grazia, David Talbott

scottish_wall

On 6/4/2009 8:17:38p, Steve Franklin (yahoo@...) wrote:
> > Are these "laws of celestial mechanics" that are supposedly being
> > contradicted the same laws that are unable to pred ict the trajectories
> > of many spacecraft such as Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Ulysses, ...
> > See
> > http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080304anomaloustrajectorie
> > s.htm .
> >
> > And yes, there is an electrical explanation that explains the anomalies.
> >
> There is a massive difference between tiny space probes near interstellar
> space and a theoretical structure that not only moves the planets from
> their orbits but pretends to negate the laws of gravity and ine rtia. And
> those are laws, discovered by Isaac Newton and capable of explaining the
> motions of the planets so accurately that it was only with Einstein's
> relativity that very minor deviations were explained.
>
> And keep in mind that there is something called "Three-Body Theory," or
> rather there isn't: that is, there is no mathematical way yet developed
> that models the complex interactions among three objects in space.
>  So that your "trajectories" cannot even be modelled, let alone shown to be
> inaccurate. We also do not know what is actually out there, so we do not
> even know what gravitational forces exist there.

And yet NASA is baffled with the "trajectories" of their spacecraft:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080229-spacecraft-anomaly.html

> To gratuitously add an electric force not in evidence is to try to explain
> a theoretical structure based on misinterpreted myth when gravity and
> inertia do not support it.

The "solar wind" is a stream of charged particles. Most engineers would call
this an electric current.
The aurora is also obviously electrical in nature. There are many more examples
which I don't have the patience to go into here.

> This is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

I tend to ignore ad hominem attacks.

> And I use the term "misinterpreted" advisedly. This whole chimera goes
> back to the image of the cross and circle that appears in ancient
> mythology and as a physical ob ject at certain oracular sites in Greece
> and elsewhere. Livio Stecchini has shown that these locations are at
> significant geographical locations and those locations have an important
> cartographic significance. You may want to read his writings at the
> website Metrum.

I can't find this website.

> That this symbol has also been associated with the North Pole is not
> surprising, since it represents the four equinoctial and solstitial
> colures whose origins are at the poles. Hamlet's Mill con tains much of
> this evidence, though it sees everything through the lens of a
> uniformitarian universe.
>
> So again, where is this electrical force in the present solar system?

see above regarding solar wind, aurora, ...

> Do you seriously think you can just throw out orbital mechanics and replace
> it with electrical attractions and repulsions?

When the charges have reached equilibrium, gravity maintains the status quo of
orbital mechanics. When the system is disrupted, then electrical interactions
dominate. The following incidents have all indications of being electrical
interactions with external bodies:
Tunguska in 1908
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060202tunguska.htm
  and the Chicago fires of 1871
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060206chicagofire.htm

Of course, these incidents are dwarved by previous encounters.

> Where are the equations for these forces? You cannot simply claim that they
"explain" things without
> presenting definitions precise enough to be mathematically modelled. You
> cannot simply say, "The solar system is a giant light bulb!" and pretend
> that this simple statement of belief is enough to overthrow the work of
> centuries.

The EU theory has been used to generate an impressive set of successful
predictions documented at http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm .
It seems obvious to me and to several others that electricity plays a major role
in astronomy.

Tony Perratt has done some simulations at
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/anatomy.html .
Eric Lerner has also done some quantitative work at
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ .

> I smell incense here, and the cool waters of the baptismal
> font, and the musty odor of medieval religious manuscripts. These are fine
> in their place. But they do not belong in a discussion of the science of
> astronomy.

I find this statement to be unworthy of comment.

Regards,
Scott.