Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [UFOnet] Fw: [thoth-l] Thoth VII-2

Expand Messages
  • Linette Sukup
    Across my dreams, With nets of wonder, I chase the bright, elusive butterfly of love. Peace. Linette ... From: Darren-George: Walker
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      "Across my dreams,
      With nets of wonder,
      I chase the bright, elusive butterfly of love."

      Peace.
      Linette


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Darren-George: Walker" <walkerdg@...>
      To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:57 PM
      Subject: [UFOnet] Fw: [thoth-l] Thoth VII-2


      > > THOTH
      > > A Catastrophics Newsletter
      > > VOL VII, No 2
      > > March 15, 2003
      > > EDITOR: Amy Acheson
      > > PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong
      > > LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart
      > >
      > > CONTENTS
      > >
      > > RHINOMORPHIC LACUNAE . . . . . . . . . . . Mel Acheson
      > > COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . Amy Acheson
      > > COLUMBIA: QUESTIONS OF SOME GRAVITY . . . . Wal Thornhill
      > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > RHINOMORPHIC LACUNAE
      > > Mel Acheson
      > >
      > > Long ago, a flood of molten basalt spread over eastern Washington State
      > and
      > > down the Columbia River valley to the sea. Later, the river cut a new
      > > channel (or flowed into a new channel), resulting in today's Columbia
      > River
      > > Gorge, with high lava cliffs on each side.
      > >
      > > In one of those cliffs, a group of geologists discovered a cavity with
      > bones
      > > at the bottom. The bones, they found, were those of an extinct species
      of
      > > rhinoceros. It was then they realized the cavity bore the shape of that
      > > rhino. The flooding basalt had overrun the rhino and had solidified
      around
      > > its body. The body had decayed, leaving the bones, and erosion later
      had
      > > exposed the cavity.
      > >
      > > The moral of this story is that you shouldn't leave the rhinoceroses of
      > > assumption to graze in the meadow of the unconscious when the flood of
      > > molten imagination lays down a new theory. When the new ideas
      crystallize,
      > > they will encase the old assumptions, which will leave rhinoceros-shaped
      > > voids of explanation in the new theory.
      > >
      > > Not so long ago, astronomers assumed the craters on the Moon were
      extinct
      > > volcanoes. This assumption led naturally to the conclusion that the
      > > river-like channels, called rilles, often extending away from craters,
      > were
      > > lava tubes whose roofs had collapsed.
      > >
      > > Later, Gene Shoemaker studied crater-like features on Earth and showed
      > that
      > > they couldn't be volcanic; they must therefore be the result of impacts.
      > > Astronomers immediately adopted this impact theory of crater formation.
      > But
      > > they retained the lava-tube theory of rilles, creating an ideational
      > > landscape in which impact craters were the source of rhinoceros-shaped
      > lava
      > > tubes.
      > >
      > > Another long-standing assumption in astronomy is that the redshift
      > observed
      > > in the spectra of galaxies arises from a velocity of recession
      > proportional
      > > to the galaxies' distances. This assumption, called the cosmological
      > > redshift distance, lies at the heart of the Big Bang cosmology. When
      > > quasars were discovered and it was found their spectra were redshifted
      > much
      > > more than most galaxies', the quasars were thought to be situated in the
      > > outback of the universe and therefore unrelated to the foreground
      > galaxies.
      > >
      > > Then Halton Arp discovered statistical and physical connections between
      > > quasars and galaxies. The assumption that redshift was an indicator of
      > > distance was undermined. But proponents of a non-cosmological redshift
      > > sometimes continued to place the galaxies and their connected quasars at
      > the
      > > galaxies' cosmological redshift distances, exposing a cosmological-sized
      > > cavity of consonance, with quasars and their parent galaxies at the
      > bottom.
      > >
      > > Geologists since the time of Lyell have strung together rocks and
      > > fossils on
      > > a thread of assumptions about the constancy and uniformity of tectonic
      and
      > > erosional forces. The resulting bracelet of explanatory charms has been
      > put
      > > on display as the Chronology of the Earth. Each stratum is tied to a
      > > particular date with a knot of radioisotope dating, which in turn
      assumes
      > > constancy of decay rates and uniformity of isotope ratios. But when
      > various
      > > theories of catastrophic change were accepted by several schools of
      > > geological theorists, such assumptions of constancy and uniformity were
      > > discarded. Nevertheless, the Chronology of the Earth continued to be
      > > used to
      > > date the catastrophes which disrupted that chronology, creating a
      > > catastrophic timeline punctuated by rhinoceros-shaped cavities of
      > > continuity.
      > >
      > > These stories are meant to illustrate three imperatives of speculative
      > > thought:
      > >
      > > First, we need not only to seek the novel experiences and ideas that lie
      > > before us in our own time, but we need to see our own seeking. We must
      > not
      > > only pay attention to the answers which the universe gives to our
      > questions,
      > > we must also pay attention to the limits, to the blind spots, to the
      > > rhinoceros-shaped cavities inherent in the questions. The internal
      > > tyrannies of assumptions can ossify imagination. The dead hand of
      > > continuity with past knowledge can choke the spontaneous speculations of
      > > present vitality, curiosity, and insight. Sensation-sensibility
      > > coordination is disrupted. We need to wake ourselves to the rituals of
      > > words and to the catechisms of terminology that have alienated us from
      the
      > > immediacy and the intimacy of experience with mystified and reified
      > concepts
      > > which are mistaken for facts.
      > >
      > > Second, we need to recognize that knowledge is not a destination but the
      > > footprints we leave behind during our journey of learning. Knowledge is
      > not
      > > an end in itself but a by-product of human learning activity, just as a
      > nest
      > > is a by-product of avian reproductive activity. We produce knowledge as
      > > needed in learning to co-adapt with new and changing environments,
      > physical,
      > > social, and cognitive. The knowledge of the past deserves our respect:
      > It's
      > > how we got here. And the knowledge of the present is not some Final
      Truth
      > > that justifies spurning the past or blockading the future.
      > >
      > > Third, we need to reevaluate all our fondest theories in the face of the
      > > present transition in learning environments. Most currently accepted
      > > theories were produced in an electrically inactive environment of
      solids,
      > > liquids, and gasses, with mental machinery geared to mechanical
      metaphors.
      > > Now we have stepped off the Earth with technologically enhanced senses
      and
      > > out of our previous geocentric and anthropocentric context. We
      recognize
      > > the realms both of space and of the mythic gods are environments of
      > > electrically active plasma, with properties unlike those of familiar
      > matter.
      > > The metaphors with which we understand it must be non-mechanistic and
      > > non-local, organic and emergent, adaptive and innovative.
      > >
      > > Cognitive knowledge must be reconceived and reborn in forms appropriate
      to
      > > our new domain of sensation and sensibility. Failing to chase away the
      > > rhinoceroses of "secure knowledge" will trap us in cavities of
      > > undiscerningness as the Age of Plasma floods over us.
      > >
      > > Mel Acheson
      > > thoth@...
      > > www.dragonscience.com
      > > ********************************************************
      > >
      > >
      > > COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND
      > > A Discussion with Amy Acheson
      > >
      > >
      > > Hi Amy and all,
      > >
      > > I'm giving a series of lectures to our physics class about general
      > > relativity and cosmology. In the last lecture, I'll describe the
      electric
      > > universe theory as an alternative to the standard big-bang model.
      > >
      > > Can someone tell me how the electric universe theorists interpret the 3
      > > Kelvin microwave radiation? Before Monday, please?
      > >
      > > Thanks!
      > >
      > > Mark Korsky
      > >
      > >
      > > Mark,
      > >
      > > As it happens, I recently discussed this with another amateur
      astronomer,
      > > and I can clean up the discussion we had for your benefit. At this time,
      > > it1s more arguments against the mainstream interpretation than counter
      > > proposals.
      > >
      > > Did you read _Aeon Vol. VI #3_? My "Intersect 2001" article is printed
      > > there. I devoted a brief section to the CMB. Jason Goodman (the most
      > active
      > > poster on the young people's catastrophism list) offers some great CMB
      > > arguments against Big Bang Theory on his web site here:
      > > http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/BBT.html
      > >
      > > The claim that the CMB proves the Big Bang is a logical fallacy, and
      > > intellectually dishonest, as well. A correct prediction is NOT proof of
      a
      > > theory, ever! [Although an incorrect prediction, if the prediction is
      > true
      > > to the theory, can disprove it.] All a correct prediction can offer is
      > > verification, which is "evidence in favor of", not proof.
      > >
      > > Now let's look at the specifics of the CMB. If the "prize" goes to the
      > first
      > > theory to correctly predict it, then it will have to go to the 3Heating
      by
      > > Starlight2 theory. Birkeland's colleague, Charles Edouard Guillaume
      > > calculated the temperature of space from starlight at 5.6 degrees Kelvin
      > in
      > > 1896. You can see his article here (it's in French) Go to Tony Peratt's
      > > page of downloadable papers and scroll down to Guillaume's article "The
      > > Temperature of Space":
      > >
      > > http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html
      > >
      > > (There are several other articles on the same page about CMB, all dated
      > 1990
      > > or earlier, before they finally discovered irregularities in the CMB, so
      > the
      > > articles mostly focus on the lack of predicted irregularities. When
      they
      > > "finally found" irregularities, they were 100 times smaller than those
      > > predicted by the Big Bang theory -- but that doesn't stop them from
      > counting
      > > the irregularities as another proof of the Big Bang.)
      > >
      > > If the "prize" goes to the most prestigious astronomer to predict the
      CMB,
      > > then you'll have to give it to Eddington, who calculated the CMB at 3
      > > degrees K (for an infinite steady-state universe) as early as 1926 (this
      > > came from Halton Arp's article "Fitting Theory to Observation" in
      > _Progress
      > > in New Cosmologies_ 1993, pg 25.
      > >
      > > MORE CMB TIDBITS FROM ARP's ARTICLE: [Amy says: I find #2 a very
      > important
      > > point that is seldom mentioned.]
      > >
      > > 1) "In April 1992, enormous publicity was given to the announcement
      > > that a satellite observing in the microwave region ... had detected
      > > irregularities in the sky. ... said to have proved (once again) the
      > > correctness of Big Bang theory.
      > >
      > > 2) " ... there was never any discussion of how the evidence is very
      > > difficult to reconcile with the Big Bang model. The point is that in a
      > > universe expanding faster at each further distance observed, the 2.7 K
      > black
      > > body energy curve would be smeared out unrecognizably by Doppler
      recession
      > > velocities.
      > >
      > > 3) " ... In the nonexpanding universe an obvious, and much simpler,
      > > explanation of the observation is that we are simply seeing the
      > temperature
      > > of the underlying intergalactic medium."
      > >
      > > AMY AGAIN:
      > >
      > > If the prize goes to the first one to see and report the CMB, then
      > once
      > > again the steady-state wins. It was observed in the late 1930's and
      early
      > > 1940's. McKellar published a paper identifying the background radiation
      > in
      > > 1941. But it was war-time and the observatory publication was a minor
      one
      > > -- the Dominican Observatory in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. The
      > > discovery was ignored by the astronomical community. (reference for
      this
      > > story: Hoyle Burbidge and Narlikar's _A Different Approach to
      Cosmology_)
      > >
      > > If the prize goes to the theory that predicted the CMB last and was
      > > farthest off the exact calculation, then the CMB proves the Big Bang.
      The
      > > Big Bang prediction started about the same temperature as the others in
      > the
      > > late 1940's, but they (i.e., primarily George Gamow) kept "upping" the
      > > energy level of their prediction until, just before the actual
      discovery,
      > > they were predicting a background temperature of 50 K. After the
      > discovery,
      > > they immediately reverted to their earliest predictions, then
      obnoxiously
      > > claimed they were the only ones to get it right.
      > >
      > > Which doesn't disprove their theory -- it only shows what incredible
      > poor
      > > sports they are. The CMB doesn't prove our theory, either. Both
      theories
      > > need closer investigation and less political haggles.
      > >
      > > Joy Perry noted a recent press release about the CMB:
      > >
      > > >From the press release:
      > >
      > > "Scientists using a radio telescope atop the 10,000-foot-high
      Antarctic
      > > ice sheet have detected a 14-billion-year-old pattern from the Big Bang.
      > The
      > > findings, announced in September by researchers from the University of
      > > Chicago and the University of California at Berkeley, support the
      leading
      > > theory of how the universe came to be....
      > >
      > > "Large-scale flows in the early universe should have polarized the
      last
      > > round of scattered radiation, causing the waves preferentially to line
      up.
      > > That radiation, now seen as microwaves, should still show traces of
      > > alignment in some spots of the sky. Pryke searched for polarized waves
      > with
      > > the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer, a microwave telescope near the
      > > South Pole. He and his team examined two patches of sky, each about
      seven
      > > times as wide as the full moon. They found a faint but unmistakable
      > signal.
      > >
      > > "The discovery came as a relief to cosmologists, whose theories
      > > increasingly incorporate such speculative elements as invisible matter
      and
      > > energy. 'Even though we don't know what dark matter and dark energy are,
      > > we've made assumptions about the way they behave and put that into our
      > > model,' says Pryke. 'So measuring the polarization we expected from the
      > > model says we know what we are talking about. Had we not found it,
      > > cosmology would have been thrown into chaos.' "
      > >
      > > AMY COMMENTS:
      > >
      > > They are still playing the same old game. They make a prediction
      > that
      > > fits better in plasma cosmology and call it their own. Then when it's
      > > found, Violé! their theory has been verified again. Polarized is
      > certainly
      > > what's expected with magnetic fields and electric currents.
      > >
      > >
      > > Another press release that came out recently about the CMB. It was
      picked
      > > up by APOD Feb 12:
      > >
      > > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030212.html
      > >
      > > EXERPTS FROM THE APOD CAPTION: WMAP Resolves the Universe
      > >
      > > Explanation: ... present analyses of above WMAP all-sky image
      indicate
      > > that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (accurate to 1 percent),
      > > composed of 73 percent dark energy, 23 percent cold dark matter, and
      > > only 4
      > > percent atoms, is currently expanding at the rate of 71 km/sec/Mpc
      > (accurate
      > > to 5 percent), underwent episodes of rapid expansion called inflation,
      and
      > > will expand forever.
      > >
      > > AMY COMMENTS:
      > >
      > > As far as I'm concerned, this is the most intellectually dishonest
      > > report I
      > > have ever seen about the CMB. The photo referred to is data from the
      new
      > > WMAP satellite which is in orbit at the Lagrange 2 point (the point
      beyond
      > > the earth's orbit where the earth's and sun's gravity are balanced.)
      From
      > > this orbit, they are always near enough to return data to earth, while
      not
      > > actually going around the earth.
      > >
      > > Why do I think the press release is dishonest? See for yourself. The
      > data
      > > shows variations in background temperature at 380,000 years after the
      Big
      > > Bang (the variations are 100 times weaker than they first predicted, but
      > > nobody mentions that.) And from this photo, without bothering us by
      > telling
      > > us anything about the observations, they make a whole bunch of
      outrageous
      > > claims. That the BB theory is right, that they know the exact Hubble
      > > constant and age of the universe, that stars formed by 200,000 years
      after
      > > the BB. In short, they have completely nailed down the universe. Time
      to
      > > close up astronomy and go home. We have it solved.
      > >
      > > Of course, only 4% of what they think they are seeing is "real atoms".
      > 23%
      > > is dark matter, and 73% mysterious dark energy. They neglect to mention
      > > that both of these concepts were invented to patch up inconsistencies
      that
      > > would simply vanish if they rejected the recessional velocity and
      > > redshift/distance yardstick. Neither have actually been observed. The
      1
      > > and 5 percent errors that they calculate come AFTER the 96% fudge-factor
      > > they use to explain away discrepancies.
      > >
      > > One of the reference links shows the flaw in their argument (click on
      the
      > > phrase "above WMAP all-sky image" at the APOD website and scroll down to
      > > "Cosmic History."). This diagram is an artist's conception of the Big
      Bang
      > > universe at 4 different epochs. First, the Big Bang. Second,
      inflation,
      > > which happened in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang and
      > > changed what the Big Bang universe was "predicted to look like" into
      "what
      > > it actually looks like." [Or, as one famous scientist put it ... "Here's
      > > where the frog jumps in the pond." or "Here a miracle occurs."] Third,
      we
      > > see the universe as observed by WMAP, and fourth, the universe evolves
      > into
      > > what we see today.
      > >
      > > It doesn't really matter what happened "in the beginning". That second
      > > magic step can be adjusted to fix any discrepancy between observation
      and
      > > prediction, especially if you have dark matter and dark energy to patch
      up
      > > the chinks.
      > >
      > > Caption on reference page diagram:
      > >
      > > "Cosmic History
      > >
      > > WMAP observer the first light to break free in the infant Universe, the
      > > afterglow of the Big Bang. This light emerged 380,000 years after the
      Big
      > > Bang. Patterns imprinted on this light reflect the conditions set in
      > motion
      > > a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. In turn, the patterns
      are
      > > the seeds of the development of the structures of galaxies we now see
      > > billions of years after the Big Bang."
      > >
      > > AMY AGAIN:
      > >
      > > As Arp pointed out above, the very thing they are claiming as proof of
      > their
      > > interpretation (the clarity of the observations) is itself evidence
      > against
      > > an expanding universe and the Big Bang.
      > >
      > > So what does the CMB mean in an electric universe? According to Arp,
      the
      > > simplest explanation is background starlight. The calculations work.
      > >
      > > But there is another mystery that needs explanation. The spectral shift
      > of
      > > the CMB is anomalous. It appears as if "we" (the observers) are moving
      > > through the CMB at a rate 3 times as fast as the sun is orbiting the
      Milky
      > > Way. The blank-check mainstream explanation is that somewhere between
      us
      > > and the Virgo Cluster there is an enormous "great attractor" made of
      > > undetectable dark matter pulling both "us" (Milky Way, Local Group?
      Solar
      > > System? Earth?) and the Virgo Cluster in. Here's an all-sky view of the
      > > anomaly:
      > >
      > > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030209.html
      > >
      > > What do I think it is? I don1t know. Perhaps it's the glow of the Milky
      > > Way's jets, or the connection between the Local Group and its parent
      > (Virgo
      > > Cluster? One of the active galaxies or quasars in the Virgo Cluster?)
      Or
      > > the orbital motion of our Local Group of galaxies around the Virgo
      > > Supercluster. That's a mystery that Arp and his colleagues should be
      paid
      > > well to investigate. The rest of astronomy lost a valuable sanity check
      > > when they elbowed him out.
      > >
      > >
      > > ~Amy Acheson
      > > thoth@...
      > > ********************************************************
      > >
      > >
      > > COLUMBIA: QUESTIONS OF SOME GRAVITY
      > >
      > > Wal Thornhill
      > >
      > > [ed note: this full article, with pictures, can be found on Wal
      > Thornhill's
      > > website at:
      > >
      > > http://www.holoscience.com/news/columbia.html
      > >
      > > On February 1, 2003, the space shuttle, Columbia, met its fiery end in
      the
      > > dangerous manoeuvre of supersonic re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.
      > > Sadly, the crew of seven was lost. U.S. President Bush said, "In an age
      > when
      > > space flight has come to seem almost routine, it is easy to overlook the
      > > dangers of travel by rocket, and the difficulties of navigating the
      fierce
      > > outer atmosphere of the Earth."
      > >
      > > This is a prime example of the difficulties we must endure while
      > technology
      > > far outpaces science. In fact a faulty understanding of the electrical
      > > nature of the cosmos may have been responsible for the tragedy.
      > >
      > > In that context, a report, published on the west coast in the San
      > Francisco
      > > Chronicle, makes interesting reading:
      > >
      > >
      >
      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/05/MN192153.DTL&typ
      > > e=science
      > >
      >
      <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/05/MN192153.DTL&am
      > > p;type=science>
      > >
      > > FROM THE CHRONICLE ARTICLE:
      > >
      > > "Top investigators of the Columbia space shuttle disaster are
      > > analyzing a
      > > startling photograph -- snapped by an amateur astronomer from a San
      > > Francisco hillside -- that appears to show a purplish electrical bolt
      > > striking the craft as it streaked across the California sky.
      > >
      > > "The digital image is one of five snapped by the shuttle buff at
      > roughly
      > > 5: 53 a.m. Saturday as sensors on the doomed orbiter began showing the
      > first
      > > indications of trouble. Seven minutes later, the craft broke up in
      flames
      > > over Texas."
      > >
      > > "In the critical shot, a glowing purple rope of light corkscrews down
      > > toward the plasma trail, appears to pass behind it, then cuts sharply
      > toward
      > > it from below. As it merges with the plasma trail, the streak itself
      > > brightens for a distance, then fades."
      > >
      > >
      > > WAL THORNHILL COMMENTS:
      > >
      > > It is not a surprise in an electric universe to have lightning from
      space
      > > follow the ionised trail of Columbia. The Earth is enveloped in a cosmic
      > > discharge, centered on the Sun.
      > >
      > > [See more in Thornhill's newsbreak at:
      > > http://www.holoscience.com/news/balloon.html ]
      > >
      > > Further evidence about discharges from space was actually provided by
      the
      > > ill-fated astronauts when they photographed a huge arc of light above
      > > thunderstorms in Africa.
      > >
      > > It is quite possible that conditions in the ionosphere led to a
      lightning
      > > discharge to Columbia, which may have damaged a critical component or
      > > surface of the space shuttle. The lightning would be silent and burn
      > > like a
      > > plasma torch.
      > >
      > > I agree with NASA experts who discount the possibility of damage to the
      > wing
      > > upon takeoff from a piece of lightweight foam.
      > > ________________________________________________________
      > >
      > > The Columbia disaster seems to have prompted an opportunistic article in
      > > _WIRED_ magazine. The article highlights a new technology that is said
      to
      > > make possible a science-fiction idea publicized by Arthur C. Clarke in
      his
      > > 1978 novel, _Fountains of Paradise_ ? the space elevator. Theoretically,
      > it
      > > could provide a far cheaper method of reaching space. But is this
      > technology
      > > too far ahead of the science?
      > >
      > > FROM THE _WIRED_ ARTICLE:
      > > TO THE MOON IN A SPACE ELEVATOR?
      > > By Steve Kettmann
      > >
      > > Story location:
      http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57536,00.html
      > > 02:00 AM Feb. 04, 2003 PT
      > >
      > > The COLUMBIA disaster could spur faster development of a radically
      > different
      > > approach to reaching outer space: the space elevator.
      > >
      > > More information about the space elevator at:
      > > http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm
      > > <http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm> ]
      > >
      > > Long imagined by science-fiction writers but seen by others as
      hopelessly
      > > far-fetched, the space-elevator concept has advanced dramatically in
      > recent
      > > years along with leaps forward in the design of carbon nanotubes. Using
      > the
      > > lightweight, strong carbon material, it's feasible to talk of building a
      > > meter-wide "ribbon" that would start on a mobile ocean platform at the
      > > equator, west of Ecuador, and extend 62,000 miles up into space.
      > >
      > > An elevator could be attached to this ribbon to ferry materials such as
      > > satellites and replacement parts for space stations -- or even people --
      > up
      > > into space. The project could become a reality as soon as 15 years from
      > now,
      > > experts say. "Technically it's feasible," said Robert Cassanova,
      > > director of
      > > the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts. "There's nothing wrong with
      the
      > > physics."
      > >
      > > THORNHILL COMMENTS:
      > >
      > > Here we have another example where technology has outstripped science.
      > >
      > > So, when Robert Cassanova says "There's nothing wrong with the physics"
      we
      > > may be sure that he means the old, electrically sterile physics applied
      to
      > > the cosmos.
      > >
      > > The continual cosmic discharge, which powers the storms on Earth, must
      be
      > > considered when placing long conductors radial to the Earth. Some years
      > ago,
      > > the tethered satellite experiment suffered a plasma discharge that
      severed
      > > the tether cable as it was being reeled out from the space shuttle. That
      > > phenomenon will be repeated on a grand scale in any attempt to stretch a
      > > conducting elevator cable from Earth into space. The power that drives
      > > regional thunderstorms will be concentrated into a single cataclysmic
      > > thunderbolt, destroying the elevator cable like a thin fuse wire. In the
      > > worst scenario, the 50km high ground station will be replaced by a neat,
      > > circular crater, like those seen elsewhere in the solar system and
      > > attributed, erroneously, to meteoric impacts.
      > > ________________________________________________________
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > GRAVITY IS THE PROBLEM: UNDERSTANDING IT IS THE SOLUTION.
      > >
      > > The space shuttle is a technological marvel that must harness brute
      > chemical
      > > and aerodynamic forces in order to overcome the weak force of gravity.
      The
      > > reason for such an approach is that we do not understand gravity. When
      we
      > > finally understand it, it is likely that we will find much gentler means
      > of
      > > leaving the Earth and returning. Until that time, manned space travel
      will
      > > remain ridiculously expensive and hazardous.
      > >
      > > But wait a minute, didn't Einstein give us our understanding of gravity?
      > No.
      > > The physicist, Herman Bondi, put it most succinctly: "Wherever
      gravitation
      > > can be seen in action, it is well described by the theory, but its
      logical
      > > contact with the rest of physics is dubious." Bondi also asked a crucial
      > > question, "if it [gravitation] is something so fundamental to matter,
      one
      > > might hope that one day it will throw light on the constitution of
      matter
      > > and on the nature of the elementary particles and forces from which it
      is
      > > composed. However, no relevant experiments are possible because the
      > > gravitational forces due to minute particles are so utterly minute."
      > >
      > > That is a curious insight, given that Einstein's theory of gravitation
      > makes
      > > the gravitational field a property of space, rather than matter. It is
      > > little wonder that after close to a century of concentrated effort,
      > > including that of Einstein himself, no connection has been possible
      > between
      > > gravity and the quantum behavior of matter or between gravity and the
      > > electromagnetic atomic forces. Einstein's view dismisses the idea that
      > > anti-gravity is possible and has powerfully discouraged serious
      > > investigation of the subject.
      > >
      > > I believe Bondi was both right and wrong. He was right in that we should
      > > look to a fundamental property of matter for the origin of the
      > gravitational
      > > force. He was wrong when he wrote that no relevant experiments are
      > possible.
      > > The famous Millikan oil drop experiment was one in which the
      gravitational
      > > force of the entire Earth upon a tiny oil drop was balanced by the
      > > electrical force on a single electron. Sensitive gravitational
      experiments
      > > on atomic particles are possible when we use the entire mass of the
      > > Earth as
      > > the source of the test gravitational field. This is essentially what is
      > done
      > > in anti-gravity experiments.
      > >
      > > Einstein published his theory of gravitation, or general theory of
      > > relativity, in 1916. And so a new paradigm, or set of beliefs, was
      > > established. It was not until 1930 that Fritz London explained the weak,
      > > attractive dipolar electric bonding force (known as Van der Waals'
      > > dispersion force or the "London force") that causes gas molecules to
      > > condense and form liquids and solids. Like gravity, the London force is
      > > always attractive and operates between electrically neutral molecules.
      And
      > > that precise property has been the most puzzling distinction between
      > gravity
      > > and the powerful electromagnetic forces, which may repel as well as
      > attract.
      > >
      > > So it seems the clue about the true nature of gravity has been available
      > to
      > > chemists ? who are not interested in gravity ? and unavailable to
      > physicists
      > > ? who are not interested in physical chemistry (and view the world
      through
      > > Einstein's distorting spectacles). Look at any average general physics
      > > textbook and you will find no reference to Van der Waals' or London
      > forces.
      > > What a different story might have been told if London's insight had come
      a
      > > few decades earlier? Physics could, by now, have advanced by a century
      > > instead of being bogged in a mire of metaphysics.
      > >
      > > An excellent illustrated lesson on the London force, or Van der Waals'
      > > dispersion force is given at:
      > >
      > > http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/vdw.html
      > > <http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/vdw.html>
      > >
      > > The London force originates in fluctuating electric dipoles caused by
      > slight
      > > distortion of otherwise electrically neutral atoms and molecules. The
      tiny
      > > electric dipoles arise because the orbiting electrons, at any given
      > instant,
      > > cannot shield the positive charge of the nucleus equally in all
      > directions.
      > > The result, amongst a group of similar atoms or molecules is that the
      > > electric dipoles tend to resonate and line up so that they attract each
      > > other.
      > >
      > > Obviously, gravity is distinct from the London force. It is much, much
      > > weaker. That should be a clue. What if we are looking at gravity being
      due
      > > to a similar electrostatic distortion effect in the far smaller
      > constituents
      > > of each atom? Of course, this is heresy because the electron is supposed
      > to
      > > be a fundamental particle, with no smaller constituent particles.
      However,
      > > there are experiments that challenge this belief. What is more, this
      model
      > > of an electron offers a simple mechanism to explain quantum theory and
      the
      > > relationship between magnetism and the electric force.
      > >
      > > This explains the puzzling observation that electrons don't simply
      radiate
      > > their orbital energy away and crash into the nucleus. It is because
      > > electrons in an atom store and release internal energy during each orbit
      > in
      > > the form of varying electric dipole distortion. So a stable orbit is
      > > achieved simply when the energy exchange between the electron and the
      > > nucleus sums to zero over each orbit. It is the resonant electron orbits
      > > that determine the quantum nature of atomic interactions.
      > >
      > > The same resonances apply within the compound atomic nucleus. If we
      apply
      > > the London force model, both protons and neutrons form resonant
      structures
      > > of electrostatic dipoles that are powerfully attractive because of their
      > > closeness, unlike a simple Coulomb electrostatic model that would have
      the
      > > positively charged nucleus fly apart. It explains the need for neutrons
      to
      > > give stability to a compound nucleus. And in the process, it allows the
      > > normally unstable neutron to adopt a stable resonant configuration. Such
      a
      > > model suggests that a neutron star is a theoretical figment of
      overzealous
      > > mathematicians.
      > >
      > > If gravity is an electrostatic induced dipole-dipole force between the
      > > fundamental particles of normal matter, then it cannot be shielded
      because
      > > all matter, whether charged or not, will participate. And herein lies
      the
      > > difficulty for antigravity devices. How to modify the strength of those
      > > fundamental particle dipoles, or better, to invert them? I have
      discussed
      > > some attempts that seem to have succeeded in offsetting the dipoles
      > slightly
      > > from the Earth's radius. See "Antigravity?" at:
      > >
      > > http://www.holoscience.com/news/antigravity.html
      > >
      > > There is another important consequence of taking into account atomic
      > > electric dipole effects. A ponderous body will introduce an additional
      > > dipole effect, that of the gravitational offset of the heavy nucleus
      from
      > > the centre of the atom. This effect can set up a radial electric field
      > that
      > > may lead to charge separation and stratification in the conducting
      > interior
      > > of a body, particularly stars and gas giants. In that case,
      electrostatic
      > > repulsion between similar charges will serve to offset compression due
      to
      > > gravity. The usual determination of density will therefore tell us
      nothing
      > > about the internal structure and composition of such a body. Certainly,
      > such
      > > powerful electrical forces will prevent gravitational collapse and the
      > > formation of mythical neutron stars and black holes. The evidence
      > presented
      > > for the existence of such objects is already explained by cosmic
      electric
      > > discharge activity.
      > >
      > > A new technology based on the obvious electrical nature of matter will
      > look
      > > quite different from our Victorian vintage science. As Arthur C. Clarke
      > > wrote,
      > >
      > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
      > >
      > > We are long overdue for some magic!
      > >
      > > © Wal Thornhill 2002
      > > author of The Electric Universe:
      > > A Holistic Science for the New Millennium
      > > See www.electric-universe.org
      > > ********************************************************
      > >
      > >
      > > PLEASE VISIT THE KRONIA GROUP WEBSITE
      > >
      > > http://www.kronia.com
      > >
      > > Subscriptions to AEON, a journal of myth and science, now
      > > with regular features on the Saturn theory and electric
      > > universe, may be ordered from this page:
      > > http://www.kronia.com/library/aeon.html
      > >
      > >
      > > Other suggested Web site URL's for more information about
      > > Catastrophics:
      > >
      > > http://www.aeonjournal.com/index.html
      > > http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/
      > > http://www.flash.net/~cjransom/
      > > http://www.knowledge.co.uk/velikovskian/
      > > http://www.bearfabrique.org
      > > http://www.grazian-archive.com/
      > > http://www.holoscience.com
      > > http://www.electric-cosmos.org/
      > > http://www.electric-universe.org
      > > http://www.science-frontiers.com <http://www.science-frontiers.com/>
      > > http://www.catastrophism.com/cdrom/index.htm
      > > http://www.dragonscience.com <http://www.dragonscience.com/>
      > > -----------------------------------------------
      > >
      > > The THOTH electronic newsletter is an outgrowth of
      > > scientific and scholarly discussions in the emerging
      > > field of astral catastrophics. Our focus is on a
      > > reconstruction of ancient astral myths and symbols in
      > > relation to a new theory of planetary history. Serious
      > > readers must allow some time for these radically
      > > different ideas to be fleshed out and for the relevant
      > > background to be developed. The general tenor of the
      > > ideas and information presented in THOTH is supported by
      > > the editor and publisher, but there will always be plenty
      > > of room for differences of interpretation.
      > >
      > > We welcome your comments and responses.
      > >
      > > thoth@...
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > New readers are referred to earlier issues of THOTH posted on the Kronia
      > > website listed above.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > thoth-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > UFOnet is an international news and discussion list dedicated to:
      > UFOs, UAP, Anomalous Phenomena in general and the Paranormal.
      >
      > To subscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
      > ufonet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
      > ufonet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Website (Dutch only): http://www.ufonet.nl/
      > Messages to the list-owner: ufonet-admin@...
      >
      > Caution, many reports of unidentified phenomena posted to this list
      require
      > further investigation.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.