Re: [UFOnet] Fw: [thoth-l] Thoth VII-2
- "Across my dreams,
With nets of wonder,
I chase the bright, elusive butterfly of love."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darren-George: Walker" <walkerdg@...>
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
> > 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
> > Gorge, with high lava cliffs on each side.
> > In one of those cliffs, a group of geologists discovered a cavity with
> > at the bottom. The bones, they found, were those of an extinct species
> > rhinoceros. It was then they realized the cavity bore the shape of that
> > rhino. The flooding basalt had overrun the rhino and had solidified
> > its body. The body had decayed, leaving the bones, and erosion later
> > 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
> > 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
> > volcanoes. This assumption led naturally to the conclusion that the
> > river-like channels, called rilles, often extending away from craters,
> > lava tubes whose roofs had collapsed.
> > Later, Gene Shoemaker studied crater-like features on Earth and showed
> > they couldn't be volcanic; they must therefore be the result of impacts.
> > Astronomers immediately adopted this impact theory of crater formation.
> > they retained the lava-tube theory of rilles, creating an ideational
> > landscape in which impact craters were the source of rhinoceros-shaped
> > tubes.
> > Another long-standing assumption in astronomy is that the redshift
> > in the spectra of galaxies arises from a velocity of recession
> > 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
> > more than most galaxies', the quasars were thought to be situated in the
> > outback of the universe and therefore unrelated to the foreground
> > 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
> > galaxies' cosmological redshift distances, exposing a cosmological-sized
> > cavity of consonance, with quasars and their parent galaxies at the
> > Geologists since the time of Lyell have strung together rocks and
> > fossils on
> > a thread of assumptions about the constancy and uniformity of tectonic
> > erosional forces. The resulting bracelet of explanatory charms has been
> > 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
> > constancy of decay rates and uniformity of isotope ratios. But when
> > 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
> > only pay attention to the answers which the universe gives to our
> > 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
> > immediacy and the intimacy of experience with mystified and reified
> > 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
> > an end in itself but a by-product of human learning activity, just as a
> > is a by-product of avian reproductive activity. We produce knowledge as
> > needed in learning to co-adapt with new and changing environments,
> > social, and cognitive. The knowledge of the past deserves our respect:
> > how we got here. And the knowledge of the present is not some Final
> > 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
> > liquids, and gasses, with mental machinery geared to mechanical
> > Now we have stepped off the Earth with technologically enhanced senses
> > out of our previous geocentric and anthropocentric context. We
> > the realms both of space and of the mythic gods are environments of
> > electrically active plasma, with properties unlike those of familiar
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > theory, ever! [Although an incorrect prediction, if the prediction is
> > 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
> > theory to correctly predict it, then it will have to go to the 3Heating
> > Starlight2 theory. Birkeland's colleague, Charles Edouard Guillaume
> > calculated the temperature of space from starlight at 5.6 degrees Kelvin
> > 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
> > or earlier, before they finally discovered irregularities in the CMB, so
> > articles mostly focus on the lack of predicted irregularities. When
> > "finally found" irregularities, they were 100 times smaller than those
> > predicted by the Big Bang theory -- but that doesn't stop them from
> > the irregularities as another proof of the Big Bang.)
> > If the "prize" goes to the most prestigious astronomer to predict the
> > 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
> > in New Cosmologies_ 1993, pg 25.
> > MORE CMB TIDBITS FROM ARP's ARTICLE: [Amy says: I find #2 a very
> > 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
> > body energy curve would be smeared out unrecognizably by Doppler
> > velocities.
> > 3) " ... In the nonexpanding universe an obvious, and much simpler,
> > explanation of the observation is that we are simply seeing the
> > of the underlying intergalactic medium."
> > AMY AGAIN:
> > If the prize goes to the first one to see and report the CMB, then
> > again the steady-state wins. It was observed in the late 1930's and
> > 1940's. McKellar published a paper identifying the background radiation
> > 1941. But it was war-time and the observatory publication was a minor
> > -- the Dominican Observatory in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. The
> > discovery was ignored by the astronomical community. (reference for
> > story: Hoyle Burbidge and Narlikar's _A Different Approach to
> > 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.
> > Big Bang prediction started about the same temperature as the others in
> > late 1940's, but they (i.e., primarily George Gamow) kept "upping" the
> > energy level of their prediction until, just before the actual
> > they were predicting a background temperature of 50 K. After the
> > they immediately reverted to their earliest predictions, then
> > claimed they were the only ones to get it right.
> > Which doesn't disprove their theory -- it only shows what incredible
> > sports they are. The CMB doesn't prove our theory, either. Both
> > 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
> > ice sheet have detected a 14-billion-year-old pattern from the Big Bang.
> > findings, announced in September by researchers from the University of
> > Chicago and the University of California at Berkeley, support the
> > theory of how the universe came to be....
> > "Large-scale flows in the early universe should have polarized the
> > round of scattered radiation, causing the waves preferentially to line
> > That radiation, now seen as microwaves, should still show traces of
> > alignment in some spots of the sky. Pryke searched for polarized waves
> > the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer, a microwave telescope near the
> > South Pole. He and his team examined two patches of sky, each about
> > times as wide as the full moon. They found a faint but unmistakable
> > "The discovery came as a relief to cosmologists, whose theories
> > increasingly incorporate such speculative elements as invisible matter
> > 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
> > fits better in plasma cosmology and call it their own. Then when it's
> > found, Violé! their theory has been verified again. Polarized is
> > what's expected with magnetic fields and electric currents.
> > Another press release that came out recently about the CMB. It was
> > 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
> > 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
> > to 5 percent), underwent episodes of rapid expansion called inflation,
> > 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
> > WMAP satellite which is in orbit at the Lagrange 2 point (the point
> > the earth's orbit where the earth's and sun's gravity are balanced.)
> > this orbit, they are always near enough to return data to earth, while
> > actually going around the earth.
> > Why do I think the press release is dishonest? See for yourself. The
> > shows variations in background temperature at 380,000 years after the
> > Bang (the variations are 100 times weaker than they first predicted, but
> > nobody mentions that.) And from this photo, without bothering us by
> > us anything about the observations, they make a whole bunch of
> > 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
> > the BB. In short, they have completely nailed down the universe. Time
> > close up astronomy and go home. We have it solved.
> > Of course, only 4% of what they think they are seeing is "real atoms".
> > is dark matter, and 73% mysterious dark energy. They neglect to mention
> > that both of these concepts were invented to patch up inconsistencies
> > would simply vanish if they rejected the recessional velocity and
> > redshift/distance yardstick. Neither have actually been observed. The
> > 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
> > 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
> > universe at 4 different epochs. First, the Big Bang. Second,
> > 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
> > 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,
> > see the universe as observed by WMAP, and fourth, the universe evolves
> > 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
> > prediction, especially if you have dark matter and dark energy to patch
> > 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
> > Bang. Patterns imprinted on this light reflect the conditions set in
> > a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. In turn, the patterns
> > 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
> > interpretation (the clarity of the observations) is itself evidence
> > an expanding universe and the Big Bang.
> > So what does the CMB mean in an electric universe? According to Arp,
> > simplest explanation is background starlight. The calculations work.
> > But there is another mystery that needs explanation. The spectral shift
> > 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
> > Way. The blank-check mainstream explanation is that somewhere between
> > and the Virgo Cluster there is an enormous "great attractor" made of
> > undetectable dark matter pulling both "us" (Milky Way, Local Group?
> > 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
> > Cluster? One of the active galaxies or quasars in the Virgo Cluster?)
> > the orbital motion of our Local Group of galaxies around the Virgo
> > Supercluster. That's a mystery that Arp and his colleagues should be
> > 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
> > website at:
> > http://www.holoscience.com/news/columbia.html
> > On February 1, 2003, the space shuttle, Columbia, met its fiery end in
> > 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
> > 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
> > outer atmosphere of the Earth."
> > This is a prime example of the difficulties we must endure while
> > 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
> > Chronicle, makes interesting reading:
> > e=science
> > 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
> > 5: 53 a.m. Saturday as sensors on the doomed orbiter began showing the
> > indications of trouble. Seven minutes later, the craft broke up in
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > make possible a science-fiction idea publicized by Arthur C. Clarke in
> > 1978 novel, _Fountains of Paradise_ ? the space elevator. Theoretically,
> > could provide a far cheaper method of reaching space. But is this
> > too far ahead of the science?
> > FROM THE _WIRED_ ARTICLE:
> > TO THE MOON IN A SPACE ELEVATOR?
> > By Steve Kettmann
> > Story location:
> > 02:00 AM Feb. 04, 2003 PT
> > The COLUMBIA disaster could spur faster development of a radically
> > 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
> > far-fetched, the space-elevator concept has advanced dramatically in
> > years along with leaps forward in the design of carbon nanotubes. Using
> > 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 --
> > into space. The project could become a reality as soon as 15 years from
> > experts say. "Technically it's feasible," said Robert Cassanova,
> > director of
> > the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts. "There's nothing wrong with
> > 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"
> > may be sure that he means the old, electrically sterile physics applied
> > the cosmos.
> > The continual cosmic discharge, which powers the storms on Earth, must
> > considered when placing long conductors radial to the Earth. Some years
> > the tethered satellite experiment suffered a plasma discharge that
> > 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
> > and aerodynamic forces in order to overcome the weak force of gravity.
> > reason for such an approach is that we do not understand gravity. When
> > finally understand it, it is likely that we will find much gentler means
> > leaving the Earth and returning. Until that time, manned space travel
> > remain ridiculously expensive and hazardous.
> > But wait a minute, didn't Einstein give us our understanding of gravity?
> > The physicist, Herman Bondi, put it most succinctly: "Wherever
> > can be seen in action, it is well described by the theory, but its
> > contact with the rest of physics is dubious." Bondi also asked a crucial
> > question, "if it [gravitation] is something so fundamental to matter,
> > might hope that one day it will throw light on the constitution of
> > and on the nature of the elementary particles and forces from which it
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > force. He was wrong when he wrote that no relevant experiments are
> > The famous Millikan oil drop experiment was one in which the
> > force of the entire Earth upon a tiny oil drop was balanced by the
> > electrical force on a single electron. Sensitive gravitational
> > 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
> > 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.
> > that precise property has been the most puzzling distinction between
> > and the powerful electromagnetic forces, which may repel as well as
> > So it seems the clue about the true nature of gravity has been available
> > chemists ? who are not interested in gravity ? and unavailable to
> > ? who are not interested in physical chemistry (and view the world
> > Einstein's distorting spectacles). Look at any average general physics
> > textbook and you will find no reference to Van der Waals' or London
> > What a different story might have been told if London's insight had come
> > 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
> > distortion of otherwise electrically neutral atoms and molecules. The
> > electric dipoles arise because the orbiting electrons, at any given
> > cannot shield the positive charge of the nucleus equally in all
> > 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
> > to a similar electrostatic distortion effect in the far smaller
> > of each atom? Of course, this is heresy because the electron is supposed
> > be a fundamental particle, with no smaller constituent particles.
> > there are experiments that challenge this belief. What is more, this
> > of an electron offers a simple mechanism to explain quantum theory and
> > relationship between magnetism and the electric force.
> > This explains the puzzling observation that electrons don't simply
> > their orbital energy away and crash into the nucleus. It is because
> > electrons in an atom store and release internal energy during each orbit
> > 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
> > the London force model, both protons and neutrons form resonant
> > of electrostatic dipoles that are powerfully attractive because of their
> > closeness, unlike a simple Coulomb electrostatic model that would have
> > positively charged nucleus fly apart. It explains the need for neutrons
> > give stability to a compound nucleus. And in the process, it allows the
> > normally unstable neutron to adopt a stable resonant configuration. Such
> > model suggests that a neutron star is a theoretical figment of
> > mathematicians.
> > If gravity is an electrostatic induced dipole-dipole force between the
> > fundamental particles of normal matter, then it cannot be shielded
> > all matter, whether charged or not, will participate. And herein lies
> > difficulty for antigravity devices. How to modify the strength of those
> > fundamental particle dipoles, or better, to invert them? I have
> > some attempts that seem to have succeeded in offsetting the dipoles
> > 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
> > the centre of the atom. This effect can set up a radial electric field
> > may lead to charge separation and stratification in the conducting
> > of a body, particularly stars and gas giants. In that case,
> > repulsion between similar charges will serve to offset compression due
> > gravity. The usual determination of density will therefore tell us
> > about the internal structure and composition of such a body. Certainly,
> > powerful electrical forces will prevent gravitational collapse and the
> > formation of mythical neutron stars and black holes. The evidence
> > for the existence of such objects is already explained by cosmic
> > discharge activity.
> > A new technology based on the obvious electrical nature of matter will
> > 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:
> > email@example.com
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> 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:
> To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
> Website (Dutch only): http://www.ufonet.nl/
> Messages to the list-owner: ufonet-admin@...
> Caution, many reports of unidentified phenomena posted to this list
> further investigation.
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/