Who Continues TVF's Work

Solar, So with that model to work with you're all set then. Can you post the underlying data leading you guys to needing EPH of some kind? I know one of the solar orbs has a dark hemisphere that could have been dusted by a cloud of passing gas. And four events are involved in the total hypothesis. The rest of the story is missing

Jim,

The underlying data are the same as presented by TVF in his book: over 100 points of evidence in 11 lines of evidence for the EPH, including 10 from asteroids, 30 from comets (including Opiks (1978) test for comets which indicates an explosion origin for these), 27 from planets, 12 from moons and ring systems, 20 from meteoroids, and several miscellaneous.

My suggestion for the 4 planets being solid is probably not as plausible as TVF's helium planet scenario, so the only real adjustments would the 2 giant planets being ejected from the solar suystem and the electrical discharges from the sun.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Solar, So with that model to work with you're all set then. Can you post the underlying data leading you guys to needing EPH of some kind? I know one of the solar orbs has a dark hemisphere that could have been dusted by a cloud of passing gas. And four events are involved in the total hypothesis. The rest of the story is missing
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I never got any feedback from the Thunderbolts folks, even after sending a direct email to two of the principles. I wonder if the EPH is rejected because it does not fit with their notions of solar system configuration in ancient times, which is based on studies of mythological traditions.

While I am "all-in" on EU theory (and on EPH), I am not convinced about Thunderbolts "polar configuration" model. I am keeping an open mind on it, but still need convincing. I also think that some of the cutting edge research on the ZPF (Zero Point Field) needs to be integrated. Like all new ideas in science, the ZPF has its share of folks that make unwarranted claims, but if you are interested the best site I know of is Bernard Haiche's [url] www.calphysics.org [/url]


Michael E. Shea[url][/url]

EPH is only a model TVF devised to explain events considered minor in the BB model. My thinking rejects EPH because gravity will not allow EPH or many other commonly accepted events to occur. We have reality and fiction mixed and blended at this time in science. We call it theory or modeling and computers are very good at doing the blending of reality and fiction. BTW, TVF indicated he was not convinced the EPH model reflected reality somewhere in these forums.

The ancient global myth of Saturn as the 1st sun of Earth and as immobile in the sky was discovered (and rejected) by De Santillana and Von Dechind (1969). In 1971, Immanuel Velikovsky proposed the possibility that Earth had at one time been a moon of the planet Saturn, but a simlar idea that proposes the Earth to be an offspring of Saturn was advanced in 1884 by Oskar Reichenbach as part of a theory purporting to prove that land masses on Earth have rifted and moved northward, the latter part being similar views to those of Wegener 33 years later (Dwardu Cardona, Darkness and the Deep- bearfabrique.org).
The idea of Saturn as a previous sun of Earth was later taken up by David Talbott (1980). It became the basis for the planetary formation aspect of the electric universe extension of plasma cosmology. Talbott, Ev Cochrane, Cardona, Frederick Jueneman, and Holden and McLachlan support the polar configuration version, and Lynn Rose (1979), supports the tidal-lock view in the interpretation of the apparent immobility of Saturn. Saturn and Jupiter were sub-brown dwarfs or brown dwarfs. And there was a Purple Dawn, a time in which there was little light on Earth because of the plasma sheath enveloping Saturn and its retinue. Jupiter was Earth's 2nd sun for a short time. The basic planetary formation mechanism is electrical fission: giant planets were ejected fully formed from the Sun by electrical expulsion and the rocky planets similarly formed from the giant planets, with the planetoids, meteoroids, and comets formed as uplifted excavated material from electrical scarring or sculpting of rocky planets. And the moon was captured.
The usual version as to the origin of Saturn and its retinue is by capture from vast distances and Jupiter is included in that retinue. In the Holden-McLachlan variation (2013; Red Ice interview; cosmosincollision.com; see also Symbols of an Alien Sky-ThunderboltsProject on You Tube), an HH (Herbig-Haro) object, which is a type of emission nebula formed by ejection from proto-stars and discovered in the '50s, has a northern polar jet (Birkeland current containing plasma beads (z-pinches) in a "string of pearls"), consisting of Mercury and Jupiter, in order from the central protostar, and a southern polar jet, composed of Earth, Mars, Venus, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, in order from the central protostar, both jets in polar (linear) configuration on either side of the central protostar. The northern jet had a low axial tilt (obliquity to orbit)(3 degrees for Jupiter, .5 for Mercury), which it retained, and the southern jet had a 23-30 degree tilt, which it retained, except for Venus and Uranus. The latter plasma jet separated but spiralled back toward the northern jet, eventually merging with it through multiple interactions, forming the present configuration, and, as in the other variations, close approaches between planets causing electrical discharges recorded in art and myth, stabilizing only several 1000s of years ago.
The Birkeland current might electrically surge causing a proto-brown dwarf, to short circuit and electrically flare under the stress thereby ejecting a portion of its core along its polar axis--in other words, the body fractures in 2 positively charged fragments with the smaller repelled by the other. A planet can also form through the magnetic attraction of heavy elements into the z-pinch. The vast majority of planets and moons formed will eventually scatter, but a few will remain trapped. Once the central protostar develops into a main-sequence star the short-lived HH object starts breaking up and the attached systems are released to form their own planetary nebulas.
Holden and McLachlan point out that polar configurations have already been observed. In 1994, comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 split into 21 fragments, reforming into a polar configuration. And HHOs are frequent in star-forming regions, and several are often seen around a single star, aligned along its rotational axis, shooting out vast polar jets of plasma.
But there are many serious problems with the whole idea, especially concerning the other versions or variations, and these are:

1. a capture is too highly improbable because of the enormous distances between stars
2. if Saturn or Saturn and it retinue was captured or had spiralled back to merge with the northern jet, it would be in retrograde orbit and/or have a high inclination and/or high eccentricity, and would all be outer planets (this is what we see in the captured asteroids (irregular moons) of Jupiter and Saturn), but has none of these features
3. there was a convenient gap between Jupiter and Uranus allowing Saturn and its retinue to be captured in the middle of our solar system; if it was captured, it would have been most likely on the outer limits of our solar system
4. around this supposed system there was a plasma sheath which did not allow much light through it, hence the Purple Dawn scenario, yet there was plant life, but there probably would not be enough sunlight to support vegetation
5. after the Saturnian system was fully integrated into our solar system, the planets in the former (Earth, Mars, Venus, Mercury) scattered, but they would have ended up between Jupiter and Uranus, not as they are now
6. the repositioning of the planets would have taken 100s of millions of years, not a few thousand
7. there is no plausible explanation of how Saturn (and Jupiter) would have shrunk to their present size and mass
8. stars would not attract each other as they would be beyond each other's EM field
9. it is implausible that Venus was expelled from Saturn separately from Earth as the 2 are too similar to have formed separately and are similar in the same ways Uranus and Neptune are similar (having similar compostions and masses)
10. it does not accord at all with the evidence for explosions and does not properly explain the planetoid belts
11. the capture theory for the moon is just as implausible as the capture theory for stars

eccentricity inclination to ecliptic

Venus .01 Earth .0
Neptune .01 Uranus .8
Earth .02 Jupiter 1.3
Uranus .04 Mars 1.8
Jupiter .05 Neptune 1.8
Saturn .05 Saturn 2.5
Mars .09 Venus 3.4
Mercury 2 Mercury 7

(Lodders & Fegley, '98)

The table shows Mercury as the most atypical planet and tends to support the Flandernian view intsead of the Saturnian view, which is dynamically untenable. Mercury is also the smallest of the planets and has the lowest albedo and 2nd weakest magnetic dipole moment (after Venus).
Moreover, a nova phase might be a very good explanation for the idea in myth of Saturn (and possibly also Jupiter) as a "sun." Bruce wrote: "In fact, it may well be that both Jupiter and Saturn were at one time minor stars and that their satellite systems were formed as the result of minor or planetary nova outbursts." C. E. R. Bruce, A New Approach in Astrophysics and Cosmogony (1944) (catastrophism.com), and Mullen stated: "Velikovsky has suggested that as a result of disruption, Saturn went through a short nova-like phase in which its light would have obscured everything else visible from earth." William Mullen, "A Reading of the Pyramid Texts", Pense Vol. 3 No 1: (Winter 1973) "Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered III".
And Roger Ashton has criticized the Saturn myth theory ("The Bedrock of Myth", saturnian.org), giving plausible explanations for Saturn myth.