The Formation of the Solar System

The Forum is provided for both SIS members and non-members to discuss topics relevant to the Society's work. It also provides the opportunity for non-members to ask questions about the Society’s work and/or published material.
All posts are moderated before inclusion. No attachments are permitted.

Re: The Formation of the Solar System

Postby John » Fri 22 Feb 2013 6:41 pm

The Origin of the Moon
(My ‘Conclusions’)

‘The Origin of the Moon’(by Peter) is a very comprehensive summary of revolving opinions about the Moon. Clearly none have much in the way of real evidence to support them. The only safe assertions concern the density of the planet and some of its chemical structure.

I am very grateful to Peter for the copy of his SIS article which has made clearer to me the jumble of ideas that are promoted to explain the origin of the Moon. Whilst I have no arithmetic explanation to offer (frankly those suggested don’t ‘add up’) I think that what we do know is, that in science skilfully constructed explanations are infinitely more unlikely to hold the truth than simpler, more straightforward explanations.

On that basis, I make my conclusions (really just guesses like all the other ‘explanations) by giving weight to what I personally consider the more likely scenario.

I outright reject the collision and ‘ejection’ possibilities on the following grounds.

As the result of such a collision in the past two or three billion years all life would have been destroyed. Surely deep rocky material would record evidence of such a massive catastrophe. It could hardly have failed to disorder the existing geology, creating otherwise inexplicable anomalies on an even now visibly unmissable scale.

The “KT” event is thought to have wiped out the dinosaurs and 70% of life on Earth, causing every possible kind of inorganic disaster, including worldwide tsunami’s of incredible destructive power. Given that the impact involved a projectile about 10km in size, even a 20km event would almost certainly ‘seen off’ the other 30%. What the collision theory involves is an even larger event that would offer zero% survival possibilities and a totally hostile subsequent environment that would have no place left for organic life, other than at best, microbes.

So such a collision can have taken place only at a time before organic life evolved beyond the microbic and probably very much earlier.

The issue of material from Earth to form a satellite moon also entails a catastrophic encounter with another planetary body and surely would probably involve a period of days (at least) with attendant planetary and atmospheric activity on an incredible scale, unmissable by any group of humans almost anywhere. For me it is an imagination conjured out of not yet properly understood electric Universe ideas. At the very most it is a theoretical possibility.

For me anyway, all this conjecture leaves only the human memories that form the worldwide stories that make up mythology.

To believe that any such catastrophic events could escape mythology surely renders all mythology as pure fantasy. Mythology has been shown to represent a near ‘word perfect’ handing down of tales, told and retold down the generations with scarcely any (possibly absolutely no) ‘added interpretation’. Millions of us firmly believe the opposite and hold that the oldest myths in particular are genuine human interpretations of real experiences. They were formed before complex, large scale and often dictatorial specific religious ‘interpretations’ were the order of theirs days.

I think it far more probable that the moon wandered into whatever ‘Solar System’ we then inhabited (possibly Saturnian) as just another ‘light in the sky’.

IF maybe, Earth and maybe other planets were subsequently removed to roughly their present locations, this one of the more likely scenarios. The fact that the Moon was then in close association with Earth would be seen as a part of the solar planetary reorganisation, along with the new dominance of the Sun.

This close planetary association would inevitably induce interaction between a more massive Earth and the smaller Moon, no doubt electrical in nature. The otherwise near inexplicable differences in mass and rotation can be explained as simply pre-existing. Probably all planetary bodies will have generally similar geological histories, even gas giants. Physics works everywhere! At settlement the already slowly rotating Moon might readily have its then closest hemisphere fixed by Earth’s gravity. This new proximity could well explain an increase in the Earth’s rate of rotation to 365 days.

This scenario requires no convoluted scientific explanation beyond acceptance that the Solar System has been the target of cosmic violence roughly analogous to the saying “One of the ruins that Cromwell knocked about a bit!”

What do members think?

John Kalber
Friday, 22 February 2013
John
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:03 am

Re: The Formation of the Solar System

Postby Peter » Tue 05 Mar 2013 12:12 pm

In his recent posting John acknowledges that my mythology derived scenario for the birth of the Moon is a theoretical possibility dependent upon improperly understood “electrical universe” ideas. However, by referring to the process as an “ejection” or an “issue of material” rather than as a “drawing out” of material he mis-represents the process as I conceive it.

I can sympathise with his doubts about mankind surviving a catastrophe that saw Cardona’s proto-Saturn Axis Mundi plasma vortex draw mantle material from the Earth; anyone who knows of my theory about the birth of the Moon must question whether it was possible for mankind to have survived it, indeed it would appear that there were only few survivors. However, reports about the birth of the Moon do not “escape mythology”.

As Trevor said in his posting of the 21st of November “most myths exist in several variant forms and, in any case, the relationship between mythological characters and particular cosmic bodies may not be clear.” However, one version of the birth of Aphrodite makes her the most senior of all the Olympian Gods, the daughter of Uranus, the first sky God, conceived after Cronus castrated Uranus and flung his genitals into the ocean. The best known picture of Aphrodite is of her rising newborn out of the waves. I can understand how the mythological identities of the cosmic bodies got confused; the birth process of the planet Venus being the same as for the Moon although its parent cosmic bodies were different.

Trevor in his posting said “it would seem perfectly legitimate to use mythological evidence as the starting point for a catastrophist hypothesis, but this can only be taken so far without supporting physical evidence.” However, in my opinion, Derek Allan in his 2005 SIS Review paper presented convincing supporting evidence for mantle material having been drawn from the Earth only a few thousand years ago. Allan wrote about a “massive folding in upon itself of the lithosphere due to the sudden withdrawal of material from Earth’s lower mantle” and located collapse areas thousands of miles apart around the edges of the Earth’s permafrost region. Of significance, one collapse area he mentioned ran from off the Kamchatka Peninsula through the Bering Sea and Bering Strait and included the dry land that once connected Siberia with Alaska; many people have written about early Americans making use of a land bridge between Siberia with Alaska, but have never explained what happened to it.

Allan associated the collapsed areas with the region “hosting” recently deposited and instantly frozen permafrost muck, in places more than 4,000 ft deep, and suggested that the “topographic features represent separate legacies of the same original lithospheric disturbance.” I believe that the Siberian Traps basalt flows are another legacy of the “sudden withdrawal of material from Earth’s lower mantle”. The area covered by the Siberian basalts is at the centre of the ring of collapsed lithosphere identified by Allan and almost certainly was the region from which mantle material was drawn up by the Axis Mundi plasma vortex. In my opinion the existence of the Siberian Traps basalt fields provides significant supporting physical evidence for my theory about the birth of the Moon.

As a side issue John mentions that an impact is thought to have wiped out the dinosaurs. However, I think that this is unlikely, because the largest dinosaurs could only have evolved to the size they did if they had lived under reduced gravity conditions, see my letter on page 5 of SIS Workshop 2010:2 for my explanation of how the Earth could have experienced reduced gravity.

I believe that prior to the KT extinction the Earth was in a close relationship with a much larger neighbour with its land mass a single continent on the hemisphere permanently facing its giant neighbour. This single continent of Pangaea supported an extensive shallow sea in which the chalk deposits of the South Downs were laid down over what must have been a very long time. The KT event must, I believe, have seen the Earth thrown out of its close association with its giant neighbour. Once well away from its neighbour centrifugal forces must have broken up the single continent and increased gravity must have killed off all the giant species that had evolved under reduced gravity conditions. In 2003 I submitted a paper to the SIS about this entitled “How the Earth experienced Reduced Gravity in the Past”, but it was not published.
Peter
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:09 am

Re: The Formation of the Solar System

Postby Peter » Tue 09 Jul 2013 2:23 pm

The formation of the Solar System

The current issue of New Scientist has an article about the origins of the Moon and suggests 2 new highly improbable scenarios.

Apparently “when cosmochemist Junjun Zhang from the university of Chicago and colleagues completed an analysis in unprecedented detail of moon rocks last year they found that the oxygen, chromium, potassium and silicon isotopes are indistinguishable from Earth’s. Then in February this year, Hejiu Hui, a geologist from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, and his colleagues discovered that several samples thought to be fragments of the first crust formed on the Moon, including the famous Genesis rock brought back by Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott, contained water. In the hellish aftermath of a giant impact, the heat generated should have melted the rocks and driven off the water.

Hui is in no doubt of the significance of the findings. This does challenge the giant impact scenario, he says. Wim van Westrenen, a planetary scientist at the VU University in Amsterdam and the proposer of one of the new origin theories, is more forthright: the chemical composition of the Moon deals the original giant impact scenario a fatal blow. It cannot be right. Taken at face value, the findings strongly suggest that the Moon was once a part of Earth.”

Of course, as trained scientists, it does not occur to them to consult mythology when building computer models to simulate the origin of the Moon. They are right in determining that an enormous amount of energy is required for the Earth to have given birth to the Moon. However, the electromagnetic forces of Wal Thornhill’s Electric Universe are indeed enormous.

Peter
Peter
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:09 am

Re: The Formation of the Solar System

Postby John » Sat 31 Aug 2013 7:44 pm

While I find these theories and comments interesting, my struggle to find a convincing general explanation in these comments produces both a mass of information and a mass of nearly incomprehensible mystic relationships.
I for one am totally unable to detect any one 'theory' which seems to have seriously compelling superiority to the others. As seems characteristic in such discussions, contributors vie, one with another. over minutia to suggest a preference and seem to think their diverse ideologies are also evidence, even proof that historic myths would have formed in the same, fractious manner.
I am of a different opinion. Relatively new influences affecting the way we think and what we communicate have generated widely differing schools of thought among modern mankind as to the ‘why’s and when’s’ of events. This diversity had its birth in early civilisations of power and influence. Even then their ideas were largely limited to casual social intercourse. Such ‘schools’ as existed were at first the preserve of the very few. ‘Writings’ were confined to a small circle and little has been preserved.
Before this time, the tribal ‘Storyteller’ (still around in some primitive societies) was the principal conveyor of important social, religious and political thinking and events. All these ideologies have developed in a slow progression over centuries. The people of the early times, particularly their intellectuals, depended hugely on the ‘Storytellers’ for the history of their times. This meant that the verbal history they related had to be passed on with absolute accuracy - no interpretation. While some of the wording may have evolved to reflect current tribal usage the events they referred to were treated as sacred.
These people were not foolish children, ignorant of the foibles of human nature - they guarded their history and its accurate preservation with fevered, religious tenacity. Had the ‘Storyteller’ been inclined or influenced to change his story it would immediately have signified the destruction of its credibility, the ruination of tribal history. Who, in those circumstances, would risk the anger of the gods, let alone of the people, by making what would be in effect lying alterations to their history? Further, if the history was subject to alteration they could have no confidence that their own times would be honestly recorded - a very important matter!
The alterations and confusion particular to modern societies in passing verbal information lies largely in the fact that (usually) the information is of little moment and the sheer volume is overwhelming, swamping its audience and no special value has been generated in respect of its verity. In earlier times relatively few were involved. I think differences found in mythology simply means that they saw events from different geographical standpoints. These will alter the plane of vision and may mean different parts of an event were visible from different places. There was no reason for the observers to invent and describe what they did not see. Remember, they were retelling events probably everyone around them had seen. They were dealing with what was, for all of them, very real and very disturbing phenomena, quite outside their experience, not some dreamt up fantasy. Modern (ignorant) disrespect for the truths behind these legends is often a mark of the personal ambitions of some modern commentators, little else.
The work done by the promoters of Electric Universe theory has shown how strange figures can be generated in the laboratory and many show striking similarity to drawings made of such heavenly phenomena, or alluded to by the witnesses.
John
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:03 am

Re: The Formation of the Solar System

Postby Peter » Tue 01 Dec 2015 3:45 pm

New planets

The text accompanying the Thunderbolts picture of the day for November the 30th (see http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/) says “Saturn emits more energy than it receives from the Sun: 2.3 times more, so it is being powered by another source. There is good evidence that Saturn once existed as an independent body from the Sun. As such, it would have received more energy in the recent past, its power source having been usurped by the Sun in the recent past. Jupiter is similar to Saturn, discharging more energy than it receives from the Sun, although Saturn’s output is greater.”

The Thunderbolts text concludes “According to ancient legends Saturn occupied a position of prominence in the sky. It was not the tiny pinprick of light that can be seen on dark nights. Rather, it was worshipped as the central luminary, the all-powerful Sun. If that was the case, then its current position in the Solar System is far removed from what it was. Without going into details that are elaborated elsewhere, that disturbance and rearrangement of planets means that Saturn is the way it is not because of how it was conventionally formed, but because it is closer to being a star than it is to being a planet. Indeed as our ancestors tell us, it was a star.” Our ancestors also tell us that Jupiter supplanted Saturn as the dominant star in our system and that Jupiter, when confronted by the Sun, fled after giving birth to Venus.

My initial posting on the subject of the formation of the Solar System said that Wal Thornhill maintains that “brown dwarfs captured by a bright star will have their power source stolen, lose their radiance and become gas giants” and that “ the capture process of a brown dwarf involves drastic electrical readjustment from being an anode to a cathode.” The latest posting would appear to confirm that the Thunderbolts team think that Saturn and Jupiter and presumably Neptune and Uranus were once stars. Also that planets and moons are born as a result of electromagnetic forces being generated when cosmic bodies came close to one another; see Wal Thornhill’s explanation for his ideas about the formation of the Grand Canyon and the Valles Marineris on Mars in his SIS conference presentation published in SIS Review 2000:1.
Peter
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:09 am

Re: The Formation of the Solar System

Postby barry » Sun 28 Aug 2016 3:27 pm

Creation Myths, the Axis Mundi and Perrat Instabilities - posted by Peter

After I read the recently published SIS Review, 2016:2 papers about Creation Myths, the Axis Mundi and Perrat Instabilities by Ev Cochrane and by Rens van der Shuijs I thought I should post a Forum note giving my thoughts on these matters.
As I said in my November 2012 forum posting under the heading Formation of the Solar System, myths are the name we give to the stories that early man told his descendants about cosmic events experienced by the Earth. Creation myths are what we call the earliest of these stories. Although not the earliest, stories about the Axis Mundi should certainly be classified as creation myths and the drawings of petroglyphs / rock art of what Tony Perrat, a scientist of the highest standing in the study of plasma, identified as plasma instabilities, undoubtedly date from the time of the Axis Mundi.
In my November 2012 posting I mentioned that the tale of a time before there was a sun survives in many peoples’ traditions. Dwardu Cardona, in hypothesis 7 of his book, God Star, Trafford Publishing, 2006, says that according to man’s earliest memories, Earth was originally engulfed in darkness; which he understood to mean that nothing could be seen in the heavens. Then for a while, hypothesis 8, a nebulous entity, that “our ancestors had difficulty in describing clearly”, was seen in the heavens before the God Star materialised in glory.
Wal Thornhill has said at a 10th of July SIS meeting reported in SIS Workshop 2011:1 and in his writings, that this suggests to him that the Earth was in mankind’s earliest memory located within the photosphere of a Brown Dwarf star. He thought that this would have been a comfortably environment with a “dim red-purple light” and “even heat” experienced throughout the world. He suggested that a change in electrical stress at the surface of the star saw its photosphere contract until it switched into glow mode and became visible to mankind. The nebulous entity seen before the God Star materialised was, I believe, the contracting photosphere.
At first the God Star was alone in the heavens, but then another cosmic body was seen, first as a small blue light, but steadily growing in size and brightness until it surpassed the original God Star and mankind experienced day and night for the first time. For this to be experienced the Earth must have been rotating much as it does now, but with one hemisphere of its surface constantly facing the God Star. This is exactly what the Moon does so it should not be considered an unusual situation for a planet in a close orbit of a larger cosmic body. As the Sun grew brighter the original God Star got relegated to the status of “Sun of the Night” and is reported to have given off an emerald light. All of this is covered by Cardona in his book although his model of the situation differs due to the supposed involvement of other planets.
Thornhill has suggested that electromagnetic forces were drawing the cosmic body that Cardona calls Proto-Saturn towards the Sun and that as they drew closer the electrical environment around the God Star changed. This is when the Axis Mundi in the north and Perrat plasma instibilities in the south became visible to mankind. Rens describes them as intense auroral effects, which is probably not unrealistic although the displays were undoubtedly many orders of magnitude greater than those currently experienced. The Earth was obviously within Proto-Saturn’s magnetic field and its radiation belts may have been quite close overhead to the south.
Perrat told an SIS meeting on the 21st of March 2005, reported in SIS Workshop 2006: page 10, that many rock art images are identical to forms generated by instabilities in high energy plasma discharges. It seems that these evolve through a characteristic series of forms regardless of the scale of the discharge. He said that over 80 different categories of plasma instability had been identified in ancient petroglyphs found globally drawn on rock surfaces where the artist was protected from the discharges seen in the southern sky. These discharges must be consider as separate from the Axis Mundi which was seen in the northern sky, but were certainly associated with it. Perrat told the SIS meeting that in addition to petroglyphs of stick men, owls, eyes, ladders, scorpions, animals with horns, and mushrooms there were images of auroral pillars to the south. There is, therefore, no problem about people from all round the world having myths about polar pillars.
As I mentioned in my September 2012 forum posting under the heading Formation of the Solar System, a Japanese myth says that the first time the creator Gods circled the Holy Pillar, before the appearance of the Sun, a deity called the Leach was created, but did not stay around for long. This suggests to me that Proto-Saturn had a companion Brown Dwarf star that could be seen in the heavens prior to the approach of the Sun. This companion reappeared after the collapse to the Axis Mundi and the birth of the Moon, see my SIS Workshop 2007:2 paper Birth of the Moon, and is called the Leach Child in Japanese mythology. Although it was not very impressive and supposedly was “soon abandoned to the winds”, I am confident that this companion star was Jupiter and that it became mankind’s dominant heavenly body after a major flare-up by Proto-Saturn just prior to the Biblical Flood.
barry
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue 24 Apr 2012 5:06 pm

Re: The Formation of the Solar System

Postby barry » Wed 28 Sep 2016 3:54 pm

From Peter:
While the recent Wal Thornhill Thunderbolts Utube films “Juno arrives at Electric Jupiter” and “The Elegant Simplicity of the Electric Universe” the second of which was shown at the Autumn SIS meeting, are must view presentations, there are I believe some inconsistencies in them.
Early in his Elegant Simplicity presentation Wal showed a picture of the galaxy M74 and pointed out long strings with red spots that could be seen. Later he said that the strings were pinched electrical filaments where electrical plasmoids formed and that the strings we could see were ribbons of future stars. He said all stars generate heavy elements in their photospheres and that these heavy elements convect into a cool core region, adding that all stars have a cool “planetary” core.
The problem is that he said that other bodies, including solid planets were formed along the sting and were thrown out as it whip lashed. In his Jupiter presentation he actually said “stars and planets are formed separately in the same electrical event”. However, if the heavy elements of stars are produced at their photospheres, new born stars would have no solid core. Where then could the solid material of an Earth like planet have come from and why and how would such a planet have been formed at the same time as new stars?
Late in his Elegant Simplicity presentation Wal spoke of an Australian aborigine story about there once having been 2 Suns and how a “snake” was created when one of the Suns attacked the other; the “snake” he suggested was Venus. This Australian aborigine story is almost an exact duplicate of the Japanese myth “The Sun Goddess and the Impetuous Male” that I wrote about in my original November 2012 Forum posting under the heading “The origins of the Solar System” and accords with the widespread tradition that Venus was born from the “head”, thigh” or “sexual organ” of Jupiter.
Why if we have stories from all around the world about how Venus was born and also similar stories about how the Moon was born does Wal still talk about planets, moons and other solid cosmic objects such as asteroids and comets being formed either separately in the same electrical events as stars or by an electrical “ejection” rather than by an electrical “drawing out” of the solid material by a more powerful cosmic body? He talks about the vast amount of material stripped from the Valles Marineris on Mars, but not about the excrement that the Japanese say was voided by the Impetuous Male after he gave birth to a god during his confrontation with the Sun Goddess.
Another subject raised in his Jupiter presentation was the origin of the Earth’s water. Surely my suggestion that when the Earth was young it, just like Venus today, was hot and had a massive atmosphere and that as its surface cooled much of its atmosphere condensed to form the Earth’s oceans provides a better explanation for the origins of the Earth’s water than the ones he mentions.
barry
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue 24 Apr 2012 5:06 pm

Previous

Return to SIS Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron