The Cosmological Jungle

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.

The Cosmological Jungle

Postby John » Fri 02 Dec 2016 5:29 pm

In looking again at mysteries surrounding the birth of Earth and the Solar System, I am left somewhat bewildered. There is a multiplicity of systems and theories, each proposing that it offers the most probable ‘likelihood’!
It seems apparent to Society members that the pre-Velikovskian (establishment) version is riddled with completely wrong interpretations of physics –I won’t labour this point. The most cogent alternative is based on a better understanding of physics, the human record (mythology) and a return to Cuvier’s catastrophe theory - extended and informed by the work of Velikovsky et al. This has been powerfully reinforced by the ideas generated by the Electric Universe group. Unlike others, the E.U. people make no claim that their ‘theories’ are proven fact - unlike the ‘establishment.
Perhaps inevitably, the ‘tree’ of cosmological fact, having proven so fallible, has become a bush sprouting branches and twigs all over the shop! So broad now are the ranges of reasonable probability, that even the twigs bloom with apparent life. Continuing the analogy, I – no gardener – am, frankly, baffled by the variety I see!
What I really mean is that not only are there different shades of opinion and interpretation of what is seen, but there are countless ‘twigs’ on the branch of any view. Most are promoted in a manner that demands their acceptance as ‘the truth of the matter’, but their conflicting ‘interpretation’ of the same observations leaves me at least in some doubt. I will take advantage and say that pretty well all our articles are rife with technical language and expressions, many of which are absent from available dictionaries. Checking when what ‘age’ was when, is so distracting (and time consuming) detracting from enjoyment and learning. The simple -------BC to -------BC puts things into an immediately comprehensible frame.
On another note, much debate about Plate Tectonics (in which I do not believe for an instant) centres on the absence of such geology on our local planets. While, as I say, I don’t value P.T. how can you expect to see geology on bodies barely 5000 years old, that compares in any worthwhile way with a homegrown variety that has probably undergone cataclysmic and repeated formation, upset and redistribution during some 4.5 billion years. Beats me!
To keep a personal grip on cosmology, I have formulated a ‘bodge’ of my own. How stars and planets were/are formed I do not know. I think Sir Fred Hoyle came closest to the mark with his Steady State, endless and eternal, (not expanding!) Universe. Therefore, the relative youth of the Solar System can be explained by the breakdown and reformation of local pre-existing stellar formations. The acceptance of ‘eternity’ at once gets completely rid of beginnings. We can never discover anything ‘new’. What we do is uncover the ways in which Nature automatically generates different organic and inorganic bits, pieces and wholes, by reusing matter in different ways. What we never will do is oblige Nature to act in an unnatural manner. No matter how perverted or twisted a thing may seem in our eyes, it can only ‘be’ if conforms 100% to natural law, i.e. physics.
Looking for what gives matter ‘mass’ is a lost cause. Matter IS Mass. The two, (if there can be two), are inseparable. Their separate existence is impossible.

So, my present, slimmed down ‘belief’ is that at some point after the Sun was formed, ‘probably’ so were Jupiter and Saturn, together with ‘a number’ of other bodies. Much calamity ensued, eventually leaving a tortured and twisted Earth a ‘sole’ surviving Inner Planet. Debris would have been everywhere for a very long time indeed before settling into orbits far from us. Clouds of debris would have fallen under the spell of what have become our giant gas planets, which to achieve this formation must be largish rocky planets at heart.
I (presently) support the idea that Venus erupted from Jupiter, possibly also Mars, the Moon and much space clutter. This disruption of the status quo inevitably brought orbital conflict resulting in a close encounter with Venus that turned the Earth on her head. Some suggest this occurred on several occasions but I have not located the references myself. Mars was a constant visitor for some 700 years, until a collision with Venus led to the planet Mercury being torn out of Mars. After decades of confusion all three settled into more regular orbits.
In this panoply of (cosmically) organised chaos, the Moon was captured. This, together with the constant upheaval and submergence of huge, often tropically located land mass or land bridges presents a world dramatically different from today and can account for the spread of mankind, probably a hundred or more thousand years ago and critically, why our ancestors cannot now be found.
This next comment is lifted directly from “The Electric Universe – A Synopsis”, published 17-8-2011 or thereabouts:
"Planets will quickly assume orbits that ensure the least electrical interaction. Impacts between large bodies are avoided and capture rendered more probable by exchange of electric charge between them. Capture of our Moon becomes the only option, it cannot have been created from the Earth. Evidence of past planetary instabilities is written large on the surfaces of all solid bodies in the solar system. That evidence is in the form of electric arc cratering. As with other bodies, these events were chronicled in myth and more particularly in Egyptian worship of stars and planets as Gods in their heaven. Here I find myself supporting the interpretation by Gary Gilligan and his God King Scenario. This ‘realisation’ of Egyptian history is a remarkable confirmation of the bewildering Solar System chaos that reigned for millennia."

I feel pretty sure that, like myself, most people who view Gary Gilligan’s take on Egyptian history, will emerge from this immensely complex theory, confident that Gilligan is right in essence, but will, like me, be totally unable to ‘put it all together!’ Every Egyptian inscription portrays bare backed workers, basking in the Sun, working in every human endeavour , not a ‘gal-abia’ (a head to foot white cloak) in sight.
An absolutely unarguable fact is that the power of the Sun was, most certainly, drastically reduced by a haze of space debris, presenting the Sun as a huge red orb, not the blistering brilliant, unbearably hot Sun I experienced during my National Service during 1950 an 1951. Never once did I see anyone dressed only in a loincloth. Well, only with the exception of ‘mad dogs and Englishmen’. You couldn’t walk a mile dressed like that, never mind build a pyramid!
This ‘haze’ effect, which displays even now at every sunset, but for different reasons, meant that every active solar body presented as red orbs. The Egyptian record relates numberless ‘close encounters’, with extra terrestrial bodies underlining the present gaping hole in our information!
Whatever inaccuracies may rest in Gilligan’s ‘translation’ it is plain and clear that the major events attributed to Pharonic heroism were really actions in the sky. They plainly did not entail dozens of physically demanding, socially and religiously unacceptable, near impossible treks through barren deserts to fight the same battles year after year (and never ever losing!)
What we have been brought up to believe in as the amazing exploits of a master race – undefeated in 3000 years‼ - is a record of solar (heavenly) activity. Suddenly, at last, it starts to make sense. No wonder there is such controversy among ‘Egyptologists’, trying manfully to unravel wild inconsistencies, These ‘event’s never happened.
An ‘absolute’ that governed Egyptian behaviour was to join the ancestors in the sky - ‘Upper Egypt’. It was vital to die (and be preserved) – in the real Lower Egypt! No Egyptian, of whatever rank, would risk death in a foreign land! No chance of joining the ancestors – none at all! So, as they believed that they cannot, must not die in battle - or otherwise - elsewhere, where does the Pharaoh raise his army? Nowhere – because he didn’t. That would’ve meant no ‘afterlife’. This was a cardinal concept avowed and accepted by every Egyptian, high or low.
One instance in particular stands out clearly for me. The emergence of Mercury from Mars as blisteringly hot, fiercely glowing new dominant body in the relatively close sky, seen as red through the haze of debris, effectively shutting out from vision all the other bodies for about 17 years. It was named Aton. Being the only body visible at that time, this convinced the pharaoh that it was the new and only God. Its (temporary) singularity, blocking, or largely blocking the others from view, the pharaoh changed his name to Akhenaton, deemed it the ‘One God’ and moved his city to the location most associated with its first appearance.
After about 17years Mercury had cooled and so lost its dominance. The ‘old Gods’ came back to the fore and vengeance was exercised on everything ‘Akhenaton’. This alone defines the way they revered the planetary bodies, treated them as astral representations of living people and so controlled and directed the path of Egyptian history. There never was two Egypt’s. Lower was the reality, Upper was their nirvana.
Gilligan has also with his ’Extraterrestrial Sands’, actually proved that most of Earth’s deserts, fell like rain, from the chemically changed ruins of another planet, probably Mars.
This explains why the Sahara was a fertile, populated area only some 5000 years ago and is now many metres deep in a type and quantity of silica sand that cannot have originated on Earth. There is no viable source here - nowhere! This ’sand’ fell everywhere but created deserts in an angled belt all around the Earth.

There you have it. Another twig on the bush!
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:03 am

Return to SIS Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests