Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ArchAngel on July 5, 2011 at 1:37pm

There are many problems with this theory. The least of which is that it would be impossible for a brown dwarf to settle into the current circular orbit that Saturn holds. Where is all the Delta V required to circularize the orbit? It just isn't there. If an object is riding in circular orbit within the ecliptic plane of a star then it was formed there, or something with a huge thrust capability put it there on purpose.

And there are no images showing...

Permalink Reply by Troy McLachlan on July 5, 2011 at 2:46pm

Hi ArchAngel,

 

Yes, when interpreted by Newtonian celestial mechanics in which mass-induced gravity is the only recognised force allowed to govern celestial bodies then a Saturn polar configuration would be considered impossible.  Working physics models for a polar configuration are themselves a hot topic amongst electric universe advocates, with many favouring a tidal locked configuration for explaining Saturn's role as a northern sun in world mythology.

 

As far as a working physics model goes, proponents of this theory recognise that they are forced to await further advances in our understanding of astrophysics before we are able to fully explain its properties to the satisfaction of modern physics.  In the meantime, our emphasis is on the recorded observations of the ancients in determining that they witnessed Saturn in close proximity to Earth as a northern sun.  So I therefore admit that there are perceived problems with this theory given our current understanding of celestial mechanics and astrodynamics which completely negate the written record of many cultures and peoples to mere metaphorical nonsense.

 

However, to attempt an answer to the Delta V issue you raise, remember that according to this theory Saturn did not approach the sun on a linear course.  It did so, I theorise, in a spiralling circular manner completely compatible in momentum terms with its current orbit (I'm beginning to realise that my diagrams don't illustrate this enough).  But that's not the sole reason behind this theory's cosmology.

 

Mainstream modern astrodynamics does not recognise a role for electrical charges in space because it rejects the notion of charge seperation in space (electricity is the most powerful force in the universe according to the Electric Universe model, not gravity).  With such a dogma held by astrophysicists it becomes impossible to postulate where forces could come from to act on such large objects and this is reflected by your statement: 'It just isn't there.'  When put like that there really is no common ground on which to discuss any merits to the above theory.  Either modern astrodynamics is an absolute in its authority to judge such theories or we move on to the possibilites that there are other dynamics at play in this universe.

 

However, there is, at the particle level, the observation of collisions between particle elements resulting in chaotic patterns at odds with astrodynamics only for the said particles to settle down again into regular orbits - all without Delta V.  Unless that is, of course, you recognise the electromagnetic forces involved in producing the effects of delta V in particle dynamics.  But then there's that old astrophysics chestnut of there being no charge seperation in space. Hmmm.

It's arguable that the observable force that governs particle movement can be scaled up to account for movements between planetary-sized bodies if an electrically charged universe is factored into the equation. This is according to the esoteric maxim of 'as above, so below'.   But if electricity's role in space is to be dismissed out of hand, then we are once again unable to find common ground on this subject.

 

Actually, this is way out of my expertise and I can only acknowlege the limitations to the theory's physics as things stand today.   In what might be seen as an arrogant stance, (and I am definitely not trying to take the high ground here) I'm forced to stand by my interpretations of the mythological record and await physics to catch up - or be proven conclusively wrong by experiment and observation.  I don't stand by my theories (if they can even be called that) as being infallible, Archangel, but they do make for an interesting re-think on the mythological and occult legacies of today's world.

 

Really, thanks for the comment - I agree with you it is totally valid given the current understanding of astrodynamics, yet we in the Electric Universe camp continue to hope for a physics model that fits the mythological records, because today's physics certainly do not explain what the ancients say they saw. 

 

Cheers

 

Permalink Reply by Troy McLachlan on July 5, 2011 at 5:38pm

Hi guys,

on further reflection on ArchAngel's point about the lack of viable Delta V forces in stabilising Saturn's orbit after capture, it occurred to me that minimal Delta V is required for the Saturn theory if you accept that Saturn approached the sun from the sun's celestial south while describing a very wide and flat northerly spiral (anti-clockwise).  It would have slotted in nicely that way minus the horrendous electrical affects created as it equalised its charge with the sun.

 

However, ArchAngel is very correct in pointing out this detraction of the theory as it highlights just how out-of-step with modern astrophysics this concept is - don't try it on your high school science teacher let alone your average college professor. 

 

One other thing I will point out regards ArchAngel's comment relates to the statement that:

If an object is riding in circular orbit within the ecliptic plane of a star then it was formed there, or something with a huge thrust capability put it there on purpose.

The notion of planetary formation that ArchAngel is alluding to is either the tidal theory or the disk accretion theory, or a combination of both (please correct me if I'm wrong).  Both, while accepted by most mainstream scientists, have serious flaws in accounting for the many annomalies that the solar system presents traditional science.  There's no space to go into detail here, but for those interested in n alternative explanation for planetary formation I recommend going here, and here for an electrical take on solar system formation and mechanics.

 

Don't get me wrong guys, I'm not dissing on ArchAngel's comment which is one of the more thought provoking I've had to deal with.  I'm fully ready to admit that I'm not in my comfort zone when dealing with heavy cosmological science and prefer to concentrate on the more mythological issues related to the Saturn theory.

 

Hope everyone can see the pictures.  If not, any suggestions on what I might be doing wrong would be greatly appreciated (they were linked by URL from my website since I could not seem to get the 'from your compter' function to work.)