The Natural Theory of The Solar System

117 The Natural Theory of the Solar System
7/10/01

THE NATURAL THEORY (TNT)

Preface

After reading The Bi-Polar Tidal Theory, of R. Hoagland and M. Bara, several times carefully, I noticed that it is an extension of Tom Van Flandern's Exploded Planet Hypothesis with a more detailed study of Mars geology. It's quite plausible but founded upon the same questionable major premises that states generally,

"Within the last 3-65 billion years, some of our solar system planets went out of orbit by themselves, or were knocked out of their orbits by other planets".

"Mars was once tidally locked into an orbit around its parent planet while within our solar system."

Over all it appears to be an attempt to take a conceptual hypothesis and, again, try to fit reality into it, as was done by Van Flandern's Exploded Planet V and Velikovsky's Worlds In Collision.

The Bi-Polar Tidal Theory doesn't lend itself to easy analysis by commentary on each paragraph because of its length and scores of repeated minor premises which prompted my repeated commentary. The document simply goes on and on forever and I got bored. Moreover it avoids keywords which prevents connection with any real history of the solar system.

Hoagland's Tidal Model and Van Flandern's Exploded Planet Hypothesis was not just technically in error, such as the lack of knowledge of gravity and basic celestial dynamics ⁵ that the whole of Science did immediately oppose, even with Velikovsky, who resurrected the catastrophism of the 19th century, but I sensed a deeper error I knew of concerning the timing of these alleged events on the planets involved.

No ancient names of mythological origin were used in Hoagland's model nor in Van Flandern's model accept for the name Planet V and K. These were just two of dozens of planets, which 19th century researchers ⁷, discovered, orbiting far out beyond our solar system. One might ask, "Why did these planets not collide with Mars and Venus also?

However, in Velikovsky Reconsidered (1976) ⁸, I found several ancient words with which to work, seeing that I had previously arranged several time-tables based upon several civilizations mythological gods. Velikovksy's Tiamat, therefore, could be time-dated using a book called Quartum Organum ⁹, which presented a complete "Cosmo-Conception" overview from the beginning of the longest cycle in universe, to its end.

I searched through my files and also added to this mix, the Vedic, longest cycle of Creation, that was 311.040 trillion years long, that I improperly named when I first copied it down, several years ago. With some research, I corrected this long cycle name and properly called it The Life of Brahma. I then scoured every Velikovsky letter mentioned in this book, Velikovsky Reconsidered, and time-dated every revealing word, from Velikovsky himself, such as Tiamat, to conform not only with the long time line but with many other races mythologies, which were already dated and properly arranged in the tables.

Since the Exploded Planet Hypothesis and The Mars Bi-Polar Tidal Theory is related to and based upon the same questionable major premises as is Velikovsky's Worlds In Collision, the following analysis of Velikovsky's book from 1976 called Velikovsky Reconsidered, by the Editors of Pensee not only will reveal the major premise errors in Velikovksy's papers but will also reveal the major premise errors of the papers of others.

Critique of the book: Velikovsky Reconsidered:

Two books by Immanuel Velikovsky are featured: Worlds In Collision and Earth in Upheaval are described with catastrophic language of earth and civilization catastrophes so we will have to look for an all important clue as to the correct time of these so-called events.

We should begin with the very first paragraph and premise of the book, Velikovsky Reconsidered, and we will time these catastrophes later when we find the clue that we can use to time the events. Velikovsky and other researchers always work backward to a historic period of about 3 billion years, and they always arrive at similar, confusing and erroneous conclusions.

The Natural Theory will use the Vedic Life of Brahma of 311.040 trillion years as a complete cycle and framework for dating not only most other civilizations mythological sequences, in table form, after the manner of the detailed explanation given in the book Quartum Organum, but it will use the name-clues such as the word Tiamat, used by Velikovsky himself, as a key to the timing and placement of Velikovsky's cosmology, which will make it very clear that either Velikovsky's timing and all others, similarly based upon this incorrect major premise of recent 3 billion years history, are incorrect or the East Indian Veda's are incorrect.

On the first reading I found that Velikovsky was correct in several of his estimates of:

1. Elements found on various planets and moons, which he said would be found there.
2. Perfectly round craters found on all planets and moons were made by lightning plasma strikes.

But he was wrong about:

3. The birth of planets and moons.
4. Planets moving in strange orbits.
5. Venus emanating from Jupiter.
6. The concept of colliding planets.
7. The dating method accuracies of plasma strike "craters".
8. The assumption that planets were close enough to one another to exchange plasma discharges, which resulted in planet craters and scars.
9. The all important timing of events and the longest cycle known.
10. The age of the Moons scar's.

Science was outraged with Velikovsky after he published the concepts 3-6 + 8. The "uniformitarian dogma" reaction of the science community, as it was called by the author of this book, was because Velikovsky presented no facts in his letters to subsequently back up these assumptions, which leans heavily in favor of the solar system having been tightly and uniformly controlled from the beginning. His quotes will reveal that he simply said it, with no subsequent facts to bolster it.

The authors, the Editors of Pencee, report that the ancients ceaselessly watched the heavens and noted how their traditions recalled that on an epochs ending, the new "Age" or "Sun" was marked by a different celestial path. For most, it will not be enough to offer information about words like "Age" and "Sun" so we will use Velikovsky's own thoughts.

More commentary about Venus follows with sensationalistic quotes such as this, from the Editors of Pencee. These sum up the sensationalism:

Preface (vii): "long before 1500 bc, Jupiter, for centuries chief among the deities, shattered the serenities of the skies."

Preface (vii): "The feared god Jupiter had given birth to the comet and protoplanet Venus."

Preface (vii): "As Venus arched away from one perihelion passage during the middle of the second millennium B.C. (ca. -1450), the Earth approached this intruder, entering first the outer reaches of its cometary tail."

Preface (vii): One paragraph later it says, "As recalled by the Babylonians, the blood of the celestial monster Tiamat poured out over the world," which is plainly referring to the previous paragraph about Venus and Jupiter thus it is the authors attempt to date the events of Tiamat at 1450 BC.

Lets now explore real cosmology as revealed in the book Quartum Organum, concerning that very same Tiamat as Velikovsky Reconsidered, said existed around 1450 BC.

Chapter XVIII Genesis or Creation, The Priestly Account.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".

Quartum Organum Author Commentary:

pp. 420: "In all other mythic cosmologies we find the Creator battling with some cosmic monster, out of whose body the earth is formed: Sosiosh with Tiamat, Odin with Ymir, the Rig-Veda gods with Purusha, and so on. In other Hebrew myths we read about "dragons of the deep" and Yahweh's warfare with them. Elsewhere even the Bible speaks of Yahway's battle with dragons, serpents, behemoth, leviathan and others, Isaiah 27:1, for instance. Why then is this aspect absent in Genesis? Aside from the religious motive, its absence is due to the fact that the translators did not know the true meaning of the words they translated, words such as bara, tehom, tohu, bohu and others. These do convey a hint of warfare and violence."

This is the violence that catches all researchers. We will soon see that the timing of this violence was during no recent historical, known time, as postulated by Velikovsky or by any other researcher or dating method of recent history within 3 billion years. This was the violence of the beginning times.

pp. 420: The original Hebrew reads thus: "In the beginning Elohim (many gods) bara (not created but "cut out") the heaven(s) and the earth. And the earth was tohu and bohu, and darkness was on the face of the tehom."

Tehom is the primordial ocean, space, the Absolute. Tohu and bohu, mistranslated, "without form and void," connote the monstrous and the violent. As Professor Jeremias, the German orientalist, says: "There can be no doubt that tohu is connected with Ti(h)amat, and bohu with Behemoth. Bohu is the equivalent of the Babylonian Apsu, the male mate of Tiamat. Thus bohu, the Behemoth are the Hebrew equivalents of Tiamat, Ymir, Purusha and so on, all therionistic symbols of the violent elements with which the Creator had to contend. Elsewhere they are called turbulentos."

Further on it states,

"...but afterwards he (Adam/atom. R.G.) joins with the dragon of the deep, the animal Tiamat the spirit of chaos, and offends against the god......"

We now see that since this is in Genesis, we are dealing with a very ancient time. Not only can we establish that Tiamat existed as chaos, but Tiamat was chaos in the very beginning of Creation called Genesis or "Creation", as the Title of this book section states (Velikovsky Reconsidered).

If we take the Vedic Life of Brahma, of 311.040 trillion years, as a valid and noted cycle of Universe, and also as the very longest known cycle of Universe, we can then place all of civilizations mythology within it, as shorter cycles, and compare the mythologic stories, including Tiamat or, as other names, Apsu/Chaos/Tohu/Ymir/Purusha/Ocean/space/turbelentos, all the same as Tiamat. Since Tiamat is in Genesis, or the beginning of Creation, we can see that Tiamat should correspond to the Ocean/Chaos of other myths.

First, lets recite an ancient myth about what Tiamat was:

The mythology of the Gudea' texts; 2600 BC.

"In the beginning, everything was Tiamat, the Ocean, then within Tiamat--arose The Apsu--or Chaos; matter, --- and Apsu then had arose within self-being a number of divinities to be present, all included within the , 'Tiamat, - or the Sea- and thus were the Gods, Anu, Enlil and Enki-Ea-, all later to be representatives of the ideal of a Tripartite world - a Trinity- that did also have arise within Chaos others, now a full blown Pantheon family did arise. Now Apsu desired to destroy his own offspring,- Why? - but was then himself killed, by Enki, who looked upon the Apsu - Chaos as his home. So then an area of force charge, Apsu, attempted to abolish a created consciousized force charge, Enki, so now then Enki did become the Apsu -area- Chaos itself, still with self-willed consciousness . Then Tiamat,--the ocean--, the first cause, then went forth to revenge Apsu-chaos, but was then itself vanquished in a conflict with Sumer, Babylon and Assur, who were other created deities themselves, also within the Tiamat itself they existed, respectively.' So then the earth formed civilizations of Sumer, Babylon and Assur of ancient texts, they were named after three personified deities, who dwell in the ocean-space, and who vanquished the original Tiamat or ocean from effecting on them, they joined and over powered there own creator."

This bit of mythology from 2600 BC not only describes Tiamat as the ocean or chaotic space from which the Sumerian Tripartite "Gods" emerged, namely, the NON-human Anu, Enlil and Enki-Ea, but it also proves that Tiamat was prior to the Sumerian Tripartite Gods. This, now, puts Tiamat in a specific and proper place in the time line.

Lets also transfer a table of the longest Vedic Life of Brahma cycle of 311.040 trillion years, with each Level being approximately 20 trillion years long, and then see where Tiamat properly exists in the time line.

LETS TRY IT WITH THE SUMERIAN TRIPARTITE GODS

From Quartum Organum, By Krypton. Imagine a pyramid shape on its base, or circle or more properly, a spiral.

This pyramid represents Involution (The Fall of Spirit into Matter). There are 7 levels of creation or 6 dividing lines within the pyramid and each level has 2 principles, Consciousness (Religions god, left) and Energy (Evolutions life, right):

READ DOWN (left) AND UP (right)

.	INVOLUTION	......................	EVOLUTION
.	Consciousness	......................	Energy
Level 1	Sumerian Anu (left)	......................	Creative Energy (right)
Level 2	Sumerian Enlil (left)	......................	Primordial Substance (right)
Level 3	Sumerian Enki-Ea (left)	......................	Monadic Substance (right)
.	.	.	.
Level 4	Archetypal Ideation (Man) (left)	......................	Mental Matter (right)
Level 5	Archetypal Ideation (Animal) (left)	......................	Astral Matter (right)
Level 6	Archetypal Ideation (Plant) (left)	......................	Etheric Matter (right)
Level 7	Archetypal Ideation (Latent) (left)	......................	Dense Matter (right)

Levels I, 2 and 3 are what is known as Religions Trinity, which doesn't exist anymore since it 'fell' into matter. Since we exist on Level 4 on the Evolutionary side (right) and are ascending slowly "up" to the apex, the Gods of Sumer, i.e., Anu, Enlil and Enki-Ea cannot be properly placed anywhere on the right side, except in the far future on Levels 3, 2 and finally 1. These 3 creator-dynamics can only be placed in the far past on Levels 1, 2 and 3 on the left. The difference between our beginnings on Level 4 Evolution, and the end of Level 3 Involution is 8 Levels x 20 trillions years each = 160 trillion years.

To add to this placement of the Tripartite Gods of Sumer, remember that we have established that Tiamat is prior to the Sumerian Tripartite Gods, as the Ocean/Chaos in which these Tripartite Gods developed, so this will place any reference to Tiamat at a time period of more than 160 trillion years ago, seeing that we humans now exist within the 4th Major Plane on the right side, that is to say, the Evolutionary side (the Rise), so we simply count backwards to the beginning on the left side. This is a far cry from the 1450 BC date or even the 3-65 billion years dates. Compare this table with all the other tables in the Vedic Life of Brahma, time line page and see if you can place Tiamat in any other place. You should find that Tiamat cannot be placed anywhere else other than the very first major level of Creation. 160 trillion years old should also give you a proper idea of the true life of moons, planets and suns, half of which lifetimes, these bodies only existed as invisible Idea.ation before they became visible firstly, as a sun ¹, then planet then dead moon, broken lunoid, comet, nebula, protons and electrons and back to chaos again.

Premise vii: "After a few paragraphs in the Premise about "Earths path carried it ever more deeply into the comet's tail" we come to find out the author is speaking of Venus being this comet, quoting Exodus and the Mexican, Annals of Cuauhtitlan, "These things happened when the sky "rained, not water, but fire and red-hot stones," and further on, "Our planet was pursuing a near-collision course with the massive comet's head."

Now even after we learned, and could show that an Age or Sun is a span of time, that the time periods of Velikovsky are far, far off from the Vedic Life of Brahma, that Venus was never a comet, that Tiamat was nothing other than the ocean or fabric of space and existed even before the Sumerian Gods of at least 160 trillion years ago, we still have this book preface trying to describe a recent event or events with "Marduk striking the dragon Tiamat, "Isis and Set in deadly combat", Hindu Vishnu battling the "crooked serpent", Zeus struggling with the coiled viper Typhon", and the fugitive Israelites being pursued by the Pharaoh Taoui-Thom (Typhon).

A quick look at the Vedic Life of Brahma, of 311.040 trillion years will show you that Zeus (Jupiter), plainly, is found to be the Consciousness Principle of the 5th major plane on the Involutionary side of 311.040 trillion years, just after the beginning of time (Chronos), making Zeus's end time to be at least 3 Evolutionary levels + Devolution + the 7th and 6th level of Involution, into the past, making the end of Zeus, approximately 120 trillion years ago, in Greek mythology.

These authors of Velikovsky Reconsidered now include Mars in this misplaced scenario of the supposed comet, the wandering Venus. He says,

"In both hemispheres, men fixed their gaze anxiously on the comet, as, for centuries, it continued its circuit, crossing the orbits of both Earth and Mars".

Thus, it begins with disappearances of Venus, in the West and its reappearance in the East, for months, supposedly pulling Mars off its orbit, which was supposed to have occurred in the days of Uzziah, King of Jerusalem. Other sources sited are Lucian, the Bamboo Books of China, the Hindu Surya-Siddhanta, the Aztec Huitzilopochtli epos, the Indian-Iranian Bundahist, etc.

Now, remembering that this Mars/Earth/Venus scenario was operating under the major premise that "These events happened within the time of Tiamat" but now it is considered to happen from, "1450 BC" to "the founding of Rome 747 BC". We can begin to see that the dating system is so far off from that which is placed within the longest cycle of the Life of Brahma, as to be incredulous. Also, the major premise has changed without notice. Now we begin to take notice of how jumbled the time line is. This is the error of every researcher. Velikovsky, as meticulous as he researched, evidently never found the Life of Brahma of 311.040 trillion years into which he could put all other lesser time lines of mythology. If he had, he would have noticed that the mythological name Tiamat was no where near where he thought it was, in time.

The quote of the same paragraph: pp. xi: "These cataclysms were associated with the founding of Rome (placed by Fabius Pictor at 747 BC).

The Preface continues on with more bad news fit for a daily newspaper, the daily Inquirer or even a modern movie. Disasters, floods, destructions of armies, blasts from Heaven, dark whirlwinds and boiling rivers, and so much so that we can't be sure anymore if these events are associated with the major premise we began with or of some other premise.

Introduction by Ralph E. Juergens 1974.

Mr. Juergens ¹¹ is a proponent of the valid electric universe and plasma universe theories.

Hot Venus

It begins with Venus. Juergens notes that Venus has an almost perfectly circular orbit, rotates retrograde slowly (backwards) and is very hot and is covered with perpetual clouds and there are heavy traces of organic molecules within the sulfuric clouds, essentially repeating Velikovsky. Its atmosphere contains 300 times as much Co2, carbon dioxide, as Earth.

Even though I have read the book once and it backs The Natural Theory, which states that Venus should show us what happens to a planet after an Earth-position planet moves closer to the Sun, into the place of Venus. To put the cart before the horse for a moment, I wrote the following paragraph that puts the minor premise before the major premise without offering the evidence before the conclusion,

Here is the Venus sequence according to The Natural Theory:

Venus moves closer, the Sun heats it, Venus expands its cloud cover, the planet gets hot and traps its own heat, melts its surface mineral layer, burns off its organics and produces an over abundance of Co2. The theory also predicts that Venus, after burning off all its surface minerals and organics, will move closer to the Sun and begin to look like the barren, moon-like Mercury ³. Also the near circular orbit of Venus tells us that Venus has been orbiting the Sun for so long, that it is nearly perfectly stable in its orbit, which will become as perfectly circular as is the orbit of the more ancient moon around our Earth. If Venus had been through cataclysmic accidental collisions with other planets recently, Venus nor the other planets would neither be round nor in such stable orbits today. Velikovsky Reconsidered invents several reasons why magnetism could correct a planets orbit to stability but none of that flys. If magnetism, electricity and gravity can correct a wild planet, it should be strong enough to prevent a planet from becoming wild in the first place, which is exactly what happens, first, with all planets in the areas of Pluto and beyond, including every other far off planet, previously discovered by the 19th century astronomers, listed in the Reference ⁷. This negates all wild orbits. And so the whole of the outraged science establishment says that the solar system has been doing what it is doing today, for a very long time previous, for very good reasons, except for the very beginning of our very violent creation of the stars first.

The Heat of Venus

Velikovsky predicted that the darkened and sunlit halves of Venus is nearly equally hot. He erroneously attributes this heat to Venus' expulsion from the parent planet Jupiter and invents close approaches to the Sun, elliptic orbits and planet to planet discharges as the cause of this heat. Unfortunately, independent research says it confirms not only the heat but the errors also.

He didn't know why Venus was hot. He misunderstood its history.

Velikovsky also predicted Jupiter was producing radio noise and it does.
This is uncontested.

The Greenhouse Theory (xiii)

Venus has water vapor, Co2 (carbon dioxide) and a surface pressure of 90 times that of earth. The whole mechanism of the Greenhouse Theory centered around what the source of heat was. Was it an interior or an exterior source. The answer comes from Douglas Vogt, whose book, Reality Revealed, speaks of the Sun feeding all solar system bodies with information, which, when vectored into the center of each body, produces not only a bodys magnetic and electric field, but it also produces plenty of heat. Additionally, since all planets used to be hot Suns, this is a slowly dissipative source of heat which was being postulated by Velikovsky and being detected by science. In addition to these two mechanisms of heat, Venus now has its previous atmosphere trapped under thick cloud cover, which reflects all internal heat sources back upon itself, as part of its evolution, until the process of mineral and organic destruction is complete, according to The Natural Theory.

JPL Radar Mapping 1973 (xxvii)

After the radar detected craters on Venus, we might have noticed then, that not only were there craters on Venus, but almost all the craters on any planet or moon were perfectly round or very nearly round. Now if you are as curious as I am, you might ask, "If an asteroid struck any planet or moon at some oblique angle, such as an asteroid/lunoid coming from the plane of the equator and hitting near the north or south pole, we would expect to see plenty of long gashs or signatures of a glancing impact somewhere. So, why are there so few so-called craters that look like they didn't hit the surface from directly above? The fact is......the round "craters" were not caused by asteroids.

There are several websites that discuss the effects of perfectly round plasma strikes on a surface and Mr. Juergens has one of them. A plasma strike is a lightning bolt. These theories are most correct, in my opinion. However, the question is,

What past history of Venus and any other planet, was necessary for plasma strikes to create round craters all over the planet?

The answer can only be in accord with all mythology and our Bible included. It will be shown that it is certainly NOT from clashing planets, exploding planets, although crossing, egressing lunoid fields called the Kupier Belt and Oort Field are possibilities in the very early solar system only. We will show that the round craters were created, not by mass striking the surface but by plasma strikes.

ORIGINS OF EARTH

http://www.geocities.com/noelenejoy_rout/the-rock-cycle-page-1.html

Scripture Concerning Origins of the Earth

The earth is a circle..Isaiah 40:22

The inside of the earth is [esh..hot] fiery..Job 28:5

The earth when it is burned becomes vapour..2 Peter 3:10,11

Vapour becomes liquid becomes rock..Job 6:15-17

This agrees with Quartum Organum, a book we have in PDF format, first published in 1949 and again in 1959. It is the most comprehensive and astounding book on Cosmology, Cosmogony, Mythology and most every other interdisciplinary subject, that I have ever seen, and holds some amazing, logical conclusions, confirming all my previous study after I completed reading 39,510 books, over 18 years, including possibly 1/3 of that number of websites, since the end of the book reading, after 27 years, now.

The earth was once a ball of burning vapour..Isaiah 40:22..Job 28:5..2 Peters 3:10,11

As fuel is burned up fire goes out..Proverbs 26:20

As the fiery earth began to cool down, the surface of the earth became liquid

Job 6:15-17..and then, as it cooled further, it began to harden, and rock was formed, but the inside of the earth, is still, [esh] fiery..Job 28:5

Would you like to understand what these strange sayings in the Bible mean? This fiery scenario applies to every planet and moon in the solar system. Each planet has gone through this fiery phase of its evolution. Why haven't you heard of it before? Why are you hearing how planets and moons are torn off of parent planets and Suns? Why are you hearing that planets exploded? Do you know when you are being led around? No you don't. Why? You must arrive at truth before you can be empowered to make decisions about what is not true.

Evidences leading to The Natural Theory major premise that

"All planets were once Suns":

The use of the words "son of Sol" in the Story of Phaeton http://www.theoi.com/Ouranos/Phaethon.html
The whole book called "The Songs of Sol.omon.

What does the words "son of Sol" mean to you? I've seen it phrased as "the son of the Sun" but there is very little information on that. Recently I found a treasure trove of information ¹². You probably have no idea what to think of....a "son of the Sun". You might venture, "Why should anyone care what that means?" You don't know you are missing a very important part of Creation. I once found this incredible part of Creation in a microscopic footnote at the very bottom of a page. It's as scarce as the all-important analyma, the tiny figure-8, only found on the equator, on all globe maps. History has managed to almost completely destroy these things.

You will never know you missed it if you haven't arrived at truth. You might ask, "Why are we searching for some obscure saying like this"? It just happens to be obscure information like this that others don't include in their theory. Without this bit of information, the others believe that planets accreted from dust, planets were centrifically pulled out of other spinning mass or planets and moons were knocked out of other spinning mass by some wayward spinning planet.

Look at the whole book of the Bible called, "The Songs of Solomon. You believe its the history of a man...a King. You couldn't be more wrong. Its about cosmology. Its about our Earth when it was a Sun. You need information to arrive at truth. If you didn't know that before you read the Songs, you would never understand.

And so it is with Mars also. Look at the scar on Mars. What do you see?

Mars Image (Color Correct)

What is The Natural Theory telling you? It's saying that the Valles Marineris on Mars was struck by something so powerful that it vaporized 7 miles of dirt over 1/3 of the surface. What do you think caused the liquid channels on Mars? If Mars had a Jupiter-like atmosphere, what liquids and gasses are in that atmosphere? What do you think caused that huge black scar? Mars used to be a Sun. Only a Suns heated plasma bolts can do that. It certainly was not an asteroid or discharges from other planets. What washed over Mars surface in its past? It certainly was not water. Water would never survive during the creation of a planet. Water is a pair of elements and even elements are changed in planet creation. It was methanes, sulfuric acids, hydrochloric acids and derivatives of these volatiles that are found on Jupiter today.

What is The Natural Theory telling you? Venus used to be an earth and before that, it used to be like Mars and before that it used to be like Jupiter and before that....... The theory also tells you that the planets were in different places than they are today, but they didn't just wander around within the system. And when we back up any planet from Mercury to Pluto to a time before the planet entered the solar system,

We have a Sun. There we have the opportunity for incredibly large, violent, plasma-lightning bolts to blast perfectly round craters into the plastic, fluid surface of its core, from 360 degrees around that surface, and to synthesize minerals and organics with the lightning bolts, because the flaming solar atmosphere enveloped the core. We already know that an experiment with plasma bolts discharged into a gaseous mix of methane, ammonia and hydrogen will create amino acids. Do you still assume the beginnings of life came from a muddy pool in the middle of an earthy jungle, when a lightning bolt struck it? Science has the mechanism correct but the place is not. The perfect place for these elements and lightning to come together is, first, inside a Sun.

We already have an idea as to when the cataclysmic events took place, and it was not in 1450 BC nor was it as recent as 3 billion years ago. The cataclysms were a very, very, very long time ago. So long ago, that we cant even fathom it and we scoff at any suggestion of it and cannot really comprehend it. Why? Because we simply do not understand how long it takes a universe to create life. We have never been schooled in proper cosmology or cosmogony. We have forgotten our roots.

Did you know that our Sun is also creating an earth inside itself, even today? Who was it that told us to look "inside" for answers? Why not look "inside" the Sun, or "inside" the psyche for answers? Where does the seed of every species reside? Inside, in the centers. This is the natural intuition of The Natural Theory.

The JPL Radar Mapping of 1973 also found that the Venus cloud cover was very round and the planet was rotating (spinning) so slowly that its plastic surface was hardly pulled out of shape. The planets retro-rotation, opposite all other planets is counter to its orbit about the Sun. Venus orbits in the same direction as all other planets but rotates backward. What caused this?

The Natural Theory takes the position of all planets into a natural account. It states that if Uranus is tipping its axis 89 degrees to the general axis of all other planets, there must be a good reason. That reason could be the nature of Uranus or the nature of the orbital distance from the Sun. Some time ago I learned that Uranus is a diamagnetic planet and diamagnetism tries to align 90 degrees to the Suns magnetic field. And so it is close, with 89 degrees of alignment to the Suns magnetic field.

In the case of Venus, The Natural Theory asks,

What is so unique about Venus that it aligns 180 degrees to the Suns magnetic field?

Why did Venus flip over 180 degrees which will look like its rotating backwards.

There is no answer from science, for this today. The Natural Theory maintains the assumption that when any body enters the place that Venus occupies today,

1. Perhaps that distance from the Sun causes any planet to turn over.

2. Perhaps Venus simply entered the solar system, in its past, at Pluto's distance, already oriented to spin backwards.

3. The Natural Theory, being multi-disciplined, incorporates music theory, among all the other disciplines. An interval of a 5th is concordant. An interval of a 3rd is universal. Perhaps at an interval of a 2nd, if we count Mercury as the 1st tonic note, Venus may have experienced some discordant characteristic of a 2nd note. This is based upon the "synchronous lock" that Venus has with the Earth ² ⁴ ¹⁰, which is based upon musical ratio and musical ratio is found in many other places in the solar system.

During a time when Venus was like Earth, as it ingressed from Pluto's position to the position of the living Earth, as The Natural Theory postulates of all planets, its previous populations may have had something to say about the external Sun being either very dim or that it rose in the East and set in the West. I remember, dimly, some mythology that states just that but this is pure, unconfirmed speculation for now. Our Earth should have been where Mars is and our present Sun was very young and very dim or invisible, yet, literalist, amateur cosmologists still try to place the Songs of Solomon (the history of Earth when it was a Sun) into Middle Eastern history time lines. Think about that confusion and dichotomy of time.

Also consider what would happen if our solar system had two Suns in it at one time: A single solar system cannot have two Suns near each other. Its like moving two positive (+) poles of a magnet together....it always pushes away. And it keeps pushing away until two Suns are as far from each other as is our binary pair of the stars, Sirius, and our Sun. Even Sirius A and B spiral about each other, keeping their distance.

Part 1, (pp. 1).

The Scientific Mafia by Stone (pp. 5).

It states that Velikovsky, in his analyses, found an Egyptian manuscript that spoke of the cataclysms of early Creation, and Velikovsky, as is often the case, misinterpreted it as recent history. In effect, he revived the catastrophism of the 18th century, but rather than attributing it to supernatural sources, Velikovsky attributes it to extraterrestrial sources, in the form of clashing planets, and subsequently, the works of several other researchers followed suite. After the scientific community heard of this, naturally, they began their valid complaints and derisions.

Startling Evidence (pp. 8)

This section includes many predictions of Velikovsky. I'll list them for you, so you can see that much of what he spoke, was correct:

1. Predicted hydrocarbons in the clouds of Venus.

2. Predicted Earth's extended magnetosphere.

3. Predicted Jupiter as a radio signal source.

4. Predicted that Venus' clouds were rich in petroleum gases.

5. Predicted retro-rotation of Venus.

6. Predicted that space is not empty but is swept by particles and has many fields.

7. Predicted electrical discharges between the Earth and comet.

8. Predicted that the Sun stood still.

The Natural Theory agrees with predictions 1-6, excluding number 7 and 8.

Qualifying number 8, the only instance that previous Suns of our solar system, not our present Sun, may have appeared to stand still, was while it was in transition between being a Sun and becoming a burned out planet, in other words, while it changed its polarity from (+) to (-), but this usually happens far away from any solar system. In the future, our Sun should nova and die, to become a new Earth. Then it should change its positive solar impulse (+) to a negative dead planet (-) after it cools, which will then rearrange the whole solar system. Our Sun has thrown off its corona in past nova's, several times, but the future death of our Sun will be a complete flame-out. I don't believe we have anything to worry about for billions of years, on the complete flame-out.

Pertaining to number 8 about a Sun standing still....... let's just say that suns simply do not cease from orbiting about the Galactic center. I've also read the Creationist' attempt at dating the so-called history of the Bible that attempts to prove the Sun stood still, with some missing time accounted for and that missing time was said to be "exactly" the time that a Sun was to have stood still. That's simply number manipulation.

All Suns, no matter how massive, have no chance, whatsoever, of escaping the centripital, ever-whirling vortex of space ⁴, about the Galactic center. In fact, the velocities of the Suns in this invisible vortex, should be the indicators of the velocity of this invisible vortex of space. Suns simply do not have the individual impulse or independent power to go slower or faster than this swirling vortex. Nor do suns, planets or moons have any ability to cross this vortex, they must follow the rotation of the vortex precisely. To this we must add the harmonics of non-linearity:

"...a cloud of dust being affected by a repeated non-linear force will separate into rings with orbital periods which match the harmonics of the forcing period." Ray Tomes ¹³

I interpret this as a solar system existing in a non-linear, harmonic field called Aether which has existed far longer than anything in it. All Suns, earths and moons simply have no choice in what position they hold and in what direction they go, when caught in the vortex.

The other illusion of standing still may include some kind of Solar retrograde motion such as Mercury's occasional retrograde motions.

Qualifying number 7, we can say that it could have been possible in the periods that planets wander in space, outside of a solar system, that a planet and a comet exchange a discharge, if they were of attractive polarity (+/-). This is a rare occurrence that two bodies get close enough to each other or that two bodies are of such different polarity because, as I mentioned, two positive Suns (+) or two negative planets (all negative bodies- asteroids, lunoids, planetoids, comets) (-) are all similar to each other and are repulsive to each others own kind.

So there are only two other mechanisms of electrical discharge into a planets surface and those are,

1. A Solar nova (+).
2. A (-) planets Sun period (+).

H. H. Hess and My Memoranda by I. Velikovsky (pp. 32)

Having skipped much history, in letter form, from his friends and foes, I arrived at one of Velikovsky's letters:

9. Velikovsky predicted "several localized areas on the Moon and Mars that could still be radioactive from interplanetary discharges."

According to The Natural Theory, the radioactivity will be found but this interplanetary discharge theory is wrong simply because it can be shown that all discharges could have been created by a Solar nova or by a planet during its own Sun period, both of which is corroborated by mythologies and by other documentation. Also, the repulsive nature of similar planets (-/-) works against two planets getting close to each other.

10. Velikovsky states that the "Moon was once showered by water of the universal deluge, but that all of it or almost all of it dissociated before the later cosmic catastrophes."

The Natural Theory accepts there can presently be water on the Moons surface in the form of ice or water may be under the surface. Whenever life processes or life bearing water processes are spoken about, in relation to any Moon, we should be mindful that the times between a body being a life bearing planet and until that body becomes a barren Moon, is trillions of years. So making a statement about our Earth's Moon having a water deluge must include a cosmic knowledge of trillions of years and Velikovsky has not demonstrated that he understood the extensive time periods of The Natural Theory. Neither did he understand that any Moon used to be a planet. Neither did he understand that any planet used to be a Sun. Neither did he understand just how long ago was the universal deluge and how mythology used the word "deluge", as will be demonstrated in later paragraphs of this paper.

11. Velikovsky states that "The face of the Moon we see was formed in those later catastrophes."

This statement was made with knowledge of only the mythologies that led him back 3-65 billion years through faulty, retracings of historic events which had no knowledge of the unfathomably long periods of 311.040 trillion years of ancient mythology, nor of the solar period-plasma strikes altering matter to foil any accurate dating attempts.

12. Velikovsky states, "that large water reservoirs lay under the Moons surface."

According to recent discoveries on the south pole of the Moon, there seems to be water-ice on the surface and by inference, water under the surface.

Memorandum to Hess from I. Velikovsky, Mar 14, 1967 (pp. 52).

Velikovsky predicts " 'many craters' on the Moon, some _ were in my understanding, formed while in cosmic disturbances, the surface of the Moon became molten and boiled...the subsequent discovery of domes or unburst bubbles confirms this understanding of the process that created many of the craters."

He is correct by stating that he understands the "process that created many of the craters." This would be plasma strikes between planets, according to him. However, it is obvious Velikovsky attributes "molten and boiling surfaces" to the wrong cosmic disturbances, seeing he only understands that his mythologic readings were interpreted in the context of recent history. The only other possible ways a solar system body can sustain enough heat to both melt and boil a surface is from a sustained Sun nova or if the body was the core of a Sun with solar-plasma lightning bolts striking the core surface, which is the corrected reality of The Natural Theory.

May 19, 1969

Velikovsky states, "The moon was repeatedly heated and its entire surface melted less than 35 to 27 centuries ago. At the times the Moon's surface was molten in near approaches with other celestial bodies, it was enveloped in powerful magnetic fields; if the surface cooled down below the Curie point before the magnetic fields were weakened and removed, then it is to expect that lavas on the Moon (most of its rock is lava) still possess a high magnetic remanence".

The Bi-Polar Tidal Model of Hoagland also expands innumerable minor premises upon erroneous major premises, just as Velikovsky is beginning to do here. Can you tell, now, what parts are correct and what parts are totally off base?

35-27 centuries- wrong,
near approaches- wrong,
magnetic fields- right,
surface cooled- right,
rocks have remnant magnetism- right.

A short series of 3 letters has only one more prediction that has a scientific confirmation attached:

Velikovsky, in a letter to H. H. Hess (Harry), states, "Next, I expect that neon and argon will be found as main ingredience of Martian atmosphere as I claimed for almost quarter of a century."

Footnote: In March 1974, Soviet scientists reported that the Mars 6 spacecraft discovered "several tens of per cents of some inert gas," which they assumed was largely argon. This view has since gained acceptance among Western scientists. Editor.

Part II

This section begins with a critical premise that any argument from established science, of an unchanging cosmos of the past, is somehow inappropriately being applied to this new ever changing "world order", meaning Velikovksy's changing cosmogony or the changing processes of creation. Invoking the Khufu pyramid at Giza and also Stonehenge, are attempts to shore up the theory.

Skipping the supporters and detractors letters which don't prove anything, I choose to go right to Velikovsky's letter first because we want to hear from the source of this controversy, not the mirrors of opinion. Nevertheless, you can expect the same answers from the supporters and detractors as has been previously demonstrated. If you happen to find a copy of the book, you will see it is so.

Velikovsky sites the changing pole orientation of the Great Pyramid and includes the Babylonian calendric and astronomical data of 700 BC, as constantly being changed and which "differs greatly" from those of our times.

Still, this letter ends without demonstrating more than noting these changes. This does not prove any more than the Babylonians made changes to their calendric systems. It does not infer that the cosmos was disoriented at that time, which is the inconclusive results of many subsequent scientific studies, noted in several letters recorded in this book, in later chapters, after putting these calendric dates into computers. If Velikovsky has evidence that the cosmos was erratic, he must have reserved that information for another book or letters because it isn't in this book or letters.

On Decoding Hawkins; Stonehenge Decoded by I. Velikovsky

After Velikovsky examines Hawkings claims of Stonehenge, he decides "Thus, of the entire theory, not one thing is left. But this is significant in itself. Stonehenge emerges as an obsolete observatory, in the same state as the ancient sundials and water clocks found in Egypt.....That Stonehenge was actually and repeatedly rearranged is not given to question......"

Velikovsky notes the many periods of Stonehenge's constructions; I, II, IIIA, IIIB and IIIC over some 400 years as evidence of a changing sky. This is still within the body of Velikovsky's letter wherein we also come to the telling mind set that he displays in the following quote of Velikovsky himself, as follows:

In noting the number of aubrey holes as 56 he (Velikovsky) says, "The number 56 was sacred to Typhon, as Hawkins, advised by Professor G. de Santillana, found in Plutarch (American Scientist, December 1965). This author of the first century of the present era reports that in the Pythagorean secret teaching "the figure of 56 angles [is sacred] to Typhon," in whom they see "a demoniac power." In the same work of his (Isis and Osiris), Plutarch ascribes to Typhon "abnormal seasons," and in another essay, in Morals, he explains: "The Sun was not fixed to an unwandering and certain course, so as to distinguish orient and occident, nor did he [the Sun] bring back the seasons in order." (Worlds in Collision, p.121).

In the next paragraph he (Velikovsky) says, "Other ancient writers identified Typhon with Lucifer, the morning star, and also with Set (Satan). Late-Renaissance chronographers (time researchers, R.Grace), on the basis of ancient texts, claimed that the comet Typhon shone at the time the Israelites left Egypt (Abraham Rockenbach [1602] and other writers quoted in Worlds in Collision, pp.82ff.). Thus fifty-six was connected by the Pythagoreans with the morning star; and the morning star by other early authorities with the Exodus. But care should be exercised not to make mathematical games out of Stonehenge..."

In the next few concluding paragraphs, Velikovsky continues to try to imply that other civilizations parallel calendric changes imply that there existed the changes that are spoken about as the commonly shared Creation stories of mythologies of the world.

Velikovsky, when he uses the words Typhon, Set, Lucifer, Israelites and the word Egypt, permits a time-dating of his major premise. Evidently, Velikovsky was not aware of, or perhaps too aware of, the exoteric (literal), mesoteric and esoteric (symbolic) interpretations of these words. A simple reference to the Vedic Life of Brahma, of 311.040 trillion years, will again, show us the nature of Isis, Typhon, Exodus, Israelites, Set, Lucifer, the so called "deluge" and the pagan Satan, only using a few paragraphs of Quartum Organum:

Quartum Organum, pp.394-395

A discussion of certain passages in Revelation, Chpt. 12, continues,

"This woman, symbol of matter, is not only "clothed with the sun", she is the sun, the great Earth Mother of all mythologies; she is Isis, Inanna and Ishtar. Here in the sun period is conceived and carried the nascent earth itself, that is, the physical part, with the moon under this, as we made it. This is the child (that) the great dragon (Typhon) would destroy, and therefore it has nothing whatever to do with the Christ of religion. Typhon (in Greece, Python) is the mythic name for the violent, turbulent forces that eventually destroy the free energies of the sun, but not the life of the earth within it. This is saved and carried up by way of Evolution to the "throne of God," the metaphysical planes as in the first version. In the Greek myth we see the real meaning of this Python, or Typhon. He was the offspring of Gaea, the Earth Mother on the higher planes in Involution, a slimy monster Apollo, the sun, discovered when the Deluge abated, namely, the earth, (or) matter."

"The time this woman remained in the wilderness is identical with the measurement of "the holy city", earth, 1,260 days. This wilderness of both the Old and New Testament is the four lower, material planes. The stars that fell from heaven were certainly not the visible stars, but rather the invisible planetary entities dragged down to the dense earth state by accreted matter, Typhon, the pagan Satan."

Quartum Organum goes on with several parallel myths that tells the same story in a different way with different gods and goddesses but we have already established what we need, and that is the timing of Velikovsky's words; Typhon, Set, Lucifer, Israelites and the word Egypt. Egypt is identified with the 7th and lowest plane, earth, matter. The "Israelites" represent the formerly free atoms that are "dragged down into slavery" in Egypt, matter, AND by the Savior-Life Force, which made an "exodus", an exit, out of matter. Gene.Isis and Exo.dus.....are we awake yet? This is the very same story we see in the television movie about the Pharaoh and the Israelites in bondage. It's a story about mineral elements being freed from matter, as it cooled. Science calls it "radiation". Solar radiation.

"Typhon, Set, Satan and Lucifer are identified with solidified earth of the 7th lowest plane. Isis is the earth within a turbulent sun, called Typhon (in Greece, Python).....the mythic name for the violent, turbulent forces that eventually destroy the free energies of the sun, but not the life of the earth within it."

The dating of this event, therefore, is the period of earths history, when it was within a fiery sun, when the earth was a sun, just as the Songs of Sol.o.mon describes and also scripture describing the earth as "fiery", plus all "son of the Sun" mythology. That period, within the context of the longest cycle known, the Vedic Life of Brahma of 311.040 trillion years, puts this sun period of earth, roughly 80-120 trillion years into the past.

We might also find it permissible to include the former statement of Plutarch, to ascertain more information about what the earth-sun was doing during this time,

"Plutarch ascribes to Typhon "abnormal seasons," and in another essay, in Morals, he explains: "The Sun was not fixed to an unwandering and certain course, so as to distinguish orient and occident, nor did he [the Sun] bring back the seasons in order" (Worlds in Collision, p.121).

We might be permitted to ask,

Was this the period of free wandering, when the "prodigal sun"-flaming earth, 80-120 trillion years ago, was hurling through space waiting for a new sun (our faint, almost invisible sun) to pull it inward? (Note: 05/26/04 Rather, the prodigal sun...was waiting to be captured in our early suns vast spiraling vortex, far, far out into space. Even after learning, I make the mistake occasionally, of presuming our sun "pulls" other bodies).

Compare this time period, now, with Velikovsky's "less than 35 to 27 centuries ago" and sciences "estimated" age of the universe at 13.7 billion years. Is Velikovsky's exoteric, retro-calculations correct or are the Vedic manuscripts and esoteric interpretations correct?

Babylonian Observations of Venus by Lynn Rose.

Rose's examination of the Venus tablets of Ammizaduga is very interesting, not that it hasn't been done before, whom he notes, but Rose's method of assigning ratios to the admitted "patterns" of the tablets. He used denominations of 19, for some reason. He said,

"The ratio of the period of Earth to the period of Venus for years one through nine is very close to 31/19; and the ratio for the years ten through seventeen is slightly less than 31/19; and the ratio for years nineteen through twenty-one is slightly greater than 31/19. Since there is no sign here of any definite change in the orbit of Venus, this change in the ratios would presumably be due to the change in Earth's orbit; and this suggests that Earth's orbit in years one through nine, was slightly greater than in years ten through seventeen and slightly smaller than in years nineteen through twenty-one. IF the length of the day and the length of the month were not altered enough to distort the observers estimate of the length of the year to such a degree that this interference about the sizes of the Earth's successive orbits would be invalidated. That is a big "if."

"In none of these three states of affairs do the orbits of Venus and Earth intersect; thus it seems clear that no collision between Earth and Venus was imminent that the time of these observations." (the Venus tablet recordings).

This give some weight to The Natural Theory's major premise that the planets ingress slowly toward the Sun. However, this evidence of

".....No sign here of any definite change in the orbit of Venus, this change in the ratios would presumably be due to the change in Earth's orbit....."

may indicate that planets do not simply drift inward with the vortex of space, at a constant swirl, but may jump by slight increment, inward occasionally, after passing some kind of threshold assigned to the planet orbits by the Sun, giving the impression of some kind of sudden stellar changes. In other words, any one planet may very slowly move inward toward the Sun, from a "neutral zone", spoken about by James Churchward, ², and Ayana ¹⁰, of equal intelligence, in my opinion. After passing as far to the extreme as possible, of this "neutral zone" which holds all planets. There may be a short period where each planet will "accelerate downhill" as if it is rushing toward the next "habitable zone" ⁶ in which planets are most "comfortable", similar to the sweep of planets on the ellipse of its orbit. In other words, some periods are long and slow and other periods are short and fast.

Earth Without a Moon by I. Velikovsky (pp. 86)

Velikovsky brings up several ancient sources about a time when the Earth had no Moon. However these may actually imply that the Moon was something else.

First, lets list exactly, everything in quotations, indicating the exact words of the ancient documents, that Velikovsky was supposed to have quoted accurately. I have seen how the "meticulous" Velikovsky, in the previous chapters, seems to have gone astray, so we will have to reexamine each of these quotes at some future time. Here are the Velikovsky quotes, hoping Velikovsky copied these accurately. Please notice that no where in the words on this page does it say that the Earth did not have a moon, accept in the words and mind of Velikovsky:

1. Several sentences of Velikovsky stating certain ancients teachings, in Velikovsky's own words; the Earth was without a Moon.

2. Again, Velikovsky says, in his own words; ...the aborigines occupied the land before there was a moon in the sky above the Earth...Reference: Aristotle, Fr. 591 (ed V.Rose)

3. Velikovsky sites Apollonius Rhodius as mentioning the time "when not all the orbs were yet in the heavens, before the Danai and Deukalion races came into existence, and only the Arcadians lived, of whom it is said that they dwelt on the mountains and fed on acorns, before there was a moon." Reference: Appolonius Rhodius IV, 264.

4. Velikovsky again, in his own words, sites Plutarch as writing in "The Roman Questions": These were Arcadians of Evander's following, the so-called Pre-Lunar people. Reference: Plutarch's Moralia, tr. F.C. Babbit, Section 76.

5. Also Ovid: "The Arcadians are said to have possessed their land before the birth of Jove, and that folk is older than the Moon. Reference: Ovid, Fasti, tr. Sir James G. Frazer, II, 290.

6. Lucian, Velikovsky mentions, in his book on Astrology says that the Arcadians "affirm in their folly that they are older than the moon." Reference: Lucian, Astrology, tr. A.M. Harmon, 26 (p.367).

7. Censorinus, Velikovsky says, alludes to the time in the past when there was no moon in the sky. Reference: Censorius, De die natal. 19; also Scholium on Aristophanes, Clouds, 398.

8. The Assyrians, says Velikovsky, referred to the time of the Moon god as to the oldest period in the memory of the people: before other gods came to dominate the world ages, the Moon was the Supreme Deity. Reference: "It is remarkable that at first the primacy was assigned to the moon." Fr. Cumont, Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans (1912), p. 124.

9. From Scripture, Velikovsky extracts this: Job 25:5 ..the grandeur of the Lord who "makes peace in the heights," is praised and the time is mentioned "before (there was) a moon and it did not shine."

10. Lastly, Velikovsky quotes from Indian lore of Bogota, "In the earliest times, when the moon was not yet in the heavens."

Having made the assumption that the Earth had no moon, Velikovsky goes on to assume people populated the, then, Earth.

Again, may I remind that no where in the words on this book page does it say that the Earth did not have a moon, accept in the words and mind of Velikovsky and I copied the words of Velikovsky and the quotes exactly.

How are we going to sort this out? There is a way.

Lets begin with the first and only dating hint I have and that is the word Deukalion in line (3.)

"when not all the orbs were yet in the heavens, before the Danai and Deukalion races came into existence."

Here is a table from the Vedic Life of Brahma, of 311.040 trillion years. Deucalion is listed on level 7, equivalent to Egypt, matter and earth."

MYTHOLOGY AND CREATION / EVOLUTION

From Quartum Organum By Krypton. Imagine a pyramid shape on its base, or circle or more properly, a spiral.

The Greek Mythological Order. Consciousness Principle (left) and Energy Principle (right).

"Erebus, Aether and Uranus are identical with the Christian Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and the Hindu Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. Uranus comes from the Hindu Varuna meaning veiled, hidden and is identical with the mysterious Holy Ghost. The latter we are told proceeds from the other two, and so does Uranus. No matter how high and holy we think the Trinity to be, it is but the three fundamental principles necessary to the creation of a world; and as this is what the Greek myth is about, there is no reason why we should not identify the Greek Trinity with them". Quartum Organum, pg. 322.

READ DOWN BOTH SIDES

.	INVOLUTION	......................	EVOLUTION
.	Consciousness	......................	Energy
Level 1	Erebus (left)	......................	Nix (Nir: Egypt, Nox: Roman) (right)
Level 2	Aether (left)	......................	Hermera (right)
Level 3	Uranus (left)	......................	Gaea (right)
.	.	.	.
Level 4	Cronus (left)	......................	Rhea (right), 12 Titans
Level 5	Zeus (Jupiter) (left)	......................	Hera (Juno) (right)
Level 6	Prometheus-Epimetheus (left)	......................	Pandora (right)
Level 7	Deucalion (left)	......................	Pyrra (right)

Levels I, 2 and 3 are what is known as Religions Trinity, which doesn't exist anymore since it 'fell' into matter.

Notice that Deucalion is the Consciousness half of Creation on the lowest 7th plane in Involution on the left side (the Fall). We humans are in the middle of the right side 4th Major Plane called Evolution. Counting backward from our present position we count half of the 4th level (10 trillion years) + the 3rd level (20 trillion) + the 2nd (20 trillion) + the 1st (20 trillion) + Devolution (20 trillion) + Deucalion in Involution (20 trillion) = 110 trillion years ago to the beginning of Deucalion, when it was said of the race called Deu(k)alion,

"when not all the orbs were yet in the heavens, before the Danai and Deukalion races came into existence."

This should be enough time for a moon to evolve from a Sun, to an earth to a moon, moving from far out in space to where it is now. The Natural Theory holds that before our moon was a moon, it was a habitable earth because moons are far older than earths and Suns but they also move. So when we back-up the earth-moon system to where Mars is today, we might be able to say that the moon was more like an earth because it was far younger and it was in the 'habitable zone" of science. There may have been a previous time when Venus, Earth and the Moon were within the habitable zone of science. With this knowledge, we might hear mythological stories about...

"when not all orbs were yet in the heavens..."

Meaning far-out Pluto or Pluto, Uranus and Neptune or even more inward planets were not in the heavens......that is the heavens of our solar system.....but they could have been far out in space wandering around as burned-out former Suns or many of the planets could have been even farther back into time as to be Suns in some other system than our own galaxy before they burned out and started wandering. No one can tell. Unfortunately this scrap of mythology tells us a little of the history of a solar system but not exact enough to say where each planet was at.

Velikovsky's own words; the Earth was without a Moon.

The Natural Theory denies Earth was ever without the Moon from the beginning. All these references do not say Earth was without a moon, Velikovsky said that.

Again, Velikovsky says, in his own words; ...the aborigines occupied the land before there was a moon in the sky above the Earth.

This is Velikovsky's words. I have never seen any proof of this assertion that there was no moon above earth, in this book either. He must be reserving that in another of his books.

"they dwelt on the mountains and fed on acorns, before there was a moon." Reference: Appolonius Rhodius IV, 264.

This passage is saying that there existed certain beings before the moon existed as a moon. The moon may have existed as an Earth though, according to The Natural Theory.

Velikovsky again, in his own words, sites Plutarch as writing in "The Roman Questions": These were Arcadians of Evander's following, the so-called Pre-Lunar people. Reference: Plutarch's Moralia, tr. F.C. Babbit, Section 76.

Again, this is Velikovsky's words, not a quote.

Also Ovid: "The Arcadians are said to have possessed their land before the birth of Jove, and that folk is older than the Moon. Reference: Ovid, Fasti, tr. Sir James G. Frazer, II, 290.

Jove is Zeus (Jupiter), Involutionary Level 5, in the table above, of the Vedic Life of Brahma, of 311.040 trillion years. To date the beginning of Level 5, the "birth of Jove, we repeat the Deu(k)alion sequence and add Involution Level 6 and 5:

We humans are in the middle of the right side 4th Major Plane called Evolution. Counting backward from our present position we count half of the 4th level (10 trillion years) + the 3rd level (20 trillion) + the 2nd (20 trillion) + the 1st (20 trillion) + Devolution (20 trillion) + Deucalion (Level 7) in Involution (20 trillion) + (Level 6) Involution, switching to Greek mythology (20 trillion) + (Level 5) Jove/Zeus/Jupiter, Involution, Greek mythology (20 trillion) = 140 trillion years- Birth of Jove.

Lucian, Velikovsky mentions, in his book on Astrology says that the Arcadians "affirm in their folly that they are older than the moon." Reference: Lucian, Astrology, tr. A.M. Harmon, 26 (p.367).

Velikovsky's words. I don't know what Velikovsky is trying to infer in this passage.

Censorinus, Velikovsky says, alludes to the time in the past when there was no moon in the sky. Reference: Censorius, De die natal. 19; also Scholium on Aristophanes, Clouds, 398.

Velikovsky's words, again.

The Assyrians, says Velikovsky, referred to the time of the Moon god as to the oldest period in the memory of the people: before other gods came to dominate the world ages, the Moon was the Supreme Deity. Reference: "It is remarkable that at first the primacy was assigned to the moon." Fr. Cumont, Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans (1912), p. 124.

It is no surprise to The Natural Theory that the moon is assigned the Supreme Deity in the memories of these ancient races, because it is the oldest, most senior of both Earth and Sun. The Moons also have a history of being a previous Earth and then of being a previous Sun. It would naturally occupy the oldest memories of a people.

(Note: Although the dating methods of the moon has demonstrated that the moon is older than both earth and sun, the results have a very good chance of being skewed by the plasma bolts that formed the surfaces that were dated). ¹²

From Scripture, Velikovsky extracts this: Job 25:5 ..the grandeur of the Lord who "makes peace in the heights," is praised and the time is mentioned "before (there was) a moon and it did not shine."

Before there was a moon there was an earth that was going to become a moon. And Earth's don't shine and reflect the light of a dim or invisible Sun. Using our imagination, like Al told us, we might back up the earth-moon system to a time when the earth was a dim Sun and our moon was a younger moon-earth. Our normal Sun in our sky didn't exist then. Our moon-earth orbited a hot and dim earth-Sun, then. This would have to be where the, then, moon-earth/earth-Sun system was in the position of, perhaps somewhere between Mars and Neptune. This is a very long time ago. Explaining this, is very complicated, but no one said the whole history of a solar system is an easy subject.

Lastly, Velikovsky quotes from Indian lore of Bogota, "In the earliest times, when the moon was not yet in the heavens."

This would be my first question. If the moon was not in the heavens, how did they know it was a moon and where were these people living, if at all? We might resolve this question, by understanding what these Indians understood or perhaps just recited. To attempt to interpret this, we might say that this non-existent moon might be in the form of a young to old earth before that earth became a moon. Perhaps this cosmology is so old that the earth-moon system wasn't even in the solar system yet, but was wandering far out in deep space looking for a Sun to draw it in. At that time the earth would be a super-hot, positive (+) sun-planet and the moon would be an earth-like, negative (-) earth, attractive to the sun-planet. The Evolution sequence is from first to last: Sun, Earth, Moon, all moving through time, at the same time.

Several major sections of the book were skipped at this point, even though it involved technical modeling on computers to simulate orbits and positions of various planets. The conclusions were inconclusive as far as I am concerned and reveal nothing out of the ordinary nor does any of the modeling support eccentric planet orbits of Mars, Venus or Earth.

Now we arrive at the last 2 letters of Velikovsky:

Venus Atmosphere by I. Velikovsky (pp. 193).

Velikovsky states, "Venus, according to many ancient sources, poured naptha on earth; the Mayan sources, for instance, are so insistent in their connecting the planet (Venus) with "fire water" that a modern author...wrote an entire book... without, however, a reference to the outpouring of naptha on earth."

"Again, according to a number of ancient sources, as far apart as Scandinavia, Greece, India and Judea, during a number of years that followed the great outpouring and conflagration _ the years that carry the appelative "Shadow of Death" or "Gotterdammerung" - ambrosia (Greeks), manna (Israelites), madhu (Hindus), or morning sweet dew (Scandinavians), fell on earth."

Farther on we see Velikovsky claiming, "... of electrical discharges in the short and stormy history of Venus, as witnessed by the people of the world, there was no dearth."

What "world" would that be? He doesn't really say. Odd. We are left to assume he means Earth and Venus. Meticulous Velikovsky has another lapse of detail.

After siting subsequent experiments that "suggested" that Venus' atmosphere abounded in hydrocarbons, which gives weight to Velikovsky's idea that the atmosphere could produce things as Velikovsky called "naptha", a product of cracking hydrocarbons using high heat. Other products were described as edible substance, "carbohydrate or protein-like" also called "morning sweet dew", "madhu", "manna", "ambrosia" - in the "years that carry the appelative "Shadow of Death" and "Gotterdammerung."

To sum this up as tightly as I can, we can say that Velikovsky imagined a scenario where Venus, in rather recent times, he claims, rained furnace-hot- naptha, from an equally hot atmosphere to crack the hydrocarbons, plus manna-like carbohydrate and protein substances, in the recent years called "Shadow of Death" and "Gotterdammerung." Moreover, our own Bible tells us that the tribes of Israel went out and collected this manna.

I'm hoping they used asbestos gloves and oxygen-tank breathing apparatus to pick up the manna because the naptha was being cracked in the furnace-like environment, on Venus, without oxygen, no less, because cracking requires no oxygen, which Velikovsky says was provided by the Earth's close encounter with Venus.

Moreover, the word "Gotterdammerung", can be time-dated. In Quartum Organum's Premise there is a Zodiac of Constellations Diagram which depicts the Ages we pass through and it includes the last three Ages we have just passed called "Gotterdammerung". This was Scorpio, Virgo and Libra, three ever darker matter-bound Ages. We are now entering Leo, the corrected Age, directly opposite the commonly known Aquarian Age. However, Gotterdammerung, in German, means something like "the times of darkening" meaning the times when the "Wisdom-Knowledge of the Ancients" was being obscured and lost because of the "dense matter mentality" of all humanity.

Each Age of this Zodiacal cycle was 2,160 years so Gotterdammerung was 2,160 x 3 = 6,480 years. We are now at the end of this darkness, just on the cusp of Libra and Leo, the next Age, as tumultuous as the Sun (Leo); mental war mostly, with physical war where the lagging last Age mentality cannot keep up.

So Velikovsky is saying that these events occurred on Venus within the last 6,480 years or a higher multiple of the complete Zodiac cycle of 25,000-25,920 years when humanity arrived at Gotterdammerung, in the last cycle. We could also have passed Gotterdammerung at least 120,000 times in the past 3 billion years or uncounted times in the complete 311.040 trillion years. Velikovsky doesn't say when...exactly. Why? He doesn't know.

Again, The Natural Theory agrees with the chemical laboratory of elements that may have existed on Venus in its past and how naptha or edible hydrocarbons may have been produced. We simply disagree that these events were as recent as 3-65 billion years ago or that Earth dwellers had anything to do with this manna or naptha on Venus, or Earth, for that matter, accept esoterically (symbolically).

Several pages later, Velikovsky adds, "In my understanding, the phenomena of brimstone (sulfur) falling from the sky (or filling the air) in the course of the great discharges, as narrated in ancient sources (the Old Testament and Homer among them), resulted from smashing two oxygen atoms into one atom of sulfur. I assumed that, on Jupiter and on Venus, sulfur must be present; on Jupiter because it acquired much of the water of Saturn after Saturn exploded, and in great thunderbolts converted the oxygen of the water into sulfur; and on Venus because it brought sulfur from its parental body, Jupiter, and also because in violent discharges, it could fuse oxygen snatched from the Earth's atmosphere or hydrosphere into sulfur."

Velikovsky uses the words "I assumed". He seems to assume too much. He also mentions that Saturn exploded. This is too much to fathom. No evidence of an exploded Saturn is presented in these letters. There are also no references to the Bible sources or from Homer about the "brimstone" event. Of course it's in the Bible but he doesn't site either as a reference.

Another letter:

Are The Moons Scar's Only Three Thousand Years Old? By I. Velikovsky

This is essentially a boring letter which a certain Derek York shows to be wrong.

When Was The Lunar Surface Last Molten? By I. Velikovsky

The only redeeming statements in this letter is about a former Sun nova, 30,000 years ago, and the amount of neon found in some Moon rocks which dated the rocks at 20 million years old, older than the universe! Velikovsky maintains that the glazing of the heated rocks was not by a Sun nova but by near collisions of planets.

The Sun nova is a major premise of The Natural Theory, providing the necessary heat to vitrify rock.

The rocks dated to be older than the universe is another major premise of The Natural Theory and is another clue as to the universes real age, only if this bit of rock escaped the dating distortions of the plasma strikes that possibly alter all dating attempts, which is even admitted by Velikovsky himself. Perhaps astronauts, when landing on another planet in the future, can avoid thoughts of, "THAT crater looks like a good one to land in!"

He says, later in the letter, "Although the radioactive clock (Dating mechanism, R.G.) cannot be disturbed by heating or hitting, it can be disturbed by discharges of interplanetary potentials."

To this one can only add that discharges of a planets solar corona during its own Sun stage is not yet considered by Velikovsky.

A very interesting bit of information comes from Velikovsky, at the end of this letter:

He asks, "When we measure the age of the universe, why do we assume that at Creation the heavy elements like uranium predominated and not the simplest ones, hydrogen and helium?"

Why indeed.

The Natural Theory easily deals with mysterious orientations and difficult questions, such as:

1. "The Earth had no Moon"
2. Where was each Planet?
3. What direction does the whole solar system drift toward?
4. What was the Earth in times past?
5. What happened a billion or a trillion or a 100 trillion years ago?
6. What is the future of Planets?
7. What is the future of Suns?
8. What is the future of Moons?
9. Is there an easy way to see the history of a single Sun, Planet or Moon?
10. Why doesn't the whole solar system fall apart?
11. What evidence is there that planets did not careen around the solar system like billiard balls?

REFERENCES:

1. Previous to being a Pluto type planet, Pluto was a flaming star.

"So those dozen magnestars betray the presence of more than a million, and perhaps as many as 100 million, other objects_old magnestars that long ago went dark, Dim and dead, these strange worlds wander through interstellar space. What other phenomena, so rare and fleeting that we have not recognized them, lurk out there?"

Magnestars, pp. 35, Scientific American Magazine, Feb, 2003

I'll tell you something. This author didn't realize how close he came to understanding how planets are actually born. The star doesn't eject any planet mass, but the Sun becomes a dark planet. According to The Natural Theory, these dead stars begin to wander, as this author saw. Ancients called them Evil Spirits and we can also call them wandering proto-planets but, even though they may initially wander through space wildly, they do not wander through solar systems wildly. They are picked up by the nearest Sun while they are far away from that Sun. Obviously, these new born planets, once Suns, are extremely hot and radioactive. They must stay far away from their capturing Sun, wrapped in cold until they cool off. The Natural Theory predicts that Pluto is extremely hot and radioactive and that its moon, Charon, is far older than Pluto, just as all moons are far older than the planets they orbit around.

2. Article Compiled by Dee Finney
on Dick Fojut Commenting on
JAMES CHURCHWARD

NUDGE EARTH INTO A DIFFERENT ORBIT? IMPOSSIBLE!

(Note: Borrowed from http://www.greatdreams.com/earth_orbit.htm courtesy Dee Finney)

My Comments in Bold

I was astounded to hear respected scientists with NASA seriously believe they can "nudge" earth into a different orbit around the Sun! These experts can plot a trajectory for rockets to move through the solar system, yet they seem TOTALLY IGNORANT about WHY and HOW planets orbit at different distances around the Sun! These NASA experts, and unnamed "astronomers," apparently believe earth's orbit and distance from the Sun came about from some random accidental arrangement.

Permit an addition to this group: the wild-elliptic Planet X theories

It is IMPOSSIBLE to "nudge" the earth into a different orbit and distance from the Sun... WHY? Because, dependent on the planet's MAGNETIC CAPACITY (the volume of magnetic forces stored in its crust), the Sun's centrifugal and magnetic forces hold each satellite in a precise NEUTRAL zone orbit around the Sun.

I began to realize this around 1999-2000, before ever reading James Churchwards already formed theories before 1936, all planets and moons are held in strict orbits.

A Neutral Zone? Each precise Neutral Zone of orbit is at that distance where our Sun's magnetic and centrifugal forces cancel each other. At that Neutral Zone distance, each satellite can be thrown out no further by the Sun's centrifugal, repellent force because it is countered by the Sun's magnetic pull. And the Sun's magnetic force cannot pull the satellite into the Sun, countered by the Sun's centrifugal, repellent force. At that precise distance, it is a CHECKMATE of antagonistic forces, forming a neutral zone of orbit around the Sun.

CHECKMATE......Nullification, no force, neutrality, no wild orbiting Planet X can disturb it.

According to the great UNrecognized scientist, James Churchward, (the author of the MU books who died in 1936), each orbiting body in our solar system has A DIFFERENT MAGNETIC CAPACITY. Like earth, each planet's CRUST is its "storage house," its "battery." Volumes of each planet's magnetic forces, including electromagnetic, saturate its crust, held close by its "central" magnet, until called forth by nature to carry out their duties on the planet's surface and in the atmosphere.

We can argue a little as to the proper mechanisms of a planets "magnetic source". Personally, I believe the theories I forwarded that recognize and develop the concept of currents of gravity, called the carrier wave from the Sun, feed the earth with Life Force in its center in a scalar longitudinal wave manner, which then radiates outward to form the F1, etc., layers of the ionosphere. Author Douglas Vogt, of Reality Revealed recognizes a magnetic current.

The THICKNESS and DENSITY of each planet's outside crust (for its size) indicates its magnetic capacity. The thicker and denser the crust, the greater the volume of magnetic forces stored in the crust, the greater its magnetic capacity. The greater its magnetic capacity, THE CLOSER IT WILL ORBIT THE SUN.....

The density principle is a viable one. I need more hard data that indicates if planets remain in their orbits or do they move inward or outward from the Sun or both in two or more groups? If you have any information, send it to rgrace@rgrace.org

I believe, from the book Quartum Organum (1959) by Krypton, that all planets ingress from the farthest distance, Pluto and beyond, inward according to the above mentioned density principle. Yes, there very well is other orbiting bodies outside Pluto by noting the studies done by scores of scientists in the early 19th century. Could any of them be on a wild-elliptic trajectory of solar system crossing paths? Even just using the density principle and the Neutral Zone Principle, it would be impossible. The new bodies stay far away for a very good reason. They are nebulous planets that just flamed out as stars and they need to be wrapped in cold to cool them down before they come closer to the sun and get denser. I guarantee you, Pluto is highly radioactive from its previous sun period. (Quartum Organum)

The following are quotations from Churchward's chapter on the SUN from "Cosmic Forces of MU," book One, out of context, but sufficient to paint a picture and explain why it is impossible for the child thinkers at NASA to "nudge" the earth into a different orbit...

Nor for any Planet X theory to be viable.

Churchward:

"For the sun to carry the earth around herself in an orbit, four separate and distinct forces are required.

Three of these must emanate from the sun, and One from the earth.

The four forces are:

A sun's propellant force to carry the earth along in her orbit.
A sun's repellent force to prevent the earth from being drawn into the sun.
A sun's magnetic force to prevent the repellent force from carrying the earth out into space.
An earthly magnetic force or forces that are affinitive to the sun's propellant and magnetic forces.
It may involve two earthly magnetic forces or only one, I cannot say.

I have heretofore shown that all these forces exist. Two of the sun's forces, the magnetic and repellent, must form a neutral zone. The repellent force at the sun's surface must be stronger than the magnetic force, and from the sun's surface must diminish in strength as it works out into space. The magnetic must be weaker at the sun's surface than the repellent and also diminish in strength as it moves out into space, but the rate at which its power diminishes must be much slower than that of the repellent; then, at a given point dependent on the magnetic capacity of the planet, a neutral zone will be formed, from which she cannot stray. Each of the planets has a different magnetic capacity. Therefore, as their magnetism differs, so must their neutral zones differ in distance from the sun. Thus it is shown why Mercury is so close to the sun and Neptune so far away as to be out of sight.

Apparently, I cannot say it authoritatively, the magnetic capacity is governed by density. If our scientists are correct in their assertions about the densities of the planets, the planet nearest to the sun is the densest and the farthest one away the least dense of all." ��

(More specifics from Churchward).... ��

NEUTRAL ZONES.

The neutral zones of the earth and planets are shown as circles parallel to the sun with a planet on each circle. The neutral zone of a satellite is governed by her magnetic capacity. Her magnetic capacity in turn is governed by the elements composing the body, the thickness of the crust, and the general density. This is fully verified by the bodies composing the solar system.

The higher or greater the magnetic capacity of a planet is, the nearer will be her neutral zone to the sun, and the body with the lowest magnetic capacity will have its neutral zone the farthest away from the sun.

A body, when given an impetus by a temporary force, flies forward, commencing in a straight line, and continues on in this straight line until some magnetic force attracts it, and eventually stops it having overcome a temporary force. Then the magnetic force claims the body. If, however, the propellant force is not of a temporary character, and of a circular movement, with sufficiently strong centrifugal and magnetic forces governing it, so as to form a neutral zone, then the flight must be everlasting.

The earth and planets can be carried out by the sun's centrifugal force just so far and no further. They are compelled each and all to remain in their neutral zones. For at the distance from the sun at which they are placed, the sun's magnetic force is holding them against the sun's centrifugal force. Neither the earth or any of the planets can be drawn into the sun, for, within their neutral zones, the sun's repellent force is stronger than the magnetic, and prevents their nearer approach to the sun.

I believe that the vortex of space is centripital and draws all matter inward toward the Sun, extremely slowly. The universe is not static and there is no closed circle of orbit or closed cycle but it is an open spiral. If the whole solar system or universe were a closed cycle there would be no room for open growth and there would be no such thing as the evolution of the universe called cosmogony.

The earth and each of the planets have their own separate degrees of magnetic capacity, and all being different, no two have the same neutral zone. Therefore they cannot collide with each other.

To have two planets occupying the same neutral zone, it would be necessary to have the two bodies of identically the same size, composed of identically the same element, and in the same exact proportion one to the other, and with identically the same thickness of crust. Otherwise, their magnetic capacity would not be the same; not being the same, it is impossible for them to have the same neutral zone."

And this last part from Churchward (But not having read all his books, some will probably disagree with a few of his following statements, especially about the "nature" of the Sun)...

"DEDUCTIONS.

All forces connected with the earth's circuit around the sun are even and everlasting.
The earth cannot stop her flight around the sun as long as the sun continues to be a living body.
The earth cannot be drawn into the sun.
The earth cannot be hurled off into space.
The earth cannot collide with any other body.
Each body in the solar system has its neutral zone.
Each body in the universe has its neutral zone.
No two neutral zones cross each other.
No body can be drawn out of its neutral zone.
The sun has a hard crust and a soft center.
The sun is not committing slow suicide by burning up. The sun is a cool body.*
The sun supplies no heat beyond her atmosphere.
A pole may be magnetized and de-magnetized many times during a circuit around the governing body.

I have very inadequately shown what the great Cosmic Forces are and their manner of working, but trust that at least some who read this work will find it sufficiently explicit to understand what I wish to convey."�� -- James Churchward

* (The great astronomer Herschel also did not agree with the orthodox. He wrote: "The sun may be a cool body.")

I think the preceding reveal someone with MORE UNDERSTANDING about the nature and functioning of our solar system, than the kindergarten experts currently inhabiting the theoretical funny farm at NASA, who wish to "nudge" earth into a different orbit.

- Dick Fojut
Dick Fojut Graphics
dfgraphics@gci-net.com
2622 E. 6th St./Tucson,AZ.85716
Tel-Fax 520-325-3802

3. As a positive mechanism of colliding bodies in the solar system, information is introduced, coming from Tom Van Flandern's MetaNotes: Van Flandern notes that it is possible that, in the past any moon nearest the Sun (such as the last/past moon in Mercury's position) was fragmented by the Sun, then ejected out and sent on its natural path, which egressed outward past Venus, Earth and Mars to become the Kuiper Asteroid Belt, rightly called a Lunoid Belt, seeing the broken body (Mercury's predecessor) was a moon like body at the time that it was close to the Sun.

4. A study of gravity, magnetism and electricity's 90 rotations within a solar system wide vortex, in a water vortex analogy. Just as water in a vortex is centripital and seeks to spiral into the center, so do the planets seek to spiral into the center of the suns vortex of spiraling Aether, in a 2 : 1 ratio of gravity to magnetism.

Solar and Planet Geometry Based Upon Phi and Roots

Earth^4 / Venus^3 + Venus^3 / Earth^4
Mars^4 / Earth^3 + Earth^3 / Mars^4
Earth ^ (3/4) * ( 1^_ + 2^_ + 3^_ + 6^_ ) = Jupiter
Earth ^ (3/4) * ((4*Venus)^_ + (8*Venus)^_) = Jupiter

5. Re: TEM BBS (The Enterprise Mission) ��
Fr: Meta200 posted August 11, 2001 05:29

To Mike Bara,

I admit this Tidal Theory is well thought out and is justified in detail by real research with scientific instruments and professional people, that will keep the science community busy trying to take it apart.

However, the encouragement to ignore the TVF original cause of the "alleged" exploding planets is the weak point. When we do not have a knowledge of the causal mechanism, we do not have the whole picture, from which we can detect the error or correctness of the part, in this case, the Tidal Theory.

If disinformation has a "part" in this discussion, I propose, that having a "part"ial knowledge about certain planets, without the causal mechanism being known, IS disinformation.

Let me give an example to dis.pel this dis.information:

2 new planets had to be "invented" out of thin air, to build The Exploded Planet Theory. This is not doing science but is highly hypothetical at this point. It cannot nor ever will be proven, nor can it ever be substantiated and so it is ignored, like unto any other hypothesis about planets past or our past, unless more knowledge about origins of sun, planets and moons is introduced.

Nor can the hypothesis that Mars used to be a moon of another planet be shown to be incorrect unless more knowledge is introduced to show the origins of suns, planets and moons.

I will, in the future, do just that, and in agreement with the real ancient cosmology and cosmogony and not the literal nor the garbled versions of it. This will be called information, not dis.information.

Now, I admit, the Tidal Theory is a knowledgeable theory, but, there will come a better theory, based upon better knowledge,

Just as the planet hyperdimensional heat theory was shown to be "slightly" incorrect by pointing out that all hyperdimensional overunity experiments produced cold, not heat,

That it is not hyperdimension until we understand gravity, it being 4D, which is the only hyperdimension there is,

That moons come from the centers of planets,

That planets come from the centers of suns,

That suns cannot collide with suns because of positive "repulsive" polarity,

That planets cannot collide with planets because of negative "repulsive" polarity,

That planets cannot collide with suns because of suns tightly controlling magnetism as evidenced by all the solar systems planets staying tightly in their orbits, in the past, today and forever,

That planets do not, never have and never will explode in the middle of their evolution, except...in the position of Mercury, as plainly shown by TVF himself in one of his Meta-newsletters. At this time, the sun-fragmented barren moon (Mercury) will be "ejected" out of the solar system, ie., a lunoid belt commonly called the Kupier asteroid belt, which, I hypothesize, 65 million years ago, crossed the ingressing orbit of Mars. All this is very natural and has no need for inventing 2 new Planets (K and V).

These are my reasons for looking at the Tidal Theory and making comment. It is called information, not disinformation.

Meta200

***********

Meta200 posted August 12, 2001 03:09 ��

Waiting patiently for Michael's answers~

(There was never an answer and it is now Jan 3, 2004.)

Meta200

************

Meta200 posted August 12, 2001 20:31 ��

http://www.new-universe.com/pythagoras/mcclain.html By McClain

Read just this one irrefutable example of the interlinking of the Pantheon of Sumerian and Babylonian Gods with music. The obvious conclusion of a rational mind is that nothing, and I mean nothing, deviates from this musical order. Compare the musical beauty of natural order with wild, crashing planets, totally out of order.

This order is what a good theory is based upon.

Meta200

6. The Habitable Zone of Planets: The Moon and Earth is within the habitable zone delineated by Scientific American Magazine, Oct 2002. In the billion year past, Venus was inside the Habitable Zone also. Mars is barely within the beginning of the habitable zone which means, in Mars past, it was not.

7. Planet music Historical Trans-Neptune Planet Sightings and Distance Measurements

At this point we have to include a list of planet researchers, the planets they discovered and the astronomical distances they recorded at the time of discovery:

(52 au., Todd, 1877)
(45 au., Flammarion, 1879)
(100 au. / 300 au., Forbes, 1880)
(45 au. / 60 au., Gaillot, 1880-1885)
(41.25 au., "Oceanus", 56 au., "trans-Oceanus", 72 au., "unknown", Jackson, 1880-1885)
(50 au., Grigull, 1880-1885)
(46.6 au., 70.7 au., Hans-Emil Lau, 1900)
(47 au., Dallet, 1901)
(50.6 au., Grigull, 1901)
(42.25 au., 56 au., 72 au., Jefferson, 1904)
(51.9 au., Planet "O", Pickering, 1909)
(44 au., 66 au., Gaillot, 1909)
(51.9 au., Planet "O", Pickering)
(75 au., Planet "P". Pickering)
(Planets O, P, Q, R, S, T, Pickering, 1908-1932)
(123 to 67.7 au., Planet "P", Pickering, 1928)
(75.5 au., Planet "P", Pickering, 1931)
(48.2 au., Planet "S", Pickering, 1928)
(47.5 au., Planet X, Lowell)
(5.79 au., Planet "U", Pickering, 1929)
(32.8, au., Planet "T", Pickering, 1931)
(39.82 au., Stewart, 1930)
(75 au., trans-Neptunian, Pickering)
(78 au., trans-Plutonian, Sevin, 1946)
(77.8 au., trans-Pluto, Sevin)
(77 au., trans-Plutonian, Schutte, 1950)
(65 au., trans-Plutonian, Kitzinger, 1954)
(59.9 au., trans-Plutonian, Brady, 1942)
(*** au., Van Flandern, 1970-Present)
(80 au., Whitmire / Matese, 1987)
(60.8 au., Powell (JPL)) Data suggested this planet was "approximately twice the orbit of Pluto and three times the orbit of Neptune period, suggesting that it....had a orbit "stabilized" by mutual resonance with its nearest neighbors..."

8. Velikovsky Reconsidered, Editors of Pensee, Doubleday & Company, Inc. Garden City, New York 1976. DD#: 001.9 VELI, QB51.V47.

9. Quartum Organum by Krypton (pseudo.), Pageant Press, NY,1959, 113. K949sub2.

10. Ayana's Site- Planar Nets
Or IC - Planar Nets

11. Holoscience

12. Sacred Texts

13. Ray Tomes

Impossible Correspondence Index

� Copyright. Robert Grace. 2001 Restrictions on Use of The Natural Theory. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, publicly display, prepare derivative works based on ( including mathematical development), or distribute in any way any material from The Natural Theory, without prior express written permission from the owner of Impossible Correspondence.